Why We Should Get Rid of West Point

[uboat509]

Found this over at Small Wars Journal. Interesting if controversial article here by Tom Ricks at WaPo. As enlisted swine, I don't really have a dog in this fight but I am sure that the O's around here have an opinion.

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.

SFC W

[Shar]

This guy needs to get a lot of his facts straight before he makes these arguments. On Petreaus he states:

"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."

Right, but Petreaus got his PhD because he was a Marshall award winner at CGSC - one of those "second-rate" institutions. Petreaus was also a West Point graduate and an assistant professor there BEFORE he got his PhD (he was actually teaching while working on his PhD.) So the guy he says to "go and ask" is the exact model of why he says we should shut down West Point. Doesn't make much sense to me especially when that guy is one of our very best military minds.

I haven't a clue whether the idea has legs. My gut hates the idea for historical purposes, but I think this article and it's author are a little short on facts. Using words like "supposedly" and "strike me" when it doesn't appear that he has any first-hand knowledge doesn't impress me at all. This is also the guy who wrote Fiasco and The Gamble. Despite the fact that he is "supposedly" a military correspondent, he's never done much for me (and he graduated from Yale...). I'm no fan of anything Tom Ricks writes.

[nmap]

<i>I've concluded that graduates of the service academies don't stand out compared to other officers.</i>

In essence, he compares group 1 to group 2. And he says that group 1 performs at the same level as group 2.

What's missing:

How does he define performance, what elements are included, and why?

If group 2 could, say, run 100 m faster than group 1, are they better?

If group 1 wins more bronze stars than group 2, are they better?

And when we combine the factors....which is better?

(All of the above are purely rhetorical questions)

I suspect the gentleman was just writing an article.

[Kyobanim]

Isn't DWW (drinking while writing), a criminal offense?

[zauber1]

I find it ironic that on the same web page that Tom Ricks posits his statements that the service academies are community college level learning institutions there is a large ad for Colorado Technical University Online. Isn't that a place that once was accused of being a diploma mill?

The main difference between ROTC source commissioned officers and academy grads is that the former may have actually had to hold jobs while in college while USMA grads didn't. IMHO this may have produced a more well rounded officer because of the workplace experience. Some of the very best officers that I had the privilege of serving with had the National Guard as the source of their commission. Those guys had to work for a living before becoming officers.

My opinion and worth what you paid for it.

[Shar]

Originally Posted by zauber1

Some of the very best officers that I had the privilege of serving with had the National Guard as the source of their commission. Those guys had to work for a living before becoming officers.

There are 4 ways to become a commissioned officer:
1. West Point
2. ROTC
3. OCS
4. Direct Commission (Drs, DDS, Chaplains - I think that's it)

Mr. Ricks missed those last two sources in his "best officer" comparison. And if you are looking for who is ready the second they get their butter bars? I don't know much but on paper I'd bet some of the prior enlisted OCS officers are a safe bet. Or... the Green to Gold guys. Prior enlisted who go through ROTC. Betting that produces some quality O's. Mr. Ricks was writing to stir the pot - not to actually produce any fact finding.

I'll wager those National Guard officers you are talking about got their commission from OCS. The difference there is that some may have done a state OCS and others may have gone to Fort Benning. Regardless, you can still be an officer in the guard and have gotten your commission through any of the above sources. My father was in the guard for a time and was ROTC. My uncle was at an academy and was in the guard. I also know one guy who went through a state OCS while in a National Guard and then went AD - so I know there are officers who have gotten commissioned a variety of ways.

[plato]

Originally Posted by zauber1

Some of the very best officers that I had the privilege of serving with had the National Guard as the source of their commission. Those guys had to work for a living before becoming officers.

The West Point Cadet is impeded from working for a living by having a structured day that lasts from 0630 until 1930. The remainder of the day is devoted to studying for class. And, only 30 days of the year belong to the cadet. The other 11 months are mandatory active duty.

The Academy furnishes an intentionally high-stress environment. When looking at a class of incoming "Freshmen", one can anticipate that only half of them will make it to graduation. Each cadet is a soldier, all day long every day.

Though the two don't directly compare, I'd submit that an individual in the middle of SF training is being molded into a better soldier, even if they don't have the spare time to wait tables during the evening.

A cadet working with other military personnel in a cooperative high stress environment to accomplish a class/company objective is having an experience that I would think far more pertinent than someone appeasing an angry customer.

I'm not saying that the grad is better. Actually, during my early years in the Army, I wouldn't have traded a direct-commision former NCO for 'anyone'.

Another $.02

[f50lrrp]

I haven't a clue about today's Army but back in the 60's and 70's an OCS Officer was the best qualified and company grade assignments. When they reached the grade of 0-4 then the WP officers started to shine. ROTC Officers were hit & miss when it came to abilities.

Several Direct Commission folks made it big in the Army. Clonel Howard comes to mind.

[Basenshukai]

Most of the best officers I have served with were not from West Point. However, I have served with some outstanding West Point graduates.

[redleg99]

I am not a product of West Point, but I have served with many who are.
In my experience, source of commission does not determine who the best officers are – within that group all sources seem to be represented.

On the other hand, of the officers I have served with, I can only think of one, maybe two West Point graduates who were not solid, capable officers.
I can’t say the same for the other commissioning sources.

So, while West Point may not have cornered the market on producing the best officers, I think they have figured out how to generally produce good ones.

I haven't a clue about today's Army but back in the 60's and 70's an OCS Officer was the best qualified and company grade assignments.

