<p>Eliminate Division 1 athletics. </p>
<p>Eliminate athletic recruiting.</p>
<p>Problem eliminated.</p>
<p>My own humble position on this is that the policy to release professional calbre athletes from their service obligation is wrong, period, full stop, end of story. I don't care if they are "poster children" for recruiting.</p>
<p>The only disrespect to the fallen is being committed by military leadership - in this case the Army - that has endorsed the policy. I really don't want to see USNA, USAFA and USMA become "football factories" who release players who are drafted. The policy is wrongheaded and inconsistent with the mission of any service academy, let alone one with the history of West Point.</p>
<p>I'm not buying Shogun's argument that West Point has a harder time recruiting because of the war, and that Navy and Air Force have it easier because their graduates will be less likely to be in harm's way than West Point grads. Here's why:</p>
<p>I read the gomids.com board regularly and occasionally wander over to the Army site. After last year's A-N football game, there was a huge "hue and cry" from the Army supporters about the service selection of the Army football players who were showcased in the promotional spots during the game. There were a lot of "Air Defense Artillery" selectees, while it seemed that a majority of the Navy players were selecting "Marine ground" - i.e. "infantry". Many of the posters seemed to be ashamed that the football team wasn't selecting infantry or a more "in harm's way" type of MOS. I have no opinion on that, just pointing it out.</p>
<p>As to the argument that "if Caleb Campbell had left after his sophomore year..." - "if" is the biggest word in the English language.</p>
<p>"If" you have a child at a military academy who is not a professional prospect, you have to come to terms with the possibility that s/he may be killed in the service of his/her country. I have had more friends killed or seriously injured in peacetime aviation training and operational accidents than in this war. Granted, most of my classmates are past their flying days, but it's a fact of military life.</p>
<p>Somebody in Congress needs to put a stake through the heart of this policy and stop it.</p>
<p>One more thing - I didn't choose Navy over Army because of the football team's record. Frankly, I couldn't have cared less - until I got there and realized how much institutional self-worth seemed to be tied up in the result of the Army-Navy football game. </p>
<p>I'm not gonna lie - I HATE losing to Army - but I didn't make my choice based on that criterion. I doubt many other prospective midshipmen or cadets do either.</p>
<p>I believe that while implementation may vary the directive applies to all academies and ROTC:
<a href="http://west.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/pr070824sports.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://west.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/pr070824sports.pdf</a></p>
<p>While I am not a supporter of the ASO program, I do understand the intent behind it. I suspect that the publicity the program has garnered is not the type originally envisioned by the DoD....</p>
<p>So, based on the information Ann provided above, this "hyprocrisy" extends to the DoD. This is a program that includes the Naval and Air Force Academies as well. ASO is not just an Army thing.</p>
<p>As far as the percentage of graduates "in harms way" goes, the facts are clear, and the Army has certainly earned the right to determine what is in it's best interest. If the Army sees the value provided by the ASO program and chooses to allow a cadet to opt for it, so be it. Given that this program applies to the Navy and Air Force Academies as well, the next article may very well be aimed at them. Hopefully the person writing that article won't have his head in the same place this guy's is.</p>
<p>The US Army certainly doesn't consider Cadet Campbell a "waste of space" and of "taxpayer money". The cadets don't appear to feel that way either. Those two opinions are really the only ones that count.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The Secretary of the Military Department concerned shall establish the approval authority and specific processing requirements for all requests for excess leave and early release from active duty under this program.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It appears to me that the Secretary of the Army and West Point were the only ones to buy into this program.</p>
<p>The policy applies to all the academies and ROTC. When someone in one of the other other academies finds themselves in a position in which they could apply for the provision, and desires to do so, then we shall see if the others have bought in or not.
"Buy In" is not required. The program exists for all the academies. The quote you posted only stipulates the authority to spell out the details insofar as how the program is administered. This doesn't appear to be a "if you feel like it, do it" thing--I believe the word used is "policy."</p>
<p>First - I don't like the idea of this program. I was however disgusted by the tone of the article that our good friend Great American posted.
