Political Training in the United States Army: A Reconsideration.
OHIO STATE UNIV COLUMBUS MERSHON CENTER FOR EDUCATION IN NATIONAL SECURITY
Pagination or Media Count:
This study examines two questions. First, why has the United States Army rejected the idea that political training can influence combat motivation and military efficiency while other armies, such as the West German and Soviet, invest heavily in political training. Second, is the U.S. Army correct in this rejection. The examination consists of four sections. The first identifies and defines the most common types of political training. The second describes the United States Armys experience with these types between 1917 and 1977. The third assesses the value of that experience both theoretically and empirically. Based on the preceding analysis, the final section concludes that the United States Army has rejected political training because of a negative historical experience, itself the product of misapplication, misunderstanding, and misinterpretations. However, political training-especially such types as civic education and foreign events orientation-can be very valuable in both war and peace if properly applied.
- Humanities and History