With DADT going the way of the dodo, much of the Ivy League is searching for new reasons not to have ROTC on campus. (Sidenote: I predict barring women from combat arms branches will be a popular talking point in the Ivory Tower for the next couple years). There are always academic and philosophical reasons trotted out of course, but let's face it - this is nothing more than a prominent marker in the American upper classes' continual distancing of itself from the military and military service.
Andrew Exum, also known as Abu Muqawama, makes the case on his blog that it's not the elite universities' fault per se, but more a result of the military focusing its efforts on schools where it'll have more of an recruiting effect. And there's some truth in that, though it's a classic chicken v. egg argument - what came first, the military ignoring the bluebloods or the bluebloods ignoring the military? Conveniently, Ex glosses over that these restrictions are still in place because of the schools' stated policies, not because of any military regulation. If the universities were to lift these restrictions, there's no way to say whether the military would institute ROTC programs at which schools, but at least the option to do so would exist. And, in my mind, this would be a step in the direction of re-democratizing our armed forces. Let the number-crunchers decide if it's worth it or not, not tenured progressives still living the Vietnam debate. (Says the guy hoping to become a tenured professor someday.)
Wake Forest isn't Ivy League, but it's a damn good school. (More like the Magnolia League, you dig?) It's got a solid Army ROTC program that is never very big, but produces some of the finest ROTC graduates every year. (This writer notwithstanding.) Hell, in my four years there, there were six different cadets with full-bird colonels or generals as fathers - not a coincidence, I've since realized. Our sister programs at Duke, Davidson, UVA, and UNC-Chapel Hill are also good examples of how ROTC programs can and do work at elite universities. And given the lessons supposedly learned in our officer corps from the past eight years at war, shouldn't we be seeking out as many of the best and brightest as possible, even if they are just four-year short-timers? Does the military want to produce another generation of officers just like the old one, or do they want to develop and cultivate the best officer corps it possibly can? (A question for a different debate, and without a clear answer, I realize.) The Ivy League shouldn't just be a farm for future Spooks, especially if the military is serious about developing leaders capable of leading both in traditional warfare and in asymmetric warfare. (One last additional note: All the schools mentioned above, from the Ivys to the Magnolias, are national brands, and attract students accordingly. So the traditional "military-friendly South" v. "anti-military Northeast" rebuttal doesn't fly here, in my opinion.)
Along these lines - a group of Columbia Vets have an online petition going, in the hopes of returning ROTC to Columbia's campus. I encourage you all to sign it, if you feel so inclined.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I think you're overstating the quality of education you get from the Ivys. Based on their product, they're no longer "liberal" in the true sense of the word, but places where an elitist dogma is carefully cultivated and developed. There's enough of that affecting the military already, we don't need it in the officer corps. You want to re-democratize the military, institute a draft, no exceptions. Otherwise the military will continue to look for the best and brightest in institutions who at least aren't hostile to it.
ReplyDeleteBlueprint for Columbia ROTC:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.securenation.org/blueprint-for-columbia-rotc/
EXCERPT:
Few causes are as manifestly impactful as advocating for Columbia ROTC. As it does today, much of the weight of future missions will be borne by young officers. They must be able to lead their soldiers in any combination of homeland defense, disaster relief, crisis stabilization, ministerial training, conflict prevention, security and stability, counterinsurgency, counterterrorism, essential government services, emergency infrastructure, and humanitarian aid. In the short term, young lieutenants and captains prepared by Columbia ROTC will be better equipped to rapidly innovate and adapt to unpredictable challenges. Over their careers, a strong academic foundation will help Columbia officers to master their duties with a commensurately greater acquisition of faculties. Pentagon budget cuts that may lead to leaner capabilities on the ground and the forecast of politically sensitive missions that rely on smaller numbers of forces further point to a heightened need for the exceptional individual officers that Columbia can provide the nation.
I saw off a young Vet at my Grad School who accepted a job teaching at the Citadel. His job is to make sure young warriors become old warriors based on his deployment experience.
ReplyDeleteIt's been what, 40 years, since the ROTC has been active on these campuses? I really don't see it as a great loss. If federal funds have been trickling in, stop it now. It's just another unnecessary loss of money that could be put to better use. There are now high schools that really do want to expand their ROTC programs....repurpose these funds.
ReplyDelete