U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

i 

51–766 2010

[H.A.S.C. No. 111–74] 

THINKERS AND PRACTITIONERS: DO SENIOR PROFESSIONAL MILITARY EDUCATION SCHOOLS PRODUCE STRATEGISTS? 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

JUNE 4, 2009 
(II) 

OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE 

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas, Chairman 

JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania 

GLENN NYE, Virginia 

CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine 

ROB WITTMAN, Virginia 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

LORRY FENNER, Professional Staff Member 

THOMAS HAWLEY, Professional Staff Member 

TREY HOWARD, Staff Assistant 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2009 

Page 

HEARING: 

Thursday, June 4, 2009, Thinkers and Practitioners: Do Senior Professional 

Military Education Schools Produce Strategists? .............................................. 1 

APPENDIX: 

Thursday, June 4, 2009 ........................................................................................... 33 

THURSDAY, JUNE 4, 2009 

THINKERS AND PRACTITIONERS: DO SENIOR PROFESSIONAL 

MILITARY EDUCATION SCHOOLS PRODUCE STRATEGISTS? 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Skelton, Hon. Ike, a Representative from Missouri, Chairman, Committee 

on Armed Services ................................................................................................ 3 

Snyder, Hon. Vic, a Representative from Arkansas, Chairman, Oversight 

and Investigations Subcommittee ....................................................................... 1 

Wittman, Hon. Rob, a Representative from Virginia, Ranking Member, Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee ............................................................. 2 

WITNESSES 

Belcher, Col. Michael F., USMC, Director, Marine Corps War College .............. 15 

Forsyth, Maj. Gen. Maurice H. ‘‘Maury,’’ USAF, Commander, Spaatz Center 

for Officer Education, and Commandant, Air War College .............................. 13 

Hall, Rear Adm. Garry E., USN, Commandant, The Industrial College of 

the Armed Forces ................................................................................................. 5 

Steel, Maj. Gen. Robert P., USAF, Commandant, The National War College ... 7 

Williams, Maj. Gen. Robert M., USA, Commandant, U.S. Army War College ... 10 

Wisecup, Rear Adm. James P., USN, President, U.S. Naval War College ......... 8 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Belcher, Col. Michael F. ................................................................................... 149 

Forsyth, Maj. Gen. Maurice H. ‘‘Maury’’ ........................................................ 140 

Hall, Rear Adm. Garry E. ................................................................................ 41 

Snyder, Hon. Vic ............................................................................................... 37 

Steel, Maj. Gen. Robert P. ............................................................................... 69 

Williams, Maj. Gen. Robert M. ........................................................................ 120 

Wisecup, Rear Adm. James P. ......................................................................... 89 
Page

IV 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

[There were no Documents submitted.] 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

[There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Dr. Snyder ......................................................................................................... 165 
(1) 

THINKERS AND PRACTITIONERS: DO SENIOR PROFESSIONAL MILITARY EDUCATION SCHOOLS PRODUCE 

STRATEGISTS? 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE, 

Washington, DC, Thursday, June 4, 2009. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in room 

2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Vic Snyder (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. VIC SNYDER, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM ARKANSAS, CHAIRMAN, OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE 

Dr. SNYDER. Good morning. We are going to go ahead and begin. 

Mr. Wittman will be joining us shortly. 

This is the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations’ second hearing on professional military education (PME); specifically 

today, officer-in-residence PME. 

On May 20th, outside witnesses discussed the 1986 GoldwaterNichols Act that reformed our military by institutionalizing what 

we call ‘‘jointness.’’ We also discussed the efforts of the 1989 Skelton Panel to review PME to ensure that jointness became part of 

the military’s culture through its officer education system. 

Today we are looking at the six senior schools in the PME enterprise: the war colleges and the Industrial College of the Armed 

Forces (ICAF). These schools are meant to focus on developing 

strategists and teaching strategy—national, military, and resource. 

In later hearings we will hear from the commandants and the 

deans of the intermediate and ‘‘career’’ schools. And we will also invite the combatant commanders to appear, those who employ the 

graduates of these institutions; they should also be involved in 

these discussions. 

Today our panel is the senior leadership of the senior PME 

schools, including their commandants, commanders, directors, or in 

some cases presidents, and they are joined by their academic 

deans. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Snyder can be found in the Appendix on page 37.] 

Dr. SNYDER. We will now hear from Mr. Wittman. 
2 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROB WITTMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM VIRGINIA, RANKING MEMBER, OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Chairman Snyder. I appreciate the opportunity. 

And good morning to our witnesses. We deeply appreciate your 

being here today and your service to our Nation. 

Our opening hearing on officer professional in-residence education featured outside experts who offered a range of thoughtful 

suggestions. While it is always useful to hear suggestions from intelligent observers unbound by current operations, we must also 

learn from those faced with the day-to-day reality of managing our 

professional military education system. 

We have such people here today, the commandants of the military service and joint senior war colleges. These institutions are 

the top of the PME system. Each of our witnesses has had a unique 

career path. Even so, the road to your positions lies predominantly 

with operational assignments rather than academic posts. 

That successful officers come from the operational part of their 

respective services is no surprise, but I wonder how each of you adjusts to the particular challenges of running an academic institution where faculty cherish the right to exercise academic freedom 

and students are encouraged to think creatively. In short, do the 

witnesses believe their careers prepared them to be nurturing educators? 

I am also interested in your suggestions on recruiting and retaining the best faculty. Do you have the tools you need to recruit and 

retain the high-quality faculty teaching the fine students the military services send as students? Can you offer an academic environment attractive to the high-caliber faculty we seek at your institutions? 

Finally, I have to ask if the military services are sending the best 

students to our military senior service colleges. The military services each have their own unique service culture, and part of that 

culture is the view of the value of professional military education. 

Is that culture reflected in the quality of students? 

The Department’s consortium of senior military professional educational institutions is a distinguished collection of academic excellence in all aspects of national security, diplomacy, and strategy. 

We provide experienced, talented military officers a year to read 

and think at taxpayers’ expense at these fine schools. Is the investment worth it to them and to the Nation? I believe it is, but would 

like to get your thoughts on the record. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Wittman. 

We are pleased to be joined again by our full committee chairman, Ike Skelton, formerly the chairman of the Skelton panel from 

the late eighties. 

And he has already broken our microphone. This happens all the 

time. Mr. Skelton, I am going to hold forth for about an hour. We 

could use this old book to prop it up with—Ike Skelton’s book. 

Go ahead, Mr. Chairman. 
3 

STATEMENT OF HON. IKE SKELTON, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM MISSOURI, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Wittman. Thank 

you very much for the opportunity to sit in on this hearing. I want 

to compliment Dr. Snyder and the Ranking Member on holding 

hearings on this subject, which, as you may know, is near and dear 

to me through the years. 

A bit of history. Back in 1982 Richard White, a member of the 

Armed Services Committee, held a series of hearings in his subcommittee—which was the predecessor of this subcommittee—on 

what David Jones, Air Force Chief of Staff and later Chairman of 

the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said publicly: that the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff gives pabulum advice, and was very critical of it. 

Needless to say he became a pariah among the military folks in 

the Pentagon; but, sadly, he was very, very right. After Richard 

White did the hearings, he retired. And Arch Barrett, who is one 

of those rare staff members that should be emblazoned in stone because he was so good at what he did here, convinced me to get involved with this same issue and introduced legislation to abolish 

the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which none of them handled very well. 

After passing legislation three times in the House over four 

years, the chairmanship in the Senate changed from John Tower 

to Barry Goldwater and Barry Goldwater to Sam Nunn—who had 

their own legislation—and we ended up in conference passing later 

the Goldwater-Nichols Act which was not well-received among most 

of the officers of all services, with few exceptions like Bernard 

Trane and a few others. 

Following that, at the behest of Arch Barrett, I chaired a panel 

on professional military education that built on Goldwater-Nichols 

and working on joint education, and we ended up with a series of 

year-long hearings where we came out with a Phase I, Phase II— 

you know, all of that—and tried to reestablish rigor. 

We found that the various war colleges varied in complexity and 

difficulty. The Marines were way behind and to Al Gray’s credit he 

turned it around 180 degrees. And the Air Force had a long way 

to go and that came around. The Army was good, B or B-plus, 

doing pretty well. The best was the Navy, by far, and you didn’t 

have to go there to get promoted but it was, for some reason, the 

premier in 1988. 

Well, fast forward to today. Have the war colleges, including National and ICAF, have they fulfilled their main purpose in life? And 

what is the main purpose? Well, Congressman Snyder mentioned 

it. It is to create strategists, strategic thinkers. Everybody that 

graduates from your school is not going to be a strategic thinker, 

but they will understand it, hopefully. But I also think that there 

should be a great deal of rigor. They should study every bit as hard 

as I did in law school. And of course being a product of a law school 

that did the case method, I think that might not be a bad idea for 

battles, campaigns, conflicts to be studied on a case-by-case basis, 

and hopefully you do at least some of that. 

But I question whether you are turning out, A, the strategists, 

and, B, whether they are being recognized and taken care of and 

put in the right slots or not. I have a deep concern about that. I 
4 

have expressed that at the highest level within the military. And 

I hope that those magic people who are great strategists can be 

guided by you to the right positions on staffs and in commands 

where they can use that strategic thinking rather than being 

shunted aside in chagrin and caused to be discouraged. I have seen 

instances of this, and needless to say it bothers me a great deal. 

We are and have been blessed throughout the years with outstanding thinkers, but we have more, and they are not being utilized as they should be. I think that is up to you to identify those 

rare breeds and to make sure that their follow-on assignments 

allow them to be encouraged and to make contributions to best of 

their abilities. 

This is a serious time. These are very serious times, and a year 

off with your family at school is not going to do it. Of course, it is 

wonderful to have a family at school and to participate in the activities, but you are trying to turn out and you should turn out— 

and then later make sure that they get the right slots within the 

military, whether they be joint or within the service that that they 

serve. I cannot stress that any stronger than I am now. 

So thank you for your hard work, for your intellectual abilities, 

and for your leadership. And, again, let me compliment you, Dr. 

Snyder, Mr. Wittman, for this series of hearings. It is timely and 

in dire need for our country. Thank you. 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your very thoughtful 

comments and all your work through literally the decades now on 

these very important subjects to our Nation. 

Our witnesses today are Rear Admiral Garry Hall, United States 

Navy, Commandant, the Industrial College of the Armed Forces; 

Major General Robert Steel, United States Air Force, Commandant, the National War College; Rear Admiral James Wisecup, 

United States Navy, President of the Naval War College; Major 

General Robert M. Williams, United States Army, Commandant, 

the Army War College; Major General Maury Forsyth, United 

States Air Force, Commander of the Spaatz Center and Commandant of the Air War College; Colonel Michael Belcher, United 

States Marine Corps, Director of the Marine Corps War College. 

We will put the timer on you, gentlemen. Your written statements will be made part of the record. When you see the red light 

go on, we are not going to shoot you. You should feel free to continue your statement if you need to. The challenge that we have 

with six of you is we decided we wanted to have all of you together 

here. We thought that would be good for all of us. If you all go 10 

minutes instead of 5 minutes, it will be an hour before we get to 

any questions. So we hope that you will stay within the five minutes. 

Admiral, we will begin with you and we will go right down the 

line. Thank you all for being here, and as I said, your statements 

will be part of the record that the staff already have, as do the 

members. 
5 

STATEMENT OF REAR ADM. GARRY E. HALL, USN, COMMANDANT, THE INDUSTRIAL COLLEGE OF THE ARMED 

FORCES 

Admiral HALL. Good morning, Chairman Skelton, Mr. Chairman, 

Dr. Snyder, Mr. Wittman, and Dr. Fenner. Thank you very much 

for the opportunity to be here today, and based on your opening 

statements, I know that you really get it in what we are trying to 

accomplish at our schools. 

I have been the commandant at the Industrial College of the 

Armed Forces for 18 months now, and I have observed 2 classes, 

so that is 640 students or fellows, and worked with just under 100 

faculty members. And I am extremely proud of the institution. My 

written statement, as you said, is part of the record so I have three 

takeaways from that statement that I would like to make. 

And the first one is, the point is that ICAF is unique. We are 

the only senior service school that teaches economics, and this 

translates into an appreciation of resource constraints. Our students learn to develop a national strategy while considering the reality of resources. And this was recently highlighted at our joint 

land-air-sea simulation held annually at the Air War College, 

where the ICAF students were recognized for their bringing all elements of power to bear: diplomatic, informational, military, and 

economic. So they really bring the soft powers and understand the 

resources. 

Point two I want to make is, Chairman Skelton, you spoke to 

Navy flags well before I was appointed to ICAF, and I remember 

clearly your statement as saying you want your students to work 

as hard as you did in law school, and that resonated with me, as 

well as your story about the shoe shine. What is the difference between a $3 shine and a $5 shine? It’s attitude. So I express both 

of those comments to each class as they enter ICAF. 

So the second point is ICAF is a challenging and rigorous academic program. It is not your old generals’ ICAF. Many senior officers say when folks are sent to ICAF, it is only a lot of reading, 

if you do it; it is a great time to work on your handicap. Students 

show up and find out it is a lot of reading and you are going to 

do it, and there is no time to work on your handicap. So this is not 

the old-school ICAF. Our students are graded rigorously based on 

class contribution; not participation, but their contribution to class. 

They are also graded on in-depth research papers for every one of 

their courses they take, and faculty members evaluate all students 

through every exercise. This gives us the ability to hand out an 

honor graduate award and also to recognize about 12 percent of our 

graduates as distinguished graduates based on their grade point 

average (GPA) and leadership contributions. 

Anecdotally, the Department of Homeland Security’s education 

officer came in, looked at our curriculum, saw how it was being 

presented, and she said it was equal to her Ph.D. program that she 

is completing right now. Also, a Stanford University professor, after 

examining our curriculum, said we are perhaps the finest senior 

executive development course in the Nation, minus the finance. We 

teach economics but we don’t teach finance. 

Also, during our industry studies in the field trips where I have 

participated, I have watched senior executives, after being inter-
6 

viewed or having discussions with our ICAF students, say, boy, 

these guys know more about us than we know about us, and our 

folks ask tough questions in a very polite manner. So there is rigor 

at ICAF. 

Point number three is, we are still true to our charter. As Bernard Baruch said, he wanted a small school in touch with industry. 

We are still true to being in touch with industry but we are not 

averse to change or growth. We are constantly evolving. ICAF provides a relevant education for today’s strategic environment. 

And, Chairman Skelton, you always ask or often ask: Can a 

graduate have a conversation with General Marshall? Well, I feel 

after observing 640 students, as you said, not all of them are going 

to be that unique strategic leader, but I think over 90 percent of 

my graduates not only can have a conversation with General Marshall but could understand that conversation. They could politely 

challenge him, and they could continue to help him to develop his 

strategic thought. And then in the end, they could capture that 

thought, put it in clear concise writing, and be able to communicate 

it to others, something I think is very important to our commanders. 

Again, an example of could they have that conversation? For the 

past 15 years we have had the national security strategy exercise 

where our students look forward 10 years and create a national 

strategy. They then, at the conclusion of 2 weeks of this exercise, 

brief out to 60 distinguished visitors (DV) at the three- and fourstar rank in uniform, in industry, and in government. And again 

and again, the DV participants say, can we please come back, these 

folks are really great. So I do think we are producing strategic 

leaders. 

So in summary, I am proud to be the commandant. I am energized by the students. I am inspired by the faculty, and I am a 

strong believer that one person can make a difference. So next 

week, one week from today, we will graduate 320 individuals, who 

will immediately go out with the sophistication needed to operate 

at the strategic level and soon be the strategic leader themselves. 

An example would be in uniform, General Ann Dunwoody, who 

is now the first female four-star in the United States Army; in government, Dr. Kaminski, who has been a thought leader for government for decades; in business/industry, Chet Huber is now the 

CEO of OnStar; and one of our international Fellows, Ambassador 

Yousef Al Otaiba, is now United Arab Emirates Ambassador to the 

United States. 

Mr. Snyder, you asked about our preparation for our commandants. And I would say President Obama used the quote that 

‘‘The life of law is not logic but experience.’’ And I translate that 

it is the experience that is important to being a commandant or 

president of one of these colleges. So it is my experience operationally that I think makes a difference, gives a new set of eyes, and 

it is very easy to operate in an environment of academic freedom, 

because that comes down to moral courage and moral leadership in 

doing what is right. And so I feel that I am prepared to be the commandant and I am proud to be the commandant, and I will be 

happy to answer any of your questions. 
7 

And also, Chairman Skelton, I do get involved when I see those 

unique people with the right energy and intellect to follow on, to 

make sure they are placed in the right environment, or talk to 

their service. And also, my biggest concern is more with the government employees who often go back to their original jobs. So I 

talk to all leaders that come through about placement in the next 

job. 

I will be happy to take any further questions. Thank you very 

much. 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral Hall can be found in the Appendix on page 41.] 

Dr. SNYDER. General Steel. 

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. ROBERT P. STEEL, USAF, 

COMMANDANT, THE NATIONAL WAR COLLEGE 

General STEEL. Chairman Skelton, Chairman Snyder, Congressman Wittman, and members of the subcommittee, I want to thank 

you for the opportunity to address the education of the men and 

women protecting and representing our country. 

In my written testimony I addressed my vision for the National 

War College, the quality of its faculty, the composition of its student body, and the rigor of its curriculum. 

I would like to note a few key points from it. It is an honor and 

a privilege to serve as commandant of the National War College. 

The National War College prepares future generations of America’s 

top military and civilian leaders through a course of study that enhances student knowledge of the national security issues, sharpens 

their analytical abilities, and focuses specifically on the successful 

formulation and execution of grand strategy. We also stress the 

habits, breadth, and depth of mind needed by senior policymakers 

and military commanders. Above all, we encourage students to 

hone their critical thinking skills. 

In my opening remarks I would like to emphasize three points. 

First, it is important to recognize and preserve the unique mission 

of each war college. Second, National War College’s focus on grand 

strategy is critical to producing leaders who can deal with the national security challenges of today and tomorrow. Third, the leadership and organization of our senior service colleges are not broken 

as some would suggest. 

Ensuring Joint PME II (JPME II) at all the war colleges is important, but it should not detract from the specialized excellence 

that each provides. When Chairman Skelton stressed the criticality 

of jointness in JPME years ago, he was careful to ensure that people did not interpret that as one national uniformed service. He 

recognized that jointness functioned best when it synthesized the 

best each service brought to the table. 

While we look for ways to improve JPME, I ask that you preserve the specific mission that each war college was chartered to 

accomplish. For the National War College, it is the national security strategy mission that must be preserved. Each of the three 

critical components of the college—faculty, student body, and curriculum—has unique joint, combined, interagency composition. 

There is no particular service or agency lens through which prob-
8 

lems are viewed. Equally important, our Washington, D.C., location 

means we can attract top non-Department of Defense (DOD) U.S. 

Government students and faculty. It also means that our students 

have tremendous access to the highest echelons of our three 

branches of government, our most renowned think tanks, and the 

entire Washington diplomatic corps. With the exception of our sister college, ICAF, I am aware of no other institution, government 

or private, that has these critical assets. 

Finally, I challenge those that suggest the leadership and organization in our senior service colleges are broken. Leading the college 

requires the same senior leadership skills required for any large 

and complex institution: a dedication to mission, an ability to integrate the very best that JPME and the civilian academic world can 

offer our students, and a vision to anticipate the challenges of tomorrow. 

A commandant must remember that these are hybrid organizations, a mix of military, civilian government, and academic environments whose strength flows from their diversity. I would be concerned by any line of thinking that fails to take into account our 

unique strengths. As an institution, it combines the best of the civilian academic world with senior government and military expertise. We bring together the next generation of our country’s military and civilian leaders, along with their international peers, for 

a program of study that has the unique capacity of allowing them 

to interact intensively with one another over a 10-month period 

and come to grips with the key issues that they will confront as 

they rise to positions of greater responsibility. 

This unique experience is the central added value that PME institutions like the National War College bring to the education of 

our future leaders. It is not replicated in private sector universities. 

The critical essential element in achieving our unique mission is 

professional diversity. Diversity in our leadership, in our faculty, in 

our student body, and in our curriculum. 

While our academic professionals help guide curriculum development, understand theory, maintain academic rigor, our professional 

practitioners bring a sense of operational reality that can be applied to the theories we teach. Leading these institutions requires 

a careful blending, a balance of these two forms of education where 

we will find the success that Chairman Skelton, you and your subcommittee, Chairman Snyder, and we who lead the schools all 

seek. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for this opportunity to testify on 

a vital national security issue, the education of our future national 

security leaders. 

[The prepared statement of General Steel can be found in the 

Appendix on page 69.] 

Dr. SNYDER. Admiral Wisecup. 

STATEMENT OF REAR ADM. JAMES P. WISECUP, USN, 

PRESIDENT, U.S. NAVAL WAR COLLEGE 

Admiral WISECUP. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Snyder, Mr. Wittman, and gentlemen and ladies of the Oversight and 

Investigations Committee. I thank you for the opportunity to speak 

with you today about professional military education in our Navy, 
9 

especially our senior level course, and the work of the team at the 

Naval War College in providing career-long educational opportunities related to the mission of the Navy in serving the people of this 

Nation. 

The United States Naval War College will celebrate its 125th anniversary in October. From its humble beginnings in the structure 

in which had been the Newport poorhouse, the college has built an 

international reputation for professional military education with 

alumni in nearly every corner of the globe. Our founder, Rear Admiral Stephen B. Luce, set a true course for educational success by 

choosing an approach based on focus and holistic study of war, its 

prevention, and the statesmanship involved with both. He envisioned active learning by students and faculty on seminal strategic 

issues in a collegial environment. One hundred and twenty-five 

years later, those traditions remain at the center of the college’s 

approach to education. 

We carefully apply a very wide aperture of perspectives, disciplines, and cultures to the study of war and its prevention. We 

continue to seek to prepare our senior level students for the challenges and responsibilities of higher command and staff in an uncertain, ambiguous, and often surprising world. We aim to help 

prepare them for strategic level leadership, not simply their next 

duty station. We do that principally by inculcating in them disciplined habits of thought through a strategic-level lens and by 

helping them hone their ability to critically think and write about 

the associated complex issues. 

We are confident our approach, which highlights an executive 

perspective in a seminar-centered environment requiring an appreciation of alternative viewpoints and the synthesis of complex ideas 

using multidisciplinary tools, is precisely on target. We expect application of principles to case studies of real events and issues and 

require our students to provide written analysis of complex, openended issues. Grading clearly sustains the academic rigor. Through 

such endeavors we believe we can well judge if our students are 

achieving the required educational outcomes. 

The College of Naval Warfare is a 10-month senior level PME 

program with JPME Phase II designed to produce broadly educated 

leaders who possess a strategic perspective underpinned by key analytical frameworks. Graduates will be able to apply disciplined 

strategic-minded critical thinking to challenges in the multiservice, 

multiagency, and multinational environments. 

About 20 percent of our student body is made up of international 

officers hand-picked by their services. Students study three 13- 

week courses in our core academic program. The strategy and policy course focuses on educating students to think strategically; to 

develop a disciplined critical approach to strategic analysis; to understand the fundamentals of military strategy, national policy, 

and the interrelationships between them; to appreciate the political 

uses of military power; and to become familiar with the roles of 

both military and political leaders in policy formulation, military 

planning, and the conduct of war and peace. 

The national security decision-making course aims to prepare our 

officer and government students to successfully lead change in 
10 

large complex organizations poised to meet national security challenges in an uncertain international security environment. 

The joint military operations course refines military officers’ critical and creative thinking skills under the umbrella of military 

problem-solving, especially the ability to evaluate a range of potential solutions to ill-structured problems and to function in volatile, 

uncertain, complex, and ambiguous environments. 

These courses, along with three elective courses complemented 

by two conferences and a speaker’s program, form this framework 

for examination of national security and strategic studies. 

Over the last two decades, our educational approach and methodology has stayed on course. However, much else has changed. 

First, we have implemented the recommendation by the Panel on 

Military Education of the 100th Congress. Today we have distinct 

curricula for our senior- and intermediate-level courses. They are 

discrete courses with differing focuses and outcomes. Since we have 

a single faculty to teach both levels, I am confident the distinction 

will remain and that these courses will complement each other 

very well over the longer term. As our recent JPME certification 

showed, though this places a greater workload on our distinguished 

faculty, they have told me personally that they are very proud of 

the end result. Our culture is one of constant reassessment. 

Second, our educational outreach has expanded along with our 

mission as a result of decisions made by my direct senior, the Chief 

of Naval Operations. And I can tell you Admiral Roughead is foursquare behind us. The College is now responsible for all professional military education in the Navy. As a result, the number of 

students we touch has grown from 1,500 in 1989 to over 27,000 

today, and the in-residence program from 300 to almost 600. 

In my short time as president, seven months on Saturday, I have 

found the War College to be a professional graduate institution of 

the highest quality, with faculty and staff members who are satisfied they are doing meaningful work that makes a difference. 

The students are highly motivated professionals, many right off 

the frontlines overseas, and we invite them in as we learn together 

about this serious business of war. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to take any questions. 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, Admiral. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral Wisecup can be found in the 

Appendix on page 89.] 

Dr. SNYDER. General Williams. 

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. ROBERT M. WILLIAMS, USA, 

COMMANDANT, U.S. ARMY WAR COLLEGE 

General WILLIAMS. Chairman Skelton, Chairman Snyder, and 

distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Major General 

Bob Williams and I am the commandant of the United States Army 

War College at Carlisle Barracks. 

I am a soldier who has had the good fortune of being associated 

with education and training of cadets and soldiers for more than 

34 years. I have served as an instructor and assistant professor at 

West Point and as commander of two of the Army’s premier Combat Training Centers as well as the Armor School and Center. Ad-
11 

ditionally I have had the great privilege of serving in the operational Army both in peacetime and in war. I feel well prepared for 

duties associated as commandant, and it is an honor to be here 

today to discuss the professional development of our Nation’s strategic leaders at the war colleges. 

As has already been said, the mission of the war college is to 

shape and develop the senior leaders our Nation will require. The 

Army War College’s unique contribution is to prepare our students 

to deal effectively with complex unstructured problems in strategic 

security environments and render sound military advice when the 

application of land power is part of a policy option. We do this recognizing fully that military activities are often only a part of the 

solution to complex problems. As we review the ever-changing security landscape, particularly since 9/11, I believe that we will best— 

and we do—best serve the country through these men and women 

that we educate by achieving appropriate balance with faculty, the 

student body, and the curriculum. 

I would like to speak briefly to these three areas that I believe 

are the key to assuring the rigor and responsiveness of professional 

military education at the senior service level. 

To begin with, faculty. It is the center of gravity for the Army 

War College, and I am pleased to report that our faculty meets the 

standards set by law and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 

officer professional military education policy. Our faculty achieves, 

I believe, a powerful synergy between the melding of two cultures. 

First, our military officers have 22 to 30 years of professional expertise and a lifelong experience of training and mentoring. 

Second, our academic professors with their academic credentials, 

their research expertise, and their ability to publish. I firmly believe students’ success is directly related to the assignment of quality experienced officers representing the joint U.S. Forces in recruitment of high-quality academic professionals. 

We recognize the value of assuring stability in key faculty positions and have instituted the Professor of the United States Army 

College Program to create, for lack of a better word, hybrid professionals; that is to say, military officers selected to pursue appropriate doctoral degrees and return to the Army War College faculty. 

Even as we seek continuity, we are willing to give up faculty to 

support ongoing operations for periods of six months to a year. 

Those faculty members return with valuable experience that enhances our curriculum and helps us stay current with the challenge our operational force is facing in the field. 

Balance is equally important within the student body if we are 

to meet the expectations for future strategic leaders. The war college experience works best, as we have all found, with a cross-section of those military officers who will lead our Nation’s future operations. We know that a joint student body representing all the 

services is important; and, equally important is a mix of the 

branches that make up the core of the Army’s ability to execute its 

missions across the spectrum of conflict. We also blend civilians 

from National Security Agency (NSA), Central Intelligence Agency 

(CIA) and other branches of government and international officers 

into this student mix. 
12 

A 21st century reality is that we are never going to fight alone, 

and so we have embarked on a program, at the direction of the 

Chief of Staff of the Army, to increase the number of international 

Fellows in the student body. We will increase that number by 25 

percent this next year. He has asked me to look at increasing it 

100 percent over the course of 4 years. This is not only important 

for U.S. officers to understand how to fight together; it is important 

to prepare them for effective coalition operations. And therefore we 

need the diverse perspectives that come from international Fellows. 

We sponsor the same intellectual dialogue and challenges in the 

seminar that they will see in the future battlespace with each 

other. 

Students ought to be exposed and challenged about nations’ 

points of views. Our national investment in these international students pays large dividends as former students, as we all know, are 

often promoted to the highest ranks of their militaries and civilian 

governments. 

For similar reasons we believe we should be stronger, with a 

greater interagency representation in the student body. It is our 

business to prepare students to understand how military power 

works in concert with other national elements of power. Our seminars duplicate interagency dialogue and explore the distinct cultures, skills, and attributes of other agencies. Our students learn 

perspectives of diplomacy, economics, and information elements of 

power. 

I understand that other U.S. Government agencies do not have 

the depth of personnel currently to allow them to divert many for 

graduate-level education. That makes it tougher to recruit interagency students and that makes it all the more important to incorporate interagency representatives into professional military education. It is a smart investment in our Nation’s ability to apply 

what is commonly referred to as ‘‘whole-of-government strategies.’’ 

My final comments are about achieving balance in the Army War 

College curriculum. In the face of accumulated demands to add to 

the curriculum, we sometimes risk diluting our focus on education 

and slipping into training missions. I will admit that to you here. 

Therefore, our curriculum reviews are marked by a continuous debate over breadth versus depth, and hard decisions about the time 

devoted to each subject, contact time with faculty, time to read and 

reflect have to be made. 

I feel the mechanisms are in place for me as the commandant to 

push back on those things, but it does require hard costs. Since the 

last study conducted by this committee, the Army War College has 

transitioned its program of instruction to incorporate its study of 

strategy as the central aspect of the curriculum. Army War College 

students study classic theorists, but they also study new strategies 

as well. The Army War College must be adaptive to the needs of 

the current and future fight, and we solicit feedback from the combatant commanders and service chiefs as we assess and shape the 

curriculum on an annual basis. 

We seek to achieve balance between case studies and military 

history, emerging doctrine such as the irregular warfare doctrine in 

the counterinsurgency (COIN) manual as an example, while pro-
13 

viding a broad and strategic level look at the leadership, ethics, 

and cultural intersection with national strategy. 

In closing, I can tell you that today’s Army War College is much 

different than the one of the late 1980s. It is a dynamic institution 

that plays a significant role in preparing selected leaders with the 

responsibilities of strategic leadership. 

Reforms of the last 20 years, and particularly the advent of 

JPME II, set high standards and expectations for assessment and 

adaptation. Because the Nation needs agile and resourceful as well 

as creative strategic leaders, our senior service colleges must themselves be agile, resourceful, and creative. We all know that education is an adaptive process, one which will require continuous assessment and adjustment to ensure we are still getting it right. I 

am confident that we are on that path. 

Chairman Snyder, I know that I have requested my written 

statement be provided. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss 

this fundamental issue with this subcommittee and I look forward 

to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of General Williams can be found in the 

Appendix on page 120.] 

Dr. SNYDER. General Forsyth. 

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. MAURICE H. ‘‘MAURY’’ FORSYTH, 

USAF, COMMANDER, SPAATZ CENTER FOR OFFICER EDUCATION, AND COMMANDANT, AIR WAR COLLEGE 

General FORSYTH. Chairman Skelton, Chairman Snyder, Ranking Member Wittman, members of the subcommittee, thank you for 

the opportunity to appear and testify about the Air War College. 

This morning I would like to try to capture the essence of our 

vision for the Air War College in a senior professional military education version of the three Rs: relevance, relationship, and renewal. 

First, relevance. I admit right up front I have spent my career 

as a pilot, joint staff officer, and commander, not an academic. As 

such, however, I believe I can identify closely with both the needs 

of the students and the needs of the general officers and senior civilians who employ our graduates. 

Like my other colleagues here today, I have witnessed firsthand 

some of the tasks, dilemmas, and strategic choices that our graduates will face. If our program is to remain relevant, the Air War 

College education must clearly prepare our graduates to meet the 

needs of joint, interagency, and multinational operations, and not 

only in today’s fight but also tomorrow’s, as unpredictable as that 

may be. Our curriculum must properly balance the presentation of 

theory with practical knowledge gained through the study of history, personal experience, and the experience of others to produce 

strategic thinkers and leaders. 

Likewise, relevance demands a balanced faculty consisting of 

both distinguished academics and experienced warfighters to inspire and educate our students, many of whom are coming to school 

right off of today’s battlefields. 

