Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 81

Thread: Point/Counterpoint: Are the Service Academies in Trouble?

  1. #1
    Small Wars Journal SWJED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Largo, Florida
    Posts
    3,989

    Default Point/Counterpoint: Are the Service Academies in Trouble?

    By Starbuck at Small Wars Journal:

    This week, two instructors at the US Naval Academy discussed some of the challenges, strengths, and shortcomings of America’s service academies. The first is Dr. Bruce Fleming, a professor of English who is set to release his book Bridging the Military-Civilian Divide in August. Dr. Fleming penned an op-ed in Thursday’s New York Times entitled, The Academies’ March Toward Mediocrity.

    Instead of better officers, the academies produce burned-out midshipmen and cadets. They come to us thinking they’ve entered a military Camelot, and find a maze of petty rules with no visible future application. These rules are applied inconsistently by the administration, and tend to change when a new superintendent is appointed every few years. The students quickly see through assurances that “people die if you do X” (like, “leave mold on your shower curtain,” a favorite claim of one recent administrator). We’re a military Disneyland, beloved by tourists but disillusioning to the young people who came hoping to make a difference.
    In my experience, the students who find this most demoralizing are those who have already served as Marines and sailors (usually more than 5 percent of each incoming class), who know how the fleet works and realize that what we do on the military-training side of things is largely make-work. Academics, too, are compromised by the huge time commitment these exercises require. Yes, we still produce some Rhodes, Marshall and Truman Scholars. But mediocrity is the norm.
    Meanwhile, the academy’s former pursuit of excellence seems to have been pushed aside by the all-consuming desire to beat Notre Dame at football (as Navy did last year). To keep our teams in the top divisions of the National Collegiate Athletic Association, we fill officer-candidate slots with students who have been recruited primarily for their skills at big-time sports. That means we reject candidates with much higher predictors of military success (and, yes, athletic skills that are more pertinent to military service) in favor of players who, according to many midshipmen who speak candidly to me, often have little commitment to the military itself.
    Dr. Shaun Baker, a professor of philosophy, provides an excellent counterpoint to Dr. Fleming in an entry on his blog at Themistocles’ Shade. Dr. Baker received his PhD from Wayne State University, and is the Assistant Director of the James B. Stockdale Center for Ethical Leadership at the US Naval Academy. He teaches philosophy, coaches the Academy's Ethics Bowl team, and is the Stockdale Center's webmaster.

    In the Naval Academy, there is a very strong tradition of exhortation to moral excellence, honesty, integrity, ideals taken very seriously, and as more than one mid on more than one occasion has put it, "pounded" into their heads from day one Plebe Summer. Yes, this exhortation may heighten the sort of sensitivity to inconsistency that gives rise to cynicism, but I believe it also has a pronounced effect on the day-to-day thinking of a majority of the mids.
    They do take these values seriously, even as they recognize their own shortcomings, those of other midshipmen and the faculty and staff. In general, I would say that this does not diminish the fact that they do take these values seriously, and think about them, have them in the forefront of their minds much more so than would people that did not go through four years of such rigorous exhortation to ethical thinking and exemplary character.
    Not only do all midshipmen go through a rigorous 4 year cycle of classes intended to drive home the importance of ethical thought, and ethical leadership, classes that explicitly take up and rationally discuss cynicism, among other germane topics (just war theory, international law, military justice, principles of servant leadership, followership, constitutional principles, and etc..) but the very nature of the institution they live in for four years puts them in a good position to understand the position of the enlisted people they will eventually work with. In many ways the academy does two things at the same time. It prepares for leadership at various ranks, in various ways intellectual, moral and emotional, but it also drives home how it is to be a lower level "cog" in a big quite hierarchical command-structured institution, and teaches one how to deal with that reality, and the cynicism that naturally results.

  2. #2
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lillington
    Posts
    55

    Default More education for more commitment

    I am unfamiliar with the history of the Academies' woes, however is there any precedent in making them six year institutions, awarding Masters Degrees and requiring six years of service? If the problem is one of commitment perhaps upping the ante would help. On the other hand, perhaps the problem is who selects/retains the staff as well.

    Also, forgive my heretical bent, but is there any truth to the decline coinciding with the coed student body and more liberal leaning in the institutions?

