Veterans Day - VA Loans

Veterans Day: An Honored National Holiday
By Kevin Pearia, guest writer

The celebration of the 2010 Veterans Day marks the 72nd year of the national holiday. Once celebrated worldwide as Armistice Day, Veterans Day is now a United States National holiday taking place each year on the 11th of November. The date commemorates the signing of the WWI Armistice by the Allied Powers and Germany at the 11th hour on the 11th day of the 11th month with Veterans Day ceremonies commencing at Arlington National Cemetery.

Although American flags can be seen throughout the US to honor the brave men and women who have dedicated themselves to their country through military service, other countries also celebrate Veterans Day. Great Britain, Belgium, Canada, and France all honor the 11th of November, but have declared different names for the holiday. Nearly every country, including the US, commemorates the holiday with red poppies and two-minutes of silence to honor brave service men and women worldwide.

To continue its tradition of honoring veterans and active duty service members, the Department of Veterans Affairs offers them a wide variety of benefits. Veterans are able to obtain educational assistance, job training, health benefits, and even obtain a loan through the VA Home Loan program.

The VA Home Loan program has helped 18+ million veterans and active-duty service members achieve homeownership since 1944, and it remains one of the most accessible and beneficial home loan programs available to military members. Service men and women interested in purchasing a home through the VA Home Loan program can expect:
 competitive interest rates
 flexible loan terms
 zero down payment required
 no mortgage insurance required

VA loans also have high loan limits, and military members can even determine their potential loan limit using the VA's loan calculator. The VA loan calculator not only provides users with the amount of their potential home loan, but it will also help them determine what can be done to increase their loan limit if they so desire.

The VA Home Loan program strives to make homeownership accessible to all veterans and active duty service members. In fact, nearly 80% of all military members who have qualified for a VA loan would not have qualified for a conventional loan. To be eligible for application, military members must meet one of the following initial requirements in addition to submitting a copy of their Certificate of Eligibility:
 Have served 181 days on active duty or 3 months during war time
 Or have served 6 years in the National Guard or Reserves
 Or be the spouse of a service member killed in action

Although the VA home loan program has no income or credit requirements, most VA-approved lenders will desire a credit score of at least 620 to secure financing. Even those with less than perfect credit are encouraged to apply, as those with history of bankruptcy or foreclosure have been approved in the past.

Further information is available at: www.vamortgagecenter.com

OIF-OEF Class Action PTSD Lawsuit Extension

JUDGE EXTENDS DEADLINE TO JOIN CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT BY THREE MONTHS FOR OEF/OIF VETS WITH PTSD WHO WERE SHORTCHANGED ON BENEFITSVeterans’ advocates win extension through November 10, 2010 for Sabo v. United States
NVLSP calls on friends and families of OEF/OIF vets to encourage class members to “opt-in”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE August 16, 2010

WASHINGTON— Veterans discharged from military service due to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) between December 17, 2002 and October 14, 2008 and shortchanged on their military benefits have three additional months to join a class action lawsuit, thanks to a critical deadline extension.

Last Thursday, Judge George W. Miller of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims signed an order giving eligible veterans – almost all of whom served in Iraq or Afghanistan -- until November 10, 2010 to join (or “opt-in to”) Sabo v. United States, a class action lawsuit brought in December 2008 by the National Veterans Legal Services Program (NVLSP) and pro-bono counsel Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.

As a result of an agreement reached with the military services, veterans who join the lawsuit are guaranteed a disability rating upgrade and expedited records review, which can potentially lead to additional financial benefits and improved healthcare for veterans and their families.

Approximately, 42 percent, or 1,835 veterans, signed and sent in “Opt-in Forms” before the original July 24, 2010 deadline, making them class members in the lawsuit. At least 2,623 other veterans are eligible to join the lawsuit and become class members.

Class notices were mailed to 4,400 Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom veterans in January 2010. However, many notices were returned as undeliverable by the post office.

Using government sources and public records research, NVLSP staff attorneys called more than 600 eligible veterans as the July 24 deadline approached. They found that many veterans did not understand the legal notice they received in the mail, or never received it.

“More than a third of the eligible veterans are severely disabled, with VA disability ratings for PTSD of 70 to 100 percent,” said Bart Stichman, co-executive director of the NVLSP. “It’s not easy for them to understand the legal notice and what are the advantages of joining the lawsuit, even though they stand to potentially gain significant lifetime financial and healthcare benefits for themselves and their families.”

