Updating the Academies

I completely disagree! If anything, our military already has TOO MANY officers who've been educated at the same schools as those at CIA and State, sometimes, by the EXACT SAME professors.

And it tells.

We no longer have an officer corps who can explain to the national leadership exactly how military force can be utilized to bludgeon enemies, obliterate enemy states, thoroughly upend obstinate enemy societies, and if necessary, completely transform those societies.

The wisdom of Eponimdas, Sherman, Patton, Spaatz, LeMay is thoroughly lost.

It seems our officer corps is not mentally, morally or professionally equipped to do anything more than feeble hearts and minds campaigns.

We haven't completely defeated a real opponent since 1945.

Korea, we didn't even try.

The wisdom of MacArthur was discarded, and historians to this day continue to deride his advice, which was drive out the Chinese completely, and unite the Korean people under one government, a policy of Korea for the Koreans.

The Military leadership ALLOWED LBJ to dictate a policy of bloodsoaked attrition warfare for 'Nam. NOT ONCE did our officer corps object in a manner appropriate to the stakes involved, not once did they forget their careers and be mindful of the American blood poured out like a libation on the fields of Southeast Asia. Not once!

And today, our officer corps was content to play whack a mole for how many years?

Our officer corps was content to allow their men to go 4, 5, 8, 9 deployments, INSTEAD OF DEMANDING an increase in their overall troop levels.

If the American people hadn't demonstrated how furious they were this administration in '06, the Pentagon would still be playing whack a mole in Iraq. And the officer corps would be standing still for it. Sure, some gripe among themselves. But so what. It takes more than griping.

Where's the Billy Mitchells of this generation of officers?

And it should be noted too, that the plan for "the surge" wasn't contrived by the Pentagon. It was formed by Fred Kagan and some other guy, who I think work for AEI.

When the administration whittled "the surge" deployment down to 15%, where was the outrage, where were the resignations, where were the men with stars on their shoulders speaking out, CONSISTENT with their obligation to the men in their command.

We have an officer corps that is little different than the inept creatures you'll find at State.

If that seems brutal, it is.

It was meant to.

We are in a war on muslim mayhem.

How is it possible that over five years after 9/11, our military has been content to allow the main sponsor of that mayhem to go unpunished, unhammered, unpounded? How is that possible?

The Iranians are blowing up Americans, maiming Americans, disfiguring Americans, kidnapping and trying Americans.

Yet America's officer corps shares the same reluctance as those at State, as those at Langley to even identify Iranian involvement, let alone DEMAND the right to go after those who have shed the blood of their fellow soldiers and marines.

Tell me how is the advice and the actions at the Pentagon any different than that you'll get at State.

WHY?

I'll tell ya' why. Our officers have pursued post-graduate work at prestigious institutions such as GW, Georgetown, Harvard, Stanford, et al. And that post-graduate study, WHICH IS NECESSARY FOR THEM TO ACQUIRE FLAG RANK, is overseen by those who don't appreciate, nor understand the use of genuine power, genuine force, in short, they don't understand war.

And if you don't understand war, then you've not the foundations necessary to understand SUCCESSFUL diplomatic engagement.

And that's why State and CIA are a fricken joke.

But whereas before the Pentagon was an oasis of sanity and coherence in a wider desert of ineptitude, now they share the VERY SAME ATTITUDES and education of those at State.

We've made Iraq harder than it ever needed to be.

Why are we trying to pacify Iraq, WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY ALLOWING the Iranians to destabilize Iraq. We construct, they deconstruct. We negotiate, they assassinate. We discuss, they behead.

AND WE'RE ALLOWING IT!

OUR OFFICER CORPS IS STANDING STILL FOR THIS SHIT!

You think MacArthur would have tolerated this horsehit!

You think Nelson of immortal fame would have stood still for such nonsensical orders.

In Korea, our Fighter Pilots were ordered not to cross the Yalu.

They promptly ripped up those stupid orders, crossed the Yalu with impunity, and shot down their enemies right over their fricken base. And left the politicians with no other option than to validate those actions after the fact.

Why hasn't special forces crossed into Iran, with our without orders?

Why hasn't our Air Force had several navigation exercises go awry, and pay a little visit to the Iranians?

Why haven't the SEALS left a little calling card in Iran, by blowing up their sole refinery?

Our officer corps is too concerned for their careers, their upward prospects, than they are about closing with America's enemies, and utterly, comprehensively obliterating them.

The Pentagon has allowed Iraq to be a place where officers get their tickets punched, instead of seeing it for what it is, a place where American blood is being shed, American honour at hazard, American resolve proved.

And you've let the fricken lawyers in to your deliberations to boot!