    This ties into another thread that pointed out that USMA officers tend to do their four years and split. Perhaps they were not as prepared for the demands of military life as they thought the institution would prepare them? (Not relative to other sources of commission but to their expectations mind you.)
    The society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools.

    ---A wise old Greek
    Leadership is motivating hostile subordinates to execute a superior's wish you don't agree with given inadequate resources and insufficient time while your peers interfere.

  3. #3
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    99

    Default

    This is based on a rather jaundiced view of officer training in the Australian Defence Force. I agree with Starbuck that we produce good quality junior officers in spite of the system. People with high academic scores as a rule do not join the military. They beocme doctors, dentists, lawyers, or do business degrees in top tier universities. Other than in engineering, and the chance to fly which is the biggest incentive of all, high quality students avoid the Australian Defence Force. If they decide to continue in the service after their initial term of service, unless they get a good position they invariably leave ,JUST as they are at the peak of their training. Our navy prefers people that can play rugby I am unrelaibly told.

    My son at 20 earned more as a trainee accountant than an academy graduate with three years, (not including flying pay/sea going allowance, etc), already had property and shares, and a secure future with international travel prosects. The view of this ex-training specialist is that by the time they are ready to go into the world as a junior officer with all their initial courses under their belt they are at least 22 if not 23. In many cases they have fallen behind their peers money wise, it won't get better for at least four years, and most of their time if not operating a ship, plane, platoon, orderly room etc, is doing at least two SLJs (shirty little jobs) as OIC basketweaving etc. Heaven forbid if they want a social life, or increase their academic skills.

    It was best summed up by two quotes admittedly from ten years ago, but I don't think it has changed. From a senior instructor: The aim of the academy is to produce officers not academics when commenting about a quote I was told by a student; if you get 51% it means you wasted time getting that extra 1% . Due to all the extra commitments at the academy, near enough is good enough becomes the norm in the academic side. I was doing a PhD at the Academy but they run out of supervisors with the appropraite skill set, so I transferred universities.

    The quality of middle and senior officer training has been commented and written about by people far better qualified than me to judge. Mine might be considered libelous.

  4. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    4

    Default

    From someone who IS a USMA grad (class of 94) and still on active duty, would like to address some of the sweeping generalizations that are just plain wrong.

    First, that the academies are becoming academically mediocre (I guess I can really only speak about West Point: all cadets are required to take a foundation of math and science courses (calculus, physics, chemistry, statistics, plus an engineering track) that no other major universities require of all students regardless of their major of study. Secondly, please note the number of Rhodes scholars, etc that graduate each year and West Point is in the top 10 in the nation. Thirdly, of the military faculty, several do have PhDs AND have also served in post-9/11 deployments which can provide a fuller understanding of how academic subjects relate to the cadets' future.

    Next, I'd like to point out that West Point was America....recognized by Forbes magazine in 2009 as the best college in the US. This is pretty impressive since the competition includes Ivy Leagues et. al.

    Last, I can say from the curriculum and experience I had to what is currently being taught to cadets now, the academy is evolving with the times. The foundational courses remain, but the elective keep changing and especially the summer training programs have improved radically since my time. West Point now has a Counter-Terrorism Center of Excellence which produces scholarly writings as well as a monthly bulletin. More examples are possible, but am running out of time.

    Sorry this is so long, have more thoughts but gotta head out now.

    Knapp

  5. #5
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,457

    Default

    I have no doubt the Academies are fine schools. The point, however, is do to ask if they produce better officers? In my personal experience, they do not.
    Supporting "time-limited, scope limited military actions" for 20 years.

  6. #6
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    11

    Default

    Entropy - what defines a "better officer?" Is that really the point? Or is "the point" yet another in an endless and long-running trend of attacks on the service academies?

    I'm a grad, and years ago I wrote an ill-advised and ill-researched paper on Academy grads vs. OTS vs. ROTC, out of which I concluded (mostly off a superior officer satisfaction study conducted sometime in either the 70s or 80s) that the academies did not do so and ought to be abolished based on this fact. You can probably guess my grade...

