GAO Report: Strategic Plan Needed to Address Army's Emerging Officer Accession and Retention Challenges

What GAO Found
The services generally met most of their overall accession needs for newly commissioned officers, but the Army faces challenges accessing enough officers to meet its needs. The Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force met their overall FYs 2001, 2003, and 2005 officer accession needs, but are experiencing challenges accessing specific groups, like flight officers and medical professionals. Moreover, the Army did not meet its needs for officers in FY 2001 and FY 2003 and expects to struggle with future accessions. To meet its officer accession needs, the Army’s traditional approach has been to rely first on its ROTC and academy programs and then compensate for shortfalls in these programs by increasing its OCS accessions. Between FYs 2001 and 2005, the Army nearly doubled the number of OCS commissioned officers due to (1) academy and ROTC shortfalls,(2) decreased ROTC scholarships, and (3) a need to expand its officer corps. But OCS is expected to reach its capacity in FY 2007, and resource limitations such as housing and classroom space may prevent further expansion. In addition, the Army’s three accession programs are decentralized and do not formally coordinate with one another, making it difficult for the Army, using its traditional approach, to effectively manage risks and allocate resources across programs in an integrated, strategic fashion. Without a strategic, integrated plan for determining overall annual accession goals, managing risks, and allocating resources, the Army’s ability to meet its future mission requirements and to transform to more deployable, modular units is uncertain.

Click http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07224.pdf?source=ra to read in full.

Twenty Eight Articles - Counterinsurgency

Fundamentals of Company Level Counterinsurgency
by Lt. Col. David Kilcullen, PhD

Introduction

Your company has just been warned for deployment on counterinsurgency operations in Iraq or Afghanistan. You have read David Galula, T.E. Lawrence and Robert Thompson. You have studied FM 3-24 and now understand the history, philosophy and theory of counterinsurgency. You watched Black Hawk Down and The Battle of Algiers, and you know this will be the most difficult challenge of your life.

But what does all the theory mean, at the company level? How do the principles translate into action at night, with the GPS down, the media criticizing you, the locals complaining in a language you don't understand, and an unseen enemy killing your people by ones and twos? How does counterinsurgency actually happen?

There are no universal answers, and insurgents are among the most adaptive opponents you will ever face. Countering them will demand every ounce of your intellect. But be comforted: you are not the first to feel this way. There are tactical fundamentals you can apply, to link the theory with the techniques and procedures you already know.

Read the rest here at Small Wars Journal

Military Recruiting at Barnard's Activities Fair 2007

McINTOSH STUDENT CENTER, BARNARD COLLEGE – On Wednesday, January 24th, 2007, Hamilton Society, the Columbia student group for ROTC cadets and Marine officer candidates, participated in the Barnard Student Government Association's winter/spring activities fair with recruiting literature for the local USMC PLC, Air Force ROTC, and Army ROTC programs.

The table was manned by Army cadet Elizabeth Feldmeier, Marine officer candidate Austin Byrd, and Eric Chen. Hamilton Society President Riaz Zaidi supplied the Army ROTC materials, Air Force cadet Pete Brennan supplied the Air Force ROTC materials, and Marine officer candidate Phil Chan supplied the USMC PLC materials. The activities fair was lightly attended with approximately 20 clubs represented. There were no protests, the DADT issue was not raised, and there were no problems from school administrators. One school administrator picked up a Hamilton Society pamphlet, and commented that a former student she advised applied to USUHS and another dropped out of ROTC due to the difficulty of attending a cross-town program. Other passers-by took a few Army ROTC pens, along with perhaps three Hamilton Society pamphlets and a USMC PLC brochure. A few more students took note and talked amongst themselves about the Hamilton Society table.

Participation by the Hamilton Society in the Barnard activities fair, however modest the event, represented the on-going mission of the Hamilton Society to actively engage the greater Columbia University community on civil-military issues and inform students about military career options.

