West Point Failing To Prepare Tomorrow's Officers

[aglages]

scoutpilot: I may have missed it in one of your posts, but WHAT specific damage do you think will be done if USMA candidates "look" at the original post in this thread?

If you're not at the point...

What point? A developmental or life stage where I can read another person's opinion on WP and form the same opinion as yours? I believe several posters must be at the same "point" as I am and obviously at a different "point" than you. Which of us is correct?

..maliciously thrusting that in the face of young people..

A little too much drama queen verbiage IMHO.

.. who are trying to mentally prepare themselves to undertake the toughest challenge of their lives...

I have to admit that I've not attended WP, however I have experienced combat. It is difficult for me to believe that attendance at a military academy is the toughest challenge a military officer will undertake during their life. Or did you mean up to this "point" in their lives? If these young people have not already fully considered all aspects of attending WP then this article may be something for them to consider BEFORE attending WP. WP cadets are expected to THINK and weigh all factors before making decisions...aren't they? Is it possible that the author was correct and WP doesn't want it's cadets well informed and thinking? What exactly are you afraid of happening if a future cadet reads this article? If just reading someone's negative opinion of WP is more difficult or demoralizing than their first year at WP then perhaps the author of the OP was correct about WP failing tomorrow's officers.

.. (a challenge that will deny them countless pleasures that will be available to those who take less challenging paths in life)...

"Countless pleasures"? Is there no end to the drama? Which "countless pleasures" will the cadets be denied? Sex? Drugs? Watching TV? Delayed/postponed perhaps, but not denied.

...is antithetical to the purpose of a forum whose goal is to ASSIST them, then I'm not sure you're going to grasp the concept at all.

Assist them HOW? Assist them to make well informed decisions? Assist them by preventing them from reading anything that does not present WP as a completely flawless institution? If a perspective cadet posts a question about the difficulty of academics or physical training at WP should we only be "allowed" to tell them it is easy and not to worry?

 

[aglages]

Luigi59, don't label me as part of "scoutie's" minion but I don't think the article really substantiates past the author's claims.

Whether or not the author substantiates his opinions and claims, do you think that future cadets would be harmed by being exposed (reading) the article?

 

[scoutpilot]

Excellent points, glad to read your opinion. Seems you and the author agree, I wonder if you'll be attacked by "scoutie" and his minions.

I like your technique. Try to steer attention away . Disappointing, but in no way surprising.

I'm sorry I told the blunt truth but you continually post malicious material in an attempt to drag down other service academies. In the end, you're just a regular guy with an axe to grind for whatever reason. If I'm wrong about you, feel free to tell us your story.

It seems other people gave noticed the lack quantifiable facts in the article.

Don't worry, goldfarb, I don't have minions. It just happens that other people can read and analyze an article, and draw the same conclusions. You're right, The officer basic courses and professional schools are where the bulk of tactical & technical knowledge is gained.

 

[bruno]

This essay highlights the two different schools of thought about how and even what the Service Academies are supposed to produce. there is the hands on "Trade School" training approach which the Brits use as their model for Sandhurst and then there is the educational approach embodied by the 4 US Military Academies which typically do not train officers for their specific duties as much as they seek to educate them in a broad sense and indoctrinate them with a common ethic while leaving most of their hands-on specific training until they are on active duty. The hands on training of Army officers is accomplished at the branch basic courses- not at USMA. Should that change? Well- I think Maj Lujan shortchanges his almamater and extrapolates a lot from a few anecdotes. While no one would argue that a new USMA graduate should have a pretty strong sense of cultural awareness and the ability to act with minimal guidance but other than Maj Lujan's article - I haven't seen much of a groundswell of opinion among those with experience that junior officer's lack this. In fact, a very common bit of commentary over the past 8 years has been the ability of US Military Officers- especially junior officers- to rapidly adapt to the changing scenarios that they have found themselves in.

There clearly is a need for the Army to have a dynamic and continuous review of its roles, missions and capabilities and operational art and tactics- how to adapt, fight and win based on the lessons learned at the cutting edge. But I believe that role is in fact the role that CGSC and the War College play now- mixing bowls of ideas where Military Officers of all branches with recent experience at the company and field grade level debate and refine doctrine and the operational art.
Tom Ricks in his controversial article 18 months ago made similar "observations" about the Military Academies but in that article his corrective action didn't align with his root cause analysis. He was critical of the performance of the more senior levels of the Officer Corps - who by the time they get to that level are far more products of their experiences and post graduate education and career patterns than they are products of their undergraduate education. His proposed "fixes" were more appropriate for the Staff and War Colleges than the service academies- just as Maj Lujan is proposing a "fix" to the wrong institution.


Folks this is an interesting and timely subject- let's keep it going- no more bashing of each other. Lots of folks have lots of opinions on this subject- so let's try and keep this on a respectful and intelligent plain.

