DIA civilian.

Failing that; JSOC analyst for a contractor (L-3; ManTech; CACI; SAIC).

He wants to contribute, so let him contribute. Sticking this man deep into the bowels of some line unit or an MI outfit in Colorado Springs would be disservice to himself and the nation.

I was in the same spot. I don't necessarily share your conclusion or motives -- I think there are other ways one could influence policy -- but, go for it.

There's a lot I didn't, and you won't, know that the guys around you do, and you'll feel like the dumbest guy in the room for a long time. Don't sweat it. You help by not having the same institutional assumptions those guys do.

Problem is a lot of your Ph.D. colleagues will have what you won't consider (and I don't consider) real Ph.D.s. Not, of course, because of the institution they're from. But the military uses a Ph.D. as a union card: they send someone off to go get one, he'/she does it real real fast with minimal or if possible no teaching responsibilities, and he/she picks a real real safe thesis project guaranteeing a rapid exit from grad school. This execution is what we in the Ivies (correctly) call an "undergraduate thesis" and the academic understanding of your colleagues -- by no measure of course a full accounting of their skillsets -- will reflect that. So when Ricks says you'll be working for morons sometime -- and well, sure, that's life, in or out of the military -- the problem is, sometimes said moron will want to screw you down on a purely academic point, and he/she will be flat wrong, and you'll want to scream. Often.

That said, people like you and me can also hold our ground. What I got from the military, was a backpack. You got your Ph.D. on your own, have a degree and background where you can go get your own damn job any time you want, and owe nobody nothin'. That can make you a stronger asset than your peers, if you are inclined to speak your mind.

Reading it over, I really do sympathize -- my background and exposure was much less military than yours!

But, um, just in case this isn't clear -- you have to be, y'know, sort of fit. Not an Olympian or anything, but, you really ought to be doing yoga or hitting the gym or whatever it is you do once in a while.

The poster who talked about DIA civilians -- yeah, and the civilians are the insitutional memory of the military too, because the officers move around in short order. But I strongly suspect you can log a single tour as an officer, ETS and hang out as a civilian, if there's some doubt in your mind as to which way to go.

Sure go ahead and join but before you sign the dotted line honestly reflect on your attitude about dealing with authority. If you can’t stand being supervised by some people not as bright as yourself and resent authority figures then you would likely be in for some uncomfortable times. Also, a well educated mature person like yourself should only join if you are willing to go to OCS and get a commission as you would likely be very unhappy as an enlisted man. Your comments indicate that you might be a natural candidate for intelligence work since you have language skills and a proven academic record.

What service to join? Obviously the answer is the sea services either the U. S. Navy or Coast Guard, they also have the nicest bases locations and I think the highest quality personnel. If it can’t be those two then the U. S. Air Force would welcome your talents. The poor Army is too dysfunctional for my tastes and seems often to be the last resort for those trying to get into the armed forces.

He sounds like a bright eyed world-changer.

Maybe I am a little too cynical but:
* Do you really expect to influence foreign policy significantly in the military? (In a way which Foreign Service officers apparently can't?)
* Does the military really need liberal arts eggheads? (Beyond the ability of "soldier-scholars" to dazzle and charm the media, however briefly.)
* Is there any reason to join the military if it is going to be to partake in a non-physical, presumably analytical role that is similar to a civilian job? (As Forac suggests.)

Not that I am an expert on the military job market and the skills academia might bring to it...

My personal advise would be for the aforementioned individual to give a good, hard look at the Army's OCS (09S) enlistment option. A few things to highlight:

1) The Army takes "older", civilian candidates in great numbers into its OCS program (up to age 42), so the requisite age waiver is essentially a "rubber stamp". The acceptance rates for qualified applicants is currently very high and the "wash out" rate is very, very low.

2) The Army OCS enlistment option only incurs a 3 year Active Duty Service Obilgation (ADSO) upon commissioning. Essentially, you can leave active duty 3 years after graduating from OCS (if you choose).

3) OCS candidates coming in on the 09S enlistment option now have the opportunity to select their officer branch based on their standing on the Order of Merit List (OML). This means the "crap shoot" of OCS branching, for civilians at least, is a thing of the past. The new OCS branching process works very similar to the USMA "branch night" except the candidates only pick branch, not duty station. Provided the applicant in question can do reasonably well in PT, he should profit very well from this new process.

