"Army Needs Rebuilding"

[Steve Blair]

To attract high quality teachers, you must make the pay worthwhile. Most teachers make 30-40k a year, just above a manager at Wendy's. You can't expect world class instructors at that rate. Why would a smart college student choose a degree path where he could barely afford to raise a family on the pay?

I come from a family with a number of teachers, over the years each has left teaching for higher paying professions (all ed related), not because they hate the classroom, but because the money just wasn't worth the cost.

It's also easy to blame teachers, but numerous studies show that the home environment is the biggest predictor of academic success - all the studies showing that houses with lots of books have higher achievement, same for houses with college educated parents, etc. The moral is that families that value education will have kids who perform better. Frank fact is that many parents don't help their kid succeed at school, and blame the teacher/system.

Gotta agree with this, and also add that many of the support staff at colleges and universities (who often have a great deal to do with a student's success or lack thereof) get paid on average less than that $30-$40k. Many campuses pay carpenters more than they do department administration staff, who often end up serving as de facto academic advisors and even counselors for the students in their programs.

That pet rock aside, I have to agree 100% with the family factor. We get kids here who come out of some bad local schools, but they come from family farms and ranches and know how to work and plan. They can often overcome those early academic shortcomings because of their background and willingness to do the work needed to succeed. By the same token we see kids who don't have that sort of background coming from "top" schools and tanking out because they don't have the character to succeed without much hand-holding.

We certainly need smarter money in our education system, but we also need parents who are willing to skip that gym workout or work social function and put some time into their kids (and I don't mean scheduling yet another soccer game or some other 'forced fun' activity). Again, it's not one of those "either/or" questions. You need elements of both to succeed.

[Uboat509]

The only thing I care to add to Sam's excellent - and sadly, all too accurate critique of the problems with our educational system - is that standards for prospective teachers should be markedly raised.

If you want to do this then you need to raise teacher pay. When I was at Polk the off-post schools were having a really difficult time finding qualified teachers. Most of the those who did graduate local teaching programs then went elsewhere to teach so that they could get better pay or at least not have to stay in Leesville. That is anecdotal but I doubt that it is an isolated case. My wife looked briefly into teaching until she started making friends with some local teachers. The teaching profession as a whole seems to be caught in a downward spiral. They are overworked and underpaid which, of course, makes teaching and unattractive prospect for young college students which then makes them more shorthanded, which then makes it more difficult, which makes it less attractive to young college students and so on. My daughter's kindergarten teacher was a really good teacher but she was nearing burnout after only about five years. She had too many kids per class, she didn’t make all that much money, but the worst thing, I think, for her was the parents. You can tell when a parent takes the time work with their child at home and when they abrogate their parental responsibility to the school. I could see the frustration when I would talk to her. My son is in third grade and there are children in his class who still cannot write simple sentences. It is easy to blame the teachers for that but you have to consider that that there are WAY too many children in each class and it takes damn near an act of congress to hold a child back, and again if the parent takes the time at home to work with the child then it can alleviate the problem but too many parents would rather abrogate their parental responsibilities to the state and then complain when the state fails to do the job that they should be doing (in fairness I should note that in some households the parents are working two and three jobs to make ends meet and they barely have time to sleep, much less anything else, I understand that, I'm not talking about them. There are plenty who do not fall into that category).
I guess my point at the end of all this ranting is that the state certainly needs to do more to make teaching an attractive career choice but the parents have in equal responsibility to do their jobs as parents and not abrogate all responsibility to the state.

SFC W

[Uboat509]

Apparently I type slowly and everybody else was thinking the same thing I was and got there first.

SFC W

[selil]

Apparently I type slowly and everybody else was thinking the same thing I was and got there first.

SFC W

Looks like it!

Can we agree that this issue (education) is indicative and causal of the issues that the military is having recruiting and training the future soldiers and sailors of the nation?

[Ken White]

Selil's Post #36 above is pure gold -- I disagree with him on the desirability of National service but the rest of that comment is spot on!