There is always more than one side to every story and I like to get all sides. According to the article I posted below - the committment is two years "active" duty then 6 years in the reserves.</p>
<p>The program is NOT about football, it's not about Caleb Campbell, it is NOT about the Army-Navy game, it's NOT about recruting cadets to come to West Point. </p>
<p>The purpose appears to be recruiting but I do believe it is a thinly veiled attempt to get and keep promising atheletes to come and stay at West Point.
That said - the Army needs recruits. 1/8 need conduct waivers now. If a couple of athletes are out there doin' their thing for the Army then maybe - just maybe there will be a benefit.</p>
<p>Here is an interesting article about Nick Hill who is taking part in the program after graduating last year from West Point:
Mariners</a> | Mariners pitching prospect Nick Hill hoping to go from lieutenant ... to majors? | Seattle Times Newspaper</p>
<p>USNA Dad&Grad - </p>
<p>I can't speculate on:
[QUOTE]
There were a lot of "Air Defense Artillery" selectees, while it seemed that a majority of the Navy players were selecting "Marine ground" - i.e. "infantry".
[/QUOTE]
But - it could be that they Army players had no choice. Army policy is that 80% of male cadets must branch combat arms. The combat arms branches are Infantry, Aviation, Armor, Field Artillery, Air Defense and Engineers. The most popular branch is Infantry. In fact, Infantry is now more popular than it was prior to 2001. If their class standing was not high enough to get Infantry then they had to go somewhere.</p>
<p>It is my understanding that these days nearly every USNA cadets who wants Marines gets it.</p>
<p>I think that a WP grad gone pro could be good PR for the Army, and I think thats exactly why they enacted the policy. I disagree with the people who think that these athletes who this policy applies to(SOOOOO few) are taking a slot away from a pontetial great officer. If the kid who didn't get in because of that cadet - turned pro athlete, there is ROTC, scholarship or not... if someone wants to be an officer, there are ways to do it other than at West Point. I really don't think we should think less of any cadet that takes advantage of this option either; statistically it is more dangerous to take a drive down the street than serve in Iraq. I don't think they would be "dodging the danger of serving", nobody goes through 4 years at an academy and does not want to serve. Anyone who would come so they could have a free education and MAYBE go pro and avoid the Army just would not put up with what the cadets have to go through. Not worth it for someone who does not want that gold bar pinned on at graduation. I don't think its the escape hatch some people think it is. Thus, I don't really have a problem with the policy.</p>
<p>Apparently those people who did the alternative service didn't WANT to serve enough.</p>
<p>"Apparently those people who did the alternative service didn't WANT to serve enough."</p>
<p>"Enough" is a relative term in the real world. Put 4 years in at West Point, graduate, and be commissioned as an officer in the US Army. It will be the Army that decides if you've served "enough," and ultimately it will be the Army that decides in which capacity you do that service. The Army will decide when you've paid your debt. Anybody else's measurement (read: "judgement") of quality of service, worth, or contribution, is immaterial and irrelevent. Soon to be Lt. Campbell has earned those bars they will pin on him in May, and if he turns out to be a great recruiting tool, then great!--since it appears our policy makers have the stomach for war but not for a draft. We need all the help we can get.</p>
<p>shogun,</p>
<p>I concur with soylent's statement.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Apparently those people who did the alternative service didn't WANT to serve enough.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>If the athletes in this program REALLY wanted to SERVE their country, they would have rejected an offer for this program. I believe this is what soylent is saying. I highly doubt that the Department of the Army would force a 2ndLt. to compete in a professional-level sport, if they'd rather go serve alongside a unit. </p>
<p>This isn't to say that any cadet hasn't earned their right to be commissioned or that he isn't a good officer or leader. It is just differentiating someone who REALLY wants to SERVE and will make a sacrifice and someone who wants to pursue their own ambitions, while providing a side service (recruitment due to visibility).</p>
<p>This is exactly why a LOT of people hold Pat Tillman in the regards they do....he gave up his personal ambitions (sacrifice) for something much greater.</p>