Whereas before lawyers were marginal creatures, now you've allowed them into the damn command headquarters, where they call off air strikes on dirtballs like Mullah Omar.

That a lawyer would tender idiotic advice is not unexpected. BUT THAT A SERVING OFFICER in America's military wouldn't have the savvy, the nerve, the wisdom to put that lawyer and his advice in his place, is something that turns my stomach.

Patton would have had that lawyer thrown from his HQ, and then placed under arrest for being an uncommon asshole.

MacArthur would have fired the staffer that even allowed that lawyer access to his HQ.

Sherman, well it doesn't do to ponder what Sherman would have done, or said.

Being an officer doesn't simply consist of PHYSICAL COURAGE on the battlefield. Ultimately, it calls for that more rare courage, MORAL COURAGE.

Where is it?

Because this country stands in desperate need of it.

America's officer corps ALLOWED this administration's war on terror to go off the rails.

America's Air Force officer corps ALLOWED LBJ and Nixon to hamstring their efforts in 'Nam. And it was only at the last minute that Nixon finally turned them loose.

A similar hamstringing is going on today, not just in regards to Iraq, but in regards to Iran, Syria, S. Arabia, the tribes in the NWFP.

And that's what history is going to say. Unless you prevail, unless you demand the right to speak directly to the American people, unless you demand the right to seal the sacrifice of your fellow soldiers with victory. America's people will not refuse you. But the only people who have spoken to them are ambitious would be pols like Wesley Clarke. But the only people they've heard from are those in this administration, people like Condi, who refuse to spell out what the Iranians have done to men in your command.

Business as usual isn't going to cut it.

Standard operating procedure won't cut it either.

America desperately needs her officer corps to demonstrate some IMAGINATION, not just in Iraq, but in their dealings with this administration.

And oh to God, I pray you find it!

My problem with the Academies is not their curriculum, although I think curriculum should be constanty examined and revised, lest you fall behind the rest of the world.

My problem with the Academies is that they have lost their purpose. The Academies, for a long time, produced THE core of the officer corps of the United States armed forces. They no longer do.

A recent study showed that over half the graduates of West Point had left the Army following their initial commitment (I think the number was somewhere in the realm of 60%). As a taxpayer and a soldier, this is unacceptable.

Academies no longer produce the Nimitzes and Eisenhowers as they once did. Those guys now are largely produced at the ROTC programs of civilian colleges. If they're making a better product and for less money, then why do we need the Academies at all?

My proposal is this. At least HALF of every Academy class should be from the enlisted ranks of the military. These are men and women who will have already demonstrated a propensity to serve (versus getting a free college education, serving six years, and leaving) and will, in all likelihood, serve for a career.

When they get the right kind of people at the Academies, instead of the jockular, class president, academic all-stars that they recruit now, then they will reclaim their place as the factory for America's military leadership.

Until then, they remain in my mind (and that of many others) simply another college and, more than that, a drain on an already-stretched defense budget and the American taxpayer.

On the other hand, an Academy engineering curriculum does enable me to express my views a wee bit more succintly.

The initial postulate would potentially hold more water if, and only if, the Academies were the primary means of officer accessions.

Since they are not, I would offer a counter argument that the Academies should focus ever more narrowly on Engineering and the hard science disciplines. All that other "touchy feely" crap (note deliberate use of connotation loaded verbiage) is perfectly well taught in other institutions, which also produce a large number of officer accessions.

the problem with that, Joel, is that enlisted guys tend to retire at Major.

But yes, they do make the best officers.

MajMike, that's a great point on how the field of officer accessions is wider than just the academies. But I'm certainly not advocating "touchy feely" crap. At VMI I took classes like national security studies, the history of the middle east, and did my senior thesis on Yassar Arafat and his terror apparatus.

There was no "basket weaving," as we like to put it.

I guess one of the wonders of the Internet is that it allows ignorant people to pose as informed experts.

1. The Academies do offer the "softer" sciences; USMA has offered Arabic and Chinese for years, well before the current fight in Iraq. Granted, all students must take an engineering track, but did the author bother to even glance at the academic offerings?

2. Only a non-engineer would write this kind of tripe. Engineers are focused on problem solving and the process involved; math is merely tool. Are some better than others at pulling in all the variables? Of course. But I would argue that engineers are far better trained to solve real-world problems, particularly those involved with full-spectrum warfare.

3. Using Iraq as a vignette for all future wars is silly, particularly when attempting to change institutions that have brought us through over 200 years of our nations existence (Note: over 30 years longer than VMI). Ever heard of North Korea? China? Russia? Any conflict against any of these potential adversaries would be significantly different than Iraq. Would that International Relations degree with a minor in Arabic would be better served than an engineering degree in a high intensity conflict, particularly in this day? Really, really doubt it.

