(Friday Oct 26, 2007, 11:39
) - The CO of USS Hampton (SSN-767) was relieved of command for 'loss of confidence in his ability to command'
Thursday. Commander Portland's biography
indicates clearly that he is not a USNA graduate (Nebraska '87). This is documentary proof (assignment #3)
that not all post- Cold War submarine COs are USNA graduates. On the other hand, we still do not yey have a single instance of a WW2 U.S. submarine service CO who was not a USNA graduate (assignment #1)
. Thanks to reddog,
however, we learned that during the Cold War, exceptions were made. Reddog provided an example in the Comments
Before WW1 and during WW2, U.S. submarine skippers were exclusively Naval Academy graduates
. Did all of them, including Nimitz ('05), actually volunteer for submarine duty (assignment #1).
During the Cold War, tradition was broken, if rarely, by commmanders of merit in their own right. Name a Cold War sub skipper who was not a USNA grad (assignment #2).
Post Cold War, Molten Eagle has yet to hear of a single sub skipper who did not graduate from the USNA. We all know that there may be exceptions to a general rule. Name at least one (assignment #3).
Why is any of this relevant at all? Perhaps you have not been reading enough of Molten Eagle's postings? That is strictly your decision, but you may have been missing something. Whatever the criterion to separate submarine commanders from the "I was just in it for the free education" clique obviously works. Taxpayers should demand longer service after academy graduation and higher standards for academy entrance.
As early as 2005
, and again just this week, Molten Eagle
addressed the issue of "gaming" taxpayers out of military academy tuition. In 2005, 4-year tuition at the USNA was a relative bargain at only about $275,000 per graduate. Compare that to Harvard and other military academies.
Here is a grand opportunity: submarine skippers are intelligent and dedicated gentlemen (even the many canned for happenstance). How the heck can they be so carefully selected when admission to military academies includes sons and daughters of politicians more intent on careers in law (politics) or NASA than lifelong military service? Why do admissions officers accept any immature cadets, when history has proven
there is no need?
Something stinks, politics and Senatorial influence (predominantly lawyers) are ruining our military
academies. Here is a recent example for you doubters: Gaming the Taxpayers Out of $349,000
How many thought, albeit foolishly, that successful candidates for military academy adsmission (who replaced dedicated career aspirants) were intent on military careers in excess of the requisite 5 years? Taxpayers are being ripped off and the academies are becoming infested by political parasites. [Vigilis made this point today on "talk radio". Some fool tried to contradict these points with VP Cheney's irrelevant draft deferments (irrelevant because educational draft defements were common during Viet Nam (Vigilis, for instance, was the only male in his H.S. graduating class to volunteer or to serve in the military). The foolish caller was unceremoniously set back adrift.
Anyone who can correctly answer even one of the questions # 1 -# 3 is welcome to comment.
Labels: academy USNA stink gaming Bontier Nimitz