70 Years of Military Mediocrity; what do you think about this article?

2015-08-18T17:13:54-04:00

70 Years of Military Mediocrity

--
Thomas Jefferson Hall, West Point’s library and learning center, prominently features two quotations for cadets to mull over. In the first, Jefferson writes George Washington in 1788: “The power of making war often prevents it, and in our case would give efficacy to our desire of peace.” In the second, Jefferson writes Thomas Leiper in 1815: “I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power, the greater it will be.”

Two centuries ago, Jefferson’s points were plain and clear, and they remain so today: while this country desired peace, it had to be prepared to wage war; and yet the more it avoided resorting to raw military power, the more it would prosper.

Have America’s military officers and politicians learned these lessons? Obviously not. In the twenty-first century, the U.S. unquestionably ranks number one on this planet in its preparations for waging war -- we got that message loud and clear -- but we’re also number one in using that power aggressively around the globe, weakening our nation in the process, just as Jefferson warned.

Of course, the world today is a more complex and crowded place than in Jefferson’s time and this country, long a regional, even an isolationist power, is now an imperial and global superpower that quite literally garrisons the planet. That said, Jefferson’s lessons should still be salutary ones, especially when you consider that the U.S. military has not had a convincing victory in a major “hot” war since 1945.

There are undoubtedly many reasons for this, but I want to focus on two: what cadets at America’s military academies really learn and the self-serving behavior of America’s most senior military officers, many of whom are academy graduates. Familiar as they may be with those words of Jefferson, they have consistently ignored or misapplied them, facilitating our current state of endless war and national decline.

America’s Military Academies: High Ideals, Cynical Graduates

America’s military academies are supposed to educate and inspire leaders of strong character and impeccable integrity. They’re supposed to be showcases for America’s youth, shining symbols of national service. Ultimately, they’re supposed to forge strong military leaders who will win America’s wars (assuming those wars can’t be avoided, as Jefferson might have added). So how's their main mission going?

I taught at the Air Force Academy for six years, and I’ve talked to former cadets as well as fellow officers who taught at Arm's West Point and the Navy's Annapolis. Here are a few reflections on the flaws of these institutions:

1. In reality, the unstated primary mission of the three military academies is to turn raw cadets into career officers dedicated and devoted to their particular branch of service. On the other hand, service to the American people is, at best, an abstract concept. More afterthought than thought, it is certainly mentioned but hardly a value consistently instilled.

Careerism and parochialism are hardly unique to military academies. Still, as one former cadet wrote me, it’s surprising to encounter them so openly in institutions dedicated to “service before self.” More than a few of his peers, he added, were motivated primarily by a desire for “a stable, well-paying career.” While a perfectly respectable personal goal, to be sure, it’s a less than desirable one at academies theoretically dedicated to selfless, even sacrificial service.

2. The academic curriculum is structured to prepare cadets for the technical demands of their first jobs, meaning that it’s heavily weighted toward STEM (science/technology/engineering/math). Despite the presence of a Cadet Honor Code, the humanities and questions of ethics play too small a role in the intellectual and moral development of the students.

3. Cadets quickly learn that excelling within the system is the surest path to coveted opportunities -- increasingly scarce pilot slots, Special Ops schools, or the like -- after graduation. Educationally speaking, they are driven by the idea of advancement within the conformist norms defined by their particular academy and branch of service. A system that rewards energetic displays of conformity also tends to generate mediocrity as well as cynicism. As one former cadet put it to me, “There is something deeper and more perverse here as well: The ‘golden boys’ [in the eyes of Academy officialdom] got the coveted slots but were generally hated by their cynical peers. Cynicism seems to define the Academy experience.”

A former colleague of mine had this comment: “The [military] academies don't make great people and they don't always make good people better. I have seen them turn off a few really good people, however.”

4. Because the academies are considered prestige institutions as well as symbols of rectitude and their reputations are always at stake, few risks are taken. Misconduct, when it occurs, is frequently hushed up "for the good of the Academy." Scandals involving cheating, sexual assaults, and religious discrimination have often been made worse by not being dealt with openly and honestly. Cadets know this, which is another reason many emerge from their education as cynics when it comes to the high ideals the academies are supposed to instill.