Stichman says NVLSP plans to continue calling eligible veterans over the next three months, but is also asking families and friends of eligible veterans to get involved and talk with the veterans.

“Anyone who knows an Iraq or Afghanistan veteran discharged between December 17, 2002and October 14, 2008 because of PTSD should ask if he or she has received a legal notice and opted into this lawsuit,” said Stichman. “These veterans and their families were treated unjustly and denied the benefits to which they were entitled. This is about getting them the lifetime military benefits that they have earned and deserve. More information is available at www.ptsdlawsuit.com.”

Eligible veterans who join the lawsuit are entitled to review of their PTSD disability rating by the military on a priority basis, a guaranteed correction of military records to show a higher military disability rating for PTSD for the six-month period following the date of release from military service, as well as a determination of whether the new rating should be permanently increased, decreased, or remain the same after the six-month period.

The correction of military records will not change the disability ratings that the veteran may have from the VA and no eligible veteran who opts into the lawsuit will risk losing any other military or VA benefits that he or she is already receiving. Nearly all class members who have already gone through the prioritized review with the military have received higher disability ratings and better benefits.

As a result of an increase in their military rating for PTSD, class members may receive back pay of disability benefits, reimbursement for healthcare expenses the military should have covered, as well as a higher amount of future benefits to which they and their families are entitled—potentially millions of dollars in benefits over time.

One hundred volunteer lawyers stand ready to offer free counseling to all class members. The lawyers for the veterans from NVLSP and Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP are donating their services for free. The lawyers involved say their payment is knowing an injustice is being righted for those who have served our country.

The disability ratings which are the subject of the lawsuit are critically important to ensuring veterans receive the benefits which they have earned and deserve. For years, the law has required the military to assign a disability rating of at least 50 percent to all veterans discharged for PTSD. A permanent disability rating of 30 percent or more entitles a veteran to monthly disability benefits for the rest of the veteran’s life, to free lifetime health care for the veteran and his or her spouse, and to free health care for their minor children.

All of the veterans who qualify as class members for this lawsuit were illegally discharged from the military with military disability ratings for PTSD of less than 50 percent. After they were discharged, many of them obtained a higher disability rating for PTSD from the VA, but the lawsuit is aimed at getting these veterans a higher military disability rating and with enhanced military disability benefits that accompany a higher military disability rating.

WHO CAN BE A CLASS MEMBER IN THIS CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT?All individuals who:
(a) served on active duty in the U.S. Army, Navy, Marine Corps, or Air Force,
(b) were found by a Physical Evaluation Board to be unfit for continued service due, at least in part, to the individual’s PTSD,
(c) were assigned a disability rating for PTSD of less than 50 percent, and, as a result,
(d) were released, separated, retired, or discharged from active duty after December 17, 2002, and prior to October 14, 2008 (regardless of whether such release, separation, retirement, or discharge resulted in the individual’s placement on the Temporary Disability Retirement List).

VETERANS WITH QUESTIONS ABOUT THE LAWSUIT

Veterans who have not received the legal notice, but who believe they may qualify as a class member, should go to www.ptsdlawsuit.com or call 877-345-8387 for more information.
======================
ABOUT NVLSP
The National Veterans Legal Services Program (NVLSP) is an independent, nonprofit veteran service organization that has served active duty military personnel and veterans since 1980. NVLSP strives to ensure that our nation honors its commitment to its 25 million veterans and active duty personnel by providing them the federal benefits they have earned through their service to our country. NVSLP offers training for attorneys and other advocates, connects veterans and active duty personnel with pro bono legal help, publishes the nation’s definitive guide on veterans’ benefits, and represents and litigates for veterans and their families before the VA, military discharge review agencies, and federal courts. For more information go to www.nvlsp.org.



ABOUT MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

Morgan Lewis provides comprehensive transactional, litigation, labor and employment, and intellectual property legal services to clients of all sizes—from global Fortune 100 companies to just-conceived startups—across all major industries. Its international team of attorneys, patent agents, employee benefits advisors, regulatory scientists, and other specialists—nearly 3,000 professionals total—serves clients from 23 offices in the United States, Europe, and Asia. For more information about Morgan Lewis or its practices, please visit: www.morganlewis.com.