    Really, this isn't about the counterpoint, which wouldn't exist without the original point in the first place, which is that the service academies are hurting. Whether or not the author's points are valid seems moot to me, as it reads more like the rant I wrote as a cadet than a well-informed and supported argument. But I can get behind the concept...

    I think the institutions deserve some pretty hard looks and transformation. As other discussions on this board illuminate, easier said than done when dealing with a military bureaucracy.I have some ideas where to start, but I would like to hear some logically presented arguments on why service academies don't produce better officers, why they're in trouble, etc...

  7. #7
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,457

    Default

    Coindanasty,

    Personally, I'm indifferent to the service academies. I have no bone to pick with them and I have no desire to see them go away or be seriously defenestrated. At the same time, however, I do not buy into the myth that academy officers are better officers, nor do I think the formal and informal career benefits Academy grads receive are warranted.
    Last edited by Entropy; 05-24-2010 at 02:03 PM. Reason: spelling
    Supporting "time-limited, scope limited military actions" for 20 years.

  8. #8
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    Are the service academies going downhill? I don't know. But the issues raised are important ones - and they apply to all military schools and ROTC programs, in my opinion.

    The emphasis upon idiotic rules, blind adherence to rules that nobody can explain the purpose for, and absurd claims that [insert minor oversight] will kill your men, do nothing to help prepare cadets for their future professional careers. It trains cadets to focus exclusively on identifying a rule and adhering to it, rather than thinking through a situation and determining whether the rule makes sense. I knew "leaders" who went into combat armed only with what templates they were taught from FM 7-8. They did not understand the general principles - they only understood that an ambush should resemble the one in the picture or that a traveling overwatch formation should resemble the one in the picture. They treated streets in an urban area like linear danger areas in the same way that one would treat a road encountered in the woods. Stupid. Those leaders lacked the ability to think creatively and improvise to unexpected changes in the situation or to think through situations that did not clearly fit the template they were hoping for.

    It seems evident to me that this inability to think was fostered by years of blind adherence to idiotic rules that were never to be questioned or explained.

  9. #9
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lillington
    Posts
    55

    Default Well yes but..

    Thinking creatively in some situations kills one sooner than blind obedience. Think incoming (What's that sound, which direction is it coming from, is it ours or their's, which of my counter-battery options are best suited to returning fire?) instead of just getting in the ditch as a muscle-reflex. Over-simplified but to the point - much of our tradition is based on the thought that a civilian must be broken of that innovative spirit that causes hesitation. This is not to be scoffed at and thrown away or "transformed" lightly.

    I have no bone to pick with the academies, I have known good, bad, and great graduates. Most problems they face are writ large in other institutions of higher learning. We have as a society scrapped discipline for relativity. Our services now are trying to find a way of turning that social dogma into good military theory, particularly when it comes to current conflicts where creative thinking seems to be a yet unharnessed wave to victory.

    I am unconvinced. I submit the wholly inadequate single source of Custer's "Life on the Plains" as evidence of a counter-tribal-insurgent fighter who probably didn't pick up any Lean Six Sigma or synergistic-cooperative-think-meeting courses in his time at Hudson High, but some how managed to transition from a totally conventional war to a totally unconventional war quite well (final battle aside). And he certainly had to do plenty of inexplicable make-work in school. I submit he learned more about human nature in that four year experience than current studs do and that is really what victory in any kind of battle hinges on.

    Cadets suffer from social isolation that makes them auto-mans in regular society. So what. We don't really care how they perform in regular society and they have the rest of their life to figure it out anyway. My question is "is there any significant decline in the quality officer (given current social phenomena) and can we do something about it?"

    My previous post brings up two of the most recent "transformations" in those institutions in particular, less so in regular society(being recent transformations), and I would start there in trying to find if anything and what has changed. They are namely, the inclusion of the fairer sex in cadet ranks and a distinct leftward leaning in the faculty (I am relying on anecdotal evidence for the later claim, mostly from cadets I have known, but also from friends who have taught there and are so persuaded.)

    I don't have a dog in the fight really. But some times its fun to poke and prod the fighting dogs.
    The society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools.

    ---A wise old Greek
    Leadership is motivating hostile subordinates to execute a superior's wish you don't agree with given inadequate resources and insufficient time while your peers interfere.