Poorly researched article that relied on misconceptions, misinformation, and ignorance. Disappointing, particularly as many others will probably listen without thinking or doing additional research.

Yup! You nailed me Brian, I majored in history and international studies.

Perhaps I wasn't clear though, I never said that Academies do not offer social science courses, merely social science degrees.

As for Russia, China, and North Korea, sure...those will be technological wars. If you're absolutely convinced that we'll fight them. I'm more focused on the war we're fighting now, a global counterinsurgency that stretches from Columbia to the Middle East to the Philippines, not just Iraq. Maybe a social science degree would have helped you there? Just saying :)

I think you misread some of what I wrote, so I won't take offense to your accusation that this was poorly researched.

Also, I really tried to avoid a "my school is better!!" debate by caveatting that this is something that VMI was doing right...in this particular instance. I gave the academies their proper due. They're all phenomenal schools.

A school does not a leader make. Nor, necessarily does a college education.

While the purpose of an advanced education is to teach someone in a brief amount of time skills which would take years of OJT, college education programs (no matter what the major) are not designed to produce leaders, but rather educated citizens who can improve our overall way of life in the workforce.

For military service, educated leaders are the correct product. Leaders who know the basic tenets of leadership, who have developed a study of history, and who can quickly solve problems and make decisions. The right decision, the first time.

So what is really needed is a comprehensive program that develops leaders.

What we have is a compromise. Both the service academies and ROTC programs do develop leaders who also have an excellent college education. However, that college training is not necessarily targeted to where the individual will be assigned, whether on a ship in the Pacific, an Infantry platoon in Iraq, or an intel center in the heartland of the US. It is more general and is so necessarily. One of the biggest tools one should learn in college is a way to think, a development of good analytical tools, and a working knowledge of his/her field of study. You learn the specifics of your "job" once you get there.

I would submit that we do have a good program in the service academies and in the ROTC programs (I am not going to discuss any "watering down" in the way various programs are administered).

Regardless of major.

We don't need or want everyone to stay in after their first committment. Not everyone is up to it, and those who aren't should go. A smart man once told me that we put a premium on youth in our business. Warfighting is a young man's game. It has to be. Yes, there is something to be said for experience, but we don't need the average age of our officer corps to be 35. We need young, innovative thinkers, who can lead and fight on their own. And I think that is pretty much what we have, regardless of how much they get beat down in later years.

We could make improvements, however.
1) As far as selection of major fields of study, not everyone is cut out to be a history major just as not everyone is cut out to be an engineer. But there should be a core leadership curriculum that everyone has to master.
2) The services could do a better job of teaching history/historical lessons at an officer's initial OBC. Do you think I got any history at Nuclear Power School?
3) Prior to a deployment, include regional training as part of the POM period. Whether you are part of a CSG, Combat Brigade, or logisitical support you need to know the area.
4) Don't forget the long game. We are very focused right now on Iraq/Iran/al Queda, but what will the threats be in 10-20 years? I can tell you that 10 years ago, no one thought we would be where we are right now.

Oh, by the way, my undergrad degree was Mechanical Engineering.

And I know at least one guy from West Point who has a degree in Modern Chinese Studies.

This debate has been going on for years. One issue I take with arguments presented in articles like this is, they tend to result in "either/or" discussions.

We know the real world comprises shades of gray.

Your undergraduate field of study has little, if anything, to do with warfighting. We take the undergrad in order to learn how to learn. We take the masters level in order to develop critical thinking skills. We take the PhD as we seek to self actualize. We gain experience along the way.

I've seen no persuasive argument for or against any particular undergraduate field of study which would "better" prepare an officer to fight our nation's wars.

What would Col. Joshua Chamberlain say to us? Or Adm. Rickover?

Really? Let's use our fellow OPFOR blogger Charlie as an example. Charlie majored in international studies and minored in Arabic, he spent two summers living in Morocco with an Arab family, and last I talked to him, could still speak the language capably.

You're telling me he's not better prepared for Iraq or Afghanistan than a guy who majored in math?

I'd disagree with you on that limopi, strongly. But respectfully!

BN, VMI has a program like that. But like I said in the email to you, the guy who majored in Chinese Studies no doubt has a Bachelor of SCIENCE in Chinese Studies.

All I'm talking about here is a small tweak that enables him to learn more about his major, and less about calc IV. He'll need the Chinese more, I think.

This will certainly come as a surprise to our son, currently a First Class Cadet at the USMA - a double major in US History and US Politics. Sure, there are planty of Engineers, but West Point hasn't been an 'Engineering' academy for many years.

