Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 64

Thread: Shut Down West Point and the War Colleges

  1. #1
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default 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...

    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.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  2. #2
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    Here is what Ricks wrote:
    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.
    The funny thing is that I, as a former Soldier, have the same impression about the "profession" that Ricks is in (I mean journalism, not ego-driven self-promotion).

    Journalism schools strike me as second-rate. If we want to open the minds of rising journalists and prepare them for the top news outlets, we should send them to military schools where their assumptions will be challenged, and where they will interact with future military officers, not to a left-leaning civilian institution where they can reinforce their biases while smoking weed and protesting.

  3. #3
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Here is Rick's question ...

    (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.

  4. #4
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Many truths in those two comments.

    Wilf raises an interesting and I believe extremely valid and important point in his comment:
    "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...

  5. #5
    Council Member MikeF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    1,177

    Default Wilf is usually right

    As is Ken. JMM backs them up with facts.

    nuff said.

  6. #6
    Council Member Surferbeetle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,111

    Default 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.
    Last edited by Surferbeetle; 04-19-2009 at 08:01 PM.
    Sapere Aude

  7. #7
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Most officers are products of ROTC, and accordingly, most generals are products of ROTC as well. That said, tradition is very important to a profession, and the service academies are an important part of that tradition.

    I do think there is some merit in the points Ricks is making, but that is no reason to act on them. It wouldn't hurt though if more officers were offered the option of pursuing a civilian degree in lieu of attending a service college. Diversity usually makes an organization stronger, and diversity of thinking is essential to keeping an organization fresh. At the 20 year mark, the Darwinian effect of the OER process has narrowed the intelectual gene pool down to a group of people who are far more similar to each other than they probably realize. Sending some out to mix it up with the civilians also helps keep the populace aware of how sharp, professional and dedicated these men and women are and keeps a human face on the military.

    I don't think Ricks is suggesting that PhDs make a better general, I've never met a Colonel who was not capable of earning one, so it is a fairly irrelevant observation that he makes rather than a main point in his argument. (And off course most current military leaders went to a war college...its a pre-requistie. Kind of like noting that most Doctors went to medical school)

    Anyway, if you focus on his point over his argument and recommendation, it has merit.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  8. #8
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default If you remove ...

    Rick's argument and his recommendation - what exactly is his point ?

    You (BW) have a point - allow options. Surferbeetle presents a general outline for a program.

    I might suggest (getting ready to duck incoming) is that the service academies be more of grad-professional schools. Entry based on any 4-year degree or 4-years in service. Possibly better retention, since the people would be 4 years older.

    Not to start too much of an argument, but the Annapolis > Marine retention rates seem pretty good from what limited sources I've read. In effect, a double self-selection process there.

  9. #9
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Sierra Vista, AZ
    Posts
    175

    Default mission

    I remember reading "Getting West Point Back on Mission" in Mar-Apr 06 Military Review that suggested USMA was failing at its mission to create career officers. It was a response to the high attrittion rate coming out of recent USMA classes.
    http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/Military...Richardson.pdf

    The author argues that the school's mission is to create career officers, and if it is not doing that, meaning most of the class gets out at 5+/- years, reassess who it is recruiting and re-evaluate its training. He worries that if it is not accomplishing its goal, it is not cost effective, and could theoretically close. That's a pretty honest assessment, which takes the emotion, history, and tradition out of it. His main concern was the mission change to a "lifetime of service to the nation" which made it ok to serve outside the Army. He is happy the mission has returned to "lifetime of service to the Army." He also argues that recruiting and daily training need to indicate that the point of the school is a career in the Army, not free college for a couple years.

    I see value to USMA, but like any other school, it produces good officers and poor officers. Ask a grad, he'll be the first to tell you about some of the characters that should not have made it. My OBC class was 2/3rd West Point, and after the first 2 weeks, the mafia broke up because many realized they did not like each other. In my first unit, there were 3-5 grads. When I left 4 years later, there was only 1 or 2. My current CCC class only has a handful, probably near 10%, of grads. The Army is growing its officer corps, largely through expanded ROTC and OCS. Calling for an evaluation or assessment of the academies is valid. Calling for their outright closure to save money, maybe not as valid. I stayed in a USMA barracks during a summer lacrosse camp during middle school, and did not find it luxorious, but maybe they could cut back on the fun elsewhere (I've never heard a grad refer to fun while they were there, though).

    Disclosure: I was a 2 year ROTC scholarship cadet, and am finishing my 5th year of service. I will keeping searching for the article. If anyone else is familiar with it, please let me know.
    Last edited by patmc; 04-19-2009 at 09:28 PM. Reason: found article, misrepresented argument
    "What do you think this is, some kind of encounter group?"
    - Harry Callahan, The Enforcer.

  10. #10
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,457

    Default

    The problem, ISTM, is not the academies or war colleges - the problem is the retention and promotion system. I don't know about the other services, but in the Air Force, selection for in-residence PME and then a war college is one of the primary predictors of who will advance, especially to Col. and beyond. The problem, to me at least, is that other options (like a PhD or whatever) are not valued by the system that creates our senior officers. That system is the real problem, not the service academies and war colleges.