Marine Corps Commissioning Ceremony at Columbia University - Mark Xue, CC 06

LOW PLAZA, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY - On Saturday, December 16th, 2006, Columbia College 2006 graduate and Hamilton Society president emeritus Mark Xue, CC 06, was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps in a ceremony held on Low Plaza. The event was organized by US Military Veterans of Columbia University (MilVets) President Luke Stalcup and Hamilton Society President Riaz Zaidi. MilVets vice president emeritus Eric Chen served as the master of ceremonies. Other Columbia students and alumni who participated in the ceremony included MilVets president emeritus Oscar Escano, Army MAJ Taylor Hwong, Marine Cpl Dan Cross, who rendered Lt Xue’s first salute, Marine Cpl Matt Sanchez, Hamilton Society Vice-President Stefan Hasselblad, and Army ROTC cadet Elizabeth Feldmeier. Columbia sociology professor Allan Silver administered Lt Xue's oath of office, and his parents pinned on his Second Lieutenant rank. The ceremony concluded with Lt Xue leading all attending in the Marines hymn. Spectators included University Chaplain Jewelnel Davis and Vice-Provost Roxie Smith. The commissioning ceremony was sponsored by the US Military Veterans of Columbia University, the Hamilton Society and the Columbia Alliance for ROTC (CAR). The reception at Cafe Pertutti was hosted by CAR Chairman Ted Graske, CC 59. For more photos of Lt Xue's commissioning ceremony, click here.

Discussion of Citizenship and Military Service at Columbia University

with Kathy Roth-Douquet and Frank Schaeffer, co-authors of AWOL: the Unexcused Absence of America’s Upper Classes from Military Service—and How It Hurts Our Country

Event advertisement: "In contrast to previous generations, American elites now have little personal connection to the military forces that bear the burdens of national defense. This gap creates misunderstandings and raises significant questions about political responsibility, social equity, and institutional leadership. Should something be done to close the gap? What consequences follow, whether or not the gap is addressed? The authors, a Democrat and a Republican, explore the issue and offer proposals for resolving it."

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS BUILDING, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY – On October 11th, 2006, the Salzman Institute for War and Peace Studies at the School of International and Public Affairs hosted a discussion of citizenship and military service with the authors of AWOL: the Unexcused Absence of America’s Upper Classes from Military Service—and How It Hurts Our Country, Kathy Roth-Douquet and Frank Schaeffer. The event was co-sponsored by the U.S. Military Veterans of Columbia University (MilVets), Hamilton Society, Columbia University Democrats, and Columbia University College Republicans. Columbia sociology professor Allan Silver was the primary organizer. Salzman Institute director Prof. Richard Betts served as the moderator. Elyse Ross representing the College Democrats and Matt Sanchez representing the College Republicans were commentators. The discussion was recorded by Columbia University Television.

Leaders and members of MilVets, Hamilton Society, and the Columbia Alliance for ROTC were in the audience. Lt Col John Wilkinson and other officers from the Air Force ROTC program at Manhattan College were present, as well as a large contingent of midshipmen, in uniform, from the Navy ROTC program at SUNY Maritime.

The meeting's sponsorship by the Salzman Institute for War and Peace Studies signified that issues of citizenship and military service have a place on the university's intellectual agenda. A significant number of undergraduates were in attendance, many coming out of curiosity about the subject rather than prior commitments. The room was totally filled, and very few left before the full 90 minutes of the occasion was finished, suggesting a high level of attentive engagement. The speakers had been counseled to put aside the autobiographical aspects of their approaches to the question in favor of the policy issues. Happily, they ignored that advice, obviously sticking with their standard presentation, an account of their converging commitment to the issues from the perspectives of a liberal Democratic and conservative Republican perspectives. Their urgency successfully engaged the audience and led to a good discussion of the policy issues and a vigorous discussion of the policy issues that continued, informally, after the meeting ended.