5. As schools, they are remarkably insular, insider outfits often run by academy graduates whose goals tend to be narrow and sometimes even bizarrely parochial. For example, I knew of one superintendent (a three-star general) at the Air Force Academy whose number one goal was a winning football program. In that sense, he certainly reflected American society: think of the civilian college presidents who desire just that for their institutions. But military academies are supposed to be about creating leaders, not winning football trophies -- and the two bear remarkably little relationship to each other no matter how many times the Duke of Wellington is (mis)quoted about the Battle of Waterloo being won on the playing fields of Eton.

6. Finally, there’s a strong emphasis at all the academies on simply keeping cadets busy. To the point where -- especially in their first year -- they're often sleep-deprived and staggering into class. Theoretically, this is meant to be a test both of their commitment to military life and their ability to handle pressure. Whether they learn anything meaningful while dazed or sleeping in class is not discussed. Whether this is a smart way to develop creative and strong-minded leaders is also not up for consideration.

As one former cadet put it: busywork and demanding rituals that sometime cross the line and become hazing are embraced in military education as a “rite of passage.” The idea “that we [cadets] suffered through something and prevailed is an immensely powerful psychological ‘badge’ which leads to pride (or arrogance) and confidence (or hubris).”

Add up the indoctrination and the training, the busywork in classrooms and the desire to excel in big-time collegiate sports, and what you tend to graduate is a certain number of hyper-motivated true believers and a mass of go-along cynics -- young men and women who have learned to subsume their doubts and misgivings, even as they trim their sails in the direction of the prevailing winds.

While the cadets are encouraged to over-identify with their particular academy and service branch, they’re also encouraged to self-identify as “warriors,” as, that is, an elite apart from and superior to the civilians they’re supposed to serve. That this country was founded on civilian control of the military may be given lip service, but in the age of the ascendant national security state, the deeper sentiments embedded in an academy education are ever more distant from a populace that plays next to no part in America’s wars.

That the classic civilian-military nexus, which was supposed to serve and promote democracy, has turned out to have a few glitches in our time should surprise no one. After all, President Dwight Eisenhower warned us about what was coming back in 1961. As Ike noticed, the way it was working -- the way it still works today -- is that senior officers in the military too often become tools of the armaments industry (his “military-industrial complex”) even as they identify far too closely with the parochial interests of their particular service branch. Add to this the distinctly twenty-first-century emphasis on being warriors, not citizen-soldiers, and you have the definition of a system of self-perpetuating and self-serving militarism rather than military service.

To the extent that the military academies not only fail to curb this behavior but essentially encourage it, they are failing our democracy.

America’s Senior Officers: Lots of Ribbon Candy, No Sweetness of Victory

In my first article for TomDispatch back in 2007, I wrote about America’s senior military leaders, men like the celebrated David Petraeus. No matter how impressive, even kingly, they looked in their uniforms festooned with ribbons, badges, and medals of all sorts, colors, and sizes, their performance on the battlefield didn’t exactly bring to mind rainstorms of ribbon candy. So why, I wondered then, and wonder still, are America’s senior military officers so generally lauded and applauded? What have they done to deserve those chests full of honors and the endless praise in Washington and elsewhere in this country?

By giving our commanders so many pats on the back (and thanking the troops so effusively and repeatedly), it’s possible that we've prevented the development of an American-style stab-in-the-back theory -- that hoary yet dangerous myth that a military only loses wars when the troops are betrayed by the homefront. In the process, however, we've written them what is essentially a blank check. We’ve given them authority without accountability. They wage “our” wars (remarkably unsuccessfully), but never have to take the blame for defeats. Unlike President Harry Truman, famous for keeping a sign on his desk that read “the buck stops here,” the buck never stops with them.

Think about two of America’s most celebrated generals of the twenty-first century, Petraeus and Stanley McChrystal and how they fell publicly from grace. Both were West Point grads, both were celebrated as “heroes,” despite the fact that their military "surges" in Iraq and Afghanistan proved fragile and reversible. They fell only because Petraeus was caught with his pants down (in an extramarital affair with a fawning biographer), while McChrystal ran afoul of the president by tolerating an atmosphere that undermined his civilian chain of command.