See here for the West Point Academic Program
http://tinyurl.com/2gwkt3

yikes, okay I definitely should have articulated this better.

I understand that you can MAJOR in LAS programs, but your end result is a Bachelor of SCIENCE.

Small tweaks, small tweaks. All I'm talking about. Less math for guys like your son, Dave. More history, more language, more science.

I'm really trying to avoid a debate on whether or not the academies actually offer these majors. They do, and I understand that.

Still, I'm sure you're awful proud of your boy Dave. Good on him for 1) getting into such a tough school and 2) making the decision to serve.

Do you REALLY think that a war against China, Russia, or North Korea would be the nicey-feely, conventional, NTC-template war that the Americans do so well at?

A war with China and Russia would have the HIGH potential to denigrate into an unconventional conflict in which our forces would be on HIGHLY unfriendly turf fighting against an insurgency that would make the Iraqis look like Boy Scouts.

Ask Hitler and Napoleon. They thought they could fight a nice, clean, conventional war against the Russians. They both lost. We would too.

The Chinese fought us to a stalemate on the Korean peninsula. On their home turf? If we went nuclear, we MIGHT have a chance to win.

Have to disagree with you, Brian. These wars would not be fundamentally all that different from Iraq.

As the Army of the Vietnam-era thought that conflict was an exception-to-policy, don't think that Iraq is going to be.

Unconventional warfare, attacking our forces assymetrically, and tying up our advantages through lawyers and the media is the way of the future.

Giant tank battles, supported by mass artillery and aircraft overhead... Marines "hitting the beach" with paratroopers blanketing the enemy's rear areas.... THAT is the thing of the past.

John:

I would argue that all cadets are exposed to history, language, and other sciences. Again, look at the mandatory curriculum.

A cadet majoring in engineering at the Academy is subjected to just as much "soft" academics as those majoring in International Relations are subjected to "hard" science; the Academy balances it curriculum to produce well-rounded officers, not just math majors.

Note that I will also contest your assertion that an International Relations major would be better suited to serve in Iraq or Afghanistan.

At the strategic level, it may, no doubt, be of assistance.

But at the operational and tactical levels, where the vast majority of our forces serve, I would argue engineering is better suited. Remember, winning "hearts and minds" typically focuses on SWEAT projects (variously defined as sewage, water, electricity, academics, and trash). Who is better prepared to manage these type projects - an IM major or an engineer?

Remember, the vast majority of the people in the GWOT battlefield care far more about their quality of life than they do about the international relations. As long as you have a basic understanding of the culture (which is supposed to be trained prior to deployment), being able to improve the quality of life for villagers will get you much further than being able to discuss the impact of UN sanctions on North Korea.

No doubt, engineering at the Academies has some linkage to the past, when graduates led some of America's great projects (e.g. the Panama Canal).

But again, engineering is all about problem solving. Few Academy graduates (engineers or otherwise) could rattle off many of the equations they were forced to learn. Most, however, will remember the process they used to address problems - THAT is the value of engineering.

My apologies if my initial response seemed curt, but it seemed that for publication in a national magazine (i.e. the Weekly Standard), you should have done a little more research on what the curriculum actually entails.

Brian

Brian, thanks for your comments. Here's what I did as research. Spoke with one professor and two service academy grads, examined each of

Again, I think we're suffering from a miscommunication here, and again I'll take responsibility for that for not articulating this more delicately in my column. My point was not to say that the Academies are refusing to offer liberal arts courses, a quick look at West Point's outstanding liberal arts departments disproves that notion rather quickly, but that their core curriculum might be tweaked to better benefit the liberal arts cadet. Offering BAs would be a good start.

Fundamentally, I think we are in agreement on the strength of West Point's social science departments.

However, I do disagree that engineers would be better suited to the long war. Reconstruction projects exist, yes, and nation building is a cornerstone of our strategy. But I never said we should get rid of our engineering officers, that would be ridiculous.

What I am saying is that there's alot more to reconstruction than bricks and mortar. I'm in touch with many company grade officers in Iraq and Afghanistan, many who feel that they would be more effective at their jobs had they studied the culture a bit more aggressively.

And all I'm saying, Brian, is that at the micro level, we could probably swap some of those extra calc and physics courses out for additional history and language credits.

whoops, sorry I accidentally cut half of the third sentence. I examined the liberal arts curriculum at West Point and Annapolis. Did not look at the Air Force Academy's though, perhaps I should have.

And I am saying don't swap out the physics/calculus/engineering courses for cultural immersion. Ensure those folks get it enroute (i.e., at their OBC). Or, hell, make them take extra courses. Yeah, taking 21 or 22 hours a semester sucks, but there is a LOT to learn. Or some type of seminar program.