Only thing I'd add is restore the ability of Teachers to discipline unruly students. Personally, I'd go for corporal punishment, many may not -- they should come up with an alternative and Cops are not a good solution.

CavGuy makes some very valid points, correctly pointing out the home environment is a part of the problem and its effect is significant. The home environment started tumbling as a result of the late 60s and the 70s educational 'reforms.' We damaged beyond repair a generation or two of parents of whom seem incapable of guiding -- and disciplining -- their children. It'll take a generation or two to repair that terrible damage.

We're paying most educators and staff about $30-50K per year as Steve also says. We're paying Major League Baseball Players a median salary of about $750 - 800K -- what's wrong with that picture?

U-Boat's comment reminds me of a Brother in Law who was a Teacher, left the field to make more money, did so but missed teaching and tried to return only to discover he couldn't get hired in any of several school districts because it was cheaper for them to hire new college grads rather than an experienced teacher with multiple advanced degrees. Weird NEA / AFT rules are the cause of that -- and those two organization were the cause of my sister in Law abandoning teaching altogether...

Lastly, Selil again:

"Can we agree that this issue (education) is indicative and causal of the issues that the military is having recruiting and training the future soldiers and sailors of the nation?"

I certainly agree that it is -- along with our foray into risk aversion as a national pastime.

[Rob Thornton]

I think Sam nailed it. I am of the opinion that when you exchange the teaching of established values, skills, and ideas for a program of social engineering you not only embark on an experiment with your future, but you erode your ability to consider causality. This is in part due to sunk costs, and in part due to pride, e.g. if you question such a momentous set of decisions, then what else did you get wrong. The relationship to national security is the issue of engineering something that is largely incongruent to you interests, and the world at large. Oddly enough, this is also one of the imperatives in a number of related areas, you should try to understand the environment and consider the range of potential outcomes before acting.

The election has provided a number of opportunities to discuss the way our system works, and the dangers from acting on emotions. What follows is non-partisan by the way. We’ve gotten into the roles and responsibilities of our branches of government, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and the sacrifices and stakes involved with preserving our freedoms. My 6th Grade son has not gotten any of this in school, and it concerns me greatly. The education of my own children, and the time it requires me to ensure they go forward with the tools to succeed and preserve our country for themselves and their children weigh heavily in my own choices. In that regard, it is not just a recruiting issue, but a retention one. It is not just a question of a deficit now, but of a future one. These are problems that DoD can not do much about, but are contingent upon our society to recognize. DoD leadership can and has raised the issue, both with regards to the available slice of population from which are military is drawn as a physical issue, and with regards to their education, but they are very limited in how they can affect it.

At root I think this is a cultural issue, because unless you make a convincing argument, the political default seems to be self interest. I am not referring to political as in party affiliation, but as in the interaction between people. There has in the past I’d argue been mechanisms which pulled larger segments of the U.S. population away from individual self interests and into groups which demonstrated their value based on what could be accomplished through participation and volunteering. There were good reasons for such groups, and in some cases there still are. These groups include social groups, religious groups, sporting groups, etc. The military is such a grouping, it takes an Army, a Navy, an Air Force, etc. to defend the things we value – when we stop believing that we need protecting, or start believing that we are the source of conflict, or believe that the world is none of our business, we weaken the military both in funding and in other resources because we decrease the value we place on it.

The popular reasons for investing in institutions such as these seem to me to be diminishing due to a number of reasons. Technology certainly ranks among them, who needs to go outside and play real basketball in the less than perfect weather, or risk not measuring up on the court when you can be inside on the computer and live out your fantasy basketball player? Even attributing causality to technology however is something of a misnomer. It is also about relevancy and understanding sacrifice. We have bred intolerance not only to risk, but to the idea that nothing worth our while should involve the idea of sacrifice, and that by chance that it does, that sacrifice should be the responsibility of someone else, preferably some nebulous entity to which we give some portion of our attention and income. These are entities which foster community, but ones which insulate us. The idea that such entities are necessary evils and that they require our attention to ensure they don’t become our master seems like too much work. Sometimes I wonder if we’re too domesticated, too comfortable.

