Comment of the day goes to "Rubber Ducky," who made this observation in the discussion earlier this week of the Naval Academy:

It's a long time since the US was out-engineered in a war (like never), but one can point to Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan as three examples of a failure of human understanding, the subject of the humanities.

I've studied military education some, but had never quite heard that thought expressed so well.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Here's a response to my call to shut down West Point from Col. Cindy Jebb, Ph.D., a professor in the social sciences department there:

There has been a great deal of discourse prompted by Tom Ricks's article that calls for the dissolution of West Point.  Perhaps because Mr. Ricks has only seen a glimpse of West Point, he fails to understand the institution and its contributions. To appreciate West Point and its multidimensional value, one must grasp that it is much more than the sum of its programs, its graduates, and its faculty. 

I would like to provide another voice, one with experience that Mr. Ricks lacks: West Point graduate with 27 years of service in the Army, a PhD from Duke University, and a professorship at West Point.  Furthermore, I am the co-chair of West Point's Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE) Self Study. MSCHE is a regional, peer review commission that accredits institutions of higher learning. Because the brightest students and the best faculty want to work at excellent institutions, colleges and universities seek MSCHE accreditation or its regional equivalent. 

The MSCHE perspective values a holistic approach to learning. Tom Ricks misses much of the extraordinary work conducted around the Academy that plugs into key offices at the Pentagon, Training and Doctrine Command, and Combatant Commands as well. Why do these offices seek out West Point? West Point is a genuine academy in the classical sense. It brings together the best minds, from all academic disciplines to forge new ways of thinking and to solve issues of national and international importance, while simultaneously focusing on the personal and professional development of its students and faculty. 

(Read on)

The academy didn't teach me squat about contemporary warfare, this pilot complains in his blog:

At no point in my career so far has the Air Force prepared me to fight and win the nation's wars at the operational or strategic levels; instead, it has trained me over and over to fight Desert Storm. The numerous PME courses I've taken are all built on the same canon: a cursory introduction to Jomini and Clausewitz, overviews of historical airpower theories, then discussions of how airpower was used and misused in World War I, World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. The saga culminates with John Warden and his strategic airpower theory which was successfully employed in Desert Storm. This is the holy grail of airpower. Airpower post-Desert Storm is treated only briefly."

I actually know this pilot, and he is a smart guy. My thought: the Air Force Academy has the rep of being a faith-based institution, so perhaps this isn't surprising.

Interestingly, this pilot goes on to credit his wife and the Small Wars Journal and like outlets for providing him the education in warfare that he needed:

It's embarrassing that a captain in the United States Air Force has to turn to the Army for an education about war, but that is exactly the situation I've found myself in. While the Air Force was sitting out the FM 3-24 development process, I was on Small Wars Journal every morning and working through reading lists by top Army thinkers." 

He thinks that the Air Force Academy probably should remain open, but certainly not because it passes on the Air Force culture, which he condemns:

. . . I believe the service culture -- both within USAFA and the Air Force at large -- is a liability, not an asset. USAFA and the Air Force PME schools may not need to be closed, but they need to be reformed."

Responsible opposing viewpoints? Also, is the F-16 really an impressive platform anymore?

A cadet wishing to be identified as "A Concerned Firstie" writes in to recommend requiring a year or two of enlisted service before matriculating at the academy:

West Point should change, and I think forcing all applicants to serve enlisted in a combat arm prior to admission would be a radical change that would dramatically affect admissions and retention. First, it would allow prospective officers a chance to stand among their potential subordinates before they could stand before them, this would hopefully scare away those who come to West Point because it was the only Division-1 school that recruited them or who wanted to get that sweet degree and the potential "Old Grad" connections in the corporate world, introducing a greater degree of self selection. Second, this enlisted time would allow us to weed out the duds before they showed up to West Point and gained untouchable status. A great many cadets are fragile (constantly sick, broken, unfit for duty, outright malingering) or just not cut out for military service for a number of reasons. By getting rid of them early, we would help reduce the cynicism that stems from watching our subpar classmates continue to slip through the cracks till they eventually graduate, and then show up to the Big Army and embarrass the rest of us. Not to say that I'm the best this institution has to offer. I've struggled as much or more than many of my classmates, and I seriously considered quitting at the end of my sophomore year, what eventually convinced me to stay was a chance at leading troops where I was able to excel, receiving my only A grade in the military category. That experience, along with my friends' encouragement and pleas, convinced me to stay.