Finally, relevance requires that as a complement to our accredited joint curriculum, each school devotes some part of the educational experience to service competency; in our case, at the Air 

War College, the competency of the air component. 
14 

While highly qualified faculty and challenging curriculum shapes 

the relevance of our program, the students hold the key to building 

all-important relationships. The Air War College experience thrives 

on building relationships in and out of the classroom between faculty and students and, most importantly, on building relationships 

among the students who come from different backgrounds, different 

services, different agencies, and different nations. 

In addition to academic growth, the relationships forged during 

the shared common experience of war college can and do have lasting impacts as graduates deal with complex issues throughout the 

remainder of their careers. Oftentimes, that impact is manifested 

in a phone call seeking a different perspective on a challenging 

issue. Other times it is the chance encounter with a trusted fellow 

graduate in the hallway prior to a critical meeting, or, even more 

significantly, at a deployed location. 

Perhaps the most important of these relationships are those 

forged with the international officers from 45 different countries 

who make up almost 20 percent of the integrated student body. 

While some aspects of the Air War College for U.S. students may 

be duplicated in other graduate school settings, this one cannot: the 

chance to meet, interact, and build a lasting relationship with officers selected by their countries to spend time in this formative year 

of senior professional military education in the United States. 

Many of these international Fellows go on to hold the most senior 

positions in their nation’s military and government. 

Cultivating these relationships has never been more important in 

today’s interconnected and interdependent security environment. 

The importance of relationships is difficult to quantify but hard to 

deny. 

Similarly difficult to quantify but just as important is the opportunity for renewal. The Air War College experience must build energy, strength, and enthusiasm for the difficult tasks that lie ahead 

for graduates and their families. Renewal comes from a student 

discovering that other students have overcome similar difficult 

leadership dilemmas in their careers. Renewal comes from intense 

discussion and debate on the role of leadership, command, integrity, and ethics. Renewal comes from the students gaining confidence in their ability to craft strategy in the joint, multinational, 

and interagency environment at the strategic level. Renewal comes 

from executing a demanding academic schedule built on a scaffold 

of stability and predictability that allows students time to reflect, 

synthesize, and discuss the material they study, as well as time to 

reconnect with their vital support network. And, finally, renewal 

comes from developing a clear understanding of the importance of 

the contributions of graduates and senior leaders to the success of 

their units and their Nation. 

I thank you again for the opportunity to testify and the chance 

to outline the important contributions of relevance, relationships, 

and renewal, the Air War College’s success and the success of our 

graduates. I look forward to your questions. Thank you. 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of General Forsyth can be found in the 

Appendix on page 140.] 

Dr. SNYDER. Colonel Belcher. 
15 

STATEMENT OF COL. MICHAEL F. BELCHER, USMC, DIRECTOR, 

MARINE CORPS WAR COLLEGE 

Colonel BELCHER. Good morning, Chairman Snyder, Ranking 

Member Wittman, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. I appreciate this opportunity to address the subcommittee today and discuss the educational achievements of your 

Marine Corps War College. 

Inspired and supported by the House Armed Services Committee 

and its Chairman, the 29th Commandant of the Marine Corps, 

General Alfred M. Gray ignited a renaissance in Marine Corps professional military education in the 1980s that still burns today. 

In August of 1990 he directed the convening of an elite group of 

six lieutenant colonels to conduct an intensive one-year study of 

the art of war and the profession of arms. Entitled ‘‘The Art of War 

Studies Program,’’ it was a precursor of today’s Marine Corps War 

College. 

Since then the college has grown in size and scope, yet remains 

true to its original charter. Now as then, the college remains committed to preparing the Nation’s next generation of strategic leaders to confront the challenges of an increasingly complex, volatile, 

and globalized world. To do so, it employs a rigorous multidimensional curriculum, presented by first-rate faculty to a small elite 

group of high-caliber, highly competitive senior military officers 

and government officials. Focused on the strategic level of war, the 

curriculum examines both traditional and irregular modes of warfare, the instruments of national power, as well as the application 

of soft and hard power. It employs historical analysis to derive enduring lessons from history and apply them to the critical issues 

existing in today’s operational environment as well as those emerging on the strategic horizon. 

The curriculum also reflects the culture of the service in which 

it is borne, specifically a lean, agile, adaptable expeditionary 

mindset that spans air, land, sea, space, and cyberspace spectra. 

It also reflects the words of General James T. Conway, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, or, more accurately, his commitment 

that ‘‘We believe the human dimension of war is the most critical 

element, and that boldness, creativity, intelligence, and warrior 

spirit are prime attributes.’’ 

To foster the development of critical and creative thought, the 

college employs active, adult-learning methodology to include highly personalized in-classroom instruction; local, domestic, and international field studies; practical application exercises; self-selected 

scholarly research; and professional time for reading and reflection. 

To remain current and cogent, the curriculum undergoes a vigorous, continuous, and multi-level review and validation process. 

The curriculum is taught by seasoned faculty comprised of military, government, and civilian professors; some operators, some 

academics, but all professionals in their fields of endeavor. The instruction is enhanced by an expansive adjunct faculty of functional 

experts, regional experts, and interagency experts as well as visiting guest speakers. 

Due to the college’s proximity to the National Capital Region and 

our small size, the students are afforded unmatched access to senior military, interagency, industry, and academic leaders whom 
16 

they meet with on a one-to-one personal basis, which promotes 

open, intimate, and informal discourse. Our guest speakers rival 

those of the most prestigious civilian universities. Who others hope 

to have at a commencement, we have in the classroom on a routine 

basis. 

Lastly, the educational experience is enhanced by the quality and 

diversity of the college’s student population itself. While small, the 

student body consists of top performers, hand-selected by their respective service or agency for their exceptional operational and academic performance as well as their future potential for service. The 

student body includes representatives from all four services, both 

active and Reserve components; the United States Coast Guard; 

several government agencies; and multiple ethnic groups; as well 

as a myriad of occupational specialties. Thanks to this mixture, the 

students learn joint and interagency operations not just through instruction but also through personal observation and daily interaction. 

Our vision for the war college is to retain the academic advantages inherent in being a small, elite college—specifically, the academic access, agility, and excellence we currently enjoy—while progressively growing into a more robust educational institution. To 

achieve this vision we have commenced a program to expand the 

size and diversity of our student population; to expand the size, capability, and diversity of our faculty; and, most importantly, to expand our academic outreach efforts. While the college’s educational 

experience cannot be replicated by any civilian university, we believe that it can be enhanced through increased interaction with 

leading-edge civilian institutions as well as collaboration with the 

other military educational institutions here today. 

Mr. Chairman, our graduates will face a world dramatically different from that of their predecessors. Consequently, the Marine 

Corps War College is dedicated to intellectually arming them for 

the challenges ahead, to mentally reset the force for the fights yet 

to come. I am convinced that we are achieving this objective, and 

with the continued advocacy and support of this subcommittee we 

will do so far into the future. 

Thank you for this opportunity to address the panel and I look 

forward to your questions. Thank you. 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, Colonel Belcher. 

[The prepared statement of Colonel Belcher can be found in the 

Appendix on page 149.] 

Dr. SNYDER. I know Admiral Hall probably recognized that he is 

sitting at the beginning of six people, that every question will come 

to him first. But we are not going to do that. We will move it 

around so you can all have the experience of saying ‘‘I am so glad 

I wasn’t the first one asked.’’ 

Admiral Wisecup, we are going to start with you this time, and 

we will loop around. I want to ask the following question. This 

morning President Obama, about seven o’clock eastern time, 

gave—I did not see the whole speech, I saw excerpts of it—he gave 

what seemed to be a very well-received speech, certainly a much 

anticipated speech, calling for a new beginning in terms of the relationship between our Nation and the world of Islam. How will that 
17 

speech impact what occurs on your campuses and classes this 

week? 

Admiral Wisecup. 

Admiral WISECUP. Sir, thanks for that question. I watched part 

of that this morning, and I will tell you, knowing the faculty like 

I do, this will all fold into our constant reassessment. We have faculty members who are very well connected. They are always out 

and about. 

A faculty member, for example, who teaches in strategy and policy is also our area specialist in the Indian Ocean, Pakistan, India. 

He will, one, know about this speech; two, he will have the text; 

three, probably knows people connected with it. And then when the 

faculty does their curriculum review, which, in fact, they are in the 

process of now for the next academic year, those kinds of ideas will 

factor into how they retorque the curriculum. 

So imagine, if you can, the network of people from our very distinguished faculty who are doing this same thing and then they all 

bring these in to talk. They do what they call bootstrap sessions 

as they review the curriculum for the next trimester’s teaching, 

week by week, class by class. And so these faculty members will 

sit in a room, for example, and have oftentimes a heated debate 

over what is going to go into this curriculum. That is when this 

kind of information, this kind of context, can be provided and 

factored right into the development of the curriculum, right up to 

just a few weeks before they actually go in front of the students 

on the podium, which really keeps things current. 

Dr. SNYDER. General Steel. 

General STEEL. Sir, I would echo what Admiral Wisecup said. 

What I would add to it is, even while his speech was ongoing, the 

blogging network was already alive with our network of graduates 

throughout the region there, already communicating with faculty 

here at the war college with what they were perceiving the receipt 

of this speech was. I anticipate that network to be alive and well 

here throughout this week, the discussions to be had. We will roll 

all transcripts, other discussions that the think tanks come out 

with, into our faculty—our curriculum review here during the summer. And when we get to this particular phase in our curriculum 

with next year’s class, I am sure there will be even new information to roll into our classrooms here as much progress is made in 

the months ahead from his speech here. 

Dr. SNYDER. Admiral. 

Admiral WISECUP. Yes, sir, I think this is a perfect time of the 

year for this to take place. 

Dr. SNYDER. Let me interrupt you. Several of you have a graduation coming up, don’t you, so you are not in a full classroom mode 

now. 

Admiral HALL. Right. But I know it will still have an impact, and 

it comes, as I said, at the right time of the year. We have 20 international fellows right now at ICAF, and I just counted them, I 

think about 50 percent of them are from the Middle East or Muslim countries, and also an Israeli student. 

Now, at the beginning of the year, they might be hesitant. But 

now, as we said, academic freedom and the policy of non-attribution, as we go through the year, not only is their mind expanded, 
18 

but they become comfortable in the environment and they realize, 

the international fellows, they do have the freedom to speak openly 

about their opinions, and U.S. students have learned to accept 

these. It is a very fascinating process to see this awakening happen. 

So they have fertile minds to process this. Today is a picnic for 

the international fellows, which I will attend, and I will ask them 

what they thought of the comments. 

But each seminar has one international fellow. They will be 

questioned, what do you think about this, and there will be academic discussions in both directions without any fear of attribution. 

I think it is a perfect time, and their minds are open. 

I have observed from two classes, it is about this time of year we 

want to get rid of our students because we have opened their 

minds so much they are a real pain in the fact they challenge every 

assumption and openly discuss issues. So I think it is a perfect 

time and it will be well received. 

Dr. SNYDER. Colonel Belcher. 

Colonel BELCHER. The impact back at the college campus would 

be, one, the professors beaming with pride that what they taught 

throughout the year is now coming to fruition, that the history and 

the background that they gave regarding Islamic culture, regarding 

previous campaigns, the regional studies that we did, as well as the 

international travel to Asia-Pacific region, specifically India, have 

proven true. So they are silently blushing. 

The students are silently in awe that wow, they got it right and 

prepared us for what is coming up and prepared us to address 

these issues. 

From that, there will be continued discourse and debate regarding what that means in the future, how that is applied, what the 

policy implications are, and, more importantly, what are the military ramifications that they need to be ready to implement when 

they go to their next job at a service or combatant command headquarters. 

For the curriculum, we will continue to enhance that and look at 

that as we do our curriculum reviews, as discussed previously, and 

also it leads into the perfect segue that next year as we introduce 

our first international fellow, we have three coming on board, one 

from France, one from Canada, and most importantly a, a brigadier 

general from Pakistan, it will allow us to continue that discourse 

and debate the following academic year. 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you. 

General Forsyth. 

General FORSYTH. Mr. Chairman, sadly, on two accounts, I didn’t 

hear the speech, number one, but number two, at the Air War College they did graduate last Thursday, and so we have no students 

there. 

But that said, I think this is part and parcel to, quite frankly, 

one of the best class case studies, if you will, this whole entire year, 

the whole changing of the government, and thereby the changing 

of the strategy, the national security strategy that will roll down 

to the national military strategy and how that all takes place has 

been an incredible academic classroom in and of itself, and this is 

but one other piece of that that, as everyone has said, will be rolled 
19 

into next year, and, quite frankly, not just this speech, but the way 

we have gotten to where we are from the Bush Administration to 

the way we are in the Obama Administration throughout the entire 

year has been just an incredible academic groundwork, if you will. 

Dr. SNYDER. General Williams. 

General WILLIAMS. Sir, I did have the opportunity to watch it 

this morning. I think the President, I believe the President, had a 

number of major themes, obviously. But two of them I took note of 

was one of diplomacy and a willingness to listen, and also assist 

was one thing. But clearly also he reconfirmed that he will, this 

Administration will, protect the American public. 

I believe for us it will perhaps push our desire, as we have had 

for some time now, in the education of our strategic leaders, to 

focus on an emphasis of all elements of national power, including 

diplomacy, economics, information, as well as the part that we are 

experts in, the military component. 

But it clearly signals for us, I think, an emerging national security strategy that, of course, our academics, as we end our course 

on Saturday, we will take aboard and adjust our curriculum as appropriate. 

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Wittman. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Gentleman, I think as a follow-up from that, I want to ask, in 

context of what we see today, which is a very, very dynamic period 

of time in our history, both nationally and internationally, with 

things changing constantly, how do you see your challenge of making sure that your schools can change in relationship to those external changes, but also remain true to making sure those fundamental subject matters are being taught and instilled in the graduates from your institutions? And also, how do you take the lessons 

learned under current operations and incorporate them within that 

whole context of making sure your graduates come out with that 

rounded strategic knowledge to be the leaders our Nation needs to 

go into the future? 

I will start with General Steel. 

General STEEL. Sir, you are right to highlight the challenge of 

the school in protecting some of the core elements in our educational requirements. For example, at the National War College, 

we try to stay at the strategic level. 

I have got only 10 months to work with. We have got a lot of 

ground to cover. Our students, when they first show up, have all 

been operating at the operational level. Their minds are rather 

fixed and it takes several months to kind of unlock that and make 

progress. We constantly get challenged with themes that commanders in the field would like to see in graduates so that they are 

ready to go as soon as they get into their new job. Most of these 

requests are at the tactical and operational level. 

So I work with my faculty regularly to resolve how to best approach the requests of the combatant commanders, senior leadership, other agencies, that this particular new dynamic environment 

be incorporated into your curriculum somehow. We usually find a 

way where either it is already being discussed, it is just not a sole 

centerpiece in the curriculum, but if we can find how to best thread 
20 

that new dynamic environment into our curriculum, we will do so, 

and we will find the best course to put that in. 

Also, electives turn out to be a pretty good option for our student 

body as well to get a more focused study on a particular concept. 

So we do use the elective opportunity as one to take on some of 

these new fields that are being asked for the colleges to invest in. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thanks. Admiral Wisecup. 

Admiral WISECUP. Sir, I think the best way to answer your question is to go back to the question that Chairman Snyder posed 

about the Obama speech, for example, and the mechanism that I 

outlined for you how we can roll things into our curriculum. 

This is again a function of the faculty. I will give you an example. At this point, we are going into the nuclear posture review, so 

now time is right for people who can talk to these issues about nuclear deterrence in a new world. The interesting thing is we have 

people who have been constantly working those issues, kind of like 

the Christian monks in Ireland who preserved the sacred texts during the Middle Ages. And in fact, we have this expertise that has 

not been permitted to atrophy, and now that it is needed, we have 

been able to provide that expertise to a variety of agencies and government folks who have been asking for it and searching it out. 

The other thing is looking at how the faculty gets out; one of our 

faculty members visited North Korea about a month and a half ago 

with a private visit of a major foundation, and he works research. 

Our faculty is constantly publishing. They are contributing constantly. These are the same faculty that are going to roll into the 

bootstrap sessions and talk about the curriculum. 

The other thing was for example when I was strike group commander, at the Ronald Reagan Strike Group, before I even knew 

I was going to go be president of the war college, I actually knew 

the expertise of these experts and actually asked them to come out, 

like General Steel was explaining, to come out to my strike group 

and talk to us about the region of the Indian Ocean. So they got 

the benefit of coming out and talking with on-scene commanders 

about the current situation, then flew off to visit their contacts in 

different places in the region, and we got the benefit of their knowledge. These are the same people who are going to roll this information into the bootstraps and into the curriculum development. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you. Colonel Belcher. 

Colonel BELCHER. Thank you very much for that question, sir. 

Our curriculum is founded in the enduring tenets of war, which 

have not changed in many, many years. However, with that said, 

we do look to capitalize on new and novel approaches coming out 

of the current operations that we can apply within our curriculum. 

Specifically, we look back into history, identify those principles applicable, and then apply them in modern scenarios in the current 

setting that our students are operating in or will operate in as 

graduates. 

To drive those, we go to multiple sources. First and foremost is 

the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff guidance through the 

learning objectives that he establishes and the yearly Special Areas 

of Emphasis. In large part, these will be the most critical elements 

of the upcoming year that we begin to integrate into our curriculum to ensure that we are dealing with the topical issues, but 
21 

not whipsawing the curriculum all around and chasing the topic of 

the day. 

The other ways we do this are through hiring of faculty that are 

coming directly from operational backgrounds, myself just having 

come out of a regimental command tour, bringing the experience 

from that and previous combat tours, right to the schoolhouse. 

Secondly, it is through continual scanning of the strategic horizon by the professors, through reading, research, interacting with 

the think tanks and study groups, such as the Strategy Division 

Group, the joint warfighting centers, to see what is on the strategic 

horizon that we need to prepare our students for, and then incorporating that in a coherent method that is synchronized with the 

rest of our curriculum. 

Other ways include routine interviews with combatant component commanders and service leaders. Yesterday I had the opportunity to sit down and talk with Lieutenant General Allen, Deputy 

Commander at Central Command (CENTCOM), regarding his most 

critical issues, as well as the critical capabilities he is looking for 

from graduates from my war college. 

The other ways, continuing to interview our graduates and their 

supervisors to see that the curriculum met the needs when they 

came into the force. 

Finally, we also allow academic white space. We have a series of 

classes called ‘‘issues in modern warfare’’ that we purposely do not 

fill at the beginning of the year, knowing that critical issues will 

pop up during the year we would like to craft classes for. Having 

a small faculty, I have the organizational agility to put classes together, find leading-edge experts come in and fill those. Such topics 

in the past have been the repeal of don’t ask, don’t tell, what would 

be the implications for the military; the effects of a pandemic, 

which happened to be very timely because several weeks later 

swine flu began to reach the headlines; a variety of topics that we 

can then add in to make sure the student as he walks out the door 

is as up-to-date as he can be before he begins his next job. 

Thank you, sir. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, sir. 

General Williams. 

General WILLIAMS. Sir, I appreciate the question. I think that I 

don’t have a problem with staying current with the current student 

body at the tactical and operational level. With 70 to 80 percent of 

them coming in with recent Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and 

Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) experience, if anything, that is 

a challenge for us to push them to the strategic level. 

In terms of staying current at the strategic level, we have always 

been, like some of my colleagues here, a think tank, for lack of a 

better description, for the Department of the Army, the combatant 

commands (COCOMs) and various other agencies in the United 

States. There is enormous intellectual talent in the faculty, and 

they often are called for their expertise. In fact, this last year I 

have had members of the faculty serve on Brigadier General H.R. 

McMaster’s team building a new strategy for Afghanistan, as well 

as answering a call from International Security Assistance Force 

(ISAF) for a strategist where I sent my director of National Security and Strategy for six months to assist in the building of the 
22 

strategy for Afghanistan. By the way, as his six months was over, 

we sent the number two man from that department, and he is 

down range right now. 

So at any given time we look for opportunities to take our faculty 

and offer our faculty up to work on some of the hardest problems 

that the Nation is facing at the strategic level. When they come 

back, of course, they seed the faculty, they inform the curriculum. 

So that is enormously empowering. 

The other part of your question, though, is how do we protect the 

core from a whole host of requirements, oftentimes that look like 

training as opposed to education. Sometimes those things come 

through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) at the 

Military Education Committee, and we are all in attendance at 

those, as well as our deans throughout the year, and we have an 

opportunity to push back on those items so that we aren’t required 

to put them into the curriculum. Sometimes we win, sometimes we 

lose, but I feel confident that the mechanisms are in place for us 

to do what we need to do or I need to do as a commandant. 

I do not get that many requirements from the Army that I would 

call training requirements apart from those kinds of things that we 

would want to do anyway; recently suicide training. We take the 

time. It is important. It is absolutely required and we are proud 

to do that. 

I hope I have answered your question. I think we have the mechanisms in place to stay current, which is to say we stay at the strategic level. We are in the business of allowing these students to 

master the strategic art, and we have to stay focused at that. 

Thank you very much, sir. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you. General Forsyth. 

General FORSYTH. Sir, thanks for the question. Everybody has 

touched on or at least danced around a little bit where I would like 

to go with this, and that is the balancing act or the tension that 

is always there between the current event or the current topic of 

the day and the foundations of leadership, ethics, strategy, those 

things that need to be the bedrock of what we do. And I think that 

pretty much in many instances comes to the people at this table, 

to make sure that we have an advocate for both. 

The faculty, at least at the Air War College is about a third civilian, a third military, Air Force military, and about a third joint 

military and interagency and, quite frankly, coalition as well. That 

mixture allows us to span the spectrum between the basic foundations and current events. Add into that the students, that as we 

just heard, many of them just came from the war and you try to 

extract them from either the tactical level or operational level and 

bring them up to strategic level, it makes for, quite frankly, a great 

dynamic within the classroom. So with respect to making sure that 

the foundations are there and the balance is correct, I think that 

rises, quite frankly, mostly, in many cases, to my level. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you. 

Admiral Hall. 

Admiral HALL. Yes. I heard the question as how the President’s 

speech affects your curriculum and how do we maintain our core 

courses. This is a dynamic period and it was a very compelling 

speech, but at ICAF, we want to develop strategic leaders, folks 
23 

that can formulate strategy, and analyze strategy, but not chase 

strategy. So this will become a case study to be in our national security studies and our strategic leadership courses as we work students through the Socratic method in challenging the assumptions. 

So we are constantly reviewing our curriculum. In fact, we are 

going through the formal process right now, and we see what is relevant. 

I see it becoming part of a teaching package, to use as an example, in case study, but not changing the curriculum. You don’t want 

us to chase policy speeches, but learn how to challenge and interpret policy and develop policy. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. SNYDER. Mrs. Davis. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all of you 

for all of your comments and your openness. I certainly appreciate 

it. 

I have a few questions as you have been talking. One is the issue 

you mentioned, the six months kind of turnaround in terms of deployments and bringing people back into school. Has that been a 

problem, a major problem for any of you in terms of deployments, 

and does that mean that we might have fewer officers who are 

trained in advanced professional education? 

General WILLIAMS. Whenever I get a request from the theater for 

assistance that might involve the pulling of one of my faculty for 

that purpose, I immediately go to the dean, who is sitting directly 

behind me, and I ask him, can we support the United States Army 

or this theater commander, wherever the requirement comes from, 

and not degrade our primary mission, which is the education of the 

students, which we are charged with? If he comes back to me and 

says yes, we can do that, then I believe it is part of my mission 

to support the operational and institutional Army. So I think it is 

important that we do that. 

By the way, to your real question, do I have trouble with that, 

I usually have faculty members lining up in the hallways volunteering to do this, because they fully understand that as great educators, they are adding additional tools to their kit, for the audience and the constituencies they have to talk to. So, no, I don’t 

have a personal problem from them, and so far we have not had 

to say no. We have gotten close a couple of times. 

But I hope I have answered your question, ma’am. I have not 

had a problem with this. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Anybody else want to weigh in differently on that? 

Admiral HALL. I think the question goes to deployments and expectations, and the deployments affect all aspects of military life, 

including family life. 

Back when Senator McCain and his classmates went to National 

Defense University, they said, You are coming back from being 

prisoners of war (POWs). This is going to be an opportunity for you 

to relax, to get back in touch with your family, to regroup and work 

on your health. 

Our programs no longer allow that. As I referred to in my opening statement, it is a very rigorous academic program. So we bring 

folks in right from the field, whether it be Army, Navy, Air Force, 

Marine, and also many of our deployed civilians, they are told it 
24 

is a time to catch their breath, when really it is a very rigorous 

academic year, and they don’t often get to catch their breath. 

So, also many, if they are coming from out of theater, they may 

leave their families in their previous duty stations so now you have 

a situation of geobatching, as we call it, geographically isolated 

from your family. So there are implications to that. 

So what do we do? We are always talking about post-traumatic 

stress and looking for that in our students. We have medical and 

psychological help. We have health and fitness. So we do work on 

that basis of healing any wounds, seen or unseen, and we have 

both types of wounds come to ICAF. 

So, it is challenging, and you work with them, and you work with 

the families. But it is a rigorous course of study, and overall in the 

military everywhere, they are going to find challenges with all the 

deployments. That is a different perspective. 

General STEEL. Ma’am, if I could add, it is not just deployments, 

but our schools and our faculty are sought after globally because 

of their expertise. So whether they are being asked to go and deploy to support the Army or combatant commander or just to come 

and help them with some research aspect, quite often the schools, 

and here at National as well, the first thing we look is to see 

whether we can support it with our ongoing activities at the college. If we can do that and it enhances this faculty’s expertise, we 

will do everything we can to support it, because that faculty member will return with value-added. 

Mrs. DAVIS. I can understand that. 

If I can go really quickly, Mr. Chairman, back to General Williams, I think you mentioned you would like to increase the international officers by about 25 percent, 100 percent over 4 years. 

What percentage are they now? 

General WILLIAMS. We have 40 in the class of 340. I have never 

figured out that percentile. We will go to 50 next year, and the 

Chief of Staff of the Army has asked me how we would go to 80. 

What that would do for us in the classroom, currently every one 

of our seminars has approximately two foreign international students in it. We would go to four. 

Again, the desire is to open the aperture as part of our cultural 

training at the senior level, and there is no better vehicle I think 

to do that than to bring these very successful officers from around 

the world, all nominated by COCOMs that come through in some 

cases, in all cases, the Army staff, and then they are sent to us 

based on the G–3’s decision of who will make it. 

Mrs. DAVIS. I am just wondering, are there barriers to bringing 

more international officers in? Is it a matter of having the seats essentially, or are there other constraints that get in the way? 

General WILLIAMS. You are absolutely hitting on an issue for us. 

But it is a matter of facilities and faculty. I am okay for this next 

year to go to 50, but the dean and the academic board have reported to me beyond that we have to look at some other ways before we increase any further. But there are no barriers beyond that 

that I think I need legislative help on for sure. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
25 

Dr. SNYDER. I am going to pick on you, Admiral Wisecup. How 

often do you all get together, either formally or informally, as a 

group? 

Admiral WISECUP. I am new to this process. I missed the meeting 

we recently had. 

General WILLIAMS. Sir, I have been doing this for about 14 

months now. I believe I would be correct in saying I have seen 

these guys about three or four times this last year in various forums. About eight months ago, my board of visitors sponsored a 

symposium in Washington, and all of them were invited to discuss 

PME. Together we collectively decided to get together prior to the 

Military Education Coordination Council (MECC), the joint staff 

meeting, and General Caldwell hosted a meeting at Fort Leavenworth, where we sat down and discussed issues and ideas before 

we would go to that meeting in Washington, D.C. I believe, if I am 

not correct, I am talking for their university, I believe they are 

going to host a meeting of just those you see at this table this coming fall. 

I hope I have answered your question. 

Dr. SNYDER. I wanted to ask, some of us have talked about this 

before, but we have heard since we started doing this look and the 

staff has heard it also that there is variability amongst the services 

in where the students are within their career. Some branches of 

the service, the students clearly see being in one of these colleges 

as a career enhancing move. Others are not so sure. 

I will pick on the Marine Corps. The Marine Corps seems to get 

the best kudos for both looking at the students before they get 

there, the faculty before they get there, but also figuring out where 

they are going to go afterwards in terms of, yes, this is going to 

help your career both as a faculty member and as a student. I may 

be wrong with that. These are just anecdotal things. 

Would each of you respond. Do you think there is variability 

among the services in terms of how they go about selecting the students, selecting faculty for a contribution to your organizations, 

and then how they look at where these careers are going to go after 

the students have graduated and the faculty, I am talking about 

military faculty now, have completed their careers. 

Admiral Hall, we will start with you. 

Admiral HALL. Yes. I discussed this topic often because I say 

there are service cultures. So speaking from the Naval service, 

there are times in your career where you need expertise at sea 

tactically, whether it be in the cockpit, on amphibious ships, or in 

submarines. So therefore you don’t need somebody to be thinking 

strategically at that point. You need them to excel in leadership positions at sea, and that is part of our service culture in the Navy. 

That is how you get evaluated and promoted, again through challenging leadership assignments at sea, where other services might 

not have that same requirement, their culture is different. As you 

alluded to, the Marine Corps, it is more difficult to get in-residence 

senior level school than it is to make colonel. It is a smaller subset. 

So I don’t think you can ever get uniformity across all of the 

services as to the right timing and the right measurement of career 

enhancement. 
26 

I know that in all services, it is going to be career enhancing to 

go to an in-residence senior level school, but you are not going to 

change the service cultures to get a uniform answer that you can 

stamp across-the-board. 

I just looked at my distinguished graduates, and it is uniformly 

spread amongst the services on my distinguished graduates, 

whether it be Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps. So once they 

get here, they do excel uniformly. But I think as far as promotion 

goes, it is service culture. 

General STEEL. Sir, I would say at the National War College, we 

rarely see a military student show up that doesn’t meet our criterion. They all succeed. Most of them are either on a promotion 

list or get promoted while they are at the National War College. 

So I don’t see the experience of coming to the National War College 

as anything but a positive benefit to the military member when 

they are competed and selected and attend the National War College. 

Again, the quality of student that the services are providing is 

high. As I shared with you yesterday, this being my second class 

experience, the only thing I have seen struggled in fulfilling the 

student list has been sometimes on our Army side, due to the operational tempo (op tempo). Usually they are a little bit late getting 

their slate in. But they always fill it and the quality is extremely 

high. Just as Admiral Hall shared with you—— 

Dr. SNYDER. Excuse me, you are talking about students. How 

about faculty? 

General STEEL. For faculty, we are very selective. The services 

nominate to the National War College who they would like to contribute for faculty. That faculty is interviewed, screened and evaluated, a recommendation is made to me through a faculty hiring 

committee as to whether they meet the standards or not. 

Dr. SNYDER. I understand that. My question, though, was where 

it fits within the service. Admiral Hall referred to service culture. 

Do people come to you and say I have a dead-end career, I am 

going to faculty here for a year or two. Is there a variability 

amongst the services when the military services assign faculty to 

you, and I know you go through the selection process, they are topnotch people, but do they perceive that their career is enhanced by 

being a faculty member for a couple of years? 

General STEEL. Most of them have had a teaching background or 

experience, and they know what they are getting into, and they 

seek out the National War College as a way to again broaden their 

teaching credentials. So I think they come from all the services to 

the college fully aware of what their experience is going to be at 

the National War College. I don’t think they look down on it as 

something negative. They know they are getting into a teaching 

realm and most of them will already have at the Ph.D. level, so 

they are rather senior in their service careers already. I think they 

look at it as a positive set of years to spend in the remaining time 

that they are going to serve with their service there. 

Dr. SNYDER. Admiral. 

Admiral WISECUP. I think it is a positive. The people who come 

to the Naval War College’s military faculty may not have sought 

it out. But at some point in your career you get to the point where 
27 

there is not a lot of individual input into where you are going with 

your life. 

But for example, one of our military faculty was just selected to 

be carrier air group commander. So I view that as a very positive 

sign that everyone is not going to go on to be Chief of Naval Operations, but I will tell you, the people I talk to, all view it as a positive and feel like they are really doing meaningful work. Here is 

the way we can help the person who is just coming right off the 

flight line. 

For example, in our Strategy and Policy Department, we can put 

a very experienced civilian professor in with the newer strategy 

and policy professor, okay. But the point being, the people I have 

talked to, remember, I have only been there seven months, but I 

have talked to a lot of the military faculty, and almost all of them 

view it as a positive. 

General WILLIAMS. I think we have to look at, and I will speak 

for the Army War College, we have to look at our colonels in a sort 

of unique way, to answer your question, sir. The colonels who come 

and teach at the United States Army War College are between 

their 25th and 30th year of service. They don’t come back to get 

promoted to general officer. I think that is very important to say 

here. 

I would welcome lieutenant colonels, senior lieutenant colonels, 

senior lieutenant colonels and/or junior colonels who are competitive for brigadier general. But perhaps one of the second or third 

order effects of Goldwater-Nichols is that when a student finishes 

at the war college, it is very hard for him or her to have the time, 

the discretionary time, to serve a tour of duty as an educator in the 

war college and still remain competitive, in part because they need 

to go and get ‘‘jointed’’ quite often. We have actually had students 

that we would like to keep on faculty, but if we kept them, they 

would not be competitive for general officer. 

