New superintendent

<p>From Prospective-Net:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld has announced that the
President has nominated Lieutenant General Franklin L. Hagenbeck '71,
United States Army, for reappointment to the rank of Lieutenant
General and assignment as Superintendent, United States Military
Academy, West Point, New York.</p>

<p>General Hagenbeck is currently serving as Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1,
United States Army, Washington, DC. No assumption of command date
has been announced. The current Superintendent, LTG William J.
Lennox, Jr., also '71 departs in early June of this year.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I heard. Didn't even know Lennox was retiring. Good thing it's this year instead of next so I know what to expect for '11! I sure hope the new management is a good change.</p>

<p>This will be interesting. This guy is supposed to be HARDCORE. And we're getting a new Comm, too. I have a feeling this place is going to be getting much stricter...</p>

<p>No makeup for yuks? ;)</p>

<p>hahahahah, I would conduct the best spirit mission EVER if he tried that one.</p>

<p>Realistically, how much sway does the Superintendant have? I realize that in the military hierarchy the man (or woman) on top has a lot of power, but at a place as grounded in tradition as WP it would seem to be an uphill battle in changing too much. I suppose it all depends on the character of the individual taking charge.</p>

<p>No, he has a LOT of sway. You won't understand until you get here.</p>

<p>I don't mean to seem like a know-it-all or anything, but from some things I have seen on what the superintendant's job is and what he does, I think he's limited in his powers. Of course he has a lot of power, I mean he's top dog at the academy, right? But it seems like there's a lot of beuracracy below him. He isn't close enough to the bottom of the food chain to change things from the bottom up. The folks below him make the changes that cadets are really going to notice (or at least most of the time I imagine). The superintendant is the guide and leader of the academy, and that's where his power really is. His ability to influence everyone in the academy. At least that's what my impression was after seeing interviews with some of the former superintendants.</p>

<p>And as far as the new superintendant is concerned- I trust Rumsfeld.</p>

<p>I hope things get stricter with the new command. It seems like the academy's gone through cycles like this before, and it seems like it's healthy.</p>

<p>Well, that's what I think, take it with a few spoonfulls of salt, lol!</p>

<p>Give me a break. Saying that the Superintendent does not have any power is like saying the President of a university does not have any say in what happens at that institution. The Superintendent pretty much calls the shots on policy and the direction that USMA will follow. Traditionally, with the exception of Westmorland and Lee (possibly others) this position has been the last assignment prior to retirement for well respected General Officers. General Lennox has done a fine job in the last few years in helping to steer USMA in a positive direction. I'm sure that his successor will do likewise.</p>

<p>Clongbeard: "It seems like the academy's gone through cycles like this before, and it seems like it's healthy."</p>

<p>What in the world are you talking about?</p>

<p>I think he's just blowing smoke.</p>

<p>I'm talking about the variances in leadership between superintendants. Some will come in and see places to tighten the bolts, and the next one might say to loosen them a little. Some of them will concentrate on different problems and handle them differently. I'm talking about leadership change. It comes in cycles, every few years they change who's in charge. I think it's a good thing that they do that. It's like what generals have to deal with when new Presidents are elected. They were used to a President or maybe even liked him but now they have to re-adjust to the new boss. I think it's good prep for those sort of changes. I think it also keeps the academy more flexible and self-sufficient. Am I clear or is everyone still confused?</p>

<p>And in case there was any other confusion, I wasn't implying that General Lennox wasn't doing a good job. And I am aware of how special it is to become the man in charge at the academy.</p>

<p>This guy is supposed to be HARDCORE</p>

<hr>

<p>i noticed he has senior/master (cant tell, lo res photo) jump wings.... but no ranger tab. uhm, i know its kinda an unwritten rule that all 11a's go to ranger school. so....... uhm....</p>

<p>He was Commander of the 10th Mountain... I think that says a lot. Obviously someone that ranks much higher than you or I didn't care that he didn't have a Ranger Tab.</p>

<p>Nope, not all Infantry necessarily go to Ranger School. Depends if there is a slot when your assignments allow you to fill that slot. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.</p>

<p>Clongbeard: "It comes in cycles, every few years they change who's in charge. I think it's a good thing that they do that."</p>

<p>What they are doing is part of the military. People change assignments in every job. They don't bring in a new Supe just to keep the Academy on its toes. It has to do with assignment rotation and retirement.</p>

<p>You do not command the 10th Moutain and make LTG without being an outstanding officer, better than 99% of your peers. </p>

<p>The vast majority of infantry officers do go to Ranger school after completion of IOBC, but people get hurt, orders change, things happen. Once you get into the force, it is much more difficult to put your life on hold to go back to Ranger School. </p>

<p>Lesson learned: Do not make assumptions on the quality of an officer/soldier based solely on the awards/badges they have. You will fail miserably as a leader if you fall into that trap.</p>

<p>Amen to that, ScreamingEagle. 8IzEnuff, just because you're in the Real Army doesn't give you some all-encompassing knowledge of everything that is hooah or Army related, just like being a Cadet doesn't give me any kind of all-encompassing knowledge of West Point or things related to it. I don't pretend to know much at all about the Real Army, but I work hard to learn more. It helps also that my boyfriend is an Officer, so I get the inside story from him. </p>

<p>As ScreamingEagle said, people get hurt, etc. We have NO RIGHT to be second-guessing a LTG, especially from our position on the food chain. I'm not trying to be harsh, but making assumptions is what will hurt people when you're actually in charge, both physically and the integrity of the unit.</p>

<h2>It helps also that my boyfriend is an Officer</h2>

<p>you can do that? that isn't taboo at all?</p>

<p>Prior relationship. Those are the only ones that count.</p>

<p>m4m, what do you want to branch and why? I feel like a kindergartener sitting indian style in a circle asking the big army officer stupid questions.</p>