And here, perhaps, is the strangest thing of all: even as America’s wars continue to go poorly by any reasonable measure, no prominent high-ranking officer has yet stepped forward either to take responsibility or in protest. You have to look to the lower ranks, to lieutenant colonels and captains and specialists (and, in the case of Chelsea Manning, to lowly privates), for straight talk and the courage to buck the system. Name one prominent general or admiral, fed up with the lamentable results of America’s wars, who has either taken responsibility for them or resigned for cause. Yup -- I can’t either. (This is not to suggest that the military lacks senior officers of integrity. Recall the way General Eric Shinseki broke ranks with the Bush administration in testimony before Congress about the size of a post-invasion force needed to secure Iraq, or General Antonio Taguba’s integrity in overseeing a thorough investigation of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. Their good deeds did not go unpunished.)

Authority without accountability means no one is responsible. And if no one is responsible, the system can keep chugging along, course largely unaltered, no matter what happens. This is exactly what it’s been doing for years now in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

Can we connect this behavior to the faults of the service academies? Careerism. Parochialism. Technocratic tendencies. Elitism. A focus on image rather than on substance. Lots of busywork and far too much praise for our ascetic warrior-heroes, results be damned. A tendency to close ranks rather than take responsibility. Buck-passing, not bucking the system. The urge to get those golden slots on graduation and the desire for golden parachutes into a lucrative world of corporate boards and consultancies after “retirement,” not to speak of those glowing appearances as military experts on major TV and cable networks.

By failing to hold military boots to the fire, we've largely avoided unpleasantness between the military and its civilian leadership, not to speak of the American public. But -- and here's the rub -- 70 years of mediocrity since World War II and 14 years of failure since 9/11 should have resulted in anti-war protests, Congressional hearings, and public controversy. It should have created public discord, as it did during the Vietnam War, when dissent was a sign of a healthy democracy and an engaged citizenry. Nowadays, in place of protest, we hear the praise, the applause, the thank-yous followed by yet another bombastic rendition of “God Bless America.” Let’s face it. Our military has failed us, but haven’t we failed it, too?

Listening Again to Jefferson

America’s military academies are supposed to be educating and developing leaders of character. If they're not doing that, why have them? America’s senior military leaders are supposed to be winning wars, not losing them. (Please feel free to name one recent victory by the U.S. military that hasn’t been of the Pyrrhic variety.) So why do we idolize them? And why do we fail to hold them accountable?

These are more than rhetorical questions. They cut to the heart of an American culture that celebrates its military cadets as its finest young citizens, a culture that lauds its generals even as they fail to accept responsibility for wars that end not in victory but -- well, come to think of it, they just never end.

The way forward: I don’t have to point the way because Thomas Jefferson already did. Just read his quotations in the West Point library: we need to become a peace-loving nation again; we need to act as if war were our last resort, not our first impulse; we need to recognize that war is corrosive to democracy and that the more military power is exercised the weaker we grow as a democratic society.

Jefferson’s wisdom, enshrined at West Point, shouldn’t be entombed there. We need a new generation of cadets -- and a few renegade generals of my generation as well -- who want to serve us by not going to war, who know that a military is a burden to democracy even when victorious, and especially when it’s not. Otherwise, we’re in trouble in ways we haven’t yet begun to imagine.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/8004088

70 Years of Military Mediocrity

Two centuries ago, Thomas Jefferson's points were plain and clear: While this country desired peace, it had to be prepared to wage war; and yet the more it avoided resorting to raw military power, the more it would prosper. Have America's military officers learned these lessons?

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Aug 18 at 2015 5:22 PM

2015-08-18T17:22:29-04:00

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member I am a graduate of the USMA class of 1980. To be honest, I have never been very impressed with the Huffington Post. [Updated 2040 8/18/2015]
This "article" which was published by the Huffington Post was written by somebody who was an instructor at USAFA. When I was a cadet in the late 1970's we had to memorize the NY Times headlines of that particular morning and be familiar enough to describe them to any passing upper class man [in those days there were only upper classmen since I was in the first class with women cadets.] In those days the NY Times was anti-military in general and anti-West Point in particular.
I have added editorial comments in brackets to this trash piece :-)
This may apply to the USAFA but the comments to do apply to the USMA or the USNA.

