Not as many good leaders, more bad leaders than we would have wanted.

My point exactly. The reaction to that is what I was speaking of, that is we suffered unnecessarily high casualties because we had an inadequate officer Corps, and tried hard to meet that need with our current system. Still broke you say, I agree but feel that it is more in the application of the process than the process itself.

What has usually been identified as being deficient in those who join our military is a sense of team, sacrifice, privation - call it what you will. A great deal of this comes from an adolescent sense of rebellion that our society fosters. Before we inculcate any kind of military values - which will form the bounds and framework of the conceptual thought you are looking for (I think) - all of that must be stripped away. For me, that process came when one of my peers made it plain to me that I had to obey him. For this reason, hazing and meaningless rules are important. It offers the opportunity for new leadership to exercise their influence where it can do no harm (tactical etc.)

This is entirely necessary in teaching leadership. I am sure there are other tools for reaching this end, perhaps you could share some that you feel would replace this process.

Obedience is a great place to start learning discipline.

The simple honor code that is supposed to be reinforced there is absolutely in high demand in our Army and I can't think of many ways to replicate that in a different setting, again I would sincerely enjoy you suggestions.

I believe that these are the foundation of a professional officer (discipline, honor, and intelligence) and all of the processes are in place at that institution (USMA) but I contend that recent shifts in the tides at the academy that are a severe distraction to those beliefs have made them very hard to pass on.

The military academy I went to experienced a similar shift and I saw similar results, this may not hold true for USMA, I only put it out there as a "maybe."