<p>"Ann, can you cite any examples where the policy has been applied for non-professional athletes? I'm not trying to be difficult, I just believe that the application of the policy has been almost exclusively exercised for the benefit of professional-calibre athletes."</p>
<p>I wrote previously:</p>
<p>"As you can see this directive does not only apply to athletes (although they seem to have been the only ones to have benefited to date)."</p>
<p>Hunt - </p>
<p>For me, the policy is wrong, period, full stop, end of story. I wouldn't support it even if the graduates were subject to a 20-year reserve commitment.</p>
<p>When you make the decision to attend a Service Academy and take the oath of office, you're making a promise to serve - on active duty - at least that's the implication. When you've met your obligation, you should be free to choose whether you want to continue or leave.</p>
<p>I'm not against reserve service - just not right out of a Service Academy. I was a reservist for 14 years, but only after my initial obligation was fulfilled. I was truly proud of my reserve service and felt that the service was meaningful, but I'm not sure that even 10 years as a reservist (with no active duty time) would be payback enough for my USNA education. I would much rather have an ROTC ("R" meaning reserve ;) ) cadet or midhsipman be granted a release from his/her active service than a graduate of USMA, USNA, USAFA, etc.</p>
<p>Ann - </p>
<p>My point is that the policy is only being used to excuse athletes. The policy and its application are both flawed, IMO.</p>
<p>I don't want any coaches who are recruiting potential athletes for any SA to whisper in to the ear of a kid who's unsure - "Hey, that service obligation? If you're good enough to go pro, you won't have to worry about it." </p>
<p>It's the wrong expectation to set, IMO.</p>
<p>USNA Dad&Grad: I understand that you are against the policy and its application (you have made that abundantly clear ;)). I'm not defending the policy - merely pointing out what the policy is....</p>
<p>Ann wrote:
[quote]
That exposure hopefully sheds the service and institution in a good light and makes it more marketable to the public from a recruiting standpoint.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If somebody could show me the correlation between the policy and an increase in recruiting, I'll be happy to haul down my "Village Crank" flag and go home. Tongue firmly planted in cheek...</p>
<p>From all of the posts over the last several days it seems to me that reasonable people can differ on the ASO directive itself. There appears to be a case that having the ASO directive as a procedure by way of which an exceptional individual can be used to help "market" the armed services has some value, although there may be a disagreement on exactly what that value is. On the other hand, a credible argument has been made that the directive may not be in the best interest of the armed services or fair to other cadets and midshipmen. I will confess that I have feelings both ways.</p>
<p>To bring this thread full circle, I have exchanged emails with others and I don't know anyone that thinks that the original post by Thomas Hauser was accurate or fair to West Point or the Corps of Cadets. As far as I can tell, we are in agreement that:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The directive referred to as the ASO is not a policy enacted or adopted by West Point. It is a directive from the Department of Defense that may or may not be utilized by the Army. Hauser's original post takes great liberties with the actual facts upon which the premise of his argument is based. He either failed to conduct an adequate investigation of the facts or has a careless indifference to the truth. </p></li>
<li><p>Hauser's statement that "Perhaps the USMA should change its motto from 'Duty, Honor, Country,' to 'Evade, Avoid, NFL'" is an unjustified insult to every cadet that has ever marched on the Plain at West Point. It is an uncalled for bastardization of a motto that has a special meaning to the Corps of Cadets that should not be hijacked by a third party to further his misguided hypothesis.</p></li>
<li><p>Hauser's statement that by way of the AOG "The United States Military Academy is, in effect, saying that it considers entertaining sports fans to be more important than the war in Iraq" is a perversion of the facts to reach an unrealistic and unjustifiable conclusion. As previously noted, it is not West Point's directive and that is certainly not a message that West Point would send.</p></li>
<li><p>If someone doesn't like the ASO directive, the best place to voice your concern is with someone that may actually be able to change the policy: your senator or member of Congress. </p></li>
<li><p>It is a cheap shot to attack Caleb Campbell over a policy that he did not ask for and which may never apply to him. The cadets that I have spoken to about him consider him to be an honest stand up guy that is proud to be a member of the Corps of Cadets.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>An earlier post on the Service Parents portion of this website about the unity of purpose between Cadets and Midshipmen comes to mind about where this thread should go. That post relayed the observation that after the hard fought battle on the football field at the Army Navy game, the football teams march hand in hand to both sidelines and sing the two academies alma maters; the seniors knowing that they will be joining together on another field of battle in a short period of time. The ultimate in mutual respect in college athletics, regardless of which team wins the game. Let's follow the example of the Cadets and Midshipmen and not attack the other Service Academies. At the end of the day, we are all on the same team, maybe even with Thomas Hauser.</p>
