What's the War College?
The name -- National War College (NWC) -- comes from the time of its founding right around the end of War World II. Our Defense Department was then the War Department, and the powers-that-be decided it was important to provide budding young military leaders with a more fulsome understanding of how to formulate security strategy. They decided to round out their class by inviting a few folks from the State Department to attend. Indeed, George Kennan was one of the first State Department employees detailed to the War College, and here he wrote several position papers on Containment and signed them X.
The modern War College now is part of a larger National Defense University (that includes the prestigious Eisenhower School focusing on economic policy), housed on Fort McNair, on the banks of the Potomac River in Washington, D.C. Roosevelt Hall (named for Teddy, not Franklin) was designed by the architect who planned Grand Central Station. With its rotunda and vaulted ceilings, it is truly awe-inspiring.
![]() |
| Ft McNair (3rd oldest Army base in the U.S.) |
We don't exactly study war, despite the name. Yes, we will be issued a copy of Clauswitz's On War and Thucydides, but our focus is on the broader subject of national security strategy. The idea is that each class will contain some of the next generation of policy leaders in the U.S. and think-tank thinkers, and this course offers them a time to pause in their careers, process what they have witnessed in practice while serving in government, and consider how to avoid some of the pitfalls of their forebearers. We ask the question "what is strategy, and how do I avoid mucking it up?" We look at the instruments of national power -- first the military and then the diplomatic instrument. Finally, we look at the domestic context and its inevitable effects on how policy is made. We also spend the spring developing a strategy for a particular country and foreign policy challenge there, and then travel to the country to determine whether our simulated approach would succeed or fail.
We are a class of 208. Over 75% of the class if uniformed military. We have international fellows as well -- military officers from approximately 20 partner nations. And the rest are civilians from the Department of State and other federal agencies. We are only about 10% female (on my first day, I noticed on a class roster I was highlighted in pink with the other women; a nice touch).
All five military branches are represented, and it is interesting observing the cultural differences among them. The Navy officers are smart, funny, and charming. If you want to know who the people in uniform want to talk to, it's the Navy SEALs. At a lunch with enormously talented and well-decorated officers, everyone leans in and asks the SEAL if his work is really like the movies. We only have a few Coast Guard officers (and our Class President is one of them) -- they bristle a bit if you do not know they are a branch of the U.S. military. But, you only have to hear about one drug interdiction or one rescue mission during a hurricane to understand they are the real deal.
The Army has the most students, and they are Blackhawk pilots, intel officers, infantrymen, Foreign Area officers, lawyers -- the whole gamut. If they've made it to the National War College, they are serious and intense; but they were the cool kids in high school who drove fast cars. The Air Force officers are usually either deeply intellectual or very laid back. They have the highest percentage of women of all the services, and they pride themselves on their open-mindedness. The Marines, of course, are impressive. They are the smallest of the 4 big branches -- but with the biggest service-members. Marines will tell you that at funerals for other branches, there are 8 pallbearers. Marines have 6 -- and those 6 men are the broadest-chested, most earnest looking pallbearers you can imagine. They raise the Marine to the sky first before lowering him down. Marines' minds are as expansive as their barrel chests -- as our first responders, they have to do everything you'd think of as tactical strategically. So far, State Department folks have gravitated to the Marines because they have guarded our missions and we have celebrated their birthday in Embassies around the world.
All of the services talk a lot about what they are wearing -- Class As, Class Bs. Marines have a few more Classes, I think. They iron their uniforms fastidiously, and will kindly teach a civilian what the various medals and insignia mean (I, for example, didn't know what the Navy SEAL trident insignia was -- now I can spot it). There is an emphasis on family in the military, and on including spouses as part of the team. And there is an emphasis on physical fitness -- everyone does PT, everyday. Most Foreign Service Officers couldn't find the gym, much less look up from their high-side cable to go to it. But my new friends in the military hit the gym and sign you up for the softball league before you can tell them you're no [insert baseball player here]. I love the emphasis on physical fitness, and think the team sports are a fun way of building team spirit.
| NWC Committee 3 Softball Team |
Unlike their civilian counterparts, military colleagues often seem to describe the world in more black and white terms. Perhaps they have to, to serve as they do? For the most part, their decisions are binary -- engage, don't engage; kill, don't kill; take a hill, leave it for another day. They have been expertly trained to make these decisions and make them quickly, often with incomplete or imperfect information. In that way, they are culturally quite different than their State Department colleagues. We often have the luxury of more time and a wide variety of diplomatic options. We are more reticent to decide or choose -- often preferring to observe how the situation will play out. I have watched these cultural differences in every inter-agency meeting I have attended (most notably for me at NATO), and I have noticed how they often make us talk past one another.
But experiences like War College provide us an opportunity to pause when urgency is not a driving force and to learn from one another about how we would approach a problem differently. We will hear, for example, from those who provide us with information in the policy-making process on how they gather and assess the accuracy of information. We will read about mistakes in leadership that others have made -- the narcissist who surrounds himself with "yes" men; the policy-makers who are over-confident and fail to request a red-team; the leaders, too focused on the detail and the tactical, who fail to provide their organization with a clearly-defined vision and goals. Hopefully, from those experiences, we can perform our duties better in the future, with greater humility and with a more nuanced understanding of one another.
If nothing else, I will become very good at softball.
