After a 40-year estrangement, first over the Vietnam War and then – ostensibly – in protest to DADT, the nation’s Ivy Leagues and its military have finally shaken hands to much fanfare and mutual appreciation.
Which is about where the celebrations stopped:
One year after Congress voted to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” elite universities such as Harvard, Yale and Columbia have ended Vietnam-era bans on the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) with highly publicized signing ceremonies among senior military officers and university leaders.
Yet for all the fanfare, Yale is the only university that will have cadets training on campus next fall. Columbia and Harvard have restored ties with the Navy, but the new partnerships are limited to a campus office. Stanford has requested its own naval unit (to save their students a 45-minute commute to UC-Berkeley), but the Navy appears unlikely to approve the request.
Stanford’s is a telling episode: The chief obstacle to ROTC’s expansion today is not antimilitary sentiment but a Pentagon that prefers to allocate its resources to surer recruiting prospects, primarily in the South and the Midwest. Last year the Ivy League had 54 students commissioned through ROTC, or 1% of total commissions, and the Defense Department is reluctant to launch new programs where student interest appears low.
Resources are always constrained, and that’s not going to get better in the coming years. It doesn’t make sense for Navy to stand up an NROTC unit at Stanford, where only a handful of students are inspired to serve. And despite the arm-twisting over DADT, the Ivies remain unfavorable climates for military officer training, with a tenured professoriate resistant to the siren calls of university administrators and presidents.
Those who defend the country have been for too long separated from those who man the cultural barricades. There’s too much bad blood.
We’re just not that into each other.
I cannot speak for what goes on at the historically prestigious universities as I just go to a well respected (but publicly forgotten) research university.
A number of factors keep universities hostile to the military.
1. Draft evasion from Vietnam
A lot of people hoped to avoid the draft by going to grad school and many of those people tried to justify their evasion by claiming the military was repressive or soul-destroying. Even if the administrators didn’t try to evade the draft themselves, they lived in an environment where that was a common assumption.
2. Class differences
Most Enlisted come from lower class backgrounds and are fairly simple people. Academics pride themselves on sophistication. While Officers may be more skilled, educated, and intellectual, the media and culture mainly portray the Enlisted experience and crudity. Officer work is largely assumed to be the same simple tasks and low status.
3. Utter inability to emotionally understand the need for security forces
While virtually all universities have police forces, most academics and top administrators come from middle to upper-class backgrounds and have not lived in a chronically insecure environment and understood the need for order and protection. They naively assume people are naturally peaceful. The military is then seen as a luxurious throwback to more violent and barbaric times that must be looking for a fight.
PS. I’ve had acquaintances tell me I was throwing away my life to become cannon-fodder. That’s the assumption by many people.
4. Assumed aggressive intentions of the military
The military is assumed to be pressing for war while the DOS is assumed to be pressing for peace. While that may be true in specific cases, they fail to see the larger issue countries not backed by respected militaries getting swallowed up.
5. General cultural values
Infantry or most Enlisted MOS training emphasizes speed and rapid decision making (“Hesitation kills”). Academic life emphasizes gradual and considered decision making. There may be some military fields that are the reverse (“overconfidence kills”) but they don’t receive the publicity to stick in peoples’ minds.
Another aspect is aggression is unpalatable in an academic context but very much necessary in a military one. People who fear aggression tend to gravitate to fields where they don’t face it (like Academia) while those who embrace or accept it go into the military or police forces. Neither understands the other.
6. Most academics tend to tilt towards the Left. The hatred of the military (which preserves the oppressive capitalistic order and anti-people regimes) is a unifying chord they can all sing to.
Used to be, the sons of the elite made a point of serving in the armed forces; out in front, even, to prove that they were fit to rule. Not so much, anymore. E.g., George H. W. Bush, and many others.
Too true. We could do with a return of noblesse oblige. Unlikely – it’s too hard and hazardous for the current crop from the Snob Schools.
Makes you wonder why we allow them any tax money. Nicht wahr?
Trouble is, I suspect the modern form of Nobless Oblige is to be in favor of redistributive taxation. To assuage their consciences, leftists support taxing themselves (mainly in theory as most try to avoid paying their own taxes just like anyone else) to pay for programs for the poor.
That’s probably why plenty of rich Leftists support Socialism as an ideal.
I suspicion this making a lot out of not much, and ignoring the facts on the ground. The logistics of location is king.