  10. #10
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sapperfitz82 View Post
    Thinking creatively in some situations kills one sooner than blind obedience.
    I thought I covered that.

    Quote Originally Posted by My original post
    ... rules that nobody can explain the purpose for... rather than thinking through a situation and determining whether the rule makes sense... They did not understand the general principles...

    Quote Originally Posted by sapperfitz82 View Post
    Think incoming (What's that sound, which direction is it coming from, is it ours or their's, which of my counter-battery options are best suited to returning fire?) instead of just getting in the ditch as a muscle-reflex.
    It's actually funny that you use that as an example because I witnessed a 2LT in a unit that was temporarily attached to us respond to a 60mm mortar round by shouting "incoming, get down!" and then "this way! 200 meters!" That was in the middle of a city. Fortunately, most of his NCOs weren't quite as clueless as he was. Those of us with a little more experience realized that the proximity of the impacting mortar rounds was coincidental, at best, that the amount of time between rounds was more than sufficient to duck into an adjacent concrete building, that running down the street was an invitation to be ambushed, and that the greatest defense we had was not running away but simply using the cover provided by the urban terrain.

    Yes, some things certainly should be motor memory, such as individual skills that are highly repetitive and applicable to all or nearly all situations.

    Leaders need to be given a professional education, not programming. Leaders need to be able to identify those situations where blind adherence to rules do not make sense. The only way to do that is to understand the purpose for those rules. Military schools/academies/ROTC programs/OCS have a tendency not only fail to convey those purposes, but they sometimes adamantly refuse to convey those purposes even when prompted. That is not professional education. That is mass production.

  11. #11
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lillington
    Posts
    55

    Default Agreed on all points, with caveats on all points...

    Quote Originally Posted by Schmedlap View Post
    That is not professional education. That is mass production.
    Our professional education has its most immediate roots in the mass production of leaders for the previous two world wars. A great deal of thought and effort was put into how our nation will mass produce "good enough" leaders to accomplish their job in the next similar war. The threshold of pain required for a massive change simply hasn't been reached. And if Korea and Vietnam didn't do it, I wouldn't expect our current conflicts to come close.

    I wholly agree that we need to improve our officer producing schools. Across the board. I am not as adverse to creating stress through meaningless chores, attention to detail (particularly insignificant ones), or properly executed hazing. Hallmarks of any good military academy. If it is all well done, it can be quite a good professional education.

    I think you are advocating a modernization of the tactics taught. I agree to that to an extent. I think you are also saying that the focus should be on adaptive leadership instead of conformational leadership. That I have an issue with since the trend in our society is counter-conformational and I believe that will create a monster. What is needed is more discipline, not less. It is a hierarchical Army after all.

    And that LT might not have looked so foolish had an observer adjusted rounds on top of that position. Situation dependent of course. He didn't do nothing, and I'd say that is a sign of good training. Also of training that puts a great deal off on the institutional side of the house (wrong in my book). Lucky he had good NCO's, but he would not have been wrong to move his men 200m either. Just very cautious.

    Personally, I would like to see a year's "internship" for PL's between their Jr and Sr year regardless of source.
    The society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools.

    ---A wise old Greek
    Leadership is motivating hostile subordinates to execute a superior's wish you don't agree with given inadequate resources and insufficient time while your peers interfere.

  12. #12
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sapperfitz82 View Post
    Our professional education has its most immediate roots in the mass production of leaders for the previous two world wars.
    And that didn't churn out as many high quality leaders as our sepia-toned historical goggles would lead many to believe. There were some great leaders in WWII and a lot of very poor ones. It is unlikely that the system was wholly responsible for creating the former or blameless in permitting the latter.

    Quote Originally Posted by sapperfitz82 View Post
    I am not as adverse to creating stress through meaningless chores, attention to detail (particularly insignificant ones), or properly executed hazing. Hallmarks of any good military academy. If it is all well done, it can be quite a good professional education.
    I'd love to hear an explanation to support that.

    Quote Originally Posted by sapperfitz82 View Post
    I think you are advocating a modernization of the tactics taught...
    No.

