Campbell to Report for Duty, Not Mini-Camp

Colleges & Universities A-Z Military Academy - West Point
21

<p>

</p>

<p>Good point. We will all ignore your further comments.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Certainly no need to apologize. You signed up to do a job. You are doing that job. Campbell signed up for a job. The Army initially allowed him to renege on his commitment. I simply fail to see how the fact that you are doing your job has anything to do with the Army allowing him to get out of his. To imply that those who made the ultimate sacrifice did so to allow such as this, to me, is unconscionable. To state that, because you are doing your job, you deserve to see it, I was hoping was rationalization. If not, is it arrogance? I simply cannot fathom the correlation that doing one’s duty somehow begets not requiring others to do so.</p>

<p>The bottom line is that we all want our school to look good in the nation’s eyes. Former cadets and midshipmen making it in the professional ranks certainly add to that prestige. To attempt to tie it to ‘duty’ and ‘honor’ is somehow misleading though.</p>

<p>

Now that you mention it, have you not seen any Navy EOD teams? They are the most decorated units in the entire war. They, along with Navy SEALS, have certainly been among those who have borne the brunt of the war. Last month, the Navy selected their list of potential NASA astronauts. Navy EOD and SEALS who have contributed to the program in the past were declared ineligible by the CNO due to the fact that the Navy requires every single one of them to do the job for which they were trained</p>

22

<p>I think what Screaming Eagle is trying to say is that the majority of US casualties are Army soldiers. With that being said, those deployed want to hear a success story back home, that being of Lt Campbell playing in the NFL. Maybe you already knew he was trying to say that or not, I don’t know.</p>

23

<p>Yes, I agree that this is exactly what he is saying. My question is why does this matter one iota. Society lives by certain customs, rules, and regulations as to what is ‘right’ and what is ‘wrong’. To somehow determine that one is contributing more than their fair share to the well being of this society and, thusly, deserve special treatment, is wrong. Lt. Calley, in Vietnam, over 40 years ago, probably thought he deserved special consideration. A few year later, breaking into some apartments, our President thought that the rules and regulations of normal society did not apply to him. To assume oneself above the law or worhty of special consideration just because they are doing the job which they agreed to do is what I do not understand. Argue the policy on the basis of its merit, not that he deserves it because his fellow classmates are doing the brunt of the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. One does ones duty because it is the right thing to do, not to expect special favors from society.</p>

24

<p>USNA 69, I think you got it right when you said that we all want our schools to look good. More than anything, I think having a USMA football player in the NFL may have been good for West Point and good for the Army, and I myself am at a bit out of character here, because on one hand I truly believe you only go to the Academy because you want to lead Soldiers, and the other part of me would have liked to see this recent grad make it. Bottom line is that, you’re right, everyone signs up for a commitment to the Army (or Navy, or AF, or whoever), and should be held to that commitment. You go to an Academy to be an officer, to lead America’s sons and daughters, and for no other reason; it’s not for a free education or for the prestige of the school on your resume: prestige and a free education doesn’t mean a whole lot if you are killed in action. I’ve done a lot of thinking and it’s simply too much of a slippery slope if we are to say “you’re good at football, you dont have to do what all your peers are doing;” in time we may be looking at “you’re good with computers, go work at microsoft” instead of bleeding with the rest of your peers. So in short, I’ve done a lot of thinking and have decided that, despite my own personal desires to see Campbell succeed, the precedent that this policy set was unwarranted.
I have not seen any Navy EOD where I’m at, only AF and Army. MND-B falls under 4ID and therefore is almost entirely comprised of Army units, perhaps Navy EOD is more prevalent in Marine held areas? I dont know.</p>

25

<p>USNA69…why does it matter one iota? Facts are the facts and the fact is that a graduate of West Point has an exponentially greater chance of being killed in combat or on a mission than a graduate of the Naval Academy or the Air Force Academy. Does that matter? Absolutely it matters. Do you think that it is a secret at West Point that there is a higher chance for combat related death at West Point compared to the Naval Academy or the Air Force Academy? Do you think the parents of West Point cadets don’t know what the mortality rates are? Do you think that knowledge comes into consideration when making a decision as to which service acadmey a high school senior and a recruited athlete will attend? It sure as hell does enter into the decision making process. I am not saying that the Navy, the Marines and the Air Force are not doing a great job serving their country. They are. All of the services have a role to play and they do it well. But facts are facts.</p>

<p>Speaking of facts, according to statistics complied by the American War Library there were 58,152 military deaths in Vietnam. Of those deaths, 38,179 served in the Army, 2,556 served in the Navy, 14,836 served in the Marines and 2,580 served in the Navy. I hardly see where those statistics confirm your statement that Naval Academy Grads were taking the brunt of that war.</p>

