I just read Jim Molan’s response to Australia’s 2013 Defence White Paper presented to the United Services Institute of the ACT.  It’s a typically forthright contribution from the former Major General, with some particularly strong criticism of Paul Dibb’s geographic determinism and support for an Australian maritime strategy that emphasises the importance of aerial and maritime forces at the expense of a heavy army.

However, what caught my eye was his dismissal of civilian academic strategists and assertion that “you should never be permitted to speak on strategy unless you have at least a passing familiarity with operations in the real world”.

While he was perhaps playing to his audience, as a student of strategy, I disagree with Molan’s position.  Indeed, lacking first hand military experience may even be a bonus if it means civilian strategists are devoid of bias toward a particular service arm and are able to see the bigger picture,  conceiving of military strategy as only one branch of grand strategy.

I am, however, keen to learn what readers think.  If you have an academic interest in strategy, do you believe you would have a deeper understanding of the field if you acquired first-hand experience?

If you do have military experience, has it afforded you greater insight into the art of strategy or do you believe you could have acquired comparable knowledge through academic study?