That's our current model, and works pretty well for conventional maneuver warfare. But there are a few issues...

- It is possible to be an tactical idiot-savant...good at tactical leadership and kicking ass to make things happen but oblivious to the Big Picture. And you can go far that way, simply by sticking to doctrine formula in evaluated exercises.

- World-class strategists are grown, not born, and they have to like to do a lot of reading. We were fortunate in OIF-I and Gulf War that the right people happened to be in or or near the right jobs. Those invasions could have been a lot harder.

- Going forward, we cannot (despite popular opinion in the clueless quarters) disregard conventional warfare to focus solely on CT/LIC/Nation Building but we definitely need to place a lot of emphasis on the latter three for the foreseeable future. That will require some well-read, creative thinking leadership to grasp all of the dimensions involved... and we are kidding ourselves if we think the DOS is going to do the job Why did Petreaus have to make a lateral move to afghanistsan? Cuz there ain't too many other guys in the inventory who could do that job.

But I fully agree that combat commanders at all levels need to be hard-hitting people-oriented leaders. Perhaps what would be in order would be a parallel career track for strategists/cultural experts. They would be assigned to to HQ staff on equal footing with the executive officer/COS and would need to formally sign off on the CO's battle plans (with comments added). You could have provisions for the truly talented to switch tracks or do a few strategy tours to round out their potential.

Bottom line, I think it's too easy for doctrinal cookie-cutters to bully their way to stars by way of aggressive, efficient tactical performance. Of course we still need that too, but it does not automatically prepare you for what we now need at the next level.