Generally, the Navy has moved to shared units that serve multiple campuses in a single town for their NROTC units.
- UNC, NC State and Duke: HQ was at Duke (as of 2008, my last close contact), headed by a Navy 0-6. XO was a USMC O-5, based largely at NC State because of the large USMC presence there. All officer / instructor staff shuttled between the various campuses to teach classes or supervise the drill sessions held aboard each campus. Orientation for incoming Duke and UNC candidates was held at Duke. Other evolutions shifted to other campuses as made most sense. Navy Ball combines all three schools.
- Nashville: Navy unit at Vandy serves several other public and private schools on a cross-town basis. Instructors shuttle for classes, some drills and evolutions happen at Vandy.
- NYC: Students have, and can, take the bus / taxi / subway to Fordham – which can take less time than it takes the football team to head 150 blocks north to their stadium. The big new news: Navy and Marine instructors can come to Columbia and teach a class.
- Cambridge, MA: Large-ish Navy unit at MIT serves Harvard (2 subway stops) and Tufts (4 subway stops), plus a few other schools. Navy presence at MIT is bolstered by a large Navy presence in various MIT graduate programs (Nuc Engineering, Mech E, Aero/Astro). Undergrad NROTC candidates come to MIT for many evolutions and drills. Harvard is a 2.2 mile, 30 minute walk or a 10 minute bus ride away. The big new news of adding a unit at Harvard is the Navy and USMC instructors can head over to Harvard and teach a class there in a classroom. The Harvard undergrads can organize evolutions on their campus, if they can fight off the rugby/football/lacrosse teams or the Band or the Glee Club for the space.
The one exception here is Yale, which is getting a brand new Navy unit. Why? because the Navy had no presence in the state. Anywhere. Big sub base, yep. Major industrial base for building subs in Groton, yep. Major officer education program just over the line in RI, yep. But no officer accession program anywhere in the state of CT.
To get presence, the Navy is opening a full scale unit at Yale, which will also serve UCONN, a not-very-convenient 1 hour++ away up in Storrs for the shuttling instructors. The Navy unit is just getting started, and it will take time to scale. Oh, btw – the Army chooses to serve southern CT from their HQ at UConn in Storrs. Yalie’s wanting to go Army have to travel to another school, at least for now. If demand rises, Army can shuttle instructors.
Meanwhile, Penn and Cornell have had major NROTC presence for forever (1917 at Cornell, if I recall aright). No Navy for Dartmouth or Princeton – they have to make due with Army.
Navy, and the other service ROTC functions have gone whole hog for the cross-town model. Sometimes students travel, sometimes instructors shuttle. How it works depends on the facts on the ground. Will it take time to reestablish a presence at these three new schools – Harvard, Yale, Columbia? Sure. But there is a certain undeniable attraction in a program that will cover $160,000++ in college tuition, and lets you out loan free (except for the 4-year plus 4 year thing). ‘Course that amounts to having a job on graduation – something to think about these days, for them as want to Occupy themselves in places further away than, say, Wall St.
NROTC at Cornell dates back to 1942, and the unit was established there in 1945. My dad graduated and was commissioned via Cornell NROTC in 1954; my brother did the same in 1983.
cornell also serves as the hub for ROTC units at Binghamton University, Elmira College, Ithaca College, and SUNY Cortland – although I’m not sure if that’s for both Army & Navy or just Army ROTC.
I don’t think NROTC started until the mid 20s. Nimitz was one of the first PNSs for NROTC and started the unit at UC Berserkley, although it was the academic insane asylum it is now.
I can’t remember how many units were stood up when it first started. The Potter bio of Nimitz gives the number, but I can’t remember the figure.
Screw the Ivies. Who needs ‘em? We can defend the country a helluva lot better without their candy asses. They are constantly in the way and have no significant skills or leadership capabilities to add to the defense of their country anyway. Their thought processes are corrupt and they know little about real Leadership beyond buying their way out of trouble. Let them do so……
That way, when the New Gestapo-Al Jihad Brotherhood shows up, they can all go first to the camps-gulags and the rest of us need do nothing to help them.
I fart in their general direction.
Subsunk
Ivan, If you spent any time in enlisted ranks then your experience was different than mine. My experience in the enlisted ranks is most certainly out of date relative to the individuals who have stepped forward post 9/11. My academic experience (undergraduate and graduate school) was in engineering, somewhat different that Arts and Sciences or Humanities. I served with 11 and 13 series MOS in the army. Specifically light infantry (101st ABN/Air Assault).
