Why We Should Get Rid of West Point

**astralis** · 20 Apr 09,, 20:06

shek,

just got the book myself. but here's something you might not agree with quite as fervently

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...041603483.html

Why We Should Get Rid of West Point

By Thomas E. Ricks
Sunday, April 19, 2009

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.

This is no knock on the academies' graduates. They are crackerjack smart and dedicated to national service. They remind me of the best of the Ivy League, but too often they're getting community-college educations. Although West Point's history and social science departments provided much intellectual firepower in rethinking the U.S. approach to Iraq, most of West Point's faculty lacks doctorates. Why not send young people to more rigorous institutions on full scholarships, and then, upon graduation, give them a military education at a short-term military school? Not only do ROTC graduates make fine officers -- three of the last six chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff reached the military that way -- they also would be educated alongside future doctors, judges, teachers, executives, mayors and members of Congress. That would be good for both the military and the society it protects.

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.

Thomas E. Ricks is a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security and author of "The Gamble," about the Iraq war from 2006 to 2008. He will discuss this article at 1 p.m. on Monday at www.washingtonpost.com/liveonline.

**Shek** · 20 Apr 09,, 20:38

I made a new thread for this. I'll respond later in the week - I'm just following the discussion right now. Of interest, General Petraeus taught here with only a master's degree (he was ABD and wrote his dissertation during his two years on the faculty). His argument suffers from using limited anecdotes and then trying to extrapolate too broadly from them. Also, from the numbers I've seen, his numbers are off. However, I don't know enough specifics to very accurately portray the numbers (I am confident enough to state that he misuses them, citing $130K for the average ROTC graduate but then recommends sending those that would have gone to West Point to "prestigious" institutions, which sounds a lot like Ivy League-tier schools, which will cost more than the average $130K).

S2 · 12 May 09,, 00:17

"However, I don't know enough specifics to very accurately portray the numbers (I am confident enough to state that he misuses them, citing $130K for the average ROTC graduate but then recommends sending those that would have gone to West Point to "prestigious" institutions, which sounds a lot like Ivy League-tier schools, which will cost more than the average $130K)."

Shek,

OTOH, not all "prestigious" institutions would equal a West Point education's cost much less Ivy League.

I cite the general reputations of Virginia, N. Carolina, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Cal-Berkeley, Texas, and UCLA. More to the point, in specific majors, any number of public or less-cost private institutions may be the appropriate venue for optimizing the educational and social/cultural experience were this an alternative.

It's my impression that at the junior officer and field-grade level, the quality of the West Point officer's education seemed evident to me. Honest to God, I met very few stiffs who were undeserving of the opportunity afforded.

That said, I don't regret the school chosen by myself one bit, never felt it to be a potential impediment and don't wonder if, aside from dollars, we shouldn't be grateful for the fascinatingly diverse sources of commissioning offered.

**Chogy** · 14 May 09,, 14:48

It's not just the education that moulds the future officer, it's the environment. An officer needs an "all-around" education that includes academic, military, and physical training. If you looked at a graduating class at MIT, they may be technically brilliant, but the image of some of them humping a ruck for 20 miles is laughable.

Besides, the tradition of the service academies is nothing to sneeze at. There are intangibles at work. A service academy grad knows he is following in the footsteps of greatness, and the motivation to live up to those standards is a powerful one. He realizes a great trust has been placed in his hands.

I think the value invested in those schools is returned 10-fold, but it is not something that you can put on a spreadsheet.

**nebula82** · 14 May 09,, 15:44

It'll be interesting, if possible, to see the promotion statistics of the three paths (academy, ROTC & OCS). E.g. what % of current Generals & Admirals are academy graduates, ROTC graduates & OCS graduates?

Nebula82.

**FOG3** · 14 May 09,, 17:36

Seems like a silly idea to me. Patton is supposed to have quite literally been forged at VMI & West Point.

\"Future doctors, judges, teachers, executives, mayors and members of Congress\" is noteworthy for its lack of engineer and other technical or hard science fields. The closest is doctors, which are really a different animal from Applied Science. Seems as how I know the Navy at least is supposed to basically make all Academy grads into mini-Engineers this smells of a Liberal Arts type.

**HirosStorage** · 14 May 09,, 19:30

Ringknockers, Honestly I think the quality of officers would improve if we did away with the academies. Aristocrats have no place in a volunteer army of a republic.

**Mihais** · 14 May 09,, 20:59

Originally Posted by HirosStorage

Ringknockers, Honestly I think the quality of officers would improve if we did away with the academies. Aristocrats have no place in a volunteer army of a republic.

Blasphemy.The noble vocation of arms has always been and always will be the attribute of the most chivalrous.Especially in a volunteer army.

**diablo49** · 15 May 09,, 01:04

Originally Posted by HirosStorage

Ringknockers, Honestly I think the quality of officers would improve if we did away with the academies. Aristocrats have no place in a volunteer army of a republic.

The academy is based on merit. While it is probably easier to get in with money (covering the costs, but don't take my word for it at all), You will not be able to graduate and put into command of anything meaningful without the ability to command competently. It is not so much easier though that it is made up of only "aristocrats" as you put it. I'm fairly sure the 'aristocrats' shun putting their sons and daughters in the military and I think the officers are made up for the most part by the middle-class.

