What's your take on CIET

Interesting article regarding CST written by a Captain who worked there this year.

http://taskandpurpose.com/2-major-o...ocial&utm_campaign=share&utm_content=tp-share


I was shocked to read this article written by an active duty officer. Is an active duty officer permitted to make this type of public criticism of the Army? I am long term civilian gov't employee. Civilian gov't employees are not permitted to use their official title in any publication without authorization and some official purpose. There are many available channels to report mismanagement, misconduct, abuse etc. but publishing an article is not permitted in civilian gov't agencies. I can't imagine that we would want every soldier or officer making public comments everytime they are not happy about something in the Army.
 
Interesting article regarding CST written by a Captain who worked there this year.

http://taskandpurpose.com/2-major-o...ocial&utm_campaign=share&utm_content=tp-share


I was shocked to read this article written by an active duty officer. Is an active duty officer permitted to make this type of public criticism of the Army? I am long term civilian gov't employee. Civilian gov't employees are not permitted to use their official title in any publication without authorization and some official purpose. There are many available channels to report mismanagement, misconduct, abuse etc. but publishing an article is not permitted in civilian gov't agencies. I can't imagine that we would want every soldier or officer making public comments everytime they are not happy about something in the Army.

Interestingly enough, I didn't think it was overly critical in a condescending manner. As a matter of fact, I was kind of wondering to myself "I wonder what he'd REALLY like to say" if he wasn't active duty. The author was at CLC with the same regiment as my son but with a different battalion. I had my son read the article and he pretty much concurred with what the author had to say but added what the Army really needs is to get rid of the "buddy, buddy" and "who you know" program so that they can cut loose ineffective leaders without getting any kickback from above. As I mentioned in the past with my experience is a large police department for (3) decades, "political correctness" is destroying us from the inside out.
 
In one of the comments attached to the article a person comments that his only problem is that the authors plan would take up 3 summers for training. I do not see this as a bad thing if you are truly wanting to become an army officer. He also comments on CULP and internships.

I do not understand why CULP is being touted as such an important thing. To the individuals participating in CULP it may seam like a bonus, but what exactly is the army getting out of it. I'm sure many of the CULP attendees go on to serve in their states NG. And how many CULP attendees to Africa actually get stationed in Africa during their military career. (these are just used as examples not aimed at anyone specific)

It just seems to me that those funds and time could be better spent into doing the training suggest by the author or something similiar to really create officers that are military minded. That mindset of situational awareness and problem solving would then benefit them into their civilian careers.
 
I agree with your comments and my best guess overall after thinking about this a little more is the Army is counting on an extensive BOLC being the actual training phase where the cadets, who will then be 2LT's, truly "learn" the skill's needed to lead a platoon. I know the Infantry BOLC is 17 weeks now and rumors are they want to push it to 19. That's (4) entire months of focused training.
 
I agree with your comments and my best guess overall after thinking about this a little more is the Army is counting on an extensive BOLC being the actual training phase where the cadets, who will then be 2LT's, truly "learn" the skill's needed to lead a platoon. I know the Infantry BOLC is 17 weeks now and rumors are they want to push it to 19. That's (4) entire months of focused training.

That is true, and that is what DS has been told. ROTC is just a door opener, they will learn what they need for their specific branch at BOLC, even NG and reserve officers attend the same BOLC as AD. DS will attend Engineering BOLC which is 19 weeks broken into 5 different aspects, one of which is essentially infantry platoon leadership.

k2rider I pm'd you
 
Last edited:
Interesting article regarding CST written by a Captain who worked there this year.

http://taskandpurpose.com/2-major-o...ocial&utm_campaign=share&utm_content=tp-share


I was shocked to read this article written by an active duty officer. Is an active duty officer permitted to make this type of public criticism of the Army? I am long term civilian gov't employee. Civilian gov't employees are not permitted to use their official title in any publication without authorization and some official purpose. There are many available channels to report mismanagement, misconduct, abuse etc. but publishing an article is not permitted in civilian gov't agencies. I can't imagine that we would want every soldier or officer making public comments everytime they are not happy about something in the Army.
I didn't read this so much as public criticism, rather as a critical assessment similar to an after action report. I expect he sent this article up the CoC and was encouraged to publish it. I've read such articles in military oriented publications all the time. Officers are encouraged to publish and make recommendations. I saw nothing wrong with the article and it was, in fact, very professionally written. This is how organizations improve, and the Army is free to accept his recommendations, reject them, or investigate them further.
 