I’m guessing this was the case because OCS Officers in those days usually had some experience as an NCO?

Now-a-days, an OCS graduate may be a former NCO.
But he’s just as likely to be a recent college graduate who enlisted into the Army with an OCS contract (i.e., straight from basic training to OCS).
One of the worst officers I know was one of those.
Another one was Ehren Watada.

[futureSoldier]

We have 5 West Pointers in our BN, I have worked with 4 in depth. There is no correlation between any of them as far as we can tell-except they all are experts on Power Point. As a matter of fact, we have a pretty even mix of OCS, ROTC, and WP and there is really no correlation between any of them and being solid competent Infantry officers. The OCS does bring a lot of experience: former lawyer, former Foreign Service officer for State that worked in Pakistan, former Wall Street economist, former small business owner, and a few prior service 11B. The experience definitely helps when thinking about when thinking about COIN. Of course, I am a bit biased-I'm the former small business owner.

I will say that I expected more of West Pointers-they are in a military school for years and I was a civilian less than a year before going to Infantry Officer Basic with them. I honestly expected a great deal more. I haven't been in too long, but it really seems like across the board in the Army that "you get out of it what you put in."

Just my .02

[Richard]

FWIW - I'm a Benning School for Boys grad (originally drafted and then 8 years as an NCO prior to commissioning) and - during my 23 years of service - knew officers from all sources of commissioning. It was my experience and remains my opinion that all produce officers who are outstanding, who are average, who are mediocre, and who aren't worth the oxygen it would take to explain their shortcomings.

One of the best officers I ever had for a Tm Ldr was a 'goat' from Hudson High - the guy who had graduated last in his class - and he got out when his six years were up to attend law school.

When I was at the AmEmbassy-Bonn, the guy Ambassador Walters went to in the DAO was not the DA (an Army COL and ROTC grad), but my mentor - an SF LTC who was an OCS grad and I had known previously when he was our S-3 in Bad Tolz. A USAF COL (an idiot), NAVY CDR (marginal), another Army LTC (elitist and cold shouldered if you weren't kissing his pompous a$$) in the DAO were all academy grads.

I remember a couple of times when there were arguments for closing all sources of commissioning except for the service academies, but that was shot down, too. IIRC, the last time it was nixed was by GEN Powell when he was Chairman, JCS. His reasoning was the same as GEN Marshall's - one never knows where the truly great officers are going to come from and we need to have all means available to acquire them.

The Ricks op-ed reeks of elitist snobbery bordering on latent jealousy and really rubs me the wrong way when he speaks of the service academy's lack of PhDs in its faculty, as if that is the criteria for a good researcher and experienced teacher of future leaders. I wonder if he knows that many of the assigned lecturers/associate professors are officers who do work towards and acquire their PhDs while on teaching assignments there.

And the arguments about learning alongside future doctors, judges, teachers, executives, mayors and membesof Congress - well, many who attend the service academies go on to join the ranks of those same career pathers, too.

When reading this article, I wonder if Ricks' apparent 'love' of GEN Petraeus (in a classical hero worshiping sense) is an indication of his desire to elevate either the man or his Princeton PhD to Chairman, JCS.

Richard's $.02

[alright4u]

I served with fellow officers, who were commissioned from each source. In June 68, I went down to Sigma as I was the C5 S4/PBO for 56 days prior to commanding 2nd company Omega. Afte the company I went to the northern launch site, and las to the 3 shop. In late 69, Chief INF Branch sent me to college for two years May 70-May 72. I was shocked as I did not have a DSC.

Sigma was loaded with sharp officers. Two were West Pointers and as sharp as I ever saw. One is the head of Templeton Inestments/funds now, and; he could damn sure command and write. He was as sharp as any officer I ever saw. I figured he would be a General.

Infantry OCS had a mission to prouduce platoon leaders. ROTC did a fine job, but; not all ROTC schools are equal. VMI did a good job in my opinion. I knew about five in SF, who received direct comissions.

In 72-73 in the IOAC the RIF hit all but seven of us who were not RA in late 72. The RIF hit all Reserve AD who did not have combat company command plus a degree. All WP officers in my class were sent to grad school for MBA's. The RA CPT's without degrees were sent to college.

In my opinion, the WP officers were either damn good or damn sorry. There was no medium. In 73-74 I was sent to the 2nd ID in Korea. I ran into more WP Majors and higher, who were ticket punchers and even LT's were playing politics. Hell, I had 1LT's talking to the Colonel for advise on how to plan their careers. They could not lead a damn platoon. The saddest lot however, was LTC's and Colonels, who were so hell bent on being promoted that they expected senior CPT's and Majors to falsify URR's and track vehicle status reports.

When you falsify a URR you are putting lives in danger if you go to war. When you lie, you are no officer. I was never asked to falsify a damn thing in SF. I will not falsify a report for anyone.

The end.

[redleg99]

The Ricks op-ed reeks of elitist snobbery bordering on latent jealousy and really rubs me the wrong way when he speaks of the service academy's lack of PhDs in its faculty, as if that is the criteria for a good researcher and experienced teacher of future leaders.

Good point.
I’m not sure how factual Ricks’ claim is that “most of West Point's faculty lacks doctorates.” He might be technically right, but I think there is something he doesn’t consider: the faculty members at West Point with master’s degrees usually teach only lower-division courses – similar to what teaching assistants do in the big universities.
But, since most (if not all) universities do not count their teaching assistants as part of their facility, they can claim that all their facility have PhDs.

[longrange1947]

Richard - You left out pompous jackassery.