The biggest drawback would also be its greatest strength, by scaring away these people, we may scare away the Rhodes Scholar types that West Point always points to whenever its academic credentials are questioned. One has to wonder if that is such a bad thing after meeting some of the Wunderkinds though. I'm inclined to believe that academic performance has little to do with officer potential after a certain baseline competence. It's much more personality-driven in my opinion. These are obviously just my impressions, and I would not say that I represent the majority of cadets even."

I like his solution.

ROBERTO SCHMIDT/AFP/Getty Images

West Point graduates generally do well in the Army, according to several hundred pages of West Point studies I've just finished reading.

"Battalion Commanders report that our graduates possess a solid intellectual foundation, are comfortable with technology, are good problem solvers, are self-directed learners, and take the initiative to learn about foreign cultures," concludes a 2008 survey of graduates and their company commanders. That's a pretty good report card, especially for a so-called "community college."

The other reports, from 2007 and 2004 (three were done that year) are also mainly positive. Even taking into account that this is West Point reporting on itself, I found the reports generally pretty reassuring.

But being a reporter, I also kept an eye out for the negatives. For example, on the same page as the quotation above appears the comment that West Point grads sometimes didn't feel they are prepared to "think outside the box." This was one of several themes in the reports that made me suspect that West Point really teaches followership more than it teaches leadership. 

--A 2004 survey of 51 former battalion commanders reported that "some USMA grads had difficulty relating to NCOs." (As one commander put it, "I had lieutenants that wouldn't listen to their platoon sergeant with lots of experience . . . ‘it's my way or the highway.'")

--One theme that surprised me was that West Pointers were socially awkward. "ROTC, OCS graduates were much better at dealing with the real world, much more socially aware," stated one commander. "The Military Academy guys were at a distinct disadvantage in this area." 

--This social ineptness actually would alienate others so much that it affected their ability to lead. "Technically, they had the skills to be as good as anyone else, but they lacked the people savvy that made them good leaders," said one commander. "Whether it was rolling their eyes, or arrogance, or standoffishness, those sorts of things to me are leadership aspects, and that to me is probably one of the biggest places where Military Academy graduates did not always do very well . . . They demonstrated a degree of social immaturity that directly impacts their ability to lead."

--The same study found that West Pointers "continued to be perceived as . . . somewhat self-serving" and careerist. One commander said that one of his battery commanders complained that three football-playing cadets from West Point assigned to his unit during the summer "did not want to go to the field, because it was interfering with their workout schedule . . . . Being a military officer for five weeks was actually a deterrent for them versus the ROTC guys that we received in the summer."

One surprise to me is that almost every report mentioned that West Pointers tend to abuse alcohol more than other young Army officers. "Binge drinking seemed to be a favorite activity," said the 2004 survey of battalion commanders.

Another of the 2004 reports contained this troubling quote from a commander: 

I will tell you that a lot of the young, more specifically West Point lieutenants, seem to live together, hang out together, and party together. It was almost like letting someone out of a cage and watching them get into trouble. Those that stayed out late and had several alcohol problems were all West Point lieutenants."  

By contrast, said another officer, the ROTC and OCS officers seemed to have gotten all that out of their system by the point they became second lieutenants.

So what does this all tell us about the value of West Point? I would say it remains unproven. There is not an overwhelming case to be found in these documents that the additional cost of the academy is justified. The 2004 survey of former battalion commanders found that "differences in military skills among sources of commission largely were not observed at the rank of captain."

