John Lehman and Richard H. Kohn
President Obama on Tuesday called for all college campuses "to open
their doors to our military recruiters and the ROTC," saying that it is
"time to move forward as one nation." Similar calls have been issued
since the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," as many urge ROTC to return
to the Ivy League and other leading universities to reconnect the armed
forces with the upper tier of American society. But expanding ROTC into
these institutions is the wrong approach.
First, we note that it is a myth that the privileged do not wish to
serve. Many men and women from privileged backgrounds are serving with
distinction. (The Buckley School in New York recently had one-third of
two graduating classes serving in Iraq at the same time.) But military
service is unlikely or inconvenient for many students at prestigious
universities for several reasons. In addition to the dearth of ROTC
units, there's the indifference of the services to recruiting officers
from this part of the population and the near-elimination of Officer
Candidate School billets for those without prior enlisted service.
And while some college leaders may want ROTC back, faculties are likely
to be unenthusiastic. Given that the nation is fighting two unpopular
wars, with the possibility of more in the future, the military will
always be an outside, uncomfortable and largely isolated presence on
college campuses. Nor will the Pentagon be eager to send uniformed
personnel - who are in short supply - to costly locations where they
will recruit and train what is likely to be a small yield of new
officers.
Rather than expanding ROTC into elite institutions, it would be better
to replace ROTC over time with a more efficient, more effective and less
costly program to attract the best of America's youth to the services
and perhaps to military careers.
Except from an economic perspective, ROTC isn't efficient for students.
They take courses from faculty almost invariably less prepared and
experienced to teach college courses, many of which do not count for
credit and cover material more akin to military training than
undergraduate education. Weekly drills and other activities dilute the
focus on academic education.
ROTC was begun before World War I to create an officer corps for a large
force of reservists to be mobilized in a national emergency. It has
outgrown this purpose and evolved into just another source of officers
for a military establishment that has integrated regulars and reservists
into a "total force" in which the difference is between part-time and
full-time soldiering.
The armed services should consider a program modeled in part on the
Marine Platoon Leaders Corps to attract the nation's most promising
young people. In a national competition similar to ROTC scholarships,
students should be recruited for four years of active duty and four
years of reserve service by means of all-expenses-paid scholarships to
the college or university of their choice. Many would no doubt take
these lucrative grants to the nation's most distinguished schools, where
they would get top-flight educations and could devote full attention on
campus to their studies.
Youths would gain their military training and education by serving in
the reserve or National Guard during college (thus fulfilling their
reserve obligation). Being enlisted would teach them basic military
skills and give them experience in being led before becoming leaders
themselves. As reservists during college, they would be obligated to
deploy only once, which would not unduly delay their education or
commissioned service. They could receive their officer education at
Officer Candidate School summer camps or after graduation from college.
This program could also be available to those who do not win
scholarships but are qualified and wish to serve.
History tells us that the career retention of OCS graduates is
essentially the same as that of graduates of the service academies and
ROTC. This new program would not only be the least costly method of
providing a quality, diverse officer corps but would also attract a
variety of students inclined to serve their country, including those
outstanding youngsters who want or need money for college but do not
want to go to a service academy or be limited to those colleges that
have, or are near, ROTC units. The Harvards, Amhersts and Georgetowns of
America would probably have more students in military training than they
do today or are likely to in the future with ROTC units on campus. And
such a program would raise the visibility and attractiveness of military
service at the institutions where many of the nation's future leaders
are being educated.
Such a system would cost less while attracting more, and more
outstanding, youth to military service, spare uniformed officers for a
maxed-out military establishment, and reconnect the nation's leadership
to military service - a concern since the beginning of the all-volunteer
armed force.
John Lehman, a former secretary of the Navy, is an investment banker in
New York and an overseer of the University of Pennsylvania School of
Engineering. Richard H. Kohn is a professor of military history at the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a former chief of Air
Force history. Both served on the Independent Review Panel for the 2010
Quadrennial Defense Review.