Now, having said that, I believe that the colonels who do serve, 

I don’t think we have had to drag anyone back to do this. I think 

that they are at a point in their career that they want to give back 

and they want to be outstanding educators and the reputation of 

the institution is such they are very pleased to come back. They 

have great maturity, they have experience, and they fit this job 

particularly well at this particular time in their career. 

So, I think that the quality of my faculty, particularly the military faculty, is absolutely outstanding. They are terrific educators. 

I hope I have answered your question. 

Dr. SNYDER. General Forsyth. 

General FORSYTH. Sir, I would agree completely with General 

Williams that the quality of the faculty is fabulous. I would say 

that the expectations of the faculty, the military faculty, are different and they run the full spectrum. There are those that, as you 

have heard, come there knowing that is probably their last assignment, sometimes because they want it to be, sometimes because of 

their timing in their career. 

I have one data point. We lost one faculty this year in all, and 

she got a great joint assignment here in the D.C. area, basically 

what she wanted. So it was looked upon favorably there. We have 
28 

five volunteers to get their Ph.D.s to come back and teach at the 

Air War College. 

So it spans the entire gambit. In this last brigadier general nomination board, one of the people had been a faculty member. So I 

think it is not what maybe in the past was looked at as a dead end 

assignment. I think it is looked at as a valuable assignment to the 

service. They can contribute still, no matter where they are in that 

spectrum, whether this might be their last assignment or whether 

they want to continue on. 

Dr. SNYDER. Colonel Belcher. 

Colonel BELCHER. Sir, the president of the Marine Corps University has made it his policy that he is willing to sacrifice continuity 

for capability. So it has been the policy of the university’s throughout all the services to select the best and the brightest to come and 

instruct or direct at the various colleges. 

So there is some risk in that, in that you will have an officer for 

a year, maybe two years, before he is selected for command or for 

promotion, but that is a risk we are willing to assume to get the 

competence that he brings from his past operational experience. 

For myself as the director, I competed to get selected for this billet. The other Marine that will be coming on board this year similarly, coming out of the National War College, was hand-selected 

for this billet and has a bright potential for future service and promotion. 

In fact, among my sister colleges at the Expeditionary Warfare 

School, the last two directors there were selected for brigadier general during their tours there, showing the value that the Marine 

Corps puts in education as an investment for the future. 

Among the other services that we have on staff, the U.S. Air 

Force has sent us topnotch officers. My current Air Force officer 

was just selected to command at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. 

My prior U.S. Air Force officer is now sitting behind me, who decided to become the dean of academics because of his academic proficiency and his support for the school. 

The Army similarly has given me operational experts, practitioners. My current Army officer was selected after a tour in Afghanistan where he worked at the current operations shop and is 

an active pilot. 

I have been very impressed with the staff we have had from all 

of the services, and couldn’t have asked for a higher quality faculty 

to go forward with. 

Thank you, sir. 

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Wittman. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to, again, take it to another step in the Chairman’s question. I want to ask about, how do we go back attracting the best 

or I guess top tier of civilian faculty? What are the things that we 

need to be looking at to address that? Is it things like tenure, copyright, pay, them being able to keep their government retirement, 

research, administrative assistance? What do we need to be doing 

to attract and retain the best and brightest on the civilian side of 

the faculty? 

General Williams, I will start with you. 

General WILLIAMS. I may call on my dean here to speak up. 
29 

Let me start by saying we work very hard to bring in talented 

civilian faculty as well. Many are, by the way, former military officers who have received their terminal degree and so they serve us 

very well. 

We also, and I mentioned this, have a program at the United 

States Army War College where we bring in those colonels in the 

25 to 30 year mark who have a particular penchant for academics 

and being outstanding educators, and we send them off to work on 

their doctorate. I currently have 10 officers that have received their 

Ph.D. on my faculty, I have 5 that are working on it, and I have 

5 civilian professors who are a product of that particular program. 

We, of course, advertise throughout the United States for openings that come up, and we do very well with the standard professors of history, former planners, those kinds, leadership, but we are 

not competitive in a number of certain areas. As an example, 

economists, behavioral scientists, military sociologists. We do not 

pay competitively. 

I would ask Dean Johnsen if he would like to add perhaps to that 

and offer up any insights into what we could do differently. 

Bill. 

Mr. JOHNSEN. Sir, thank you. One the things we find, sir, is 

given the nature of our curriculum and the professional nature of 

it, we sometimes have difficulty convincing standard liberal academics from a more liberal arts background that this is the place 

for them to come and teach. 

I believe, like many of the other schools, if we can get someone 

to an interview at our institution and demonstrate to them that we 

are open, we have academic freedom, the quality of our students 

in particular, the faculty, the ability to influence policy on occasion, 

then we have a strong possibility of bringing those people to our 

faculty and then retaining them. It is doing the proper advertising 

and networking within the various disciplines that will allow us to 

do that. 

Mr. WITTMAN. General Steel. 

General STEEL. Sir, on that list you read off of, I would just echo 

that there should be some work done on the copyright issue and 

the annuitants discussion that is out there. I know that affects 

some of the faculty that we hire. So, yes, we do need to do some 

homework there. 

We are fortunate again in the Washington area to have a little 

bit of a draw on some of that high talent that is out there just because this is Washington, people like to live and work around this 

city, and teaching over at National Defense University is a pretty 

good job, if that is what you like to do. So that is a draw. 

We don’t have any problems getting people to apply for an opening at faculty at National Defense University. We usually end up 

whittling that down, and we have a good solid dozen every time to 

draw from. So I believe we are getting top-tier talent with our civilian hires. 

As I shared with you yesterday, one of the things that I would 

like to see considered for the National War College was that kind 

of an endowed chair position to try to draw on the high policy National Security Agency talent, that when folks leave those positions, they have an opportunity to come over and teach at the Na-
30 

tional War College and we can tap into their recent experiences, 

and that would add again to the college as far as becoming a preeminent national security strategy institution. So a look into that 

kind of endowed chair possibility would be helpful. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Admiral Hall. 

Admiral HALL. We have many similarities with the National War 

College. Our location gives us a great pool of faculty to pull from. 

But one thing that General Steel didn’t mention is accreditation. 

Both our schools are accredited. We want to maintain our accreditation, because why would a faculty member in D.C. want to work 

at a school that doesn’t give an accredited master’s degree, because 

they can go to George Mason, Georgetown, George Washington. 

The other thing is there is always concern, are we paying them 

equivalent if they could go down to George Washington and things 

of that nature. So we are working on the pay. 

Tenure, I don’t think I would want to go down the tenure route 

because we don’t want our institutes to become stale and not have 

that ability to keep currency. 

At ICAF, my faculty members are about 92 members, that gives 

us a 3.5 to 1 ratio. Thirty of those are military, 45 are Title X, but 

I have 17 to 19 that are civilian, that are interagency faculty 

chairs, including an industry chair. Right now it is from IBM, and 

it was a very competitive process on her relief, and American Express is sending the next industry chair. So we have 20 chairs that 

come from interagency, everything from Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), to National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), National Security Agency (NSA), State Department, et 

cetera. 

So we have a very dynamic civilian faculty. But our Title X, it 

is going to be accreditation, A, and, B, all the other points that Bob 

pointed out. Thank you. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Colonel Belcher. 

Colonel BELCHER. Congressman, thank you very much. That has 

been a topic of debate within our faculty and is very timely. 

Let me begin by telling you what it is not. It is not high salaries. 

Competitive salaries are important, but I have not had a professor 

that the salary has been the deciding point when it is in the competitive range with other salaries in the area. What it is, is first 

the ability and the opportunity to teach and get in the classroom. 

The professors want to be in there with the students on a routine 

basis. To assist that, we try to remove as much administrative 

overhead from the faculty as possible, to move away from documenting each course to death and allowing more freedom of how 

they develop their syllabi, how they run their classes, and avoid 

micromanaging their work in the classroom, freeing them up to 

spend time mentoring and working with the students. 

Secondly, it is the opportunity to research in their fields. They 

love their fields of endeavor and want to go deeper and broader 

into them. The more we can give them opportunities, through time 

to do that, whether that be sabbaticals, short-term research opportunities, involvement in symposia, panels, lectures, and expanding 

faculty development, it is to our benefit. 

Also having topnotch research facilities, as we do at the war colleges, is very beneficial. Expanding the outreach between research 
31 

centers would be beneficial so they get timely information in their 

fields. 

The research assistant program, we are looking at that currently 

again to free them up and go deeper and broader into their fields 

of study for research. 

Two items that I would like to address that I think distract from 

our recruiting effort, the first is, to some degree, folks that are 

looking at the war college are self-selecting. They have perceptions 

about what the war colleges are and lack of academic freedom or 

lack of the topic matter that they will be able to cover. They are 

still looking at our fathers’ war colleges, not the war colleges of 

today. 

We need to broaden our strategic communications to more civilian institutions, academic institutions, and think tanks so they 

know what we are about, and we have a broader pool to recruit 

from. 

Similarly, it is up to us to then broaden that pool. When job announcements go out, that they go to a broader perspective and 

broader reach and professors that we might not consider otherwise 

that will come in and challenge the curriculum, challenge other 

professors with new and bold thoughts and thereby make us all 

better, not continue to hire from the same pool of professors that 

we may have in the past. That way I think we also broaden the 

educational opportunity for our students. 

Thank you, sir. 

General FORSYTH. Sir, it has not always been easy to hire folks 

to come to Maxwell, Alabama. But I will be honest with you, I have 

only been there a year, but I have not seen the pushback with respect to that. In fact, I have seen exactly the opposite. 

I don’t know if it has to do with the economy or what have you. 

But we are just in the process of hiring a political economist that 

is coming to us from London, has his Harvard Ph.D., and we get 

those kind of people routinely and our faculty is littered with that 

kind of talent. 

So I couldn’t be more pleased with the folks that we have and 

with the people that we get. Part of what we can offer at Maxwell 

that is not necessarily available everywhere else, except for maybe 

Washington, is we have all the schools there, and we have the Air 

Force Research Institute there where people can go and do research and publish and do those kinds of things that many of them 

want to do. 

So, I haven’t seen it as an issue where I am at, and I am very 

pleased with what we have. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Admiral Wisecup. 

Admiral WISECUP. Thank you, sir. 

I benefit from changes that Admiral Stansfield Turner put in 

place in the early 1970s. We have a very vibrant civilian faculty, 

as well as our military folks. For example, on our teaching side, we 

have 78 civilian faculty and 64 military, as an example, and then 

we have 276 total, some of which are doing research war gaming 

analysis, and they might teach an elective. But my point is, of the 

22 Strategy and Policy faculty, all are Ph.D., from some of our most 

prestigious universities. 
32 

I have the option of tenure put in place by Admiral Turner. We 

are certified by the New England Association of Schools and Colleges. Other schools have taken our strategy curriculum. Yale has 

a grand strategy course they are starting, Duke, Princeton, all 

based on the Newport Strategy and Policy model. I am trying to 

hire an academic dean right now. We are down to about the last 

six candidates, any of whom could really do this, a strong Ph.D. 

academic leader who can help us with faculty. A vibrant series of 

chairs that we have in place. We are establishing regional chairs. 

The faculty tell me it is also the unique student body. They know 

that they are not going to have to deal with a lot of nonsense from 

our students. These are mid-career, motivated students who are 

going places and coming right off the front lines. 

There is also a faculty development aspect to this which one of 

my colleagues alluded to. We are on a trimester system, so one of 

those trimesters, our faculty has the opportunity to go and do their 

own research and do curriculum development and things like that. 

We have a budget of almost—I think we have spent over $600,000 

on faculty development over the last couple of years. 

I am aware of the copyright issue. I think it is a question of good 

policy. We have to watch that carefully. But I think we are okay 

on that. And the fact that just recently we went to .edu, for example, on the Web, tries to dispel some of what is going on and show 

people, turn a light on some of the academic work we are doing. 

There are a series of conferences. 

Those are the attractors for good civilian qualified faculty. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Wittman and I are trying real hard to miss this 

vote, I think, so we are going to need to leave. We have an abundance of questions left. We have kept you here for almost two 

hours. We almost certainly will have some questions for the record. 

The questions go slower because we have the six of you. 

We appreciate you all being here today. We appreciate your testimony. I am sure we will have some follow-up questions, both formally and informally in the future. 

We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:56 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
A P P E N D I X 

JUNE 4, 2009 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

JUNE 4, 2009 

(37) 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

JUNE 4, 2009 

(165) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY DR. SNYDER 

Dr. SNYDER. The terms ‘‘training’’ and ‘‘education’’ seem to be used interchangeably quite a bit. Can you tell me how you define the difference and what part of 

your curriculum is training and which part is education? 

General STEEL. CJCSI 1800.01C, Officer Professional Military Education Policy 

(OPMEP), dated 31 Jul 05, answers this plainly. 

‘‘The role of PME is to provide the education needed to complement training, experience and self-improvement to produce the most professionally competent individual possible. In its broadest conception, education conveys general bodies of 

knowledge and develops habits of mind applicable to a broad spectrum of endeavors. At its highest levels and in its purest form, education fosters breadth 

of view, diverse perspectives and critical analysis, abstract reasoning, comfort 

with ambiguity and uncertainty and innovative thinking, particularly with respect to complex, non-linear problems. This contrasts with training, which focuses on the instruction of personnel to enhance their capacity to perform specific 

functions and tasks . . . . Opportunities for substantial professional education are 

relatively rare—particularly for the extended in-residence education that produces the learning synergies that only come from daily, face-to-face interaction 

with fellow students and faculty. Consequently, the PME institutions should 

strive to provide as pure and high quality education as feasible.’’ 

National War College (NWC) concurs with this policy wholeheartedly and adheres 

to it as much as possible. While some training takes place at NWC as a by-product 

of our educational efforts, our curriculum is focused completely on educating our 

students in the analysis and development of national security strategies. 

Admiral HALL. While some may use the terms ‘‘training’ and ‘education’ interchangeably, as the Commandant of the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, I 

do not. In my view, training focuses on the development and performance of specific 

tasks and skills, while the proper focus of education is the human intellect, involving generalized and abstract information that may not necessarily be tied to specific 

tasks. 

The goal of training is to prepare a leader or an organization to execute defined 

tasks and includes repetition to improve the physical performance of an individual 

or an organization to accomplish a specific mission. Education seeks to stimulate 

human intellect and inquiry to address the conceptual and abstract, and seek the 

‘‘why’’ and ‘‘what if ’’ of complex phenomena and issues. In other words, education 

teaches how to think and what the questions are, while training teaches what to 

think and what the answer ought to be. 

At the Industrial College of the Armed Forces we educate. We prepare leaders in 

terms of how to think about major, complex national security challenges and issues 

and how to deal with strategic challenges, problems, and issues that may [or may 

not] have outright solutions. 

Dr. SNYDER. The 1989 Skelton Panel Report said all the Commandants and Presidents should teach so that they would understand what it takes to be a faculty 

member. Can you describe a typical faculty member’s day? Do you yourself teach 

or mentor individual students? a. Unlike civilian university professors who emphasize research, your faculty members generally do not have teaching assistants, research assistants, or set office hours. When do they have time for service, research, 

and writing? How much research and writing do you expect them to do outside the 

sabbatical windows? How is this assessed on their appraisals, military and civilian? 

General STEEL. Yes, I understand what it takes to be a faculty member. If I was 

teaching a core course, my day would start before lecture or class by going up to 

my seminar room and preparing the room for my seminar. I also would be checking 

in on my committee to see how my students are doing, and then work my way to 

lecture. During the lecture’s question and answer period, I would record my observations of those students who belong to me and their performance in the question and 

answer period. Following lecture, I would lead my seminar in discussion and debate 

about the topic. This would take me through lunch. In the afternoon, I would either 

finish preparing for my elective and conduct my elective, or I would be recording 
166 

observations about seminar performance, preparing for the next day’s activities, 

and/or counseling/mentoring students. In addition, I very well might be working on 

projects relative to my additional duties, which could include coaching a sport, serving as faculty advisor to an international fellow or American student, serving as faculty advisor to a student committee, or serving as an NWC faculty representative 

to a National Defense University (NDU) committee working on a university project, 

such as the NDU Academic Plan. I could also be conducting research or outreach. 

I do not teach. I do attend every lecture and I sit in seminars to observe both 

faculty and student performance. I do this routinely when not participating in NDUdirected activities. For example, I participate in all the international fellows’ academic trips as a mentor for them. Yes, I do mentor individual students. 

The primary mission of the National War College is to teach our students. That 

has been and still is my number one priority. When our faculty members are teaching, a normal teaching load would be two core courses and two electives, one each 

in the fall and the spring. That would mean approximately 88 contact hours with 

students in each semester, not counting a significant amount of classroom preparation, normal duties such as advising and counseling students, serving as a faculty 

mentor on a student committee (i.e. Morale and Welfare Committee), or accomplishing another duty required to keep the College running. All those expectations 

take significant amounts of faculty time and effort. Even so, our faculty are still 

able to achieve impressive levels of professional development, scholarship and outreach. As an example, a partial list of the accomplishments of one of our faculty 

members during this past year includes: 

• Advising the NDU President on issues concerning NDU relations with other national defense colleges in his area of expertise. 

• Participated in visit to NDU of an international CAPSTONE course. 

• Participated in preparations and conduct of a sophisticated war game at the Air 

University as an area expert. 

• Lectured to other NDU organization on multiple occasions. 

• Participated in a think tank project to survey future maritime security issues 

in his area of expertise. 

• Participated in National Intelligence Council project on future security scenarios in his area of expertise. 

• Participated in planning an OSD war game with nations in his area of expertise. 

• Chapters published in a book on an international navy (Naval War College). 

• Articles published in an online journal that specializes in his area of expertise. 

• Lectured/led seminars at the United States Military Academy, the Naval War 

College, and Georgetown University. 

• Reviewed manuscripts/books for University of Indiana Press, Australia National 

University, and the Journal of Military History. 

• Testified before a Congressional commission. 

• Participated in Army War College conference on the capabilities of a regional 

military; CAPS–RAND Conference on the same subject. 

• Chaired panel at a conference at the Naval War College. 

• Numerous media interviews. 

This faculty member was able to achieve this high level of professional service, 

research and writing while carrying a full teaching load, advising three students 

and fulfilling other duties to the College. 

Research and writing are encouraged after faculty members perform what I refer 

to as my first two priorities. First and foremost, we are a teaching institution; this 

is our core mission and my number one priority. My second priority and central 

focus is directed toward mentoring and educating students and providing them honest evaluations of their performance and making that extra effort to help them succeed. Behind this emphasis, I provide faculty time for professional development, 

whether that is faculty engaging in research and scholarship to advance the educational mission of the College or time to produce written materials tied to their research and field of expertise. My overall expectations are that each faculty member 

remains current and relevant in each of their disciplines. 

Each faculty member is evaluated annually based on their contributions to the 

College, including their professional development. My department chairs under the 

leadership of the Dean of Faculty lead, guide and supervise the development of their 

department faculty. Based upon their observations and mentoring, they specifically 
167 

address these areas in the faculty annual evaluation report. It can be captured in 

many ways, from the writing of a core course syllabus, to publication of articles and 

books, to issuing papers requested from outside the College. 

Admiral HALL. The ‘typical’ day for a faculty member is varied and diverse. The 

many activities a faculty member may be involved with on any given day include 

the following: 

• Preparing to teach a class session that day. 

• Teaching a core course lesson, program lesson (e.g., Regional Security Study, 

Exercise Program, or Industry Study), or elective course. 

• Attending lectures or lunchtime ‘‘brown bag’’ guest speaker presentations. 

• Meeting/mentoring with students (after class, with students assigned to that 

faculty member as advisees for the academic year, and/or with students conducting research in an area related to the faculty member’s expertise). 

• Attending student functions (student presentations on countries or agencies, intramural sporting events, promotions, award ceremonies, socials, etc.). 

• Attending teaching team, department, college committee or faculty meetings. 

• Researching/preparing for subsequent class sessions (in core course areas, program areas, or elective courses). 

• Participating in the Industry Studies program (seminar and field studies sessions take place during January-May of each year) which involves both preparatory work and the execution of the program throughout the year. Because 

of the extensive number of industry contacts and visits that must be arranged, 

updating the course content continues throughout the entire year. 

• Performing outreach activities (consultations with DOD or other executive 

branch departments and agencies, guest lecturing, attendance and/or participation in think tank or department/agency symposia, panel discussions, or forums). 

• Conducting long term faculty research. 

Additional information: 

• Most faculty members have 2–3 core course lessons to teach each week. Many 

of the faculty teach at least one elective each semester. 

• Student functions, guest lectures, teaching team, department, and college meetings do not occur each day, but some combination of most of these activities 

occur on a weekly basis. 

• Outreach activities usually take place on days when faculty members are not 

teaching, but not always. 

• Discretionary time typically is used for teaching preparation (reviewing readings assigned to students, supplemental faculty preparation readings, briefing 

slides, lecture notes, preparing handouts, identifying and coping any additional 

supporting materials). 

As indicated above, faculty must use whatever discretionary time is available to 

conduct research. The imperative for the ICAF curriculum to be up-to-date and relevant for the high level professionals who constitute our student population requires 

everyone in the faculty to maintain currency on vital operational and strategic policy concerns of the country’s leadership in national security affairs. As such, faculty 

members constantly conduct research into contemporary developments and policy 

issues during their discretionary time. 

All faculty members are required to conduct research throughout the academic 

year in order to keep the curriculum up-to-date and relevant. Writing related to research is conducted by all faculty members in the preparation of faculty teaching 

packets. Departments prepare a unique faculty teaching packet for each lesson 

taught during the academic year to ensure students in every seminar are exposed 

to the same concepts and material (checked against OPMEP requirements), regardless of the faculty member teaching the lesson. These departmental teaching packets are written by the faculty in each department, and are updated annually—requiring faculty to conduct research to ensure relevance and timeliness related to 

contemporary national security issues. 

Many faculty members also seek to conduct more traditional academic research 

(books, journal articles, monographs, etc.) and ICAF has sustained a respectable 

publication record every year. In some cases, faculty with specific research projects 

or book/journal articles in development are given partial relief from teaching duties 

to give them additional time to work on completing their manuscript. ICAF also 
168 

gives an annual research award to faculty member(s) with notable research accomplishments during an academic year. 

Department Chairs at ICAF monitor their faculty to ensure that they meet the 

college’s expectations for research throughout the academic year. On all Title X performance reports and annual evaluations, research is specified as a requirement in 

support of curriculum development and preparation of teaching packets. Evaluations 

of our military faculty members are documented on their individual services’ performance evaluation forms and are therefore oriented toward staff and command capabilities and do not specifically provide for evaluation of research activities. Narrative statements in the performance reports may mention significant research activities and publications as they relate to the mission accomplishment. 

As the Commandant, I frequently sit in on seminar class sessions and contribute 

to the seminar discussions with my career, joint, and interagency experience, and 

prompt students to consider a more strategic level of evaluation of issues under discussion. My practice of visiting the seminars, rather than teaching a particular 

course to just one seminar, allows me to monitor the currency and quality of the 

academic content, the quality of teaching, and ensure students are being taught subject content at the appropriate level related to strategic national security affairs. 

I conduct an open-door policy at all times with regard to students, faculty, and 

staff at ICAF. I regularly mentor individual students through follow-up discussions 

resulting from my visits to seminar rooms. I also seek out and engage students at 

ICAF and NDU academic and social events, and these opportunities often result in 

one-on-one discussions with students about their ICAF experience, career aspirations, or even family issues. In particular, I emphasize interaction and mentoring 

with the International Fellows. I believe it is critical that the International Fellows 

have access to senior leaders to discuss American culture, strategic thought, interests, and values, and that they undergo a positive learning and living experience 

during their year at ICAF. 

Dr. SNYDER. Does having a master’s degree program at these schools detract from 

the PME mission, not from the standpoint of it being easy to accredit existing programs, but that it may tip the focus toward the academic instead of professional 

education? 

General STEEL. Civilian graduate education and professional military education 

serve different purposes and therefore are underpinned by different educational dynamics. The danger with having a master’s program is the possibility of becoming 

seduced by the dynamics of civilian graduate education to the detriment of the PME 

mission. Examples would be: defining the purpose of the school as a graduate research institution rather than a teaching college; gauging faculty quality by their 

research and publication rather than their subject matter expertise and teaching 

prowess; and adopting civilian student assessment practices rather than developing 

a student assessment process tailored to the distinct characteristics of your student 

body and mission. NDU is particularly susceptible to this possibility due to the wide 

variety of missions its numerous components have and the natural bureaucratic tendencies to make everyone in the University look the same. Some NWC students benefit professionally from the opportunity to earn a master’s degree as part of their 

PME experience at the NWC and as long as a master’s program is important to the 

Chairman, the College will continue to have a master’s program. However, having 

a master’s program does not add anything to the ability to accomplish the PME mission. The National War College’s experience has been that having a master’s program has neither increased academic rigor, nor sharpened the relevance of the curriculum, nor improved the effectiveness of student and program assessment. The 

Process for Accreditation of Joint Education (PAJE) has and continues to ensure 

academic rigor, a sharp and relevant curriculum and effective student and program 

assessments. A separate NWC Board of Visitors that could provide effective oversight of these two different and potentially opposing educational dynamics might be 

very beneficial in ensuring the accomplishment of the College’s PME mission. 

Admiral HALL. Having a master’s degree program (and the accompanying accreditation process) does not detract from the PME mission. ICAF is first and foremost 

a JPME institution and everything done at the college flows from that mission. We 

find that academic standards reinforce the quality of the college’s execution of the 

JPME mission. Academic standards also reinforce the credibility of the academic aspects of the curriculum with regard to quality, rigor, and professional conduct by 

faculty. 

Dr. SNYDER. Do all of your students receive master’s degrees—why or why not? 

What does top quality in uniformed faculty mean to you? Please be specific, is it 

more important to have an advanced degree in specific areas like international relations, political science, a regional study, or military or political history than it is to 

have a PhD in any subject even if that was in math or engineering? 
169 

General STEEL. Not all the students receive master’s degrees. Students must complete all the academic requirements in order to qualify for the degree. This past 

year we had a very capable American student who missed an inordinate amount of 

class time due to an illness and he was incapable of completing the academic requirements. He was dropped from the course. Another example was a student who 

was pulled out of the course for a real world critical requirement and subsequently 

did not qualify for completion of the degree. We have a number of international fellows who do not meet the prerequisites for the master’s or are incapable of passing 

the requirements to an acceptable level. These are all examples of students that do 

not receive a master’s degree. We do, however, have a robust remediation program 

to provide every opportunity for a student to achieve success and complete the degree program. 

When considering a Service’s nomination for a faculty position at the National 

War College we look for the following in their file. 

Minimum Requirements: 

• Grade 06 

• Command at the 05 level 

• Senior Service College graduate 

• Master’s degree 

• Completed JPME II 

• Staff experience at the 3–Star level or higher 

Enhanced Qualifications 

• Joint Qualified 

• Joint/Combined staff experience 

• Operational experience OIF/OEF 

• Previous teaching experience at undergraduate or graduate level 

• Ph.D. 

Our policy is that all full-time civilian faculty we recruit and hire under Title 10 

authority must have Ph.D.s. Given that, it is essential that their degrees be in a 

discipline relevant to national security strategy since those individuals form the 

backbone of our faculty’s academic expertise. 

Admiral HALL. Nearly all ICAF students receive a master’s degree. Often, one or 

two International Fellows receive a ‘‘diploma’’ rather than a master’s degree. International Fellows sometimes elect not to seek a master’s degree for personal reasons 

(including because they already possess a PhD) or are not eligible to receive a master’s degree because they do not possess a bachelor’s degree or equivalent educational experience. NDU uses a private company also used by other area universities to determine whether educational experience constitutes the equivalence of a 

bachelor’s degree. The rare U.S. student who has only received a diploma usually 

lacks a bachelor’s degree (an extremely rare occurrence) or fails to complete some 

portion of the academic program due to illness or other circumstances. 

Diploma students (international or U.S.) participate in all regular educational experiences at ICAF, but are permitted to submit outlines in lieu of written papers 

for writing assignments. 

Top quality in uniformed faculty means a senior JPME school graduate, broad 

operational and joint experience (ideally, at the strategic level) that supports the 

subject areas of the curriculum, adult education teaching experience (whenever possible), and someone with a desire to enhance the quality of the curriculum and education of the students. 

ICAF prefers to have military faculty members (or executive branch department 

faculty) with an advanced degree (masters or PhD) in a subject area related to the 

substantive areas of the curriculum. In some cases, sufficient operational and joint 

experience (particularly at the strategic level) can sufficiently compensate for lack 

of a relevant advanced degree. On the other hand, faculty who lack both substantive 

experience and a relevant advanced degree (e.g., possess an engineering or math degree) typically experience difficulties in learning and effectively teaching course content, and establishing credibility with the students. 

Dr. SNYDER. What does ‘‘top quality’’ mean for civilian faculty? Please be specific. 

a. Does not having tenure affect how professors treat ‘‘academic freedom’’? 

General STEEL. Title 10, civilian faculty at the National War College are chosen 

with great care. Based on the needs of the College, the Commandant promulgates 

specific position announcements that initiate the faculty selection process. These announcements are put out nationwide through USA JOBS, the OPM website, and advertised in journals and other periodicals frequented by academics. The Com-
170 

mandant develops highly qualifying criteria for selection and these criteria are used 

in selection committee deliberations and in final selections. The Commandant gives 

guidance to the selection committee chairman, receives progress reports from him, 

and out-briefs him when the full committee is prepared to make its recommendations. In one recent selection, which had 175 applicants, these were the actual highly qualifying criteria used: 

• Substantial academic or professional background in political science, history, 

strategic studies or related fields to allow teaching across a broad range of subjects in the core and elective curriculum. 

• Demonstrated teaching experience, either full or part time, at the university 

and preferably graduate level. 

• Demonstrate willingness and ability to accept major administrative responsibilities in an academic or other setting; willingness to participate in the governance and curriculum development of the National War College. 

• Practical experience in policy, legal, intelligence or military areas related to the 

development and implementation of national security strategy and policy. 

• Substantial knowledge of, demonstrated scholarly achievement in, and/or policy 

experience with one or more of the following subjects related to the broad focus 

of strategic studies: Africa, China, Russia, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, 

counterinsurgency, the changing character and conduct of war, and security assistance, stability, post-conflict, and peacekeeping operations. 

Based on their review of the materials submitted by the applicants, the committee 

develops a list of fully qualified applicants and from them, a short list of best qualified applicant-interviewees, holding closely to the highly qualifying criteria throughout their work. After a detailed committee interview that includes a ‘‘job talk’’ and 

a discussion on teaching strategy for a particular curricular topic, the committee 

makes its recommendations to the Commandant, who in turn, makes his recommendations to the President of National Defense University, who ultimately decides on every hire. 

This intense process has produced a first-rate teaching faculty with a very high 

professional standing. With two lawyers who hold juris doctorates on staff, the remaining 22 Title 10 faculty of the National War College is composed of professionals 

with doctoral degrees. Additionally, the Title 10 faculty boasts retired military and 

foreign service officers, a former deputy under secretary of defense, a former deputy 

assistant secretary of defense, and a former National Intelligence Officer for Europe. 

This complements nicely the great expertise of our rotating Department of Defense, 

State Department and other agency faculty. 

Not having tenure does not affect how the National War College treats academic 

freedom. The Officer Professional Military Education Policy of the Chairman, Joint 

Chiefs of Staff, directs the President, National Defense University, to establish a climate of academic freedom within the university that fosters and properly encourages thorough and lively academic debate and examination of national security 

issues. NDU’s commitment to academic freedom is published in NWC faculty and 

student handbooks, as well as NDU Regulation 360–1. University leaders and College faculty continually review these polices, ensuring academic freedom is protected 

and thrives in and out of the seminar room. 

Admiral HALL. ICAF seeks ‘‘top quality’’ civilian faculty members with the following attributes: 

• Commitment to the ICAF mission. 

• Ability to teach effectively as a subject matter expert in an adult education setting. 

• Broad, relevant operational and joint or interagency substantive experience, 

preferably at the strategic level. 

• A substantial understanding of strategy and strategic national security matters. 

• A substantial understanding of joint logistics or knowledge related to the resource component of national security. 

• An ability to work in a joint, interagency, multi-disciplinary setting and contribute to the synthesis of the various components into an integrated curriculum 

and educational experience. Understands how his/her course is integrated into 

the overall ICAF curriculum and can teach effectively in support of an integrated curriculum. 

• Actively supports policies promoting organizational effectiveness in executing 

the ICAF educational mission (e.g., high quality grading of student papers and 

student classroom contributions; meets deadlines for returning student papers, 
171 

submitting grades, and completing student performance reports; respects students and is active and available as intellectual guide and counselor, etc.). 

• Actively conducts research on strategy, strategic national security affairs, and 

the resource component of national security in support of the ICAF mission, 

continuous curriculum development, and faculty development. 