Most of the enlisted men I encountered were lower and middle class. Primarily working middle class.
B.S. on the simple people comment. #2
I never met a dumbass Infantryman. They didnt last. I sure didnt meet any dumbass Fwd Observers/ANGLICO/FACs.
JTG, unless I mis-interpreted your comment, WRONG Answer. GHW Bush served as a Naval aviator in WW2. JFK and all his brothers served in WW2. Even Teddy served in the army during Korea, granted he was defending Paris France at the time. All the Roosevelt sons served (Navy, Marines, Air Corp).
I think you are agreeing with me, actually. Senator Saltonstall’s son was killed as an enlisted Marine, too. I was writing about the difference between then and now. Back then it was understood by all, I think, that holding a high alpha-guy place in our society required demonstrated military manly puissance, if one were to be taken seriously.
Hell, Winston Churchill risked his life in combat for (among many other reasons, of course) the sake of his political ambitions.
13B Studying the USSR (focus on the Soviet Navy) in History. Still in NG.
The E-6s and Senior Enlisted tend to be pretty smart but the E-5s and below are a real grab-bag. Some are smart, others are %$#@ dumb. One case was a guy who didn’t even now that a Navy CPT is different from an Army CAPT. The vocabulary of the Junior Enlisted and Junior Officers is appalling by my standards (I went to upper-class schools where EVERYONE went to college). I have found some great mechanics in the Army, some prospective linguists, but also plenty of scumbags.
I suspect one reason for the boom of the 50s-60s was that upper-class people in leadership positions had direct experience leading people from lower-class backgrounds and knew what personal problems they had. I the first time I encountered someone who couldn’t write a full sentence was in Basic. To me that was a shock. To people who’ve gotten PhDs, it would be even more revolting to allow people into that culture as they assume the stupid people run the military.
I know there are smart people but the majority of junior personnel are not smart. They do their jobs but don’t have to be brilliant.
Ivan, your classitis, or a portion of your anatomy, is showing.
Lex, your point about a dichotomy, even animosity, between the civilian/political world, and the military, is one of my main reasons for bringing back the draft. America needs the infusion of vets in the civilian world, especially in the political realm. Plus, we owe our country some level of service and sacrifice, though it need not necessarily be military (not the fracking Peace/Africa Corps though).
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, only about 7% of Americans have served in the military.
I do think that there is an inverse correlation between the percentage of the eligible population that have served our country, and the percentage that believe they deserve government handouts, because, well, they just do!
The military also needs quasi-civilians, or temporary military, in the mix in order to get away from the increasing military self-focused naval (as in innie/outie) gazing and careerism.
Bring back “Willie & Joe”.
Perhaps, but you can still use it as a diagnostic tool.
Ron, Ivan, alas is correct. I observed the same thing in the 60s. A friend at Ohio DOT was in the Marines in the early 60s and was made company clerk as he was the only junior enlisted that could read and write. It was far more common than you think.
My father was Air Force, and learned quickly after I got into the Navy, that the AF was its own little world. The Navy was a spectrum from dummies to geniuses. More so than the AF was (not so much in the aviation units, however. They were more like the AF and same with Army Aviation).
My experience during my time in the AF (early 70′s) was quite different. May have been what I did, as there were no “dummies” or quaint “simple” people in ordnance -the two did not mix well as mistakes made tended to be self-correcting: as is the case with other fields.
I do bridle when a broad implication is made that Enlisted are yokels, and that were it not for exalted Ossifers, especially those from the “Privileged Class”, the military would be lost. Though as you say, one’s mileage varies, as my experience was only in the AF “Bubble”, and even there most of it in a bomb dump or the surrounding jungle (at least overseas).
I don’t remember any “yokels” among AF enlisted. The AF is a highly technical service that demands intelligence among all its people. While I was at the AFEES station in ’72, I saw several people rejected by the AF taken by other services.
These days, even the Marines place high demands on their people. I doubt anyone would be taken that is illiterate by any service these days.
Illiteracy and low intelligence, however, are two different things. I’m sure you’ve heard of the 100K Class IV people being forced on the Military by MacNamara in the 60s. I was in the Navy for the tail end of that malarkey (the policy continued for awhile and exceeded 100K in the end). They always ended up on the deck force and many were constant trouble.
