<p>(excerpt)
" Before Vietnam some of our best universities such as Duke, Yale and Princeton had vibrant defense studies programs that gave future combat leaders the opportunity to learn from many great teachers of the art of war. For the most part those programs and teachers are gone, victims of an academic culture that somehow believes that ignoring the study of war will make wars go away."</p>
<p>Should colleges bring back defense studies?</p>
<p>NO........read the classic texts and be happy. Any student who studies classical studies has essentially a study of warfare.....tactics and all. Theucydides would be a good beginning. Our schools teach it but they don't call it military........</p>
<p>Don't blame the universities. To quote from the link:</p>
<p>
[quote]
After Vietnam the Army sent 7,400 officers to fully funded graduate education. Today that figure is 396, half of whom are studying to join the weapons buying community.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Truth is the military is a very different place than it was 30 years ago. It is far less representative of our society. Even among the officers, it has become increasingly southern and rural. Just look at where the military colleges and vibrant ROTC programs are. These are the source of the bulk of officers.</p>
<p>For advanced studies, the military sends its many of its officers to internal schools. The army runs one at Fort Leavenworth, the Air Force one at Wright-Patterson. No doubt, there are several others.</p>
<p>I think some of the above points are a little misinformed... Although my info is more geared to the Navy. First of all naval officers come from three sources: approx. 1/3 from USNA, 1/3 from OCS, 1/3 from ROTC. Naval officers are pretty representative coming mostly from the east and west coasts. Most of them are not from rural backgrounds. As far as graduate studies the Navy has two post graduate schools: Naval War College and Naval Post Graduate School. Naval War College focuses on defense/security studies and the Naval Post Graduate School focusing more on engineering and operations. Also to move on to the higher officer ranks it is required to conduct joint forces graduate training, focusing on defense studies. It also pretty much an unwritten requirement to have a Master's in engineering, management, or operations.</p>
<p>ctsail, one only has to look at the Annapolis curriculum to see that the military places high value on student with technical backgrounds - computers, engineering, etc. </p>
<p>hazmat, I assume you are joking. I am sure you do not believe one can learn how to wage a highly technical war from a Classics text.</p>
<p>newmassdad, I have always heard that, in terms of diversity, there are few organizations, public or private, that are as diverse as the US Military. Further, there are few places where minorities can grow in the ranks more quickly.</p>
<p>I do, think, that there was been a shift in the composition of the military. Given the end of the draft, most wealth/upper middle class individuals do not serve in the military. The universities are also responding to student demand-during the Vietnam War students often demanded the uiversities remove ties to the military.</p>
<p>I think a more valuable class to teach along with this war class would be about culture, values, religion, history of a society and country, etc.</p>
<p>It seems our leaders incorrectly predict what will happen when we go into a country</p>
<p>In Vietnam, we thought it would be easy to fight, but we didn't count on the determination and anger, and resources</p>
<p>In Iraq, well the insurgents or however you prefer to call them, have increased in number, not to the anticipation of those fighting the war</p>
<p>I think we do not take into account enough of the history of a region, the passions, the goals, the long fought battles, the leaders, the people, the nationalism, all kinds of issues that often do not get a thorough enough looking at</p>
<p>That is what needs to be taught, and it may well be, at the Service Academies</p>
<p>CGM, they already teach those classes, in psychology, sociology, anthropology, history and government. I agree with the below quote, but I think the information is there being taught, just that the people with history degrees and philosophy degrees aren't brought in to decision making positions at the same rate as others.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think we do not take into account enough of the history of a region, the passions, the goals, the long fought battles, the leaders, the people, the nationalism, all kinds of issues that often do not get a thorough enough looking at
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I know that, I was saying IF they are going to teach warfare or whatever, then a very focused class on international current events and past events is a must, as I stated, hopefully they do already, but the original question was about warfare, so IF they want to teach how to fight, we also need a class about who, why, history etc.</p>
<p>If you look at what is going on and has gone on, then mistakes won't be made</p>
<p>I heard that in World War II, German soldiers had no fear surrendering to American Troops, because they had heard through their Captains, and Fathers, etc., was that the Americans treated war prisoners relatively well, so the Germans did not fight to the death, but surrendered. That alone probably saved thousands of American lives.</p>
<p>Now, not so sure about surrendering to us.</p>
<p>If we had held onto that practice of our past, and our Administration remembered that simple act of war, then maybe there would be hope now</p>
<p>Again, I was responding to a specific question about a specific course, if you are teaching a course on warfare, battle plans, etc, then a parralel course focused on all the other issues of war that absolutely need to be taken into consideration by our military should be tought. Teaching the first without the latter is a recipe for failure.</p>
<p>I don't think the miscalculations in Iraq rest on the shoulders of the uniformed brass.</p>
<p>
[quote]
newmassdad, I have always heard that, in terms of diversity, there are few organizations, public or private, that are as diverse as the US Military. Further, there are few places where minorities can grow in the ranks more quickly.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Racial diversity? yes. </p>
<p>Socioeconomic diversity, you gotta be kidding.</p>
<p>Geographic diversity? less all the time.</p>
<p>Political diversity? Eyes right!</p>
<p>There is a huge difference between offering opportunity to a wide range of folks, especially the "less elite" members of our society, and being diverse. Yes, the military has been a great place for all sorts of groups to get breaks, and move ahead, in ways other parts of our culture make difficult. In its own way, it is a very meritocratic organization. But that does not make it particulary diverse in a wider sense.</p>
<p>And yes, I come from a family of veterans, and am one myself.</p>
<p>"Now, not so sure about surrendering to us."</p>
<p>I'm sorry, citygirlsmom, but that's just stupid. The US continues to treat prisoners very, very well compared to how they're treated by other nations.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Again, I was responding to a specific question about a specific course, if you are teaching a course on warfare, battle plans, etc, then a parralel course focused on all the other issues of war that absolutely need to be taken into consideration by our military should be tought. Teaching the first without the latter is a recipe for failure.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree (...must...put....more....characters....)</p>
<p>i think defense studies should be a graduate-only program, similar to how law and medicine are, or how in some business fields, it is recommended that you have a strong technical background before you move into management. i think those who want to learn defense studies would be best served having an undergrad degree in something else first. </p>
<p>that's just my intuition but i dont know too much about the military.</p>