"America’s military academies are supposed to educate and inspire leaders of strong character and impeccable integrity. They’re supposed to be showcases for America’s youth, shining symbols of national service. Ultimately, they’re supposed to forge strong military leaders who will win America’s wars (assuming those wars can’t be avoided, as Jefferson might have added). So how's their main mission going?
I taught at the Air Force Academy for six years, and I’ve talked to former cadets as well as fellow officers who taught at Arm's West Point and the Navy's Annapolis. Here are a few reflections on the flaws of these institutions:
1. In reality, the unstated primary mission of the three military academies is to turn raw cadets into career officers dedicated and devoted to their particular branch of service. On the other hand, service to the American people is, at best, an abstract concept. More afterthought than thought, it is certainly mentioned but hardly a value consistently instilled. [The mission of the Military Academies both stated and unstated is to prepare young men and women to serve as military officers in their respective branches. The prejudice of the author seems to come across in his "raw cadets" and "career officers" both terms seem to be negative in this particular author's view.

2. Careerism and parochialism are hardly unique to military academies. Still, as one former cadet wrote me, it’s surprising to encounter them so openly in institutions dedicated to “service before self.” More than a few of his peers, he added, were motivated primarily by a desire for “a stable, well-paying career.” While a perfectly respectable personal goal, to be sure, it’s a less than desirable one at academies theoretically dedicated to selfless, even sacrificial service.

2. The academic curriculum is structured to prepare cadets for the technical demands of their first jobs, meaning that it’s heavily weighted toward STEM (science/technology/engineering/math). Despite the presence of a Cadet Honor Code, the humanities and questions of ethics play too small a role in the intellectual and moral development of the students. [The academic, physical, and military instruction portions of the curriculum prepare the cadets for the assignments throughout their military careers and in many cases outside the military careers.]

3. Cadets quickly learn that excelling within the system is the surest path to coveted opportunities -- increasingly scarce pilot slots, Special Ops schools, or the like -- after graduation. Educationally speaking, they are driven by the idea of advancement within the conformist norms defined by their particular academy and branch of service. A system that rewards energetic displays of conformity also tends to generate mediocrity as well as cynicism. As one former cadet put it to me, “There is something deeper and more perverse here as well: The ‘golden boys’ [in the eyes of Academy officialdom] got the coveted slots but were generally hated by their cynical peers. Cynicism seems to define the Academy experience.” [This may be something which happens at USAFA but I doubt it is as perverse as the author states. AT USMA cadets in their first two years do not generally have "opportunities" to shape their potential for "highly coveted" post graduation assignments. The author uses conformists as though the mere mention of the word should strike disgust in the eyes of the reader. ]

A former colleague of mine had this comment: “The [military] academies don't make great people and they don't always make good people better. I have seen them turn off a few really good people, however.” [There is some truth to the second statement; but, that applies to most challenging institutions whose business includes shaping young people. The first statement is BS]

4. Because the academies are considered prestige institutions as well as symbols of rectitude and their reputations are always at stake, few risks are taken. Misconduct, when it occurs, is frequently hushed up "for the good of the Academy." Scandals involving cheating, sexual assaults, and religious discrimination have often been made worse by not being dealt with openly and honestly. Cadets know this, which is another reason many emerge from their education as cynics when it comes to the high ideals the academies are supposed to instill. [As a century man at West Point which means I had 100 punishment tours as a cadet I know this is BS. Violations especially honor violations are not tolerated at USMA. The year before I got there. there was a cheating scandal in Electrical Engineering which forced out many members of the class of 1978. I doubt the USAFA is as bad as the author states but I know this behavior he cites does not apply to USMA.]