Military Recruiting at Columbia's Activities Day

LOW PLAZA, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY – On the afternoon of Friday, September 8, 2006, Hamilton Society, the Columbia student group for ROTC cadets and Marine officer candidates, participated in the annual university-wide Activities Day Fair with recruiting literature for the local USMC PLC and Army ROTC programs. From noon, the table was manned by 2005-06 President Mark Xue, Army ROTC cadets Stefan Hasselblad and 2006-07 President Riaz Zaidi, in uniform, Marine officer candidates Joe O'Conor and Phil Chan, wearing Marine t-shirts, and former Army ROTC cadet Sarah Clarke in civilian attire. Hamilton Society is a member organization of the Student Governing Board (SGB) of Columbia University, and their table was located on Low Plaza with the other SGB groups. The table was decorated with a military-style poncho. The recruiting literature included a mix of Hamilton Society produced material and material from the ROTC and PLC programs. There were also advertisements for the October 11th AWOL authors’ panel and Columbia ROTC advocacy publications such as the Wounded Lion. There was no Air Force ROTC representation in person or via materials. Members of MilVets, the Columbia student group for veterans, stopped by to lend support throughout the day. The MilVets table, which was initially located on College Walk, was eventually relocated next to the Hamilton Society table later in the afternoon.

Until 2 pm, the Hamilton Society table received modest attention with approximately 15 to 20 students stopping by the booth. Half were interested in the officer training programs and the other half expressed support. Two to three people expressed anti-military or anti-war opinions but were intrigued by the notion of academic engagement of the military as a method of moderating the military. The Hamilton Society talking points focused on "presenting military opportunities" and "advocating a stronger academic-military tie". During this time, a member of the university administration asked for the identity of the club and whether the Hamilton Society representatives were students, but did not press the issue further.

At approximately 2 pm, three to four members of the Spartacus Youth Club (SYC) came over and began marching, waving signs and chanting in front of the Hamilton Society table. The SYC members made no attempt to directly converse with the Hamilton Society representatives. Stefan Hasselblad, Riaz Zaidi, Sarah Clarke, Eric Chen, and Mark Xue were present. By this time, the MilVets table was next to the Hamilton Society table but the SYC focused on Hamilton Society, most likely due to the cadets’ uniforms. The protest activity lasted for approximately 20 minutes before petering out. Ironically, the protest helped draw supporters to the Hamilton Society table. Approximately 20 to 30 people came by to express their support, some of whom showed interest in the advertised events. The Activities Day Fair ended around 3 pm. In total, approximately 50 to 60 students approached the Hamilton Society table during the course of the day. Hamilton Society signed up 15 new members.

There were no problems from the university administration before, during, or after the event, and the DADT controversy was not raised as an issue.

Notes: Mark Xue, President Emeritus (2005-06) of the Hamilton Society, is a Marine officer candidate and is currently attending Officer Candidates School at Quantico, Virginia. Account edited by Eric Chen.

The Movement to Restore ROTC at Columbia: Historical Background

By Sean Wilkes (CC/AROTC 06), Chairman, Advocates for Columbia ROTC
31 August 2006

The rise of the ROTC advocacy movement at Columbia began in the fall of 2001 and spring of 2002 following the September 11th attacks. The attacks brought to light a severe lack of understanding within the Columbia community for the nature of the military, both in its use as a foreign policy tool and the internal mechanisms by which it operates. The great amount of ignorance that was displayed by many otherwise well-educated people struck a nerve with many veterans and military family members, who felt that members of the Armed Forces were being misrepresented and portrayed in a very negative light. On campus, students formed an organization, Students United for Victory, in order to combat these views. At the same time, a campaign for a “Call to Service” was begun in order to encourage Columbia students not only to support the Armed Forces, but also to join the ranks as the leadership of our military. Columbia military alumni mobilized to appeal to the university administration. These efforts subsequently heralded the calls for the return of ROTC to Columbia after its 30 odd year hiatus. Starting in the fall of 2001, Eric Chen was one of the first to raise civil-military concerns and advocate for ROTC as a campus organizer and Columbia Spectator columnist.