<p>Shogun: The Army works for me as a citizen and taxpayer, so I believe that my judgment is just as important as the Army's. As one of the many who have paid for these athletes' educations, my judgment is that their "service, worth, or contribution" is not worth our $350,000. The Army may decide when their debt has been made, but the Army works for me and I'm doing my duty as a citizen to speak up about their misdecisions. He may have earned his bar, but I would prefer he actually use it.</p>
<p>Fortunately, neither of our judgements is as important as the Army's. Being a taxpayer doesn't make either of us any smarter either. The DoD is doing it's best to make up for this nation's inability to field an Army large enough to fulfill it's mission. This is not the DoD's fault, it's the fault of the policy makers and a public that enjoys paying homage to a military that it's not actually willing to join. The fact is, there aren't enough Pat Tillman's in the NFL, on Wall Street, or on Main Street. Since the draft isn't likely, finding new ways to encourage recruitment at both the academies and ROTC, and in the enlisted ranks, is critical. If the program ends up providing value, the DoD will continue to approve it. If not, trust me, they'll dump it like a load of bricks.</p>
<p>This entire program stinks. The Army does not have a recruiting problem. They have a retention problem. A retention problem probably exacerbated by hair-brained schemes such as this implemented solely to improve the quality of their football team.</p>
<p>First off, the Army is well on their way for the third year in a row to surpass their recruiting goals. The fact that they have had to lower their standards somewhat is not the end of the world. They just have to work a little harder whipping them into shape. Last year alone, West Point sent out 734 rejection letters to QUALIFIED applicants. Seven hundred thirty four applicants who knew we were engaged in a global war on terrorism and were ready to serve.</p>
<p>The Army doesn’t need recruiting help, they need retention help. What are the Campbells and the Hills doing for retention for an Army that is commencing to feel a tremendous shortage in field grade officers or for the young Captain who is leaving his family for his fourth deployment.</p>
<p>Also, I grew up in an environment where one had his house in order before he asked for outside help. Two thirds of Naval Officers will be asked to support Individual Augmentation during their first well-earned shore duty. Coming off close to four years of sea duty where they probably spent in excess of sixty percent of their time away from home. Coming to shore duty, where their absence will cause their shipmates to work tremendous amounts of overtime, not to mention another extended period away from their family. Individual Augmentation to support the Army and its misplaced priorities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Totally illogical. This nation has given DOD an end strength. The Army has met that end strength. They are now mismanaging it.</p>
<p>shogun, apparently this is a three year old Army policy recently adopted by DOD in order, I assume, to lend legitimacy to this farce. I know it would make you feel vindicated if it was adopted by all three services. Don’t hold your breath.</p>
<p>Also, I am amazed that you ‘paraded’ the WP war dead in an attempt somehow to lend legitimacy to your argument. You have no clue what their position was on this subject and, thusly, probably owe the families of each and every one of them an apology.</p>
<p>My parting questions are what kid smart enough to be recruited by Army would not be smart enough to ask about whether or not this plan would be in effect when he graduated. And what coach, honest enough to coach a SA football team would be able to respond with anything other than the fact that he didn't have a clue. So, it is probably not helping recruiting and is hurting Army officer retention.</p>
<p>Well now that we all know that this is not a popular program (and for good reason for the most part), there are a few points that need to be clarified.</p>
<p>Yes, the Army has a retention problem, but this program was not designed to solve that problem. From my experience, the GWOT has made it more difficult to recruit. I believe that every branch of service has recruiters and a marketing and PR program to support that end (yes, I still get the fact that this ASO program is not popular).</p>
<p>I believe this is largely irrelevant to the philosophical argument, but since the taxpayer cost of the education was brought up, it is worth pointing out that cadets are required to pay back a prorated share of their education costs to compensate for time not served (it is a substantial amount).</p>
<p>JAMO4:</p>
<p>I wasn't making a judgment on the Service Selection of the USMA football players, the folks who post on the Scout.com Army board were. Presumably, most are USMA grads, parents and fans of Army Football. </p>