The point of CULP is not to teach cadets about one culture that they'll never encounter again, but to give them experience adapting to new cultures/people/ideas, a skill that would be useful no matter where they're stationed.

I totally agree.

I also believe that CULP is as much for our cadets as it is for the host countries. Host countries get a chance to interact with our military (even if they are cadets) without the baggage of any geopolitical conflict that usually accompanies when our military "Visits" different countries. I think there is a as much of a take away for our cadets as there is for the host countries. Building bridges (and not because we just blew up the old ones) is always a good idea.
 
In one of the comments attached to the article a person comments that his only problem is that the authors plan would take up 3 summers for training. I do not see this as a bad thing if you are truly wanting to become an army officer. He also comments on CULP and internships.

I do not understand why CULP is being touted as such an important thing. To the individuals participating in CULP it may seam like a bonus, but what exactly is the army getting out of it. I'm sure many of the CULP attendees go on to serve in their states NG. And how many CULP attendees to Africa actually get stationed in Africa during their military career. (these are just used as examples not aimed at anyone specific)

It just seems to me that those funds and time could be better spent into doing the training suggest by the author or something similiar to really create officers that are military minded. That mindset of situational awareness and problem solving would then benefit them into their civilian careers.

CULP is pretty important. The U.S. is in operations on almost every continent working with various nations. The Army sees worth in exposing its future officers to working with allies prior to them doing it as officers. If funds were unlimited, there's a bunch of stuff we could add to ROTC to make cadets more prepared for the Army. But we all know that's not the case. Realistically, if a LT shows up to BOLC with little tactical training and with only a solid character and the determination to learn, they can be successful. (Don't take this as I don't see value in doing tactics in ROTC, complete opposite, but their are non-prior service OCS graduates who are doing fine with the little tactics experience they get from basic training.)

I read the article to be more of a lessons learned AAR than a critique.

Edit: and now that I saw the rest of the thread, everything I said had been covered.
 
I also meant to add that most LTs will work with allies during BOLC too. I had guys from 7 different countries in my BOLC class.
 
Points all taken on the CULP missions and I'm sure everyone's milage varies and is probably dependent as much on the host nations participation and the mission. Viewing it more as a public relations than ROTC training is not what I was doing.

DS's peers at his school that went on CULP said that basically it was a months vacation paid for, so even though it was kind of cool, most of them did not gain out of it what they thought they would. The cadets that went on CTLT, some of which went to Korea, came back with what they deemed a much more satisfying experience and gained a lot of knowledge.
 
DS graduated last Friday from CIET. Happy to be home. Kudos to Southwest Airlines for changing his flight so he would not need to wait at the aiprort for 4 extra hours and for bumping him to priority boarding. Being 6'5" makes it challanging to find comfortable seating on a plane. I digress...

DS heard a rumor about the possibility of making CIET 14 days, likely the summer between your MSI and MSII year.
His thought is it should be done the summer between your MSI and MSII year so as to help lay a good foundation for the next 3 years.
DS learned some things, practiced and honed some things he already knew.
Cadre for the most part was very cool.
I know this was not the case with all but he did have 2 full days of doing nothing except hanging around the barracks and napping and killing time.
He did say he has already been paid.
Overall he said it was a good experience but certainly could be shortened.
Ideally a cadets summer training schedule would look something like this...

CIET between MSI and MSII year ( Make it 14 days so the Army would only incur travel and RB). This may also weed out some of those deciding if ROTC is for them with minimal cost to the Army.
CULP between MSII and MSIII year ( this program has got to be expensive. As it stands right now an MSI could do CULP with all of the perks that go with it and the day before school starts quit the program leaving the Army with nothing to show for their $5,000 summer "training".) For those not interested in CULP this time could be used for AB,AA or some other training if available.
CLC between MSIII and MSIV year also CTLT or specilaized training/ Army internships.

Just my .02 cents.
 
My son was told the year he did CULP in Guyana that is was costing $50K per cadet....presumably most of that is "aid" to the government
 
CULP is probably pretty expensive, I don't know exact figures, but $50k is not unreasonable for some of the trips.

CULP is also a priority initiative from much higher than USACC so eliminating it to allow for other training is not something they can just decide to do on their own. And from what I've seen its great exposure, though trips vary by country and cadre. In today's environment experience with foreign militaries is a plus and arguably better than airborne or air assault, professionally, unless you're headed to that type of unit.
 
CULP is probably pretty expensive, I don't know exact figures, but $50k is not unreasonable for some of the trips.