5. As schools, they are remarkably insular, insider outfits often run by academy graduates whose goals tend to be narrow and sometimes even bizarrely parochial. [More BS. The Service Academies are exposed to members of the public each week as throngs of tourists and sports fans descend upon the academies. There are visiting scholars and cadets take part in intercollegiate scholarly exercises and partnerships throughout the year. For ultra-liberal outsiders the military as a whole is bizarre :-)]

6. Finally, there’s a strong emphasis at all the academies on simply keeping cadets busy. To the point where -- especially in their first year -- they're often sleep-deprived and staggering into class. [This is pure BS. Yes cadets have always been kept busy in part to teach us how to both react under stress and to operate in a stressful environment. More importantly each part of the day is scheduled to help each cadet do as much as they can as they are developing into leaders of the US Army. Sleep, class, drill and ceremonies, organized sports, study hall, etc. are each important parts of the development process.]
COL Mikel J. Burroughs, LTC Stephen C., SGT Forrest Stewart, SGT Private RallyPoint Member, SPC Private RallyPoint Member

Response by SSG Ray Strenkowski made Aug 18 at 2015 5:46 PM

2015-08-18T17:46:05-04:00

While I believe all the military academies produce a higher proportion of quality officers, many 'ring knockers' do sometimes sideline equally high quality officers produced through ROTC.

Keep in mind this is purely from my limited observation as an NCO who spent considerable time serving in positions where high level decisions were being made (G shops, IC). While we worked closely, our worlds were separated and I honestly had my own mission to accomplish. I wasn't involved in officer politics as the NCO Corps has it's own.

I do believe the military academies are essential and have been honored to serve under some of the highest quality officers who came from them.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Aug 18 at 2015 6:13 PM

2015-08-18T18:13:38-04:00

The article is "disjointed" to say the least. It never truly ties its theory to its facts/opinions.

I "think" I understand where the author is trying to go with some of his arguments, but none of them are new, remarkable, or frankly interesting. Most are actually distractions from his point rather than evidence for it.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 18 at 2015 6:38 PM

2015-08-18T18:38:09-04:00

I don't know the first thing about West Point officers with the exception of working with them in Vietnam. They were no different than any newby in Vietnam. They had to learn the ropes to keep them alive, to keep us alive, and they realized pretty quick what they learned on paper wasn't always the way things were. The first thing they picked up on rather quickly was you don't salute in the field or back at the AO. They were excellent officers and great men to work for and with. We were a team, and they were, are, team players.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 18 at 2015 7:50 PM

2015-08-18T19:50:13-04:00

The academies, at the end of the day, are human institutions, not without error and certainly not without room for improvement. There's a joke that West Point runs on "200 (+) years of tradition unhindered by progress." The high standards they are meant to embody are important but believing they will always be upheld and never missed is foolish. I found his points very relevant to my experience (I can only speak for myself of course and from the perspective of a junior officer).

The article lacks a useful way forward. Just do what Jefferson said....okay, and implementing that in today's environment will be a challenge. Always a frustrating thing for me to read critical pieces that fail to provide viable alternatives.

Thank you for sharing.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Aug 18 at 2015 9:49 PM

2015-08-18T21:49:21-04:00

The author points out the problems but does not have solutions. The POTUS and the politicians send us to war with all its foreign characteristics, and expect the generals to draw up a campaign plan. What we need is a fresh perspective of our problems of war and someone who can use military history to find parallels to the wars we are trying to win.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 19 at 2015 11:12 AM

2015-08-19T11:12:52-04:00

The Huffing-and-Puffington Post...need I say more?

Ok-I will say more, because as an academy grad, it astounds me how little the author really researched their thesis. Service academies are an attempt (I won't say the best or worst) to meld two of the most dynamic and challenging periods of a young person's life; college and entrance into the military. The desired "product" is a junior officer with the qualifications to enter a training command for accession into an active duty command. The primary differences between this route and those of ROTC or OCS candidates, is that the academy graduate's experience is "typically" more concentrated. True enough, the military has consistently improved the ratio of "prior service" Cadets and Midshipmen (we actually had a SEAL in my Plebe class)...but the majority are still high school graduates when they arrive. For this "lowest common denominator", you've got a lot to fit into four years; a degree highly slanted towards the sciences...military indoctrination...leadership training...ethics...etc. All of this has to be tailored around the grim realities of manning and budget, translating to a complex process of "pipelining" the 900 or so remaining members of each graduating class into the correct specialty. That isn't a process that fits well with "individual" development or expectations...the "quaint" methodology and tradition governing it is something of a time-tested necessity.