• Practices intellectual honesty and exercises critical self-discipline and judgment 

in using, extending, and transmitting knowledge in support of the ICAF mission. 

Not in my opinion. The American Association of University Professors 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure (with 1970 Interpretive Comments) clearly states that faculty members ‘‘are entitled to full freedom in research 

and in the publication of results,’’ but it also states that faculty members have ‘‘special obligations.’’ One of those special obligations is that they ‘‘should exercise appropriate restraint.’’ ICAF faculty members understand that they are U.S. government 

officials and are expected to behave responsibly with regard to their stated or written opinions. ICAF faculty have full freedom to make public statements and publish 

articles which may be critical of U.S. policy, but they also recognize that as NDU 

faculty members they must do so in a responsible way, one that does not undermine 

U.S. policy. Any U.S. policy may be analyzed in terms of its strengths and weaknesses, and constructive criticism may be usefully applied to any policy debate. 

I believe that having tenure would have no impact on the practice of academic 

freedom at ICAF. The obligation for responsible research, statements, and publications as government officials applies whether faculty have tenure or not. 

Finally, a policy of tenure would interfere with the ability of the Commandant to 

effectively execute the mission of the college. In order to maintain the quality and 

currency of the curriculum in support of evolving national security and resource 

challenges, the Commandant must be able to bring in new faculty with recent policy 

or operational/strategic experience, or more in-depth areas of expertise when needed 

to maintain the high quality of the curriculum and the faculty. 

Dr. SNYDER. Since you don’t have tenure, what is the process for renewal and nonrenewal of the civilian faculty? How transparent is the system? Do professors know 

six months before they are up for renewal whether they will be renewed, for how 

long, and why? In a tenure system people think the faculty members have all the 

power, in a no-tenure system it appears that the school has unlimited power. How 

do you avoid the extremes and appearances of arbitrariness? How many of your civilian faculty don’t have PhDs or JDs? Be specific about what degrees they do have 

and why they were hired. 

General STEEL. The National War College follows the policies and procedures for 

renewal and non-renewal as outlined in NDU Regulation 690–4, Personnel-Civilian 

Employment Under 10 USC § 1595, dated 4 August 2005. 

The NDU regulation covering renewal and non-renewal are available for any faculty member to review. Written and verbal communication with the faculty member 

being considered for either renewal or non-renewal adheres to appropriate privacy 

act policies. 

The National War College follows the requirements for renewal which are very 

clear in the NDU regulation. Below is an excerpt from Appendix C, paragraph 7 of 

NDU Regulation 690–4. 

‘‘At least twelve months prior to the expiration of a Title 10 employee’s current 

term of employment, the Academic Dean/Dean/Director must consider the question 

of renewal using such internal procedures as are deemed fair and reasonable. At 

least ten months prior to the expiration of term, the Commandant/Director will forward the renewal packet through proper channels at NDU. Employees should receive final official notification at least eight months before their current employment 

term ends. 

If the Academic Dean/Dean/Director/Vice President determines that he/she will 

not recommend renewal, he/she should forward the recommendation through the 

commandant/Director to the NDU–P for the final decision at least 6 months in advance of the expiration of the current term when possible. Once a final decision is 

made by the NDU–P, the Title 10 employee should be notified in writing. No faculty 

member is entitled to renewal, and non-renewal at the expiration of an employment 

term is not an involuntary termination of employment. 

If the Commandant/Director decides that he/she should renew the employee’s 

term of employment and the Title 10 employee agrees, the Commandant/Director 

will request approval for the renewal and provide the NDU staff and NDU–P with 

the following information: 

• Basis for the proposed renewal. 
172 

1Peer Review Process—Each college/component will establish a peer review process for faculty renewal requests. Each college/component will be afforded wide latitude in developing a relevant and rigorous process and will forward annually to HRD each July its methodology. NDU 

general guidance is that the process should include a panel of peers. The panel will consist of 

an odd number (minimum of 3) of qualified faculty members to evaluate the renewal request 

and validate the academic title recommendation. The packet going forward through channels to 

the NDU–P will include the panel recommendation along with the Commandant’s/College Director’s independent recommendation and a Provost/AA recommendation. If the Provost/AA recommendation is different than the Commandant/Director’s, the Commandant/Director will be 

notified prior to forwarding to NDU–P for signature. The general guidance is that the peer review panels should review the candidate’s career record and strictly apply academic title rigor 

including but not limited to academic degree credentials, teaching experience, professional experience, and scholarship. 

• The employee’s performance appraisals for the current term of employment. 

• Length of the proposed renewal term. 

• The employee’s current pay and benefit costs. 

• Proposed academic title and pay level with justification for renewal at a higher 

or lower title or pay level, based on the component peer review 1 input to the 

Commandant/Director. 

If the NDU–P approves renewal, HRD will notify the organization of the approval 

and process the renewal 30 days prior to the effective date.’’ 

Extremes and appearances of arbitrariness are avoided by adhering to the procedures as outlined in NDU Regulation 690–4. NDU Regulation 690–4 includes a section concerning employee grievances. The DOD Administrative Grievance System 

(AGS) DoD 1400.25–M applies to Title 10 employees at the National Defense University. 

All of the Title 10 faculty members currently serving on the faculty of the National War College have either a Ph.D. or a JD. 

Admiral HALL. ICAF’s policies regarding Title 10 faculty operates under the following applicable regulation: 10 USC 1595; Secretary of Defense Memorandum, 23 

April 1990, ‘‘Delegation of Title 10 Authority’’, AR 690–4, NDU Title 10, and NDU 

REGULATION 690–4, revised 4 August 2005. Under this regulation, newly hired 

faculty members have a one-year probationary contract. Subsequently, faculty members are normally renewed for one to three years, with three years being the most 

common term of renewal. ICAF department chairs make recommendations to me 

through the Dean of Faculty and Academic Programs with regard to contract renewals one year prior to the expiration of the current contract. If the ICAF leadership 

decides not to renew a faculty member because of performance issues or need to hire 

faculty with different areas of expertise or more recent policy experience, the college’s policy states the that faculty member is notified one year prior to the expiration of the contract; NDU policy requires 6 months ‘‘if practicable,’’ but no less than 

60 days. NDU Title 10 policy states that ‘‘No faculty member is entitled to renewal, 

and non-renewal at the expiration of an employment term is not an involuntary termination of employment.’’ It is the policy of the current ICAF leadership to discuss 

with faculty members why their contract is not being renewed. The criteria mentioned in the previous question related to the characteristics of a ‘‘top quality’’ faculty member also are used in evaluating faculty for contract renewal decisions. Additional criteria would include expertise and currency with evolving national security issues, effectiveness as an instructor, contributions to college programs, adherence to ICAF and NDU administrative procedures and requirements, and ability to 

work effectively with other faculty and staff. 

NDU’s current 690–4 Title 10 policy and ICAF policies for implementation are 

contained in the ICAF Faculty Handbook (last updated in 2008) which is distributed 

to all ICAF faculty. Discussions with faculty members about reasons for renewal or 

non-renewal of contracts are considered personnel issues and are treated confidentially. 

As stated above, ICAF notifies faculty members as to whether or not they will be 

renewed 12 months prior to the expiration of their contract. Faculty members who 

will be renewed are made aware of the renewal period being recommended to the 

Commandant. Faculty who are not being renewed are notified 12 months prior to 

the expiration of their contract to provide adequate time for seeking alternate employment if that is desired. 

As the Commandant, I am responsible to the CJCS for the adherence to the 

OPMEP and the proper execution of the college’s mission in support of the nation’s 

security. Faculty members accept employment at ICAF understanding that the composition of the faculty must be aligned with the needs of the nation and college’s 

mission. Nevertheless, faculty at the college exercise considerable power in the col-
173 

lege with regard to interpreting its mission and determining how it is executed. I 

rely upon my faculty (many of whom have been at the college for many years) to 

advise me and the Dean of Faculty and Academic Programs about curriculum, and 

the fairness of NDU and ICAF personnel policies and regulations. Curriculum development, reviews, and revisions all take place through the faculty within the academic departments and are annually briefed to me for my review and approval. 

ICAF also has had in place for many years a ‘‘Faculty Committee.’’ This Faculty 

Committee is elected by the entire faculty (excluding any with positions involving 

annual Title 10 performance evaluations such as department chairs, deputy chairs, 

and Deans) annually. Candidates are nominated by the entire faculty (excluding 

those mentioned above) and elected by secret ballot. Faculty Committee members 

serve for two to three years. The Faculty Committee functions as a sounding board 

for the Commandant and Deans with regard to policy matters and any issue that 

may affect faculty members—including personnel policies and regulations. The committee often is called upon to draft policy recommendations on issues that affect the 

faculty and to review policy changes being proposed by NDU. Likewise, the committee also provides a conduit for any faculty member to raise issues or concerns 

with the ICAF leadership without revealing their identity if that is their wish. 

I believe that regular dialogue with the faculty through a variety of mechanisms 

helps to ensure both faculty and I thoroughly discuss policy and curriculum issues 

of importance to the college and its mission. I meet several times each week with 

my Deans and Chief of Staff, Associate Deans, International Affairs Advisor, and 

Director of Institutional Research as my primary advisory staff. I have held a series 

of lunches with small groups of 5–6 faculty members to ensure that I know each 

faculty member personally and to provide a more intimate setting in which they can 

discuss with me any issues of concern to them. 

ICAF also holds regular faculty meetings throughout the academic year in which 

faculty are encouraged to raise issues of concern to them to the Faculty Committee. 

ICAF also has an Academic Policy and Curriculum Committee composed of all department chairs, program directors, and the chair of the Faculty Committee which 

review and advise me on potential major changes to policies or the curriculum. 

ICAF also conducts an annual off-site or on-site meeting to promote in-depth discussions among the faculty about curriculum issues. A recent faculty off-site constituted working groups covering the following topics: 

• Facilitating quality student evaluations and writing feedback. 

• ICAF Continuing Education: Effective Teaching. 

• Industry Studies Program relationship with Micro-economics and Economics of 

Industry. 

• Preparing Students for Policy Planning and Policy Making. 

• Strategies for implementing improvements and change at ICAF. 

• The role of Regional Security Studies in the ICAF curriculum. 

• The role of exercises in the ICAF curriculum. 

Four of ICAF’s 45 Title 10 faculty members do not possess Ph.Ds. Information on 

their backgrounds, degrees and position at ICAF is listed below. 

1. The first faculty member is a long time part-time instructor in the Military 

Strategy and Logistics Department. He is a retired USA Colonel and former U.S. 

Senate staffer hired in 1995 for his experience in military strategy, Latin America, 

and DOD-Congressional relations. He holds an MS in Public Administration from 

Shippensburg University. 

2. The second faculty member is a former USAF pilot whose civilian career included serving as the lead aircraft procurement appropriation analyst for the Secretary of the Navy Comptroller and manager of the FAA’s capital budget division, 

among other acquisition and budget positions. Hired at ICAF as a professor in the 

Acquisition Department, he has served as the Course Director for the Acquisition 

Core Course, faculty leader of the Aircraft Industry Study, and is currently the Director of ICAF’s Industry Studies Program. He was hired because of his acquisition 

expertise and knowledge of the aircraft industry sector. He holds a Master of Public 

Administration degree from The George Washington University and a Master of 

Science degree in National Resource Management from the Industrial College of the 

Armed Forces. He is currently completing his dissertation toward a PhD in Public 

Administration and Public Policy. 

3. The third faculty member is a retired USN Supply Corps Captain. She was 

hired to teach military strategy and logistics, and acquisition because of her military 

experience and educational credentials. She is a distinguished graduate of the 

Wharton School of Business, University of Pennsylvania, earning a Master of Busi-
174 

ness Administration degree as well as being a graduate of the Industrial College of 

the Armed Forces and the Senior Executive Program at the Kellogg School of Business, Northwestern University. She is currently completing her dissertation toward 

a PhD in Public Administration and Public Policy. 

4. The fourth faculty member is a retired Canadian Forces Colonel and a naturalized U.S. citizen. He is the former Comptroller of the Army for Canadian Forces and 

has extensive experience in strategic financial planning. He was hired as a professor 

in the Economics Department, as an Industry Studies Program faculty member, and 

to add additional non-U.S. perspectives to strategic national security affairs. He is 

the former Canadian Forces Chair at ICAF, and holds an M.A. in Public Administration from The George Washington University, an ICAF diploma (pre-accredited 

M.A. period), and currently is completing his dissertation for a Ph.D. in Public Administration and Public Policy. 

Dr. SNYDER. Some of you have indicated that you wish to hire ‘‘younger’’ PhDs. 

Do you think they may need a bit of seasoning or practical experience to be able 

to hold their own with the caliber and seniority of students you have? Does it mean 

you have to push out ‘‘older professors’’ who may be performing well in order to 

bring on younger ones? 

General STEEL. Youth is not criteria of evaluation when hiring a new Title 10 faculty member. In our last Title 10 hiring effort, I gave the following guidance to the 

search committee chair. 

‘‘The candidates should be judged against the following criteria: 

• Substantial academic or professional background in political science, history, 

strategic studies, economics, sociology, anthropology or related fields to allow 

teaching across a broad range of subjects in the core and elective curriculum. 

• Extensive full-time professional teaching experience at the university level and 

preferably graduate level, particularly in a seminar environment. 

• Demonstrates willingness and ability to accept major administrative responsibilities in an academic or other environment to include directing core and elective course; willingness to participate in the governance and curriculum development of the National War College. 

• Practical experience in policy, legal, intelligence, or military areas related to the 

development and implementation of national security strategy and policy. 

• Substantial knowledge of, demonstrated scholarly achievement in, and or policy 

experience with on or more of the following specific subjects related to the broad 

focus of strategic studies; Africa, China, Russia, Southeast Asia, the Middle 

East, counterinsurgency, the changing character and conduct of war, and security assistance, stability, post conflict and peacekeeping operations.’’ 

The National War College does not pursue ‘‘younger’’ professors and hence does 

not deliberately look to push out ‘‘older professors.’’ 

Admiral HALL. The answer to this question depends upon what is meant by 

‘‘younger’’ faculty or PhDs. ICAF believes that hiring faculty in their twenties or 

early thirties is problematic. I strongly believe that the faculty at ICAF needs ‘‘seasoning or practical experience’’ to hold their own with the students. ICAF subscribes 

to this judgment for two reasons. First, the mission of ICAF is to educate senior 

military officers and government officials about strategy, strategic national security 

affairs, and the resource component of national security. ICAF’s experience is that 

in order to teach about these topics, faculty must have had applied experience in 

these areas. A student population of professionals who average approximately twenty years of professional experience expects to be educated by a faculty who also has 

considerable experience with the national security matters they are teaching. Faculty who cannot speak from experience about joint, interagency, and national security issues lack credibility in the classroom. 

Second, ICAF’s experience (and related academic research on stratified leadership) indicates that years of experience, knowledge, and personal maturity are required before one can conceptualize at the strategic level. Both this research and 

ICAF’s experience argue for hiring mature individuals with sufficient experience 

and maturity. 

‘‘Pushing out’’ older professors may be necessary in at least two circumstances. 

First, the normal progression of aging affects the capabilities of individuals at different rates and in different ways. Aging may affect an individual’s ability to maintain a full activity load, fully understand changing events and dynamics, or new 

concepts and ways of thinking. An objective assessment of diminishing capacity 

should be considered legitimate grounds for non-renewal of a contract. 

Second, faculty must work hard to maintain currency in national security affairs, 

policy issues, interagency dynamics, and bureaucratic processes. ICAF currently has 
175 

numerous faculty whose experience as executive branch officials or military officers 

date back to the Cold War. Many have sustained active outreach and consultative 

programs to keep themselves up to date (and develop new areas of expertise) in the 

post-9/11 national security environment. However, it is incumbent upon ICAF to 

regularly refresh its continuing Title 10 faculty with individuals who possess more 

recent operational, joint, interagency, and policy experience in order to ensure currency in the curriculum and credibility with the students. 

Dr. SNYDER. National and ICAF have 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 faculty and student mixes while 

the Service schools have a 60% host and 40% other mix. Are the faculty and student 

mixes dictated for the various institutions still appropriate? If so, was it appropriate 

for Congress to allow the Service senior schools to award JPME II credit (NDAA 

FY 2005) despite their lower ratios, non-neutral ground, and lack of a requirement 

to send any graduates to joint assignments? ICAF and National must send ‘‘50% 

plus one’’ graduates to joint assignments. Is this still appropriate? Should Service 

schools have some kind of requirement? 

General STEEL. 1) A critical component of joint education is acculturation—ensuring officers from the various Services understand the professional cultures and 

warfighting perspectives of their sister Services, have trust and confidence in the 

professional expertise and integrity of officers from the other Services, and are able 

to work effectively in a fully joint organization where each Service is represented 

with essentially equal weight. Acculturation cannot be taught well in a classroom; 

it must be experienced. Students must live and work in a fully joint environment 

where all the Services have approximately equal representation, and their debates 

over the best ways to orchestrate all the capabilities of the various Services must 

take place on neutral ground where no Service has an institutional advantage (such 

as at a Service college). Thus the 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 Service mix for military students and 

faculty is absolutely appropriate for the joint schools, which exist solely to provide 

a cadre of officers with special expertise in joint operations, and therefore they 

should aim to provide the highest quality joint education possible. 

2) Service Colleges, on the other hand, exist first and foremost to provide a cadre 

of officers with special expertise in Service operations, and thus the military student 

and faculty mixes at those schools should favor representation from the host Service. Since joint expertise and perspective constitutes a critical secondary goal for 

Service schools, however, non-host Service students and faculty should be included 

in the mix to the maximum extent possible that their numbers can be supported 

by the non-host Services and their numbers will not degrade the focus on host Service expertise that must remain the principal purpose of each Service College. From 

that perspective, the 60/40 mix seems reasonable. 

No, not if the aim is to provide the highest quality joint education possible before 

allowing an officer to earn designation as a joint specialist. As discussed above, acculturation is critical to high-quality joint education, and substantive acculturation 

can only be accomplished on neutral ground with equal representation of all the 

Services in both the military student body and the military faculty. 

Since the sole purpose of joint education is to prepare officers for work in joint 

organizations, it only makes sense to send the bulk of their graduates to joint assignments once they have graduated from a joint educational school. If Service 

schools are going to continue to be allowed to award JPME II credit to their graduates (i.e., if they are going to be seen as preparing officers satisfactorily for work 

in joint organizations), then it would seem only reasonable that some significant 

proportion of their graduates also be designated for joint assignments. A possible 

danger of only ICAF and National sending the bulk of their graduates to joint organizations is officers viewing attendance at ICAF and National as detrimental to 

their careers due to more restrictive assignment opportunities after graduation. 

Admiral HALL. I believe that the faculty and student mix for ICAF is not just appropriate, but is, in fact, optimal. ICAF carefully builds each of its twenty student 

seminar groups with a balanced mix of military services and civilians (a typical 

seminar consists of 3 USA, 3 USAF, 3 USN/USMC (sometimes USCG), one International Fellow, three DOD civilians, and three non-DOD civilians—sometimes including one of 10 Industry Fellows in the class). The 1/3 service student allocation 

to ICAF permits this balanced mix for all seminars and maximizes every student’s 

exposure to joint, interagency, international, and often private sector industry perspectives. Likewise, the 1/3 service faculty mix allows for teaching teams to maximize the pairing of faculty from different services and civilian agencies for each student seminar—yielding an even greater exposure to joint and interagency experience and education. 

Whether it was appropriate for the Service senior schools to award JPME II credit 

is dependent upon the criteria that the CJCS and the Congress believe is sufficient 

to constitute a Joint Qualified Officer. 
176 

Because of the emphasis on joint and interagency education at ICAF (and NWC), 

it is appropriate for a large percentage of their graduates to be sent to joint assignments. ICAF believes that the 50%+1 rule further promotes the objectives of Goldwater-Nichols and ensures greater jointness throughout DOD. Service school requirements should be based upon CJCS, Service, and Congressional determination 

of needs, bearing in mind that such a requirement would further promote jointness 

throughout DOD. 

Dr. SNYDER. What constitutes rigor in your educational program? Does rigor require letter grades? Does rigor require written exams? Does rigor require the writing of research or analytical papers, and if so, of what length? Does rigor require 

increased contact time and less ‘‘white space’’ or vice versa? 

General STEEL. The National War College recognizes that academic rigor is a 

process, not an end state. Every aspect of the educational experience contributes to 

the level of academic rigor present in our program and only ongoing program assessment ensures that rigor is sustained. 

In our assessment process, we have identified three primary indicators of academic rigor. 

1) A challenging, dynamic curriculum. 

The College has established a curriculum review and renewal process to ensure 

continued relevance and currency in support of our college mission. Program and 

course objectives, which directly support the mission, are written at the higher levels of cognitive engagement to support a curriculum that challenges NWC students 

to apply, analyze and synthesize their learning. Feedback from multiple sources— 

students, faculty, graduates, and senior leaders—is a critical component of our continuous improvement process. The internal curriculum coordinating committee reviews all feedback and provides a venue for the discussion of curriculum changes. 

Finally, periodic self studies for the Program for the Accreditation of Joint Education and Middle States Commission are welcomed as a means of self-reflection 

and peer feedback. 

2) Students and faculty actively engaged in the learning process. 

The seminar forms the foundation of student learning at the National War College. A commitment to maintaining small seminar size, 13 students for core instruction, ensures that active learning prevails. This small size and multiple 

resectionings allow each student to be constantly challenged by a diversity of ideas 

and perspectives. For approximately 70% of the time, NWC students interact with 

their peers and faculty in critical thinking and creative problem solving activities 

such as analysis of case studies and exercises. While the remaining time is primarily devoted to lectures and panels, these are not purely passive activities; students engage with and frequently challenge the complex ideas presented in followon question and answer sessions and seminar discussions. Because our experienced 

and diverse faculty are key participants in this dynamic learning environment, 

maintaining faculty excellence is a priority. To enhance an already robust program 

of new faculty orientation, faculty seminar leader qualification criteria were adopted 

in AY 2009. Seminar leader excellence is further bolstered by numerous faculty 

workshops and opportunities for faculty improvement based on peer and leadership 

observations and feedback. 

3) High standards and expectations for all participants. 

The National War College students are evaluated against high standards that are 

clearly defined and consistently applied by teaching faculty. These standards are 

widely promulgated in the student handbook and NWC Standard Operating Procedures and faculty ratings are monitored to ensure consistent application. In addition 

to ongoing feedback in the seminar environment, students receive a minimum of 13 

formal evaluations during the academic year which provide them an accurate picture of their achievement level and identify areas for improvement. A student who 

fails to meet the standards is involved in an individually tailored remedial process. 

Like many professional schools, the National War College maintains a high level 

of rigor without the use of A –F letter grades. Instead, we assign final course grades 

of ‘‘Pass’’ or ‘‘Fail’ to certify that students have met—or failed to meet—our high college standards. Our continued use of pass/fail grades is based on the decision, validated over time, that this system maximizes learning for our mid-career students. 

Clearly, the lack of competition for letter grades has not resulted in a decline in the 

motivation of our students. On the contrary, the requirement to engage with their 

highly respected peers and faculty in small, active seminars continues to motivate 

NWC students to achieve at the highest levels. Removing the unnecessary grading 

pressure that can keep learners from taking productive risks frees them, in fact 

challenges them, to explore new areas rather than playing to their strengths in 

order to earn a grade. 
177 

While students receive ‘‘Pass’’ or ‘‘Fail’’ as final course grades, it is critical that 

faculty consistently measure students against the performance standards and provide them with a clear picture of their performance. NWC has successfully used 

‘‘Above,’’ ‘‘Met’’ or ‘‘Below’’ ratings to let students know how their mastery of subject 

matter, preparation, leadership and interaction, writing and oral presentations 

measure up to the National War College standards. Equally important, however, are 

the candid, constructive faculty comments that support these ratings. Taken together, the ratings and the narrative give students comprehensive, meaningful feedback that they can use to gauge their progress through the curriculum and to challenge themselves to sustain or improve performance. 

Although we do not assign letter grades, we do have a process in place to encourage and recognize superior performance. Faculty identify the top students in each 

core and elective seminar and, in core seminars, the writer of the best paper. These 

students earn points in the NWC Distinguished Graduate program, which is designed to identify the top 10% of the class, those students who have demonstrated 

that they are NWC’s outstanding students of strategy based on observed performance throughout the year. Excellence in writing is also recognized in the end-of-year 

writing awards program. 

While many institutions of higher education use written exams to hold students 

accountable for their learning and ensure a high level of rigor, there are other 

equally valid methods to challenge students and assess learning at the graduate 

level. Rather than written exams, NWC faculty use a variety of techniques to engage the students and provide direct assessments of their learning. With small seminars, faculty are able to assess the student’s mastery of course material on a daily 

basis and give immediate feedback. Within the seminar environment, exercises, oral 

presentations, case study analysis and written assignments that are directly related 

to the course objectives provide multiple opportunities for faculty to observe and 

document student learning. Candid feedback from both faculty and peers motivates 

students to excel in these dynamic sessions. 

In addition to seminar-related assessments, NWC students participate in oral 

evaluations in both fall and spring semesters. These evaluations engage two faculty 

members and one student in a 45-minute colloquy in which they are asked to integrate and apply what they have learned in the core program to the analysis of specific national security issues. These sessions enable faculty to evaluate an individual 

student’s progress in more depth than would generally be possible in a written 

exam. NWC students have also reported that the oral evaluations provide an excellent opportunity for honest self-assessment. Students who fail to meet the oral evaluation standards are immediately engaged in a remedial process that is tailored 

specifically to their needs. 

NWC students are required to demonstrate the ability to analyze complex problems, develop solutions and support those solutions with well-formed arguments. 

While writing analytical papers is not necessarily a requirement for rigor, it is one 

of the methods by which we assess our students’ ability to do this and, as a consequence, is a factor in maintaining academic rigor at NWC. The rigor is derived, 

however, not from the paper length, but from the level of cognitive engagement required by the assignment. The core writing assignments, of approximately 8–10 

pages in length each, are developed by the seven course directors to directly support 

the assigned learning objectives. Students receive detailed feedback that addresses 

the quality of critical thinking and analysis evident in their writing as well as the 

clarity and logic of their arguments. On average, an NWC student writes approximately 80 pages in the core and elective courses during the academic year. 

The National War College also offers options for those students who wish to engage in more in-depth research. Students who are accepted into the Research Fellow 

Program (usually 3 to 5 per class) receive faculty mentoring and time to pursue 

year-long research. Others can request the opportunity to combine papers for two 

core courses or a core course and elective to facilitate a longer paper; in AY 2009, 

approximately 15% of the class took advantage of this option. Finally, students can 

register for an advanced writing elective and, with the sponsorship of a faculty 

member, earn two graduate credits for a research paper in lieu of an elective course. 

At the graduate level, minimizing scheduled contact time is essential so that students can read, write and reflect on the ideas presented in lectures and seminar. 

The National War College has established an average of 13 contact hours per week 

as the standard and, based on experience, this is the maximum number that should 

be scheduled for our academic program. It is a challenging schedule but strikes the 

correct balance between engaging students with peers and faculty and providing 

them adequate time outside of class to think critically about their learning. This is 

also in line with other graduate programs, which frequently require only 9 to 12 

contact hours per week for fulltime study. While recognizing the importance of lim-
178 

iting contact hours, the college has faced an ongoing challenge with the scheduling 

of NDU special lectures which, while of value, take up the ‘‘white space’’ that we 

know that our students need to maximize their learning. 

Admiral HALL. ICAF believes that rigor does require the writing of research or 

analytical papers in order to be able to assess the quality of student thinking, 

whether they understand the conceptual material of the ICAF curriculum, whether 

they are able to devise and implement strategies, and whether they understand and 

can evaluate the strategic level of national security affairs. ICAF strongly believes 

that if a student cannot write his or her thoughts coherently on paper, then the student does not have a coherent understanding of the concepts being assessed. The 

same kind of assessment may be achieved through written essay questions, but 

ICAF prefers 5 to 7 page papers of analysis, conceptualization, and argument in 

order to evaluate whether students can produce complex, multi-issue papers that 

are coherent, well-organized, and well-argued. ICAF believes that 5 to 7 page papers 

test research, analysis, conceptualization, and argumentation skills on a variety of 

topics during the academic year and avoid limiting students to researching, analyzing, and arguing recommendations for only a few topics in a couple of more extensive and lengthy research papers. 

ICAF believes that written exams of multiple choice or short answer questions 

would only assess whether students remembered key concepts and facts, and not 

whether they could organize them into a strategy, a coherent multi-dimensional 

analysis, or a complex and well argued policy paper. 

ICAF currently uses letter grades, but is undertaking a reassessment of the effect 

of a letter grading system on the educational objectives of the college. The current 

letter grading system at ICAF clearly lays out detailed criteria for assessing different levels of student performance and assigning grades, but such criteria also 

could be applied to a non-letter grade system. During the 1990s, ICAF used a grading system similar to the National War College using a ‘‘met expectations,’’ ‘‘exceeded expectations,’’ and ‘‘failed to meet expectations’’ grading system. ICAF’s measures 

to ensure rigor in its educational program have been little changed from that system 

to its current use of letter grades. The ICAF program then and now uses multiple 

assessment devices to evaluate how well students are understanding course content 

and progressing into a truly strategic level of conceptual understanding and evaluation. As such, we do not believe that letter grades, in and of themselves, ensure 

rigor. Discussions with the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools during 

accreditation visits indicate that the college must use clearly defined and systematically applied criteria for whatever grading system it uses, and that letter grades are 

not a requirement. According to Middle States, a Pass/Fail system is considered acceptable if the criteria is clearly defined and systematically applied. 

ICAF believes that rigor requires an appropriate balance of contact time and 

white space. Because ICAF has the unique mission of evaluating national security 

strategy (as do all the war colleges) and critically assessing its underlying resource 

component, it is keenly aware of the need to balance adequate contact time with 

white space to read, reflect, conceptualize, and strategize. ICAF has just completed 

a two-year restructuring of its academic course flow. The Class of 2010 will have 

seminar sessions or a lecture each morning of the week, electives on Tuesday and/ 

or Wednesday afternoons, and white space on most Monday, Thursday, and Friday 

afternoons. Productive use of white space requires some self-discipline by students, 

but I believe ICAF now provides a good balance and adequate time for reading, reflecting, conceptualizing, and strategizing. 

Dr. SNYDER. Can you describe how you survey students, graduates, and graduates’ 

supervisors to assess the quality of your program? 

General STEEL. NWC has a robust process in place for collecting feedback from 

students during the academic year. At the close of each core course, one student 

from each seminar meets with the Core Course Director to provide a first look at 

student perceptions of the course. All students are then asked to complete detailed 

on-line surveys. Through a combination of multiple response and narrative items, 

students evaluate the accomplishment of course objectives, the usefulness of specific 

topics, readings, and lectures, and the effectiveness of seminar instruction. They are 

also encouraged to provide comments on any aspect of the course that has added 

to or distracted from their learning. Each faculty seminar leader receives an electronic report of feedback from his/her seminar, while the Course Director is given 

immediate access to feedback from all seminars. The Director of IR and Assessment 

analyzes the surveys for trends and specific strengths and weaknesses and publishes a summary report. This report, along with all of the narrative comments, is 

provided to leadership for use in curriculum review and revision and is made available to faculty and students via the ‘‘Assessment’’ site on the NWC Intranet. A similar process is followed at the close of both fall and spring elective courses. At the 
179 

end of the year, students complete a final survey in which they focus on the program as a whole and its contribution to their achievement of the broader program 

outcomes. In AY 2009, our survey response rate was 90% or greater for each of our 

core courses and 95% for the end-of-year survey, giving us a very reliable picture 

of student opinion. 

The National War College conducts biennial surveys of graduates and their supervisors. Every two years, two classes are surveyed, one in their first post-graduation 

assignment and one in their second assignment. In October 2009, for example, we 

will survey the Class of 2005 and the Class of 2008. At the same time that we send 

surveys to our graduates, we ask them to provide a survey to their first-line supervisor. In addition, every three years, we request feedback from our senior stakeholders on the relevance of our outcomes and on areas that they think require additional emphasis in the education of strategists. The next senior leader survey, which 

takes the form of a letter from our Commandant, is scheduled for spring AY 2010. 

The results of these surveys have provided us with feedback to use both for curriculum validation and renewal. The graduate survey items focus primarily on student perceptions of their achievement of the NWC curriculum outcomes, the contributions of the program to their ability to work in joint, interagency and international environments; any perceived gaps in their learning, and recommendations 

for program improvements. As we are looking for ways in which we can continue 

to connect with our graduates, we also ask them what we can provide to help them 

stay engaged with strategic issues post-graduation. Survey results are shared widely 

with leadership, the curriculum committee and the faculty at large. In addition, a 

summary is provided to survey respondents in appreciation for their contribution to 

our program. 