###

DADT statement from Milbloggers

There was a recent exchange of letters between Sen. Levin and Sec. Def. Gates about the study the military is doing about Don't Ask, Don't Tell. In it Sec. Gates confirmed that the military was looking at how best to implement the policy on the assumption that the rule would be changed. He also asked Congress to wait until the study was completed so any action they took would be based on the advice of the services. A number of Milbloggers agree with this and are releasing the following joint statement // From Jim Hanson; Blckfive

JOINT STATEMENT FROM MILITARY BLOGGERS 12 MAY 2010

We consider the US military the greatest institution for good that has ever existed. No other organization has freed more people from oppression, done more humanitarian work or rescued more from natural disasters. We want that to continue.

Today, it appears inevitable to us that the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy and law restricting those displaying open homosexual behavior from serving will be changed. And yet, very little will actually change. Homosexuals have always served in the US Military, and there have been no real problems caused by that.

The service chiefs are currently studying the impact and consequences of changing the DADT policy, and how to implement it without compromising the morale, order and discipline necessary for the military to function. The study is due to be completed on Dec. 1st. We ask Congress to withhold action until this is finished, but no longer. We urge Congress to listen to the service chiefs and act in accordance with the recommendations of that study.

The US Military is professional and ready to adapt to the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell without compromising its mission. Echoing Sec. Def. Gates and ADM Mullen, we welcome open and honorable service, regardless of sexual orientation.

Signed:
Matt Burden- Warrior Legacy Foundation & BLACKFIVE
Jim Hanson- Warrior Legacy Foundation & BLACKFIVE
Blake Powers- BLACKFIVE
Fred Schoenman- BLACKFIVE
David Bellavia- House to House
Bruce McQuain- Q&O
JD Johannes- Outside the Wire
Diane Frances McInnis Miller- Boston Maggie
Mark Seavey- This Ain't Hell
Michael St. Jacques- The Sniper
Mary Ripley- US Naval Institute Blog
John Donovan- Castle Argghhh!
Andrew Lubin- The Military Observer
Marc Danziger- Winds of Change
Greta Perry- Hooah Wife

Why Men Love War - from Newsweek

Newsweek
May 10, 2010
WAR STORIES: A NEWSWEEK special report on the how and why of warfare.

Why Men Love War
The reasons and causes—territory, ideology, may change with the times, but is the lust for war etyernal?

By Evan Thomas

Theodore Roosevelt wanted a war, and almost any war would do. In 1886, when he was a 27-year-old gentleman rancher in the Dakota Territory, he proposed raising "some companies of horse riflemen out here in the event of trouble with Mexico." He wrote his friend Congressman Henry Cabot Lodge: "Will you telegraph me at once if war becomes inevitable?" In 1889, while agitating for military "preparedness," he wrote British diplomat Cecil Spring-Rice: "Frankly, I don't know if I should be sorry to see a bit of a spar with Germany; the burning of New York and a few other seacoast cities would be a good object lesson on the need of an adequate system of coastal defenses." Roosevelt loved hyperbole, but he was apparently serious. He wrote Spring-Rice, "While we would have to take some awful blows at first, I think in the end we would worry the Kaiser a little." A few years later, in 1894, he wrote a family friend, Bob Ferguson, that he longed for "a general national buccaneering expedition to drive the Spanish out of Cuba, the English out of Canada."

In my new book, The War Lovers, I tell this story—of Roosevelt, and of how we became involved in the Spanish-American War—as a way of understanding the ancient pull of the battlefield. I was, in part, trying to understand my own attitude on the Iraq War. As a NEWSWEEK journalist writing about that conflict (from a safe distance), I had initially been hawkish, then regretful as the costs mounted. The war may, in some muddled way, achieve some of its objectives, but it is clear that too many journalists, including me, caught at least a mild dose of war fever between 9/11 and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. I looked to the past to come to terms with those impulses.

Now we're almost a decade into "the Long War," as some call our engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan and the ongoing struggle with Islamic extremism. A kind of war weariness has set in. To most people the fighting seems far off and, in a way, easy to ignore. Not coincidentally, perhaps, a recent spate of books and movies has arrived seeking to make graphic and realistic the true experience of war, most notably the Oscar-winning film The Hurt Lockerand War, the Sebastian Junger volume of war reportage we excerpted in the previous article. These are cautionary tales that seek to make us understand and remember. They may for a time dampen the age-old atavistic lust for war, though war fever, I believe, never really goes away. It is too fundamental to the male psyche.