I remember when I first came back from Iraq and went downtown with my kids to get an ice cream. It was far more than just the scenery which looked foreign; it was more then just transition from one environment to another; it was a bit like being in a petting zoo. It scared me more than being shot at, because the things I though I was protecting by being there were suddenly at risk at home.

Best, Rob

[zenpundit]

Cavguy wrote:

"It's also easy to blame teachers, but numerous studies show that the home environment is the biggest predictor of academic success -"
Agreed. Far and away most predictive. The number two variable according to research though is teacher quality.

I'm not blaming the teachers per se BTW - I'm speaking from inside the belly of the beast here, just as Sam is - I'm pointing to a necessary step for systemic improvement. Raising standards at Ed schools will create across the board teacher shortages and force a raising of salaries and other short term political and logistical pain for states and school districts. But gains will come with that pain.

There's no magic way to avoid biting this bullet that I can see - when pay rises to remediate a shortage, X % of ppl who would have been engineers, software programmers, lawyers and so on will enter classrooms instead. We have a lot of bored CPA's in America who passed on teaching math because that career will pay a mortgage and send kids to college.

[Ken White]

...
At root I think this is a cultural issue, because unless you make a convincing argument, the political default seems to be self interest...

Distressingly true...

The popular reasons for investing in institutions such as these seem to me to be diminishing due to a number of reasons. Technology certainly ranks among them, who needs to go outside and play real basketball in the less than perfect weather, or risk not measuring up on the court when you can be inside on the computer and live out your fantasy basketball player?

Great example; fear of failure -- or just fear of not looking cool or whatever -- seems to be terribly important to many of the teen and twenties I know.

I remember when I first came back from Iraq and went downtown with my kids to get an ice cream. It was far more than just the scenery which looked foreign; it was more then just transition from one environment to another; it was a bit like being in a petting zoo. It scared me more than being shot at, because the things I though I was protecting by being there were suddenly at risk at home.

Heh. Yep, been there, done that.

Come to think of it, don't know why I said 'Heh,' it isn't funny...

[Schmedlap]

How about this?

1) If you want a federally subsidized student loan, then you actually need to do something for it: military service, Americorps, Peace Corps, something similar to "work study" that actually involves actual work, etc.

2) If you want a Pell Grant or some other giveaway, see above.

Almost everyone whom I go to school with is paying their tuition by way of a federal student loan. I think there is a sound rationale that can justify the economic and social benefits of this, despite my economically conservative leanings. However, I question how many people actually need those loans because they seem to find an endless supply of funds to booze it up, eat out, buy lots of new clothes, and engage in other non-essential activity. Incredibly, they all whine that they are not eligible for LARGER loans to cover their expenses. It seems that we are funding their lifestyle, rather than their education. We've got such an entitlement mindset in this country.

[Ken White]

but I could agree with that. Not could -- Do agree. Good idea.

Where do I sign?

[slapout9]

We've got such an entitlement mindset in this country.

That is it!!! We have Rights and Entitlements in this country but not one talks about the flip side of Responsibility and Duty to earn those rights

[Schmedlap]

... when we stop believing that we need protecting, or start believing that we are the source of conflict, or believe that the world is none of our business, we weaken the military both in funding and in other resources because we decrease the value we place on it.

That should be made into a billboard.

[Happyshooter]

I have yet to see this. The AWOL guys that do show up, even after Dropped From Rolls, tend to get a couple days confinement, if that, then out. Definately don't foresee any firing squads any time soon. Also, there was news recently about the trial for the LT from Washington that refused to deploy. He refused years ago, and he's still not resolved.

That is a special case pointing more towards the total lack of any ability on the part of the military legal system.

You don't get the finest or smartest lawyers working for the .mil. Then add that fact that most 'defense counsel' at best do a half ass job of defending enlisted guys caught with porn or drugs, and more likely the 'defense counsel' is about three inches short of actively railroading their clients.

Once the military justice system was up against a crew of honest real life defense lawyers they got owned badly. The government actually spiked the case after screwing up the pre-trial agreement.

