Does Professional Military Education (PME) actually enhance our chances of victory in war? Many people think the answer to this question is obvious. For some, it’s an obvious yes: smarter soldiers and officers will be able to make better decisions on the battlefield. For some, it’s an obvious no: PME is an academic distraction from the core skills of warfighting. But is there evidence either way?
A while ago I investigated the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and reasoned that Ukraine’s intentional rejuvenation of PME had indeed made some difference to their military resilience. But more research than this is required. Fortunately, more research than this has been done.
One example is the work of Nathan Toronto, who looks at measurable educational elements at play over the last two centuries of state-on-state conflict. He concludes that those states with more developed educational systems have achieved a greater rate of military success, with fewer casualties. This is the case even when allowing for other factors such as material capabilities. One measurable educational element that he considers, among numerous others, is the presence of a war college. On this topic, he writes:
Even given this high bar for establishing a link between military education and battlefield effectiveness, the data on interstate wars since 1945 indicate a 20 percent swing in the probability of political victory if a state has a war college. Thus, having an advanced military education system matters for both tactical performance and political victory in war.[1]
Much research on this topic points to the importance of a ‘culture of learning’ for battlefield success. If this is true, then anti-intellectualism is not a benign feature of a rough larrikin spirit; it is in fact a force-diminisher. It is also out of keeping with Australia’s actual military heritage. During the Second World War, for example, Australia experienced unprecedented engagement in adult educational initiatives, as the Army sought to ‘educate for victory’.
What about today? In fact, 57% of Australian soldiers and officers report that they access informal (that is, unassessed and self-directed) PME either daily or weekly.[2] This includes accessing Defence-provided resources such as The Cove or mess-based discussions, as well as external resources such as military podcasts or online forums.
Informal resources such as these carry the benefits of having high flexibility, continuous accessibility, and the safe opportunity for trial and error. According to a recent analysis of the civilian sector, 82% of Australian organisations hold that informal learning like this does as much, or more, to develop their workforce than formal courses. It therefore represents an important contributor to a culture of learning, alongside more formal education.
The Australian Army has at its disposal a number of tools to enhance the delivery of informal PME. First is The Cove, which recently introduced gamification to incentivise participation and reward ongoing commitment to learning. Second is the Land Power Forum, a more academic blog hosted by the Australian Army Research Centre. Third is in-unit and mess-based PME initiatives. These can vary in size, scale, and scope and are run by commanders at all levels. Fourth is location-specific PME, such as study-tours or visits to Army museums. Fifth is the provision of published materials on military topics, through both the Australian Army Research Centre and the Australian Army History Unit.
But finally, as hinted above, a resource that has yet to be fully harnessed by the organisation is open source online PME. Soldiers and officers regularly access tailored information to suit their interests and their schedules, in the form of audiobooks, YouTube videos, blogs, and social media accounts. The desire to learn and contribute via these mediums is a sign of a healthy learning culture, but Army could do more to provide guidance and incentives to make the most of these informal PME platforms.
What’s the ‘so what’? PME enhances our chances of victory in war by contributing to a culture of learning that makes a difference on the battlefield. One of the ways to enhance this is by supporting informal learning initiatives. So, the Australian Army needs to find ways to further support, incentivise, and guide formal and informal PME among its members.
For a deeper consideration of these issues, see the newly published report Educating for war: the role of informal PME in readying Army for war (Requires access to the DPN)
End Notes
