West Point Failing To Prepare Tomorrow's Officers

[pedro4]

Nonsense

The idea that the academy is not addressing the reality of the new forms of combat is malarkey. How many cadets studied Arabic or Pashtun twenty years ago? How many studied cyber warfare? How many had sessions addressing PTSD, suicide prevention, stress management?

And to say that the cadets do the minimum to graduate is equally fallacious. The cadets I have met are taking advantage of many opportunities to further their training. They had at least eight lunchtime announcements in the mess hall describing fallen grads this year. And the assumption is that they are not serious about preparing for their first posting? Give me a break.

This summer the cadets are at airborne, air assault, Buckner, beast, overseas postings, etc...and they are full time college students. We have the most educated military in history, so should we cancel class and do more mud crawling? And attract a lower grade of cadet? I don't see the Ivy League as a source of top flight talent for the military, so where else will we get a potential officer with exceptional intelligence?

I guess we will see these types of articles for many years. I for one believe that the academies are adjusting as best they can, and getting in front of the future challenges that our military face.

 

[nick4060]

I just spent almost a half-hour reading this entire thread and I have to say, I wish I could get it back. Seriously, what's the issue? This thread was posted in the wrong sub-forum and has been moved to the proper one. Shouldn't that be the end of it.

Why did it dissolve into a five-page argument between people measuring the sizes of their *****. Since joining this forum when I was in high school, I've noticed more and more of the threads turning into similar situations.

Isnt the purpose of this forum to simply allow open discussion about service academies, rotc, and the military? Everyone from a high school kid, to a parent, to an active duty service member should be able to post an opinion without it getting personal. That's why I got interested and stayed with this forum for so long...because I could get so many different perspectives.

But lately it seems like its getting harder and harder to NOT offend anyone here.

 

[scoutpilot]

But lately it seems like its getting harder and harder to NOT offend anyone here.

Again, while I don't agree with the article, I'm not debating this officer's right to say such things. I think he is long on claims and short on evidentiary support, but this article is politics and that's mostly how politics works.

The issue, from the beginning, was the intent behind the posting of the article and where it was posted.

 

[Zaphod]

I read the article quickly, just to get the gist. As for the location of the original post: Well, the new cadets will live.

To begin, I think the Major makes some good points. I am one that believes that the Service Academies concentrate too much on "feel-good" stuff or other requirements that really don't apply to the future role the Cadets and Midshipmen will be filling.

For example, what is the purpose of chopping at the Naval Academy? What about bracing? It's STUPID, and teaches future leaders a good deal of contempt for their juniors rather than what they SHOULD be learning, sometimes with horrible results.

I am not intimately familiar with the Sandhurst model, but from what I understand, I think the best route overall would be to move the Service Academies closer to that model while still retaining the broad-based education currently being given. Ditch some of the BS humanities courses (after all, what's new in English Literature these days?) and get some REAL training in.

And if chopping is meant to improve physical conditioning, then just get them (and the firsties, since they will be in the fleet in less than a year) out onto the roads in the morning as a UNIT.

One thing I had to question, however was this tidbit:

Why West Point and not some other institution? Simply put, there is no other place in the entire military establishment where such a perfect combination of resources exists. West Point combines the youthful energy of four thousand talented, committed cadets with the practical wisdom of a predominately military faculty, most having just returned from combat tours overseas. Add to this a strong contingent of civilian academics and the legacy of two hundred years of military history, and the potential for electrifying discourse is overwhelming.

Newsflash, Major: there are four other places where such a perfect combination of resources exists. One of them has been kicking your ass in football annually for years.

 

[scoutpilot]

Newsflash, Major: there are four other places where such a perfect combination of resources exists. One of them has been kicking your ass in football annually for years.

Are you sure? I think the discirminating factor is the "the practical wisdom of a predominately military faculty, most having just returned from combat tours overseas."

I don't know for sure that all of the other academies meet that criteria or have that at their disposal. From a leadership standpoint, the WP faculty is especially strong since a pre-req to be a military instructor at WP is the successful completion of a company command.

Note: this is not an attempt to disparage the other academies or pick a fight, but simply to point out structural differences and discuss them.

