This monograph discusses attributes needed by tactical planners in the future and whether the CGSOC core tactics curriculum helps to develop these attributes in its students. Future battlefields will be confusing and ambiguous, requiring problem solvers with the capability to solve complex, divergent problems. The necessary skills are identified and CGSOC tactics instruction is examined to see if the curriculum is designed to develop these skills in tactical planners of the future. The monograph first examines two historical examples of militaries facing strategic and technological change, specifically the US and German Armies during the interwar period of 1920-1940. The two approaches to officer education are analyzed and compared to determine methods and procedures that worked during the interwar period and would also be useful in the situation facing the US Army today. A survey of current literature on leader development reveals the leader skills many feel will be required for success in future conflicts. An assessment of the CGSOC core tactics curriculum provides the basis for comparing what the Army needs to what the Army currently gets from its intermediate educational institution. Using Bloom's taxonomy of cognitive skills, the objectives of CGSOC tactics instruction are analyzed to determine the expertise level CGSOC students must demonstrate to successfully complete the course of instruction. The expertise level required for CGSOC is compared to necessary expertise levels projected for the future. This comparison reveals the gaps in the instruction that need to be filled. Finally, three courses of action designed to bridge the gap are discussed. Criteria for evaluation are identified and the courses of action are analyzed according to these criteria. The three possible solutions are compared and the most suitable solution based on the comparison is presented as a recommendation.

ADA 309903 Approved for public release; Distribution is unlimited. The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the student-authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College or any other governmental agency. (References to these studies should include the foregoing statement.)