<p>Thanks for the great discussion guys and gals!!!!!!!</p>
<p>Perhaps another side of the argument for the merit of using athletes for recruiting: all services reached or exceeded their March recruitment goals.</p>
<p>At the endof the day it is a DOD policy. If he is able to become a beneficiary of a policy that he did not write then more power tohim.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If he is able to become a beneficiary of a policy that he did not write then more power tohim.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>JamTex, that viewpoint sux. :(</p>
<p>The Army has been meeting the necessary recruiting goals necessary to maintain the Congress-mandated end strength for quite a while.</p>
<p>DoD does not normally act in a vacumn on regulations such as this. Someone probably asked them to do it. I would suggest that this particular someone is WP via SecArmy.</p>
<p>For those of us who have been around longer than it takes for our offspring to get through Plebe year, the relationship between the Brigade/Corps and the football teams is often a tenatious slippery slope. One of Coach Johnson's most unhearlded attributes was that he did as much as possible to ensure the football team was a viable part of the Brigade. This program will do nothing but widen that chasm.</p>
<p>Macbeth: "Nothing is but what is not." </p>
<p>USNA69: While I disagree with you on many fronts, I do agree that having special privileges for athletes does not foster Brigade/Corps unity.</p>
<p>This is a thought provoking follow up to Hauser's column:
Boxing</a> - Columns - Thomas Hauser
West Point - Revisited
[quote]
</p>
<p>Hypocrisy at West Point engendered a remarkable response. On the day it was posted, I received more than one hundred emails, the overwhelming majority of them from graduates of West Point and Annapolis. I also heard from the parents of quite a few young men and women now serving in the military and graduates of the Air Force Academy. Writing about the alternative service option has turned into a rewarding experience for me, in large part because of the dialogue I’ve had with so many graduates of the service academies and their families.</p>
<p>The Annapolis alumni who wrote to me were close to unanimous in opposing the alternative service option. A majority of West Point graduates also disliked the program
[/quote]
</p>
<p>My previous article contained a reference to the United States Military Academy motto: “Duty, Honor, Country.”</p>
<p>"General Douglas MacArthur, in his Farewell Speech to the Corps of Cadets at West Point, referred to “those three hallowed words” as “an expression of the ethics of the American soldier” and “a great moral code.”</p>
<p>The reference I made to the motto was disrespectful and inappropriate. I apologize for it."</p>
<p>Good.</p>
<p>I still would rather have had him address some of the details of the policy he left out of his original article, instead of telling us his life's story.</p>
<p>So, he apologized - as he should have done - but the fact still remains that the policy is wrong, wrong, wrong.</p>
<p>I don't mind the bio so much - at least he's declared that while a liberal, politically-speaking, he's not rabidly anti-military as so many left-leaning journalists seem to be who came out of the 60's university scene - especially Columbia.</p>
<p>Here's hoping that wiser heads heads will prevail upon the Army and West Point to cease going down this particular "slippery slope".</p>
<p>PS - Thanks for posting the link! - M</p>
<p>You are welcome! I, too, think the policy is wrong but objected to the tone of the article. His stance did not change but the tone was better. I thought it was great that he wrote the follow up and listened to comments that people sent to him - which for the most part were insightful.</p>
<p>I wonder if the policy will stick around and quietly be forgotton about until the next football issue arises or if the backlash will force changes.</p>
<p>I don't see any change to this DOD policy coming unless there is suddenly a gaggle of professional athletes springing out of the Service Academies. With the number being so very small of those with even have a hope of applying for the program, it just isn't going to get much attention one way or another.</p>
<p>Here's why I think it will get scrutiny...</p>
<p>DOD</a> data: More forced to stay in Army - USATODAY.com</p>
<p>How can we condone ASO when we're ordering more troops to involuntarily extend their duty? Some smart politician is going to have a veritable field day with this - if they connect the dots...</p>
<p>PS - The Navy is not supporting ASO at this time.</p>
<p>True D&G but then there is this issue as well:</p>
<p>Army</a>, Marines enlisting more felons - Military - MSNBC.com</p>
<p>The Navy can afford to lose sailors - they aren't in crisis mode. The Marines are increasing in size but number-wise the Corps is much smaller than the Army.
The Navy really doesn't have a need to support ASO.</p>
<p>The argument that ASO equals or will result in increased Army recruiting in the enlisted ranks is sophistry.</p>
<h2>soph·is·try (sŏf'ĭ-strē)</h2>
<p>noun: pl., -tries.
Plausible but fallacious argumentation.
A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument.</p>