26

<p>I almost hate to revive this discussion - there are plenty of sides to be had here. If anyone wants to read about other’s opinions just google Caleb Campbell.</p>

<p>FWIW - here is my opinion and a few observations:</p>

<p>Any policy must stand alone on it’s own merits. I don’t agree with making or justifying a policy “because” - i.e. because USMA has sent more grads to war or lost more grads etc. Either the policy is a good one, beneficial to the Army and the needs of the Army or it’s not.
I do understand that some policies or situations occur in peacetime that are revoked in war time - that is obvious with the call up of IRR and stop loss. If anything during a time of war - it “looks bad” to have exceptions made for a select few.</p>

<p>That said -
I understand the benefits to West Point, the importance of athletics and the challenges that West Point faces.
I understand where Screaming Eagle is coming from - wanting to cheer on Campbell in his pro football career - but seriously, were you really going to become a Detroit Lions fan -:wink: (laugh everyone - that was supposed to be funny)</p>

<p>I watched the coverage of the draft and have read some opinion pieced and blogs - most are pretty disturbing. Some reporters even suggested that since we are in an unpopular war a pro team would draft Campbel to ASSURE he would go to war. Now that’s distateful.
This policy was in effect for 2-3 years and was utilized by two baseball players and a hockey player - no one cared until the publicity with football.
While I do feel badly for Campbell that he had the rug pulled out from under him - I also feel bad for the other athletes who are being called to duty.
There is some sentiment that the DOD caved to pressure from Air Force and Navy - if this is true then I find this distasteful as well - nothing but politics.
It is wrong to make judgments about Campbell and other athletes who tok advantage of this program - athletes have a natural tendency to want to play at the top of their game - it’s part of why they are so good.<br>
I don’t think any of these men thought they could “have their cake and eat it too” - that going to West Point would blaze a trail for pro sports - these things just happen.
Unfortunately, the policy caused a backlash and there will be a backlash again with it’s revokation. Some people out there are always complaining how the “Army can’t be trusted” blah blah.
Will it affect recruiting? who knows - it will if someone is looking for someone to blame.</p>

27

<p>Watch this- </p>

<p>[YouTube</a> - Caleb Campbell to fulfill obligation to US Army](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXzVMFlqh2Q]YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXzVMFlqh2Q)</p>

28

<p>

</p>

<p>To me, not only is this argument irrelevant, but also totally inappropriate. However, I did send FWDAD a PM asking him, since he brought it up, to correct this misstatement. Apparently, though, he is not interested in facts. And I feel that, in memory of those who did bear the brunt of the Vietnam war, that the truth is paramount. Vietnam was also an air war. Both the AFA, which somehow did not even rate a mention in his ‘statistics’, and USNA suffered more POW/MIAs/KIAs than did WP. Each war is unique. History is a wonderful teacher.</p>

29

<p>I think it was a typo–he mentioned navy twice–one of those stats must have been for AF.</p>

30

<p>From the Naval Historical center website:
Navy MC
Vietnam War, 4 Aug. 1964 - KIA WIA KIA WIA
27 Jan. 1973 1,631 4,178 13,091 51,392 </p>

<p>From the American War Library
Branch Serving In V’nam % Fatalities % of Branch % of All Fatalities
Army 1407000 67 38,179 2.7 65.6
Marines 294000 14 14,836 5.0 25.5
Navy 126000 6 2,556 2.0 4.4
Air Force 273000 13 2,580 1.0 4.4</p>

31

<p>Sorry. Tried to make the table readable. In the earlier post, the 2580 figure referred to AF casualties.</p>

32

<p>This doesn’t seem to be very germain to the discussion of the (imo misguided) former Army policy to allow resignations for the purposes of playing professional sports.<br>
However ,since a couple of you are quoting statistics about KIAs - Here are the numbers. In fact The Army (West Point among the Service Academies) in Vietnam (in fact in all wars so they are not all that unique-) bears the highest % of military Officer KIAs (46% of the 603 SA graduates killed in Vietnam were USMA graduates, 34% USAFA and 22% USNA- undoubtedly not all of the USMA grads were in the Army as until around 1960 they still had the option of commissioning into the USAF). However, the AF and Navy did have a much higher % of the POW population and as can be expected, the % of Officer casualties as a % of total service casualties was much higher.<br>
Rather than be subjected ad nauseum to unsubstantiated “in my day” kind of postings- you can read below or go to the web site below. This gives a fairly balanced picture of who and where casualties were sustained in Vietnam by all kinds of different categories. BTW- the Army has sustained 72% of the KIA in Iraq and Afghanistan- can’t tell you what the break out of Officers and their source of commissioning is.
Hopefully you will all give this a rest now as it is unseemly.</p>