4) Army OCS has seen a healthy intake of "nontraditional" civilian applicants over the past few years: Lawyers, Teachers, PhDs, returning Peace Corps volunteers, etc. He would by no means be an "anomaly" and would probably fall near the "median" age of his OCS class (given older civilian candidates and the in-service NCOs). In the Navy, USAF or USMC, even if he got in, he would be likely seen as an old and atypical candidate.

5) Through his service, the applicant will gain "veterans preference" which can be the deciding factor in Federal hiring. Additionally, the Post-9/11 GI could be a real boon if higher education is considered. Also, the Army offers loan repayment to OCS candidates.

The Army would offer the applicant a great opportunity to develop his/her leadership skills and to perform service in the truest sense of the word. The insight and intangibles gained from the experiences and those served with would be tremendous.

I suggest the applicant visit www.armyocs.com to learn more. OCS applications in the Army are processed through regular, enlsited recruiters. While this process is sub-optimal, the upside is that entry into the process is quite accessible - just vist a recruiting station. That said, don't forget to visit www.armyocs.com first so the Station Commander doesn't try to talk you into being an E-4!

FORAC,

Boo hiss to the contractor advice above. This young person wants to serve his COUNTRY not a corporation profiting handsomely from endless war. Contract positions should be a "last resort" suggestion.

Then read the Ross input on NYT Home Front Blog.

Read the first two paragraphs of Moby Dick and the last chapter of Gadsby.

Then go as far to the end of the empire as the military will project you - enlisted or officer, it doesn't matter.

Godspeed!

Lot's of good advice here so I'll keep it simple. Because trying something simple is often the answer: as you stated, why not allow the prospect of volunteering to serve your country be the genuine motivating factor?

Perhaps it is time to experience the adversity of a dangerous situation and hold the wolf by the ears?

Good luck "old man" and maybe you'll return and let us know what you decided? : )

I'm in a 4WD with my sister trying to type and see what I'm writing on the Blackberry screen - we're traveling into a conflict-affected part of East Africa. This is by no means a one off. I do it every week, and have done so in different countries for the last five years.

I run stabilization and reintegration programmes in difficult, fractious, and non-permissive working environments.

But I'm an aid worker, not a soldier. Frequently, we have to come to terms with a trauma-woven social fabric,sift through the economic detritus of unnecessary war and violence, and plan strategically and tactically how to work in dislocated places with very limited resources.

It requires brains and resourcefulness. A fine mind, PhD or just sheer competence, goes a long way.

I love what you wrote, " I've come to the conclusion that I've had enough of writing about other people doing things, and would like to do some doing myself".

That's the sort of spirit that started a lot of us on our way.

I admire your patriotism, but don't waste your precious time and efforts on wars that are anatheama

I understand the 'change tje system from within' but AFPAK is a facsimile copy of Viet Nam and is a waste of lives, time, and treasure.

Post some intelligent commentary on. http://negativeagain.blogspot.com/ and we'll work out a way to get in touch.

One positive outcome of the whole-of-government push is all the opportunities for civilians to take advantage of Military Professional Education. State, among many other civilian agencies and civilian parts of DoD, can take full-on courses at NDU or Service schools or do distance education easily. Additionally, there are plenty of short courses on military affairs around the interagency.

It's good to see that the military's centuries-long structure of providing training for its officers is now open to many, which in turn strengthens that system.

Not sure why it wasn't mentioned, but you really should go down to the local recruiting stations and ask questions. It will be worth your time, and will allow you to better understand what your future will look like in each service.

A few things to consider
a) think about the Reserves (of the Army or Navy, USMC requires active duty time first, not sure about USAF). This allows you to do you training, drink coffee at drill on the weekends and have some flexibility if you want to deploy, all while living a fairly normal life. You can probably also **CHOOSE YOUR BRANCH (i.e. job)** if you join the reserves.
FYI Reserve forces are the "one weekend a month, two weeks a year" guys. Except now they also deploy.
b) OCS-i do not recommend going for active army. They rank you, and then based on that you get to choose your job (which is based on what they have available). And OCS as of late has been giving out the crappier jobs in the Army (trans, quartermaster, adjutant). If you get a job you don't want (very likely), you'll be stuck living in the middle of nowhere, and like Tom said, working with some people who are morons.
So, I'd recommend Army/Navy Reserve (or National Guard) intelligence. If you live in DC there are lots of units in those areas to choose from

Sorry to say, but if this question is a real one, I fear this young man is in real trouble when joining the forces. But, as over here in Germany, the almost take everyone in now, he maybe should try PsyOps, as the pen is mightier than the sword - they should have taught that at least.

