Shut Down West Point and the War Colleges
From Tom Ricks here
OK, I can go with the basic argument. I can't see what West Point adds to mix, in the same way I can't see the point of Sandhurst in the UK, the attachment to which is purely emotional. Neither of these institutions are required to produce first class officers.
But...
Quote:
We should also consider closing the services' war colleges, where colonels supposedly learn strategic thinking. These institutions strike me as second-rate. If we want to open the minds of rising officers and prepare them for top command, we should send them to civilian schools where their assumptions will be challenged, and where they will interact with diplomats and executives, not to a service institution where they can reinforce their biases while getting in afternoon golf games. Just ask David Petraeus, a Princeton PhD.
That's pure rubbish, or a data free opinion. If the problem is as Ricks opines, then closing down the collages does not solve it. If you don't need the War Collages, then you do not need Officers to go and get PhD's. PhDs do not make better officers.
Most of the brilliant commanders of the 20th century lacked PhDs, or any other form of higher education. However, most had been to War Collage or an equivalent.
Here is Rick's question ...
Quote:
(from linked article)
Why not send young people to more rigorous institutions on full scholarships, and then, upon graduation, give them a military education at a short-term military school?
One answer, from the Officer Retention thread, is that they (OCS shakes & bakes) have the worst retention rate. But, I suspect that even more basic issues are involved in Rick's syllogism.
Is the better sequence, creation of the officer (an undifferentiated "educated" person) and then transmutation of that officer into a soldier (via a short term military education - do you really mean that, Tom ?);
or creation of the soldier (a differentiated person) and then creation of the officer (a differentiated soldier) ?
I think the latter is more akin to Wilf's concept based on my perception of what he has posted in other threads.
In short, I think that Rick's syllogism is nuts. That perception is no doubt clouded by my own little world. I was lucky to be able to spend the last half of law school (besides punching the right tickets there) to work at the actual practice of law (ghost-writing appellate briefs). After that, all of my formal education has been in law (CLE) - cuz that's my profession.
That's not to argue that stabs into other worlds (formally or informally) are bad - and obviously I've stabbed there (as here) also. But, the profession (once you elect to go that route) has to be central. And that does not mean you have to be a narrow person.
Many truths in those two comments.
Wilf raises an interesting and I believe extremely valid and important point in his comment:
Quote:
"PhDs do not make better officers...Most of the brilliant commanders of the 20th century lacked PhDs, or any other form of higher education. However, most had been to War Collage or an equivalent."
With respect to the first item, having worked for and with a fair number of Officers who possessed a PhD, my observation is that only the exceptionally good Officer can overcome the Phd to be an effective Officer as opposed to being a PhD in a funny suit and accorded some rank. Thus I very much agree with the statement.
That applies only to the possessors of doctorates; the Masters guys and gals are a mixed bag -- mostly because for a great many but certainly not all, the Masters is only a check the block item. That is not an insult or meant to be derisory, it's merely a statement of fact based on my experience, observation and conversations with many hundreds of Officers over many years. People differ markedly and they differ in the importance they personally accord things -- including advanced degrees.
Wilf's second quoted statement is of course true. I suspect that is true for several reasons aside from the obvious change in both societal and military attitudes, mores and rules in the intervening years. One reason is that, fortunately, we have had few big wars for people to demonstrate operational or tactical brilliance. There are others.
Something about 'Jack of all trades and master of none' occurs to me...
Understand the sentiment, disagree with the solution…
As a 2-year-non-scholarship ROTC guy with three degrees (2 undergrad, one grad), two plus decades of service, and over a decade spent living overseas I understand Tom Ricks’ sentiment but disagree with his solution. GWOT has been good for us in the sense that the USG, to include our military, has been forced to reconcile the comforting dreams of ideology with the cold hard reality of the world as it is. There is a balance point between the two, and our excellent military educational process is working to catch up and prepare our forces for what is needed for our nation to not just survive but excel in the rapidly changing times of today as well as for the future. As the old guard retires and our folks who have spent time on the line take their place we are seeing what’s equivalent to spring turn over in lakes and ponds: oxygen and nutrients are being distributed and new growth is doing what it’s made to do: adapt, overcome, and replenish. As with most things of quality it takes time and will not occur at the pace found in a Burger King drivethrough.
All military schools are trade schools as they should be. How can I, or anyone else, effectively do my/our job without it? Military education does not stop at the schoolhouse door however; military service/OJT and worldwide travel are an incomparable/irreplaceable component of a soldier’s education just as they are of a journalist. Fortunately for us, congress has finally considered the needs of the nation ahead of their own for just a moment and passed a comprehensive GI Bill. Military service followed by time spent in our nations various schools pays the nation dividends as we all know from studying the history of our nation as well as examining our own family histories.
Education is something our nation must invest in if it wants to continue, and so we must continue to improve our military training facilities instead of closing them.
Can't see closing the academies, but...
I could see changes being made - tweaks in the system.
Most brand new West Point lieutenants were eager to accept the challenges the Army presented to them. Many were pretty jaded to the West Point experience, but were well-prepared to be platoon leaders and junior staff officers. Many ROTC cadets, depending on the quality of the program they came from (did the PMS really give a @#$% or was he in the act of retiring?), are not. But then, living/breathing/acting Army for 4 years should make some kind of difference. The WP LTs I saw were ready to conduct briefings and felt like they new what was expected of them.
Some participated in research programs for the Army while at West Point or had a role in a meaningful program with an aim at bettering the military. It can be a let-down to show up as a butterbar and have 23-year old E5s with 2 combat tours be respected while you are 'tolerated'. The Army in general tends to discount 2LTs, probably based on the poor level of training that used to exist in the basic courses (I hope it is better than what I got :o) Hopefully this will change and a new LT can show up to a unit and be seen as an extremely well-trained Soldier, expert in the uses of the systems in his charge, but without a lot of practical experience that the NCOs can help provide.
However, a shortcoming that many may have seen is the 4 years of social retardation that the academies deliver - 4 years of an acetic lifestyle hurts Joe from growing up socially, while Joe College was living it up. We had some DUIs when I was in my basic course - all new WP LTs who were living away from Mom/Dad/WP for the first time in their lives. Perhaps we can start offering these guys/gals a bit more freedom in their lives so they can be more well-rounded upon graduation.
Tankersteve