USMA now has it's own version of USNA's Bruce Fleming

[jl123]

The Cost of Loyalty: Dishonesty, Hubris, and Failure in the U.S. Military Hardcover – February 18, 2020
by Tim Bakken

A courageous and damning look at the destruction wrought by the arrogance, incompetence, and duplicity prevalent in the U.S. military-from the inside perspective of a West Point professor of law.

I read a summary of the book in a magazine article - a vehement trashing of USMA and the Army. Some good points, but most of the problems that he asserts are the fault of USMA and the Army are actually the result of civilian government decisions; The Army does not decide where and when it fights and does not approve its own budget.

He is also pretty fast and loose with evidence. Two examples:

• USMA admissions lies about the acceptance rate to boost rankings. He claims the actual acceptance rate is 56% because only full qualified and nominated applications should be counted - a deception easily identified by anyone who has read this forum.
• In 2017 four vital courses were dropped from the core requirement: Math, English, Philosophy, and Military History. Huh?? Try telling cadets that they only imagined taking those courses.

 

[parent]

IMHO Fleming has some great points and I am sure this author does too.

 

[Wishful]

Hardcover, huh...That seems to be a leap of faith.

 

[Day-Tripper]

The Cost of Loyalty: Dishonesty, Hubris, and Failure in the U.S. Military Hardcover – February 18, 2020
by Tim Bakken

A courageous and damning look at the destruction wrought by the arrogance, incompetence, and duplicity prevalent in the U.S. military-from the inside perspective of a West Point professor of law.

I read a summary of the book in a magazine article - a vehement trashing of USMA and the Army. Some good points, but most of the problems that he asserts are the fault of USMA and the Army are actually the result of civilian government decisions; The Army does not decide where and when it fights and does not approve its own budget.

He is also pretty fast and loose with evidence. Two examples:

• USMA admissions lies about the acceptance rate to boost rankings. He claims the actual acceptance rate is 56% because only full qualified and nominated applications should be counted - a deception easily identified by anyone who has read this forum.
• In 2017 four vital courses were dropped from the core requirement: Math, English, Philosophy, and Military History. Huh?? Try telling cadets that they only imagined taking those courses.

Reading it now - almost finished.

Surprisingly, Tim Bakken remains an active professor at West Point!

He points out that US has lost the four major wars it has fought post-WW2:

KOREA
VIETNAM
AFGHANISTAN
IRAQ

I disagree. South Korea is the 11th richest country in the world, featuring a vibrant economy, 40 million citizens, great healthcare, high-tech, excellent transportation, education, etc. All rooted in the US war effort of 1950-1953 & continued support ever since. The vibrant society of South Korea would not exist without the US military effort from 1950-to date.

Vietnam? A boondoggle. A disaster. A horror. From the Gulf of Tonkin to the evacuation of Saigon Embassy, nothing good. MyLai, fragging, draft dodging, drug abuse, race riots, etc. The Vietnam War witnessed the US military nearly fall apart in half a decade.

Afghanistan & Iraq? Yeah, he's probably right on those two also. After all the blood & treasure spent (wasted?) on those two wars can anyone reasonably expect that in 10 years there will be pro-US democracies in either one of those nations?

But were these defeats the blame of military leadership? Or political leadership? Or both. I found a lack of criticism of Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, etc. that was far more warranted than the huge amount of critique lambasted on US generals (though a lot of that was well deserved) in the 1965-1972 and 2001-present eras. William Westmoreland, Tommy Franks, Richard Meyers? Great evangelical Christians - lousy battlefield leaders.

Bakken makes a good point when comparing a sergeant found guilty of seual harrasment to a general ffound guilty oft the same thing. The E-5 will do time, lose rank, face bad discharge. The general will quietly retire, collect $200K/year pension with full benefits. No court martial. Rank, indeed, does have its benefits.

Bakken emphasizes that less than 1% of America serves in the military. Five states (California, Florida, North Carolina, Georgia & Virginia) contribute 40% of the active duty armed forces personnel. Not healthy.

Finally, the cost. Roughly $500K per graduate of the US military academies, compared with less expensive ROTC (probably $100K tops) and virtually non-cost OCS programs to generate a fresh 2nd lieutenant of ensign. Are ring-knockers really better officers than ROTC/OCS? Are they 5 times better officers?

It's not a perfect book, but certainly worth the read.

 

[MemberLG]

I decided not to bother with the book, not because I disagree with certain points made by Professor Bakken, rather as a scholar he should publish a scholarly book, not a gossip.

If I want gossip or opinions, I can just read this forum. Some of the forum members make better arguments than Professor Bakken (assuming excerpts and reviews are correct).

