Does the U.S. Military Really Need More Strategists? - War on the Rocks

So, short answer is "yes."
By the time one is in the zone for War College, they should have already mastered the tactical and operational levels. And if they haven't .... they're not gonna. Arguably, they also shouldn't be selected for the USAWC either, but that's a philosophical debate.

The key point is that those who serve at the GO/Flag level NEED to be able to operate in the strategic level, and especially in the joint environment, and even more especially in the civil/military and whole of government. Whether we like it or not, think it is the proper role of a GO or not, that is the system we have. The day when a tactical/operational general (such as Patton, whom I think was a giant among men) could get by because of their prowess on the field is ... gone. And honestly, that day only exists when the Army is in active full-scale combat.

This also means that the primary staff who support the modern generals ALSO need to be able to think and act at the strategic level to properly support their boss. This is the fate of most War College grads. Some few DO get a star(s), but most finish out their careers as a COL, supporting a flag somewhere, somehow.

And here's the rub. Those generals retire, as do the Colonels who support them. Therefore, just as you need a steady supply of new privates to replace the ones who get out, get promoted to the NCO ranks, you also need a steady supply at the other end.

I think there can be a lot of valuable conversations around how you decide who goes to the War College, how they are selected, how many, Talent Management after, etc., etc. But the need to have this skill set is enduring, which means that the need to replenish it is also enduring.

Disclaimer, Class of 16, DDE.