I suspect the Lt in question will never do time, and it is because the military JAGs really can't win against a defense lawyer that is doing his job.

[Ken White]

stacked to protect the rights of the accused...

Little of both, I suspect. Military lawyers are like Privates and Generals or like military doctors or even like civilian lawyers. Some are better than others; a few are great, a few are pathetic and most are average.

[jmm99]

The Ehren Watada case is not a good precedent on which to base general conclusions. Besides being a high-profile case, it is a complex case from the standpoint of military, constitutional and international law. Besides all those issues (in the original court martial), the case involves some complex habeas corpus issues (in the Federal District Court case following the original court martial).

This is an interesting case (to me; since similar cases came up during the Vietnam War), but I will spare you a blow by blow analysis. For those who might be interested in more, here are some links.

A long Wiki discussion, which seems well sourced (60+ links), is here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehren_Watada

You will find the webpage in support of the 1/LT (started by his mother according to the Wiki, sourced to a Seattle Intelligencer article) here.

http://www.thankyoult.org/

Ken and others here will love the list of the 1/LT's supporters - it will increase your blood circulation and lung capacity, thereby prolonging life.

The filings in the habeas proceeding before Judge Benjamin Settle are here (links to .pdf files).

http://www.thankyoult.org/content/view/2/77/

The Seattle Times article on Judge Settle's 21 Oct 2008 ruling that double jeopardy barred 3 of 5 counts - because of the military judge's improper handling of the stipulation between the government and Watada - is here.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...ruling22m.html

You will have to take this on faith in my opinion - which is, that perhaps 1 in 100 (more likely 1 in 1000) lawyers would be competent to handle this case on either side of the brief.

That brings me to a point that fits (IMO) very generally into the theme of this thread.

---------------------------------------

from Ken
... civilian lawyers. Some are better than others; a few are great, a few are pathetic and most are average.

My first impression was "that's logically correct" - "right on Ken !" But, then I got to thinking a bit deeper. Now, the "most are average" statement is logically and statistically correct, if the population follows a standard bell curve. In the case of civilian lawyers, I don't believe that is the type of curve (based on experience and a lot of MSBA statistics, which would make boring reading here).

What I come up with (even looking at all lawyers generally) is a double-humped curve - a smaller group of above-average lawyers and a larger group of below-average lawyers. The "average lawyer" lies between the two humps. That becomes more apparent when we realize that not all lawyers are fungible.

There are many areas of the law in which I am totally incompetent - the last time I saw them (if at all) was in cramming for the NY and MI bar exams nearly 40 years ago. The lack of competence shows up even in areas that are related to areas one knows well.

Recently, I had a matter where I completed about 95% of the work for a "nice guy" client. We hit a couple of remaining areas (related) where I simply didn't know the law; but more importantly, I did not know what the operational realities were - how the law is actually applied.

Could have faked it (and collected some ill-gotten $) - or spent many non-billable hours learning a skill set I would never use again. The correct choice was to refer to a lawyer, who happened to be a specialist in the areas making up the remaining 5% of the matter.

So, when one looks to specific legal skill sets, the curve would be very double-humped - a small group of real pros and a much larger group of rank amateurs as to that particular skill set. That should be no surprise to folks here, where the military obviously has its own specific skill sets.

Now, tis true that some specialities are quite generalized. For example, a good trial lawyer, with both civil and criminal trial experience, should be able to handle most litigation.

But, even there, there are areas where one shouldn't go. I would not try a divorce case because I have never been counsel of record in one (have advised divorce lawyers on non-divorce areas relevant to the cases). The military seems similar (based on what I have gleaned from reading the military posts here).

-----------------------------------
I have stated elsewhere that the military has to deal with more difficult problems than do lawyers (who primarily deal with micro, as opposed to macro, situuations - the micros are usually less "messy"). Thus, this civilian concludes that civilians should tread carefully in attempting to "rebuild the Army, Marines, etc."

And, just in this civilian's opinion, I don't think the "Army needs rebuilding". I do think that the Army needs some serious decompression time for personnel - and some serious refitting efforts for equipment.