<p>I don't "grade" the choice that Mids and Cadets make in terms of the branch they choose. I leave that to others who think one branch trumps the other. Personally, I think the practice is counterproductive to unity in the Armed Forces and is the main reason for destructive intra and interservice rivalries.</p>
<p>You're right on the Marine thing. The limit used to be 1/6 of the graduating class could go USMC (BTW, they're Mishipmen at USNA, not Cadets ;) ). Evidently, the limit has been removed to allow more 2LT's from USNA, which I think is a good thing.</p>
<p>ASO is available to all the Academies, but currently USMA is the only school really pushing it. To me, it's a slippery slope we don't want to go down. As my "dear old dad" used to say, "just because you can, doesn't mean you should." True enough, it's up to the Secretary of the Army to decide how to run his service, I just happen to think it's the wrong thing to do, and it won't pass the "smell test" when people realize what's going on.</p>
<p>My gut tells me that it will be eliminated in the not too distant future, but I am completely aware that my opinion is just that - my opinion.</p>
<p>USNA D&G</p>
<p>USNADad&Grad:
I know you weren't making a judgment on service selection - but you did post it. I can't be responsible for what people post on scout.com! ;) (from the little I read neither are they!) But yeah - those in infantry claim there are really only two branches in the Army - infantry and everyone else.</p>
<p>My apologies to referring to mids as cadets - I know better. </p>
<p>ASO - I can' kind of see where they are coming from - I still don't like it. The article on Caleb Campbell said he had been approached by college coaches during his early tenure at West Point - encouraging him to leave before his committment kicks in and go play with them.
Army football (and probably other sports) does lose athletes - so I have a tendency to believe this recruiting happens. I find this reprehensible - how can an academy compete with that? It should be a violation of NCAA regulations.</p>
<p>So - devil's advocate here - what does the Army and USMA do with this kid? He excels on the playing field, reaching a level no one saw coming, he excels in leadership (from all accounts) and apparently in the classroom. Does this Army support this burgeoning talent? Do they embrace him and find a place for him to use his skills to represent the Army in a way not many others can?
Do they cut him loose? Do they risk another Kyle Eckel situation? </p>
<p>There are no easy answers. If there are a handful of superior atheltes at USMA who are at risk of leaving before committment then perhaps they will stay - taking the risk. Perhaps the Army, while "losing" Campbell is gaining a few more athletes as officers who would have otherwise left.
Perhaps Campbell can inspire other young people to join the service and be a part of military life. This is the dilemma.<br>
It really isn't as black and white as we would like it to be.</p>
<p>"This nation has given DOD an end strength. The Army has met that end strength. They are now mismanaging it."</p>
<p>Huh? The Army and Marines are sending men and women back to Iraq and Afganistan for their 3rd and 4th deployments? If "recruiting goals" are being met, then the policy makers have failed us again (shades of Rumsfeld) in not anticipating correct troop strength-- but that still doesn't change the fact that the Army is too small for its current mission and our answer seems to be just keep sending 'em back. (I hope our answer isn't "the Army is just mis-managing".) As for "parading the war dead", I see nothing wrong with a little reminder of the sacrifice already made in response to the article's comment that the USMA motto should be changed to "evade, avoid, nfl", as if cadets are out looking for a "way out" and Academy officials are more than happy to show them. The article was written in an insulting manner, and the list of former graduates KIA for our nation in the War on Terror was meant to emphasize that point. Cadet Campbell took his re-affirmation oath in his Junior year, the same as everyone else. He understands his duty, and if the Army sends him here or there he will go. </p>
<p>Regardless, if a draft isn't going to happen (and it won't), if American's aren't going to join the ground forces in enough strength to make any difference (and they aren't), then it may be time to start expanding the role of women in combat roles, and moving men and women from the other branches and training them for life on the ground in the Middle East.
Again, not only did the policy makers fail to plan, react, and then re-plan, our leaders failed to even ask the nation for either more personnel or money. We tried to do it with what we already had, and borrowed to pay for it.
Now, here we are. </p>
<p>Ann--interesting comment on the programs requirement to make the officers pay back part of their education if they go qualify for and choose ASO. That certainly should make it more palatable for some.</p>