Caleb’s Choice

During the last weekend in April, West Point cadet Caleb Campbell was drafted to serve in a different Army. He was selected in the seventh and final round of the National Football League (NFL) draft.

 

It is unknown whether Campbell will make the final roster of the Detroit Lions, the team that drafted him. While the Lions have conducted their off-season training activities (OTAs) in May mini-camp, the cut-down process doesn’t happen until late July or early August. The chances that a seventh round pick will make the roster and remain on the team through the end of the season are less than 40 percent.

 

Campbell will enter the NFL through an Army policy that allows highly regarded athletes to turn pro after their graduation from West Point. This policy, enacted in 2005, a year after Campbell entered the academy as a plebe, allows the athlete to serve a portion of his military service obligation as a recruiter. Cadets who do not play intercollegiate revenue sports, by comparison, have a five year service obligation in the branch they selected at graduation; the higher your rank, the more likely you get the branch you want.

 

I don’t blame Campbell for taking advantage of his opportunity. It’s not like he chose West Point expecting it to fall in his lap. If anything, Campbell chose a more difficult path to the NFL than any player in his draft class. Every West Point cadet, regardless of major, takes a rigorous engineering curriculum along with the drills and hands-on military training during the summer. Football practice, based on a great book, John Feinstein’s A Civil War, is actually a welcome break from the school routine.  

 

I understand the objections to Campbell’s decision, especially since our country is at war, but the Army has historically made special considerations for the top professional athletes. Professional baseball stars, like Joe DiMaggio served their hitches as barnstormers and fitness instructors during World War II. West Point fielded the best football teams in the nation in 1944 and 1945; back then, there was the attractive lure of being an officer versus a draftee. However, pro football did not begin to mature as a sport until after the war was over; today, its popularity is second only to NASCAR. 

 

But the Army and the NFL have to be fair to Campbell; neither wants his decision to become an embarrassment to the man or their organization.

 

If the Army wishes to use Campbell as a recruiter, they should use him to help recruit athletes to West Point; he has first-hand experience with the process that makes him invaluable to the academy and especially Army’s coaching staff.

 

The academy would not have invested alumni money—alumni fundraising pays the head coach’s salary since the federal government would not want him to earn more than the Commander-in-Chief or the Secretary of Defense—if it didn’t believe success on the gridiron was important to its image.  If Campbell succeeds as a rookie, then the NFL also has a feather in its cap: a citizen soldier who is also a fine athlete.  No doubt his team and the league will use that to full advantage.

 

But if Campbell does not make the Lions, or catch on with another team before the start of the NFL season, he should begin his service in the Army Air Defense Artillery, the branch in which he will be commissioned, but serve stateside in reserve duty until the season is over. If an NFL team calls him up that season, then good for him, he should play on.

 

However, if he is not on a roster at the start of next season, he should be placed on active duty and get on with his military career, wherever it takes him. I’m positive that the Army policy was never intended to allow an athlete to limp along on a two or three year search to find a team while being exempt from active duty. That would be unfair to the Army and those who have served.

 

 

The NFL is not like major league baseball, where a player can go down to the minors to perfect their craft; they must prove they belong in the upper echelon from the first day of camp—just as West Pointers must do from the first day of plebe year.

We the Citizens Owe Our Soldiers a New G.I Bill

I have a novel in editing, a story of a college administration in the aftermath of the murder of a U.S. Army recruiting officer. I chose as my venue a privately supported engineering school, historically friendly to the military that had relied on receiving a considerable amount of tuition revenues through ROTC and the G.I Bill. My fictional school is in trouble: its image has been compromised by the murder, and the military benefits can’t cover the full freight anymore.

 

In researching my story, I had to understand military recruiting as well as the G.I Bill. I found myself surprised that the college education benefits under the G.I Bill today are not as expansive as they were after World War II. World War II veterans received full tuition, fees, books, a monthly stipend and reimbursements for training expenses. The original legislation signed by President Roosevelt enabled 7.8 million World War II veterans to go to college, more than half of those who served. It also invigorated the growth of higher education in our country.

 

Since the original legislation passed in 1944, there have been subsequent G.I Bills, however, according the Senator James Webb (D-Virginia) their benefits were more appropriate to a military in peacetime, not an armed forces at war. I agree, because a better benefits package will only help to recruit and retain a strong military. It will be a much easier sell for the recruiters too.