I also agree with many of the other comments above that point to the need to "rebuild" our society as a greater need.

We shall see what President Obama will do about that, with solid Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. The voters will have a chance to review that in 2 years and 4 years.

[Ken White]

Should've spelled it out, pet-ard. Sigh.

First, I was not commenting on the Watada case; I agree with you -- it was a monstrosity. Every time anyone in DoD decides to "make an example" of someone, they pretty well screw it up. The Army should've just nailed the guy for an Article 134 violation; Field Grade Article 15 and assigned him to Tooele. Too many inexperienced JAG Officers (or their Commanders...) will try to stack charges and that's usually not very smart. Then, IMO, the Military Judge copped out. I'd also suggest that the case, even though I was not referring to it does in a sense bear out my comment about extensive protection for the rights of the accused. Regardless, Watada is yet another case of plenty of egg for many faces...

In the event, my comment on the UCMJ was purely generic and not case specific. As was my comment on several categories of others and not just Lawyers intended to be generic. I am hoist by my own pet--whatever that thing is -- because I went quick and lazy with a generalization. I'd have gotten away with it had I not included the word Lawyers...

Let me remind you that as I have pointed out before, I am not member of the Bar and thus am supposed to be allowed a certain laxness in speech. I am also old and feeble and should warn you that your continued persecution of the geritric set is probably being noted by Prez Elect Obama's minions..

That said, I bow to your impeccable logic:

"...What I come up with (even looking at all lawyers generally) is a double-humped curve - a smaller group of above-average lawyers and a larger group of below-average lawyers. The "average lawyer" lies between the two humps."

I would further submit that your Bactrian curve applies not only to the counselors at Law but to all the categories I cited, including Private and Generals and to most of the world in most things. Scary, huh?

[Icebreaker]

First of all let me thank everyone who responded to my question about possibly bringing back the draft. I got a great deal from the responses (facts and perspectives that had not occurred to me).

Secondly, one of the reason I asked the question is not only the need to rebuild the Army, but also that President Elect Obama has said that "national service" will be a big part of his administration. See below to a link to his position on the issue:

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Natio...nFactSheet.pdf

I realize that what a politician says and does are two very different things. However, the "brain trust" behind his campaign has been talking about "national service" for years. Many of the people who have been talking about national service frankly mean it as a form of social engineering (see a book titled "Bowling Alone" for some background on it).

The official position is much more realistic, and along the lines of what was discussed - You provide "X" amount of service tro the country and receive educational benfits for it. I have no problem with this, but having worked for the Federal Government for 25 years I can attest to the fact that federal programs are like Frankenstein's Monster - they get out of hand fast and do a lot of harm.

I do not know what we will get but I am hoping for some that adds real value to the country.

Thirdly, in the area of education my father was a public school teacher for 47-years (cancer and heart disease forced him to retire). He always said that two things caused all of the problems with the eductaional systems:

1. The schools were given too many things to do. Along with education they were suppose to be social workers, therapists.... All of this diluted the real mission of school and education lost out.

2. The parents usually could not have cared less. He coached the high school football team all those years and at the end of the season you would not believe how many parents did NOT bother to come to "Awards Night". My fathers comment was always - "What else do those losers have to do that's more important." That's my Dad.

Thanks again

[Schmedlap]

... President Elect Obama has said that "national service" will be a big part of his administration... The official position is much more realistic, and along the lines of what was discussed - You provide "X" amount of service tro the country and receive educational benfits for it.

Here is a big problem with that. We already give away educational benefits for nothing. Rather than create new benefits that are predicated upon "service" (an interesting twisting of the definition of service), we should start requiring "service" in exchange for the benefits already conferred upon people who are paying for their education with federal funds, pell grants, federally-subsidized student loans, et cetera. I can attest that, as someone who has attended four universities (two private and two public) that almost all people who receive federal funds and/or subsidized loans do not need the assistance. They just take it because they can. Somehow, in spite of their professed "need" they are able to go out to the bar almost every night, spent a couple hundred dollars per week on dinner, and have a surprising amount of leisure time.

