Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military From: baldwin@cad.usna.mil (J.D. Baldwin) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: prior service Message-ID: <10330@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 18 Oct 89 02:49:56 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Lines: 73 Approved: military@att.att.com From: "J.D. Baldwin" In article <10230@cbnews.ATT.COM> dee@linus.mitre.org (David E. Emery) writes: >It's very interesting to hear J.D. Baldwin say that >"In five years of commissioned service, I have seen little to bolster > the idea that prior enlisted service makes one a "better" officer." > >For a good argument for such service, see Wilson's new book >_Mud_Soldiers_ (the same guy who wrote _Supercarrier_). I can't take that as much of a recommendation, as I read Wilson's book "Supercarrier" and wasn't impressed. Charitable statement of the year, that. Actually, I thought the TV series they did on it was an IMPROVE- MENT on the book. Haven't read "Mud Soldiers." This doesn't mean, of course, that David is wrong or even that we disagree (the two go together :-). My experience has been a little different from his, that's all. David again: >I spent 3 (of 4) years in a military school (Norwich), and found it to >be a big help once I got on active duty (Army). I learned several >things, including some of the tricks used in Basic Training for >motivating people, how to survive in the system (e.g. the value of >"backchannels" for getting things done), and I also had to face the >problem of less-than-motivated troops (not everyone at Norwich was >gung-ho.) I have similar things in my own Navy-boot-camp to plebe-summer to fleet experiences to point to. All of my enlisted experience combined with my enlisted-role midshipman cruise have made things easier for me along the way, but not so much so that I could ignore that aspect (enlisted- officer relationship) of my professional development. This is not, of course, what I think David is saying. >The one year I spent away from Norwich (junior year at Bucknell U, why >is another story...) demonstrated just how ill-prepared the average >ROTC cadet is in many respects for active duty. Yup. Same story in the USN, and then some! But a 2-year NROTC graduate is the Old Man of the Sea compared to a new OCS/AOCS graduate ("12-week wonder"). >Credibility is very >important, particularly as a platoon leader, and most ROTC graduates >have to learn what EM's are all about. This is also true of West >Point officers, in my experience. I think I made the point that *initial* credibility is heightened when an officer's men are aware that he is prior enlisted. He still has to earn their respect. By the same token, a non-prior enlisted officer may have a somewhat tougher time initially, but it has been my experience that, in the long run, it makes little or no difference. Once your men know you, they don't care about your background enough to make a difference in the level of respect you have earned. >If I were king of the world, I think that maybe I'd require both ROTC >and West Pointers to serve as squad leaders for a basic training/AIT >unit. This agrees with Wilson's recommendation. The advantage would ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >be for the cadets to gain practical leadership experience and also >get a chance to work with troops. If the cadet doesn't work out >well as a squad leader, then we can determine this before spending a >heluva lot of money on his Officer Basic course education. I like this idea, despite the part I underlined. -- >From the catapult of: |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I _, J. D. Baldwin, Comp Sci Dept |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to __||____..}-> US Naval Academy |+| retract it, but also to deny under \ / baldwin@cad.usna.navy.mil |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~