William S. Lind :collection (merged thread)

[JMA]

USMA graduates did much to help grow America in the 1800s and much of what they did and still do would not fit under the definition I think you ascribe to the term "soldier."

Well I don't know this aspect of US history so can't comment other than to ask you if there are periodic reviews carried out across the services and the institutions to make sure that outdated nonsense is not being perpetuated. The Brits are not good at this so I would assume neither are the yanks.

Because of this fact, your proposal for officer initial selection would probably not provide America what it wants from its military officers.

I support initial officer selection very much along the British lines so it is not my personal proposal. Just to put that straight.

Does America know what it wants from its officers? Who speaks for America? The more I read the less certain I am that anyone knows what is actually going on. Does anyone know what is going on... especially in this regard? Not sure it is in America's best interests to let liberal non-combatants define their military and its design their officer selection and training.

The American military does more than just fight and win the nation's wars or "provide for the common defense." (Ask your legal advisor to tell you about the various titles in the US Code that apply to the military.)

Does this provide jobs and careers for those who never get near 'the sharp end' in time of war by any chance?

While many have been at odds with American Pride's posts about the need of the American army to reflect the country's population, that, in fact, has been a policy goal since Jefferson. Warriors may not like it, but soldiers accept it and do the best to accomplish it along with their other assigned missions. It is one of the dilemmas those who choose a career of military service in America must face. I would not doubt that similar dilemmas exist in other militaries, but I can only speak to the military that I know.

He like you are way out in left field... you don't support your own doctrine.

Go read FM 1 again and you will find this:

1-40. The purpose of any profession is to serve society by effectively delivering a necessary and useful specialized service. To fulfill those societal needs, professions- such as, medicine, law, the clergy, and the military-develop and maintain distinct bodies of specialized knowledge and impart expertise through formal, theoretical, and practical education. Each profession establishes a unique subculture that distinguishes practitioners from the society they serve while supporting and enhancing that society. Professions create their own standards of performance and codes of ethics to maintain their effectiveness. To that end, they develop particular vocabularies, establish journals, and sometimes adopt distinct forms of dress. In exchange for holding their membership to high technical and ethical standards, society grants professionals a great deal of autonomy. However, the profession of arms is different from other professions, both as an institution and with respect to its individual members.

Simple and straightforward. What exactly do you not understand?