 

Webb, an ex-Marine and former Secretary of the Navy under the first President Bush, is the primary sponsor of the Post 9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act to increase educational benefits to all members of the military who have served on active duty since 9/11. Webb, a former Republican who served under President Reagan as well as the first President Bush, is a beneficiary of the G.I Bill and a more than credible leader on this issue.

 

Webb’s proposed legislation will enable eligible veterans to receive 100 percent of the tuition and fees charged by the most expensive state university in their home state. While this is not a total return to the intentions of the original post-World War II G.I Bill, it is an extremely reasonable start, and an appropriate reward to those who have served with honor. Yet, the Bush Administration opposes the bill, even though the current president’s father was himself a beneficiary of the original G.I Bill. They, along with the Defense Department, believe that it will hinder military recruitment and retention, though the bill is meant to do the opposite.

 

Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama support Webb’s bill. Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, is not a co-sponsor, although he has announced plans to introduce his own legislation.

 

The major obstacle to a new GI Bill is cost and the addition a new entitlement raises the federal budget deficit at wartime. However, I’d like to offer one suggestion that may make a new GI Bill more palatable: prioritize recipients by time at combat. Those who have been stop-lossed would receive priority, followed by those who have been deployed into a combat zone at least once. It’s only fair that the soldiers who have taken the greatest risk receive the greatest rewards.

 

I hope there will be a final piece of legislation that will pass with a bi-partisan, veto-proof majority—and you should too.  It’s only right that we help those who risked their lives on the way to getting their postwar lives started on the road from soldier to citizen.

Hope for Peace at the Democratic Convention in August

I picked a heck of a year to complete a manuscript for a novel based around the murder of a military recruiter.

That thought came to me as I read about Recreate ’68, a rallying message for a consortium of anti-war organizations joining to protest outside the 2008 Democratic convention in late August in Denver.

Recreate ’68 leadership hope to attract tens of thousands to join in non-violent protest against the war in Iraq. They chose the Democratic convention because they feel “used” by a party that has not moved successfully to end the war.

Like their predecessors of forty years ago, Recreate ’68 plans to protest against an unpopular war and attempt to dominate the news cycle during a convention likely to be undecided on a presidential nominee at the opening gavel.

But those are not the only similarities between 1968 and Recreate ’68.

I visited Recreate ‘68’s Web site and found symbols similar to the protest movements of 40 years ago: the raised fist logo and the reference of law enforcement as “pigs.” I also found a distressing holiday poem unkind to the Democrats and the Denver police, with verses such as:

 The spy cameras were hung by the police with care,In the hopes of snaring a protestor and claiming it’s fair;

The homeless were nestled all snug in new beds,to hide them away from democrat heads;

When out on the street there arose such a clatter,

The police sprang from the station to see what was the matter.

Away to the Pepsi Center they flew like a flash,with batons swinging looking for heads to smash.

The smell of tear gas permeated the nightall knew that the oppressors were in for a fight,

When, what to America’s wondering eyes should appear,But Recreate ’68, showing no fear. 

America was founded, and nurtured by non-violent civil disobedience and there is no reason to deny Recreate ’68 the same right to peaceful protest.

But to presume a fight in your message leads observers, especially the media, to believe you are ready to fight.

This is where history has a chance to repeat.

At this time, conservative pundits, such as Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, have openly criticized Republican presidential candidate John McCain; they have chided him for not being a “true conservative.”

My sense is those voices have helped Senator McCain: they have given independents and moderates good reasons to consider voting for him.

Combine that with a Recreate ’68 protest escalating to violence on national television, with the Democrats caught in the middle—still trying to nominate a candidate.

I can’t imagine the usual post-convention “bounce” for the eventual nominee.

However, I can imagine that conservatives and liberal actions will put John McCain in the White House, just as they helped Richard Nixon forty years before.

A Call for a Do Not Call Policy for Military Recruiting

As my first novel, The Sex Ed Chronicles, went through serious editing, I started a second story that revolves around another controversial subject in high schools and colleges: Army recruiting on campus.

The change in subjects has not been a big jump.

Military recruiting and sex education have more in common than you might think.

Both are focal points for parental debates and they are the most publicized examples where a federal government has tried to “meddle” in the affairs of local public schools. In addition, the armed forces, as well as pro-choice and pro-life organizations, advertise wisely to influence high school students to make decisions. Lastly, in both, students and parents fear the serious consequences of making the wrong decision.