Still, anyone that is not familiar with the ancient and honorable combat between the junior enlisted seeking to skate, and the NCOs trying to keep their noses to the grindstone, would be completely unaware of the intellectual capacity such combat requires. The only idiots here are the ignoramuses who think we are dummies.
Ivan0026:
“I know there are smart people but the majority of junior personnel are not smart.”
I’m surprised that’s your experience. I’m recently off of active duty, infantry. I came in with a high opinion of our military. Even so, I was surprised at how many Joes were in fact very smart.
From my experience I’d have said something like the opposite of your comment: I know there are dumb people but the majority of junior personnel are a lot smarter than you think.
As a matter of fact, when asked about the contrast between academia and the infantry (I left a professorship to go into the Army), I sometimes said that academia has a lot of people who pretend to be smarter than they are, and the infantry has a lot of guys who pretend to be dumber.
In my admittedly dated experience, the divide between officers and enlisted had much more to do with class than it did intelligence, the latter being largely normally distributed regardless of social situation. Some kids grew up in households where both parents had been to university, some grew up in families where that was not the norm. I’ve seen too many brilliant sailors and too many doltish officers to make any generic assumption about intelligence based on rank.
I will omit the Army motorpool folks I met and dined with in Kuwait from that generalization, however.
While I’m on the (admittedly contentious) issue of class, at least in regards to the Navy, I had what amounted to me as an epiphany one December aboard USS Ship. Serving as the squadron XO, the CO asked me to mail holiday greetings to the parents of all our officers and crew. It was surprising to me that nearly every card sent to an officer’s parents went to a single address. For the sailors, on the other hand, a great many went to two addresses, mom and dad no longer living in the same household.
For what that’s worth.
By the way, JPS: I don’t know that I’ve ever told you this before, but I admire the hell out of your decision to leave the academy and join the infantry. That’s old school, and too few left.
CAPT Lex:
Sir, that means a great deal to me. My sincere thanks to you, and to many of your regular readers, for protecting me and mine the whole time I was pursuing my academic career, and before.
Happy New Year to all!
My circle in the Navy didn’t have any dummies. There were times they acted that way, but it was in the context of the ancient and honorable combat between the junior seamen and the Chiefs.
Of course, the Chiefs knew the score since they did the same thing themselves when they were junior seamen.
Aero-B.: Ivan definitely needs editing to “allegedly simple people”. The other thing Ivan needs to take into account is that many enlisted folks are cunning and devious, to the extent that they learn quickly there is not payoff for a IQ 150 SA from a rural school district displaying his intelligence to an IQ 110 JO from the burbs.
Women officers, well, I’m out of date. Back in the late Carboniferous Epoch when I was in my salad days, they were like the pretty little girl with a pretty little curl right in the middle of her forehead.
When they were good they were very, very good.
When they were bad… they were horrid.
Doubtless times have improved. Doubtless.
Ivan is correct that some enlisted are dim and, as they say where the Ashley and the Cooper Rivers join to form the Atlantic Ocean, “downright common”. On the other hand some officers are arrogant and none too bright, as are a lot of graduate assistants and adjunct faculty, particularly in the squishy studies and the PC anti-sciences.
Tenured faculty are much like admirals, a very few brilliant, some good, some arrogant, overbearing, destructive jackasses with no discernible judgement what so ever.
Life is a crap shoot.
Here’s the reasoning behind my statement based on my current unit.
5 Intelligence classes
Brilliant
Smart
Adequate
Dim
Retarded
I’m not including myself in this listing.
O-3 Dim
O-2 2 Adequate
O-1 1 Dim, 1 Adequate
E-8 1 Smart
E-7 4 Smart
E-6 5 Smart, 1 Adequate
E-5 3 Smart, 4 Adequate, 4 dim,
E-4 to E-1 1 Brilliant, 5 Smart, Plenty of Adequate, 12 Dim, 3 Retards
The only person who can’t do their job properly is the 1 adequate E-6 (keeps on getting “injured”).
This is just what I’ve observed about my unit and it has a reputation as one of the best overall units in performance, discipline, and lack of accidents. What I saw of the Active side was that that making E-6 was a LOT easier.
I don’t know about the Navy but you probably wouldn’t run into trouble for having a high IQ as Junior Enlisted in the Army so long as you aren’t arrogant.