As far as your major determining whether or not you are better for the long war is a non-starter. We need people who can think and sort out problems--yes, we need to understand the culture because successful COIN means you take care of the population.

It's the man, not the degree...

hmmm, well in fairness...

If it's the man, not the degree...

What good is the degree then?

John:

Most of the reconstruction-type projects are being done by non-engineer officers (branch versus education). Note that even engineer officers in the Army are not necessarily "engineers" in the academic sense. It is a branch, not an academic qualification.

Having been a company-grade (and field-grade) officer in Iraq, I can say that without a doubt my training as an engineer in school was far more helpful to me than any knowledge of international relations or my fractured Arabic. After the greetings are said and the families are discussed, real solutions to real problems must be presented. Must we be careful not to offend our counterparts and understand the effects our decisions may have? Of course. In engineering, we call these variables. "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction," after all. My personal opinion? Of course. But then again, I did spend significant time learning as many "variables" as I could prior to deployment.

Also, note that training in specific languages and histories might not be of use in specific areas or locations; not many people in the Middle East can speak Chinese. The problem-solving process learned by cadets in their engineering courses is universal.

I am not dismissing the import of learning about specific cultures prior to deployment. Few would argue against learning about the people and places we currently fight in. This is why cultural training is mandated prior to deployment.

As for changing our academies for the current fight, remember that many graduates will have careers that will take them well beyond the present. Who will our future adversaries or threats be? Arabic language skills and a knowledge of the Middle East might not seem quite as important in 20 years as they are now. Problem solving skills will always be a constant.

Finally, I must address Joel's comments about "things of the past." When did Kim Jong Il give up his artillery tubes on the DMZ? Didn't the Iranians just purchase fighters from Russia? And I could have sworn that the Iraqis had some of those tank-things back in 2003. Careful with ignoring the "things of the past." Fighting governments is significantly different than fighting AIF. Although different adverseries have different centers of gravity, almost all GOVERNMENTs rely on their conventional military to secure their legitimacy. Just ask the French.

Brian

Governments rely on their conventional military to secure their legitmacy, yes. However, it doesn't mean that they'll employ conventional tactics to defeat us.

We have conventional supremacy. We proved that during our corps-level drive-by in 1991 and again in 2003.

What we also have proven is that you can employ unconventional tactics against us and we will lose.

The Chinese wouldn't be stupid enough to pick a nice, open field and line up their tanks against ours.

I majored in History when I was at USNA even though I received a B.S.

So I really don't know what the issue is. I took plenty of courses in civics, history, and even literature in addition to calculus and engineering.

And by the way -- enlisted folks do not necessarily make the best officers. Although the have the perspective of an enlisted individual, they sometimes lose sight of the big picture.

As one who switched my career from a safe, fun and profitable one building cool weapons systems to a highly risky and so far unprofitable one promoting the learning of History... What's my take?

Here's the thing: given adequate time, history and language can be learned later in life, on one's own, outside the academy, or in less rigorous settings. It's nearly impossible, however, (save for sheer hermit geniuses), to teach oneself engineering, or to really learn it outside the intense environment of the 0700-midnight study routine an 18-21 year old (single) mind can endure.

Here's another: the overall US citizen population of hard engineering degrees is declining. At my alma mater and many others, its the citizens of other countries who are stepping up and taking the seats for engineering, math and science. This looks to be a national concern.

Where to draw the balance?

Were I tomorrow to meet a new leader who's running a power plant in Iraq, or guiding a weapons program in Iran, or proposing a new sensor system in DC, or defending the national communications grid in Bogata, I'd sure feel more confident starting the conversation knowing that I do understand the difference between a Fourier Transform, a Kalman filter, and a Shroedinger Equation.

But, yeah. We do need much more instruction in history, languages, economics, etc. Starting in 2nd grade. All of us.

The key is to make all the learning more efficient and effective.

By the way, our Cadet was the most popular guy on the Normandy Staff Ride last year - because he was the only one who could speak French.

I believe USMA has begun (last academic year or this?) a 4-year language requirement.

If all of our officers where Academy graduates, then I might agree with this post.

However... I hate to bring up the dark spectre of ROTC, OCS, etc, which produce quite a number of B.A educated officers in a wide range of disciplines.

Now, I have nothing bad to say about Academy graduates. It's a really cool achievement to complete such a program of training and study.

However, what we are discussing are college disciplines which are not normally considered a military necessity. If this is really the case then we need to recruit officers differently in order to attract the appropriate disciplines.