Response by LTJG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 19 at 2015 5:18 PM

2015-08-19T17:18:30-04:00

I disagree with your 'hush up' method. At least here at the naval academy (both as a midshipman and a Prior Enlisted Nuke) that stuff is taken very highly here and if anything the little things are made big and the big things are made gigantic.

Response by Cadet SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 20 at 2015 2:30 PM

2015-08-20T14:30:23-04:00

Seems to be a very ignorant and ill-informed stream of thought. While some of the critiques provided by the author certainly hold true, the vast majority are simply wrong and/or poorly argued. For example, the author equated the use of "warriors" as evidence that officers and the academies believe they are superior to civilian control of the military. I mean...really? As a current cadet at USMA, the ignorance or perhaps outdated information the author spews is simply wrong. My roommate even agreed, simply saying "Not really..." about every other sentence.
And I'm not even going to go on about how poorly the author backs up his claims. As a former professor at a military academy, I would expect that he could at least follow a basic, standard essay format. Claim...evidence...etc.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 22 at 2015 11:07 AM

2015-08-22T11:07:38-04:00

There's more quality in an officer who went to a traditional institution, joined clubs including student government, had a part time job, dean's list, and still manages to participate in community service and rotc on their own free will and personal discipline. But I mean......

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Oct 21 at 2015 2:03 PM

2015-10-21T14:03:07-04:00

The military is free from the burden of choosing to go to war, rather, it is the civilian administration who gives impetus to war. What we fail to do collectively with the civilian administration is our over reliance of the paradigm of smashing a country, rebuilding it, and propagating democracy and a democratic government. It is simple model, but it lacks how to fight insurgents, how do the locals really feel, how competent is the host military, and how legitimate is the fledgling democratic government. We need military leaders to see these attributes as the insurgents are not going to play by our rules.

Response by COL Ted Mc made Nov 12 at 2015 12:04 PM

2015-11-12T12:04:12-05:00

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member - Chief Warrant; You are going to get some of all that from any "prestige" school that has a "100% guaranteed job placement upon graduation" record.

One of the "problems" with the service academies is that they have a tendency to prepare officers for "peacetime war" (including "how to fight the last war if you aren't actually fighting it"). I say "problems" in quotation marks because there is actually only one "school" that teaches how to fight "wartime war" and I have met VERY few officers or senior NCOs who actually want to attend that school (and even fewer who want to do a post graduate course).

I suspect that any "civilian" university which adopted the regime at the service academies would look any different from the service academies as far as "parochialism" was concerned. (And, if you attended a school which had as its stated purpose "training Engineers" you'd probably find that the people attending that school were being prepared for a career as Engineers and not as Nuclear Scientists.)

Response by Sgt James Howard made Nov 12 at 2015 7:26 PM

2015-11-12T19:26:33-05:00

The title should read "70 Years of Political Mediocrity," considering the military institutions the writer critiques have no say in whether our country declares war. It is funny how politicians get us into wars and only the military is held accountable.

