The thing is, that's not necessarily true in war. Little of it happened in Vietnam, to the USArmy's eternal shame, LBJ and McNamara showed little if any signs

The thing is, that's not necessarily true in war. Little of it happened in Vietnam, to the USArmy's eternal shame, LBJ and McNamara showed little if any signs of learning, etc. etc. At this point in my detailed WWI study I think I can say little happened in the French army, which mutinied with justification after several years of horror and was then useless for offense for a long time. The Japanese in WWII didn't particularly learn in critical areas when, e.g., they used up their air power in the futile for them South Pacific campaign (the one that started with Guadalcanal). They didn't learn that disdain of non-combatant specialties is fatal in modern war. Their admirals never lost their taste for insanely complicated battle plans that depended on the other side doing what they expected, or at least that's a lesson to be learned from Midway and the much latter just about final action in the Philippines. How much learning went on in the 30 Years War? Heck, I gather it's generally accepted that the lessons of Gustavus Adolphous were not properly learned until Napoleon applied them a century and a half later (!!!). I can go on and on and on ^_^. I mention this in part because the US has a tradition, if you can call it that, of starting out very green and shaky, and then getting really good. We're seeing the "very green and shaky" in Dallas right now; I'm hoping it and the rest of the country that's not ultra prepared (i.e. everyone but those four specialist wards) will follow a similar pattern.