Securing graduate and supervisor feedback has become more of a challenge in recent years and response rates have declined. Graduates have informed us that, because of the demands for accountability, they receive surveys from every educational 

institution that they have attended, both military and civilian. As a result ‘‘survey 

fatigue’’ has been an issue. Deployments of more recent graduates have also been 

a factor in this decline. Despite these challenges, however, we recognize that feedback from graduates is an essential component of our curriculum evaluation process. 

Consequently, while we will continue with our formal surveys, we are investigating 

other avenues by which we can engage graduates and supervisors. In AY 2010, we 

plan to pilot focus groups that will enable us to investigate specific aspects of our 

program. We have also developed a database on all NWC graduates who are in active flag officer positions as well as current ambassadors and plan to reach out to 

them as another means of securing feedback on the long-term value of our program. 

Finally, we have been fortunate to have a very active and supportive alumni association that forwards us anecdotal feedback that they receive from graduates. 

Admiral HALL. Feedback is essential to making informed decisions on change and 

growth as an educational institution. At the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, 

we continually solicit feedback from our students, graduates and graduates’ supervisors. 

During the academic year, we ask our students to fill out web-based surveys at 

the end of each course they complete. We also ask them to complete a survey at 

the end of the year covering their overall academic experience. Topics of the survey 

include how well the faculty accomplish course objectives, the usefulness of readings, how instruction can be improved to enhance learning, and how well the student believes the overall course of study meets his/her long-term professional needs 

as a senior leader. 

We also conduct a web-based survey with our graduates both one year and three 

years after they graduate. The graduates are asked a myriad of questions, to include 

if they think ICAF covers the right subjects, which subjects should be added to the 

curriculum, and what knowledge, skills and abilities they think military officers and 

senior government officials will need the most in the next 10–15 years. 

In conjunction with our graduate surveys, we also solicit input from graduates’ 

supervisors. We ask supervisors if they think our graduates are prepared for senior 

level responsibilities, for joint and interagency and international assignments. 

Dr. SNYDER. Should the OSD Chancellors office be reestablished? Why or Why 

not? 

General STEEL. No it should not, at least not for the PME system. The Service 

and joint PME schools already receive significant direct policy guidance from either 

their parent Service headquarters or from the NDU headquarters. Centralized coordination of the entire PME system, as well as of each individual PME school, is 

provided by the CJCS via CJCSI 1800.01C, Officer Professional Military Education 

Policy (OPMEP), and via the J–7 Joint Education and Doctrine Division. This centralized coordination includes a rigorous Joint Staff-managed accreditation evalua-
180 

tion of each PME school every six years. Adding another layer of bureaucracy would 

be redundant and burdensome, especially when you consider that quality education, 

as a largely creative enterprise, flourishes best when given as much autonomy as 

possible within broad, general guidelines. Piling up layers or degrees of bureaucracy 

crimps the innovation and artistry that are at the heart of the highest quality educational programs. 

Admiral HALL. The OSD Chancellors office is not necessary for the senior school 

JPME system. CJCS, the Director of the Joint Staff, and J–7 provide more than 

adequate oversight and quality control of the senior school JPME system through 

the OPMEP, the PAJE, the MECC, and the MECC Working Group. An OSD 

Chancellors office may have value for coordination and quality control over other 

DOD civilian education and professional development activities to ensure that appropriate standards of academic quality and cost-effectiveness are met, but it would 

provide only an additional bureaucratic layer and no unique contribution for senior 

school JPME. 

Dr. SNYDER. Ethics—what should be the role of ethical education at the senior 

schools beyond ‘‘just war’’ theory? 

General STEEL. Strategy that ignores the ethical dimension is inherently weaker, 

as history continues to teach. Our early experience in Operation Iraqi Freedom is 

the latest example. In developing strategic thinkers, the National War College has 

a dual responsibility—both to help future strategists develop their own frameworks 

for dealing with the ethical dilemmas they invariably will confront and, in their 

transition from tactical to strategic roles, to give them the tools to shape ethical behavior across organizations. If ‘‘war amongst the people’’ represents the future of 

warfare, as an influential modern theorist posits, then ethical considerations loom 

even larger. Toward that end, a number of didactic methods are employed. A recurring theme throughout the year in the six required core courses at the heart of the 

NWC curriculum is the essential role of leadership, especially in Courses One—‘‘Introduction to Strategy,’’ Two—‘‘War and Statecraft,’’ Three—‘‘Diplomacy and 

Statecraft,’’ Four—‘‘The Domestic Context and National Security Decision-Making,’’ 

and Six—‘‘Applications in National Security Strategy.’’ Through case studies, lectures, readings, and seminar discussions, students are exposed to dozens of key strategic leaders throughout history and the decisions that defined their legacies—both 

positive and negative. Ethics is often a factor. Exercises in the core course seminars 

provide the students with practical challenges they are required to confront—many 

with ethical dilemmas. In Course Six, last year’s students conducted an exercise on 

‘‘Instability, Uncertainty, and Nukes,’’ where an incident of nuclear terrorism within 

the United States was a defining event. To help familiarize students with the historic and modern context of war and ethics, three separate topics are incorporated 

into Course Two: Just War Theory, The Rise of ‘Lawfare’ in Modern Conflicts, and 

the Quranic Concept of War. Similarly, two topics which have ethics as a key subtheme are contained in Course Four: Dissent Within Interagency Negotiations, and 

Civil Military Interactions. The Commandant’s Lecture Series, a required six part 

series that incorporates readings along with six lectures by eminent practitioners, 

has as its theme ‘‘Strategic Leadership and Ethics.’’ Finally, NWC has embraced the 

Executive Assessment and Development Program as an important learning tool. 

EADP uses feedback from previous peers and subordinates to help students—supervised individually by faculty member—to improve their leadership skills. Ethics is 

one of the areas specifically addressed in the feedback. 

Admiral HALL. Ethics are the core of our profession. Unfortunately, some senior 

leaders make poor decisions in regard to personal, professional and organizational 

ethics. We have seen the devastating strategic effect this behavior has had on mission effectiveness and our national security. When I arrived as the Commandant, 

I enhanced the existing ethics program at ICAF and established ethics as an area 

of special emphasis to be woven throughout the curriculum, not as a separate and 

distinct subject of study. The faculty has successfully integrated ethics into their 

course lessons and lectures and prepared our graduates to include an assessment 

of ‘‘What is the ethical dimension we are dealing with?’’ as a factor in addressing 

personal, professional, and organizational issues. During the academic year, ICAF 

schedules one day in each term to discuss the subject of ethics. In the fall, we have 

a panel of speakers and special seminar sessions to discuss ethics in national security affairs. In the spring, we focus the panel and seminar sessions on ethics involved in government-industry relationships. 

Dr. SNYDER. Should each school have a Board of Visitors or Consultants, separate 

from your University’s, so it could focus just on your mission? 

General STEEL. From the beginning of the College in 1946, NWC had a ‘‘board 

of consultants’’ who were originally picked by Admiral Hill, our first Commandant, 

to assist him in the preparation of the curriculum and the selection of faculty. The 
181 

Board, over the years, included distinguished four stars and ambassadors, chiefs of 

service, university presidents, distinguished scholars, and foreign policy leaders, 

from Omar Bradley to Bernard Brodie, to the President of the University of California system to Father Ted Hesburg from Notre Dame. The Board was an active 

participant in the College’s program. They had periodic sessions at the College, 

would sit in classes, review the course work, consult with the Commandant and generally give feedback to the school on its overall operation. They also attended to the 

College’s needs. The Board’s work is mentioned in each of the annual reports of the 

College until the establishment of the National Defense University. At that time the 

NWC Board was terminated. I do think we need our own board of consultants or 

oversight board. NDU’s Board of Visitors (BOV) is focused upon the bigger NDU 

strategic issues and pretty much disconnected from the components’ specific requirements and needs. The NDU Board of Visitors has plenty to do just regarding NDU 

issues, subsequently, with the large growth of NDU, the effectiveness of the NDU 

BOV has been diluted somewhat when it comes to the specific components. NWC 

needs a board of consultants who know our mission, our challenges and who have 

been to NWC and can support the school in the same manner it did when it was 

first established. This is not to suggest that the NDU BOV is not needed. I would 

see value in the collaborative efforts of an NDU BOV and an NWC board of consultants. 

Admiral HALL. Although ICAF does not have its own Board of Visitors, we do 

have a significant number of distinguished visitors that are authorities in the field 

of national defense, academia, business, national security affairs, and the defense 

industry. Through these visits and our robust outreach program, the College receives a lot of advice and recommendations on the mission and curricula, similar 

to the inputs a Board of Visitors provides. 

Dr. SNYDER. What is being done to allow students sufficient discretionary time for 

study and reflection, given that the PAJE study noted that it was being squeezed 

out by an increase in extra-curricular requirements such as attendance at university-sponsored lectures? 

Admiral HALL. Since the PAJE visit NDU has adopted a system of one university 

sponsored lecture (now called the Distinguished Lecture Program) per week. Likewise, ICAF also sponsors only one college-wide lecture per week, called the Commandant’s Lecture Series. ICAF believes that this maximum of two lectures per 

week by outside speakers is appropriate for exposing students to a wide range of 

senior government and private sector speakers who can share their perspectives on 

policy, national security issues, strategy, and resource issues with our student population of future strategic leaders. Students need to hear from current leaders, but 

should not spend too much time in passive learning situations. 

ICAF believes that rigor requires an appropriate balance of contact time and 

white space. Because ICAF has the unique mission of evaluating national security 

strategy (as do all the war colleges) and critically assessing its underlying resource 

component, it is keenly aware of the need to balance adequate contact time with 

white space to read, reflect, conceptualize, and strategize. ICAF has just completed 

a two-year restructuring of its academic course flow and the class of 2010 will have 

seminar sessions or lecture each morning of the week, electives on Tuesday and/or 

Wednesday afternoons, and white space on most Monday, Thursday, and Friday 

afternoons. Productive use of white space requires some self-discipline by students, 

but I believe ICAF now provides a good balance and adequate time for reading, reflecting, conceptualizing, and strategizing. 

Dr. SNYDER. Have the writing requirements been reviewed in response to the 

PAJE observation that faculty and students both considered them excessive? 

Admiral HALL. ICAF continually reviews its assessment program and balances 

the work load on students against the need for assessment and rigor. In order to 

ensure the ICAF program is rigorous in its ability to properly advance student 

learning with regard to strategy, strategic national security affairs, and the resource 

component of national security, each component of the ICAF program must involve 

some kind of assessment mechanism. Currently, ICAF predominantly uses 2 to 3 

page or 5 to 7 page papers for most of its writing requirements. ICAF uses paper 

assignments to assess the development of student skills in analysis, 

conceptualization, and argument and to determine whether students can produce 

complex, multi-issue papers that are coherent, well-organized, and well-argued. 

Moreover, ICAF believes that its paper writing program also prepares students to 

produce high quality, complex papers in a short period of time—something that frequently is common at senior levels in national security affairs. Rapid turn-around 

of issue analysis or policy recommendation papers for principals is the norm at the 

NSC, DOD, State Department, and within the intelligence community. ICAF has 

only ten months to prepare students for senior policy positions and its writing pro-
182 

gram both assesses student thinking and skills, and prepares them for operating effectively at senior levels. 

Nevertheless, as mentioned in the previous question about whether rigor requires 

increased contact time and less ‘‘white space’’ or vice versa, ICAF has just completed 

a two-year restructuring of its academic course flow. The better alignment of the 

calendar has produced increased convergence of due dates for course papers. The 

college is establishing a faculty study committee to review our assessment mechanisms (especially the number and length of papers and their due dates), explore alternative means for quality assessment, and make recommendations to ensure that 

ICAF uses high quality assessment instruments while not overloading the students 

with writing requirements and diminishing student white space study time. 

Dr. SNYDER. The renewal of civilian faculty contracts were characterized by a lack 

of ‘‘timeliness.’’ How has this been corrected? 

General STEEL. This comment was tied directly to the formal process of submission through the NDU Human Resources Directorate (HRD), the NDU Chain of 

Command, and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service. There was a continuous stream of significant turnover so the learning curve for those in the processing 

chain delayed the submissions. 

There has been some improvement, however, HRD is still experiencing a significant turnover of personnel, and it is extremely short handed in key positions such 

as the Director of HRD which has been vacant for over a year, and the lack of a 

trained Title 10 expert, the last who departed some months ago. Vice Admiral Rondeau, the new NDU President, has initiated the hiring process for a new HRD Director effective July 22, 2009. 

Dr. SNYDER. The terms ‘‘training’’ and ‘‘education’’ seem to be used interchangeably quite a bit. Can you tell me how you define the difference and what part of 

your curriculum is training and which part is education? 

Admiral WISECUP. There is clearly a difference between training and education 

and they should not be used interchangeably. The American Heritage Dictionary defines training as ‘‘the process or routine of making someone proficient with specialized instruction and practice.’’ Education is defined as ‘‘the act or process of developing innate capacities especially by schooling or instruction.’’ A more PME-related 

distinction, written by Dr. David Trettler of National War College, appears in Enclosure A of the Officer Professional Military Education Policy (CJCSI 1800.01C). It describes education as: ‘‘in its broadest conception, education conveys general bodies 

of knowledge and develops habits of mind applicable to the broad spectrum of endeavors. At its highest levels and purest forms, education fosters breadth of view, 

diverse perspectives and critical analysis, abstract reasoning, comfort with ambiguity and uncertainty, innovative thinking, particularly with respect to complex, 

non-linear problems. This contrasts with training which focuses on the instruction 

of personnel to enhance the capacity to perform specific functions and tasks.’’ 

At the Naval War College our senior course curriculum is education. What very 

little training that takes place within the course of instruction facilitates student 

activity and products in our several capstone exercises. For example, the capstone 

wargame exercise for the Joint Military Operations course requires the students to 

operate as joint force staff members in boards and cells in a networked environment. A half day of training is required to familiarize them with the supporting 

computer network, the electronic systems, web pages, etc. 

Dr. SNYDER. The 1989 Skelton Panel Report said all the Commandants and Presidents should teach so that they would understand what it takes to be a faculty 

member. Can you describe a typical faculty member’s day? Do you yourself teach 

or mentor individual students? a. Unlike civilian university professors who emphasize research, your faculty members generally do not have teaching assistants, research assistants, or set office hours. When do they have time for service, research, 

and writing? How much research and writing do you expect them to do outside the 

sabbatical windows? How is this assessed on their appraisals, military and civilian? 

Admiral WISECUP. Since the 1989 Skelton Report, the Naval War College has reorganized its leadership model, converting the Dean of Academics to a civilian position and adding a Provost, who effectively is the College’s Chief Operating Officer 

and the Dean of Faculty. All of the four Provosts have had teaching experience as 

faculty members and academic administrators. Each of the Deans of Academics has 

had extensive experience as a faculty member in professional military education and 

civilian universities or colleges. These organizational changes were designed to 

strengthen the faculty perspective within the College’s senior leadership. 

The Deans of Academics have maintained an active role in the classroom, most 

often by teaching elective courses. The Provosts have also participated in the Electives Program and occasionally the core academic program, usually augmenting a 

full-time faculty member. The current President also occasionally participates in the 
183 

Electives program as a guest speaker, as did his predecessor. The President, Provost, and Dean of Academics regularly visit classrooms to observe and actively participate in seminar discussions. Likewise, they routinely meet with faculty members 

to exchange perspectives and remain attuned to the faculty’s challenges. The College’s leadership team remains deeply committed to the quality of education at the 

Naval War College and fully understands the College’s center of gravity is its faculty. In the aggregate, these actions, we believe, have accomplished the intent of 

this recommendation of the 1989 Skelton Panel. 

The Naval War College developed an academic rhythm, distinct among the PME 

schools and colleges, suited to its paradigm of a single faculty teaching both the intermediate and senior level courses. First, we adopted a quarter-like system and 

teach three extended quarters, which we call trimesters, annually. Second, we developed three core academic departments, each with sufficient faculty to design, prepare and teach the curricula for its particular department. Faculty in each department then teaches the core academic program for two of the three trimesters. For 

that teaching trimester, a faculty member typically spends approximately four 

morning hours daily in the classroom with students. The afternoon is spent in tutorials, mentoring students, preparing for class, doing limited research, curriculum review, or maintaining currency in their specialty. During the third trimester and the 

six-week summer period, faculty members have more opportunity to conduct research and write, develop curricula, and pursue faculty development. 

As stated in our Faculty Handbook, ‘‘The Naval War College expects all civilian 

faculty members whose duties are not primarily administrative to engage in professional research and exhibit a sustained commitment to scholarship. It expects most 

of them to publish at least some of the results of their research. Military members 

are not expected to publish, but are encouraged to do so in their areas of expertise.’’ 

For civilian professors teaching in the three core academic departments, there are 

common elements in every faculty members’ performance appraisal: teaching performance, curriculum development, research and publication, and service to the College’s larger mission. Individual faculty members meet with their departmental 

Chairs and establish personal plans annually to develop more specific criteria for 

those common areas and any distinct areas relevant to that professor’s performance. 

Additionally, the Faculty Handbook established criteria for consideration for promotion to the ranks of Associate Professor and Professor which include research and 

publication expectations. Thus, their annual appraisals, their potential for promotion, and ultimately their reappointment rest, in part, on their productive scholarship. Military faculty members are expected to research and contribute to curricula development and are judged in their appraisals accordingly. A list of faculty 

publications in the last year illustrates that the College faculty is highly productive 

in research and publication. 

Dr. SNYDER. Does having a master’s degree program at these schools detract from 

the PME mission, not from the standpoint of it being easy to accredit existing programs, but that it may tip the focus toward the academic instead of professional 

education? 

Admiral WISECUP. The Naval War College sought to grant the masters degree in 

order to get its students to focus on their PME studies. Twenty years ago, over 70% 

of our student body simultaneously pursued a master’s degree in a local college or 

university, using transferred credit hours from the NWC course of instruction to 

form the foundation for its graduate requirements. These night courses clearly competed for the students’ academic attention. To rectify this problem, the College 

asked the New England Association of Schools and Colleges to assess our educational program to see if it qualified for accreditation for a master’s degree. 

The Naval War College changed nothing in its educational routine to qualify itself 

for this degree. The regional civilian educators determined the academic program 

was sufficiently comprehensive and contained sufficient rigor to meet accreditation 

standards. The regional authority clearly recognized this College as a professional 

school with an academic program tailored to the military or defense professional. 

Curriculum content, student assessment, faculty qualifications, and our business 

and academic support processes all met their standards. 

Since the College has begun to award master’s degrees, less than 1% of our U.S. 

graduates have pursued simultaneous degrees with local colleges or universities. We 

now have our students’ full academic attention on their PME studies. 

There have been several key benefits to the institution and its faculty which accompanied regional accreditation. For the faculty members, teaching in an accredited, graduate degree college has strengthened their credentials. For the College, it 

has provided stature and facilitated inter-institutional dialogue and activities as 

well as enabling us to attract top-notch faculty members. For the College and the 
184 

Navy, it has provided an external review to ensure our academic programs and institutional practices meet common standards within the educational community. 

Granting of a master’s degree has strengthened our PME mission. An external authority ensures we continue to meet educational standards which ensures our students receive a bonafide graduate education and their parent Service (Army, Navy, 

Marine, Air Force, Coast Guard, etc.) gets back an officer grounded in both academic 

and professional military education capable of strategically minded critical thinking 

and excelling in positions of strategic leadership. Those officers also possess a credential recognized by their civilian counterparts in the interagency. 

Dr. SNYDER. Do all of your students receive master’s degrees—why or why not? 

What does top quality in uniformed faculty mean to you? Please be specific, is it 

more important to have an advanced degree in specific areas like international relations, political science, a regional study, or military or political history than it is to 

have a PhD in any subject even if that was in math or engineering? 

Admiral WISECUP. Only our U.S. students are eligible for the master’s degree. 

Nearly all of them earn it; a few senior-level students over the years have not met 

the grading standards and have instead received a NWC diploma instead of a degree. Students must earn a final grade of B¥ or above in each core course (or an 

approved advanced research program in lieu of one of the core courses), and who 

pass three elective courses, to be awarded the Naval War College Master of Arts 

degree in National Security and Strategic Studies and the appropriate JPME certification. Resident students from the CNW and the CNC&S who complete the three 

core courses (or an approved advanced research program in lieu of one of the core 

courses), with an overall average grade of B¥ or better and not more than one 

course grade in the ‘‘C’’ category, and who pass three elective courses are eligible 

for the NWC diploma and the appropriate JPME certification. 

International officers from the Naval Command College and Naval Staff College 

are excluded from the master’s degree program. The Department of Education and 

the Congress authorized granting of the degree only to U.S. students. The College 

has a partnership with a local university which resulted in a program available to 

these international officers to get a master’s degree by doing some additional research and class work. 

For uniformed faculty, we expect expertise in their area of specialty (i.e. submarines, infantry, surface ships, aviation. logistics, etc.). We seek officers who have 

commanded as commanders or lieutenant colonels or held equivalent positions in 

the restricted line or staff communities and prefer officers who have also commanded as a captain or a colonel. We seek combat experience or operational experience in the recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. We seek experience at the strategic or operational levels. We expect them to be intermediate-level school graduates 

with JPME Phase I and expect most of them to also be senior-level graduates. We 

seek officers with joint experience, preferably Joint Qualified Officers. For civilian 

education, we expect them to possess a master’s degree at a minimum. Although a 

majority of our faculty have advanced degrees in international relations, history, political science, or military or political history, the discipline is not as important as 

their teaching ability. Our faculty has advanced degrees in a variety of disciplines 

and this diversity adds to the richness of our education. 

Dr. SNYDER. What does ‘‘top quality’’ mean for civilian faculty? Please be specific. 

a. Does not having tenure affect how professors treat ‘‘academic freedom’’? 

Admiral WISECUP. As stated in our Faculty Handbook, ‘‘The Naval War College 

expects all civilian faculty members whose primary duties are not primarily administrative to engage in professional research and exhibit a sustained commitment to 

scholarship. It expects most of them to publish at least some of the results of their 

research. Military members are not expected to publish, but are encouraged to do 

so in their areas of expertise.’’ For civilian professors teaching in the three core academic departments, there are common elements in every faculty members’ performance appraisal; teaching performance, curriculum development, research and publication, and service to the College’s larger mission. Individual faculty members meet 

with their departmental Chairs and establish personal plans annually to develop 

more specific criteria for those common areas and any distinct areas relevant to the 

professor’s performance. Additionally, the Faculty Handbook established criteria for 

consideration for promotion to the ranks of Associate Professor and Professor which 

includes research and publication expectations. Thus, their annual appraisals, their 

potential for promotion, and ultimately their reappointment rest, in part on their 

productive scholarship. Military faculty members are expected to research and contribute to curricula development and are judged in their appraisals accordingly. 

Civilian faculty members in the rank of associate professor can have a successful 

career at the Naval War College. When the College revised its published criteria for 

assignment of civilian professorial ranks and the criteria for promotion and pub-
185 

lished it in the Faculty Handbook, we publicly identified our key indicators of top 

quality. They are the specific criteria for promotion to the rank of professor. The 

criteria are ‘‘excellence in teaching or research, not simply a satisfactory level of performance; significant contributions to either the NWC’s educational mission or 

NWC’s research, analysis, and gaming function; active engagement and visibility in 

the faculty members academic or professional community; significant productivity in 

scholarly publication or professional research; a consistent commitment in the faculty member’s teaching and/or research, analysis, and gaming to fostering critical 

thinking from a joint perspective and cultivating the ability of students/officers to 

function effectively in a joint, interagency, and multinational environment; a demonstrated commitment to teamwork with other faculty members across the departments and codes of the Naval War College, and the ability to develop or advance 

new ideas that enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of both the faculty members 

department and the college as a whole.’’ 

The practice of academic freedom by faculty members at the Naval War College 

is robust. While the Congress, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, combatant 

commanders, and CNO are rightfully involved in professional military education 

policy and engaged in determining professional educational standards, the College’s 

executive leadership has been successful in preserving the autonomy of the College 

and its faculty in deciding what to teach and how to teach it. Faculty members are 

allowed great scope for experimenting with different teaching methods and for expressing different points of view in the classroom. Aside from projects assigned to 

researchers in the Center for Naval Warfare Studies, faculty members have been 

free to choose the subjects of their research and writing. Hardly a week passes without Naval War College professors publicly expressing opinions and offering expertise 

on current political and military issues in a wide variety of mass media—television, 

radio, newspapers, magazines, and journalistic websites. The College prides itself on 

respect for academic freedom; at the same time, the idea that the exercise of academic freedom should be informed in practice by a sense of responsibility is widely 

accepted among faculty members dealing with issues of great national and international importance. 

Dr. SNYDER. Since you don’t have tenure, what is the process for renewal and nonrenewal of the civilian faculty? How transparent is the system? Do professors know 

six months before they are up for renewal whether they will be renewed, for how 

long, and why? In a tenure system people think the faculty members have all the 

power, in a no-tenure system it appears that the school has unlimited power. How 

do you avoid the extremes and appearances of arbitrariness? How many of your civilian faculty don’t have PhDs or JDs? Be specific about what degrees they do have 

and why they were hired. 

Admiral WISECUP. The process of retaining faculty is an open, orderly and fair 

one. Though the College does not employ a system of tenure and has no intention 

of doing so, it accords its faculty reasonable contractual security consistent with the 

College’s mission. The College continues to sustain its quality standard for faculty. 

As a practice, the College renews contracts as early as 364 days in advance prior 

to their expiration. All faculty members are notified at least six months prior to the 

expiration of their contract. As highlighted in the Faculty Handbook, in all but extraordinary circumstances, notification of non-reappointment will be given by 1 December prior to the expiration of the contractual term. 

Faculty members with more than six years of continuous employment at the 

Naval War College have the right to request a peer review of their non-reappointment. (Six years is the typical length of time it takes to make tenure at a civilian 

university.) A Non-Reappointment Review Committee will be appointed to consider 

their appeal. This process is delineated in the Faculty Handbook. There has only 

been one request for peer review of a non-reappointment since the original Skelton 

Report was published in 1989. Non-reappointment of faculty who have served more 

than six years is unusual. 

The College’s unique paradigm that one faculty teaches both the intermediate and 

senior level PME course influences our hiring practices for the civilian faculty. Terminal academic degrees are significant. However, professional expertise and experience can be substituted for a terminal academic degree. 

As a matter of practice, the Strategy & Policy Department demands that all civilian faculty members hold terminal academic degrees. The twenty-two civilian faculty members in the department all hold terminal academic degrees and are acknowledged experts in history, political science, or international relations. All come 

from prestigious universities or institutes. 

The civilian faculty members in the National Security Decision Making (NSDM) 

Department all have a specialty which relates to NSDM curricula and are proven 

experts in their respective field of endeavor. Currently, all NSDM civilian faculty 
186 

members hold, at a minimum, a masters degree, while over seventy-four percent (23 

of 31 faculty members) hold terminal degrees. Of the eight faculty members without 

terminal academic degrees, six are military retirees with professional experience relevant to the NSDM courses and one is a civilian professor who has completed her 

doctoral classes and is completing the required dissertation. The final civilian faculty member is not a Title 10 professor, but rather a representative from the State 

Department, a Foreign Service officer with extensive diplomatic experience overseas. 

In the Joint Military Operations (JMO) Department, civilian faculty members all 

have a specialty which relates to JMO curricula and complements the expertise of 

the military faculty. Twenty-one of the twenty-four civilian professors are retired 

military officers. All have significant and diverse military or military related backgrounds which incorporate a broad range of tactical, operational, and joint duty experience into the overall skills base of JMO. All civilian faculty members have a 

minimum of a M.A./M.S. and fifty-four percent (13 of 24) hold a J.D./PhD or are 

PhD candidates. Sixty-six percent (16 of 24) hold multiple advanced degrees. Seventy-nine percent (19 of 24) were JPME Phase I or II qualified while on active duty 

and twenty-five percent (6 of 24) were JSO equivalents while on active duty. There 

is significant previous joint duty experience among the civilian faculty. 

Dr. SNYDER. Some of you have indicated that you wish to hire ‘‘younger’’ PhDs— 

Do you think they may need a bit of seasoning or practical experience to be able 

to hold their own with the caliber and seniority of students you have? Does it mean 

you have to push out ‘‘older professors’’ who may be performing well in order to 

bring on younger ones? 

Admiral WISECUP. The Naval War College has had good success in hiring ‘‘younger Ph.D.s.’’ About six years ago, the College identified the ‘‘graying’’ of the faculty 

as a concern. Accordingly, policies were put in place to clearly establish uniform criteria for academic ranks including hiring and promotion of civilian faculty. The College’s core academic faculty was still growing to meet its enlarging student population, providing an opportunity to hire new faculty members from across the academic ranks including Assistant Professors, a virtually unused, academic rank previously. The College networked with key national security or international security 

Ph.D. programs to identify noteworthy young scholars. The departmental faculty approached the hiring of younger scholars with great care, fully realizing the caliber 

and seniority of our students. Each of our younger faculty members possesses key 

expertise in areas where the faculty determined we needed strengthening and each 

was required to demonstrate teaching prowess in the seminar setting as an integral 

element of the hiring process. 

The results have been most positive, especially in the departments that teach 

with a faculty team. These younger PhDs were paired with an experienced military 

faculty member during their first teaching year. Clearly, the senior military faculty 

member eased the concern about youth, experience and credibility with both our intermediate and senior students. Civilian faculty mentors also helped to transition 

these young scholars into the College’s educational model. Faculty workshops ensured they were fully prepared for seminar discussions. In the department without 

team teaching, additional measures were taken to ensure a smooth transition to the 

classroom. 

We did not push out ‘‘older professors’’ in order to bring on the younger ones. 

First, these stalwarts are the foundation of our educational success. Additionally, 

they provide continuity to the institution. Second, we were in a growing phase for 

the faculty and hired a mix of younger scholars and more seasoned scholars. By 

doing so, we have improved the institution and addressed in part our concern about 

the ‘‘graying’’ of the faculty. 

Dr. SNYDER. National and ICAF have 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 faculty and student mixes while 

the Service schools have a 60% host and 40% other mix. Are the faculty and student 

mixes dictated for the various institutions still appropriate? If so, was it appropriate 

for Congress to allow the Service senior schools to award JPME II credit (NDAA 

FY 2005) despite their lower ratios, non-neutral ground, and lack of a requirement 

to send any graduates to joint assignments? ICAF and National must send ‘‘50% 

plus one’’ graduates to joint assignments. Is this still appropriate? Should Service 

schools have some kind of requirement? 

Admiral WISECUP. A lot has happened to change the environment since the 1989 

Skelton Report. Congress has even redefined the term ‘‘joint matters.’’ Those 

changes in the international security environment affected the way the Services operate for the last two decades. As a result Service cultures have matured. 

‘‘Jointness’’ is not a foreign word to today’s midcareer military professional as it was 

for most officers in 1989. Clearly, joint acculturation is one of the key educational 

outcomes for senior Service Colleges, but today that means not simply multi-service, 

but something far closer to the revised definition of joint matters. For today’s stu-
187 

dents, the mix of international partners and interagency representatives is as important as the joint acculturation process. If there were to be any revision in the 

mix requirement, it should clearly be expanded to include multi-agency and multinational representation as well. Using an expanded formula, the student mix for 

last academic year for the College of Naval Warfare was 39% U.S. Navy and 9% 

U.S. Marine Corps with 18% international partners, 14% U.S. Army, 10% Federal 

Civilians, and 9% U.S. Air Force. 

We work hard to ensure that our students all get a first-class graduate education 

in national security, albeit with a maritime perspective. We regard the concept of 

‘‘non-neutral ground’’ as an outdated construct, especially as we increase the numbers of interagency and international students. 

The faculty and student mixes at the Service senior schools are appropriate for 

multi-service acculturation; as indicated by the data from our graduates over the 

last three years. Data from alumni surveys reinforce this conclusion. The current 

mix is sufficient and allows the Naval War College to continue to perform its Service 

PME mission and ensure that its graduates are well steeped in the contemporary 

challenges relevant to the maritime domain. Our graduates are ready to serve on 

the staffs of a Joint Force Maritime Component Commander or Maritime Operations 

Center. The expertise and functioning of such commands are critical to our continued success in the joint warfight. 

Dr. SNYDER. What constitutes rigor in your educational program? Does rigor require letter grades? Does rigor require written exams? Does rigor require the writing of research or analytical papers, and if so, of what length? Does rigor require 

increased contact time and less ‘‘white space’’ or vice versa? 

Admiral WISECUP. RADM Kurth, in his testimony to the Skelton Committee, said 

‘‘what education ultimately contributes to a successful military commander and 

strategist is a habit of mind and judgment . . .’’ The educational process at the Naval 

War College is designed to hone the critical thinking skills of its students at every 

level. Developing habits of mind requires a challenging academic program, one that 

forces students to reevaluate their personal decision making models, often refocus 

their perspective, and assess their own analytical approach. They must repeatedly 

be forced to think and required to attempt to resolve complex problems. 

The Naval War College’s education program begins by expanding the student’s experience and knowledge through a demanding reading and study program. Students 

must then analyze and judge the reading material and present their assessment and 

conclusions. By relying predominantly on the case study method and graduate-level 

seminars, the College is able to repeatedly challenge the students’ habits of mind. 