What I have observed in my University is that several departments are careful to screen for overconfidence and pride. Others do not. It differs from place to pace but a lot of dim people get into academia by going into on of the victim’s studies departments or finding a prestigious adviser to parrot. The Comparison to Admirals is very apt.
Ivan, I think high IQ could get you into trouble anywhere if your attitude is not right. The branch of service really doesn’t matter, just the immediate context. If the people around you think your just a book and can’t, or won’t, do, then you’ll have trouble.
Couple intelligence with a “can do” attitude, and a willingness to get your hands dirty, and you get a natural leader. The alternatives are something I try to avoid in people.
JTG – the idea that enlisted folks are the simple minded poor was destroyed by a Heritage Foundation study: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/10/who-are-the-recruits-the-demographic-characteristics-of-us-military-enlistment-2003-2005
The only real disparity was the fact, in the same study, that the under representation of the NE states in Army and MC enlistments was compensated for by the over representation by us dumb hicks here in Texas. Somebody has to pick up the slack, huh? It is easier to harbor ignorance of that of which you are unknowing – ergo, the biases of the NE schools.
OBTW, Knucklehead Two and I exchanged e-mails today – he from the “Transit Center at Manas” – back for round two in that exciting place called Helmand. Thank God for the “fairly simple” like him.
I still think we are talking past each other, Scott. My thesis was that way back when, the movers and shakers considered themselves to be members of the same society as the “simple-minded poor” as you put it, and were willing, and felt required, to shed their blood with them. That no longer seems to be the case.
All the folks who turned wrenches and flew as our flight crews in the Coast Guard were first class folks. Shoot, a lot of them had college degrees. I never saw the kind of divide I did in the Army between officer and enlisted. It was a refreshing experience for sure and it made it easier to do our jobs.
I think it’s a serious problem that our elites don’t see the nobility of service to their country. Military experience is something I think more young people need.
But the military has got to go where they can get some excellent o-candidates. Ivy League schools aren’t that. I guess they’re just a little good for that.
I remember in my grad school days, I went to an SEC school in the heart of the bible belt and was amazed that: A.) I was the oldest in nearly every class and B.) I was the most conservative. Arguing with some of these professors, whose entire lives had been spent in an academic setting was a hoot. Especially a very liberal prof in a defense policy class. Needless to say, I got a C in that one. No going along to get along for me.
The Ivies are filled with the Entitled and Preferred. They have no fighting spirit, only demands and whines.
Mojo, during my time in Engineering School, my reinforced concrete classmates (which had a large representation of cynical vets like myself, NG ossifers and ROTC cadets, ane the instructor was a former Army Ossifer hisownself) had a contest for the most humorous of 1-800 numbers. Two entries were,
1-800-2whine (not enough digits but we didn’t care)
1-800-crybaby (I think that one won)
The last would fit the Ivies and places like Stanford and Berserkley.
I had more fun in that course than any other I took. But, we were a rather rough lot.
I left Berzerkeley the day I saw a naked hippie in a tree on Telegraph Ave., doing birdcalls, while the rest of the people on the street ignored him. Nothing weird here.
I try not to go back.
It’s not that only a handful of students are inspired to serve at some of those schools, nor is it just the logistics of different schools sharing ROTC units. I’m sure a qualifying student might enjoy an Ivy League education if it was offered. I think the largest factor is the cost of those educations, at least for the Navy. While having an NROTC unit at a Harvard or Stanford might help recruit a few of the rank and file students into the Officer ranks, these being “College Program” students in ROTC, the majority of students in NROTC, are on Naval scholarships, for 4 years, with some for 3 or an even more limited number on a 2 year basis. College Program students pay their own way in school while attending NROTC classes. Several years ago, in order to limit the cost of the NROTC program as a whole, scholarships were restricted to a certain number at certain schools. When I received one, I could use it at any NROTC school of my choosing, where ever I was accepted. Now the scholarships are more directed in nature. A student may be granted a scholarship, but only at say- Oregon State ($), vice the University of San Diego ($$$). And now that the Navy is downsizing both in budget and end-strength, the scholarship tap is down to a trickle. Not much hope for growth in the Ivy Leagues, unless the Navy chooses to add a diversity tag to an Ivy League NROTC education.