 

[scoutpilot]

I have to admit that I've not attended WP, however I have experienced combat.

If that's so, then please support Luigi on this. At least that way, one of you has some actual knowledge.

We can go round and round about this. You ask me what it hurts. I ask what benefit it offers to an 18-year-old beyond the oft-repeated "it expands their viewpoint" argument. You may think that's worthy. Two-and-half weeks before R-day, I don't.

As I told you in my first reply, it was an issue of venue and timing. Moreover, I was considering the source and HIS reasons for posting it, in light of his past behavior as others have noted. In the end, the thread is now here where it belongs--where Luigi knew it belonged all along.

You may not like my verbage, and that's your choice. If you are indeed accepted to a SA (I gather you seek such an end from your profile) then I'll check back with you in a few years and we'll revisit that list of pleasures.

 

[Luigi59]

I like your technique. Try to steer attention away from the fact that you are a malcontent and a phony by turning someone else's username into a diminutive. Disappointing, but in no way surprising. .

Again, another personal attack.

You're too easy.

Next.

 

[Luigi59]

If that's so, then please support Luigi on this. At least that way, one of you has some actual knowledge.

You have no idea what I know, who I know, or how I know it.

I suggest you keep your opinion of ME off the forum. You are ignorant to suggest anything otherwise.

There are rules (at least for most of us), I hope the mods follow them fairly.

Debate the author of the article, stop taking the easy way out by bashing me.

 

[Luigi59]

Folks this is an interesting and timely subject- let's keep it fgoing- no more bashing of each other.

Why is it being allowed to continue?

Bashing Luigi = A-OK?

 

[doubleappointee]

after reading through all of your responses, i find it odd that no one has really brought up the human factor.

the evidence brought up in the article truly is anecdotal, and while it does make a few good points, the simple truth is that this review of west points effectiveness is the same as any hotel review or product review.

west point is a fantastic institution. it provides an incredible education with a fantastic military program and leadership development. however, what proves as the deciding factor in a leader's ability is not his education or instruction but his personality and personal leadership style.

some people enjoy the regulations and abide by them as strictly as the army would seem to expect. others are lax on "pointless" regs and strict on the important ones. it is all individualized and stylized based on the PERSON not the institution. this is supported by the idea the ROTC cadets and WP cadets receive the same commision. if the army thought that West Point produced perfect leaders no matter what, cadets would be commissioned as 1st lieutenants or captains, etc. however, i think the army realizes that the effectiveness of a leader is more dependent on the personality and individual behind the rank than the education and military program the person attends.

and while it's true that many of the great generals and some presidents have come from wp, maybe that is just because the best leaders, or those with the potential to be the best, WANT the challenges and education that west point provides and attend therefore.

the united states military academy is not perfect. it provides its cadets with the best possible education and instruction to make them great leaders, but whether they become great leaders or not is dependent on the cadets, not the academy.

 

[Luigi59]

We can go round and round about this. You ask me what it hurts. I ask what benefit it offers to an 18-year-old beyond the oft-repeated "it expands their viewpoint" argument. You may think that's worthy. Two-and-half weeks before R-day, I don't.

And that's YOUR opinion.

Worth no more than anyone else's.

 

[aglages]

If you are indeed accepted to a SA (I gather you seek such an end from your profile) then I'll check back with you in a few years and we'll revisit that list of pleasures.

Nope. Just a parent of a son who is going through the process of applying to several SAs. As I am sure I've made clear, I am of the opinion that he should be as well informed of ALL aspects (pro & cons) of attending any SA. I have confidence in my (relatively) young son's intelligence and would not want to put blinders on him before R-day anymore than I want to see one of the SAs discourage his exposure to other ideas/opinions....regardless of their accuracy or perceived worth. If at 3 weeks before R-Day he reads something that convinces him that a SA is not right for him then both the military and he will be better off not wasting their time and money...even at that late date.

 

[scoutpilot]

Nope. Just a parent of a son who is going through the process of applying to several SAs. As I am sure I've made clear, I am of the opinion that he should be as well informed of ALL aspects (pro & cons) of attending any SA. I have confidence in my (relatively) young son's intelligence and would not want to put blinders on him before R-day anymore than I want to see one of the SAs discourage his exposure to other ideas/opinions....regardless of their accuracy or perceived worth. If at 3 weeks before R-Day he reads something that convinces him that a SA is not right for him then both the military and he will be better off not wasting their time and money...even at that late date.

Well I certainly wish him the best throughout the process.

From my perspective, the spots are filled. I want each kid to go there and love it. It won't happen, but it would be nice. In my mind, they'll find enough to be negative about over four years. I don't see the need to foster those feelings beforehand. Here's hoping for a positive and formative experience for all of them.