The seminar interaction forces the students to present and defend their analyses 

and conclusions. Over the course of ten months, there is ample opportunity to develop expanded habits of mind and refine one’s judgment. 

The College recognizes our students are competitive, self-motivated, mature professionals who possess the discipline and desire to apply themselves to these studies. In fact, the work we see from the students in the elective program which is 

graded on a pass or fail basis is equivalent to that in the core program where they 

receive letter grades. But we steadfastly believe grading, writing research (14–18 

pages each) and analytical papers (10–14 pages each), and written exams are integral elements of our academic program. These exercises complement the daily seminar interaction and force students to integrate the learning into their approach to 

thinking and decision making. Grading is another form of teaching which the College’s faculty takes very seriously, providing significant feedback on each student’s 

work. For most of the year, we also grade the students’ contribution to the graduatelevel seminar. 

Over the decades, the faculty has concluded the students must have sufficient 

time to read, study and reflect as well as conduct research. Except for the scheduled 

periods of capstone exercises, the College has found a typical week of 15–18 hours 

contact time with the remainder reserved for student study, preparation, and writing is best. 

Dr. SNYDER. Can you describe how you survey students, graduates, and graduates’ 

supervisors to assess the quality of your program? 

Admiral WISECUP. Short-term assessment of the curricula by the students has 

been a long-standing practice of the College. It has evolved into a continuous, systematic, and comprehensive evaluation program that provides students, graduates, 

and senior military leaders the means to stimulate significant curriculum revisions. 

We survey students throughout the academic year at different points. These are the 

elements of our survey system: 

Explicit assessments of the curriculum are routinely provided by all students 

through questionnaires. These include individual-session or curriculum-block questionnaires completed by students at the conclusion of each seminar to evaluate class 
188 

utility and materials. Such critiques provide immediate feedback to the faculty responsible for each session’s development as well as a continuous indication of the 

success of the course. A comprehensive end-of-course questionnaire is employed by 

all academic departments, the Electives Program, the Advanced Research Program, 

special programs (such as the Stockdale Group, Mahan Scholars and the Halsey 

Groups), and College of Distance Education to solicit feedback from students. 

These electronic questionnaires ask students to evaluate a broad range of issues 

related to the curriculum and its execution. The students provide a numerical assessment as well as a qualitative one through their amplifying comments. Questions 

address the appropriateness of course objectives, the degree of attainment of these 

objectives, the difficulty of the course, the quality of instructor performance, and the 

perceived potential value of the course. The anonymous responses are compiled into 

both statistical and narrative summaries, which are reviewed by the faculty and 

analyzed and interpreted by the departments. Periodically, support elements 

throughout the College, such as the Library, administer a survey to students and 

faculty regarding their services. The results are presented to the Academic Policy 

Board, the Provost and President of the College. 

Student assessment of the curriculum and operation of the College is also provided through the student academic committees. These committees bring student 

representatives from each seminar into contact with the Deans of Academics, Students, and Naval Warfare Studies, with academic department chairs, course directors, the Associate Dean of Academics for Electives and Directed Research, service 

advisors, the Director of the Eccles Library, and an Information Resources Department representative. Meeting at least twice each trimester, these committees ensure 

that students and administrative problems are addressed immediately or referred 

to appropriate planning bodies. 

Students have informal opportunities to express opinions on the College and its 

programs to peers, instructors, department chairs, the Provost, and even the President. Student leaders periodically meet with Dean of Students and Provost, often 

to exchange views on the academic or co-curricular programs. The President and 

other senior leaders occasionally travel with officers in the international programs 

and use the opportunity to obtain qualitative feedback about the College. 

For past several years, the College has administered a survey to its resident U.S. 

students as they graduate. The success of this survey led to similar survey instruments being developed and administered for graduating senior international officers 

and graduating Fleet Seminar students. During the last academic year, the College 

began regularly conducting focus groups with selected members of the graduating 

classes. The focus groups provide valuable insights not received in the electronic 

surveys. All of these surveys solicit information from these graduating students regarding the overall effect of their educational experience, including their judgments 

about the quality and utility of the instruction and the degree that certain educational outcomes were achieved. Survey analysis and results are provided to the 

members of the APC in order to inform educational policy making and contribute 

toward design of future academic programs and curricula. 

Periodic alumni surveys also provide useful data in judging the quality and utility 

of the education to the careers of professional graduates. Recently, the College surveyed alumni from the classes of 2005, 2006, and 2007 from both CNW and CNC&S. 

There were approximately 1700 alumni surveys distributed and 458 responses received for a 27% response rate. Specifically, alumni were asked to estimate the appropriateness of the educational objectives, the degree to which these objectives 

were attained, and the contribution each core course made in preparing them for 

future positions in the national security arena. They were also asked to suggest possible revisions to the academic and co-curricular programs to make them even more 

useful to future students. Results once analyzed will be provided to the APC and 

other concerned elements of the College. The President sent congratulatory letters 

and surveys to graduates that have recently been selected for promotion to flag/general officers during the past year. This is valuable feedback focused on the suitability and completeness of the desired educational outcomes provided by flag/general officers from all Services. 

Departmental faculty members routinely visit with key strategic and operationallevel commanders and their staffs as an element of curricula currency and development. Those discussions invariably touch on the desired educational outcomes and 

objectives and the performance of our graduates. The continuing professional and 

personal relationships between faculty and alumni proved to be invaluable in validating the quality, relevance, and currency of the curriculum. Informally, these 

graduates provide unsolicited input on a continuing basis directly to the faculty concerning the value of curriculum material to their subsequent assignments and suggesting improvements in curriculum substance and pedagogy. Even more defini-
189 

tively, the return of graduates to teaching positions at the College greatly enhances 

the currency of the academic program. E-mail, while informal and anecdotal, has 

increased the volume of this feedback and its substantive value. Those in more senior positions even provided insights and requirements that affected new course design. 

Dr. SNYDER. Should the OSD Chancellors office be reestablished? Why or Why 

not? 

Admiral WISECUP. The College’s principal communication with the former OSD 

Chancellor’s office was related to the MECC and the CJCS accreditation process 

(Process for Accreditation of Joint Education). The College has found the Joint Staff 

J–7 and the supporting MECC organization productive and sufficient. The special 

chain of command established by CJCS for policy and issues regarding professional 

military education including joint education has continued to serve the College, the 

Navy and the nation well. We are not convinced that reinventing a layer at OSD 

divorced from the PME community would serve us as well. Education is not one of 

the core competencies of the Department of Defense and without a direct supporting 

vehicle like the MECC, another layer of staff may create more issues than they resolve. However, the Joint Staff J–7 whose duties are much more intimately involved 

would be a better source for the comparison of the former office to the way OSD 

is organized to do business today. 

One of the current challenges for the Naval War College is dealing with the multiple sources of our federal service, civilian students. Articulating requirements, coordinating applications, often dealing individually with potential civilian students 

from many different sources is a time consuming, but necessary investment to ensure we have representation from the interagency arena and Department of Defense 

activities and agencies. Since interagency representation is a common challenge for 

the PME colleges, support from the OSD level might be helpful in making progress 

on student and faculty mixes. 

Dr. SNYDER. Ethics—what should be the role of ethical education at the senior 

schools beyond ‘‘just war’’ theory? 

Admiral WISECUP. Just war theory is important at the SSC level because an understanding of the history and principles of just war augment and deepen the students’ understanding of just war which is often limited to the Law of Armed Conflict 

(LOAC). LOAC alone is inadequate for the higher levels of command (for one reason) because law necessarily lags behind emerging technologies and threats. Therefore, the deeper understanding of the long history of just war gives the students categories for thinking in principled terms about such legal gray areas. 

In addition, ethical issues at the more senior levels of leadership are in some respects quite different than those familiar to officers from their lower ranking experiences. This is because the range of obligations multiply almost exponentially. One 

is no longer only concerned with one’s personal integrity and the welfare of subordinates. At more senior ranks, one must also consider the welfare of one’s Service, 

the success of the overall operational or strategic plan, the health of the relationship 

between the military and both the government it serves and the broader society it 

represents. As those obligations multiply and often conflict, the senior service colleges provide an invaluable ‘‘safe’’ environment in which senior leaders can explore 

and discuss how they might handle these morally complex and ambiguous environments. Typically, officers have a limited moral vocabulary (‘‘maintain your integrity,’’ ‘‘tell the truth’’) which is sometimes insufficiently nuanced to really help them 

think about these environments. By discussion of historical examples and case studies of moral decision making in such environments, officers are prepared (to the limited degree that any classroom can prepare one) to face and think clearly about the 

future environments in which they will find themselves. 

For decades, the College had an Ethics Conference as an integral element of the 

academic program. We have a professor designated as the Stockdale Chair of Ethics 

and Leadership to advise and improve our educational approach to ethics. In fact 

the College has just hired one of the country’s most renowned scholars on military 

professional ethics as the new Stockdale Chair. For the last two years, we refined 

our approach and begin the academic year with an Ethics Conference which introduces that year’s ethical theme and then follows with several other educational 

events throughout the year. This year there will also be an intersessional conference 

devoted to an ethics issue. Additionally, one of our Elective Program’s areas of study 

is leadership and ethics. 

Dr. SNYDER. Should each school have a Board of Visitors or Consultants, separate 

from your University’s, so it could focus just on your mission? 

Admiral WISECUP. The Naval War College has traditionally had a Board of Advisors (BOA) who advised the President on issues related to the College’s mission. Occasionally, the Board would also communicate with the Chief of Naval Operations 
190 

concerning issues it deemed critical to the College and the Navy. That Board served 

only this College. 

Recently (27 May 2009), the Secretary of the Navy was directed by the OSD Committee Management Office to disestablish the NWC BOA, recommending it be consolidated with the Naval Postgraduate School Board of Advisors. The Naval War 

College is working through the AAUSN to achieve a satisfactory solution. 

Dr. SNYDER. What has been done to improve the professional development opportunities for the faculty given that the PAJE noted that it compromised the college’s 

ability to retain outstanding faculty members? Explain the Admiral’s comment that 

he can afford tenure to some civilian faculty. 

Admiral WISECUP. The Naval War College initially identified this issue in our 

Self-Study for the College of Naval Warfare PAJE for JPME II Certification. The 

fielding of differentiated senior and intermediate courses during Academic Year 

2006–07 required the faculty to be heavily engaged in curriculum development over 

the previous two years. As a result, there was less opportunity for professional development because of the increased demand on the faculty to build separate and distinct curricula. The significant curriculum development task and the initial certification of the revised College of Naval Warfare course with embedded JPME Phase 

II ended with the 2007 PAJE. After that, the College leadership made a conscious 

decision to devote significant resources to faculty development. The increase in faculty development over the next two years was so much so that it received favorable 

comments on the draft report from the most recent PAJE in May 2009. The comment read ‘‘Since the last PAJE visit, the CNW has dedicated significantly more financial resources to faculty development.’’ The College has established a routine 

process for faculty to plan and seek NWC funding for professional development opportunities. The faculty can plan and schedule such opportunities on an annual 

basis. 

Faculty development at NWC promotes innovation, collaboration, collegiality, and 

the art of teaching. Overall, the Faculty Development Program is designed to enhance both the personal and professional education and development of seasoned 

faculty as well as bring new faculty members up to a common standard of instructor 

capabilities. The three pronged faculty development approach of orientation, faculty 

workshops, and individual development programs, coupled with the senior faculty 

mentoring and evaluation of teaching abilities, provides the students with an unparalleled level of experienced moderators who are aware of the latest changes in the 

contemporary international security and operations environment. 

The College, with the assistance of the Naval War College Foundation, has made 

a substantial effort to provide financial resources, through its annual budgeting 

process, for professional development, research, and scholarly publication. With over 

$600,000 earmarked specifically for faculty development, a substantial number of 

faculty members have benefited from grants for travel to participate in professional 

conferences or conduct research. Additionally, some faculty members involved in the 

College’s international outreach have funded travel which also provides opportunity 

for research and collaboration abroad. 

Although there is no tenure system at the Naval War College and none is under 

consideration, a very few senior professors have appointments without terms (indefinite appointments) which establishes eligibility to serve until retirement assuming 

that the faculty member continues to perform at or above the expected level as outlined in the Faculty Handbook. These indefinite appointments are awarded to professors/research professors who have long records of accomplishment that stand out 

even among the high achievements of others at that rank; that show promise of further high levels of performance, achievement, and service to the College; and whose 

expertise is expected to be needed for an extended period. While this is certainly 

not tenure, it is akin to it and is the program to which Rear Admiral Wisecup referred. 

Dr. SNYDER. The terms ‘‘training’’ and ‘‘education’’ seem to be used interchangeably quite a bit. Can you tell me how you define the difference and what part of 

your curriculum is training and which part is education? 

General WILLIAMS. There are extensive (and oftentimes competing) bodies of 

knowledge on each subject. In simplest terms, training focuses on ‘‘what to think,’’ 

‘‘what should be done,’’ and ‘‘how it should be done.’’ The focus is on the relatively 

short-term accumulation of practical application of information, usually within a 

fixed context of task, conditions, and standards, to enhance the capacity to perform 

specific functions and tasks. Problems are more or less straight forward, the circumstances of the issue are relatively well known and understood by the individual, 

and use of established procedures normally results in the one best solution to an 

issue. 
191 

Education, on the other hand, focuses on ‘‘how to think.’’ Education provides a 

broad body of general knowledge and develops habits of mind applicable to a range 

of activities. Education fosters breadth of view, appreciation of diverse perspectives, 

critical analysis and abstract reasoning. In our context, at the strategic level, ‘‘how 

to think’’ usually concerns large, complex and unstructured problems for which 

there may be no fixed context of task, condition, and standards. Indeed, conditions 

are likely to be highly ambiguous and decision makers usually have less, not more, 

information on which to make decisions. Decisions at the strategic level rarely result 

in the one ‘‘best’’ solution. Rather, in this arena, decision makers may be faced with 

choosing the least bad alternative, and problems are more often managed, and 

sometimes not completely solved. These conditions require students to build upon 

old knowledge and experience to develop new knowledge that may be applied in new 

ways in a volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous environment. 

Training and education are not mutually exclusive. Nearly all training and education opportunities offer some elements of both approaches. While the Army War 

College experience includes some training (e.g., specific processes used within DoD, 

or the set steps of the Crisis Action Process), students focus less on formats and 

processes, and more on the critical thinking and synthesis of theory, concept, and 

experience. Thus, while our students must master and retain specific information, 

our curriculum focuses on the synthesis of the multiple and multi-disciplinary skills 

necessary to ensure that processes and systems produce feasible, acceptable, and 

suitable policy options. This requires students to access their knowledge (as well as 

20+ years of professional experience), analyze large, complex situations, heuristically create new knowledge, and apply that new knowledge to creative policy options to national level decision makers. 

Dr. SNYDER. The 1989 Skelton Panel Report said all the Commandants and Presidents should teach so that they would understand what it takes to be a faculty 

member. Can you describe a typical faculty member’s day? Do you yourself teach 

or mentor individual students? a. Unlike civilian university professors who emphasize research, your faculty members generally do not have teaching assistants, research assistants, or set office hours. When do they have time for service, research, 

and writing? How much research and writing do you expect them to do outside the 

sabbatical windows? How is this assessed on their appraisals, military and civilian? 

General WILLIAMS. When teaching a core course, mornings are spent teaching in 

the seminar. After class, instructors counsel and advise students and review the 

day’s lesson and prepare for upcoming lessons individually and with their colleagues. Faculty have limited time for research and writing. 

When not teaching core classes, instructors conduct research to support writing 

projects and curriculum development; prepare instructional materials; and participate in various work groups at the USAWC. They are frequently away from Carlisle 

Barracks supporting the operational and institutional force in the US and overseas 

and engaging in their communities of practice at conferences and workshops. 

Faculty are engaged full-time during the New York City and Washington, D.C. 

trips, the Strategic Decision Making Exercise, and the National Security Seminar. 

I attend classes regularly, both to observe students and faculty, as well as to provide the benefit of my experience and perspective. I occasionally lecture or facilitate 

instruction in a variety of our courses. My most recent lecture (April) was to three 

seminars on the ethical failure of Abu Ghraib and the limits of generalship. 

Our curriculum structure allows faculty time to research and write. When not in 

session, faculty can conduct research for curriculum development or publication. In 

addition to sabbaticals, we offer both temporal and fiscal faculty research grants. 

We fund attendance at conferences and symposia that allow faculty to highlight 

their research efforts. 

While our curriculum structure frees up blocks of time, this allocation of time is 

different from the experience of many of our civilian faculty who are used to having 

days within each week that they can use for research and writing. This requires 

some adaptability on their part. 

Our appraisal criteria examine how an individual faculty member contributes to 

the overall mission of the USAWC: education, research and publication, support to 

the operational and institutional force, and strategic communications, as well as 

service to the institution. The value placed on each element depends upon an individual faculty member’s primary duties. 

In addition to formal appraisals, we also have an annual Faculty Writing Awards 

Program that offers monetary prizes and a formal recognition ceremony for award 

winners. Publications play a role in the selection of honorary academic chair holders. Dr. SNYDER. Does having a master’s degree program at these schools detract from 

the PME mission, not from the standpoint of it being easy to accredit existing pro-
192 

grams, but that it may tip the focus toward the academic instead of professional 

education? 

General WILLIAMS. No. The US Army War College is a professional development 

institution that only secondarily awards a masters degree due to the quality of our 

faculty, curriculum, and students. We must not become a graduate school that only 

happens to award a secondary professional qualification. 

Our civilian regional accrediting body, the Middle States Commission of Higher 

Education (MSCHE), has not asked us to do anything that runs counter to our professional program. MSCHE personnel have emphasized that they accredit all kinds 

of professional schools and understand that we have professional standards that we 

must meet. 

Over the last decade, we have increased the difficulty of our programs, added 

more (and more complex) material, and increased standards. But, these changes 

have been made not because of any external academic pressure, but because it is 

the right thing to do for the professional development of our graduates who face an 

increasingly complex and difficult international security environment. To perform 

well as advisers to senior leaders or ultimately as senior leaders, requires our students to be exposed to a much broader set of more complex ideas than may have 

been true 10–15 years ago. While some of these concepts are academic in nature 

(e.g., critical and creative thinking, organizational culture and behavior, negotiations, international relations, or philosophies of war), these concepts are examined, 

analyzed, and assessed within a professional context. More importantly, our graduates will have to apply this professional development in the real world if, as senior 

leaders (or their advisers), they are to be successful in meeting the complex demands of the 21st century security environment. As a result of these changes, some 

of our students will discover that the Army War College does not resemble their 

‘‘senior raters’’ experience of 10–12 years ago, and may find it convenient to blame 

the master’s degree and ‘‘academics.’’ But, in reality, while professional topics, demands, and standards have increased, no new major, purely academic requirements 

have been added. 

The greater risk of tilting the institutional focus may lie in the type of faculty 

hired. If an institution hires only civilian faculty with terminal academic degrees, 

but little or no professional experience at the expense of hiring faculty with relevant 

professional experience (and, appropriate advanced degrees), then academic faculty 

may default to their academic perspective and eventually tip the balance in an academic vice professional direction. It is incumbent upon the College, Service and 

Joint leadership, therefore, to ensure that our PME/JPME institutions remain focused on the professional development of our students. This is not an argument 

against appropriate academic rigor or qualifications, but rather for an appropriate 

mix of the best of both the professional and academic worlds. 

Dr. SNYDER. Do all of your students receive master’s degrees—why or why not? 

What does top quality in uniformed faculty mean to you? Please be specific, is it 

more important to have an advanced degree in specific areas like international relations, political science, a regional study, or military or political history than it is to 

have a PhD in any subject even if that was in math or engineering? 

General WILLIAMS. All US students who meet the prerequisite of a BA/BS degree 

are automatically enrolled in the Master of Strategic Studies Degree (MSS) program. In effect, this means nearly 100 percent, as only the occasional civilian student may not possess a BA/BS. Academic failures are very rare in our Resident Education Program, more frequent in our Distance Education Program. Student withdrawals (both voluntary and involuntary) occur. 

International Fellows are not enrolled until they demonstrate appropriate English 

proficiency (usually via the Test of English as a Foreign Language) and the equivalent of a US BA/BS degree (vetted through an outside accrediting body). Roughly 

60 percent of 40–43 International Fellows attending each year have earned the degree. 

We look at all faculty recruiting from a holistic perspective. An ideal uniformed 

candidate would be a colonel (or equivalent) with past battalion and brigade command, service on a higher level staff, possession of a terminal degree in an academic 

discipline within our curriculum, senior level college credit, Joint Professional Military Education Phase II credit, and past teaching experience. As very few such candidates exist, we try to get the greatest possible number of these qualifications from 

each candidate. 

Professional credentials carry the greatest weight for our uniformed faculty. Almost all military faculty are highly successful colonels (or equivalent) with O5-level 

command experience and are senior level college graduates. As the Officer Professional Military Education Policy (OPMEP) stipulates that only 75 percent of military faculty must be either Joint Qualified Officers or Senior Level College grad-
193 

uates, we usually have 3–5 officers who possess neither qualification, though they 

usually have a specific professional skill (e.g., space operations, information operations, Foreign Area Officers). Also, given the nature of our curriculum, we seek a 

wide variety of specific military skills e.g.: planners with Service Component Command or Combatant Command staff experience, OSD/Joint Staff/Service Staff experience, force development and management, and intelligence, to name a few. 

In terms of academic credentials, it is more important for uniformed faculty to 

have an advanced degree in a subject relevant to the curriculum they teach, than 

an advanced degree, even a Ph.D., in a discipline unrelated to our curriculum. 

Dr. SNYDER. What does ‘‘top quality’’ mean for civilian faculty? Please be specific. 

a. Does not having tenure affect how professors treat ‘‘academic freedom’’? 

General WILLIAMS. Ideally, all civilian faculty would possess a mix of both academic and professional credentials. While many of our faculty possess dual skills, 

not all do. Therefore, civilian faculty must be highly proficient in the skills for which 

they were hired. In some cases, they require a terminal degree in the academic discipline relevant to our curriculum. In other cases, they will require extensive professional credentials in a major subject area that we teach (e.g., joint doctrine, force 

management, budgeting, DOD processes, theater strategy and campaigning, or regional studies). 

As a professional development institution, we are a student-centered, teachingcentric organization; therefore, civilian faculty must be good teachers. They must be 

particularly adept at facilitating adult learning of seasoned professionals with 16– 

25 years of service, using the seminar methodology. While we would prefer that faculty arrive with this skill, it is a talent that can be developed over time. 

All faculty are expected to conduct research and use that research to enhance the 

curriculum. Faculty hired for an academic competency should have an established 

publication record, or if relatively junior, demonstrated the capacity for future publications. All faculty are encouraged to publish in academic or professional journals. 

Where appropriate, civilian faculty members contribute to doctrine and concept development, the body of knowledge of the military profession. 

We expect civilian faculty with appropriate credentials to help support the operational and institutional force. This support includes temporary duty in combat theaters, as well as support to Combatant Commanders, the Joint Staff, Army Staff, 

or a wide variety of projects to assist the Army’s senior leadership. 

In our most recent USAWC Faculty Climate Survey (22 Jun 09), 93 percent 

(strongly agree/somewhat agree collapsed) of our faculty surveyed (N 117 of 184, or 

64 percent; statistically adequate) that they were free to discuss any ideas or material in seminar. Ninety-one percent indicated the environment encourages free discussion and inquiry. Eighty percent indicated that original thinking and academic 

freedom are valued at the USAWC. Qualitative comments in the survey reflect the 

numerical data. Based on this data, it appears that, by and large, the absence of 

tenure is not a major influence on the health of academic freedom at the USAWC. 

Nonetheless, academic freedom is oftentimes a fragile relationship requiring continuous attention by the USAWC leadership. 

Dr. SNYDER. Since you don’t have tenure, what is the process for renewal and nonrenewal of the civilian faculty? How transparent is the system? Do professors know 

six months before they are up for renewal whether they will be renewed, for how 

long, and why? In a tenure system people think the faculty members have all the 

power, in a no-tenure system it appears that the school has unlimited power. How 

do you avoid the extremes and appearances of arbitrariness? How many of your civilian faculty don’t have PhDs or JDs? Be specific about what degrees they do have 

and why they were hired. 

General WILLIAMS. We provide detailed guidelines for all aspects of employment 

of civilian faculty under Title 10 USC 4021 in our Carlisle Barracks Memorandum 

690–2, Employment Under Title 10 Code Section 4021. We give a copy of this document to all civilian faculty upon hiring, and it is available on our web site. 

Appointments under Title 10 USC 4021 are time-limited. Not earlier than 12 

months and not later than 6 months prior to the expiration of an appointment, the 

Department Chair or Director, based upon discussions with the faculty member, recommends either appointment termination or reappointment, along with recommended terms. The Title 10 Board provides its recommendations to me for approval. If the Board recommends terms of reappointment less than that requested, 

we provide written notification to the faculty member, who has an opportunity to 

submit a written request for reconsideration through the Title 10 Board to me. Upon 

my final approval, the faculty member and their supervisor review the terms of the 

reappointment. 

Sometimes the needs of USAWC change, leading to decisions not to reappoint faculty members. This may be driven by a reduction in Federal funds; a change in mis-
194 

sion, curriculum, or workload; re-organization of one or more departments, institutes or centers; or other compelling reasons. In such circumstances, we will make 

a reasonable effort to provide a minimum of 6 months notice to the affected faculty 

member(s). The procedures used to implement the process are consistent with applicable laws and regulations governing reduction in force. If practicable and possible, 

at least a 6-month notice of termination will be given to the individual(s) affected, 

but in no event will the notice be less than 60 days. While we have changed he specifications of several positions over the last decade, to date, I have not had to implement any reductions to our Title 10 faculty. 

Faculty may also be terminated for cause. To date, I have not terminated any faculty members for misconduct or inefficiency. 

Faculty members involved in a Title 10 action have access to all the documentation sent to the Title 10 Board, and to the recommendations that the Board makes 

to me. Any faculty member who wishes to question his or her non-reappointment 

or termination may do so by raising the issue through his or her chain of command 

to the Title 10 Board. All decisions on appeals are documented in writing and provided to the faculty member within one week of the decision. 

Faculty usually, but not always, have at least six-month notice of reappointment. 

But, the length of time depends primarily upon when, within the 12-month window 

prior to the end of their appointment, that the faculty member initiates the process. 

If submitted at the 12-month mark, the process is routinely completed quickly and 

the faculty member knows well before the six-month point. However, if a faculty 

member waits until the 6-month point to submit their request for reappointment, 

they obviously will have less notification time. 

The primary mechanisms for avoidance of extremes and appearances of arbitrariness are our adherence to established, easily accessible rules that govern our procedures for reappointment and termination, and the availability of a process for appeals and grievances. Further, our faculty members have access to free advice and 

assistance from our Civilian Personnel Advisory Center, our Equal Employment Opportunity Office, and our Legal Assistance Office. Finally, our record on reappointments speaks for itself. The vast majority of requests for reappointment are approved, and many civilian faculty members serve here until retirement. We have 

never had a successful challenge to a non-reappointment decision. 

Because we are a professional development institution, professional credentials 

are imperative for key members of the faculty. In some cases, there are no equivalent civilian academic credentials or experience for some of our subject areas (e.g., 

certain military specific disciplines, such as: joint and Army doctrine, campaign 

planning, force management, DOD, Joint, and Army processes). Or, we may find 

that a practitioner has the high level skills that a traditional academic scholar may 

not possess. 

Some brief examples may be illustrative. Although the Director, Concepts and 

Doctrine, later completed his Ph.D. in Military History (Temple University), he 

originally was hired because, literally, no one in the world knows more about the 

organization of command and control of Army headquarters at the Army Service 

Component Command level and above. He also taught history at the U.S. Military 

Academy and served on the faculty of the Armed (now Joint) Forces Staff College 

(JPME II) for two years. 

Our Professor, Resource Management, has a MS degree in Operations Research 

and Systems Analysis. More importantly, he spent three years on the Army Staff 

as the Chief, Resource Analysis and Integration. Few in the Army understand the 

planning, programming, and budget systems better. He routinely advises the Army 

Staff on resource matters. 

The Professor, Strategic Art, Advanced Strategic Art Program, brings 30 years of 

experience as a retired colonel Functional Area 59, Strategist. A former USAWC Director of Theater Strategy and Elihu Root chair holder, he is a Joint Specialty Officer and School for Advanced Military Studies (SAMS) graduate with extensive onthe-ground experience in every area of responsibility. He was a key planner for Operation JUST CAUSE in Panama, and served as an interagency advisor to and designer of the CENTCOM Joint Interagency Coordination Group in support of OEF 

and OIF. From 2005 through 2008 he was a Joint Staff J7 contracted interagency 

specialist and posted to EUCOM with exposure to the establishment of AFRICOM. 

He has became a recognized subject matter expert on interagency operations and 

’whole of government’ approaches, served on interagency transformation forums, 

and contributed to the ‘‘Beyond Goldwater-Nichols Phase II Report’’ and the Project 

on National Security Reform’s ‘‘Forging a New Shield.’’ 

Practitioners can bring unique skills that an academic career cannot provide. Our 

Professor, Security Studies, served in the Pentagon for over 20 years, including as 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Special Operations Policy and Support), 
195 

OASD, SO/LIC and Principle Director, Strategy Plans, and Resources, OASD 

(Homeland Defense). He brings unique insights into the workings of the Department 

of Defense, Department of Homeland Security and other national security agencies. 

His publication record adds further to his qualifications. 

Similar professional qualifications apply to our representatives from the Intelligence Community (CIA, DIA, and NSA). We are able to supplement this expertise 

with our DeSerio Chair of Strategic Intelligence (privately funded via an endowment), currently filled by a former very senior member of the Intelligence Community. We also benefit greatly from support by the Department of State and USAID, 

which routinely provide three-four faculty members with tremendous practical experience with the diplomatic instrument of power. Our Omar Bradley Chair of Strategic Leadership (an annual, rotating visiting professorship funded via our Army 

War College Foundation) oftentimes is held by an experienced practitioner. For example, ADM (Ret.) Dennis Blair, currently Director, National Intelligence, was 

Bradley Chair holder in Academic Year 2007–2008. 

Dr. SNYDER. Some of you have indicated that you wish to hire ‘‘younger’’ PhDs. 

Do you think they may need a bit of seasoning or practical experience to be able 

to hold their own with the caliber and seniority of students you have? Does it mean 

you have to push out ‘‘older professors’’ who may be performing well in order to 

bring on younger ones? 

General WILLIAMS. Generally, we would agree that, given our student body of 16– 

25 year professionals, civilian faculty need a certain degree of seasoning to be effective. However, to a large degree, this depends upon the individual faculty member 

and the discipline they teach. We have several relatively younger (mid-30s) visiting 

professors and full-time faculty who have done well in the seminar. If they have the 

requisite academic and publishing credentials and are effective teachers, our students respond well. 

No, we believe that we can accomplish this over time through routine attrition 

and hiring of replacement faculty. It is worth noting, however, such opportunities 

are limited. Within our four teaching departments, we have only 27 full-time civilian teaching positions. Of those, we would classify only 20 of those as being academically related disciplines. 

Dr. SNYDER. National and ICAF have 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 faculty and student mixes while 

the Service schools have a 60% host and 40% other mix. Are the faculty and student 

mixes dictated for the various institutions still appropriate? If so, was it appropriate 

for Congress to allow the Service senior schools to award JPME II credit (NDAA 

FY 2005) despite their lower ratios, non-neutral ground, and lack of a requirement 

to send any graduates to joint assignments? ICAF and National must send ‘‘50% 

plus one’’ graduates to joint assignments. Is this still appropriate? Should Service 

schools have some kind of requirement? 

General WILLIAMS. At the time of NDAA FY2005, we agreed that the 60/40 mix 

for Senior Service Colleges was appropriate; but that it put us close to the tipping 

point of being able to remain—within a Joint context—the Army’s center of 

landpower excellence. Our experience since 2006 has reinforced that conclusion. We 

do not believe that the host percentage should be reduced below 60 percent. 

We believe that, at the time, it was absolutely appropriate to grant Senior Service 

Colleges JPME II credit, and is even more appropriate today. Regardless of school, 

curricula are focused at the strategic level, where all actions are conducted in a 

Joint, Interagency, Intergovernmental, and Multinational context. 

Service Colleges should be assessed on how well they meet standards for Joint 

education set forth in law and the CJCS, Officer Professional Military Education 

Policy (OPMEP). This distills down to a combination of Joint curriculum and interaction with students from different Services, countries, backgrounds, and perspectives. The Joint Staff—via the rigorous and comprehensive Process for Accreditation 

of Joint Education (PAJE)—ensures that the Senior Service Colleges provide an appropriate Joint curriculum. In the second instance, we know of no objective evidence 

to assist in determining how many officers from different Services, nations and organizations are required for acculturation to occur. We remain convinced that NDAA 

FY05 provisions and the OPMEP standards provide sufficient acculturation. 