Sounds like it was in 1968. My high school guidance counselor, Mrs. Stewart, as I recall, was also a Reserve Lt. Commander and recruited real hard at me to sign up for the full 4-year paid program. I almost took her up on it, but backed out when I realized my eyes weren’t good enough for me to be an aviator. I am not ashamed to admit now that I would probably have fit right in, in the Supply Corps. Had I taken her up on it I would have graduated in ’72 just in time for the morose and grumpy period among the US Military. I think we’re about to have another one of those, BTW.
The way you say it is now is how it used to be. My DivO from Sylvania was from PA and wanted to go to Penn State. No such luck for him and he ended up being a Badger instead because that was where the slot was for him. IIRC, that’s the way it’s always worked. If you were not on scholarship, then you could go where ever you your little heart desired as long as an opening existed at the NROTC unit there.
Mr. Snyder, as an active duty E-4 with a BS in psychology, let me say that a draft is the WRONG answer.
The other commentators are right, who cares about the “ivy league” anyway? College is college. “Elite” universities produce grads who can’t spell with diplomas that aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on.
Even with a volunteer force, the recruiters had to give waiver after waiver. Most of America is too fat, too high, or has a criminal record. A draft will not fix that.
What’s needed is the death of the meme that the military is for Forest Gump and Company. That manual labor is for chumps. Instead of sending kids to college so they can study Buffy the Vampire Slayer, the Twilight books or puppetry for credit, they need to go to work.
It’s not just the military. There is a shortage of blue-color workers all round.
Society needs to change, a draft won’t do it. A draft would break the military.
And kick the counter recruiters from high schools too.
Chockblock, I was an E-5 when I got out in ’74, and being in the USAF I was unaware of any draftees in the USAF, so I do confess that I had limited personal experience with draftees vs volunteers while on Active Duty. Plus, the Draft ended in ’73. One of President Ford’s low points was pardoning of Draft Evaders in ’74, IMO.
When I got out I went to a reasonably good school, the University of Michigan (Business Degree), though were I to have a “do over” I would probably have either went to Hillsdale College, or went into one of the STEM disciplines with an MBA afterwords.
Totally agree that we need more skilled blue collar workers. I had attended a local Community College after HS (Welding) prior to being accepted by the USAF. I strongly think that we should embrace the CC system, though I am conflicted a bit as here in NC our Wise Politicians have decided that there is no problem with known Illegal Immigrants attending the CC system (on my dime I might add).
To my knowledge, no Draft since our Country was founded had “broken” the military, even with some shameful versions of the Draft being implemented over the decades. Smarter people than I may know the answer -but I do not think the increasing divide between the military and the civilian world bodes well for our country.
Just my opinion of course, but I do believe that if you live here, you owe your country a few years of service, military or quasi-military.
Ron/
You’ve got to remember also that the service chiefs, civilian-side of DOD, etc., also are against the draft if only because of the discipline problems it brings. The AVF has the advantage that only elite AV units like the Marines used to have compared to a draftee Army: “Hey, don’t bitch, you volunteered, remember?”
Melvin Laird ended the draft in ’72 while I was in ‘A’ School.
The AF has not have the benefit of the draft since it ceased to be the AAF in 1947. The Navy has not since the end of WW2. Only the Marines and Army have, and not since ’72.
I seriously doubt a draft would break the military. Most young men are decent types, just a bit lazy and plump. Both problems can be solved by basic training. Both Navy and AF used to have “baby whale” units in basic (my father’s last duty station was Lackland in ’71-72). Frankly, I think some of entitlement attitudes could be suppressed by a draft.
QM, today we would have to draft women as well as men. Or is your plan to not have women in the Armed Forces if we draft men only?
Force structure constraints argue against a draft. The one exception is a prolonged national crises with a major power, with high casualty rates.
Having a military to suppress the entitlement attitudes and make men more responsible is the wrong choice. However, I would favor the renewal of the CCC over the draft.
It would be much more effective to trim Flag and SES levels by over 50%. Even more unlikely is for the services to promote proven war-fighters, not perfumed princes.
Most young people are decent. Many are not. Even Selective Service screened out people with serious mental, medical, and moral issues. Inevitably, the sons of the elite will try to get out of it (“I don’t want to waste three years of my life when I could be building a career”), the anti-social types will try to cause as much chaos as possible (various acts of sabotage during Vietnam), and the strain of needing to lead so many new people will force services in increase their NCO and Officer numbers too rapidly to weed out bad applicants. High turnover would reduce the technical skills that could be taught.