Roosevelt was a true war lover. Whether he was trying to compensate for his beloved father, who bought a draft substitute in the Civil War, or because, as he often wrote, he feared that the Anglo-Saxon "race" was becoming "overcivilized" and weak, Roosevelt wanted to test himself in the crucible of battle. He got his wish on July 1, 1898, charging up Kettle and San Juan hills with his Rough Riders in Cuba. ("Did I tell you that I killed a Spaniard with my own hand?" Roosevelt exclaimed in a letter to Lodge.) That seemed to satisfy his war lust, for a time. As president, TR preferred to "talk softly but carry a big stick." Still, in 1917, overweight and increasingly infirm at 58, the former president of the United States volunteered to raise a division to fight in France. (Not wanting to make Roosevelt a hero or a martyr, President Woodrow Wilson declined.)

Roosevelt was an extreme case. But how many men, over how many millennia, have wanted to know how they would do in combat? Would they be brave and fight? Or would they cringe and run? War has been, for almost all peoples and all times, the purest test of manhood. It is a thrilling addiction and a wretched curse—"a force that gives us meaning," as former New York Times war correspondent Chris Hedges has written—and the ruination of peoples and nations.

Men and (now increasingly) women fight wars for all sorts of reasons, sometimes out of nobility or at least necessity. We think of the "Good War," World War II, whose warriors are fast dying off now, honored in their passing. But before the Good War was the Great War, as it was known at the time. The outbreak of the First World War in August 1914 was greeted with something like euphoria by the young men who flocked to the colors. British schoolmates and teammates formed "Pals Battalions," and sometimes advanced on German positions while passing a soccer ball. They were slaughtered. At the Battle of the Somme in 1916, roughly 20,000 British soldiers perished in a single day.

"Every war is ironic because every war is worse than expected," wrote Paul Fussell in The Great War and Modern Memory. "The Somme affair, destined to be known as the Great F--k Up, was the largest engagement fought since the beginning of civilization." There have been larger and deadlier battles since, though, as war has become at once more modern and more primitive; the armed conflicts increasingly involved civilians, not just soldiers.

And yet, somehow, we forget. A collective amnesia afflicts young men who wish to live up to their fathers, and old men who missed war as young men. In the 1890s, not just Roosevelt but a good slice of his countrymen were possessed by a hunger for war. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., later perhaps the greatest of U.S. Supreme Court justices, put on his Civil War uniform and lectured young Harvard students that war was "divine," not to be missed. The U.S. president, William McKinley, who had seen the dead stacked up at Antietam as a Civil War soldier, tried to resist the rush to battle. But he was swept aside by hawks like Roosevelt and William Randolph Hearst, the newspaper publisher who would claim, with some exaggeration, that he personally caused the Spanish-American War with his sensationalist crusading.

"It was a splendid little war," John Hay, the U.S. ambassador to Britain, wrote Roosevelt in August 1898. The Americans had driven the Spanish from Cuba. But another, unexpected conflict was just starting in the Philippines, halfway around the world. The U.S. Navy had defeated a Spanish fleet at Manila Bay, and now the Americans were unintentional occupiers of a country that President McKinley said he could barely find on a map. The fighting in the Philippines dragged on for four more years and cost 4,000 men, roughly the same number we have lost so far in Iraq. There were atrocities on both sides in the long-forgotten counterinsurgency against the Filipinos, and for the first time Americans used an interrogation method called waterboarding.

My own appreciation of war, while particular to my generation, is an uncomfortably familiar history lesson in war and remembrance—or forgetting. I graduated from college in 1973, too late for Vietnam and in any case shielded by a high number in the national draft lottery. I was, like almost all my peers, opposed to the war and glad to miss it. Yet as time went on I felt increasingly uneasy about the realization that my type had been able largely to avoid the war, while less well-educated and poorer young men were drafted and killed. (In Memorial Church at Harvard, one can read the names of 234 students and faculty who died fighting in World War II, which cost 405,399 American lives, and 22 who perished in Vietnam, where 59,000 Americans died.)

For a long time, it seemed, we wanted to forget about Vietnam, to turn away from its cost and futility. But watching the movie Forrest Gump in 1994, I had a flash of recognition. The unlikely hero was Gump, unself-conscious in his Army dress uniform with combat medals at a peace rally on the Washington Mall. The villains were the scruffy antiwar protesters (Gump got the girl). It was apparent to me that the national mood was changing; Hollywood certainly could sense it. We were over Vietnam—and ready for the next war.

The Gulf War of 1991 was, curiously, not sufficiently bloody to be glorious—fought and won in less than 100 hours at the cost of fewer than 300 Americans (half of those the result of noncombat accidents). It was quickly overlooked. As the 1990s went on, there was a feeling that we hadn't finished the job of getting rid of Saddam Hussein—I know I felt it. But since 9/11, with the prolonged wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we've now had our fill of fighting. We're back to the phase where movies and memoirs capture war's darker side. War should not be mythologized, but it should be remembered. "It is well that war is so terrible," Gen. Robert E. Lee once observed, "lest we grow too fond of it."