Tom says, "Don't expect to be the smartest guy in the room, do expect to work for morons sometime -- but find a way to learn from everyone. "

Isn't this true of ANY job? I don't think the military service has cornered the market on morons. Indeed, I like to think that they are a cut above the schlubs slaving in cubes or laboring in the mines (not to say there is anything bad about those important occupations). Now I would say that because I have been and remain military but I also slave in a cube. Service members don't do it for the money (that's for sure).

I think military service is a great thing, patriotic sure, but more important it is meaningful. In the right positions (like leading troops) it is life or death sometimes. It doesn't get more meaningful than that. Indeed the hardest part is leaving the military when you are done - it ruins you for most anything else. Be prepared for that. There are things you can do in the service you'll never get another chance to do. It sucks going 72 hrs without sleep, cold wet and hungry and wondering if you are going to survive (even just a training exercise) but the smile of your miserable battle buddy or radio-telephone operator can make it all worthwhile, and you'll remember those moments forever. People are great (even some of the morons) and you'll make friends for life.

I would argue that if foreign policy is your goal than there is no better way to learn it than working for the armed services a stint or two. It will certainly lend more creedance than even that fancy degree you got (I have a PhD too, who cares it means you like to study alot). Even an Infantry LT or SSG is becoming a foreign policy expert in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. They are where the rubber meets the road and their actions (and failures) are policy incarnate.

I concur with LT above, Go Guard or Reserves OCS and you'll have the best opportunity to meld your academic and military pursuits. Also despite the naysayers on this board, the Army rocks, and they (with the Marines) are the ones doing the heavy lifting with their boots on the ground in those far off places where you want and need to get experience. I will say this - if you have no desire to deploy and pick up a rifle don't apply to either of those two branches. Even in the Guard and Reserves you will deploy, probably sooner than later.

Good luck. A Guardsman

A tentative plan to spend three years as a military officer with a commission earned in Officer Candidate School followed by a career as a U.S. Government civilian sounds like the way to go. That plan leaves both the military and civil service options open for the time being. The Flynn report on military intelligence and other entries on this blog show that there are many dedicated military professionals who care deeply about their profession but at the same time are not completely happy about the status quo. The miliary has never been perfect nor will it ever be, in spite of the hagiographic stuff some people commenting here have read in the history books on George Marshall, code-breaking at Bletchley Park, the 19th century British Army, or the U.S. Marine Corps. Put another way, no company that ever took a hill ever did it with its full authorized TO&E strength.

The DIA has a lot to offer, as an analyst and you'll still get the flavor of the military if that is what you want. Then after a year or two, if you are still interested, you can go OCS. That way, you aren't committed.

If he'd like to spend four or five years wondering how the Army found so many egregious ways to misuse his skills, sign that contract.

Because of the wars and situations that the U.S. military finds itself in these days, it sounds like any armed service would welcome an asset such as him. Especially in complex places like Afghanistan more men are needed who can really think and analyze the problems at hand. It sounds to me that either the Air Force or Naval Intelligence would be your best bet to utilize these skills and get experience, myself knowing a highly educated commander in naval intelligence who helped support SEAL operators and form ties with the locals. You might want to weight your options though, such as the reserves, and make sure you knows what your getting into...

I love UGG Boots sale
UGG Boots
I think is very comfortable,
UGG Boots uk
and the
UGG Bailey Button boots

bailey ugg boots
they are very warm.
button ugg boots
bailey button ugg
those boots,like
ugg button boots
Classic Tall UGG Boots
Classic Short UGG Boots
they are very cheap
Classic Nightfall UGG Boots
bailey ugg boots
I belive you will would like
Bose headphones for sale
Bose headphones
also.
Bose in ear
Bose on ear
are help for you in your life.
buy bose headphones .
is good for your ear.
Bose on ear headphones
I also go to buy a
Bose in ear headphones
what about you like?

Sometimes being on the ground and getting one's hands dirty ends in tragedy. There's a new film 'Human Terrain' coming soon about the Human Terrain System and its first casualty, Michael Bhatia, an oxford educated social scientist who was killed by a roadside IED while working on Human Terrain Team One in Afghanistan in 2008.
www.humanterrainmovie.com/
I think the film especially the tensions in Michael's story can be very helpful for a person like you deciding where to stand on the sometimes blurred lines between studying, generating policy for, or finally directly participating in current U.S. military operations.

