Recent - after 24 April - responses from the An Officer Corps That Can’t Score article.

==============
Publicus says:
April 25, 2014 at 1:33 pm

Speaking as a former Army infantry officer who served in the 70′s and early 80′s Mr. Lind’s article hits the target right on. However, there are more basic reasons why the current officer corps is rotten.
First, the jock/athlete culture has triumphed. Take a look at the current ROTC curriculum. It is overwhelmingly oriented towards athletic prowess. Cadets – college students – are forced into the work-out room, to participate in “Warrior Games”, ad nauseum. Football field heroics is deemed good leadership – better-than-average intelligence is ignored. What is being taught by the current generation of officers to their successors is that it is more important to successfully run a marathon than study your enemy. The indoctrination the cadets regurgitate is frightening in its simplistic ignorance.
Second, I recommend reading the book “The Generals.” It is a superb analysis of how the system established by General Marshall to fight WWII – perform or move aside – has been completely replaced with the plodding “good boys” who don’t rock the boat but are ready to sell out their troops and subordinate officers without blinking an eyelash if they see a promotion possibility.
Third, it is the fault of the civilian administrations in committing the Army to missions that never should have been attempted. Nation-building in Afghanistan? You’ve got to be kidding me.
Fourth, and last, to succeed in the current environment, an officer must subscribe to all of the politically correct gender, sexual preference, and other asinine cause celebres of groups the political class is scared of. Women in combat units? Let us speak the heresy which must not be said. The standards WILL be lowered to appease the feminist harpies – and a lot of good men will die in a future war so the politicians can have bragging rights at today’s toney wine and cheese parties. …

==============
Austin Fall says:
April 26, 2014 at 12:05 am

Though not a bull’s eye this article at least hits the paper. Lind may be deaf because there are many officers that want “substantive change” but most of these officers will never reach a level to be able to make a change. From 2001, how many officers have combat experience? Of those how many are still in the service? Of those how many have reached any level with enough influence? With no combat attrition or the insignificant effect combat has in future advancement; the officers that have a visceral understanding of the changes needed to be made are civilians again or will reach the level to make policy changes in years to come at numbers too insignificant to do so. Combat is a defining factor but for most, Green Beans instead of Starbucks, life inside the wire was business as usual. The garrison mentality still dominates 80% or more of the officer corps even after multiple deployments.

=================
RW says:
April 26, 2014 at 4:52 pm

I am one of those Army officers and couldn’t agree more with the points brought up in this article. As a battery commander, my every decision was mandated by regulation or higher commanders guidance. We have become more concerned with CYA and political correctness than fighting wars. None of this can be brought up in an open discussion because it would mean at the very minimum, a poor performance eval. In this downsizing Army, a bad eval can mean the boot. After 7 years, I am on the way out.

=================
eponodyne says:
April 29, 2014 at 12:06 am

Forgive me if this has been suggested upthread already, but there is a very simple fix: Shut down the service academies. Close down the ROTC programs. Make sure that the only way to become an officer is to first reach NCO status as an enlisted man, and attend OCS. …

=================

The last comment should probably be read in conjunction with this 2009 article: Tom Ricks -- Why We Should Get Rid of West Point