 

[Zaphod]

Are you sure? I think the discirminating factor is the "the practical wisdom of a predominately military faculty, most having just returned from combat tours overseas."

USAFA, USNA, and USMMA all have officers that have served in combat overseas. USAF and USN have been flying combat missions since the day the twoers fell. The Marines landed in Afghanistan first (well, behind the SEALs, as usual), and Officers from USMC and USN are at USMMA. USCGA may have some, too, and at any rate they certainly have officers with tons of experience in combat against the stupidity of the average American boater.

My point is that the Major painted with WAY too broad a brush in that statement.

 

[scoutpilot]

USAFA, USNA, and USMMA all have officers that have served in combat overseas. USAF and USN have been flying combat missions since the day the twoers fell. The Marines landed in Afghanistan first (well, behind the SEALs, as usual), and Officers from USMC and USN are at USMMA. USCGA may have some, too, and at any rate they certainly have officers with tons of experience in combat against the stupidity of the average American boater.

My point is that the Major painted with WAY too broad a brush in that statement.

You mean behind the Rangers and 5th SF Group and CAG and the CIA

I think the big discriminator in his statement is "majority." I absolutely agree with your point about the presence of faculty officers at other academies, but are they the majority, and if they are, are the majority of them combat veterans? Assuming that we do want to create such an "intellectual hub" of warfighting, his point about the WP faculty makes some degree of sense.

Despite my love for aviators (obviously), the ideas he wants to see discussed and taught have little to do with "combat missions" as defined by the Air Force and Navy fixed-wing communities, though Army and Marine helicopter pilots could probably offer something. I think fighter pilots are super cool, but the lessons learned probably wouldn't translate so well to the COIN discussion and "present war" curriculum this major espouses. But then again, an F-16 once gave me a great laser spot for a hellfire, so there may be some good value there as well. The bigger issue to decipher is what sort of discourse he thinks needs to go on. It sounds to me like he's unclear. His complaints seem focused on the tactical side, but the discourse he seeks seems as though it would tend toward the operational and strategic sides. It's as though he's found a hole in the dam, but the plug he offers might well end up being too big.

Of course, the whole thing is predicated on buying his premise...which I generally don't.

 

[Zaphod]

You mean behind the Rangers and 5th SF Group and CAG and the CIA

Not to hear the Army tell it after the Gyreens had landed!

I think the big discriminator in his statement is "majority." I absolutely agree with your point about the presence of faculty officers at other academies, but are they the majority, and if they are, are the majority of them combat veterans? Assuming that we do want to create such an "intellectual hub" of warfighting, his point about the WP faculty makes some degree of sense.

I don't have the numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised to discover that all the Service Academies are staffed by approximately the same percentage of officers as civilians. The other thing is are the best officers assigned to the best "professional" courses. After all, I had more than one officer teaching things like Statics, Dynamics, and Calculus rather than Seamanship, Navigation, and Leadership.

I think that in order to do what the Major seems to be suggesting (or at least the part I agree with him on) is to change the curriculum to a more profession-oriented one, and then staff those teaching positions with the best and brightest from the Officer Corps.

Despite my love for aviators (obviously), the ideas he wants to see discussed and taught have little to do with "combat missions" as defined by the Air Force and Navy fixed-wing communities, though Army and Marine helicopter pilots could probably offer something. I think fighter pilots are super cool, but the lessons learned probably wouldn't translate so well to the COIN discussion and "present war" curriculum this major espouses. But then again, an F-16 once gave me a great laser spot for a hellfire, so there may be some good value there as well. The bigger issue to decipher is what sort of discourse he thinks needs to go on. It sounds to me like he's unclear. His complaints seem focused on the tactical side, but the discourse he seeks seems as though it would tend toward the operational and strategic sides. It's as though he's found a hole in the dam, but the plug he offers might well end up being too big.

Well, I agree wholeheartedly that lessons learned by a SF Captain leading his boys through the wire to slit some Taliban throats will not be so applicable to a squadron of fighters providing CAS, but each Service still has its role, and each Service Academy should work toward that goal. USAFA would teach air tactics and what it means to the guys on the ground, while West Point deals with what happens on the ground, and so forth.

