Some security officers have spread the idea that formal classroom education is costly or unnecessary for millennia of the historic precedent. Brilliant strategists and military leaders are not only excellently trained but most appreciate the value and influence of their mentors. The name card of intellectual warriors is perhaps the best argument to support the training armies: Sándor Nagy, Julius Caesar, Napoleon Bonaparte, Robert E. Lee, Erwin Rommel, George Patton, Chester Nimitz.
In contrast, we can recall famous military leaders whose education, say, was small: Prince Wellington (Napoleon – just after 7 years), Ulysses Grant, George Custer, Adolf Hitler, Hermann Goering, Josef Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Manuel Noriega. For these men, military victories were often fortunate against tactics, the overwhelming power of innovative design, and soldiers were more afraid of their master than the enemy.
I am moderate, neither "red" nor "blue", they tend to be in both camps. I definitely resist the draft, but I support (and part of) the ROTC. When I read that the University of Columbia largely voted to ban the Officer Officer Training Corps to return to the campus, I felt that the concept of scientific freedom was violated. It is not the place of the university to import value judgments or decisions on moral issues. Instead, universities are destined for places where consciousness can be visited through broad perspectives hoping to select and select the best of them. By forbidding a ROTC contingent campus, Columbia denied the choice of students, and as an academic I'm ashamed of them.
ROTC has many aims to offer university students, including (sometimes specially) those who have not appointed officials. As a 30-year-old student you worked on at my master's degree, I went to two ROTC history classes and participated in a multi-coloned colonel who is also a secretary of a master's degree. The things I learned about the military aspects of the battles I have examined, the social effects of each decision, and the pains that most leaders have to provide for better material and intelligence, far outnumbered the history of the history section. the same cases. From the highly patriotic US Marine Officer, I learned that, for example, during the War of 1812, the United States invaded Canada, and when it discovered that it did not succeed, it set fire to the buildings of the National Parliament. This was the last action that the British soldiers were later pushed to Washington and fired the American Capitol and the White House.
Is there any difference? Indeed, I think it is vital for national survival that soldiers and the public know the big picture behind the events that later come together. After September 11, some valuable people asked the question: "What have we done to make this attack?" The overwhelming response was to quell such questions – the United States was the good guys and the religious fanatics were angry because they were jealous of our luxury and riches – and simply tackle the attackers as anonymous, inhumane enemies. There was no question what the real problem could be but that the United States should attack them and destroy the aggression. But what a competent doctor, I ask, only treats a symptom, but ignores the causes of the disease? According to a number of studies commissioned by the UN and other agencies, the most important change to eradicate poverty and war would have universal access to education for women.
It may be "Remember Alamo," but how many remember that it was part of Texas or the United States and did not even try to become a state. He sought the nation's independence to preserve the slavery that Mexico was banned. When we remember the "Remember Maine" that the ship is probably hit by a technical problem, not Spanish sabotage? How did the American Hawk and journalist William Randolph Hurst take the war, knowing that the war would greatly increase the sale of newspapers? We must learn from history because it is already condemned to repeat. The 9/11 attack was predominantly carried out by the Saudi Arabs, but the US response was an attack on Iraq. Although there is evidence that Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11, the American public still likes the ideas of antrax attacks, weapons of mass destruction, and terrorist training camps.
What about the military plans that merely extend distance education programs instead of classroom education? As a career teacher, I was risking it sound like a crazy when I deny distance learning. In my experience, there is no substitute for human interaction, where ideas can be sorted out, debated and modified. The emotional expression of classmates when talking about "fair wars", the use of nuclear weapons, the contradictions associated with the advantages and disadvantages of a given policy can simply not be part of electronic teaching. There is simply no substitution, for example, that a combat veteran points out that "I was there" in a class when another student presented a purified version of the controversial event. The level of emotion can not be reached via cable modem. We depend heavily on impersonal internet, so how much more can be the non-human relationship with our psychological, especially our, empathic development.
Historically, one of the first tragedies of war – after truth and opinion diversity – is the fundamental humanity. In the wars, our soldiers will not kill Germans, Frenchmen, British, Indians, Japanese, or Vietnamese. Almost from the beginning, they are fighting, fighting, dragon, frog, lime, wild man, woman, or ghetto. How much more difficult is a poorly qualified soldier to understand the enemy when the enemy became inhumane? How to win the war perfectly, and more importantly, peace is sustainable if we can not understand (but not necessarily agree) with the enemy?
It is unfortunate that military officials often bring the weight of public hostility to action by civilian authorities. Current administration in the history of the United States is largely lacking in science, while senior officials are the highest educated. Although it is true that some soldiers actually enjoy the fight, the overwhelming majority would welcome it, not to embrace the unbroken peace of care. An intelligent career soldier serves to protect what is most valuable, knowing that wars are inevitable. Most pray that they never have to fight, but are ready to put their lives on the line if we need protection for others. Instead of reducing, compromising or limiting the education of these defenders, I would rather say that they all get free access to our university and college. The university world must have a unified message: education is not a privilege; this is the first and best defense line.