    Quote Originally Posted by sapperfitz82 View Post
    ... I think you are also saying that the focus should be on adaptive leadership instead of conformational leadership.
    No. The focus should be on creating professional military officers.

    Quote Originally Posted by sapperfitz82 View Post
    And that LT might not have looked so foolish had an observer adjusted rounds on top of that position. Situation dependent of course. He didn't do nothing, and I'd say that is a sign of good training. Also of training that puts a great deal off on the institutional side of the house (wrong in my book). Lucky he had good NCO's, but he would not have been wrong to move his men 200m either. Just very cautious.
    Yes, he would have looked foolish; no, there was no sign whatsoever of "good training"; and yes he most certainly would have been wrong to move his men - but I probably haven't adequately "painted the picture" for the anecdote, so I'll leave it at that.

  13. #13
    Council Member Infanteer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    347

    Default

    In my opinion, Service Academies suffer from trying to be universities rather than professional institutions - in they end, West Point, like the University of Washington, turns out bright young folks with a piece of paper and, if they did things right, some critical thinking skills. Service Academies are usually a leg up on larger civilian universities in that they get to be a bit more selective.

    However, service academies do little to in the way of developing military professionals. The training houses put out good field technicians, versed in decision making and the estimate, but that's about it. I'd argue that the officer corps as a whole (in many Western armies) is sadly lacking in the foundations of the profession. Most of my peers are unable to discuss military history, doctrinal concepts, and art and science of tactics and the operational level - and I don't mean being able to spout dates and factoids, I mean knowing the relevance of all this to the conduct of operations. Guys who pursue their professional growth through writing, mess room debate (and online discussion forums - the new militarische gesellschaft) are generally exceptions.

    This is borne out in the doctrine we see published today; alot of it is simply junk and the rest of it is simply ignored. Can you imagine psychologists not knowing the DSM-IV? A good percentage of the officers today are not versed in the doctrine we state underpins how (and why) we do things. "Maneuver warfare" highlights this - an interesting phase that the anglo militaries went through, full of debate by a small percentage of the profession, and then - to varying extents - put into doctrine; all this goes largely unnoticed by large amounts of officers who are oblivious to the significant arguments and changes it was making.

    Bottom line, we like our doctors to be good with the scalpal and know human anatomy. We want our lawyers to be good in the courtroom and versed in case-law and precedence. We should expect the same out of the officer corps. If I could wave a wand, I'd have all 3 streams of officer production (commissioned from the ranks, direct entry, and service academy) spend some development time in the field Army and then all move through the service academy which would include a professional military syllabus (this of course, must be multi-disciplinary, looking at all social and science fields) and courses must move away from the standard "degree-producing" university courses which generally demand one piece of writing, an exam and may require to actually do your readings.

    My 2 Cents.

  14. #14
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sapperfitz82 View Post
    That I have an issue with since the trend in our society is counter-conformational and I believe that will create a monster. What is needed is more discipline, not less. It is a hierarchical Army after all.
    Well, I couldn't resist jumping in on this one !

    I think there are two different meanings to the word "discipline" that we would do well to keep in mind. The first is the concept of obedience often associated with training, i.e. he is well disciplined, while the second refers to a professional "discipline", which is a set of principles that have been internalized and from which solutions to professional problems are generated.

    Discipline in both of these senses is necessary to create good officers and, also, good citizens.
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  15. #15
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Agreed, marct, with a caveat ....

    from marct
    I think there are two different meanings to the word "discipline" that we would do well to keep in mind. The first is the concept of obedience often associated with training, i.e. he is well disciplined, while the second refers to a professional "discipline", which is a set of principles that have been internalized and from which solutions to professional problems are generated.
    An internalized set of principles to generate solutions to problems is scarcely restricted to "professionals" - since, what you have defined, is really "self-discipline" (available to anyone who bothers to develop an internalized set of principles).

    Our "professional disciplines" (whether doctor, lawyer or military chief) do provide a generalized framework (e.g., as in the professional codes of ethics, too seldom read - at least by lawyers) that can aid in developing an internalized set of principles. But all professionals do not take that path.

    The concept is similar to my dichotomy between "rule by law" (principles imposed by a third party, which may be perfectly OK because they are accepted) and "rule of law" which is the self-expression of the ruled population group.