  11. #11
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    If USMA grads are getting out the Army at higher rates than ROTC, then this suggests to me that the difference due to...
    a) who they are recruiting
    b) how they are training/educating them
    c) both

    If it is recruiting, are they going to West Point for family approval or due to family pressure, neither, or both? There is a tendency for children of Army Officers to go to West Point. Perhaps they are going there for the wrong reasons? Maybe it is time to rethink whether that should be considered in the admissions process - by the school or the congressmen.

    If it is training/education, is it because their expectations for the Army are too high? Or are they unprepared to cope? Aside from those, I don't see how you blame retention on the training or education.

    If their expectations are too high, then I suppose one response would be to lower their expectations. I hope that we're better than that and, instead, improve the organization that they are entering into so that it meets their justifiably high standards.

  12. #12
    Council Member Culpeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Roswell, USA
    Posts
    540

    Default

    Close them down? Use ROTC? Sort of fits the federalism model of a republic. Let the states produce the best officers through state university ROTC programs. Sooner or later a handful of programs will stand out from the rest. Of course, there are also many other military academies that can fill the void if you think there might be a void. So yeah, it would save a lot of the taxpayer's money.
    "But suppose everybody on our side felt that way?"
    "Then I'd certainly be a damned fool to feel any other way. Wouldn't I?"


  13. #13
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    The service academies will never be closed, nor will they be significantly restructured; they are too deeply ingrained in American culture for that to happen. Movies, novels, Army-Navy football games, etc, all have insured that they will go on as they have gone on. The only thing that might change that is if the US were to suffer a disastrous defeat in a really big war.

    But it is still an interesting question to discuss.

    One thing I have read in the past is that both the academies and ROTC share a weakness. That is, they try to gauge gauge military leadership ability on the basis of an 18 year old's track record, or they figure they can teach it. That seems a chancy thing to do.

    Perhaps a better thing would be to have potential officers serve in the ranks and thereby see if they have some potential. If they do, they go on to what ever officer training program you care to create. If they don't, they serve out their term and go about their lives. I think the Germans did something like this in WWII.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  14. #14
    i pwnd ur ooda loop selil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Belly of the beast
    Posts
    2,112

    Default

    Another thread of we don't need no stinking education and anybody with a PhD can't be an effective officer. Next will be "all civilians are lazy drunk SOB's" followed by the spoiled brats of the apocalypse.

    Was Ricks right for all the wrong reasons?
    Sam Liles
    Selil Blog
    Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
    The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
    All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.

  15. #15
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Bingo. Good catch, Carl

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    ...they try to gauge gauge military leadership ability on the basis of an 18 year old's track record, or they figure they can teach it. That seems a chancy thing to do.
    That's absolutely true and yet, they do make it work out adequately -- not great but adequately. The system culls at Captain level, normally and then it just gets tighter. It works pretty well.

    Your suggestion and several other ideas can ameliorate that and approach 'great' -- but the Services, the Congress in particular (and most Americans), do not want great if the cost is lack of equality of access.

    Or if the product is an Army that is too competent; they all want good, yes, absolutely -- but not too good. Too good smacks of elitism -- and a potential threat. Seven Days in May and so forth.

    The services also do not want a great decline in officer accession numbers, they are more worried about mobilization than they need to be...

  16. #16
    Council Member Culpeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Roswell, USA
    Posts
    540

    Default It's just an idea

    There is just too much politics to make such a move a reality. Closing a base and everything that goes with that is one thing but closing one of the prestigious academies? Forget about it.
    "But suppose everybody on our side felt that way?"
    "Then I'd certainly be a damned fool to feel any other way. Wouldn't I?"


  17. #17
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Eustis
    Posts
    71

    Default 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 ) 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

  18. #18
    Council Member Culpeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Roswell, USA
    Posts
    540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by selil View Post
    Another thread of we don't need no stinking education and anybody with a PhD can't be an effective officer. Next will be "all civilians are lazy drunk SOB's" followed by the spoiled brats of the apocalypse.

    Was Ricks right for all the wrong reasons?
    I don't think that is what this thread is about. All is well.
    "But suppose everybody on our side felt that way?"
    "Then I'd certainly be a damned fool to feel any other way. Wouldn't I?"


  19. #19
    Council Member Culpeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Roswell, USA
    Posts
    540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tankersteve View Post
    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 ) 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
    I could never tell the difference in the field where the officer came from. Some were good, some were bad. Almost all were mediocre. Joseph Heller wrote the greatest book on the mediocrity of officers in the military.

    Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.

    From Joseph Heller's Catch-22. Paraphrase of the original 'some men are born great...' from Shakespeare's Twelfth Night.
    "But suppose everybody on our side felt that way?"
    "Then I'd certainly be a damned fool to feel any other way. Wouldn't I?"


  20. #20
    Council Member Culpeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Roswell, USA
    Posts
    540

    Default

    Of course, Catch-22, in its entirety, is written in code so no officer can understand it let alone stand it. Of course, I'm being facetious. Of course.
    "But suppose everybody on our side felt that way?"
    "Then I'd certainly be a damned fool to feel any other way. Wouldn't I?"


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •