A-freaking-men. And not only that, but extending to enlisted soldiers at least some of the educational opportunities available to officers. The Army likes to talk about all of the college-educated soldiers it has, but then turns around and offers us no opportunity to pursue grad degrees while remaining in service or attend any of the service postgraduate schools.

I recently left the US Army after 12 years of service at the rank of SFC (E-7). I served in Iraq and Afghanistan, and one of the major factors in my decision to leave the service was to advance my education.

I came into the Army with a BA from a well respected small liberal arts school. I joined the Army initially to help pay off school loans, but found I loved the connection with my soldiers and the feeling of accomplishment from my job.

I had numerous opportunities to attend OCS during my career, and was pushed towards that option by many officers I respected. However, I loved my soldiers and relished the major impact a good NCO could have on individual soldiers.

Despite having a solid undergraduate GPA and GRE scores that would make most officers blush, I was unable to attend any kind of graduate school apart from what I could do online or at my local installation. There was no opportunity to go to a top notch graduate school to gain insight on foreign policy, or leadership, or organizational management.

Most NCOs are in charge of small teams of 3-10 people that operate in an entrepreneurial environment (like on patrol in Iraq). Most MBA programs center their education around leading just those kinds of teams.

Why aren't we sending quality (and ever more credentialed) NCOs to business school? Why is an E-7 with a BA inferior to a 1LT with a BA?

When I served in the 82d there was a medic in our neighbor unit who had a PhD in Comparative Literature from the University of Chicago.

Did it make him a better medic? Probably not. Was he better prepared for PME than many of the officers that get that chance? Umm. Yeah.

As a voter for the rival candidate this past election, I was surprised and caught off-guard by then President-Elect Obama’s assertion that it was time to serve this nation when it needs us. Like many, I viewed this as a “call to arms” - a refreshing change from typical campaign rhetoric, and embraced his comments about serving our nation in a time of need, and giving back.

Sadly, not all of our nations servicemembers have the propensity to serve; the notion of "protecting and defending" is foreign to them. This is the hidden ramification of the all-volunteer system - wolves in sheep's clothing sign up to do the nation's bidding on their own terms. And if they don't like the terms; they walk. Or worse, they stand in place, and contribute to the lack of readiness and patriotism that is clearly evident in the military of today. National service is not given the precedence it once had. While a deplorable state of affairs, this is not an impediment to our nation security strategy. We simply must work tirelessly to correct this deficiency.

When good recruiting and retention efforts are made, the national security establishment functions best as it has the best and brightest working for it. When it does not - as it has on numerous occasions this past decade - the military and intelligence communities falter, at a heavy price to America in a time when failure is not an option.

I'd like to preface that I was active duty Navy, serving in a series of diverse assignments from the Somali coast, to the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf to Virginia and Mississippi. In the course of my assignments, I served on both sea platforms and on land.

The Petty Officer and Chief Petty Officer communities in the United States Navy are in need of a serious realignment and overhaul - both in the way people are advanced and the way people lead. The Junior Officer communities have their own problems, but their existential challenges and the institutional mindset of many enlisted Navy Sailors are linked.

I would like to relate two concrete examples you and your readers may find startling. They certainly give credence to the call to refine, reform and realign the nations armed services - and in particular, the Navy.

#1
I've served in a variety of assignments, many of them joint/mixed service. The Navy is hands-down the most partisan service of all three branches. Just forget about the old maxim that servicemembers are supposed to do their jobs and let the politicians handle politics, because in the fleet, it doesn't work that way. On numerous occasions I didn't assume, I was told point blank by O-4/O-5/O-6's that they needed me to do this, or do that, or interface with the Congressman/Senators/Directors staff. It was never implied, but rather explicitly told to me this was because they were leaving the Navy soon, and the dignitary in question could/would/or already had landed them a job in the private sector, or at GS-14 and above. Time and again, political maneuvering takes precedence over "fighting the ship", and, in the bigger scheme of things, winning the war.

#2:
On a recent deployment a nuclear carrier was "buzzed" - twice - by an armed Iranian P-3. Now the first question would be to ask if we were in Iranian waters; and no, the ship was not at the time. What followed next perplexes me to the this day. Instead of conversing with the Operations Officer or Tactical Action Officer, the Commanding Officer cleared the bridge and discussed with his Department Heads the political ramifications of shooting it down should it make a third pass. There was no kinetic action; no manning of the air defense systems; and no guidance sent to the Combat Direction Center, other than what they already saw on the picture and what the Operations Specialists had reported. In short: the safety of the ship - which should be the foremost and paramount concern of the skipper - was put to the side and relegated to irrelevancy. How Washington and the world may perceive the shoot-down of an armed Iranian surveillance plane was more important than the safety of the crew, its aircraft and the brave naval aviators who fly them into harms way.

There are serious deficiencies in the Navy: the way it trains, the way they're allowed to fight and the way they promote and retain. For America to be the best, it must draw from the best to represent it, and - when called upon by the President and Congress - protect and defend it. Many First Class Petty Officers and even Chiefs lack rudimentary skills like leadership, basic geography, articulation and proper grammar. These are the people who are an integral part of the success or failure of that effort. In the Army and Marine Corps this would be unheard of and completely unacceptable. They wouldn't advance beyond E-5, nevermind attain E-8/E-9, or worse, become a Warrant Officer. From what I'm observed of the Air Force, they have a smart, cultured and robust NCO corps. The Navy can't say the same.

I look forward to discussing this at length with yourself, Gahlran, CDR Salamander, Neptunus Lex and the rest of the naval blogosphere and anyone else who may be unpleasantly surprised by the readiness - or lack thereof - of our nations Naval fleet.

As a 30 year professional Soldier, I can count on one hand the opportunities for real professional development and education made available to the Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO). Always touted as "The backbone" of the Army, the NCO is usually last to have an opportunity to obtain "On Duty" education. Too Valuable to the mission. This trend has changed a bit for NCO's , however in the 30 years I spent on active duty obtaining a degree was done after duty hours or on holidays and weekends. I know of not a single NCO with a section or platoon that was allowed to attend college full time on duty. Many commissioned officers (Platoon leaders, G3, G2, etc) were able to take months and some times years off to pursue higher non- military education with full pay and benefits ( for the good of the Service?) Time to pay more then lip service to the many dedicated NCO's ( who give the best years of their life to the Army) who are really the spark plugs that keep the Army's engine running. Army's stance should be to allow those NCO's(and he should only be an NCO if he is a professional Soldier)with under graduate degrees the same opportunity that it routinely makes available to commissioned officers. Army NCO's and Rangers lead the Way!

Rest assured, Tom always gets his wish, Unicorn