    Moving away from theory - Have there been any responses by That Place on the Chesapeake grads (especially those who have elected the Marines) to the two articles linked in the OP ?

    Regards

    Mike

  16. #16
    Council Member MikeF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    1,177

    Default Well obviously, the corps has

    Both Tom Ricks and Dr. Fleming are correct. USMA floundered starting June 1, 2000 after we graduated. The class of 2000 was the last "real" class. Everything softened after that leading to this debacle.

  17. #17
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lillington
    Posts
    55

    Default

    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."
    The society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools.

    ---A wise old Greek
    Leadership is motivating hostile subordinates to execute a superior's wish you don't agree with given inadequate resources and insufficient time while your peers interfere.

  18. #18
    Council Member Umar Al-Mokhtār's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Cirenaica
    Posts
    374

    Default Spoken like a true...

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeF View Post
    USMA floundered starting June 1, 2000 after we graduated.
    parochial ring knocker.

    I'll bet your company was the toughest in the Corps as well.

    Tun Tavern, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, November 11th 1775

    Captains Nicholas and Mullens, having been tasked by the 2nd Continental Congress to form two battalions of Marines, set up the Corps' first recruiting station in the tavern.

    The first likely prospect was, in typical recruiter's fashion, promised a "life of high adventure in service to Country and Corps". And, as an extra bonus: If enlisted now he would receive a free tankard of ale...

    The recruit gladly accepted the challenge and, receiving his free tankard of ale, was told to wait at the corner table for orders.

    The first Marine sat quietly at the table sipping the ale when he was joined by another young man, who had two tankards of ale.

    The first Marine looked at the lad and asked where he had gotten the two tankards of ale?

    The lad replied that he had just joined this new outfit called the Continental Marines, and as an enlistment bonus was given two tankards of ale.

    The first Marine took a long hard look at the second Marine and said: "Damn boot, it was nothing like that in the old Corps!"
    "What is best in life?" "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women."

  19. #19
    Council Member MikeF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    1,177

    Default Just trying to bring a lil levity

    Quote Originally Posted by Umar Al-Mokhtār View Post
    Spoken like a true parochial ring knocker.
    As much as should be expected .

    I'll bet your company was the toughest in the Corps as well.
    Well, the football team sucked, the rugby team placed second in Div One finals, and my cadet company had the least amount of first picks to infantry ever...So, a mixed bag I suppose.

    The first likely prospect was, in typical recruiter's fashion, promised a "life of high adventure in service to Country and Corps". And, as an extra bonus: If enlisted now he would receive a free tankard of ale...
    If only...I've had the high adventure, but a free tankard of ale sometimes slips my grasps .

    On a more serious note, I would suggest that as a measure of reform, USMA should attempt to undo the social awkwardness of cadet isolation. Back in the day, cadets were NOT isolated despite their strict displinary standards. The world came to them. Outside of football games, it is not so much so.

    v/r

    Mike

  20. #20
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    11

    Default

    MikeF, hear hear on your point regarding social awkwardness. I think USNA has a little easier time with that being right smack dab in the middle of Annapolis, USMA and USAFA not so much. I can honestly say that after four years of isolation and a bad distance running habit, I graduated at the social skill level of a 14 year old.

    I've seen a some good points come out about teaching leaders...and I couldn't agree more. I can honestly look back at my 11 years of service and not look at one time when I applied a leadership lesson culled from my time at the Academy. Beyond the basic military history (which, let's face it; is not the issue) what was taught to me there was so far removed from what I faced either inside or outside the wire. Granted, I may have just been a crappy cadet, but I'd have to think that somewhere along the way I learned something while getting smoked as a four-degree or in yet another pointless M-hour.

Similar Threads

  1. First U.S. Official Resigns Over Afghan War
    By jkm_101_fso in forum OEF - Afghanistan
    Replies: 73
    Last Post: 11-10-2009, 09:15 PM
  2. Is Public Will at odds with Public Sacrifice?
    By Rob Thornton in forum Politics In the Rear
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 10-10-2007, 02:25 PM
  3. Demographics of Service in Iraq
    By SWJED in forum The Whole News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-26-2006, 10:52 AM

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
  •