(BTW, in response to some of the e-mails I am getting: I don't think length of service measures value of service. I have no problem with the guys getting out now who have done three year-long combat tours since graduating six years ago. That's a lot more blood, sweat and tears than the guy who camped out in a few nice posts in Germany from 1975 to 1995.)

thethirstymoth/flickr

Just in case anyone doubted CNAS welcomes a diversity of views, here is a note from Robert Kaplan, the author and commentator, whose office adjoins mine. (Exum has the palatial office down the hall, partly to house his Voltronic library.)

Kaplan writes:

It's great that you've shaken up the conventional thinking on military academies. But based on my 18 month experience of teaching at the U. S. Naval Academy -- a profound professional privilege -- I take issue with your comparison between service academies and community colleges. Half of the faculty in my department were civilians with PhDs. The other half were naval officers and marines without post-graduate degrees. Yet, these uniformed professors brought something noteworthy to the department and to their students that many community colleges cannot match. In addition to being professional role models, they brought their experiences of service in Iraq, Afghanistan, off the pirate coast of Somalia, and other far-flung locales, which provided a wealth of lessons that they imparted in the classroom. More crucially, their intense experience in war zones had caused them to mature into voracious readers of the classics of war: Thucydides, Clausewitz, Mahan, and the like. To listen to a war veteran react to the literature of the Peloponnesian War is not something necessarily common to community colleges. I think the combination of fine civilian academics and battle-hardened and well-read junior officers made for a stellar combination in the department where I taught.

Data-free though it may be, this is about the best argument I have heard for the academies. Does it resonate with academy grads out there?

Jerry Bauer

Robin Walther, a typically well-informed reader of this blog, points out a more recent study that seems to confirm the findings of the thesis I passed along yesterday.

This is his summary:

It shows a positive correlation between NROTC and promotion to Maj, LtCol and Col; a negative correlation between OCS (OCC/PLC) and all three promotion rates; and is mixed for the Naval Academy and the various enlisted commissioning sources."

I keep on hearing cadets and West Point alums demanding data. OK, we've seen some. Now, do you have any evidence that academy grads make better officers? If not, why are we asking the taxpayer to pay almost three times as much for them?

woodgrinder/Flickr

Here is a good response from a West Point cadet. Like many, she concludes with the gotcha comment about General Petraeus. She should have read this blog yesterday. More importantly, I wish she had engaged on some of the issues I raised, such as why West Pointers often are regarded in the Army as cynical.

And here is a thoughtful comment from a cadet who asks that I note that this is his opinion, not that of the Corps of Cadets, the USMA or the Army. I am appalled by his anecdote about the basketball game at American University, which is indeed only a few miles from my house. I have some issues with many of his other points. But let him speak:

Sir, I found your article very interesting and found myself in deep contemplation. I also read the responses to your articles and your responses back. I would like to take a few moments of your time to give you another perspective from a cadet who has not only attended Pennsylvania State University but also the Military Academy Prep School or USMAPS, as well as being the son of two army officers who are both ROTC graduates but also War College Graduates.

First, I would like to challenge the cadet who is leaving and agreed with you that the academics are community college level. The cadet in question has obviously never been to a state school or any other school for that matter. In every class I took as a freshman, at Penn State, in my first semester, the class was taught by a TA and most of them only had a bachelor's degree and were working on a masters. Also, the instructors who come here not only get a master's degree but they get it from Columbia University in the field of study to which they will teach. Also, I would like to avoid ad hominum as best as possible but the cadet who is leaving after two years is either leaving for one of a few reasons: failure of academics, physical standards or Honor and Respect standards, unable to handle the stress free, lived a life style which does not reflect well upon themselves or the United States(drinking, drugs, or stupidity), came to get two free years and a good school to transfer from or they do not want to lead troops whether in the civilian world or in combat. Either way would you really want someone who doesn't want to be there to lead your troops, the one's you pay for with your taxes, into combat.

Second, the stories that instructors or some veteran students tell are extremely prevalent to our development as officers and citizens. They not only inspire us to better our selves but also humble. What you can learn from a vet now can completely change someone's outlook on life and how you function as a member of society.