The issue of ‘‘neutral ground’’ may not be relevant. At the Army War College, it’s 

not simply about exposing Army officers to officers from other Services. It’s also 

about exposing officers from other Services and backgrounds to the U.S. Army. Similarly, the lack of a requirement to send graduates to Joint assignments does not appear to be a relevant criterion. 

With the granting of JPME II authority to Senior Service Colleges, it may be appropriate to apply some assignment criteria (perhaps 50 percent plus one) to the 

overall output from all JPME II producing schools, vice the existing requirement 
196 

levied only on ICAF and National War College. A comprehensive requirement would 

give Services more flexibility in assigning students. 

Dr. SNYDER. What constitutes rigor in your educational program? Does rigor require letter grades? Does rigor require written exams? Does rigor require the writing of research or analytical papers, and if so, of what length? Does rigor require 

increased contact time and less ‘‘white space’’ or vice versa? 

General WILLIAMS. A response to this question requires some context. Senior 

Level Colleges are not Ph.D. producing programs. They are professional development programs leading to a master’s degree within the confines of the profession. 

Programs should be viewed and students should be assessed accordingly. 

For Army students, at least, depending upon career field only 4–8 percent of a 

year group will attend any form of Senior Level College experience. And, these individual are selected from a group that already has passed through a considerable 

winnowing process of multiple promotion and selection boards. In short, these are 

highly qualified and successful professionals. 

Historically, the bulk of our students (77–81 percent between AY06–AY09) arrive 

with at least one advanced degree. Of those, 3–7 percent (depending upon the year) 

possessed a PhD/JD/MD. In one of our most recent curriculum surveys (AY2009), 

over 90 percent of students indicated (across eight different categories) that their 

USAWC experience was equal to or more demanding than their previous graduate 

experiences. 

We should also recall that our students are very experienced professionals, the 

great bulk of whom are intrinsically and highly motivated to do well. Nor should 

we ignore the important effect of peer pressure upon seminar dialogue. Few, if any, 

of our students wish to appear unprepared or foolish in front of their contemporaries. 

In this light, our evaluation system for each course relies upon faculty assessment 

of the student’s contribution (not participation, as they can be two very different results), an oral presentation (time allowing in the course), and evaluation of a written product (the length of which varies from course to course). 

The rigor applied to each of these mechanisms depends to a significant degree 

upon the quality of the faculty member doing the evaluation, the standards that the 

faculty member applies, the consistency with which the faculty member applies 

those standards, and the manner in which feedback is provided to the student. 

Without some form of grading system, the ability to determine student performance against learning objectives is not possible. Nor without some form of assessment system can students receive appropriate feedback on how well they have performed against those standards. But, just as graduate schools use a wide variety 

of grading systems; Senior Level Colleges should be free to use a system that best 

fits their institutional needs. 

Written exams may or may not be appropriate; depending upon the institution’s 

chosen evaluation mechanisms. But, as numerous high-quality Ph.D. programs demonstrate, written examinations are not always required for individual courses. 

Written requirements are absolutely necessary. Our graduates will increasingly 

use written communication as their primary means of disseminating information 

and obtaining decisions. Good writing is a reflection of good thinking, and good 

thinking skills are what we require of our graduates. The nature of these writing 

mechanisms should stem from the nature of work required by the profession. Most 

of our graduates will hold positions where the two-page point paper will be an art 

form. On some occasions, those point papers will be buttressed by 5–10 page supporting documents. Our evaluation mechanisms and writing requirements should 

reflect those forms of professional communication. That said, because writing is as 

much a thinking exercise as a research exercise, we still require students to complete a 5,000 word (roughly 20 pages) Strategy Research Project. 

The answer to the issues of more or less contact time vs. ‘‘white space’’ depends 

upon the particular assessment mechanisms and methodology used by a school. If 

class contribution is the primary evaluation mechanism, then more contact time offers greater opportunity to observe student contributions. Conversely, if research papers are the primary mechanism, then students should have more time for research 

and writing, with commensurate reduction in contact time. If written tests are 

given, with the test material largely taken from classroom lectures, then more time 

in class may be appropriate. Our mix of class contribution, participation in group 

practical exercise, short papers (5–8 pages), and point papers (1–3 pages) benefits 

from a different mix of in-class instruction and time out of class for reflection. 

We also want students to reflect on the curriculum in light of their experience and 

what that may mean for their futures. Reflection requires students to master the 

material, compare that substance with their professional experience, synthesize new 

knowledge from that comparison, and then to be prepared to use that new knowl-
197 

edge in innovative ways to address issues that they will face in the future. Reflection requires time, which argues for more ‘‘white space.’’ 

However, the need for more reflective time directly competes with the already 

high and increasing demands from multiple DOD, Joint, and Service leaders who 

place great faith in the ability of Senior Level Colleges (and other JPME/PME institutions) to address or remediate many of the problems currently facing the force. 

Demands to add more subjects and material to our programs run the risk of diluting 

the curricula to the point where schools may be unable to provide sufficient depth 

of inquiry and time necessary for reflection. The irony, therefore, is that to add rigor 

may require reducing the curriculum, not adding to it. 

Dr. SNYDER. Can you describe how you survey students, graduates, and graduates’ 

supervisors to assess the quality of your program? 

General WILLIAMS. The USAWC utilizes a variety of tools to assess institutional 

effectiveness. The Office of Institutional Assessment prepares and analyzes surveys 

of students, faculty and staff, alumni, and flag officers. Our Institutional Assessment Plan and the Curriculum Assessment Plan establish a process through which 

students, faculty, and staff are surveyed; data are collected, analyzed, shared, and 

used in planning and decision-making. 

Students: Incoming resident students complete a pre-assessment prior to arrival 

at the USAWC to determine existing levels of knowledge in areas that students will 

study. Respondents to the pre-assessment are administered a post-assessment survey to determine if statistically significant differences exist between their pre-and 

post-assessment. 

Students are requested to complete surveys on each of the core courses, the Strategic Decision Making Exercise, electives, and a comprehensive end of the year assessment of the resident and distance education programs. While each Course Director (resident program) or Course Author (distance program) provides input to the 

surveys, we consistently address institutional level issues across all courses, to include questions regarding the curriculum, course learning objectives, faculty instruction, experiential learning opportunities, and overall level of satisfaction with the 

course or activity. The USAWC leadership uses the information for planning and assessment of the effectiveness of the curriculum. 

Students also complete exit surveys of the Resident, Distance, and International 

Fellows programs that include questions on satisfaction with program components, 

degree to which Institutional Leaning Objectives were met, and overall quality of 

the USAWC experience. The results are analyzed and summarized in a report to 

the Dean, Department Chairs, Directors, and other individuals for purposes of continuous quality improvement. 

Graduates: For the USAWC curriculum to be effective, it must address the requirements of the field. The USAWC leadership and faculty must know that what 

is taught is what is needed for USAWC graduates to function effectively. To ensure 

that the curriculum reflects requirements of the field, the USAWC conducts periodic 

surveys of its graduates once every two years as part of its curriculum evaluation 

and strategic planning cycle. 

Graduates’ Supervisors: General Officers of the Army, Army Reserve, and the 

Army National Guard are surveyed formally once every two years to obtain their 

views on the USAWC curriculum which are incorporated into curriculum revision. 

Respondents give their views toward the primary focus of a Senior Service College, 

skills senior officers will most need in the next 10 to 15 years, and adequacy of the 

USAWC curriculum. 

Dr. SNYDER. Should the OSD Chancellors office be reestablished? Why or Why 

not? 

General WILLIAMS. We do not see the necessity of such an initiative. On a professional level, the CJCS via the Joint Staff oversees and accredits our JPME producing programs. The Army via Training and Doctrine Command oversees the Army 

PME portion of our curricula. Academically, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (our regional accrediting body) oversees the accreditation of the Master 

of Strategic Studies Degree. Adding a fourth layer of oversight seems neither useful 

to the PME/JPME institutions nor an efficient and effective expenditure of resources. 

Dr. SNYDER. Ethics—what should be the role of ethical education at the senior 

schools beyond ‘‘just war’’ theory? 

General WILLIAMS. The teaching of ethics at senior service schools should go far 

beyond that of ‘‘Just War’’ theory. If we want our students to advise and act to do 

what is right for the Nation, it is important and necessary for them to consider and 

study moral understanding, to understand the nature of personal responsibility, and 

to be able to think about and discuss ethical issues without confusion. This is difficult to do without some education on the ideas that have been developed and dis-
198 

* AFDD 1–1 ‘‘Leadership and Force Development’’ 18 Feb 2006 

cussed by many of the greatest minds over the centuries. To that end, the U.S. 

Army War College (USAWC) treats the study of ethics in a holistic way, with an 

integrative approach to the core and elective curriculum. I’m confident that a similar approach exists in the other Senior Service Colleges and at the National Defense 

University, but I’ll limit my response to the Army War College experience. 

Ethics has for years been identified as one of our ‘‘enduring themes’’ to guide our 

curriculum development and education experience. As such, the USAWC formally 

presents the study of ethics across the core curriculum. Chronologically, the students review the role and importance of Ethical Reasoning as a dedicated lesson 

within our Strategic Thinking course. They study Just War Theory (justification for 

war and just conduct in war) during our Theory of War and Strategy course. Then, 

students study Ethics of the Military Profession and Ethics for Strategic Leaders 

during two lessons in our Strategic Leadership course. A new reading this year will 

focus on the ethical use of power and authority as strategic leaders contemplate 

their roles in acquisition, resource stewardship, and advancing the health of their 

institution. During this course, we also host a funded guest lecturer to present to 

the students and faculty on the ethical perspectives of a national security issue of 

current interest. Finally, students study civil-military relations during our National 

Security, Policy, and Strategy course. 

Ethics retains a prominent role in our elective program, with a highly subscribed 

course entitled, ‘‘Ethics and Warfare.’’ Additionally, in academic year 2009, Ethics 

was the theme of our Commandant’s Lecture Series, during which we hosted a number of internationally recognized speakers on a range of related topics including 

issues like: the limits of dissent and the role of proportionality in 21st Century. 

I am convinced that a broad exposure to—and application of—the study of ethics 

throughout the year of senior service schools is crucial to the preparation of our students for continued service and leadership at more senior levels, both in their Services and in governmental agencies. We continue to look for such integrative experiences at the US Army War College at Carlisle Barracks. 

Dr. SNYDER. Should each school have a Board of Visitors or Consultants, separate 

from your University’s, so it could focus just on your mission? 

General WILLIAMS. As the USAWC is not part of a university system, our Board 

of Visitors focuses solely on the USAWC mission. 

Dr. SNYDER. The terms ‘‘training’’ and ‘‘education’’ seem to be used interchangeably quite a bit. Can you tell me how you define the difference and what part of 

your curriculum is training and which part is education? 

General FORSYTH. We do not use these terms interchangeably at the Air War College. Air Force doctrine differentiates between education and training as follows: 

‘‘Although both education and training are essential to operational capability, they 

are fundamentally different. Education prepares individuals for dynamic operational 

environments, while training is essential in developing skill sets for complex systems . . . . the distinction between their essential natures remains critical to the success of each.’’ * 

This doctrine document distinguishes education from training through the following comparisons: * 

1. Training 

a. Functions best within defined parameters and expected environments 

b. Develops skills that are usually limited to the specialty related to that skill set 

c. Does not involve developing logic talents to create new thought 

d. Diminishes in value with uncertainty; the further the situation progresses from 

the talents of the individual, the less effective the individual becomes in implementing a successful solution 

2. Education 

a. Prepares people to cope with ill-defined parameters and reduce uncertainties 

b. Prepares the individual to think critically and creatively leading to solutions 

of unfamiliar problems 

c. Increases in value in the face of uncertainty and continually evolving situations 

d. Open-ended, looking strategically at relationships, synergies, and second/third 

order effects 

Air Force doctrine also highlights the dominance of education at the strategic 

level stating ‘‘education and training at the strategic level assists in developing the 

skills to form accurate frames of reference, make sound decisions, uncover under-
199 

* AFDD 1–1 ‘‘Leadership and Force Development’’ 18 Feb 2006 

lying connections to deal with more general issues, and engage in creative, innovative thinking that recognizes new solutions and new options. At this level, education 

assumes a predominant role in an Airman’s development. Education emphasizes understanding of broad concepts and offers insights into complex issues not commonly 

available in operational environments. It focuses on the institutional Air Force and 

joint, interagency, business, and international views.’’ * 

The Air War College educational philosophy aligns with these doctrinal tenets, focused on education at the strategic level in the joint, international and interagency 

environment. Air War College focuses exclusively on education, leaving training to 

be conducted at the appropriate commander or functional course. 

Dr. SNYDER. The 1989 Skelton Panel Report said all the Commandants and Presidents should teach so that they would understand what it takes to be a faculty 

member. Can you describe a typical faculty member’s day? Do you yourself teach 

or mentor individual students? a. Unlike civilian university professors who emphasize research, your faculty members generally do not have teaching assistants, research assistants, or set office hours. When do they have time for service, research, 

and writing? How much research and writing do you expect them to do outside the 

sabbatical windows? How is this assessed on their appraisals, military and civilian? 

General FORSYTH. Understanding what it takes to be a faculty member is an essential element of successful war college leadership. I do not, however, feel it is fundamentally different from the challenge of leading any complex organization; success does not require that the leader maintain all of the same tactical-level duties 

and certifications as line members of the organization. I maintain awareness of 

what it takes to be a faculty member by observing seminars and lectures, through 

course and curriculum reviews and through daily interaction with the faculty and 

students. All of my subordinate leaders such as deputies, deans, department chairs 

and course directors maintain their faculty qualifications and actively teach in the 

classroom. I act as a mentor for both faculty and students. From setting my expectations at the start of the academic year to periodic meetings with faculty and student 

leaders to sessions with the entire student body, my leadership style is personal, 

direct and hands-on. I have given numerous lectures in the leadership series and 

in the warfighting course in addition to addressing several elective classes. 

A typical faculty member’s day varies according to the academic calendar. While 

the faculty member’s core course is ‘‘on the boards’’ (typically three to five months 

of the year), the majority of the day is spent advising student research, teaching 

and preparing to teach. The average week consists of two or three three-hour classroom sessions, usually two faculty workshops to prepare for those sessions, with the 

remaining time spent in preparation for class. When ‘‘off the boards’’ faculty members will still advise students and most likely will be developing curriculum for the 

next academic period. They may teach an elective course one or two days a week, 

pursue individual research interests, and attend conferences or other faculty development events to ensure they stay current and relevant. 

a. Unlike civilian university professors who emphasize research, your faculty members generally do not have teaching assistants, research assistants, or set office hours. 

When do they have time for service, research, and writing? How much research and 

writing do you expect them to do outside the sabbatical windows? How is this assessed on their appraisals, military and civilian? 

Although the Air War College does not have teaching or research assistants, we 

do have supporting structures, for example, that assist faculty members by obtaining copyrights for articles and assembling and producing course readers. The faculty 

and students collaborate on research projects which can result in edited volumes. 

Civilian faculty members participate in sabbaticals for research, including a standing agreement to provide one faculty member annually to the Air Force Research 

Institute to share research time between directed topics and topics of personal interest. When not on sabbatical, a faculty member’s workplan typically specifies completion of one journal article and one op-ed piece as minimum annual requirements. 

Military faculty members are expected to produce at least one journal article during 

their tour at the Air War College. Supervisors assess research and writing for both 

civilian and military faculty on annual appraisals based on individual workplans 

which outline expectations in the three areas of teaching, research and publication, 

and service to the institution. The Air University Commander has outlined these expectations for faculty at all Air University schools. Teaching is priority one for all 

faculty, followed in priority by research then service for civilian faculty and service 
200 

† Source AUI 36–105 

* Source: AUI 36–2323 

then research for military faculty.† Within that broad guidance, supervisors build 

annual workplans for each faculty member, articulating specific, individually-tailored expectations and goals in the areas of teaching, research and publication, and 

service. 

The research results speak for themselves. Over the last three academic years, 

Air War College faculty members have produced 13 books, 26 book chapters, and 

69 journal articles. Faculty members have five books in the queue for publication 

in the coming academic year. 

Dr. SNYDER. Does having a master’s degree program at these schools detract from 

the PME mission, not from the standpoint of it being easy to accredit existing programs, but that it may tip the focus toward the academic instead of professional 

education? 

General FORSYTH. The Air War College focuses first and foremost on delivering 

the best possible professional military education. Because we maintain the rigor of 

a graduate school with a PME curriculum created and taught by a highly-qualified 

graduate faculty, we have been able to achieve accreditation for our master’s degree 

from the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. This is a virtuous circle as 

accreditation helps us attract faculty members who are second to none, which in 

turn improves our PME curriculum and teaching. 

The decision to maintain accreditation provides a master’s degree for our graduates and translates into civilian terms the importance we place on rigorous education. We did not seek the master’s degree for its own sake but rather as an acknowledgement of the quality of the PME educational experience and the importance of that experience to the Service. I believe that an academic focus and a professional education focus are complementary rather than conflicting. 

Dr. SNYDER. Do all of your students receive master’s degrees—why or why not? 

What does top quality in uniformed faculty mean to you? Please be specific, is it 

more important to have an advanced degree in specific areas like international relations, political science, a regional study, or military or political history than it is to 

have a PhD in any subject even if that was in math or engineering? 

General FORSYTH. All US students, military and civilian, selected to attend Air 

War College in residence who possess a bachelor’s degree or equivalent from a US 

college are enrolled in the master’s degree program and will receive a Masters of 

Strategic Studies upon successful completion of Air War College. International Fellows who possess a US bachelor’s degree or its equivalent (or meet admission requirements through the portfolio admission process) and meet English proficiency 

requirements by achieving a qualifying score on the Test of English as a Foreign 

Language (TOEFL) may apply for admittance into the master’s degree program. 

International Fellows who do not qualify, or choose not to apply, to the master’s degree program receive an Air War College Diploma but not a master’s degree upon 

graduation.* On average, approximately one-half of the 45 International Fellows are 

admitted to the master’s program. Thus approximately 90% of the students in an 

average Air War College class receive master’s degrees while the remaining 10% are 

international fellows who either choose not to apply or do not meet the master’s admissions standards. Air War College perceives the master’s degree as giving credit 

to the students where credit has been earned since the program meets the master’s 

degree accreditation requirements of the Southern Association of Colleges and 

Schools. 

What does top quality in uniformed faculty mean to you? Please be specific, is it 

more important to have an advanced degree in specific areas like international relations, political science, a regional study, or military or political history than it is to 

have a PhD in any subject even if that was in math or engineering? 

Air War College defines top quality uniformed faculty as those who: possess a 

master’s degree in a curriculum-relevant subject, are graduates of in-residence senior-level PME, are joint qualified officers (JQO), have commanded at two levels 

(squadron and group or wing for Air Force and equivalents for other Services), and 

have the background (air/land/sea/space/cyberspace operations, support, etc) necessary to fill a specific faculty vacancy. The Air War College only pursues top-quality uniformed faculty, but does so with the whole person concept in mind and with 

an eye toward fielding a diverse faculty with the breadth of military experience necessary to develop and teach the curriculum. For example, the Air War College definitely prefers to have faculty members with PhDs in fields relevant to the PME curriculum such as history or international relations. But so few officers with such advanced degrees also have two levels of command and are JQOs that we may, with 

full knowledge, hire someone without all of those credentials to get a uniformed 
201 

* Source AUI 36–2308 

** Source AFI 36–804 

*** Source AU Sup to AFI 36–804 

PhD faculty member who meets our current requirements and needs. Conversely, 

a candidate with a PhD in an area such as math or engineering may not fare well 

in the selection process without two levels of command or JQO status since those 

terminal degrees are not as applicable to the curriculum. The ability to make such 

judgment calls is essential to recruiting and maintaining the highest quality military faculty possible with the diversity of experience needed to teach and refresh 

the curriculum while still being current and relevant. 

Dr. SNYDER. What does ‘‘top quality’’ mean for civilian faculty? Please be specific. 

a. Does not having tenure affect how professors treat ‘‘academic freedom’’? 

General FORSYTH. Air War College defines a top quality civilian faculty as those 

who have: experience in the subject matter sought in the vacancy, evidence of academic activity and service, a record of publication in peer-reviewed outlets in the 

subject matter sought or related fields, and evidence of outstanding teaching and 

superior credentials. The Air War College’s recent track record on hiring top quality 

faculty is very good; we recently hired a PhD from the University of Chicago who 

was teaching there and a PhD from Harvard University who was teaching at the 

London School of Economics. The majority of our civilian faculty members have 

earned their terminal degrees in top-30 universities such as Harvard University, 

University of Chicago, University of North Carolina, Georgetown University, University of Illinois, etc. 

Tenure is an issue for some members of the faculty. There have been in the past 

some candidates vying for vacant faculty positions that have either voiced their concerns or withdrawn themselves from consideration after discovering we do not have 

a tenure track. The most often cited benefits of a tenure system would be to protect 

faculty members from the vagaries of faculty management policy changes and to 

provide additional reassurances on the promise of academic freedom. 

Air University has a clearly articulated policy on academic freedom which is an 

amended form of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) definition of academic freedom. The Air University Policy states: * 

Air University faculty, students, and staff are members of a learned profession, 

and members of their respective educational organizations. The free exchange 

of opinions and ideas is essential to the educational process and, to the greatest 

extent possible, faculty, students, and staff are encouraged to speak and write 

freely. Even in this academic setting, however, the importance of the University’s military mission requires limits on some types of expression. For example, 

in accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), commissioned 

officers, officer trainees, and cadets may not use contemptuous words toward 

the President, Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary 

of the Air Force, and others. In addition, military members may not make disrespectful remarks about a superior commissioned officer, nor may an enlisted 

member make a disrespectful statement toward a superior noncommissioned officer. In addition to these specific restrictions on military members, faculty, students, and staff should remember that the public might judge the armed forces 

or Air University by their spoken or written statements. In any public forum, 

Air University faculty, students and staff members should make every effort to 

indicate clearly that the opinions they express are personal to the member, and 

do not represent the official views of their organization, Air University, the 

United States Air Force, the US government, or any other government or academic community. 

The concerns some faculty members have expressed about variability of faculty 

management policies requires a more detailed explanation. The authority for hiring 

and reappointing civilian faculty members rests with the Air University Commander, not the Air War College Commandant. Air University offered a tenure 

track for Air War College faculty until 1 May 2003.*** Without tenure, the length 

of an appointment period has been a concern for faculty members. Air Force policy 

states that initial appointments will not normally exceed three years.** Air University policy is that subsequent reappointments after that initial three-year term are 

for periods of one to five years While the faculty maintains confidence in the Air 

War College Commandant’s ability to represent their interests adequately at the Air 

University level, some find disconcerting the fact that, in the absence of tenure, 

their Commandant is not the decision authority for reappointments. 

Dr. SNYDER. Since you don’t have tenure, what is the process for renewal and nonrenewal of the civilian faculty? How transparent is the system? Do professors know 
202 

* Source AU Sup to AFI 36–804 

** Source AFI 36–804 

six months before they are up for renewal whether they will be renewed, for how 

long, and why? In a tenure system people think the faculty members have all the 

power, in a no-tenure system it appears that the school has unlimited power. How 

do you avoid the extremes and appearances of arbitrariness? How many of your civilian faculty don’t have PhDs or JDs? Be specific about what degrees they do have 

and why they were hired. 

General FORSYTH. Currently, the Air University Commander is the authority for 

reappointing civilian faculty members, not the Air War College Commandant. 

Therefore, Air University outlines the reappointment process in the Air University 

supplement to Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36–804 ‘‘Civilian Faculty Pay Plan for Air 

University and the USAF Academy.’’ Implementation guidance for Air University 

Instructions is contained in Spaatz Center for Officer Education Operating Instruction 36–3, ‘‘Faculty Management,’’ and Air War College supplement to AFI36–804, 

‘‘Air War College Civilian Faculty Pay Plan Procedures.’’ A brief summary of the 

process follows. 

The reappointment process normally begins 12 months prior to the expiration of 

a faculty member’s current appointment. Air University policy requires that any 

non-renewal decision must be communicated to the faculty member in writing at 

least 12 months before the effective date for those on an appointment of two years 

or longer.* The faculty member’s supervisor prepares a staff summary sheet which 

details the faculty member’s current appointment data and the requested reappointment terms. The faculty member’s vita or resume is attached as supporting documentation and forwarded to the Dean of Academics and the Air War College Commandant for review. The Air War College Commandant signs the staff summary 

sheet and sends the renewal package to the Air University Commander for approval. Once approved, the faculty member’s supervisor explains the terms of reappointment approved by the Air University Commander to the faculty member. In 

most cases, these should be the same terms the Commandant recommended with 

the initial package. In those cases where the approved terms are different than the 

ones the Air War College Commandant recommended, the rationale for the change 

will be communicated back to the faculty member. There are two exceptions to the 

general procedures as outlined: one for renewal of faculty completing their initial 

appointment and one for faculty being nominated for the maximum five-year renewal. 

Air War College faculty members seeking renewal upon completion of their initial 

appointment assemble a more detailed package summarizing their teaching, research and publication, and service to the institution during their initial period of 

appointment. This package is submitted to the Air War College Review Group, a faculty advisory committee that makes recommendations to the Dean of Academics on 

initial reappointments and promotions. Members of the committee, two military and 

three civilian, are senior faculty members elected by their peers. The committee 

makes its recommendation on reappointment to the dean, who forwards it along 

with the more detailed reappointment package to the Air War College Commandant 

for review. 

The second exception to the normal process occurs when the Air War College 

Commandant requests a five-year reappointment. It is Air University policy that the 

longest reappointment period will be five years. The current Air University policy 

is to not accept a five-year reappointment request until 120 days prior to the expiration of the faculty member’s current appointment rather than 12 months prior as 

is the case for reappointments of less than five years. 

In a tenure system people think the faculty members have all the power, in a notenure system it appears that the school has unlimited power. How do you avoid the 

extremes and appearances of arbitrariness? 

The levels of review and approval in the reappointment process, the use of standard reappointment periods and the peer review provided by the College Review 

Group for initial reappointments mitigate against extremes and arbitrariness. Without tenure, however, the length of an appointment period has been a concern for 

some faculty members. Air Force policy states that initial appointments will not normally exceed three years.** Air University policy is that subsequent reappointments 

after that initial three-year term are for periods of one to five years.* While the faculty maintains confidence in the Air War College Commandant’s ability to represent 

their interests adequately at the Air University level, some find disconcerting the 

fact that, in the absence of tenure, their Commandant is not the decision authority 

for reappointments. 
203 

How many of your civilian faculty don’t have PhDs or JDs? Be specific about what 

degrees they do have and why they were hired. 

Fully 20 of the 21 authorized Title 10 civilian faculty members have a terminal 

degree. The one civilian faculty member without a terminal degree is currently serving in the leadership department. He was hired based on his demonstrated teaching 

ability, as well as the understanding of military leadership that he demonstrated 

to the hiring committee, developed from his extensive record as a successful leader 

in both combat and in peacetime. He possesses a BA from Auburn University in 

American History, and a Masters of Military Art and Science from Central Missouri 

University. 

Dr. SNYDER. Some of you have indicated that you wish to hire ‘‘younger’’ PhDs. 

Do you think they may need a bit of seasoning or practical experience to be able 

to hold their own with the caliber and seniority of students you have? Does it mean 

you have to push out ‘‘older professors’’ who may be performing well in order to 

bring on younger ones? 

General FORSYTH. The Air War College has no intention of ‘‘pushing out’’ older 

professors to bring in younger ones. Furthermore, we would only consider hiring a 

candidate who can and will be relevant and has demonstrated through the hiring 

process that he or she would excel in our seminar teaching environment. Effective 

teaching is our number one goal. 

Dr. SNYDER. National and ICAF have 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 faculty and student mixes while 

the Service schools have a 60% host and 40% other mix. Are the faculty and student 

mixes dictated for the various institutions still appropriate? If so, was it appropriate 

for Congress to allow the Service senior schools to award JPME II credit (NDAA 

FY 2005) despite their lower ratios, non-neutral ground, and lack of a requirement 

to send any graduates to joint assignments? ICAF and National must send ‘‘50% 

plus one’’ graduates to joint assignments. Is this still appropriate? Should Service 

schools have some kind of requirement? 

General FORSYTH. I believe the 60% host, 40% other faculty mix is appropriate 

for the Air War College. Because civilian faculty are not included in the faculty mix 

calculation, it is important to note that uniformed Air Force officers only comprise 

one-third of the total Air War College faculty, a much lower percentage than the 

60% military target would indicate. The Process for Accreditation of Joint Education 

(PAJE) rigorously administered by the Joint Staff confirmed that Air War College 

is meeting the joint learning outcomes dictated by the officer professional military 

education policy. The 40% non-host faculty requirement gives us enough sister-service officers to meet the acculturation goals of Phase II joint professional military 

education while preserving enough room on the faculty to cover the breadth of Air 

Force experience needed to educate officers on the strategic role of the air component in joint, interagency and multinational operations. 

With respect to Joint assignments for the graduates, this is really an issue for 

the individual service personnel system and the needs of the individual services. 

The Headquarters Air Force A1 Personnel office has expressed to me that for NDU 

they continue to support the 50+1. All that said, it is important to note that the 

quality of Air War College’s joint education is not influenced by whether the officer 

is going immediately to a joint assignment, or going to command after graduation 

with the potential for a joint assignment to follow. 

Dr. SNYDER. What constitutes rigor in your educational program? Does rigor require letter grades? Does rigor require written exams? Does rigor require the writing of research or analytical papers, and if so, of what length? Does rigor require 

increased contact time and less ‘‘white space’’ or vice versa? 

General FORSYTH. Rigor encompasses grading, active learning (seminars, reading, 

research and writing) and accountability for student performance. The Air War College program combines all of these elements to create a rigorous academic program. 

Students receive letter grades in every core and elective course. Grading for all 

courses measure student performance in deliverables such as papers, essay exams 

and presentations as well as class participation against objective criteria. 80% of the 

Air War College program is devoted to active learning: individual reading, exercises 

and seminar discussions. All exams given at the Air War College are in-class essay 

exams or take-home papers varying from 5 to 15 pages in length. Students complete 

a professional studies research paper of approximately 20 pages with the goal of 

publishing their work in a journal. The key measure of rigor is not contact time, 

but time spent in active learning. Rigor is not increased by adding additional hours 

to the program, but by maintaining seminar interaction and student accountability 

during the contact hours on the schedule. The ‘‘white space’’ on the schedule is anything but time off. It is essential time scheduled to give the students time to prepare 

for class, during which they are held accountable for their classroom participation. 
204 

Dr. SNYDER. Can you describe how you survey students, graduates, and graduates’ 

supervisors to assess the quality of your program? 

General FORSYTH. The Air War College executes an aggressive closed-loop feedback process to assess quality and constantly improve our program. While any student can critique any event, each week during the academic year we ask one third 

(rotating thirds) of the AWC class to provide feedback for the lectures, seminars, 

readings, and guest speakers delivered that week. These surveys provide a method 

to detect and influence immediate trends. At end of each core and elective course, 

all students and the faculty who taught the course are asked to provide feedback 

on the effectiveness, structure, relevance, and workload of the course as well as 

whether the course achieved its stated educational objectives. Just prior to graduation, we survey the students on the overall program, soliciting their feedback on 

whether the program achieved our published educational outcomes, the proportion 

of curriculum devoted to various courses, instructional methodologies and support. 

The end of course and graduate survey return rates give us a 95% confidence that 

the survey results accurately reflect the opinion of the student population within 

5%. Finally, surveys are sent to graduates and the graduates’ supervisors approximately 18 months after graduation to determine how the educational program 

helped the graduates perform in their current positions. All of this survey data is 

used to inform decisions of the curriculum builders, and is briefed to the commandant as part of the course approval process. 

Dr. SNYDER. Should the OSD Chancellors office be reestablished? Why or Why 

not? 

General FORSYTH. I was not yet the Air War College Commandant when OSD had 

a Chancellors office and therefore am not personally aware of all of the functions 

that office served. That said, it is my opinion that the Air War College currently 

receives sufficient guidance and oversight from the Air University Board of Visitors, 

the Air University Staff, the Air Force staff via the Air Force Learning Council, the 

Joint staff via the Process for Accreditation of Joint Education and the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools through accreditation of the master’s degree program. 

Dr. SNYDER. Ethics—what should be the role of ethical education at the senior 

schools beyond ‘‘just war’’ theory? 

General FORSYTH. The Air War College program features a strong emphasis on 

ethics and we recently expanded the role of ethics education in the curriculum. Additionally, we emphasize the distinction between legal behavior and ethical behavior. Specifically, our Joint Strategic Leadership course incorporates the following instructional periods: establishing organizational ethics and values, ethical military 

leadership and just war, ethical dilemmas for senior leaders, and senior leader failures. Additionally, we offer the following electives which also deal with the subject: 

Legally Leading the Fight; New Mercenaries—The Causes and Consequences of 

Military Privatization; Command and Conscience; Right, Wrong, and In-Between: 

Ethics and Senior Leaders; Just War Theory and Application: Classical Wisdom and 

Contemporary Conflict; Why Insurgencies Win (and Lose) and Comparative CivilMilitary Relations. 