<p>[Vietnam</a> War Deaths, Author’s Notes](<a href=“News, Politics, Sports, Mail & Latest Headlines - AOL.com”>News, Politics, Sports, Mail & Latest Headlines - AOL.com)</p>

<p>AGE and RANK OF OFFICERS
Source: So’east Asia, Combat Area Casualties File (CACF).</p>

<p>"Officer casualties in V’nam, including Warrant Officers, numbered 7874 or 13.5% of all casualties. The Army lost the greatest number of officers, 4635 or 59% of all officer casualties.
[Footnote… The major service academies and other military colleges provided close to 900 of the V’nam officer casualties: US Military Academy (278); USAF Academy (205); US Naval Academy (130); Texas AandM (112); The Citadel (66); Virginia Military Institute (43); Virginia Polytechnic Institute (26); Norwich Univ’y (19)]</p>

<p>91% of these Army officers were either Warrant Officers, 2nd Lieutenants, 1st Lieutenants or Captains. This was a reflection of the Warrant Officer role as a chopper pilot (of the 1277 Warrant Officer casualties, 95% were Army chopper pilots), and that of the young Lieutenants and Captains as combat platoon leaders or company cmdrs. The same profile holds true for the USMC where 87% of all officer casualties (821 of 938) were either WO, Lts or Capts. Army and Marine officer fatalities in V’nam were also quite young. Fully 50% were in the 17-24 year age group and, astonishingly, there were 764 Army officer casualties (16%) who were 21 or younger.
Quite a different profile emerges amongst the Navy and USAF officer corps. The USAF lost the highest percentage of officers. Of 2590 USAF casualties, officer and enlisted, 1674 or 65% were officers. Many of them, as experienced pilots, were older (2/3ds were 30 or older) and many were high-ranking, almost 50% were Majors, LtCols, Colonels and 3 were Genls. The Navy had a similar profile - 55% of its 622 officer casualties were 30 years of age or older and 45 a were ranked at LtCmdr or above when they died. It should be added that 55% of all Navy and USAF officer casualties came as a result of the recon and bombing sorties into N.V’nam, Laos, Thailand and Cambodia. As a result it was mainly the families of Navy and USAF pilots who suffered the great agony of the POW and MIA experience that came out of the V’nam War."</p>

33

<p>“As a result it was mainly the families of Navy and USAF pilots who suffered the great agony of the POW and MIA experience that came out of the V’nam War.”</p>

<p>Probably becuase I don’t think the NVA/VC took many prisoners in the ground war (Army and Marines).</p>

<p>I think the topic was brought up because of the discussion about whether the Army policy to allow cadets to play professional sports provided a benefit to the Army and the Academy as a whole from a recruiting and public relations standpoint. Looking at it that way the discussion of relative casualties between the services in a time of war while it might seem “unseemly” would still be germain to the discussion if is part of a young man or woman’s decision as to what service academy to attend.
(I don’t think Campbell was ever being allowed to resign his commission as you stated, because had he been allowed to resign his commission, the Army wouldn’t be able to call him out of the NFL)</p>

34

<p>

</p>

<p>My impression is that it was brought up that, due to the Army’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, that WP deserves a special more lenient consideration of existing rules and regulations than the other SAs who are not ‘bearing the brunt’ of the current conflict.</p>

<p>I would certainly find your interpretation more palatable.</p>

35

<p>I think we can say we beat this one into the ground. I started to contended points on this issue, and in hindsight, my judgement was flawed in two ways. 1. Without knowing enough about the situation, I assumed (and we all know what happens when you assume) that Kyle Eckel was released from his service from the Navy to play in the NFL, which rubbed me the wrong way as Campbell was not allowed to do the alternative service option, and 2. I allowed my better judgement to be clouded by the fact that a USMA grad playing in the NFL would make USMA look very good to the public, and I allowed myself to have that somehow take a higher priority in my mind than the commitment you make to the Nation when attending an Academy (or joining the Army or Navy, etc). Its too much of a slippery slope. My comment about “bearing the brunt” of the war came off as insensitive, and, having lost friends in this war and having seen first hand the death and destruction that occurs in these things, was far from the feeling I meant to portray, because, regardless of numbers of casualties by service, they are all as equally tragic.
I’m sorry this thread went where it did and I’m sorry if I offended anyone with that.
RLTW</p>

36

<p>Nothing wrong with good polite discussion folks–Thanks for everyone’s contribution to the subject.</p>