Third, I think you draw a lot of hostility because many people don't appreciate what veterans have done, did or will do. Yes, we are fighting a war that many people don't approve of, we know that, but don't take it out on cadets or veterans. They are only following legal orders. One example of this actually occurred in your neck of the woods. During the American Univ., Army basketball game this spring cadets, fans and players alike were heckled after the game. After putting up a very tough stand against American, we were heckled , cursed, spit on, and taunted. I have never been so appalled in my life. Kids my age, some of which I knew, booed, taunted, and harassed us all the way out the door. All of this over a basketball game? A good basketball game at that? Yes, I know that begs the question but you must consider the way the cadets felt after that. We ask ourselves why we are doing this. And to give you an answer sir, it's because we love this country and everything it stands for. Now I know that may sound cheesy and brainwashed but there is no other reason. I do this job because what my instructors, parents, friends, family and others have done allows those students, code pink, the Westboro Baptist church and many other organizations that oppose us to say their peace. Although I may not agree with their ideas, I agree with the idea of them having the freedom of speech.

Fourth, As an army Brat (dependent) of two Army Officers who commissioned through ROTC I can tell you that you get the same ratio of bad officers out of ROTC. Many a tax dollar has been wasted on people who are divided over the most stupid things. One example I can think of is when my mother went to Airborne school. While waiting to board the plane to take her first jump two male 2^nd Lt.s from Ohio State harassed her. They knew she was a Penn State grad. and razzed her accordingly but also they harassed her because she was a woman. A woman at airborne school seemed to be a big problem to them because they thought women shouldn't have been in the army at all. And these were graduates of a large public civilian school. Also my father, an Engineer officer like my mother, graduated from RPI. And while attending his officer basic course was constantly harassed by West Pointers. They talked of "Back at school" and "The long gray line" this and that. They built up West Point to be heaven but then my father quickly pointed out that his engineering degrees were accredited and theirs were not (West Point is now an accredited school).

Fifth, I would like to challenge you point sir, on the British Military Academy "Sandhurst".  Yes, the Brits do have a different system. Their officers attend 4 years of university before taking a full year of military development at Sandhurst. So you are really comparing apples and oranges because they get four years of college plus Sandhurst paid for, by the government. So I don't think you can really compare the two.

Sixth, I don't think you can compare the education and cost analysis between West Point and other schools. You must first ask the question of school, How much is the tuition and cost of living, how much are the books, how much are the lab fees, how much is food at the local mart? Also you must ask about the major and its department at that school? Is the major they are choosing a specialty of the school or are they just attending the school for other reasons such as sports, parties or members of the opposite gender? For example, when visiting one of my best friends at American University who is a AROTC cadet, I asked one of his ROTC buddies what his major was and what type of ROTC scholarship he was on. His response was he was an Art major. Now sir, I know this may be a very dry question but why would an Art student go to American? Or why would my buddy be a physics major at a school that is a specialty in International Affairs and business? And to go along with that both of them are carrying full scholarships to a school that has a tuition of $15,479 per semester with a $1,000 charge per credit hour more than 17. That's over $33,000 a year without books, lab fee's, food, living expenses, which anyone who knows anything about DC knows you pay an exorbitatint amount to live there.

Seventh, going along with the point of Changing our opinions. I find your point dead on in the most case regarding the Academy. The War Collages is a different story. The stereotypical cadet at West Point is a conservative, white male, no one can deny that. Which validates your argument that our opinions are not challenged a lot but that can also be said of the ROTC cadet. Schools like American which are very actively Liberal and opionated have a single opinion in which the cadets are not challenged because they are either outcast for not agreeing and there for conform, or they, like us are not challenged because they agree with what the student body has to say.