 

[raimius]

One of the things that causes so much cynicism at the SAs is the mental image candidates build. I don't think making that image a little more accurate would hurt. Many of the points the author makes ring pretty true to me, although his conclusions may be a bit off. The SAs do a fine job of training the majority of cadets--probably as well or better than most places. There is still ground for improvement.

 

[Mongo]

LOL. First off, we have Fleming at USNA avowing that only the intellectually superior challenged with rigorous academics can succeed as officers while at WP we have Maj. Fernando Lujan stating that they should become a trade school (where the last war would be taught, I presume) and Luigi somehow attempting to rationalize that they are both worthy of consideration.

 

[scoutpilot]

LOL. First off, we have Fleming at USNA avowing that only the intellectually superior challenged with rigorous academics can succeed as officers while at WP we have Maj. Fernando Lujan stating that they should become a trade school (where the last war would be taught, I presume) and Luigi somehow attempting to rationalize that they are both worthy of consideration.

The Red Army and Navy ran great officer trade schools, too.

 

[Maximus]

The author is definitely a 'Bomb Thrower' but he made a few good points. From what I've read and heard from cadets / past cadets is: they wish there was some more military training throughout the year and, there is a lot of bureaucracy. Heck how many jokes have been made over the last century that if it wasn't in the Army manual, it didn't exist. I think he should at least change the title of the article so that it's not so inflammatory.


Disclaimer: I was an enlisted Marine that never saw combat, your opinion may vary

 

[BeatNavy]

Honestly, with R day standing only 15 days away, bringing up the USMA forum and seeing a thread titled "West Point Failing to Prepare Tomorrow's Officers" is a little disheartening. Not the end of the world, but it comes of as being rather obnoxious, especially considering the identity of the OP, and his previous postings, as Scout and Futurepilot have already articulated.

 

[WAMom68]

Excellent points, glad to read your opinion. Seems you and the author agree, I wonder if you'll be attacked by "scoutie" and his minions.

I just want to clarify...I agree with Maj. Lujan's point about not enough military training...I DO NOT agree with anything else.

As far as my opinion there is not enough military training...that is based on my son's opinion. Maybe some cadets think there is too much military training. In my son's case he would much rather go out in the woods and learn tactics then be cleaning every speck of dust out of his room.

I still don’t agree that it is harmful for candidates to read opinion pieces like this. This article is one man’s opinion, just like what I have posted is one woman’s opinion, just like every post here is one person’s opinion. Candidates should go into the academy with their eyes open – it is a great place to learn leadership and the opportunities the cadets get are amazing, but it is not a perfect place. Leadership at West Point is always trying to improve how they prepare young men and women to be officers. The way things are done there has evolved over time and will continue to evolve. I believe this is a good thing.

 

[TheKnight]

As a cadet candidate getting ready to report for R-day on the 28th I can't say I wasn't disheartened by the article. If for no other reason than the fact that I found the article to be ridiculous.

The core of the Major's argument seemed to lie in the "useless" regulations that Cadets are expected to adhere to while at USMA.

I cannot speak for the military because I am not in the military. However, as I have been deeply involved in law enforcement for the last 3 years I cannot possibly disagree more. Strict adherence to "minute" details and regulations builds an attention to detail.

I have no combat experience in the current war, however from the descriptions I have heard of it from those who have been in it, the playing field is much like that which many Law Enforcement officers face.

An urban warfare environment where the enemy is nearly indistinguishable from the average civilian and uses tactics meant for causing fear and terror in the civilian population closely resembles the way gangs (especially major gangs) operate in their local communities. Terror organizations, like gangs, operate in an attempt to stay under the radar of the officials that are trying to stop them from their criminal activities.

One of the many ways to combat the enemy in situations like this is intense attention to detail. There are some who believe that certain "non-essential" rules and details should not be enforced upon the newly initiated. However, I have personally seen the affects that such lowering of standards has had on law enforcement and can only imagine the affect it might have in the military.

While I believe in strict attention to detail, I also realize that it must be accompanied by a comprehensive training system which incorporates attention to detail into real-life scenarios. Attention to minor details is not the end goal and will not end in success, but will aid a person who has to look at a situation and make a decision as far as what needs to be done. In addition to that, it is necessary to have a staff that knows the specific purpose for the attention to detail and who can show the newly initiated how those details come into play.

As I said in the beginning, I've never had combat experience and do not (yet) have first hand experience of the training given at West Point. However, based on what I read in that article, and my experience with similar systems, I simply do not believe that what the Major is saying is accurate, although I could be wrong.

