I don’t believe it is paranoic to doubt the ability of the Army’s strategic leadership.Maybe overthought and/or a touch paranoic? More likely that this is the Military version of the Peter Principle..? (..people rise to their level of incompetence!)
In the 30 years since Options for a Change, the senior leadership has but once delivered a coherent vision of what the future Army should be capable of doing, what it should look like in terms of strength, regular v reserve blend, equipment and how it should operate. Successive CGS’s have delivered different ideas, none of which have been delivered.
Meantime, the senior leadership has presided over two military defeat, failed to deliver key equipment programs and made a mess of its recruitment program.
And no, I don’t think it’s good enough to accept that it’s the Peter Principle. It’s simply not good enough to do so; we should be asking why the Army has selected and developed a succession of failed strategic leaders. Because that’s what they are. And that needs careful root cause analysis of why we end up with such poor strategic leadership.