The academy however works very hard to diversify. We have all kinds of functions that include presentations of dance, art, literature, immersion, and many other aspects including the cadet favorite, FOOD. I cannot think of a single week or day where I have not heard about a party of some kind where there would be food tasting, dance, art , etc from cadets or civilians from other countries presenting and hosting. We may not have the complete immersion like some schools because there is not much diverse culture in Highland Falls, NY. There is not a whole lot of anything but the academy now offers almost every cadet a chance to go abroad to study at other schools in other countries. Whether these immersions are for a week or for a whole semester the academy still offers the opportunity. Another thing is, all of the corps is not American. A lot of cadets are foreign and their governments pay to send them to West Point. In my company alone we have a cadet from Chad and another from Lithuania. The academy works with what it is given and does the best that it can. You can't make people apply to come here or come and stay if they don't feel comfortable.

Finally, regarding your mention of Gen. Petraus. Yes, I'm sure you know now that he is an academy grad. and instructor. But your response to one question said that he found much more worth at Princeton because of the diversity. Sir, I ask you can you really compare a PHD course load and classes with that of a Bachelor's? Sure the concepts for the area of study are the same but can a school with a graduate school be strictly compared with a four year only school? Not to discredit any schools who are only four year or have advanced level options.

I really think that your article had relevance but I think there are too many questions to call it valid because there are too many unanswered question. I could continue with this and would love to but I am a cadet and as such have other work to do. I appreciate your opinion and as a fellow democrat I can see some of the validity behind your logic. That being said most of your article I think begs the question and I don't think there is enough evidence to support either as a definite right or wrong."

For this cadet and all those inviting me to spend a day, week, month, or year at West Point, here is an article I wrote about the place 12 years ago. It was indeed a crucible of leadership for Col. Hallums. I wonder if there is any evidence that West Point produces better leaders than other institutions.

Do military officers benefit from attending a civilian graduate school after having learned their trade as warfighters and during a period in their careers that permits them to spend a year or two 'away from the troops'? The short answer is yes....

"The first and most important [reason] is that a stint at graduate school takes military officers out of their intellectual comfort zones...

"Of course, West Point has changed enormously over the years and it is a true national treasure, but despite the varied curriculum and experiences it provides, it is not an institution that puts creativity, individuality and discovery before all else."

Two points to the first person who identifies the writer.

AAMIR QURESHI/AFP/Getty Images

Dunno why, but I've managed to pick fights with parts of the Navy and the Army at the same time. On the ground, I recommended in the Sunday edition of the Washington Post that West Point and the other service academies be closed. Here is what I wrote:

Why We Should Get Rid of West Point

By Thomas E. Ricks
Sunday, April 19, 2009

Want to trim the federal budget and improve the military at the same time? Shut down West Point, Annapolis and the Air Force Academy, and use some of the savings to expand ROTC scholarships.

After covering the U.S. military for nearly two decades, I've concluded that graduates of the service academies don't stand out compared to other officers. Yet producing them is more than twice as expensive as taking in graduates of civilian schools ($300,000 per West Point product vs. $130,000 for ROTC student). On top of the economic advantage, I've been told by some commanders that they prefer officers who come out of ROTC programs, because they tend to be better educated and less cynical about the military.

This is no knock on the academies' graduates. They are crackerjack smart and dedicated to national service. They remind me of the best of the Ivy League, but too often they're getting community-college educations. Although West Point's history and social science departments provided much intellectual firepower in rethinking the U.S. approach to Iraq, most of West Point's faculty lacks doctorates. Why not send young people to more rigorous institutions on full scholarships, and then, upon graduation, give them a military education at a short-term military school? Not only do ROTC graduates make fine officers -- three of the last six chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff reached the military that way -- they also would be educated alongside future doctors, judges, teachers, executives, mayors and members of Congress. That would be good for both the military and the society it protects.

We should also consider closing the services' war colleges, where colonels supposedly learn strategic thinking. These institutions strike me as second-rate. If we want to open the minds of rising officers and prepare them for top command, we should send them to civilian schools where their assumptions will be challenged, and where they will interact with diplomats and executives, not to a service institution where they can reinforce their biases while getting in afternoon golf games. Just ask David Petraeus, a Princeton PhD.

Photo: Flickr user: Hourman