Hey, I feel your confusion and understand where you are coming from. I am entering my final semester of college and about a year ago decided to go USMC OCC...I had been an intern in Massachusetts state offices, Boston City Council offices, Boston Red Sox front office as well as for Sen. John Kerry's Washington DC office...but none of them provided me with the fulfillment I was looking for. It was great seeing local government doing its thing in Boston and then seeing how policy makers can alter the conversation from Capitol Hill, but at the same time, I did not feel any of these jobs was quite enough.

I have been in the USMC OCC pipeline for about a year and hope to ship out in October to Quantico. I arrived at this decision after a half a year of mulling over what branch was best for me. I had many a conversation with a retired Coast Guard Commander and was heading in that direction, but I also sat down with an Army, Navy and Marine Corps recruiters.

For me, Army recruiters were only interested in trying to get me to enlist as I had not done ROTC. To them I was merely another number and I decided against it immediately. Navy seemed too big and traditional and all the recruiter talked about was the places I would be visiting. Finally, USMC Captain at the Officer Selection Station I ventured into was engaging and forthright about what would be expected.

Sorry to make this so long, but I was looking for a challenge and USMC brought plenty of challenges from the get go. I wanted my option to be as phsyically and mentally demanding as possible so in that sense USMC was right track. I also want the most leadership training possible and USMC's Basic School (6 months of officer training) really appealed to me.

Again, sorry about long-windedness, but I guess my point is to go in and talk to a recruiter, but you need to know what you want to get out of it. I want to be a warrior (for this reason many Coast Guard missions don't appeal to me), but you have to know where you would like to see yourself in 2 years.

Remember to take everything a recruiter says with a massive grain of salt (I felt like walking out of the Army Recruiting Station that I had just been made a General)...so sit down with a recruiter, tell them where you are coming from and where you see yourself in the future and see what kind of options are out there. And don't forget the Coast Guard when looking at different services.

Good luck.

In the post from Ombrageux referring to "liberal arts eggheads"! Would he prefer more Christian fundamentalist, reactionary, proselytizing and evangelical entrants to the Service? Being an engineer myself, and from Texas, I can understand how Ombrageux needs to ridicule, and he has my sympathy. I believe a problem in the Armed Forces stems from the idea that fewer East Coasters with Ivy League degrees now consider the military as an option than had been the case up to Vietnam. This dissociates a large pool of talented people from the institution. I say we need a broader, liberal, and truly universal perspective to be added back into the military mix.

In my experience, officers in the sea services (USN, USMC, USCG) are the most cerebral, dedicated, open-minded and morally upright of the lot. You would be marginalized as a non-flyer in the Air Force, and assigned a number and a queue in the Big Army Machine. As sound as your mind is after all these years of academic rigor, you should also begin the process of developing your corporeal strength. if you haven't already. A sharp intellect and a strong body will carry you far in the naval service.

I would like to add my bit to a very interesting discussion. I am an active-duty USMC captain living in southern Taiwan for 2 years studying for a master's degree in international relations as an Olmsted Scholar (http://olmstedfoundation.org/). It's not a well-known program but sounds to me like it might be exactly what you are looking for - one year of language training (either in-country or at the Defense Language Institute) followed by 2 years of graduate school in the country you are assigned to, with your graduate school classes being taught in the local language. (Granted, already possessing a PhD, the graduate school part of the program probably has a lot less appeal to you than for those who don't already have advanced degrees, but the program is customizable - you would likely be able to focus even more on building language proficiency.) You mentioned you have some background in Arabic - if you are interested in pursuing that further in the Olmsted Scholar Program, you certainly would be able to. You select the countries you would like to study in and what language you want to learn. You spend a total of 3 years in the program and then return to your service with language skills and, more importantly, two or more years (if you choose to do language training in-country) of cultural immersion. The Olmsted Foundation also provides you with money to travel throughout the region you are in so that you get a well-rounded exposure to an entire region not limited just to the country that you are studying it. You also still receive your full military pay and benefits while going to school. It's a similar program to the foreign area officer (FAO) program that all the services have, but in my opinion better because it focuses more on providing cultural immersion and you spend more time overseas in the foreign environment than in the FAO program. The program is open to active duty officers with between 3 - 11 years of active federal service and all the services participate. It makes no difference what your MOS is for the Olmsted program - they are just looking for smart, career-oriented junior officers with a lot of potential. I think this would be the program for you.

Regarding your age, I was 29 years old when I attended Marine OCS (making me the second oldest in my company) and I finished in the top 5% of my class. You can hang in there physically with the younger candidates, and you’ll be far ahead of most of them academically.