A draft would be terrible for the Army but might force people into the Navy, AF, or Marines based on their desire to avoid the Army. My dad joined the Navy as an Officer to avoid the annoying aspects of life as a draftee.
It might be good to teach a whole generation about how large organizations work in practice, how to work with other people from all walks of life, and about civic life but it would come at a high price in dissent and popular attacks on the military.
Ivan, the number of personnel needed in the services can be maintained by voluntary enlistment. Your entire argument seems to be keyed on the problems in the services of the Vietnam era. The military and it’s requirements have moved on.
Unless you are planning to greatly expand the number in the military, your suggestions bring more problems than solutions. Given the fiscal pressures, we need only the best on active duty. You are proposing the military act as a finishing school for flawed upbringing for a entire nation. Other solutions exist.
There is even no need for women or homosexuals to meet the numbers proposed for today’s end-strength. I would submit that without diversity, the military will become better at it’s real role: waging peace through superior firepower, training, and combat cohesion in small units.
I wasn’t proposing a draft again. Just commenting on the probable impact of it.
The force needs to be restructured to weed all the PC trash out of it. Re-establishment of the Women’s Auxiliaries would be the first step. The second would be the cashiering of any woman that objected.
I would not advocate restarting a draft just for citizenship training. Military training for every able bodied male when he hits 18 (or graduates HS) and standing up a strong state militia system, would be a good thing, I think. That could then be your recruiting ground for the active services.
I know there are a lot of people that would whine about it, but so what. Making every able bodied 18 year old go through BCT and Infantry training would not hurt anyone. Constructing a militia system along Swiss lines is what the founders wanted, and the basics were already in place at the start.
QM, I agree that too many people associate the Draft with the that existed during our SEA Adventure. A Draft can be done fairly and equitably, though I’m not sure we have the Political, or Military, leadership to make it so.’
Plus, very few who comment on the Draft actually know how it was back then. I was in the AF Bubble -but I did lose friends from my hometown, and friends that I served with, to our Brown Cousins. I also spent three months in a bed at Fitzimmons Military Hospital back when it was a major receiving point for guys coming back and witnessed on a daily basis what they, and their families, went thru.
I very much miss my motorcycle rides on just about every weekend with various Veterans Groups -hope to be able to start doing so again soon.
As The Salty One noted, the Military is NOT the place to play with Social Experimentation.
Be four I joyned the Navy I cud not spell elektronik teknisheon. Now I are one.
Blackeagle: Parallels my experience with ozzyfur. Now I are a long retired wun.
In between it had its moments, my yes.
“A junior officer must have the ability to make decisions quickly. If they happen to be right, so much the better.”
Ivan is the sort of person that reminds me of the apocryphal quote from the Army Officer’s Guide: “Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear considerable watching.”
in my twenty years of service, day in and day out the dumbest, least able to be left alone without adult supervision were the zeros.
in fact, i still argue, from a position of strength, that the only reason the military has officers is to attend meetings and sign for things. other than that, they are pretty much useless and insipid, with occasional exceptions that serve only to prove the rule.
(such as our host)
Stanford has requested its own naval unit (to save their students a 45-minute commute to UC-Berkeley), but the Navy appears unlikely to approve the request.
As a native of the SF Bay Area, and cognizant of current traffic conditions there, I am pleased to inform you that a 45 minute commute from Stanford to UCB is possible if you (a) give the cadets Corvettes, and (b) clear all other vehicular traffic from all roadways in between the two campuses.
While I am sure that step (a) would be very popular, I have my doubts about the feasibility of step (b).
The commute from Cal Maritime to Berkeley was too much for the Son&Heir. Esp since the Marine option NROTC required an additional trip each week and typically lasted till at least 2100hrs. It’s a bit problematic since CMA freshmen aren’t allowed wheels so you’re outta luck if you’re at a small school and there aren’t other upperclass Marine option students to hitch a ride with — and tricky to work around watch sections on the Bear. All the extra hours mean it’s pretty much impossible to do the Marine option for CMA ME majors with their class load and the total weekly commute time.
Lex,
I’ve got to disagree with this statement – “It doesn’t make sense for Navy to stand up an NROTC unit at Stanford, where only a handful of students are inspired to serve.”