Students United for Victory (SU4V), renamed Students United for America (SU4A) in the fall of 2002, led the charge for much of the first phase of the movement. After discussing the ROTC issue with alumnus Phil Bergovoy in the spring of 2002, Eric organized the first gathering of ROTC advocates and discussion of ROTC at the end of the semester (see April 28, 2002: Forum: Should ROTC Return to Columbia?). A number of USAF ROTC cadets who were also Columbia upperclassmen took part. In the fall of 2002, I began my Freshman Year at Columbia and enrolled in the Army ROTC program at Fordham. At the start of the semester, Eric wrote his second ROTC-related Spectator article (see September 17, 2002: Changing Times at Columbia), which attracted the attention of much of the campus community, including mine. We formed the Independent Committee for ROTC Advocacy (ICRA), the forerunner of Advocates for Columbia ROTC (ACR), which we created in order to expand ROTC advocacy beyond SU4A’s organizational constraints. Over a series of meetings, Eric and I outlined a short-term and long-term plan for the campaign to return ROTC to Columbia. The plan consisted of three main thrusts – the Students, the Administration/Institution, and the Alumni. The focus of the first thrust was an appeal to the student body - to educate them about ROTC and military service (e.g. the difference between Officer and Enlisted) and to spread the word about their ability to participate in the program through Fordham or Manhattan College. The second thrust on the Administration was broken down into a few areas - to find ways to improve quality of life for Cadets (such as granting “R” credit for courses, having knowledgeable advisors, etc), to find ways to better inform the student body via official channels (e.g., the website www.columbia.edu/cu/rotc), and to explore the procedures and steps necessary to bring about the return of ROTC. The third thrust, targeting Alumni, focused on galvanizing them into action in order to bring about external pressure on the University and to establish a broader community of support for our efforts. The Alumni effort was taken on by Adm. Jim Lowe (CC/NROTC 51) and Mr. Phil Bergovoy (CC/NROTC 51), and soon after by Capt. Ted Graske (CC/NROTC 59).

Once Eric and I formulated a workable plan, we immediately moved to act, beginning with an aggressive advertising campaign. Also involved was Jennifer Thorpe, the President of SU4A and a dedicated proponent of ROTC. Other notable student ROTC advocates included Eric Gutman and Shane Hachey. Flyering was a heavily used technique early on and was very effective in making students aware of the issue. Weekly tabling on College Walk also raised awareness and facilitated new contacts. The Columbia Spectator was another means to bring ROTC to the popular front as the issue was broadly discussed in the opinion page of the newspaper. Pro-ROTC Spectator contributors included me, Eric Chen, Megan Romigh, Jen Thorpe, Yoni Appelbaum, and Brian Wagner. (I encourage reading very thoroughly through the articles at http://www.advocatesforrotc.org/columbia/coverage.html, starting from 2002; they will provide a detailed overview of the progression of the ROTC campaign.) With the tabling, flyering and newspaper editorial campaign fully mobilized, we also organized a number of discussion and panel events to present our ideas to the student body in more formal settings. Student organizations such as the Columbia Political Union and College Republicans, led by SU4A, provided key support. Some events were more successful than others, but over-all attendance was generally substantial for a Columbia undergraduate group (generally between 20 and 40 attendees). We also presented the ROTC issue to the undergraduate student councils.

The Alumni thrust took more time to get going. Much of the first part of that thrust involved simply contacting them. Important initial contributors were, of course, Dr. Michael Segal, Admiral Jim Lowe, (Navy) Captain Ted Graske, and (Army) Colonel Jonathan Newmark, a graduate of Columbia’s medical school. The alumni supporter base has fluctuated over time, but is now stabilized under the leadership of Ted Graske and organized as the Columbia Alliance for ROTC (CAR). CAR produces the pro-ROTC newsletter, the Wounded Lion.

The Administration thrust took off in the spring of 2003. Student ROTC advocates met and consulted with a number of Deans and Assistant Deans. Initially, the most useful help came from Dean Colombo who indicated that the best way to gain the support of Student Affairs and the Administration was to demonstrate student support for the issue. After much planning and analysis, and consultation with members of the Columbia College Student Council (including now-USAF LT Robert Wray), we devised a plan to include a non-binding referendum in the student elections to gauge student opinion on the ROTC issue. The 2003 Columbia College Student Council elections had the highest turnout in years. The results of the referendum on ROTC turned out very much to our advantage, with 65% of students in favor of ROTC (see April 17, 2003: High Turnout Decides CC Student Council Election).