The federal government does not ask high school and college students to join the armed forces per se; they provide the legislation and the tools for the recruiters to do it. Such legislation is far from new; in 1980, in the wake of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Iran hostage crisis, President Jimmy Carter received approval from Congress to reinstate mandatory registration for military service for males 18 through 25. I was a sophomore in college at the time. I registered as required, however, military recruiters never contacted me, nor was I asked to serve. I was perfectly happy to comply with that policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Military recruiters were welcome on campus while I was in high school during the late 1970’s. They did the same as college admissions officers. They set-up shop in the guidance office for the better part of a day; gym teachers were more than willing to excuse students from class to talk to them. I was unaware of any complaints; this seemed like a symbiotic relationship for students, teachers, and recruiters too. However, the country was not at war in 1978.

I guess military recruiters must be far busier at wartime in the 21^st century, and they cannot afford to spend their days waiting for their best prospects to stop by the guidance office. They also have better advertising, video games and the Internet at their disposal. And today, under No Child Left Behind, recruiters have access to junior and senior student contact information, presumably, so they can mail literature, or call students outside of school. They don’t have to wait until students turn 18.

Congress has debated revisions to No Child Left Behind, although a reauthorized Act will be on-hold until after a new president is sworn in. While Democrats and Republicans have proposed amendments to No Child Left Behind, none discussed revisions to the policies that cover military recruiting.

Only one presidential candidate, Democrat Bill Richardson of New Mexico, proposed scrapping No Child Left Behind in its entirety. Unfortunately, Governor Richardson fared poorly in the Iowa caucus as well as the New Hampshire primary and dropped out of the race. If you’re upset about “high stakes” standardized tests and aggressive military recruiting in high schools, he would have been your candidate.

If you’re still unsure about who to vote for, and you live in an early-primary state, it’s worth your time to check the candidate’s positions on No Child Left Behind, as well as the rest of their political resume. Unless No Child Left Behind were to be scrapped by the next presidential administration—an unlikely scenario at this time —Americans will have to live with a reauthorized act, with a pro-military policy in place.

I’m not firmly pro-military, nor anti-war, on this issue so, I propose a unique solution.

Unlike peace activists, I see no big deal with the Army, and other branches of the service, sending direct mail pieces to high school students’ homes; they already advertise aggressively on TV and the Internet. If you don’t want your son or daughter to enlist, and they agree, just throw the literature away. I also see no big deal with military displays on campus or the optional assemblies; they’ve proven effective when veterans, instead of recruiters, tell why they have chosen to serve. Those who aren’t gung-ho about enlisting don’t have to go.

But I am concerned about aggressive one-to-one marketing on high school campuses when it conflicts with classes. For instance, I had lunch with one of my former high school teachers this past fall, and she told me that students took unexcused absences from class to speak to recruiters, while the recruiters rudely allowed that to happen.

That’s conduct unbecoming to the military, who are usually respectful to civilians, but it can be resolved between the schools and the military at the station and company commander levels.

I’d prefer that recruiters show better discretion when it comes to calling students at home—or better yet, not call them until after graduation.

A “do-not-call” policy should be written into legislation covering military recruiting under No Child Left Behind, in place of the opt-out policy on the books now.

Do-not-call is fair to everyone: students, parents, schools, and the military.

Students focus on school first and recruiters can place more efforts into prospects that are in a better position to make a decision. Recruiters can still mail them, and students and their parents can meet with voluntarily. We already trust students and their parents to ask questions, or tell recruiters to take no for an answer.

The public schools should never be put themselves in the position of influencing a student’s decision to serve. They are now, because they must collect student data under the opt-out policy. Principals jobs are on the line if they over-hype or soft-peddle this.

More important, our country is better served by a military comprised of high school graduates. It is in the nation’s best interest for the military to wait until its less decisive prospects have received their diplomas.

Do-not-call is easier to enforce. It respects the students and parents, it takes the schools out of the data collection picture, and it is much easier for the public to understand.

Back to Back: Two Good Reads on Entry Level Leadership and Culture

This month, I read two books back to back: Soldier’s Heart by Elizabeth Samet and Punching In by Alex Frankel. Both of these works are an excellent introduction into entry- level corporate culture and leadership development.

 Soldier’s Heart is a civilian English professor’s take on the leadership culture of West Point, based on her 10 years experience as a faculty member. Professor Samet is in a rare, but well qualified position to pen Soldier’s Heart. Only a fifth of the academy’s faculty is civilian instructors; the rest are military officers on rotation or “regular Army.” Samet’s academic interest also makes her special; she has studied the dynamic of command and obedience in American literature.