Response by CW3 Jim Norris made Nov 13 at 2015 2:09 PM

2015-11-13T14:09:41-05:00

Excellent prose. Let me propose a different reason for the military debacle that has been America foreign policy since the end of WWII. Openly and fully Declared War permits the mobilization of the entire US population into war time production of materials and assets of war. It also requires a certain sacrifice of the general populace in support of the effort. Since the end of WWII civilians in this nation have felt no economic or material impact of any of myriad of ‘conflicts’ or military adventurism that our government has involved us in. One could make a good solid argument that economic advantages obtained by unrestrained military involvement has been ‘good’ for the nation’s economy.
From Korea (a conflict yet unresolved) to Grenada (the rescue of American Students) and Vietnam (something to do with dominoes falling) never has the US Congress called for a Declaration of War. Now one might ask, So What? Here’s the So What – a Declaration of War places the entire US population under obligation to sacrifice for the nations war effort. Rationing of fuel, metals, produce and products, the institution of a draft to man the military…etc. Since the end of WWII, the American public has had no such constraints placed upon it’s activities - everyone still goes on vacation, buys a new car and Johnnie goes off to college…..a real argument could be made that all this ‘bleeding and dying for freedom’ has had a positive effect on the overall economy…..somebody has to make all those bullets, planes and tanks…..
If, and it is a big IF, the Iraq War had been a declared one, we would have left Iraq looking like post WWII Germany, every major population center in rubble, any German seen with a weapon killed and commitment of a large military contingent nationwide to enforce martial law for over a decade. Trials would be held for war criminals, almost every Baathist was at least as beastly as the Nazi leaders, and hangings and long prison sentences meted out in the hundreds. All islamist propaganda would have been outlawed and destroyed (see remake of Germany) and children taught of the horrors that their beliefs had brought on the nation. Victory in Iraq would have been declared after the entire government, all armed resistance and massive weapons collections had been completed. Almost as important we would have begun a Marshall Plan to rebuild all the public transport, water, sewage and electrical grid as quickly as possible. Instead we permitted the Republican Guard to fade into the crowd, with their weapons, we watched as looters stole toilets from buildings and civilians beat the crap out of their neighbor, folks walked around with AKs and RPGs – because it wasn’t a declared war.
So, you want to ‘fix’ the academies, fix the elected officials that have for 70 years felt no need to follow the Constitution and declare war before you send us to die for you. If America goes to war, let it be the very wrath of God descending and continuing until there is no more means to resist available to those whom war has been declared – then help them become a people who will no more look for war (see Germany, Japan, Italy). That is the lesson of 70 years ago my friend.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2016 12:19 AM

2016-05-30T00:19:21-04:00

I'm a prior NCO who became an officer through ROTC; I also worked at USMA for 3 years (rotating military assignment). In my opinion and experience, this article was little more than bloviating. The author's credentials are that he taught at one academy so he knows all of them?(!). Or even more ludicrous is that he feels fit to judge the education of a profession that he is not a member of.

This would be the same as me judging medical school when I'm not a physician. Yes, I consume the services and fund the system, so my opinion counts, but I know Jack and Sh*t about medicine, so I'm probably not the one to critique the curriculum at Johns Hopkins.

Response by SrA Alan Dirk Scott made Dec 25 at 2017 2:50 PM

2017-12-25T14:50:09-05:00

What I have to share is just a thought. It is not downing the article or even addressing the Military Academy issue. It is a comment of why I believe we have not had a sound victory since 1945. I believe as I heard quoted from someone. “War is about real estate. After World War II we have not been able to take and hold real estate. Not because we were mediocre or inept, but because we fought a different war in different types of theaters. In Vietnam for example, we would take and retake the same hill maybe 2 or 3 times. This was at great loss. When we took real estate we could not keep it due to an enemy that could use tunnels and trails to reinfiltrate the area we took and moved on from. An enemy that blended in with and lived amongst the people we were trying to “liberate”.
Also what is unspoken are numbers. We lost nearly 59,000 troops in Vietnam. There were nearly 2 million Vietnamese killed. Some of these casualties were civilians which still wakes me up at night. However the enemy were willing to continue throwing an inordinate amount of people at us, with China’s and Russia’s support it could have gone on forever.
Our troops fought valiantly and were anything but mediocre. I would go to war with any of the brothers and sisters I had the honor to serve with and be a part of. Iraq and Afghanistan are also different wars. This is why we have not won a decisive war since 1945. I honor and respect all of our troops through all wars waged since 1945. Just one soldiers opinion.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Aug 29 at 2018 9:21 PM

2018-08-29T21:21:57-04:00

I was a little perplexed how many Academy grads optioned to partake in the early outs of the late 90s. I thought maybe the indoctrination from the Academy was not in tune with the “real army”. That is just a guess.

Response by SCPO Morris Ramsey made Aug 23 at 2020 11:26 PM

2020-08-23T23:26:49-04:00

Interesting article. I wonder about the editorializing.