(BTW: I'm one of those elisted/college ROTC graduates who retired as a Major from the nasty guard). So what do I know...
{in jest}
;)

If all that Noonan is arguing is that West Point needs to adopt a BA program, then I am in completely agreement. I haven't had much use for the core curriculum courses that I during my cadet days and wish that I could have taken more polisci and history. But he forgot to mention that West Point is far better at this than any of the other service academies. USNA or the AFA would have been better case studies.

John,

I'm always entertained when I see exceptions used to refute generalizations.

There will always be outliers. There will be those who are better prepared than others. But I don't think, in the main, any particular undergrad degree guarantees or detracts from a warfighter's success.

Am I to believe that those without Charlie's educational exposure are ineffective?

If your hypothetical math major had similar exposure (living with a family in Morocco for two summers) would he not be just as capable? Or less so because he had more than a passing knowledge of Fermat's last theorem?

I am proud to serve with anyone who chooses to wear the uniform, and don't check their sheepskin beforehand, be they a Mech Engr from USNA or History major from Penn State.

And that includes you, shipmate :-)

"The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools."

- Thucydides

Lex disagrees with you-but I thought your points were right on the money.

Furhtermore, you are getting at a deeper point IMHO-Academies and by extension the two premier State Supported military colleges are not simply about being another university. They are about having a system-proven by experience and tradition that produces a well rounded indivudal-schooled in the requisite knowledge of the Citizen Soldier and able to understand and contribute to his state and his nation. Quite simply, the Acadmies have lost sight of that tradition and if VMI and Citadel are not careful-they will go that way too.

Noonan hit the nail on the head with this article but he picked the wrong school as an example. I almost chose West Point based on their lauded liberal arts program. USNA and USAFA need to do alot more to get where USMA is today.

As a 4/c cadet at the USCGA, I was counseled by my academic advisor not to switch majors from Naval Engineering to Government. He assured me that the Coast Guard had no need for non-engineers and I wouldn't last past my initial five year obligation.

17 years into my career I now command an engineering support unit. I have my diploma (yes John, a BS) displayed prominently on a wall in my office; it drives all the EEs & Computer Science people nuts. I keep my MS in Info Systems diploma well hidden.

I realize the USCG isn't doing much of the heavy lifting in Iraq today. However, I've qualified as a SWO on an Aegis cruiser, deployed for Gulf War I & OIF, unmasked batteries on hostiles (never engaged) and was operational for 10 years before shifting to support. In the end I found being an officer comes down to being a leader of people first, followed by being a fast learner second.

The primary purpose of the academies is to take the raw potential of its cadets/mids and shape them into officers by instilling in them the core values of the service, and creating a love for a career studying leadership, tactics & strategy. The degree, whether a BS, BA, etc., is secondary; by the time an officer reaches the senior ranks the specifics learned long ago will be very fuzzy anyway.

Great topic John and excellent discussion.

You have no clue... My son is a Russian Major from West Point.

well John, it appears to have stimulated some debate.

full disclosure: despite my BS (Engineering), i somehow managed to concentrate in Languages, four years Russian, three semesters Arabic. and that was back in the bad old days before they allowed cadets to major (heck, we weren't even accredited)

so for the writers above who point out that it's the learning of the process of learning, i tend to agree with them.

for those who point out that, while Academy grads are only a certain percentage of accessions, yet yeild a higher percentage of senior leaders, i would counter argue that it appears that the spirit of lifetime service to the Constitution is what the Academy education really instilled.

my only regret was that they never offered a typing course. i could have used that.

From Post Updates: "But what I'm suggesting is that perhaps they loosen up just enough to allow cadets to become less generalized and more specialized in their academics."

Okay... Maybe we could focus a bit less on science and a bit more on the arts. But the whole point to West Point in the first place is to specialize in the academics of engineering, math and science.

I have to be honest when I say I would much rather have a commander skilled in technical problem solving and project management than one who's primary skill is speaking a foreign language.

But,.. maybe that's the point, maybe foreign language skills should become a requirement in addition to the technical requirements. (A change which is already occuring, as I understand.)

Its not like it is a matter of stupid people who can't learn both science and arts attending our service academies.

The singular reason I didn't take a foreign language course in college is because there was no specific requirement, and at no point in my career did I ever needed it.

And as far as specialized cultural studies, we can still continue that post-college graduation. The whole professional development over a life time concept still applies.

I did not attend any of the military schools, but my chemistry professor at U. of Detroit did. Both of us observed that the Engineering/Science students at Detroit were superior to the arts students when it came to general geographic and historical knowledge.

While I can see the need for education in other nations history and language, the problem solving skills and rigor of a science background don't seem to have a counterpart on the arts side of things, at least in the civilian life.

If you are recruiting the same professors to teach these upcoming officers as we have teaching our current crop of Starbucks employees you might be better off sticking to calculus.

Debbie, your son is a Russian Major from West Point?

