Cri in the officer education must be reformed. From the literature I read, much of Seskoad education involves learning military administration and the next is map exercises. Military theory and philosophy are not given enough attention, moreover, they have the same kind of thinking as the US-style doctrine of obsessing over tactical assignments.
That's why when you read our general's military experience, they tend to have a very extensive tactical appointment, leading units X, Y, Z. Not because their skill is required, but simply due to bureaucracy; someone has to lead a unit and someone has to replace him when he's out. The turnover rate is high, how can they possibly learn anything substantial enough to achieve expert level when they leave their office after a year or so? Heck, my boomer professor way back then was complaining why Hadi Tjahjanto served as Panglima for so long, saying that "he messed up the regeneration scheme". Heck, so the point of the military is simply to give general X, jabatan Y?
That's assuming the officer in question indeed dedicate himself to military excellence, while most of them Orba boomers are still stuck in old thinking that just because they graduate from Akmil they deserve to be Bupati and Gubernur. The only thing I can appreciate about Indonesia's bureaucracy, including that of the military, is their attention to education. There is much opportunity for sekolah for people who are able and motivated.
Still, they, even that of the US military, are stuck in such bureaucratic thinking even though they themselves have proven that more tactical assignments don't equate to more military excellence. Their best WW2 generals such as Eisenhower, MacArthur, and Marshall, didn't get a list of extensive tactical assignments. Instead, they spent more time in HQ doing staff work and dedicate their time for education and self-education, rising to the top without having to command koramil or korem XYZ. The most effective generals tend to be those who are more brainy than muscle-y (or even worse, gimmick-y).
That's why when you read our general's military experience, they tend to have a very extensive tactical appointment, leading units X, Y, Z. Not because their skill is required, but simply due to bureaucracy; someone has to lead a unit and someone has to replace him when he's out. The turnover rate is high, how can they possibly learn anything substantial enough to achieve expert level when they leave their office after a year or so? Heck, my boomer professor way back then was complaining why Hadi Tjahjanto served as Panglima for so long, saying that "he messed up the regeneration scheme". Heck, so the point of the military is simply to give general X, jabatan Y?
That's assuming the officer in question indeed dedicate himself to military excellence, while most of them Orba boomers are still stuck in old thinking that just because they graduate from Akmil they deserve to be Bupati and Gubernur. The only thing I can appreciate about Indonesia's bureaucracy, including that of the military, is their attention to education. There is much opportunity for sekolah for people who are able and motivated.
Still, they, even that of the US military, are stuck in such bureaucratic thinking even though they themselves have proven that more tactical assignments don't equate to more military excellence. Their best WW2 generals such as Eisenhower, MacArthur, and Marshall, didn't get a list of extensive tactical assignments. Instead, they spent more time in HQ doing staff work and dedicate their time for education and self-education, rising to the top without having to command koramil or korem XYZ. The most effective generals tend to be those who are more brainy than muscle-y (or even worse, gimmick-y).
