000blank

Here is an email sent to our "Snoopy" list that seemed to be intended for the CA list. It is from Gerald L Atkinson and addressed to his alter ego, Beak Atkinson, but underneath the HTML code that translates to atkinson@newtotalitarians.com and to usna-alumni@majordomo.cns.iit.edu (aka the Snoopy list). This is instructional only because he has been asked to cease and desist posting to Snoopy, which is Alumni Only and Invited Guests.

Mr. Atkinson (he's not my professor) claims that several alums have asked him to quit criticizing the "ethics" program in public. The several posts that I saw simply asked him to keep his opinions off of our list. We were tired of hearing his post-war, push-button rhetoric of "New Age" this, and "Cultural Marxist" that. These and other labels such as "Judas Goat" are designed to incite passion and fear, rather than elicit logic calculus. Apparently, those who do not follow his line of thought are now to be called "termites."

His lines of thought, when stripped of his PhD accouterment, pretty much line up with the men who just missed WWII and Korea. They cut their teeth on real sea stories from real, returned veterans. There was little black and white in their upbringing. The Japs and Jerrys had been hammered, and the Commies were coming. They had gone to Fourth of July parades that boasted veterans that still fit into their uniforms. Army and Navy were football powers. Ike was in, and that egghead, Stevenson, was out.

In the late 40's and into the 50's, the Naval Academy and the Military Academy had streamlined programs to put Ensigns on Men of War and Platoon Leaders in the Infantry. In the meantime, the rest of the country was getting educated ala the GI Bill. College was no longer the domain of the idle rich and a lucky few others.

These men were destined to be the middle managers of the military in the Vietnam era. By their own account, these grads were well prepared to fight their ships and companies. By most outside accounts, they were indeed fine journeymen warriors. By most accounts, they were woefully unprepared for the social upheaval of the 60's that changed the algorithm of leadership between the officer corps and enlisted personnel. Neither Kant, nor Aristotle could be found in their sheaths. They were not well prepared to accept or manage change.

As these fine young officers were serving their first decade, the grads of the late 20's and 30's with wartime experience came into the senior leadership roles in the Navy. As always, its the Grandfathers and not the Fathers that dictate change in an institution. It was they who abandoned the cookie-cutter approach to the one-size-fits-all Ensign. They were the culprits that foresaw a need for a more liberally educated officer who could manage change.

It was they who started the validation of courses in the late 50's that ultimately led to the Majors program of the 60's and beyond. These programs were a genuine advancement toward fulfilling the Mission. My son's aeronautical engineering degree makes much more sense than steam engineering in one of his roles as a WTI in Harriers. I, too, question the English majors. but underneath it all, they get plenty of math, engineering, and the other B.S. stuff.

Getting back to our heroic, Commie-hating, Smiling Jack, one-size-fits-all generation of officers who had to deal with unshaven, Afro-headed, smart-assed wiseacres for crews in the mid to late 60's. Just before they get the conn and start to really have an influence on the institution, Congress puts women in the Academy and Zumwalt in as CNO. Talk about future shock! Its a wonder that any of them stayed in. Those that did, had to change their paradigm. Was this where the zero-defects, go-along-to-get-along procession started?

By the way, this lost generation that I kicked around so much was in charge of the institutions when my son went through USNA in '82-'86. I am continually astonished at the level of professionalism that he and his classmates exhibit. These kids have become fine officers; a little more mouthy perhaps, but they are usually right.

My point, ever so long in coming, is that our friend Beak is as much indoctrinated as he fears our precious Midshipmen will be, just in a different direction. Our alma mater has changed with the times over the last 60 years, but I find no real evidence that those who complete the gauntlet are materially less fit for the fleet than in years past. Its a different fleet, and different times. Beak underestimates the mental framework of the typical Mid. He wasn't there, how could he know?

I do believe that we continue to blacken our eyes by perverting the recruiting and admissions to politically correct goals and athletics. We want and need dedicated black Naval and Marine Officers; we do not need to have black quarterbacks, or centers or goalies. If they do not meet the academic, physical, and moral standards demanded of all, let them go elsewhere. We don't need to beat Notre Dame, we just need to beat Army.

I also believe that we don't lie, cheat, or steal, or cotton to those that do. There is no such thing as probational integrity.