Since when did we start educating the Russian Army? lol.

After reading the article, it became clear to me that the author had no solid idea of the content of the West Point curiculum (sp?). While it is true that each graduate recevies a Bachelor of Science, this is only because of the core technical courses (math, chenistry, physics) plus the elective engineering track required by each cadet. They still graduate with majors that are non-technical. As a father of 2 graduate (classes of '98 and '05), both having majors in history while the '05 grad also had a second major in foreign language, I can't see where there is undue emphasis on technical studies. As a technical person myself, I believe that the technical training also develops the ability to think logically which has application in all areas of human endeavor.
In addition, from the input I received from the 2 grads, the quality and depth of the instruction, featured speakers, etc. which they received particularly in the history and military arts department were second to none.
Finally, I want to say the because of the technical course requirements, I would submit that these graduates have a more well rounded education than their civilian college counterparts, nor would it surprise me if the West Point grads actually needed more credits to obtain their degrees.

thanks for the post Joe!

I'd point out that the debate was never about whether or not the academies offered Liberal Arts majors, but rather the fact that the have an overly-math intensive core curriculum and do not offer BAs.

So let's at least frame the debate properly.

I cannot speak for West Point, however this is a chronic problem at Annapolis. As the URL above states, most USNA cadets could not find the Spratlys on a globe. I was in my last year there before I could really start taking my econ electives. Offering a Bachelor of Arts would be a huge step in the right direction for all of the academies, but especially Annapolis.

I already commented at the magazine, but I will add that calculus is hard, physics is hard, USMA is hard. Its hard on purpose.

My son hated his four years at West Point. He hated everyday of it. He lived in a constant state of anxiety. Too much to do, too little time. Every minute a decision had to be made about what to do next. USMA imbues its grads with leadership skills by making everyday hard and decision filled.

Sure they want to graduate young men and women scholars. They also want to graduate leaders like Jason Amerine who led his SF team into Afghanistan early in the war, Nate Self who led his Ranger platoon off Roberts Ridge following an intense firefight dramatised on the Military channel, or Jeff Van Antwerp, A Duece Four company commander in Mosul, or Laura Walker http://www.aog.usma.edu/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=1004&srcid=734

My son graduated 50th in his class, was ranked first in Mil Hist. He minored in Sys Engineering. He graduated with Nate and Jeff, both of whom he considers better men than himself. He holds in the highest regard all those cadets who have entered West Point since September 11, 2001.

Today he is a Special Forces officer who has served on the Afghanistan Pakistan border applying everyday what he learned at West Point.

Keep in hard. Keep producing the best young combat leaders in the world...bar none.

Imagine how much more useful any of the Academies would be if they still had a useful plebe system and a decent respect for tradition.

The fact that USMA issues a BS rather than a BA is irrelevant. If you review the curriculum, the core is closely balanced between HPA and Engineering. In fact, there is one course more on the HPA side in the current plan. But, if you compare the USMA curriculum to that of a standard school, you'll find that even the engineers have nearly as much, with broader requirements, as an HPA major in the standard school. Likewise, the HPA's come close to the requirements for many engineering programs - particularly enginering management programs. Now I'm sure you can find some other schools where htis doesn't apply, particularly those which are focused in one area or another, but the point is the key is the balance and breadth of the core, with focus in the major. To offer BA degrees rather than a BS would only be a paperwork change, not a change of courses.

Ahhh, Skippy-san!

Your observation warms the cockles of my heart!

We all know the last class to have a Plebe year was...

I think the degradation in the Plebe indoc system and subsequent deemphasis on tradition began in the summer of '76.

Standing by for incoming.

mustangs make the best officers!!!

be still my beating heart.

C

Note that McMaster's successes include recently being passed over (a second time?) for his first star.

Not knocking him personally, loved his book, &tc. I'm just sayin'.

limopi,

'72 was the last class to have a plebe year. There was a Congressional investigation that curtailed '70's, and '71 was a real pull back based on '70s experience. The class of '69 was given the charter to "have at" the class of '72 to verify the concept of a 'real' plebe year, and they took the challenge. They went a bit too far, and plebe year hasn't been the same since. No bull.

Back to the original thread- Had I attended all four years at USNA I would have graduated with a BS in Soviet Area Studies. It was what is called a "bull" major, and we had different physics and chemistry classes than the engineering & science majors (ie, "Physics for poets"). No this was not a full liberal arts curriculum, I had my nose rubbed in four 4 credit courses in calculus and a heavy dose of science. But if you are going to be the skipper of a ship, you need to understand the inner workings and hidden mechanisms of what makes the screw turn(, etc.).

