Wednesday, October 11, 2006
|
|
The National Academy of National Security Service
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
9:08 AM
|
|
When the country needed professional soldiers to officer its Army, West Point was created in 1802.
When it needed professional sailors to officer its ships, Annapolis came into being in 1845.
The Air Force Academy followed, and there are Coast Guard and Merchant Marine Academies as well.
When the national interest required a highly skilled cadre of lifetime professionals, the county established colleges where those skill sets could be learned, whether artillery, engineering, sailing or flying. At the same leadership and ethics were made part of the curriculum, and detailed profiles of the students were developed so that the needs of the various services could be matched with the grraduating class.
Though far from the exclusive entry into the leadership ranks, the academy system allows for the training of thousands of prepared young officers every year who arrive with a very specific background suited to the tasks ahead.
When I read the Washington Post story on the FBI's struggle to find Arabic proficient agents this morning, it occurred to me again that what the country needs with this long war ahead is an academy dedicated to producing law enforcement/homeland security professionals who arrive at their first job with a skills package that includes the languages and technology training that the modern FBI/CIA/NSA/Homeland Security Agency need in alrge numbers. Recruiting from college campuses will always be necessary, just as it is for the military services who then send the able would-be officers off to OCS of one sort or another.
But if you want and need a particular type of young professional, the quickest and most secure way to get them is to buy them as the military does via the service academies. The midshipmen and cadets get a free education. The country gets their service for at least five years, and often for their entire careers.
The president should ask Congress to work with him to establish such an academy and to staff it and enroll a class asap. (No tenure for the faculty, please!) There are a legion of superb uniformed faculty at the academies who can get such a school opened, and scores of retired or nearing retirement professionals from the agencies that would be looking to the new academy for recruits who can assist in designing the specialized curriculum.
And Arabic, Chinese, Farsi or some other critical language skill would not be an elective, but a required course depending on the needs of the country's law enforcement/counterterrorism agencies.
There would be a battle over where to put the new academy of course, though a border state with high tech resources and training opportunities makes sense --say, Texas-- but sometimes the obvious needs to be stated: If the FBI can't find Arabic speakers, then the country needs to find a different way of producing them.
|
|
Excellent idea! My father escaped the poverty of rural Mississippi by attending the Naval Academy and served 20 years, during which time he attended further academies:
First, the Army Language School, where he was first in Turkish and then in Japanese.
Second, they taught him intelligence technology and gave him command of a spy ship (like the Pueblo) that poked its bow into Russia's business.
Giving Dad all that education hapharzardly over the first 10 or 15 of his 20 years created an excellent intelligence officer, but didn't do it very efficiently. Let's build a National Spook Academy. |
|
|
Accurate and an academay that's very necessary. |
|
|
Great idea. Then all our enemies can just photograph anyone going in and out. Just like the KGB did at the NSA. |
|
|
Doesn't Utah produce the largest number of women/men for the service with skills in the needed languages? |
|
"it occurred to me again that what the country needs with this long war ahead is an academy dedicated to producing law enforcement/homeland security professionals who arrive at their first job with a skills package that includes the languages and technology training that the modern FBI/CIA/NSA/Homeland Security Agency need in alrge numbers."
I've got news for Mr. Hewitt:
+The FBI already has an academy
+The CIA already has an academy
+NSA: ELINT draws mostly Air Force Officers
+DHS already has an academy: The U.S. Coast Guard Academy- whose cadet billets are being expanded to conform to DHS needs |
|
|
With respect to language training, I assume that the Defense Language Institute is still functioning. When I wore Army green many years ago, the DLI was actively training not only members of the military, but also our spooks in languages such as Russian, Chinese, etc. I am not sure what their capabilities are in Arabic and Farsi, but I assume that any such capabilities have been given more attention recently. In those days, DLI had a superb reputation for turning out linguists....and, assuming it still exists, might be a perfect place to focus any effort to develop the lind of language academy you are proposing. |
|
|
Within 5 miles of my office in Beverly Hills, there are thousands of native speakers of Arabic, Farsi, Pushtu, Tagalog, Chinese and every other language under the sun. But the FBI, CIA, and military refuse to recruit them. Why? Becasue as immigrants or first-generation Americans, they might be loyal to the old country. Hello! They're here because they hate the old country! They fled the old country! Surely it is easier to vette a native speaker than it is to train a "loyal 'Merican" to speak, read and write a foreign language. And anyway, most of the spies arrested in the US in recent years have been native born. |
|
I like this idea. If it is to work, it must be a college level academy, not a vocational style academy such as the FBI/CIA.