CULP is also a priority initiative from much higher than USACC so eliminating it to allow for other training is not something they can just decide to do on their own. And from what I've seen its great exposure, though trips vary by country and cadre. In today's environment experience with foreign militaries is a plus and arguably better than airborne or air assault, professionally, unless you're headed to that type of unit.

I would not necessarily agree with you. By professionally I take it you are referring to military profession since you mention dealing with other countries military. If you go to and pass Air Assault or AirBorne then that stays with you your entire military career. CULP only shows up on your resume' to help bolster your ROTC OML score.

Also, not every CULP trip is involved directly with foreign military. First hand knowledge of a cadet that went to Eastern Europe and the military unit he was supposed to be with was on vacation, yes vacation. So he spent some of his time digging some irrigation ditches and the rest of his time playing tourist and visiting museums. I believe someone else on here mentioned a CULP trip that got diverted due to the Russian presence and ended up in another country with that countries equivalent of National Guard and they had no idea what to due with said cadet.

If indeed every CULP trip was to deal directly with foreign military then I might see it differently.
 
If you go to and pass Air Assault or AirBorne then that stays with you your entire military career. CULP only shows up on your resume' to help bolster your ROTC OML score.

I won't argue that there is room for discussion as to how CULP works and the degree of benefits. As far as the schools you listed your correct, they will be able to wear those badges for their entire career. The degree in which these schools benefit them will vary. Take my sons for example, one went to Airborne, the other went to Winter Mountain Warfare and CDQC, both have branched aviation. The biggest benefit both received was points on their OML, other then that neither of these schools benefit them in their branch. Unless your branch requires the school, the only real benefit is that they have more to put on their uniform.

Granted these schools offer a challenge and are a great experience, but unless you use that training in your branch it really offers them no greater advantage then if they went to CULP.
 
If you go to and pass Air Assault or AirBorne then that stays with you your entire military career. CULP only shows up on your resume' to help bolster your ROTC OML score.

I won't argue that there is room for discussion as to how CULP works and the degree of benefits. As far as the schools you listed your correct, they will be able to wear those badges for their entire career. The degree in which these schools benefit them will vary. Take my sons for example, one went to Airborne, the other went to Winter Mountain Warfare and CDQC, both have branched aviation. The biggest benefit both received was points on their OML, other then that neither of these schools benefit them in their branch. Unless your branch requires the school, the only real benefit is that they have more to put on their uniform.

Granted these schools offer a challenge and are a great experience, but unless you use that training in your branch it really offers them no greater advantage then if they went to CULP.

So as a point of discussion, since I am not military, soldier A and soldier B are equal in all aspects, but soldier A has been to Air Assault or let's say even Ranger or Sapper school since those were brought up on a different thread, and it is time to promote or retain one over the other, those schools don't mean anything? Keep in mind all things being equal.
 
If you go to and pass Air Assault or AirBorne then that stays with you your entire military career. CULP only shows up on your resume' to help bolster your ROTC OML score.

I won't argue that there is room for discussion as to how CULP works and the degree of benefits. As far as the schools you listed your correct, they will be able to wear those badges for their entire career. The degree in which these schools benefit them will vary. Take my sons for example, one went to Airborne, the other went to Winter Mountain Warfare and CDQC, both have branched aviation. The biggest benefit both received was points on their OML, other then that neither of these schools benefit them in their branch. Unless your branch requires the school, the only real benefit is that they have more to put on their uniform.

Granted these schools offer a challenge and are a great experience, but unless you use that training in your branch it really offers them no greater advantage then if they went to CULP.

So as a point of discussion, since I am not military, soldier A and soldier B are equal in all aspects, but soldier A has been to Air Assault or let's say even Ranger or Sapper school since those were brought up on a different thread, and it is time to promote or retain one over the other, those schools don't mean anything? Keep in mind all things being equal.

You're looking at things in terms of an OML, not skills gained from attending schools or courses. If someone is looking to go to Air Assault or Airborne simply for the badge, they're missing the point. Those courses teach skills that are used in various operations, but unless you're in a unit that does airborne or air assault operations you won't use that skill. An air assault badge is not going to get someone promoted simply because they went to the school. Ranger or Sapper school is a different story because they are leadership courses, so when it comes to promoting leaders those tabs could very well affect the outcome because the skills that soldier learned during the course.

Because CULP doesn't award a tab or skill badge doesn't mean cadets haven't learned something they keep with them. Granted, it's very limited exposure and cadets aren't planning multi-national training exercises, but that small exposure has been deemed valuable by someone with stars on their collar (not that stars justify a course). The stories you shared are not the norm and I would also advocate that CULP could be enhanced by ensuring cadets get involved even more on the trips.

