I suspect your "soldier" would be much more like what I might call a "warrior. " Militaries need some warriors at the pointy end of the spear, but the spear has a lot more to it than just the point. When a military has too many of them, it must create "special" forces of various kinds and keep pumping up their membership's egos by telling them just how "special" they are.Originally Posted by JMA
When it comes to services academies, that is probably not going to happen. You said it quite well here .
I would note, however, that USMA was partly formed to provide a Republican Party (the party Americans now know as the Democrats) counterweight to the predominantly Federalist officer corps of the time. Jefferson, the primary author of the sentiment found in the Declaration of Independence "that all men are created equal," was President when USMA was created. USMA graduates did much to help grow America in the 1800s and much of what they did and still do would not fit under the definition I think you ascribe to the term "soldier."
Because of this fact, your proposal for officer initial selection would probably not provide America what it wants from its military officers. The American military does more than just fight and win the nation's wars or "provide for the common defense." (Ask your legal advisor to tell you about the various titles in the US Code that apply to the military.)
While many have been at odds with American Pride's posts about the need of the American army to reflect the country's population, that, in fact, has been a policy goal since Jefferson. Warriors may not like it, but soldiers accept it and do the best to accomplish it along with their other assigned missions. It is one of the dilemmas those who choose a career of military service in America must face. I would not doubt that similar dilemmas exist in other militaries, but I can only speak to the military that I know.
Bookmarks