**Shek** · 15 May 09,, 01:10

Originally Posted by diablo49

The academy is based on merit. While it is probably easier to get in with money (don't take my word for it at all), You will not be able to graduate without the ability to command competently. It is not so much easier though that it is made up of only "aristocrats" as you put it. I'm fairly sure the 'aristocrats' shun putting their sons and daughters in the military and think the officers are made up for the most part by the middle-class.

I've had cadets whose parents are filthy rich. The parents were supportive and the cadets competed for a slot because they wanted to serve. However, the fact that there parents were loaded had nothing to do with their ability to get in, except for the fact that they presumably inherited their parents' intelligence (which tends to correlate well with income). Beyond strong SAT/ACT scores, being an Eagle Scout is a huge benefit towards getting selected, and that certainly doesn't take money - but it does take commitment (which is why it's weighed heavily).

**Shek** · 15 May 09,, 01:18

Originally Posted by S-2

Shek,

OTOH, not all "prestigious" institutions would equal a West Point education's cost much less Ivy League.

I cite the general reputations of Virginia, N. Carolina, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Cal-Berkeley, Texas, and UCLA. More to the point, in specific majors, any number of public or less-cost private institutions may be the appropriate venue for optimizing the educational and social/cultural experience were this an alternative.

I agree with you, but I don't think that those were the schools that Ricks had in mind.

Originally Posted by S-2

It's my impression that at the junior officer and field-grade level, the quality of the West Point officer's education seemed evident to me. Honest to God, I met very few stiffs who were undeserving of the opportunity afforded.

They're out there, but in my observation, I think that ROTC and USMA have similar quality distributions (ROTC probably has a little more on the low just because of the varying quality of ROTC programs and the lesser requirements to get to the finish line), and for OCS, you're either great or suck with few in between. That being said, I think that all three sources provide value to the Army and wouldn't want to see it any other way.

Originally Posted by S-2

That said, I don't regret the school chosen by myself one bit, never felt it to be a potential impediment and don't wonder if, aside from dollars, we shouldn't be grateful for the fascinatingly diverse sources of commissioning offered.

Other than the first week of OBC where the West Pointers clumped together in open seating and ROTC did the same, I rarely saw any differentiation going on about commissioning sources, whether it was among peers or by superiors (my first battalion commander railed against USMA grads at every function where he drank, but that's the only time I can think of and I don't think it played out in evaluations/selecting for positions from what I saw). The only discrimination that I saw was against non-tabbed officers, which is unique to the Infantry and some select units.

**Red Seven** · 15 May 09,, 12:44

It'll never happen. Plenty of other places to cut the budget without closing our prestigious military academys. Do academy grads make better officers than ROTC? Not necessarily. Good officers come from everywhere.

Some of the best I've seen are men who served in the ranks first.

**Shek** · 15 May 09,, 18:38

Originally Posted by nebula82

It'll be interesting, if possible, to see the promotion statistics of the three paths (academy, ROTC & OCS). E.g. what % of current Generals & Admirals are academy graduates, ROTC graduates & OCS graduates?

Nebula82.

Not the exact same thing you were asking, but it's on the same vein of questioning. Some of this is a matter of timing, so we shouldn't read too much into this, but I don't think you should dismiss it all as a matter of coincidence. I guarantee that there are other variables out there that can explain some of this, such as how these officers grew up in the Army (light vs. mech/heavy), so it's not all about where they went to school 35 some years ago by any means.

More about West Point graduates - By Tom Ricks | The Best Defense

A research-prone reader sends this interesting note:

Thought you may find it interesting that, with GEN McKiernan's dismissal and the appointments of LTGs McChrystal & Rodriguez to command positions in Afghanistan, every 3- and 4-star general officer exclusively directing the ongoing wars will soon be a West Point graduate:

"War Czar" LTG Doug Lute '75

USCENTCOM CG GEN David Petraeus '74

MNF-I CG GEN Ray Odierno '76

MNC-I CG LTG Charles Jacoby '78 (who recently replaced LTG Lloyd Austin, '75)

MNSTC-I CG LTG Frank Helmick '76

ISAF/USF-A-designate LTG Stan McChrystal '76
New Operational Commander (MNC-I equivalent) LTG David Rodriguez '76

Additionally, the new ambassador to Afghanistan is Karl Eikenberry is USMA '73.

That's not bad, considering that West Point expelled dozens of cadets for cheating in a 1976 scandal -- but I think from the class of '77, which doesn't appear on the above list, perhaps because of its unusually high attrition rate.

Meanwhile, another officer notes that the guys who have been criticized, fairly or unfairly, are disproportionately not from WPCC:

GEN Tommy Franks, OCS (CENTCOM)

GEN John Abizaid, USMA '73 (CENTCOM)

GEN George Casey, ROTC (MNF-I)

GEN Dan K. McNiell, OCS (ISAF)

GEN David McKiernan, ROTC (ISAF)

LTG Ricardo Sanchez, ROTC (CJTF-7/MNC-I)