There was some trouble with the wording of the referendum, and we feel this should be explained. ICRA presented a list of possible questions for the referendum to David X. Cheng, the Assistant Dean of Student Affairs/Research and Planning, in the Office of Student Affairs. He is considered Columbia’s polling expert and his approval as an independent authority provided important legitimacy to the ROTC poll. Dean Cheng modified our questions and then submitted them to the CC Student Council. Rather than using our list of questions, however, the council decided to pick only one question and subsequently miscopied the question so that, rather than ask whether ROTC should return, it asked whether ROTC should be prohibited. It is a slight semantic difference, but it made a difference later when ROTC opponents argued that students were apathetic to or ignorant of the issue rather than displaying overt support for ROTC. Nevertheless, over-all, the results of the poll worked very much in our favor.

The following year, 2003-2004, ICRA was reorganized as the Advocates for Columbia ROTC. With proof of student support in hand, our efforts were focused on “working the system”, that is, finding administrative means and avenues to bring about institutional support for ROTC and the program’s eventual return to Columbia. Our first set of successful actions with the Administration resulted from our meetings with various Deans in the undergraduate colleges and Student Affairs. Two key people at the start of this phase were Dean of Academic Affairs Kathryn Yatrakis and Assistant Dean of Student Affairs, David Charlow. I met with Dean Yatrakis in order to explore ways in which cadets could be recognized officially for their participation in ROTC – an academic program that requires a great amount of time and effort. While academic credit would be impossible, since the program is not within the auspices of Columbia's administration and since it would not fit within any academic department, she suggested the possibility of using Registration Credit (or “R” credit) to note students’ participation on their transcripts. Subsequently, a proposal was written by ACR and sent to the Committee on Instruction through Dean Yatrakis. They convened a month later and approved our request. As a result, students may now submit R-credit forms and have their ROTC courses listed on their transcripts, though this form must be submitted each semester that the student participates in the program. The meeting with Dean Charlow focused on ways in which the Financial Aid department might be able to display information about ROTC to prospective students, particularly those with ROTC 4-year scholarships who may be considering applying to Columbia. We wanted to counter the widely held misconception that one could not participate in ROTC if one attended Columbia. After much discussion, Dean Charlow and his department agreed to display a note about the availability of local ROTC programs in the on-line Financial Aid FAQ and in the Columbia viewbook, and to assist us in publishing a small informational website detailing these programs and their contact information (www.columbia.edu/cu/rotc).

Over the course of the next few months we were able to meet with a number of Columbia officials, including Dean Zvi Galil at SEAS and Dean Austin Quigley of the College, to discuss ROTC, until the coup de grâce in December of 2003, when we were granted an audience with President Lee Bollinger. The meeting lasted perhaps a half an hour and was attended by Jen Thorpe, as President of SU4A, and me, as Chairman of ACR. We presented to him our proposal for the return of ROTC, the reasoning behind our efforts, and evidence of the vast amount of support that had been accrued through our grass-roots campaign. President Bollinger took note of the evidence of support, to say the least, and was interested in seeing the issue explored further. He explained to us that he felt it would not be appropriate for his office to make a determination on the issue, since the University Senate instituted the ban on ROTC during the Senate’s inception in the late 1960s; therefore, the responsibility and authority fell to the Senate to revoke the ban. President Bollinger did, however, put his full weight into granting us the resources of the Senate office and its Secretary, Mr. Tom Mathewson, in order to bring this issue to the Senate’s attention. We met with Mr. Mathewson that day, and with his help, we were able to contact the various Senate committees to notify them of our intent and to request to meet with them. While Mr. Mathewson remains a neutral party, as his position requires, he is very helpful and very knowledgeable on the history of the Senate and the history of ROTC’s downfall at Columbia, and has often gone out of his way to grant us assistance. The Student Affairs Committee and Executive Committee were our two primary administrative avenues, the latter led by Professor Paul Duby of SEAS who to this day remains a staunch supporter of ROTC. Professor Eugene Galanter, a decorated WWII vet, is also a member of the Executive Committee and also has been a strong supporter of our efforts. Professor Michael Adler, another university senator, provided support as well.