FOX Military Analyst Condemned by Repubs & Dems

Marshall: Fox News Analyst Crossed Line By Suggesting Taliban Should Kill U.S. Soldier

Political Insider
July 22, 2009
By Jim Galloway

U.S. Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Macon), a former Army ranger, has signed onto a bipartisan letter from members of Congress condemning Fox News for an analyst’s suggestion that a captured U.S. soldier should be killed by his Afghan captors.

This week, the Pentagon disclosed that Pfc. Bowe Bergdahl of Idaho had been captured, and that a video of the 23-year-old private was posted online by the Taliban.

On Fox News, Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, a military analyst for the network said the following:

Nobody that I’ve heard in the military is defending this guy. He is an apparent deserter. Reports are indeed that he abandoned his buddies, abandoned his post, and walked off. We’ll see what the ultimate truth of it is.

But if he did, if he’s a deserter at war time, well, as o of my old platoon sergeants used to say, he’s in beaucoup deep kinshee…

We know this private is a liar. We’re not sure that he is a deserter. But the media needs to hit the pause button, and not portray this guy as a hero….

I want to be clear. If, when the facts are in, we find out that through some convoluted chain of events, he really was captured by the Taliban, I’m with him.

But, if he walked away from his post and his buddies in wartime, I don’t care how hard it sounds, as far as I’m concerned, the Taliban can save us a lot of legal hassles and legal bills.

***

Wrote Marshall and 22 other members of Congress, Republican and Democrat:

[Peters] implied suggestion that the Taliban should simply kill PFC Bergdahl to, “save us a lot of legal hassles and legal bills,” was repulsive and deserves to be repudiated by your news organization.

We recognize and credit anchor Julie Banderas’ efforts to make it clear that Mr. Peters’ positions were not that of Fox News. However, that does not remove the responsibility your network has for the statements of one of its own analysts; especially those that suggest a member of the United States Army should be killed by his captors.

We demand an apology to PFC Bergdahl’s family and to the thousands of soldiers who put their lives on the line for our country. As a member of the military family, Mr. Peters should measure his remarks and remember that the United States will never abandon one of its own.

Sacrifice And The Greatest Generation

Sacrifice And The Greatest Generation

These are the young Americans who went thousands of miles and defeated the mightiest military empires ever unleashed against us.

By Tom Brokaw
Wall Street Journal
June 6, 2009

When asked how I came to write "The Greatest Generation," I recount a trip to Normandy in 1984. I went there to produce a documentary on the 40th anniversary of D-Day. I had looked forward to a week of stirring stories, evenings of oysters and Calvados, and long runs through the countryside.

Instead, from the moment I stepped onto Omaha Beach with two veterans of the First Division I had an out-of-body experience. Geno Merli, who earned the Medal of Honor, and Harry Garton, who lost both legs in combat, landed in the first wave at Omaha. Working-class products from Pennsylvania, they were soft-spoken and matter-of-fact as they described for me the horrors of that day and all the fighting that was yet to come.

Listening to them I was transported back to my childhood in the Great Plains during the '40s and '50s. In the heartland, men like Geno and Harry were always on call to help a neighbor overhaul a car, build a fence, sponsor a baseball team or Boy Scout troop.

Along with their wives they were always volunteering, organizing potluck suppers and bake sales to support community projects. They knew the price of every piece of produce and every cut of meat in the local supermarket. And most families I knew had war bonds tucked away to go with the savings account at the hometown bank.

As I began to write the wartime accounts of that generation, I realized how much they were formed by the deprivations and lessons of the Great Depression. During that period life was about common sacrifice and going without the most ordinary items, such as enough food or new clothes.

So many veterans told me they got their first new pairs of shoes and boots when they enlisted. When I recently interviewed Walt Ehlers -- a poor Kansas farm boy who received the Medal of Honor for his heroism at Normandy -- he lit up when he described the breakfasts during basic training. "Every kind of cereal you could imagine!" he said. "And pancakes and bacon and eggs."

As for basic training, he said putting up hay on his uncle's farm in August was much tougher.

If you look at the old black-and- white photographs of the physicals conducted during induction, there's no obesity in that crowd of young men. In fact, some look malnourished.

