Military Review English Edition January-February 2017 | Page 103
CADET COMMAND
that asserted the need for a broader educational
emphasis on critical thinking and understanding,
self-awareness, and adaptability. Notwithstanding, it
drove a permanent wedge between military science
programs and educators.12
Given the intensive manpower needs of the period
together with emerging technological requirements for a
possible global war against a conventional Soviet threat,
the perspective that emphasized the mass production of
junior leaders with practical skills that could be immediately put to use at the platoon level was not without
merit. By emphasizing the development of skills within
a more technical domain, the Army clearly showed that
it valued junior leader professional technical competence
over the competing argument for the need to build deep
intellectual foundations.
This is a common viewpoint for armies facing an
immediate and clearly identified threat.13 Specific domain knowledge and application are more highly prized
when there is clear benefit for application against
immediate threats in known conditions. However, the
perceived importance of broader education aside from
MILITARY REVIEW January-February 2017
Harvard University ROTC bayonet drill, ca. 1917–1918. (Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)
technical military skills proficiency in the face of more
uncertain conditions was not entirely lost. The fact
that the Army maintained the necessity for attaining a
college degree as a prerequisite for earning an officer’s
commission indicated a view that a broader education
was recognized as a valuable component of an officer’s
long-term preparation and professional development.
ROTC’s Evolving Approach
As we enter a new period in the evolution of
warfare, it is time to reexamine the issue. In previous
debates, the Army recognized that earning a degree
displays a requisite level of ambition, determination,
and problem-solving skills for a leader.14 As military
theorist Morris Janowicz opined, the U.S. Army has
always sought to balance its three perceived roles for officers in American society; namely, those of the heroic
leader, military manager, and military technologist.15
101