JustAMomOf4

You are welcome! I, too, think the policy is wrong but objected to the tone of the article. His stance did not change but the tone was better. I thought it was great that he wrote the follow up and listened to comments that people sent to him - which for the most part were insightful.

I wonder if the policy will stick around and quietly be forgotton about until the next football issue arises or if the backlash will force changes.

shogun

I don't see any change to this DOD policy coming unless there is suddenly a gaggle of professional athletes springing out of the Service Academies. With the number being so very small of those with even have a hope of applying for the program, it just isn't going to get much attention one way or another.

USNA Dad&Grad

Here's why I think it will get scrutiny...

DOD data: More forced to stay in Army - USATODAY.com

How can we condone ASO when we're ordering more troops to involuntarily extend their duty? Some smart politician is going to have a veritable field day with this - if they connect the dots...

PS - The Navy is not supporting ASO at this time.

JustAMomOf4

True D&G but then there is this issue as well:

Army, Marines enlisting more felons - Military - MSNBC.com

The Navy can afford to lose sailors - they aren't in crisis mode. The Marines are increasing in size but number-wise the Corps is much smaller than the Army.
The Navy really doesn't have a need to support ASO.

USNA Dad&Grad

The argument that ASO equals or will result in increased Army recruiting in the enlisted ranks is sophistry.

soph·is·try (sŏf'ĭ-strē)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

noun: pl., -tries.
Plausible but fallacious argumentation.
A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument.

USNA Dad&Grad

"It's my duty to play in the NFL..." - Huh? I'm a lot less sympathetic to the young man and his decision than I was before I saw this.

E:60 - Call Of Duty - ESPN Video

At least Jeremy Schaap seems to "get" it.

Luigi59

As is the argument that eliminating ASO equals or will result in less troops having their duty involuntarily extended.

rjrzoom57

That assessment/counter argument is, quick frankly, irrelevant to the issue under discussion. Essentially you are using the argument that an action will not have any impact on an outcome as a justification for it’s continued existence.

I would have no problem or objections with graduates playing pro ball and used as recruiting tools so long as the individual given that opportunity remains in the service until their commitment is satisfied and is paid the same as his/her counterparts on the ground in Iraq. If he/she signs for 3 million a year I can think of lot’s of places where that money could be used to benefit those that took the same oath, agreed to the same commitment and are now in harms way.

Given those conditions is the next Heisman trophy winner likely to sign up? Probably not…At the end of the day what is more important; the kind and quality of soldiers, sailors and marines you produce or your record in football? I cannot see how this program has a positive impact on the ultimate goal and mission of our service academies. More than anything it reinforces the divisive and potentially corrosive “animal farm” – “we’re all equal but some of us are more equal than others if you play football” mentality.

longrun12

You have to all understand that this outstanding Cadet did not make the rule, who our we to judge his decision!
There was a story in SI that stated: when this Cadet was a 3C he was approach by several college to transfer. At that point his West Point Football coach explained this rule to him and convinced him to stay.
He seems like a honorable person and will sever his country with honor.

USNA69

I don't think this is exactly the issue. I feel that good leadership demands that prior to asking others to take extraordinary measures such as involuntary extensions or asking the Navy or AF to Individually Augment deployed Army units, that the Army should ensure that it's house is totally cleaned up, that there are no loose ends. A single officer slipping through the cracks decreases the effectiveness of asking others to do more.

JustAMomOf4

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Wait - are you saying that if we were not in a ground war situation where the Army was seriously deficient of personnel or the Army was in a force reduction (as the AF is)- this policy would be ok?

So - it's not the policy, per se that you object to but the fact that the Army is involved in a war?

USNA69

^^^^^^^^^^^^ Huh?? It is the war and the personnel deficiency which has been used by one and all as a rationalization for the policy.

Yes, the fact that the Army is at war makes it even less palatable.

USNA Dad&Grad

JAMO said:

I'm not saying that. The policy is wrong in peacetime and in time of war. It's just wrong, period.

It's got nothing to do with Caleb Campbell personally, any deep-seated fear that Army will start beating Navy because they use ASO to "outwit, outlast and outplay" Navy in the recruiting game for FB recruits, nor do I harbor anything but the deepest respect for the Army and West Point.

Let me put it to you this way: if you have a close friend or family member who is doing something that you're pretty certain is not in their best interest - even if they think it will help them or at least not harm them - do you sit silently by and watch them flounder, or do you say, "Hey, do you really think that is a great idea?" It's not always a "fun" conversation, but I'd rather do that than say or do nothing.

Those in support of the ASO still think it will have a positive impact on enlisted recruiting. I don't believe it - and I won't until somebody can show a positive correlation between the policy and filling the ranks. I'd change my mind in an instant if it could be proved to me. The policy has been in effect for three years. Where's the beef?

USNA Dad&Grad

I'm not making that argument. It's unfair to order a 22 year-old staff sergeant who's honored her contract in Iraq to extend involuntarily and give a 22 year-old 2LT who hasn't yet honored his commitment - not through any fault of his own, mind you - a free pass to buy out of his.

Something that has been bandied about on this thread is that the ASO folks will have to serve 6 years of reserve time after the initial two of recruiting. That's not necessarily true. They also have the option to "buy out" the remaining three years of their obligation. My gut tells me that the "buy out" will probably be the preferred option - if we're still engaged in a shooting war.

If you are a pro athlete and can afford to buy out, why wouldn't you?

GreatAmerican

Call of Duty (ESPN's E60)--ESPN takes a look at Army's new policy letting athletes play pro immediately

http://sports.espn.go.com/broadband/...ideoId=3361402