According to his profile https://www.westpoint.edu/law/profile/tim_bakken, his expertise is law, not military. I can't value a West Point law professor's opinion on the Army/West Point. For example, my understanding is that USNA's professor Fleming served on their admissions committee. If Professor Bakken never served on USMA admissions committee, he only has limit sample (cadets he teaches and interact with). It's like me writing a book about how screwed up lawyers are based on my limited dealings with lawyers. Our military is not perfect and we have many faults, but anyone knows any perfect organization, let me know.

I am more than happy to discuss with anyone about Professor Bakken's points based on facts first.

We should be careful about how or what we discuss as some of old members have additional knowledge/experience to digest what he wrote, but a high school junior might just accept Professor Bakken's thesis and think West Point is not for him/her.

 

[OldRetSWO]

For example, my understanding is that USNA's professor Fleming served on their admissions committee.

For one year (allegedly) but he makes claims that BGOs and others close to the process do not see and have not seen.
Further, much of his rhetoric comes from a belief that USNA must be a pure meritocracy based on academics alone. Never mind any affirmative action or potentially great leaders found in the fleet, his way is ONE RECIPE for all and it is pure academics.

 

[jl123]

......Finally, the cost. Roughly $500K per graduate of the US military academies, compared with less expensive ROTC (probably $100K tops)......

I'm not sure these figures or this ratio are correct and this is the biggest problem I have with Bakken - his evidence is questionable:

1. An appropriate comparison is between the cost of commissioning through USMA and ROTC Scholarship programs.
2. The Army commissions about 6,000 officers per year including about 1,000 from USMA and 2,000 with ROTC Scholarships. Therefore, about half of all officers commission through a system with high incentives and greater service obligations. It is unlikely the Army could recruit the number and quality of officers required through OCS, non-scholarship ROTC, etc.
3. The cost of an officer commissioned through USMA is closer to $300,000 - $400, 000 (US General Accounting Office estimated $300,000 several years ago). About half of this is military training - a necessary cost regardless of commissioning source, except OCS which is too small to realistically make up the difference in numbers.
4. I don't have figures for the ROTC Scholarship program but, when all costs are included it will be far more than $100,000: tuition, stipends, military training, etc. It doesn't cost any more to put a West Point Cadet through airborne school or CTLT than it does an ROTC Cadet.

In a country with a voluntary military the 99% who are unwilling to serve must pay for the willing 1%.

 

[MemberLG]

Are ring-knockers really better officers than ROTC/OCS? Are they 5 times better officers?

No, but the cost is a secondary matter. If the cost is a primary consideration, why not force promising young soldiers to attend OCS, or only fund ROTC program at state universities? Is a ROTC grad from Duke say three times better than in state NC state ROTC grad?

The Congress can eliminate service academies. I don‘t think they will.

p.s. In my 25 years of military service, never met a ring-knocker, as knocking his or her ring to signal the wearer is a West Point grad.

 

[Day-Tripper]

I decided not to bother with the book, not because I disagree with certain points made by Professor Bakken, rather as a scholar he should publish a scholarly book, not a gossip.

If I want gossip or opinions, I can just read this forum. Some of the forum members make better arguments than Professor Bakken (assuming excerpts and reviews are correct).

According to his profile https://www.westpoint.edu/law/profile/tim_bakken, his expertise is law, not military. I can't value a West Point law professor's opinion on the Army/West Point. For example, my understanding is that USNA's professor Fleming served on their admissions committee. If Professor Bakken never served on USMA admissions committee, he only has limit sample (cadets he teaches and interact with). It's like me writing a book about how screwed up lawyers are based on my limited dealings with lawyers. Our military is not perfect and we have many faults, but anyone knows any perfect organization, let me know.

I am more than happy to discuss with anyone about Professor Bakken's points based on facts first.

We should be careful about how or what we discuss as some of old members have additional knowledge/experience to digest what he wrote, but a high school junior might just accept Professor Bakken's thesis and think West Point is not for him/her.

Dwight Eisenhower, when president of the United States, reacted to Senator Joseph McCarthy's call for the banning of "communist" literature by saying there's no such thing as as a book that shouldn't be read. Whether or not one agrees with that book, or considers it good or bad, is up to the individual. That's what separated the Free World from the Communist World, in Ike's eyes. That freedom was not a weakness, as Senator "Tail Gunner" Joe McCarthy believed, but a strength. I'll take Ike over Joe McCarthy anyday.