I realize that what a politician says and does are two very different things.

I pray for that to be the case in this election. It disturbs me when the country acts so irrationally as to put one party in charge of the Executive and Legislature branches, regardless of which party that may be. This year was the culmination of years of anti-Bush sentiment driven primarily by the Long War and exacerbated more recently by the credit markets. Fear and ignorance.

... in the area of education my father was a public school teacher for 47-years... He always said that two things caused all of the problems with the eductaional systems:
1. The schools were given too many things to do...
2. The parents usually could not have cared less.

My father (not a teacher) always said that sending your kids to school is one of the worst things that you can do because they pick up the bad habits of everybody else's rotten kids. I'm now living in a small city in a location that has never really had a booming economy, even in good times. In my opinion, it has nothing to do with economic policy, laws, location, resources, et cetera. It is entirely attributable to this locale being inhabited overwhelmingly by people who fit perfectly into the stereotype known as "white trash." When I go out for a run, I pass through some residential parts of the city and it is appalling. Every day, I see enormously overweight women screaming obscenities at one another as their numerous ill-behaved children, who look like they haven't bathed in days, run around in the street. Those kids don't have a chance. And when they go to school, I strongly suspect that other kids pick up some pretty lousy habits and language from them and otherwise have their learning process severely disrupted.

[jmm99]

from Ken
I would further submit that your Bactrian curve applies not only to the counselors at Law but to all the categories I cited, including Private and Generals and to most of the world in most things. Scary, huh?

not really - so long as those who are not really experts in an area (a majority of any diverse group) apply the Eastwoodian philosophy: "A man must realize his limitations".

From what I see here (based on reading a lot of posts by you military types - I came here after all to learn something about COIN; not to preach about law), the military types here are pretty good at realizing their own limitations and looking to others for the expertise that they need.

In fact, if anything, you military types are almost too self-critical - discussions of Iraq and Vietnam are examples in my mind. I keep saying to myself - "give yourselves a break". It (Iraq) is and it (Nam) was a very difficult situation(s) in which singular "solutions" do not and did not readily present themselves.

-------------------------------------
The important question in my mind is how to "rebuild" the civilian part of the equation; that is, can politicians and policy makers be taught Eastwood's gem - and to engage in constructive self-criticism ? Strikes me that "Lessons Learned" and its process should be passed on from the military to the political world - not the other way around - since that world seems rarely to employ limitation or self-criticism.

Of course, there is some reluctance by soldiers to become too involved in the political process - and that is a good thing as applied to partisan politics. But, the US has had a long history of the military feeding into the policy-making process - either directly or indirectly (via former military). The US soldier has not been solely an "instrument to execute policy" (paraphrasing another recent thread). In this area, we seem to differ from our cousins, the British.

I believe that is exemplified by looking at the military backgrounds of British PMs and US Presidents. Did that, and came up with this.

UK PMs Military Experience (12/52 - just below 25%)

1721-1801 3/14 - Pelham (brief), Pitt the Elder (brief), William Petty (col. regular)

1801-1902 - 2/18 - Liverpool (col. militia), Wellington (!)

1902-2008 - 7/20 - Baldwin (2lt. militia), Churchill (2lt.to ltc. pre- & WWI), Attlee (maj WWI), Eden (cpt. WWI), MacMillan (cpt. WWI), Heath (ltc WWII), Callaghan (RN lt WWII).

List is here (but each linked bio has to be checked for military service).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...United_Kingdom

POTUS Military Experience (31/43 - just below 75%), now 31/44

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...litary_service

The longest "dry spell" for military types was the period from William Howard Taft through FDR (6 pres. - hmm..., and which included WWI and WWII).

I believe it is a fair inference that each country has its own culture governing interplay between the military and civilian sectors.

[120mm]

The Army should've just nailed the guy for an Article 134 violation; Field Grade Article 15 and assigned him to Tooele.

Ummm. I've been assigned to Tooele. Does that mean I screwed up somehow and noone told me?

But I get your drift...