ETA: I wanted to comment on the idea of there not being enough military training. I have learned, during my short time as an instructor in an academy, that "real life scenario" training isn't necessary in the beginning of training. It must come at some point, but first there must be a foundation as far as concepts. In our academy before we taught the recruits specifically about law enforcement tactics, we made them learn to stand at attention, stand still, look straight forward, keep their fists tight, ensure their uniforms were absolutely flawless (which they never were), sound off whenever they talk, move with a purpose, don't make excuses etc.

We taught them commands that they had to use to get from one place to another (even if where they were going was only a few feet). There were an amazing amount of minor details and seemingly routines that we made them go through. Why? Because standing at attention with your eyes straight forward helps to develop your ability to use peripheral vision (which is helpful in law enforcement where a criminal might come up to you from an angle where you normally couldn't see), standing still when they want to move teaches them to not let their bodies take control in a stressful situation (like when an instructor is yelling at you) when their bodies might want to give up or do something outside of what needs to be done, keeping their fists tight strengthened their grips, ensuring their uniform appearance both A) ensured they would look presentable (which is important in law enforcement) and B) they would learn to notice minor details in clothing appearance (which can be practical when looking for people based off of clothing descriptions alone). We eventually got to the actual field training stuff, but not before we taught them a foundation. And despite the fact that many see the details as stupid and unnecessary in the beginning, out of the 500 or so recruits I'd trained in the last three years, I have never had a single one come back and say that they found all the stupid rules and routines unnecessary.

The only reason I could find for anyone making such a statement, would be because they rarely went out and attempted to use the skills we gave them.

Anyways, that's just my 2 cents.

 

[Christcorp]

I'll admit that I didn't read this entire thread, so it's possible that what I'm about to ask, has already been addressed.

I read the author's letter in the first post. Is he saying that the army has CHANGED the way they train their cadets? Meaning, have they changed the way they've been doing it for decades/generations?

If not, then where's the problem? Is he saying that times have changed, the newer generation has changed, basic warfare has changed, and the army hasn't changed it's methods to keep up? If so, I have to disagree. Yes, the younger generations have changed comparatively to mine and earlier generations. But that doesn't mean the army is wrong for not changing their training methods. I believe that discipline is the "KEY" to an effective military. And that discipline includes trust. Part of that discipline and trust is folding your socks/underwear a certain way. Maintaining your room a certain way. Shining your shoes a certain way. Learning the bureaucracy of the military. Many of the things that today's cadets think are stupid and a waste of time. There were plenty of things I did in Basic Training that I thought were useless and a waste of time. However, years later, they made sense. To be honest, I don't expect to many cadets or newly commissioned butter-bars to believe that it was useful. But as time goes on, they will see the fruits of that discipline.

Yes, we want a military whereby the individuals can think for themselves and be able to adapt to new and changing situations. And guess what? That's what we'll have. We've had these types of officers and enlisted men/women for hundreds of years. And they did it with similar training that they've had for generations.

Now I too have had the opportunity to train many military men/women. I've seen the training methods change over the years. Some, I agree with; some not. But the concept of regulations, rules, standards, and supposed wasteful tasks that the original writer complains about, I consider to be good. Many might think that today's generation is "Better" than past generations. That they are innately smarter and more capable. Guess what? They aren't. They are the same as generations before them. They just appear to be more capable; but that's do to modern technologies that allow tasks to be done quicker and with less effort. But the maturity level and need for discipline hasn't changed. In many cases, I would say that today's generation is at a disadvantage because they don't have the discipline, respect for authority, rules and regulations, and guidance that past generations had. A prime example, (And I really don't care if you want to disagree with me), is the 16 year old California girl who recently attempted to sail around the world by herself. Her parents can rationalize all they want that she's an experienced sailor, but it was very irresponsible of her parents to say: "Sure honey, we support you. Have a nice trip". But when a 16 year old tells her parents that she wants to sail around the world, and however it transpired, she convinces her parents to support her; that tells me that the young lady has been allowed to basically do anything she's wanted to do most of her life. A parent and a child doesn't go from authoritative, with rules and boundaries, to one day: "Sure honey, have a nice trip around the world". Would you just let your 16 year old jump on a plane to go to europe by themselves for a couple months in the summer? Probably not. You'd probably at the very minimum, require that they were going with someone else and not alone.

Point is, I would like to know if the writer is implying that the army hasn't "Changed with the times" (Which I am NOT ALL FOR), or if they believe the army has gotten away from the discipline, rules, regulations, and instilling conformity as they use to. I read into it that he thinks they NEED to change with the times. Sorry, but the army and other branches of the military have been effectively training individuals for generations, decades, and centuries. Just because newer generations are "Different" than past generations, doesn't mean this difference is "BETTER". I'm for teaching the discipline, rules, regulations, and most of the other things that many consider to be a waste of time. When you wake up one day, years later, and realize WHY all those stupid things you did now make sense, you'll appreciate it.

But as for actual academic courses, I am all for providing more up to date information and more relevant courses.