--
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/27/AR2011012706168.html
Via InstaFetch
President Obama on Tuesday called for all college campuses "to open
their doors to our military recruiters and the ROTC," saying that it is
"time to move forward as one nation." Similar calls have been issued
since the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," as many urge ROTC to return
to the Ivy League and other leading universities to reconnect the armed
forces with the upper tier of American society. But expanding ROTC into
these institutions is the wrong approach.
First, we note that it is a myth that the privileged do not wish to
serve. Many men and women from privileged backgrounds are serving with
distinction. (The Buckley School in New York recently had one-third of
two graduating classes serving in Iraq at the same time.) But military
service is unlikely or inconvenient for many students at prestigious
universities for several reasons. In addition to the dearth of ROTC
units, there's the indifference of the services to recruiting officers
from this part of the population and the near-elimination of Officer
Candidate School billets for those without prior enlisted service.
And while some college leaders may want ROTC back, faculties are likely
to be unenthusiastic. Given that the nation is fighting two unpopular
wars, with the possibility of more in the future, the military will
always be an outside, uncomfortable and largely isolated presence on
college campuses. Nor will the Pentagon be eager to send uniformed
personnel - who are in short supply - to costly locations where they
will recruit and train what is likely to be a small yield of new
officers.
Rather than expanding ROTC into elite institutions, it would be better
to replace ROTC over time with a more efficient, more effective and less
costly program to attract the best of America's youth to the services
and perhaps to military careers.
Except from an economic perspective, ROTC isn't efficient for students.
They take courses from faculty almost invariably less prepared and
experienced to teach college courses, many of which do not count for
credit and cover material more akin to military training than
undergraduate education. Weekly drills and other activities dilute the
focus on academic education.
ROTC was begun before World War I to create an officer corps for a large
force of reservists to be mobilized in a national emergency. It has
outgrown this purpose and evolved into just another source of officers
for a military establishment that has integrated regulars and reservists
into a "total force" in which the difference is between part-time and
full-time soldiering.
The armed services should consider a program modeled in part on the
Marine Platoon Leaders Corps to attract the nation's most promising
young people. In a national competition similar to ROTC scholarships,
students should be recruited for four years of active duty and four
years of reserve service by means of all-expenses-paid scholarships to
the college or university of their choice. Many would no doubt take
these lucrative grants to the nation's most distinguished schools, where
they would get top-flight educations and could devote full attention on
campus to their studies.
Youths would gain their military training and education by serving in
the reserve or National Guard during college (thus fulfilling their
reserve obligation). Being enlisted would teach them basic military
skills and give them experience in being led before becoming leaders
themselves. As reservists during college, they would be obligated to
deploy only once, which would not unduly delay their education or
commissioned service. They could receive their officer education at
Officer Candidate School summer camps or after graduation from college.
This program could also be available to those who do not win
scholarships but are qualified and wish to serve.
History tells us that the career retention of OCS graduates is
essentially the same as that of graduates of the service academies and
ROTC. This new program would not only be the least costly method of
providing a quality, diverse officer corps but would also attract a
variety of students inclined to serve their country, including those
outstanding youngsters who want or need money for college but do not
want to go to a service academy or be limited to those colleges that
have, or are near, ROTC units. The Harvards, Amhersts and Georgetowns of
America would probably have more students in military training than they
do today or are likely to in the future with ROTC units on campus. And
such a program would raise the visibility and attractiveness of military
service at the institutions where many of the nation's future leaders
are being educated.
Such a system would cost less while attracting more, and more
outstanding, youth to military service, spare uniformed officers for a
maxed-out military establishment, and reconnect the nation's leadership
to military service - a concern since the beginning of the all-volunteer
armed force.
John Lehman, a former secretary of the Navy, is an investment banker in
New York and an overseer of the University of Pennsylvania School of
Engineering. Richard H. Kohn is a professor of military history at the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a former chief of Air
Force history. Both served on the Independent Review Panel for the 2010
Quadrennial Defense Review.
--
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/27/AR2011012706168.html
Via InstaFetch
No comments:
Post a Comment