de@cs.rochester.edu (Dave Esan) (10/05/89)
From: moscom!de@cs.rochester.edu (Dave Esan) I have just finished reading Col. David Hackworth's new book "About Face", and was wondering what others on the net thought about it. I found the book interesting. Hackworth seems to always be a maverick, never conforming to the rules of the Army, but always getting the job done. Particularly interesting is that not only does he criticize the Army for its many faults, but offers, in the last chapter, some constructive changes. The one I found interesting was his suggestion that West Point select part of each class from deserving enlisted men. Comments? -- ____________________________________________________________ --> David Esan rochester!moscom!de
baldwin@cad.usna.mil (J.D. Baldwin) (10/07/89)
From: "J.D. Baldwin" <baldwin@cad.usna.mil> In article <9933@cbnews.ATT.COM> moscom!de@cs.rochester.edu (Dave Esan) writes: >I have just finished reading Col. David Hackworth's new book "About Face", >and was wondering what others on the net thought about it. > [. . .] >The one I found interesting was his suggestion that West Point select part of >each class from deserving enlisted men. Comments? To get into a service academy, one must have a congressional appointment, or one of several other specialized types of appointments (Presidential, Vice- Presidential, etc.), all reserved for different categories of applicants. The individual service secretaries have 170 appointments each reserved exclusively for enlisted men--85 each from regular and reserve components. (This is out of an ultimate accepted class size of around 1000.) I haven't read Hackworth's book, but what is the nature of his suggestion? Is he suggesting we increase this number? That we make a greater effort toward identifying and recruiting such enlisted men? And why West Point only (if he meant West Point only)? What is his view of the role of West Point in the overall officer procurement picture? For my own part, I am a two-years'-worth prior enlisted navy electronics tech who was recruited and accepted into Annapolis. In five years of commissioned service, I have seen little to bolster the idea that prior enlisted service makes one a "better" officer. It *helps*, mind you--if nothing else, it gives one a greater degree of credibility with his "troops," at least initially. But individual variations among officers include some poor or mediocre prior-enlisted officers, and a like number of outstanding non-prior "12-week wonders" or ROTC grads. What are Hackworth's (and the newsgroup's) views on officer training in general, and a prior enlisted background in particular? -- >From the catapult of: |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I _, J. D. Baldwin, Comp Sci Dept |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to __||____..}-> US Naval Academy |+| retract it, but also to deny under \ / baldwin@cad.usna.navy.mil |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
amos@decwrl.dec.com (Amos Shapir) (10/11/89)
From: nsc!taux01.nsc.com!taux01.UUCP!amos@decwrl.dec.com (Amos Shapir) In article <9933@cbnews.ATT.COM> moscom!de@cs.rochester.edu (Dave Esan) writes: > >The one I found interesting was his suggestion that West Point select part of >each class from deserving enlisted men. Comments? This must be a good suggestion, considering that in Israel that's the way most of commissioned officers are selected. -- Amos Shapir amos@taux01.nsc.com or amos@nsc.nsc.com National Semiconductor (Israel) P.O.B. 3007, Herzlia 46104, Israel Tel. +972 52 522261 TWX: 33691, fax: +972-52-558322 34 48 E / 32 10 N (My other cpu is a NS32532)
major@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Mike Schmitt) (10/13/89)
From: ssc-vax!shuksan!major@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Mike Schmitt) In article <10008@cbnews.ATT.COM>, baldwin@cad.usna.mil (J.D. Baldwin) writes: > > >From: "J.D. Baldwin" <baldwin@cad.usna.mil> >In article <9933@cbnews.ATT.COM> moscom!de@cs.rochester.edu (Dave Esan) writes: 1) West Point (USMA). Yes, enlisted men get a chance to be selected for USMA. Once selected, they must attend the West Point Prepatory Academy, mostly to bring up any 'academic' deficiencies. I understand the drop out rate among these personnel is quite high. I've had a couple of prior-enlisted West Point graduates as my subordinate lieutenants - they are the ones that describe the wash out rate and how difficult it is. Remember, West Point is still basically an academic college - with uniforms. Cadets don't get too much of a taste for the 'real' army until after graduation. 