During a barracks inspection at Camp Kinser, Okinawa in April 1986 my company commander (a 23 year old lieutenant) noticed I had a paperback biography of Vladimir Lenin on my nightstand beside my rack. "Where in the hell did you get this, Lance Corporal?" he demanded, on the cusp of rage. "Base library, sir." was my respectful response. He was completely taken aback, in disbelief that a library on a US Marine Corps base could have such objectionable literature (the book was actually pretty critical of Lenin & the Bolsheviks.) I almost told him that "Mein Kampf" was also available but I'd just gotten off of a month of Mess Duty & didn't want to repeat that hell. On the other hand, I doubted of the lieutenant would have known what that book was. Or anything about the author. The company 1st Sgt was behind the lieutenant (a respected father-figure of an NCS, two tours in Vietnam in his resume, probably an absolutely ancient 38 years old) rolling his eyes in unspoken disgust.

However, I agree with your premise about writing a book completely critical of the US Armed Forces based on nothing more than observations made as a professor at West Point. Bakken has the absolute right to author that book, without fear of professional retaliation, but I retain the right to agree or disagree upon finishing the 450 page tome. That Mr. Bakken remains a professor at West Point speaks loudly about the 1st Amendment freedom of the press.

The book is worth the read (public library check-out puts no cash into the author's bank account). Some points are salient. Some are outright wrong. Everyone should make up their own mind.

 

[THParent]

...public library check-out puts no cash into the author's bank account...

It's a win-win.

 

[From A Family of Enlisted]

• USMA admissions lies about the acceptance rate to boost rankings. He claims the actual acceptance rate is 56% because only full qualified and nominated applications should be counted - a deception easily identified by anyone who has read this forum.

Can anyone explain this "deception." Technically this is true as only fully qualified and nominated applicants are considered for appointments.

 

[Day-Tripper]

Can anyone explain this "deception." Technically this is true as only fully qualified and nominated applicants are considered for appointments.

Here's the deception: anyone who starts an application to West Point (and, I guess USNA & USAFA) are considered applicants even if they never got further in the application process. Makes West Point, etc. seem like Harvard, Princeton, Yale, MIT, etc. in their low acceptance rate.

The author makes the point that everyone who REALLY pursues full application process has roughly 50% chance of acceptance, much like a state college.

True or not? I dunno.

 

[A1Janitor]

So let’s say Harvard adds a medical requirement and a physical requirement to get in. How many of the 40,000 applicants would be fully qualified? Would their percentages need to be adjusted?

Apples and oranges.

I suspect a large number of applicants to SA are academically qualified. And many of the ones who aren’t 3Q were medically DQ’d or failed CFA. Does Harvard subtract out of their 40k applicants the one who aren’t qualified?

 

[MemberLG]

Here's the deception: anyone who starts an application to West Point (and, I guess USNA & USAFA) are considered applicants even if they never got further in the application process. Makes West Point, etc. seem like Harvard, Princeton, Yale, MIT, etc. in their low acceptance rate.

The author makes the point that everyone who REALLY pursues full application process has roughly 50% chance of acceptance, much like a state college.

True or not? I dunno.

It is statistically true that fully qualified candidates with nominations have about 50% chance of acceptance. But as A1Janitor pointed out that other colleges don't require medical or physical. On a side note, West Point won't allow non-competitive candidates to go beyond the initial stage to complete the application. Being a FFR for 15 years, I have known plenty of candidates that would have completed their application, although their chance of acceptance was zero. I am not aware of colleges not allowing students not complete their application.

Perhaps Professor Bakken did, but my guess is no as to apply some scholarly considerations and footnotes to account for difference in how each college considered "applied" when they report their acceptance rate. If Professor Bakken did not considered how acceptance rate was calculated and didn't explain it in his book, it's highly likely that he reached his conclusions before writing the book and just found some related facts to support his conclusion.

A college professor I know told me that his school accounts Request for Information as "applied." Keep in mind, service academy applicants have to be US citizens. Yes there are foreign cadets, but their numbers are typically less than 20 a year. How about not accepting Common application affects application rate.

 

[jl123]

Can anyone explain this "deception." Technically this is true as only fully qualified and nominated applicants are considered for appointments.

It is not even technically true. All applicants are considered for appointment until they are found unqualified or the class is full. This is consistent with the methodology of universities nationwide. To count only fully qualified and nominated candidates as applicants would grossly overstate the acceptance rate, and give applicants a false impression of their chances of appointment.

• All colleges count as applicants anyone who submits an application, not just those that are found to meet the academic standards set by the college.
• Most colleges immediately reject an applicant whose test scores or other objective criteria are deemed too low. Those applications are still counted toward the total number of applicants.
• In a briefing I attended, the Director of Admissions of an elite university stated, "There are far too many applications for us to read all of them. We have to set cut-offs and reject those below the cut-off without further review." Those applications are still counted in reported numbers.
• A small number of colleges read every application at least once. For example, Yale hires numerous readers during the application season. Then after a 2 - 3 minute read, those deemed unqualified are immediately rejected, but still counted as applicants.