For Rent/Sale...Old Army Major...Used to tough conditions and decisions...Used to leading large groups of men that are indigenious and do not speak english as a primary language.....Doesn't like to work in an office...Prefers outdoors....Will work for food. Will travel...

As my mortar platoon sergeant replied....

"I dont know about renting but I will follow. Ive heard of that man. teaching many things but learning the whole time he spoke. Once I visited this man and we traveled to the places that normal men fear. It was there that we all became what we did not know and at the end will be who we are. If you see this man tell him I miss him and I love him and THANKS........BLK7 out"

As my Vietnam buddy replied...

"You should consider trying out as an old hippie, not the new kind mind ya. No sir, rather the old variety where there may well be a man of substance behind the hair.
You my friend would look bitchin' with some dreads.
A little patchoulli and your off to see the Dead, with me and the kids..."

I think Dr. Seuss wrote a book about it entitled "Oh, the places you'll go."

v/r

Major Michael Few

I've been following the Academy discussion and keep coming back to two questions:

1.) Should Academy grads be different than those commissioned by other sources?

2.) What should we expect out of Academy grads?

I think the answer to #1 is yes. My anecdotal experience is that they are different--they are worse. I don't think that's the kind of difference we should be expecting.

As far as number 2, it is probably hard to agree on anything, but if we expect the same thing out of them as we do ROTC grads, then why have the Academies at all? Shouldn't we expect more because we pay more for them?

Keith, USAFA 2002

To draw a conclusion from TBS graduation rank is manipulating the data to suit the claims of the report's writer, because the company that most USNA grads go to consists of 2/3-3/4 Naval Academy graduates so the pool they compete in for rank is filled mainly with their classmates from Navy. Some USNA grads will either go early or late to TBS because they feel it is easier to get a coveted MOS (military occupational specialties) like infantry in a different company, where they are not competing with their former peers from the Academy. Oliver North stated that he did this in the book, The Nightingale's Song. But as a Marine from USNA I am little bit biased in this whole argument.

I think the Academies are a useful tool for developing leaders to fight our country's wars. They develop a cadre of offiers that have been prepared specifically to be leaders and to fight for four years, a time that allows them grow into their future roles and responsibilities. If I had more time I would write a more passionate defense of why the schools are valuable and necessary, but I am in Iraq and have more important things to do.

Mustang officers were the strongest, best retained officers, within the limits of the study as described.

So instead of all that bizarre hazing of plebes and doolies, have the academy applicants put in 2 years (the old draft hitch) in the ranks. Then power thru the freshmen-sophmore academics (sharing academy space with standout enlisted applicants) before serving as a junior officer. Having survived 4 years of active service, ensigns and LT's can rejoin the cadet corp (with another class augmentation of non-coms having AA degree minimum), for a career track academy degree. Some officer-students could opt for a university BA in lieu of the Academy degree, and those officers opting out at the end of their hitch wouldn't be taking up space in upper-division classes.

Basically that's the JC-university model that has proved relatively effective in reducing undergrad drop-out costs at the state U's. Military discipline and weapons training would be delivered in the traditional boot-basic manner. Why train someone as an officer, if a seargent wouldn't trust him with live ammo on a target range?

Re the service command colleges, I suggest that whatever gnostic secrets the command colleges confer on how this country's governance really works, that should be core curriculum for all citizens.

As I began PoliSci PhD studies (a few years ago) at a Big 10 school, I met an Army major pursuing an MA to advance his career. Originally, he enlisted and later attended OCS and had seen action in both of America's Iraq wars.

I learned two things from this man relevant to the current discussion: 1) he said he'd never admit it to them, but he envied Westpoint grads for being sharp, experiencing a unique education, and generally "knowing their stuff" and 2) the utility of most civilian advanced degrees to those filling or leading boots on the ground: none. Most grad programs and their faculties disdain policy relevance. Perhaps the military academies and their war college cousins are hidebound and less effective than they should be, but I am skeptical their jobs can or should be outsourced to major universities with opaque research agendas.

Similar to what Walking Wounded suggested, everybody begins with at least 2 years active enlisted service. They then follow either a commissioned, warrant, or non-commissioned career path in accordance with their own professional goals and talents.