The hairy one there would be USNA teaching USN and USMC, because we are unique in that we cover so many different facets. From Special Operations to Armored Brigades all the way up to the Nuclear Triad and even into space, you'll find graduates from USNA. How the Academy adjusts the curriculum to take that into account would be a fascinating study.

Of course, the whole thing is predicated on buying his premise...which I generally don't.

Meh. Some is good, some is hogwash. That's life.

 

[LineInTheSand]

USCGA may have some, too,

Yes, and some who have been to the Middle East for two different wars.

 

[Zaphod]

Yes, and some who have been to the Middle East for two different wars.

Doesn't surprise me in the slightest. I bet it's chock-full of folks who have been in on some nasty recues, big drug busts, and the like.

Those lessons can be shaped for the Cadets at USCGA just as easily as Midway is shaped at USNA.

 

[scoutpilot]

Not to hear the Army tell it after the Gyreens had landed!

I'll admit, I don't really know what you mean by that. If you mean they were the first CONVENTIONAL unit in Afghanistan, they were. But the nature of our military process now means that conventional forces are often staged secondarily when it comes to invading, and in this case the credit goes to ODAs from 5th SF Group (led by ODA 595, whose commander is now doing MUCH bigger things) and 3rd Ranger BN on 19 October. The Marines, to their credit, made excellent use of their forward deployed capabilities and entered the country in November.

However, my niggling hangups with historical errata and service pride aside, I think we're agreeing on most things. I think we'd be hard pressed to find much evidence that our service academies are not doing an outstanding job across the board.

But, you just can't please everyone. His points are food for thought, though I think if I was in a position of prominence, I would want to see some real evidence of the supposed failure of WP to train these future officers before I was too worried. As many have pointed out, there have been some great changes over the last 9 years.

 

[scoutpilot]

Yes, and some who have been to the Middle East for two different wars.

Nobody is questioning their existence, as far as I know, but for the type of discourse this major is proposing (COIN, low-intensity, a 21st-century RMA), he sees that best occurring at a place where those folks are the majority.

I thought I saw someone hanging Fowler out to dry for the number of civilian instructors at USNA in another thread. Is there any truth to that?

 

[Zaphod]

I'll admit, I don't really know what you mean by that.

Just yankin' your chain. I remember their being some embarassed Army types when the Marines landed hundreds of miles inland first. As to who was REALLY there first (in terms of SPECOPS), I guess we'll know that for sure when we're dead.

I think we'd be hard pressed to find much evidence that our service academies are not doing an outstanding job across the board.

I agree completely.

 

[Zaphod]

We all know that the Marine Corps never deploys without their Journalistic brethren and press corps in tow.....as such Newspapers around the country show that the Marines were In AFGHANISTAN first.

Ooooooooooooooh crap!

 

[scoutpilot]

Ooooooooooooooh crap!

Well, that's what my grandfather said about the Marines in Korea...a camera on every hilltop

 

[Zaphod]

Fight! Fight!

 

[scoutpilot]

Somehow I don't think he was serious with that Afghanistan remark

 

[Zaphod]

Warning:

If anyone reading from post 51 through this post and find themselves taking it seriously…..Maybe you should have your reality checked to see if you are sane!

Someone is taking us seriously?

Has the world gone THAT mad?

 

[Just_A_Mom]

I don't have the numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised to discover that all the Service Academies are staffed by approximately the same percentage of officers as civilians. The other thing is are the best officers assigned to the best "professional" courses. After all, I had more than one officer teaching things like Statics, Dynamics, and Calculus rather than Seamanship, Navigation, and Leadership.

I don't think so. IIRC the Naval Academy has many more civilian professors than West Point. The Naval Academy also offers tenure to their civilian professors and West Point does not.
This is a key difference between the two educational systems. Both using this difference to their 'advantage' as to why they are 'better'.

I also just remembered - the Academic Dean at USNA is a civilian while at West Point it's always Military and a terminal assignment.

 

[Just_A_Mom]

Okay, I looked it up.
According to USNA their faculty breakdown is 600 total faculty and divided 50/50 between civilian and military.
According to West Point their faculty breakdown is 62% rotating military, 21% civilian and 17% senior military. Senior military are normally O-4's or O-5's who have advanced degrees (PhD's) and remain at West Point for the remainder of their military career.