2) On the other hand, prior enlisted - now in college in ROTC programs seem to be 'above average' in their programs and graduate very high - 'a lot' becoming 'distinguished graduates' and receiving Regular Army Commissions after graduation. 3) I spent five years as an enlisted man before going to Infantry Officer's Candidate School (OCS). I entered as a sergeant and graduated a second lieutenant. Now, I'll give a biased opinion. I believe an OCS graduate/prior enlisted second lieutenant is ready to command troops and perform his tasks 'better' than an ROTC or West Point graduate. But, as their rank increases and their experience increases - the differences fade quickly (senior captain - major). But as far as second lieutenants go, none are more ready to command then OCS graduates. (Infantry OCS class of '66) I've run into West Point Colonels who wouldn't make a good corporal. I've known OCS officers who were treated badly as enlisted and now want to 'get even'. On the other hand I've served under and have commanded outstanding officers from OCS, ROTC, and West Point. Once commisioned and on duty - its up to the 'professionalism' and integrity of the individual to become a good officer. One of the finest General Officers I ever served under was an infantry sergeant first class (SFC) in the Korean War and won a battlefield commission. 'Course then again - there is always WPPA to contend with. (West Point Protective Association) :-) major mike
baldwin@cad.usna.mil (J.D. Baldwin) (10/16/89)
From: "J.D. Baldwin" <baldwin@cad.usna.mil> In article <10187@cbnews.ATT.COM> you write: > 1) West Point (USMA). Yes, enlisted men get a chance to be selected for > USMA. Once selected, they must attend the West Point Prepatory > Academy, mostly to bring up any 'academic' deficiencies. I understand > the drop out rate among these personnel is quite high. I've had > a couple of prior-enlisted West Point graduates as my subordinate > lieutenants - they are the ones that describe the wash out rate and > how difficult it is. Remember, West Point is still basically an > academic college - with uniforms. Cadets don't get too much of a taste > for the 'real' army until after graduation. They *all* attend MAPS? I attended NAPS myself, as do the majority of prior-enlisteds who wind up here (USNA), but by no means do they *all* go through prep school. Also, I have heard that complaint about the relative isolation of USMA cadets from the "real" army before. I think I can fairly say that USNA does not have that problem. > 2) On the other hand, prior enlisted - now in college in ROTC programs > seem to be 'above average' in their programs and graduate very high - > 'a lot' becoming 'distinguished graduates' and receiving Regular Army > Commissions after graduation. Yes, the same is true of NROTC. > 3) I spent five years as an enlisted man before going to Infantry Officer's > Candidate School (OCS). I entered as a sergeant and graduated a > second lieutenant. Now, I'll give a biased opinion. I believe an > OCS graduate/prior enlisted second lieutenant is ready to command troops > and perform his tasks 'better' than an ROTC or West Point graduate. > But, as their rank increases and their experience increases - the > differences fade quickly (senior captain - major). But as far as > second lieutenants go, none are more ready to command then OCS > graduates. (Infantry OCS class of '66) Do you include OCS non-prior enlisteds? If so, that strikes me as very strange. USN OCS graduates may fairly be described as "clueless" for about the first six months of service, or maybe a year. Enough of this time is usually taken up with fleet service schools and early fleet "under instruction watches" that it doesn't matter much. But these guys generally have a lot of catching up to do. Then again, the Army has always impressed me as being a much more specialized service than the Navy (surprisingly enough). Perhaps this accounts for the lesser difference between commissioning sources. I agree with everything else you said here. In the Navy, I would say that the differences are gone by the time a guy makes LT (roughly 4 years after commissioning). Earlier than your Army observations, but the same principle applies. Everything after this point, I agree with also. So I left it out. :-) > 'Course then again - there is always WPPA to contend with. > (West Point Protective Association) :-) I believe it. USMA seems to me to have a stranglehold on senior Army jobs. Much like the USNA had in the Navy until about 10-15 years ago. These days, it seems USNA grads are slightly *less* promotable than their counterparts from other commissioning sources, once the year groups start making O-5 and above. (Probably not enough less to be statistically significant, but clearly not *more* promotable.)