Cadet: Serve before coming to the academy

Posted By Thomas E. Ricks Monday, May 4, 2009 - 5:46 PM Share

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

EXPLORE:SERVICE ACADEMIES , EDUCATION, MILITARY

(9)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

BRETT

7:42 PM ET

May 4, 2009

This idea isn't entirely new;

This idea isn't entirely new; although it's science fiction, Heinlein actually has this as a requirement for officers of the Mobile Infantry in his book Starship Troopers. I always figured the reason why they didn't do this was because they'd have a perpetual shortage of officers.

WALKING WOUNDED

7:04 PM ET

May 5, 2009

attrition of platoon officers

in combat is much higher than that of enlisted ranks and non-coms. The career path of an LT leading from the front is measured in minutes, once the enemy gets the range dialed in. Company officers don't fare much better; they're expected to throw themselves into the breach, when the line LT goes down, as at Wanat.

The Starship Trooper darwinian clash of empires is a great yarn. But it's an allegory of Roman Legions, not the USA that the USMA was chartered to defend against other human societies, without breaking faith with our own. Our social contract with the LT's and Pfc's is that when we send them over the top, to kill or be killed, the goal is worth the price.

How do we prepare officers (or reporters) for service in a Viet Nam or Iraq, war in which American society is unwilling to see the kind of war we are committing their blood to? Do we really want an answer to that question?

BLUE42

12:22 AM ET

May 5, 2009

I am a Marine Infantry

I am a Marine Infantry officer with two Iraq tours (and a Naval Academy grad). I have to take issue with the whole "prior enlisted is better" theme that seems to be propagating unchallenged in this forum. In my experience, prior enlisted Marines are overrepresented among above average officers, but vastly overrepresented among the truly horrible officers. Their main problem seems to be something that people attribute to West Point graduates i.e. they think they already know everything there is to know and often refuse to learn. In my experience the prior enlisted officers that are mature and intelligent enough to take their experience and use it for what it's worth, rather than thinking it gives them all the answers, are superior to other lieutenants (not necessarily generals), however, people this mature are rare. When prior enlisted experience is destructive, it tends to be much worse than an incompetent, naive ROTC or Academy grad because it has confidence and experience to back it up. The worst human being and most destructive officer I ever met was a prior enlisted infantry Marine. Furthermore, even for the good prior enlisted officers, their experience is only relevant at the small unit level. This is why they get paid more until they reach captain, but the same as everyone else from then on out.

When I was a firstie, I probably would have agreed with you, but experience has taught me that officers and enlisted aren't the same, and it's good that this is the case. One is not better than the other, they just have different roles. Enlisted Marines and soldiers are the doers. They are the ones who actually shoot people and fix things. Officers are the thinkers and leaders. They make the plans and look at the big picture, but shouldn't be shooting people if they are doing the most important parts of their job right. It goes against our dearly held American ideals, but it really isn't a good idea to expect people to do both. Just because someone is good at shooting people and fixing things DOES NOT MEAN they will be good at planning and looking at the big picture. Very often, it makes them worse. There is a reason every military in history has had a clear delineation between officer and enlisted (except the Israeli's and they haven't exactly been tearing things up lately).
Personally, I would trade a general who knows what it's like to be a private for one smart enough to be a Rhodes scholar in a heartbeat. Knowing what it's like to be a private won't magically tell him what the right decision is when he's trying to move brigades around and balancing the political demands of his civilian leaders with the welfare of his troops. Once you get past platoon and maybe company command, intellectual abilty is THE MOST IMPORTANT THING. There is nothing worse than a boss who does not have the intellectual ability to fully understand counterinsurgency and there are more than a few of them, believe me.

TOM RICKS

12:23 AM ET

May 5, 2009

Good points

This note underscores to me exactly what I like about doing a blog. I've posted something that interests me, and people with different viewpoints respond and make good, thoughtful points. I appreciate it.
Best,
tom

ps now if we only could get that professor at Trinity College to fess up.

ACG1189

6:34 AM ET

May 5, 2009

TYRTAIOS

3:27 PM ET

May 6, 2009

Greetings Blue42. Obviously

Greetings Blue42. Obviously the Corps tries to attract the best and the brightest, but has to compete with America's corporations, and of course the other services. Of those that answer that call, some will lead; some will follow; and some need to get out of the way.

That Gun Club you're a member of needs to identify those that will develope into forward thinkers, such as a John LeJeune but they also need Pete Ellis's. That is to say, those that can break down and implement the grand strategies into useable tactics, but are destined to never rise above field grade. Examples being: retired Colonel Wes Fox, and the individual whose regiment Wes served as a company commander, and who may have executed the only operational maneuver in Vietnam with Operation Dewey Canyon, former CMC, General Bob Barrow - both prior enlisted.

It seems clear you have a disdain, or at the least, grave reservations concerning those receiving unrestricted line commissions from the enlisted ranks from your recent experience. An experience I can only guess (I detest the word assume)has validity - but how wide spread is this or was it an anomaly in your command?

If your assertion is that the problem is the norm, than the Marine Corps has an issue in screening and selection with their enlisted commissioning programs.

I will tell you this in all sincerity: Afghanistan is going to bleed the Corps, and we will need all the best experienced leadership we can produce, and picking the right proven leaders from the enlisted ranks can pay dividends, along with the normal commissioning venues!

Toujours Fidele : - )

IAN.D.SMITH

1:56 AM ET

May 5, 2009

Good comments, "Concerned

Good comments, "Concerned Firstie." Good thoughts. I agree that there are in fact some of the unfit, malingering. Maybe the enlisted first is not a terrible idea.

Regarding the dismissal Rhodes/Marshall/Gates types as not as valuable: Be careful not to weed those types out. They are more important than you let onto. The architects of the Surge--the smart-guy architects of making the best out of a bad idea war gone wrong--came from academic stars of the Ox-bridge/Princeton by-way-of USMA route.

Ian Smith

TAINTSAMURAI

4:54 AM ET

May 11, 2009

Dear Concerned Firstie, You

Dear Concerned Firstie,

You are a brutal slug. Just the worst.

SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE

5:46 AM ET

May 11, 2009

Judas

Dear Concerened Firstie,

Or should I say Deep Throat?

First of all, tell us who you are you a disloyal coward.
Second of all, you are a total sluggo. I can smell it on you. Where do you get off bashing your school like that? If the Beach Boys taught us anything, it's "be true to your school." Feel free to say it to my face....out

your's truly,

Sleepless In Seattle