These are the same young Americans who went thousands of miles across the Atlantic and thousands of miles across the Pacific and defeated the mightiest military empires ever unleashed against us. Their sacrifices at home and on the frontlines make our current difficulties look like a walk on the beach in comparison.

The surviving members of that generation -- now in their 80s and 90s -- are living reminders of the good that can come from hard times. They can teach us that if we're to get through this time of crisis a better nation with a fundamentally stronger economy, we'd better learn how to work together and organize our lives around what we need -- not just what we want.


Mr. Brokaw, special correspondent for NBC News, is the author of "The Greatest Generation" (Random House, 1998).

Marine Artillery in the 'Stan !!

Marine artillery in Afghanistan

The commanding general of U.S. Marine Corps forces in Afghanistan said recently that as part of the troop surge, the Marines are bringing more artillery power for use against insurgents in the rugged terrain.

Lt. Gen. Dennis J. Hejlik, commanding general of the II Marine Expeditionary Force, told defense reporters May 12 that "the artillery is back with the brigade in Afghanistan."

About half of Gen. Hejlik's 8,000 Marines are in Afghanistan, and the rest are set to deploy there in the coming weeks as part of the troop surge designed to stabilize the country.

Gen. Hejlik said the Marines are bringing a newer M777 Ultralightweight Field Howitzer, a 155 millimeter gun, with them. "It's got the same range as the old one 9-er-8 does," he said, referring to the towed M198 howitzer. "Obviously a lot lighter piece of gear, so that's back." Additionally, Marines are using the towed Expeditionary Fire Support System (EFSS), a 120 mm mortar.

The artillery is needed because troops are being deployed in forward operating bases as part of a new strategy and need readily available firepower against Taliban insurgents, Gen. Hejlik said.

"They have then instant fire support with the 120 and the 777. So that's one of the reasons we did that," he said.

According to a military official, U.S. forces in Afghanistan for years since the 2001 operation to oust the Taliban had relied more on aircraft power than artillery, based on the strategy of then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who emphasized the use of smaller, less well-equipped special-operations forces on the ground backed by bomber strikes.

However, in recent months, U.S. air strikes have caused civilian casualties, and the deaths are being exploited by Taliban propaganda efforts against U.S. and coalition forces.

Gen. Hejlik said air support for the Marines remains "the best in the world" and includes F-16s and F-18s armed with precision-guided missiles.

"With the precision systems, actually we're operating right now, we don't foresee a problem. So we'll go with both," he said.

Additionally, the Marines are backed by AH-1 Cobra attack helicopters. "I'm an infantry officer, and the greatest sound in the world [is] the Cobra coming down the valley or whatever, so the Cobra's back in there," Gen. Hejlik said.

Why We Should Get Rid of West Point

Why We Should Get Rid of West Point
By Thomas E. Ricks
Sunday, April 19, 2009

Want to trim the federal budget and improve the military at the same time? Shut down West Point, Annapolis and the Air Force Academy, and use some of the savings to expand ROTC scholarships.

After covering the U.S. military for nearly two decades, I've concluded that graduates of the service academies don't stand out compared to other officers. Yet producing them is more than twice as expensive as taking in graduates of civilian schools ($300,000 per West Point product vs. $130,000 for ROTC student). On top of the economic advantage, I've been told by some commanders that they prefer officers who come out of ROTC programs, because they tend to be better educated and less cynical about the military.

This is no knock on the academies' graduates. They are crackerjack smart and dedicated to national service. They remind me of the best of the Ivy League, but too often they're getting community-college educations. Although West Point's history and social science departments provided much intellectual firepower in rethinking the U.S. approach to Iraq, most of West Point's faculty lacks doctorates. Why not send young people to more rigorous institutions on full scholarships, and then, upon graduation, give them a military education at a short-term military school? Not only do ROTC graduates make fine officers -- three of the last six chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff reached the military that way -- they also would be educated alongside future doctors, judges, teachers, executives, mayors and members of Congress. That would be good for both the military and the society it protects.

We should also consider closing the services' war colleges, where colonels supposedly learn strategic thinking. These institutions strike me as second-rate. If we want to open the minds of rising officers and prepare them for top command, we should send them to civilian schools where their assumptions will be challenged, and where they will interact with diplomats and executives, not to a service institution where they can reinforce their biases while getting in afternoon golf games. Just ask David Petraeus, a Princeton PhD.


Thomas E. Ricks is a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security and author of "The Gamble," about the Iraq war from 2006 to 2008.