Some have posted about MOS, etc. - which service you should join to maximize your chances to get a specific job. For me, there was no argument - it was only Marine, and I vowed to take my best shot at getting what I wanted based on merit. It worked out - I got my first choice of MOS (intelligence), my top duty station pick, and have been incredibly fortunate in terms of job assignments, mentorship, and educational opportunities. It can work out for you, too. Good luck!

First, I'm a PhD from a well-regarded program, about a decade older than you, who's served in both USMC and USN, and also the intelligence world - to get my biases out of the way.

Given your lack of family or life exposure to the US military, you would be VERY foolish to jump in and join any of the services without doing a great deal of research and rigorous self-assessment. I had a lot of exposure to the military my whole life, it made all the difference; without it, you will be a serious oddball by virtue of age, life experience, book-smarts, etc.

Given that, your best bet, IMHO, is to get a direct commission in the USNR as an Intel Officer (1635); I don't know how the DIRCOM program is looking this FY, but it's the easiest path to a commission and, if you really like the Navy, you can always go active 2-3 years in. There are, ahem, ample opportunities for excelling now (ie be ready for mobilization). Eggheads - and I mean that nicely - abound in the 1635 world, you will probably fit nicely.

If you want to go into intel as a civilian career, avoid DIA, it's a nightmare, you will hate it, trust me. Go CIA/DI, given your background.

As a former Army officer and current doctoral student, the only simple recommendation I can make is to eschew recommendations simple enough to be broadcast as a blog post comment.

I wouldn't trade my time in the Army or my experience on deployments for anything in the world. For the big picture reasons of serving a greater cause (my soldiers, that is) and the person it made me as well as the opportunistic benefits of the real world experiences and the credibility that comes with them, I am grateful I served when and how I did.

However, I left the Army for a reason (a number of them, actually). And my experiences since then with NGOs, contractors and civilian government service all drive home that there are plenty of other places to serve the greater good and do real things in the real world.

Where these contradicting views take me is the observation that you're not going to get a useful answer from a quick 10 lines of text in response to a short 30-line description of the problem. Every Ivy has faculty around doing security studies who have interacted with the military at some point (former students, if nothing else), as well as military officers in graduate programs. Most Ivies have faculty or administrators who have served in the national security community at some point. Presumably whatever part of your interests has you considering the military has also afforded you to meet these people in a class or seminar, but even if it hasn't you can simply introduce yourself. Schedule an office hour or take them out to lunch, and let this be a conversation with interaction, probing and introspection. That's the only way to have a fair guess if the military is right for you and--just as important--if you're right for it.

Two parting thoughts: First, you can talk to a recruiter for more information (these are the types of jobs you can do, the active/reserve options, the type of commitment required, etc.), but not for an impartial recommendation. If you're looking to enlist, recruiters have quotas they're responsible to fill and you're simply a widget facilitating mission accomplishment. If you're looking to become an officer you're outside their quota (and thus their incentive to care one way or another) and subject to the vagaries of their personal opinion of officers, officer recruitment and the type of day they're having: you could get lucky, or you could get screwed. Second, if all the advice and recommendations and conversations are a wash, in the grand scheme we're only talking about 3-5 years of your life and another experience never hurt anyone. Even if you absolutely hate it and all it does is show you that you really do want to be an academic after all, a few years is a pretty cheap price to pay for that kind of certainty.

Many well-thought out responses and pieces of advice here, and each person will generally put the best plug for their service. Kind of like sports, so take that for what it's worth. But, we need more education in the military, ESPECIALLY within our combat ranks like the Army and Marines.

That being said, one of my most favorite quotes of all time, supposedly by Thucydides:

"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."

Seems to be the case far too often, especially as we spend ample time looking at things brought up in this blog...

Call me biased, but as a PhD who has worked in various capacities for USAF & USMC (as well as Aust air force and Brit navy) there is no question in my mind that the USMC is the way to go. The Corps has a refreshing sense of history, proportion and realism one does not often see. As a general rule if you ask a Marine to get something done you dont need to check to ensure the tasks proper execution.

Its a deeply serious organisation. It respects thinkers. If you become a 'doing thinker' as you rightly aspire to become, the world (esp. the beltway) will be your oyster whether you remain in uniform or not. If you go through OCS never ever forget the troops. Go into Infantry - its where the business of the Corps is conducted. The smarted Marines I have met (and I have met a few) are all Inf officers.

Good luck. If you get into OCS ask Tom for my email and come and say hi.