For the most part, it doesn’t really matter what the desires of the current students are. What matters are the options available to future students applying to college and for NROTC scholarships. I base that statement on 2 experiences. First, when I applied for NROTC, I went down the list of the schools with a unit and looked for the places I could get the best education. If Stanford were on that list, I (and I assume many other like-minded HS students) would have loved to go there. Second, when I taught NROTC, very few students joined the unit after they were already enrolled in the school.
Quartermaster I knew and worked for a man who was Nimitz’s first recruit for the NROTC unit at Cal Berkeley (which was also I believe the first NRTOC unit ever).
James W. “Jim” Archer was a well set up looking young man strolling across Berkeley’s campus in the late 1920′s when Nimitz approached him and asked him to sign up. Jim did. It was early days for the NROTC and Nimitz’s technique wsa apparently to walk around campus looking for potential recruits and asking them to join. I don’t know the details of Jim’s early service in the NROTC unit–don’t even know if he ever went to sea. He did become a lawyer in San Francisco in the early and mid 1930′s. As the war approached, Nimitz called up all of his early NROTC guys and told them it was time to come back to active duty. Jim was XO on the Louisville at Surigao Strait. His office photos included a couple taken from the bridge of the Louisville with shell splashes in the distance.
Jim sailed back through the Golden Gate at the end of the war and resumed his legal practice. He moved to San Diego in 1948 or so and was one of the leading trial lawyers in Southern California until his retirement in the early 1970′s.
Potter tells the story of one of Nimitz’s walks across campus. One student he accosted told Nimitz his father was an Army Colonel and did that matter.
Potter doesn’t mention any names, as I recall, so I can’t say who the man was. But he signed up.
Rich Yale boys had a lot to do with the advent of Naval Aviation back in WW1, didn’t they? Not many contributions since WW2, though. As far as who has the smarts and where the hell they got them? I barely got out of H.S., wasted a semester in college, got my letter from LBJ, and joined the Naval Air Reserve as a 2X6. That was 68. I retired as a Chief off active duty in 96, (I know, what can I say?)after 9 year gap, change of rate, etc. By the way, my GCT/ARI test thingy qualified me for Mensa at age 19. Dumbass, huh?
Yep. That’s what you get for being a low IQ bitter clinger.
Now if we can’t get them to stop recruiting from the Ivies for State and the CIA, the country will be saved.
From http://securenation.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/blueprint-for-columbia-rotc/
a. Student interest in ROTC
Skeptics point to the current low number of ROTC students at Columbia in order to claim that student interest is too low to sustain an ROTC program on campus. However, their contention is impossible to prove or disprove without an ROTC program on campus. The damaged status of ROTC at Columbia after 1969, alienation from poor exposure, distance and poor access in urban terms, and lack of institutional assistance likely deter most Columbia students from seriously considering ROTC. It’s simply unfair to judge Columbia students for not joining an ROTC program that isn’t there. We first have to plant the seed in order to grow the tree – building up ROTC student numbers at Columbia first requires ROTC on campus. Then, as Columbia ROTC is nurtured into a fully integrated and supported part of the university, Columbia ROTC student numbers will grow over time. That’s just common sense. Roughly one-fourth of the undergraduate population is renewed every year. After ROTC is established on campus and properly advertised, eventually every student applying to Columbia will know about the ROTC program on campus.
Of course, financial incentives help attract students from elite – and expensive – universities like Columbia to any career field. In order for the military to compete for the best students, the Quadrennial Defense Review Independent Panel recommends:
To attract more youth to military careers and recruit from the nation‘s top colleges, the services should offer full scholarships on a competitive basis, usable anywhere a student chooses to attend, in exchange for enlisted service in the reserves (and summer officer training) during schooling, and 5 years of service after graduation, to include officer training school.
It is worth noting that, of the three ROTC programs, Navy ROTC is viewed by many as the ROTC program most likely to succeed at Columbia. The undergraduate NROTC survey of 2008 originated from SEAS students requesting the pathway to Naval officership, and in spite of the unpopularity of DADT, SEAS students voted in favor of Navy ROTC at Columbia. Unfortunately, despite the demonstrated student interest, Columbia students have zero access to NROTC. The absence of NROTC at Columbia is made doubly tragic by the storied history of Naval officer training at Columbia. Many alumni supporters are Navy veterans who would be particularly supportive of a Navy ROTC on campus.