Thanks for broaching this subject, Terry. My only 2 cents to add is that if we're taking a zero based approach, let's put the academies on the block as well. One can easily argue that they are the source of service parochialism, and of counterproductive careerism, militarism, and a host of other sins, venial and mortal.
Would there be an age limit to this? I would be interested, but I'm 50 years old with Navy experience and would like to become an officer in the Supply Corps. Anyone know of this happening before??? Steven Bailey sbailey@risd.edu
7659318 - Check with a Navy Recruiting Office. The Navy still has Limited Duty Officer appointments, but it would probably depend on your specialty, length and currency of service. The normal age limit to enter a commissioning program is about 29--unless you have prior svc. The same rules would probably apply to Joint Training as well.
Maybe I'm not understanding the author's point fully... which as I understand it to be is more efficient and effective spending of the military budget monies. If this is so, the target areas mentioned would seem to me to be way off mark. If an impact maturity analysis of line item spending were completed for each branch of the military, I would venture to guess that these areas wouldn't even make the radar screen.
I also would not agree with the suggestion to combine the military academies. The traditional culture systems developed over time at each academy are critical to producing officers that are prepared for the distinct challenges they will face while serving in their chosen branch.
I agree 100% with PeteSora. Besides, I really look forward to the Army-Navy game every year. The author did not mention what he believes should happen with the Coast Guard Academy or the other Coast Guard officer programs. A good officer is a good officer, regardless of where they earned their commission. That said, it has been my personal experience that line officers from the service academies are at least initially, better prepared than non-prior enlisted officers from other programs. Each academy serves its purpose, and we have already given up too much tradition.
Bad idea! The cultures, mission and requirements of each service are very different. I can't see an Airforce or Navy officer having to go through the infantry based basic officer course the Army and Marines put their officers through nor the purpose.
Homogenized generic officers? Won't work. Esprit de corps, an essential element in cohesion, camaraderie, pride and purpose, would be severely affected. Secondly, the missions of each service are so diametrically incompatible that it seems that a melting-pot approach at basic officer indoctrination would serve no useful purpose, e.g. an Infantry Airborne Ranger has little in common with an Air Force Procurement officer. It would end up like a "No Child Left Behind" program, with every subject taught to the lowest common denominator with little relevance to anyone. Want to save the taxpayers some big money? Do away with Chaplains in the military. They are mere Political Officers whose job it is to politically indoctrinate members of the military. We scream about separation of church and state while supporting the integration of both entities into our military.
While i think that all officers should have a basic knowledge and understanding of the other services i agree that the infantry tactics taught to a future army or marine officer are of little use to an air force space officer or naval officer serving most of his time on ship. also taking some of the active duty officers out of ROTC is a foolish idea. while retired members do have a depth of knowledge current active duty members have view on current situations that they just left. a retired service member would teach past war knowledge that maybe helpful the doctrine would not be up to date. Also a lot of active officers come out of ROTC. about 50% of the graduates go active with the rest going guard or reserve. Active service instructors are very important. if we made the military purple we would lose what makes each branch distinct and what makes it specialize in an area. while the officers bredth may increase their depth would not.
The author is so far off the mark as to approach the ridiculous. I've read the responses prior to mine and am shocked with more than a few of them. The author's proposal is asinine! The absolute worst idea I have ever heard. Those of you who support this notion know very little about good and effective leadership and how it is manifested in its various and sundry forms. Leaders are not always the same and do not ever need to be.
The column does not advocate leaders being the same. The point is that to win a ground, air, sea, or terrorist conflict, each service must know, understand and cooperate with each of the other services. This should start early (as I recommended) and continue throughout the individuals career. This proposal is not a mirror to the Canadian consolidation of military services, it just urges cooperation between all services--early and often. I won't go into the number of times an individual military service has screwed the goose by not knowing what the other was doing and being unable to communicate with them to find out.