BTW, (another thread- it's Friday and I feel like rambling) I have to say that there are problems with the engineering curriculum at USNA. They seem to teach it as background theory, as if they don't expect the students to be engineers when they get out. (Which is generally the case.) I get this opinion from my son, who also spent a few years at USNA, only as a mechanical engineering major. When he continued at Norwich, he thought it was going to be a cake walk. Wrong. They teach engineering as if they expect their students to go out and do engineering stuff, not just be familiar with the theory. A small engineering school can not afford to do otherwise.

greg

Greg shows the difference between the academies (in broad-brush generalization):

West Point is about leading people - your soldiers - more than making sure the screw turns the right way.

Not better, not worse, just different.

With all due respect, I'd suggest that we're debating the wrong issue here.

The real question isn't whether a young officer needs science more than arts, it's whether that junior leader needs Sparta more than Athens:

http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/08/spartan-or-athenian.html

With respect to the Weekly Standard article:

An Army platoon leader would be better equipped to administer to tribes in Anbar province if he had a degree in International Affairs and a minor in Arabic. A Marine infantry Lieutenant might be more effective unifying warlords in Afghanistan if he spent his four years at Annapolis studying the history of central Asia.

I am somewhat dubious that ANY undergraduate training could truly prepare one for these tasks, and it is not clear to me that shifting the core emphasis of the service academies from science/engineering to liberal arts would appreciably improve the effectiveness of academy graduates at the types of "nation building" tasks described here. Despite my BA in Russian with five years of Russian language and study abroad in Russia, I sure wouldn't have regarded myself as "qualified" to run an occupied Russian province (and Russia is significantly less culturally alien than any place we're likely to occupy). Really, the only way to learn how to administer to tribes in Anbar is to administer to tribes in Anbar.

I am even more skeptical of this contention:

The British perfected this system at the height of their empire. Relying on a strong NCO corps (which America also enjoys), British officers were trained to perform the duties of regional governors while sergeants shouldered much of the responsibility for training and disciplining the men. That freed Lieutenants and Captains to manage tribes, recruit friendly warlords as allies, establish judicial systems and public works projects, and bolster the local economy. And look at the results. India and Pakistan were stable; the Muslim holy lands were quiet, and the Palestinian territories calm.

The "calmness" of India, Pakistan, and the Middle East during the heyday of British imperalism had much less to do with the purportedly superior training of British officers than with other factors, not least of which was the lack of national consciousness in these areas. Once decolonization got rolling after 1945, the "superior training" of British officers did not help keep these areas calm or help the British keep their empire.

With respect to some comments here:

Only a non-engineer would write this kind of tripe. Engineers are focused on problem solving and the process involved; math is merely tool. Are some better than others at pulling in all the variables? Of course. But I would argue that engineers are far better trained to solve real-world problems, particularly those involved with full-spectrum warfare.

I absolutely agree. Scientists and engineers are trained in real-world problem solving, with an emphasis on what works. All too many liberal arts degrees are focused on inane theories that have no practical application in the real world. I feel sure that few, if any, ROTC officers with BA degrees are receiving the type of training to be an "imperial administrator" that you think is necessary.

Engineering is not just about training someone to build bridges and dams. It trains one to think rigorously. This is as necessary in COIN as in conventional warfare.

Do you REALLY think that a war against China, Russia, or North Korea would be the nicey-feely, conventional, NTC-template war that the Americans do so well at?... A war with China and Russia would have the HIGH potential to denigrate into an unconventional conflict in which our forces would be on HIGHLY unfriendly turf fighting against an insurgency that would make the Iraqis look like Boy Scouts... These wars would not be fundamentally all that different from Iraq.

What kind of war do the Chinese think they will fight? Apparently, a high-tech one:

http://investing.reuters.co.uk/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=media&storyID=nPEK8558

"The PLA has been shedding ordinary troops so it can put more money into specialised personnel and high-tech arms, and the new measures seek to advance that programme at a time when China's military modernisation has neighbours jittery.

Engineers and scientists were "a precious strategic resource for using science and technology for a strong military", the official announcement said.

"They play an important role in military development and preparations for military struggle."

The measures promise a recruitment drive for technology specialists and improved pay and living conditions for recruits. More PLA scientists and engineers will be sent for extra training in top-flight Chinese universities, the rules say."

Seems to me there is absolutely no case to weaken the technical rigor of Annapolis and Colorado Springs. The Navy and Air Force need scientists and engineers far more than historians and international relations specialists. Let us not forget that one of the important reasons we quickly crushed Iraq in 1991 and 2003 was our technical superiority. Let us also not forget that the minute we lose our technical superiority, enemies will no longer fear to challenge us head-on, and we will get a nasty reminder that "traditional warfare" is still important.