We presented the Senate committees with an extensive and well-researched written proposal for the return of ROTC to Columbia University (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/senate/annual_reports/03-04/rotc.htm). This proposal garnered the support of a number of faculty members and students. We continued to meet with the Student Affairs Committee, which agreed to propose the establishment of a special task force to study the issue. On March 26, 2004, their resolution was presented to the University Senate and approved (see http://www.columbia.edu/cu/senate/committees/rotc/rotcmain.htm and April 1, 2004 “Possible Return of ROTC to Campus Sparks Controversy”). The members of the task force were appointed later that spring in a somewhat politically charged process. It was eventually decided that the task force would consist of six students, five faculty members, and one alumni representative. I was selected as one of the student members. The ROTC Task Force began its deliberations in the fall of 2004.

The Task Force deliberations were long and arduous with much of the initial focus on researching the issue on a variety of fronts. Problems that were subsequently presented included the potential need to appoint an officer as a “Professor” or “Assistant Professor” (later shot down by the Princeton example, where the Professor of Military Science holds the official title of “Director of Military Training” rather than “Professor”), the various costs of instituting the program (again shot down, the only costs would be the small amount of office space needed, and this would be overshadowed by the immense amount of scholarship money brought in per contracted cadet), the inability of students to leave the program if they so choose (again shot down, since ROTC can be tried out for two years, and even 4-year scholarship recipients can quit the program after one year), the necessity of providing credit for a program that is outside the direct control of the University (again shot down via the Princeton example, where students do not receive academic credit), and the incompatibility of military training with an academic institution (arising out of ignorance about officer education). The main problem area was, of course, the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy arising out of 10 USC 654. DADT ended up as the focus of much of the debate, though interestingly not until late in the Task Force proceedings. The members of the Task Force deliberated for a number of months and presented one interim report to the Senate. They sought the views of the Columbia community by holding a town hall meeting on February 15, which was attended by many ROTC supporters, and by inviting e-mail submissions to the task force, at rotc-taskforce @ columbia.edu. They collected ROTC-related e-mails in two batches, one set received between February 9 and 24 and the second between February 25 and March 28. ROTC advocates who joined the ROTC campaign in the spring of 2005 included Professor Allan Silver, Professor Jim Applegate (co-chair of the ROTC Task Force), Lt Col Stephen Brozak (GS 82), and students Scott Stewart and Matt Sanchez.

Immediately after the conclusion of the Task Force deliberations, opponents of ROTC held an anti-ROTC “teach in” that included anti-military Columbia professors and counter-recruiters invited from outside Columbia. The teach-in was organized by Law Professor, and ROTC Task Force member, Kendall Thomas and held in the Law School (see April 6, 2005: Panel Examines ROTC Conflict: Clash Between CU Non-Discrimination Policy And Military's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Stressed). Thereafter, ROTC advocates and opponents carried out competing public relations campaigns meant to influence the Senate vote on ROTC. Both sides utilized heavy flyering and the Spectator opinion page. Opponents of ROTC tabled on College Walk. Debates took place in various campus forums, such as Teachers College, Journalism and Barnard. The Senate devoted a special meeting entirely to the subject of ROTC on April 15, 2005, which unfortunately, was poorly attended. (Other Senate discussions of ROTC and the work of the Task Force over the past year are recorded in minutes of the following meetings: March 26, 2004, April 30, 2004, January 28, 2005 and February 25, 2005.) Following the April 6 anti-ROTC teach-in, multiple requests were made by student and faculty ROTC advocates to hold a formal debate in the Law School in order to provide a balanced discussion to the Columbia community. After repeated rejections by the opponents of ROTC, we held our own panel event, Advocates for Columbia ROTC hearing: Perspectives on the Future of ROTC at Columbia on April 25, 2005. The panel included students, alumni and professors, and included an anti-ROTC professor, Lewis Cole, who had spoken at the April 6 teach-in. Substantial support for the event was provided by the Military in Business Association, a business school veterans group. On the same day, April 25, the ROTC Task Force submitted a resolution on ROTC to the Senate Executive Committee, which then substituted its own resolution, which was intended to offer the Senate a clear, unambiguous choice. The Executive Committee resolution called for the establishment of an ROTC program on campus "as soon as is practicable".