Cadets would take a curriculum focused on US/World History, Political Philosophy, Theology, Communications, Comparative Governments etc.
Fluency in at least two foreign languages would be mandatory at graduation.
Students would also choose a career track by Junior year. Uniformed Services(DHS), International Services(State Dept.), Clandestine Services(CIA), Technical Services(CIA/NSA), Domestic Services(FBI/Law Enforcement).
Our military leaders are the envy of the world, we could do the same with the graduates of this academy.
I have been a Police Officer for 15 years and have seen much wasted potential among those in law enforcement both local and federal. Such an academy would identify those truly exceptional folks who could keep this country safe through a new level of professionalism. |
|
Hugh:
Do you suggest creating an academy for officers only? Wouldn't that make more chiefs and no more indians? Wouldn't it make more sense to reform the structure to create a civil defense corps with an enlisted rank to do some grunt work. Adding more officers to an already bloated federal bureaucracy won't accomplish any more work in the field.
My main concern with an academy is that it will only create that many more military elites. With all due respect to our officer corps, I will freely give credit to the Gunnys and Tops in today's Marine Corps for much of the real work that is accomplished in our current War on Islamo-Fascism. Given the Tops and Gunnys rank, it is safe to assume that they are not products of any service academy.
If we were to reference Kaplan's IMPERIAL GRUNTS we could find several anecdotes of "big military" getting in the way of the real mission. The service academies have yet to create a single "iron gunny". Iron gunnies have worked to no end to improve their own education and hone their skills. The US Marines have the lowest percentage of officers to enlisted, and an even lower percentage of academy grads.
If The Marine Corps model has worked so well to create a US military Elite, then it would seem intuitive to use that model to reform homeland security. It would seem appropriate to send more special ops guys and ground-pounding cops to the FBI - help get them off the dime and do more counter terrorism ops stateside (I can hear abuse of power claims.) I will concede that Kaplan does point out the lack of arabic speakers even in special ops, but that is a situation currently being remedied. My experience with enlisted Marines who improve their own education is that they do recognize the power curve and they know the value of arabic language skills.
The service academies, for all their value, still tend to create an officer corps that is insular and overly protective of their own. The enlisted to career path tends to create a very dynamic corps whose primary focus tends to be very protective of our Corps of fellow Marines and the mission.
I would not vote against your academy idea, but it does need to be buttressed with something to actually get the work done.
My favorite Marine of all time is Chesty Puller, his story is amazing yet he was denied a fourth star due, in some part, to not attending an academy.
Thank You for your time
Semper Fidelis |
|
|
Skip you are soooo right, although you have a very typical enlisted man's view of the officer corps. As a former enlisted graduate of the Army Language School (1959) I couldn't agree with your assessment more. When I was there the ratio of students was 200 or so to 1, enlisted men to officers. What that meant was that out in the field the grunts did most of the linguistic heavy lifting while being led by officers who had not gone to language school and so had no idea what we were doing. Hugh's idea of an academy is a good start. But if the current academy model is followed it will produce just another elitists officer corps (You'll do it because I said so!). How about a one year intense enlisted man/woman's academy where the mission and strategic thinking are taught by sargents who are familiar with T. Barnett's "The Pentagon's New Map". In the late '50s we were taught linguistic skills at ALS then thrown into the deep end of the pool only to learn our actual job/mission from our fellow E-2,3,4's. That's no way to run a military in the 21st Century. |
|
|
Rather than a distinct academy, there should maybe be a formal career track (with a service commitment) that takes advantage of existing capabilities. Two years should be sufficient, and that would include a foreign posting and advanced on-the-ground language training and cultural indoctrination. It's the nuances, you see, which no "academy" will ever get right. And no first generation immigrants. Too risky - maybe second, probably third or later. |
|
|
|