 Soldier’s Heart is not the first work about West Point by a soldier or civilian, but it comes from the most interesting perspective: an outsider working on the inside.

Soldier’s Heart has a balanced look at the military culture. Samet writes that no cadet wants to be, in one cadet’s words, a “non-thinking slasher,” someone who would kill for the glory of war, or the sake of killing.

West Point is, and has always been, a literate culture. Classical literature through Armed Forces Editions educates and entertains soldiers in battle, and reinforces American values. She writes of books as weapons to spread ideas, and counter actions meant to curtail freedom.  But she also states that tales of war talk of motherhood or a woman’s love for soldiers—but not a woman’s love for soldiering. There is nothing about motherhood in the military culture, but there is the need to fight for mother.

The professor adds that today’s military culture has conflated military missions with spiritual missions; soldiers become instructed to regain faith when there seems to be little cause for faith. However, that might be necessary instruction to lead at a time when officers, enlisted and veterans are questioning our nation’s involvement in Iraq, a war that they believe to be unnecessary. 

This faith extends to open displays of the Seven Army Values: Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity and Personal Courage. Soldiers tape the Values to their dog tags. Soldiers also display the Soldier’s Creed, officially posted in 2003:

I will always place the mission first

I will never accept defeat

I will never quit

I will never leave behind a fallen comrade.

The Values and the Creed are possible not only because of the culture, but also because our soldiers are professionals who have chosen to serve. Samet sites one Army study that mentions that professional soldiers still fight for each other, as they did, for example in World War II, but they also accept the responsibility that Army has entrusted to them.

The Army, as an institution, has had mottos and mission statements longer than most American businesses, and has a culture where everyone must live by them. Some of the most successful corporations have copied the military’s strengths— and some of its imperfections. According to two employment sites, GIJobs.com and CollegeGrad.com, 24 of the Top 50 Military Friendly Employers in 2007 also hired 100 or more college graduates for their entry-level positions. It is safe to say that these companies use the same values to develop and retain their entry-level and military transitional hires.

Which brings me to the next question: can those without the military orientation become as successful in these firms as those who have served with honor? The answer, according to Alex Frankel’s Punching In, is sometimes, if you can get along to go along.

Values, missions, attention to detail and duty are part of the dialogue in Punching In, another work where an outsider looks inside, and serves on the front lines of indoctrination into corporate culture.

Frankel worked in entry-level customer service positions at United Parcel Service (UPS), Enterprise Rent-A-Car, The Gap, Starbucks and The Apple Store, took online aptitude tests with two retailers: Best Buy and Home Depot and went through the lengthy interview processes at The Container Store and Whole Foods.

Like the Army, these corporations try to engage and turn their workers into fanatical and loyal employees. Interestingly enough, he refers to front-line workers as the Brand Army of these firms and called UPS the Other Army, because of the company’s esprit de coir and the spit and polish appearance of the front-line workers. Both the Army and UPS do not accept alteration, recreational display or desecration of their uniform. 

Frankel respected UPS more than the other organizations, because their workers, especially the drivers, were the most trusted. He adds that this is necessary in because UPS workers are all in the field. They can track their locations, but any problems must be solved on route.  Each driver and their helper is like a platoon of soldiers; they must follow orders, but they have some lee way in how to execute them.

Frankel did not say the same about the other organizations. For example, he praised Enterprise’ efforts to motivate workers to believe that they can advance from desk clerks to regional managers—though he adds that further advancement is less possible. The company hires approximately 8,000 entry-level employees, although the rest of the work force is no larger.

Frankel shows how Starbucks has become a “third place,” a neighborhood-meeting place away from home and work, but believes this will be a difficult strategy to maintain because of the standardized appearance of the thousands of stores and employees.  He considers Apple Stores to be an excellent setting for those who are already fans of the technology; they need little indoctrination and training as well. And he shows The Gap to be little different from other retailers who are loathed by retail workers, a company bent on standards and policies that put store design first, product second, credit card sales third and the employees last.

Like the Army, these organizations have a uniform, policies and shared values, but unlike the Army, they can hire and fire at will. It was interesting that Frankel conveyed the most respect for the organization that was the most like the Army.

Given UPS’ success—the company maintains 80 percent market share against several large competitors, including the U.S. Postal Services—that’s quite a complement for our troops and the men and women who lead them.