At the May 6 plenary meeting, the Senate decided to conduct a record vote (with signed ballots) on the Executive Committee resolution. The ROTC proposal was defeated 53-10, with 5 abstentions. The ROTC advocates present at the Senate vote observed that the majority of the Senate seemed to have a limited understanding of the issues surrounding the ROTC debate. Statements by university senators revealed they had failed to seriously engage the ACR Case for ROTC at Columbia. As a possible indication of the actual degree of opposition to ROTC within the Senate on May 6, two votes to postpone the final vote on ROTC were conducted, the second of which required President Bollinger to cast a tie-breaking vote.

While the defeat of the ROTC proposal in the Senate was disappointing, the deliberations of the Task Force have, as expected, proven to be essential for building support among faculty and administrators for improving relations with the ROTC programs at Fordham University and Manhattan College. The Task Force recommended developing stronger ties with existing area ROTC programs in lieu of instituting a native program at Columbia. For a more detailed account of Senate deliberations on ROTC, see the May 5, 2005 final report of the task force.

Since the Senate vote, we have regrouped to study the situation and formulate new strategies. Over the course of the 2005-2006 year, the ROTC issue continued to be analyzed at lower levels and remained a topic for student discussion in many organizations on campus. In the spring of 2006, the US Military Veterans of Columbia University (MilVets) under MilVets President Oscar Escano, working with ROTC cadets, led a successful campaign to amend the university discrimination policy with the addition of “military status” as a protected category (see March 24, 2006: Discrimination Policy Amended: New Policy Wording Adds Military Status to Protected Group List). The Columbia cadets and officer candidates group, the Columbia Military Society, was renamed Hamilton Society under group president Mark Xue, in honor of Columbia military alumnus Alexander Hamilton. On March 24, 2006, the Columbia Spectator published its 4th consecutive staff editorial in favor of ROTC. Also, during this period, the Supreme Court upheld the Solomon Amendment (Supreme Court Upholds Solomon Amendment), which had been challenged by FAIR, an association of American Law Schools that included Harvard Law and Columbia Law (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumsfeld_v._Forum_for_Academic_and_Institutional_Rights). This national event was a boon to our efforts, though unfortunately late in coming. It has been speculated that the upcoming Supreme Court vote motivated President Bollinger to resolve the ROTC issue in the spring of 2005 rather than risk the Senate vote occurring in the same time period as the Supreme Court decision. On May 19, 2006, an Air Force ROTC commissioning ceremony was held in the rotunda of Low Library. It was the first officer commissioning to take place at Columbia in over 30 years, and came about as a result of close cooperation between the Administration, alumni ROTC advocates and graduating cadets.

In the summer of 2006, three leaders of the 1st stage, Eric Chen, Shane Hachey and I, sat down together to develop a basic strategy paper that outlines the next steps. Borrowing from Winston Churchill, the May 6, 2005 Senate vote on ROTC was not the end nor was it the beginning of the end. It was merely the end of the beginning. As of the writing of this history, our teammates in the movement together with our successors on campus are moving forward to carry out new strategies for the 2nd stage of the movement.

Eric Chen edited and contributed content to this document.

Transforming The Army Officer Development System

Transforming The Army Officer Development System

Back to the Future: Transforming the Army
Officer Development System
The Forum
Michael Meese and Samuel Calkins
Abstract
As a closed labor force, with limited lateral entry, the military must build officers from within. This means that when significant changes in operating environments occur—such as the end of the Cold War or the aftermath of 9/11—changes in the military personnel system can take significant time to affect the composition of the officer corps. Changes at the end of the Cold War in the Army officer development system created greater specialization of officers in their specific career fields, which is both understandable and supportable when viewed in historical context. As the nation addresses the officer development system today, the Army should consider returning to some practices implemented during the Cold War to enhance flexibility and versatility among its officer corps in the post-9/11 environment.

http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol4/iss1/art3/

Hello!

Hello and welcome to the Columbia University Military Community