I'm not someone advocating that CULP is the end all training for a cadet, it's definitely not. But I can almost guarantee that an officer, in this current environment, will work with foreign militaries during their career. I can almost guarantee that if you are not going to an airborne or air assault unit you will never use those skills. Investing in training from an odds of using it perspective, CULP is a better bet. I'm also not against those schools, they are great training opportunities, but a large portion of people that go to them never use them other than to wear the skill badge. Which is a different discussion because the services have become to wrapped up in wearing badges, in my opinion.
 
Let me first state that I respect both of the posters above. And can agree that in the ideal situation that a cadet can learn things from CULP that might benefit them in their future.

I'm not looking at OML. If I was looking at OML I would agree that CULP is a plus.

And yes I will admit that most schools offered or combat branch based schools, but that does not mean that having those on your record is not a plus aside from the skills you learn from them.

I believe, and in contradiction to your statement that you believe professionally CULP is better than AA or AB, aside from directly or indirectly using the skills taught in the schools, that if one is to pursue a career in the military (not saying retire from) that having the schools listed on your record is more likely to help you in gaining a promotion or fill a vacancy than if you attended CULP as a cadet. I'm pretty sure that CULP does not go onto your military records (might be wrong, correct me if I am).
And yes, a badge alone will not get you promoted, just as spending 3 weeks overseas will not, but as with private industry (which I am not debating), if you have 2 equal candidates and one has attended more schools or conferences related to your industry that candidate is going to have a leg up. I would think especially in the military when I assume a lot of promotions or advances are given based purely on paperwork.

Again, I just do not agree with your statement that CULP is better professionally than the schools.

Have a 19 yr old kid from the California fly the woods of Georgia to train with a bunch of special forces guys for 3 weeks and talk about cultural awareness and adapting to your surroundings:D

Edit: I keep using the term promotion when in today's army the term retention might be better suited.
 
Last edited:
We can agree to disagree. Everyone sees things differently. I think I got the OML part from misunderstanding when you mentioned OML in your post and thought you were comparing the ROTC OML, where the more boxes you check the "better" you look, to that of the big Army's system.

It's just the way it is with some courses. Leadership courses such as Ranger, Sapper, etc. can have an effect since the skills learned there can be directly applied to ones job. AB and AA is not like that, they are teaching more technical aspects and not leadership skills. Yes, it will forever be on someone's record that they graduated from AA or AB and they'll always have those skills, but those skills don't translate into their actual job unless they're in a unit doing those operations, and the chances of them really doing some of the things they learn in AA as an officer are low. Similarly, when officers in these units are being evaluated and rated, they all have those badges because they're required to be in the unit. Outside of those units, it's really just uniform flair because they aren't using those skills in their job so it isn't going to influence anyone one way or the other. I'm not sure what other skills you're thinking they are learning there, but they aren't really giving someone a leg up anymore. These badges are also everywhere now and in many people's eyes have lost value compared to other schools (CDQC for example). Years ago they were viewed more favorably. Maybe that's where our views split. The two examples you gave (AB and AA) are different from many other courses or schools that go on someone's resume and could distinguish them. For example, following BOLC I went to a follow on course that, upon graduation, awarded me and additional skill identifier (adds onto my 'MOS'). That will forever be on my record and my AOC (MOS for officers) and is a required skill for certain positions within my branch. Something like that, and there are many examples of this type of course but just don't have (or need) skill badges, could have an effect on promotions because they open doors to certain positions, or add skills that benefit someone in their job, that could be more beneficial for progression. Do I know if my ASI does that? No, because I've never asked someone about it and haven't been in long enough to really see. Additionally, as long as you're decent and don't get in trouble, you're not really competing for promotions until you're a captain. By then, there are many other things that affect your selection over an AA or AB badge.

I only say CULP is a better bet because you will have a better chance to use the skills regardless of your branch when you commission. Yes, CULP is not some super experience that transforms cadets, but it does provide some foreign exposure. And it's better for them to have that first exposure prior to taking charge of a platoon and taking them overseas for a training exercise. Even if it's something minuscule. If a cadet was 100% destined to go to the 82nd and I was his/her instructor, given the cadet had the opportunity to attend either CULP or AB, I would send them to AB no question. Same for if a cadet was going to the 101st and air assault. But, the system doesn't work like that. Cultural understanding has been a hot point throughout our involvement in the ME, so somewhere along the line they decided officers needed more of it and CULP was developed to provide a tiny bit of that to cadets.
 
Back
Top