I'm not familiar with the publication or the author, but the article seems to have a variety of good sources, and it has information that may have appeared elsewhere but is well consolidated here. Context: I wonder, though, why this kind of problem didn't arise after Korea where we certainly had a lot of unnecessary taking and leaving of hilltops, let alone whole sections of country (we did at one point get to the Chinese border and MacArthur wanted to go over it). Or did it arise and nobody wrote about it? And Vietnam certainly had its problems with the military and civilian leaders not understanding about guerilla movements and counterinsurgency - apparently nobody at the top has learned anything since the1970s? And that ... More »

Two issues make this story highly questionable: accuracy and tone. First to accuracy. A single example - Adam Ake, the USMA grad. He didn't spend seven years as a platoon leader in Korea. Not possible. Platoon leaders are Lieutenants. In seven years, he would be a mid-term Captain. Something smells here. That doesn't even touch his statistics regarding the number of initial entry trainees requiring waivers. The 20% figure is absurd. Second, the article's tone. No opportunities for doctors or lawyers in Texas or Kentucky? What's that overpowering aroma of beltway-centrism? The writer should hang out somewhere other than at the Georgetown law school, or the GW campus.

This is an important story and needs to be heard. It is the junior officers and rising NCOs who are the future of the Army (and all military services). As to what will solve the problem, I'm not sure it is money alone. I disagree that officers coming out of OCS is a bad thing. Mustangs, as they are called in the Navy, rarely forget from whence they came and keep the interests of their men (and women) foremost.