Dr. SNYDER. Should each school have a Board of Visitors or Consultants, separate 

from your University’s, so it could focus just on your mission? 

General FORSYTH. Not in my opinion. When the decision was made to pursue accreditation for Air University rather than accrediting individual schools, the thenexisting advisory boards for individual degree-granting schools were abolished and 

replaced by the single Air University Board instituted under the auspices of the Air 

University Chief Academic Officer. The Air War College receives sufficient guidance 

and oversight from the Air University Board of Visitors, the Air University Staff, 

the Air Staff via the Air Force Learning Council, and the Joint staff via the process 

for accreditation of joint education. I see no additional value for an Air War College 

board of visitors separate from the existing Air University board. 

Dr. SNYDER. Has full funding been secured for the Field Studies component of the 

Regional and Cultural Studies Course. 

General FORSYTH. The Regional and Cultural Studies Course has been underfunded since 2003 as the costs of travel continue to rise while the available budget 

has remained unchanged. Indicative of the value Air War College places on this 

course, we reduced the scope of the field study while diverting funds from other 

needs such as faculty development travel to pay for this program. Cost cutting 

measures taken included reducing the number of days for field study from 14 to 12, 

visiting fewer countries, reducing the number of trips, cutting faculty members on 

each trip from three to two, booking circuitous but less expensive travel and purchasing non-refundable airline tickets. For unrelated reasons, the Air War College 
205 

student load was reduced 10% last academic year which reduced overall costs and 

allowed the budget to cover approximately 99% of the program. 

As we make our cost estimates for the coming academic year, we believe the costs 

of the Regional and Cultural Studies Course will exceed our current budget by 

$120K. Having exhausted all cost saving measures we can implement and still execute a viable educational course, any more cuts will result in cancellation of the program. In previous years, Air War College and Air University have been able to shift 

funds from other programs in the year of execution to make up the Regional and 

Cultural Studies budget deficit, though growing budget pressures may ultimately 

place this program at risk. 

Dr. SNYDER. The terms ‘‘training’’ and ‘‘education’’ seem to be used interchangeably quite a bit. Can you tell me how you define the difference and what part of 

your curriculum is training and which part is education? 

Colonel BELCHER. Thank you for this insightful question. It cuts directly to the 

core of the Marine Corps War College’s organizational mission and educational philosophy. The Marine Corps develops exceptional leaders though a tailored combination of training, experience, and education gained throughout each Marine’s career. 

Training is a formalized process wherein students develop skills and behaviors in 

order to address known issues and events. It begins with entry-level training and 

is sustained through the completion of advanced schools and courses. Conversely, 

education is an experiential process wherein students develop the ability to think 

critically and creatively in order to address unexpected issues or events. Education 

allows the student to see beyond training and personal experience to operate successfully in a complex and dynamic environment. Per the direction of the 29th Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Alfred Gray, ‘‘the education will emphasize 

how to think and stress the development of a logical thought process.’’ The Marine 

Corps adage that best summarizes the difference is: ‘‘We train for certainty, but 

educate for uncertainty.’’ 

For this reason as military officers and government officials progress through 

their careers, the emphasis of their professional development correspondingly shifts 

from training to education. Consequently, as the Marine Corps’ Top-Level School, 

the Marine Corps War College s focused almost exclusively on education. The College’s objective is to educate them to think independently and innovatively about the 

strategic military issues facing our Nation, rather than to train them for their next 

position. Therefore, the curriculum is broad-based and balanced, embracing not only 

military matters, but also history, philosophy, culture, economics, geography, and 

geopolitics, to provide the student with a wide intellectual aperture to view the 

world. The curriculum does include minimal training, primarily focused on the implementation of Department of Defense and Marine Corps policies such as equal opportunity, sexual assault prevention, suicide awareness, and safety. Even when presenting such training, the College seeks to expand the students understanding of 

the issue through critical analysis and open discussion. In this way, the College can 

better prepare students to not only adhere to such policies, but to establish and enforce such policies in their future roles as strategic leaders and planners. 

Dr. SNYDER. The 1989 Skelton Panel Report said all the Commandants and Presidents should teach so that they would understand what it takes to be a faculty 

member. Can you describe a typical faculty member’s day? Do you yourself teach 

or mentor individual students? a. Unlike civilian university professors who emphasize research, your faculty members generally do not have teaching assistants, research assistants, or set office hours. When do they have time for service, research, 

and writing? How much research and writing do you expect them to do outside the 

sabbatical windows? How is this assessed on their appraisals, military and civilian? 

Colonel BELCHER. The Marine Corps War College is first and foremost a teaching 

organization. However, in order for the faculty to maximize their educational effectiveness, they must continually grow though scholarly research and professional development. Recognizing this fact, the College’s leadership affords the faculty significant autonomy in scheduling their daily routines to meet their professional educational requirements as well as their personal scholarly needs. Consequently, each 

day may vary based on the particular faculty member’s participation in curriculum 

development, curriculum presentation, reading, research, or professional development activities. Typically, a faculty member will arrive at the College in the morning to finalize preparations for the first seminar. After reviewing correspondence, 

conferring with colleagues, and reviewing the courseware, the faculty member commences instruction. The faculty member then teaches either one three-hour seminar 

or two two-hour seminars based on the subject, the chosen instructional methodology, or the desired student-to-instructor ratio. The afternoon is generally reserved 

for the faculty member to conduct student counseling, mentoring, course preparation, professional reading, and research. Faculty members frequently capitalize on 
206 

this time to participate in meetings, symposia, conferences, and panels which advance their expertise in education as well as their respective field of study. 

In academic year 2009, I taught the College’s course entitled ‘‘Economics as an 

Instrument of National Power’’ to include leading a field study trip to the New York 

City Financial District. Additionally, I mentor the students regarding personal, professional and academic issues throughout the year. To that end, I conduct initial, 

intermediate and final interviews with each student. Each week during a Director’s 

synthesis session, I query the students individually and collectively regarding the 

effectiveness of the curriculum and its presentation. I also meet weekly with the 

Student Class Leader to respond to questions and resolve concerns. Finally, I personally mentor each of the Marine Corps students. I monitor their academic 

progress and provide personalized guidance to prepare them for follow-on assignments to senior-level staff and command billets. 

Although the College is primarily a teaching institution, faculty members are 

highly encouraged to conduct independent research and writing. The objectives of 

this effort are twofold and mutually supporting. First, such projects keep the faculty 

members up to date in their respective field of study, allowing them to better educate their students. Secondly, such projects enhance the College’s academic reputation while expanding its outreach efforts. Due to the individual and organizational 

benefits derived from such endeavors, faculty members are granted time in their 

daily schedules to conduct reading and research. While not required to research and 

write, faculty members are rewarded for doing so. Such extracurricular efforts are 

noted on performance appraisals and factored into the selection of faculty members 

for personal recognition or rewards. 

Expanded research opportunities are available to the faculty through the Marine 

Corps University’s Personal Development Offsite Program. After completing five 

years of continuous service, teaching faculty members may apply for a six- month 

professional enrichment period during which he/she is expected to enhance his/her 

professional abilities while producing an academic product. 

Finally, the College is currently assessing the viability of implementing an internship program wherein local civilian graduate students would be given the opportunity to serve as Research Assistants. This program would provide the interns with 

a greater understanding of US military and government organizations and operations while earning them academic credit at their parent institution. It would provide the faculty with assistance in expanding the breadth and depth of their research efforts. 

Dr. SNYDER. Does having a master’s degree program at these schools detract from 

the PME mission, not from the standpoint of it being easy to accredit existing programs, but that it may tip the focus toward the academic instead of professional 

education? 

Colonel BELCHER. The master’s degree program does not detract from the Marine 

Corps War College’s professional military education mission. In fact, it enhances it. 

Following his testimony before the House Armed Services Committee on July 12, 

1989, the 29th Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Alfred M. Gray, directed 

the development of ‘‘a world-class’’ educational institution for the study of war and 

the profession of arms. In August 1990, an elite group of six Lieutenant Colonels 

convened to participate in ‘‘The Art of War Studies Program,’’ the precursor of the 

Marine Corps War College. Since then the College has grown in size and scope, yet 

remained true to its charter and intently focused on producing the Nation’s next 

generation of strategists. 

In August 2001, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) accredited the College to grant a Master of Strategic Studies to students who successful 

complete the curriculum. By focusing on how to teach, vice what to teach, SACS 

scrutiny of the curriculum added increased rigor and discipline to the process of preparing, presenting, and assessing professional military education. Though routine 

interaction SACS personnel and periodic assessments, the College was able to better 

leverage civilian educational ‘‘best practices’’ then apply them to the instruction of 

military strategy and war-fighting. Due to lessons learned from SACS accreditation, 

the University implemented numerous progressive educational measures to include 

the establishment of a rigorous course development process as well as the institution of a Board of Visitors and a Directorate for Institutional Research and Effectiveness. 

Dr. SNYDER. Do all of your students receive master’s degrees—why or why not? 

What does top quality in uniformed faculty mean to you? Please be specific, is it 

more important to have an advanced degree in specific areas like international relations, political science, a regional study, or military or political history than it is to 

have a PhD in any subject even if that was in math or engineering? 
207 

Colonel BELCHER. All of the students who successfully complete the Marine Corps 

War College Master of Strategic Studies curriculum are granted a diploma. Students who fail to successfully complete the master’s degree curriculum, yet complete 

the course are granted a certificate of completion. Due to the high quality of military 

officers and government officials selected to attend the Marine Corps War College, 

no student failed to earn a master’s degree in since the College began awarding degrees in 2001. 

My definition of a ‘‘top quality’’ military faculty member is an officer who has 

demonstrated exceptional proficiency and exemplary professionalism in both operational and academic environments. Such an officer should be broadly educated, yet 

possess the occupational expertise and operational experience required to present 

timely and detailed instruction. The officer should be a graduate of a Senior Level 

Service College, possess at least a Master’s degree, and be a designated Joint Qualified Officer. In fact, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff requires that 75% of 

the faculty be Senior Level School graduates or Joint Qualified Officers. The Marine 

Corps War College is in full compliance with this criterion. Preferably the candidate 

should also have experience as an instructor at a military or civilian graduate-level 

institution. The officer should possess both occupational and operational credibility 

gained through recent experience in command and staff positions. Lastly, the officer 

should be competitive for positions of higher rank and responsibility. The College 

policy is to risk continuity for capability and select upwardly mobile officers who 

may transfer early due to their selection for promotion or command. 

Historically, the other Services have provided the College with a number of potential candidates for each Service Chair. When selecting a Chair, the College leadership carefully evaluates each candidate’s level of education and area of study. All 

other factors being equal, I believe an officer with an advanced degree in the specific 

area (i.e. international politics, political science a regional study or military history) 

he/she will instruct is preferable to an officer with a terminal degree in a more general area of study (i.e. math or engineering). A focused educational background 

lessens the learning curve, enabling the incoming officer to more quickly master the 

course material and commence instruction. More closely tailored academic credentials increase an officer’s instructional capabilities, as well as his/her credibility and 

confidence. In my opinion, military occupational and operational experience more 

easily compensate for the lack of prestige and rigor of a terminal degree than the 

other way around. 

The military faculty is a vital to the currency and credibility of educational program. Consequently, the College seeks only the best candidates—those officers with 

the expertise, experience, and education to instruct and inspire the Nation’s future 

strategic leaders, planners, and policy-makers. 

Dr. SNYDER. What does ‘‘top quality’’ mean for civilian faculty? Please be specific. 

a. Does not having tenure affect how professors treat ‘‘academic freedom’’? 

Colonel BELCHER. My definition of a ‘‘top quality’’ civilian faculty member is a 

scholar and educator who possesses 1) expertise in his/her respective field of study, 

2) operational experience in curriculum-related areas, 3) a general knowledge of 

adult educational methodology and most importantly 4) a passion for developing 

curriculum and teaching our unique type of student. Such an individual should posses a terminal degree, yet remain a life-long student of his/her craft, continuously 

pursuing greater understanding of the subject though reading, research, reflection, 

and participation in scholarly form. He/she should be proficient in written and oral 

communications, able to translate complex issues into understandable terms applicable to any audience—students or scholars. We have two types of civilian faculty 

at the Senior Schools, Agency Chairs and Title 10 full-time professors. A terminal 

degree is required for the Title 10 professors and desired for Agency Chairs. 

The lack of tenure does not affect the ‘‘academic freedom’’ enjoyed by the faculty 

of the Marine Corps War College. As an institution, the College believes that ‘‘academic freedom’’ is fostered by a positive organizational culture, not guaranteed employment. It springs from an academic environment in which faculty and students 

alike are encouraged to voice their opinions on any relevant subjects in open, scholarly debate without risk of rebuke or reprisal. Such opinions must be expressed in 

a well-researched, well-reasoned, and rationale manner, based on valid, empirical 

data and devoid of emotion. The College’s strict non-attribution policy also safeguards academic freedom. It allows faculty, students and guest speakers who might 

otherwise be hesitant to express their opinions to voice their thoughts without fear 

of further dissemination. The College attempts to foster such an open atmosphere 

by routinely hosting panels of subject matter experts to debate controversial issues 

as civilian-military relations, media coverage of military operations, and the impacts 

of repealing the Department of Defense’s ‘‘Don’t Ask; Don’t Tell’’ policy. Similarly, 

the College encourages faculty and students to write and publish scholarly works 
208 

on topical issues. For example, one professor recently submitted a chapter entitled 

‘‘The Sky Won’t Fall: Policy Recommendations for Allowing Homosexuals to Serve 

Openly in the U.S. Military’’ to the forthcoming Department of Defense book entitled Social Policy Perspectives 2010. By providing a safe and supportive organizational climate, the College generates more academic freedom than tenure ever could. 

Dr. SNYDER. Since you don’t have tenure, what is the process for renewal and nonrenewal of the civilian faculty? How transparent is the system? Do professors know 

six months before they are up for renewal whether they will be renewed, for how 

long, and why? In a tenure system people think the faculty members have all the 

power, in a no-tenure system it appears that the school has unlimited power. How 

do you avoid the extremes and appearances of arbitrariness? How many of your civilian faculty don’t have PhDs or JDs? Be specific about what degrees they do have 

and why they were hired. 

Colonel BELCHER. Civilian faculty members are hired under Title 10 authority 

granted to the President of Marine Corps University by the Secretary of the Navy. 

Civilian faculty members are offered a one, two or three-year appointment based on 

the needs of the college and the individual’s qualifications. New civilian faculty 

members undergo a one-year probationary period during which their performance 

is evaluated. During the period, they are supervised and counseled on a periodic 

basis regarding their performance by the Director and the Dean of Academics. 

The faculty evaluation and renewal system is extremely transparent to the individual. He/she will receive periodic counseling as well as an annual performance appraisal. At least seven months prior to the end of the faculty member’s appointment, 

the Director of the college or school recommends to the President of the University 

whether the faculty member’s appointment should be renewed and for what period 

of time. If the University does not intend to retain an individual, the individual will 

be formally and informally counseled regarding his/her substandard performance 

and be given the means to improve. If he/she fails to improve, his/her performance 

appraisal will document the fact and state the reason for termination. 

To avoid any appearance of arbitrariness, the College leadership manages the civilian faculty in an upfront and forthright manner, providing maximum transparency while maintaining open, two-way lines of communication. First, the College 

ensures that all rules governing policies and procedures are clearly delineated and 

equitably applied. Each faculty member is provided a College Faculty Handbook and 

Marine Corps University Title 10 Faculty Handbook which outlines the College’s 

policies for the handling of reappointments, terminations, appeals, and grievances. 

Second, demonstrating its long-term commitment to its faculty despite the absence of tenure, the College invests time and funds into an aggressive faculty development program. The program seeks to advance the faculty members personal and 

professional abilities through participation in functional area and academic meetings, panels, conferences, symposium, field studies, courses, and classes. By investing in each faculty member’s development, the College develops a stronger cadre of 

instructors while recognizing the symbiotic and mutually supportive relationship between the individual and the institution. 

All, but one, of the College’s civilian faculty members possess a Doctorate or Jurist Doctorate degree. The sole exception is the Department of State Chair who is 

a very seasoned Foreign Service Officer and holds the rank of Minister-Counselor. 

A graduate of the National War College, he also instructed at the Foreign Service 

Institute in Arlington, VA. Between the six civilian faculty members they hold five 

Doctorates, one Jurist Doctorate, and eight Master degrees. Each was hired for their 

subject matter expertise, operational experience, and academic acumen. 

Dr. SNYDER. Some of you have indicated that you wish to hire ‘‘younger’’ PhDs. 

Do you think they may need a bit of seasoning or practical experience to be able 

to hold their own with the caliber and seniority of students you have? Does it mean 

you have to push out ‘‘older professors’’ who may be performing well in order to 

bring on younger ones? 

Colonel BELCHER. I define ‘‘younger professors’’ to mean those with more academic 

and less operational experience than their counterpart despite their age. Based on 

this definition, I believe that ‘‘younger professors’’ bring an academic vitality to the 

curriculum that is essential in keeping the curriculum current and vibrant. While 

they cannot replicate or replace the operational experience or expertise of ‘‘older professors’’ they can balance it. They can offer an educational counterpoint which challenges students and faculty alike to view old issues through new eyes. Similarly, 

younger professors bring new teaching methodology and technology (i.e. electronic 

courseware, blogs, on-line journals), to the classroom which is more acceptable to 

younger generations of students. 

The ability of younger professors to ‘‘hold their own’’ against a more senior student population is based on their professional credentials and force of personality. 
209 

To discount their capabilities due to age or limited operational experience does a 

disservice to the professor and students alike. Routinely, dynamic young scholars 

move from academia to government administration, becoming the policy-makers our 

students will work with in developing and implementing national strategy. Consequently, in order to better to prepare our students in an interagency environment, 

the Marine Corps War College seeks the most qualified, vice the most senior, professors to instruct its students. This same effect can be achieved by increasing the academic interaction between Senior Level Service Colleges and the civilian graduatelevel national security programs (i.e. The Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, The Georgetown University Security Studies Program, 

Yale University, and Princeton University) who utilize younger professors to instruct. Our students would also benefit by interaction with the students enrolled in 

these civilian programs since frequently they consist of future government leaders, 

administrators and policy-makers. With this objective in mind, the College launched 

an ambitious academic outreach program to engage the Directors of prestigious civilian national security programs in order to conduct curriculum consultations, 

share’’ best practices,’’ and identify mutually beneficial collaborative educational opportunities. 

Professorial positions are filled based on availability, College requirements, and 

the evaluated merits of the candidates. However, given normal attrition rates and 

the College’s ongoing expansion program, integration of younger professors can be 

done incrementally without adversely affecting the careers of more established faculty members. 

Dr. SNYDER. National and ICAF have 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 faculty and student mixes while 

the Service schools have a 60% host and 40% other mix. Are the faculty and student 

mixes dictated for the various institutions still appropriate? If so, was it appropriate 

for Congress to allow the Service senior schools to award JPME II credit (NDAA 

FY 2005) despite their lower ratios, non-neutral ground, and lack of a requirement 

to send any graduates to joint assignments? ICAF and National must send ‘‘50% 

plus one’’ graduates to joint assignments. Is this still appropriate? Should Service 

schools have some kind of requirement? 

Colonel BELCHER. The 60% host (Sea Services: Navy, Marine Corps and Coast 

Guard) to 40% non-host department (Air Force, Army, Interagency, and International) student and faculty ratios are appropriate for the Marine Corps War College. 

Normally the College operates well below the student and faculty mix ratios prescribed by the OPMEP. In academic year 2010, the College will have a student mix 

of 42% (11 of 26 military students) host and 58% non-host department. Of the five 

military faculty members 60% are from the host (3 of 5 military officers) while 40% 

are from non-host departments. This ratio enables the College to add a Sea Service 

flavor an otherwise generic joint curriculum. The 60–40 ratio allows the other department students to learn Sea Service operational concepts and experience the Sea 

Service culture and concepts without overwhelming the joint curriculum. A lesser 

student ratio (i.e. 1/3, 1/3. 1/3) would dilute the educational experience of attending 

the Marine Corps War College. Consequently, it would deprive the Service Chiefs 

of the ability to tailor their officers’ education by assigning them to a particular War 

College. If all the Senior Level Services Colleges’ student mixes and curriculum 

were the same, the Nation would loose the intellectual diversity so critical to develop innovative solutions to complex national security issues. 

Despite the Service-specific aspects of the Senior Level Service Colleges, Congress 

was right to grant authority for them to award JPME II credit. Though instruction 

and interaction, the Marine Corps War College immerses its students in a joint educational experience. The College’s curriculum is firmly founded on the enduring joint 

learning areas and emerging special areas of interest identified by the Chairman 

of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. These joint educational standards are disseminated 

though the OPMEP and rigorously assessed by the Process for the Accreditation 

Professional Education. Yet even without such guidance, the College’s curriculum 

would be joint-focused since its emphasis is on the strategic-level of war which by 

its very nature is joint, interagency and multinational. The College is acutely aware 

of the changing nature of modern warfare and has worked diligently to adapt its 

curriculum accordingly. 

The era of Service-centric education has passed. No matter where a graduate may 

be assigned, he/she will deal with joint, interagency, and/or multinational issues. 

Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Senior Level Service Colleges to provide a robust joint education, adaptable to any follow-on assignment. Regrettably, due to intense competition for limited joint billets, it would not be feasible to direct the Senior Level Service Colleges to implement a ‘‘50% plus one’’ policy. Consequently, the 

assignment of joint billets should be left to the Services and be based on 1) the 
210 

needs of the Service, 2) the student’s past operational and academic performance 

and future potential, and lastly 3) the student’s desires. The Services make an organizational investment each time they send students to the Senior Level Service Colleges; therefore the Services should be afforded the opportunity to determine where 

that education reaps the highest reward. 

Dr. SNYDER. What constitutes rigor in your educational program? Does rigor require letter grades? Does rigor require written exams? Does rigor require the writing of research or analytical papers, and if so, of what length? Does rigor require 

increased contact time and less ‘‘white space’’ or vice versa? 

Colonel BELCHER. In this context ‘‘rigor’’ refers to those measures utilized by an 

academic institution to challenge students and inject discipline, objectivity, and consistency into the educational process. To that end, the Marine Corps War College 

utilizes periodic written and oral assessments to determine the student’s ability to 

analyze, synthesize, and evaluate (per Bloom’s taxonomy) the information provided 

in the course of the curriculum (to include classroom instruction, field studies, and 

individual reading and research). 

Graded assessments add rigor and competitiveness into the educational process. 

Students at this educational level are high achievers and strive for the highest 

grades. Nonetheless, while a good motivational tool, grades are not the ultimate 

measure of a student’s academic achievements or progress. They are tools to gauge 

growth, not goals in and of themselves, and should be used accordingly. Since students enter the College with varying educational, occupational, and operational 

backgrounds, they do not start the process at the same place nor proceed at the 

same rate. Graded assessments are good measures of a student’s position relative 

to his/her fellow students, but may not fully reflect his/her professional advancement. Also, we have found that 

In academic year 2009, the students were required to complete six two-page writing assignments as well as an extensive 20-page, self-selected Independent Research 

Project. The students were administered six multi-question essay examinations. The 

students also presented three oral presentations to include a defense of their Independent Research Project. Additionally, each student was evaluated on his/her participation in the Joint Land Air and Sea Simulation, an inter-War College strategic 

war-game held annually aboard Maxwell Air Force Base, Montgomery, AL. Finally 

the students were evaluated on their contribution (vice participation) during the 

College’s five core course. Each assignment was subsequently evaluated by one or 

several faculty members utilizing a standardize rubric and awarded a letter grade. 

The grades for the academic year were tabulated and the top two graduates (10% 

of the graduating class) honored for their superior academic achievements. Their exceptional efforts were recognized and rewarded during graduation and were noted 

on their academic fitness reports. To encourage academic freedom and bold, audacious thought, the College does not list the grades of its students on their academic 

fitness reports or performance appraisals. At the graduate-level, academic rigor 

means more ‘‘white space’’ not less. It means requiring the student to do extensive 

reading, research, and reflection in preparation for each seminar. After analysis, the 

students are required to formulate and discuss their findings in a clear, logical and 

well-reasoned manner. By their very nature, the College’s students are mature, 

highly-competitive and self-directed individuals who excel in an indirect academic 

environment which allows them to integrate life experiences in the exploration of 

new concepts and the solution of novel problems. Like most adult learners, they 

need to know ‘‘why’’ before they commence their studies. Consequently, it is incumbent upon the faculty to set the broad contextual framework for their studies and 

then mentor the students as they follow their own path of educational exploration. 

Adult learners are experiential learners. Consequently, the College also relies heavily on exercises, role-playing, and case study analysis. In such venues, students need 

‘‘white space’’ to analyze the situation, develop course of action, and reflect on their 

role. Understanding the need for ‘‘professional study and preparation time’’ the College dedicates each afternoon and one day per week solely to individual reading, research and writing. 

Dr. SNYDER. Can you describe how you survey students, graduates, and graduates’ 

supervisors to assess the quality of your program? 

Colonel BELCHER. Working with and through the University’s Director of Institutional Research, Assessment, and Planning, the College has implemented an expansive survey program. The program surveys the College’s students, graduates, and 

their supervisors to gain information and insight regarding the quality and effectiveness of the curriculum. 

The first source of feedback is derived from course surveys given to each student 

during the academic year. These surveys are given at the end of each major block 

of instruction and ask the student to comment on the overall quality of the course, 
211 

the applicability of the course material, the proficiency of the instructor, and the effectiveness of the method of presentation. This information is analyzed to determine 

the course’s effectiveness in achieving the stated learning outcomes. Much of the information gleaned from these surveys is reiterated during the intermediate and 

final interviews with the Director. 

A second source of feedback is derived from surveys sent annually for five years 

to graduates. The intent of these surveys is to assess whether the educational experience adequately prepared graduates for their follow-on assignments. A similar survey is sent to each graduate’s immediate Supervisor or Reporting Senior. This survey gains ‘‘the customer’s perspective’’ on College’s educational effectiveness. 

A third source of feedback comes from faculty and staff interviews with senior 

military officers and government officials. Throughout the academic year, faculty 

and staff members query senior personnel regarding the characteristics and capabilities expected of the College’s graduates. Such interviews are normally conducted 

during on-site seminars or field study trips to Combatant Command, Component 

Command, Service or Agency Headquarters. 

The results of each of these surveys is analyzed and fed into the College’s annual 

curriculum review process. The results are then utilized to refine the College’s curriculum and teaching methodology to improve educational efficiency and effectiveness. Dr. SNYDER. Should the OSD Chancellors office be reestablished? Why or Why 

not? 

Colonel BELCHER. No, I do not believe that there is sufficient benefit—to OSD, the 

Services, or the individual institutions—in reestablishing an OSD Chancellors office. 

As configured, the current system provides sufficient oversight and guidance to the 

development, presentation, and assessment of joint military education. 

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acting on his own and through the 

Joint Staff (specifically the Joint Education Branch (J–7)) is able to accurately monitor the current status of joint professional military education, identify existing and 

emerging strategic issues, and modify the curriculum accordingly. With an ear to 

Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Combatant Commanders and the Service 

Chiefs, the Chairman is in the best position to determine the needs of our future 

strategic leaders and planners. This guidance serves as the basis for CJCS Instruction 1800.01C, Officer Professional Military Education Program, which is the foundation for the Senior-Level Service College’s joint, interagency and multinational 

curriculum. 

The Commandant of the Marine Corps provides the next level of academic scrutiny and educational guidance. Working through the Commanding General, Training and Education Command and President, Marine Corps University, he ensures 

that the War College provides a joint professional military education which reflects 

the culture and operational concepts of the Corps, yet remains firmly founded in 

joint doctrine. His guidance ensures that the joint curriculum is flavored with Marine Corps intangibles such as an understanding of national power projection and 

a lean, expeditionary and agile mindset. In doing so, he provides his fellow Service 

Chiefs with graduates who are uniquely capable to understand the Marine Corps 

and lead joint, interagency, and multinational organizations. 

Finally, the Southern Association of Schools and College provides the academic 

oversight and guidance required to ensure that the joint curriculum meets the 

standards of modern post-graduate education. 

These three levels of review are adequate for addressing each aspect of professional military education—Joint, Service and academic. A fourth level of oversight 

would not add sufficient benefit to warrant the additional burden (time, energy, resources, and personnel). The recommendation to reestablish an OSD Chancellor’s office, implies that the current system is broken which, based on the rigorous curriculum and high quality of graduates, it clearly is not. Therefore, the reestablishment of such an office is not required or desired. 

Dr. SNYDER. Ethics—what should be the role of ethical education at the senior 

schools beyond ‘‘just war’’ theory? 

Colonel BELCHER. ‘‘Just War’’ theory is just a fraction of the ethical education 

needed and taught at the senior professional military education schools. The fundamental emphasis of the senior schools is an attempt to bring about a change in the 

incoming students’ thinking from the tactical or operational level to the strategic 

level. The discussion of leadership and ethics, which are inextricably intertwined, 

must be a central feature in that growth. If our graduates are to advise senior leaders or act in the best interests of our Nation with a moral component to their decision-making matrix, they must be grounded in the theory and practice of ethics, beginning with ethics in the profession of arms. The Marine Corps War College treats 

the study of leadership and ethics in a holistic manner with not only a core course 
212 

dedicated to those topics, but also with opportunities to explore ethical dilemmas in 

other courses of study. 

The Marine Corps War College recognizes each incoming student’s status as a mature, experienced professional. The fact that the student is selected to senior service 

school strongly suggests that he or she already knows much about the subject of 

leadership and ethics, has excelled as a leader at the tactical and possibly operational levels and has the potential to rise to very senior leadership positions. The 

College’s Leadership and Ethics course provides each student an opportunity to examine the competencies he/she already possess in the light of their future roles and 

responsibilities. Through reading, research, role-playing, case study analysis and 

interaction with strategic leaders, they study leadership in the complex and uncertain interagency, joint and international environments where there may be no right 

answers, only difficult decisions. 

The Leadership and Ethics course begins with a study of critical thinking, creative thinking, decision making, and a cultural overview and then explores ethics 

and the profession of arms, the ethical and philosophical foundations of western philosophy from antiquity to the post-middle ages, and the ethical use of military force. 

It then continues with strategic decision making, collaborative decision making, 

leading change and the legal and moral implications of the use of force in humanitarian interventions. 

Throughout the year other courses explore ethical considerations to include classes on such issues as civilian-military relations, ‘‘what is an American,’’ the American 

military tradition, torture, gays in the military, and war in traditional society. Exploration of ethics continues through the year as the students debate topical issues 

and interact with scholars and strategic leaders in small group settings. The exposure of students to ethical questions throughout the academic year is crucial to the 

preparation of our Nation’s future senior leaders. 

Dr. SNYDER. Should each school have a Board of Visitors or Consultants, separate 

from your University’s, so it could focus just on your mission? 

Colonel BELCHER. No, a Board of Visitors or Consultants should not be established for each subordinate school. A single University Board of Visitors is adequate 

and appropriate for assessing the overall institutional effectives of the University 

and guiding it in achieving its educational mission. A single Board is a more efficient and effective means to guide the University and its subordinate schools. A single Board represents a more judicious use the time and energies of the President, 

the subordinate school Directors, as well as the Board members themselves. It also 

simplifies and clarifies the channels of communication to and from the Board. 

Inherent in the concept of multiple Boards of Visitors or Consultants is the risk 

that such Boards may provide conflicting or competing guidance to the various 

schools, and thereby induce undue turmoil. Multiple Boards, providing conflicting 

advice, would undermine the integrity of the University concept. Marine Corps University truly operates as a University rather than a conglomeration of separate 

schoolhouses operating independently from one another. The President, as the Marine Corps’ advocate for professional military education, must depend on a single 

Board with the same overarching professional military education focus, rather than 

multiple Boards with a restricted single schoolhouse focus. 

Further, the Marine Corps University, not the subordinate colleges and schools 

is regionally accredited by the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association 

of Colleges and Schools to award master degrees. The Commission on Colleges requires a single Board of Visitors to oversee and advise the President of the University. Multiple Boards providing parochial advice could jeopardize the University’s regional accreditation. Given his/her seniority and authority, the President of the University is in the best position to receive and review a single Board’s input; then 

apply it where applicable within the University. If the President determines that 

more scrutiny is required for the University at large or one or several schools in 

particular, he can increase the frequency of Board meetings or tailor the agenda to 

address a focused area of concern. 

Thank you for this opportunity to respond to questions regarding your Marine 

Corps War College. I would like to thank the Subcommittee for its unwavering support of the College since its inception in 1991. Due to the Subcommittee’s diligent 

efforts the College has successful produced generations of strategic leaders, planners 

and policy-makers, and is on track to become the world-class institution for the 

study of the profession of arms and war envisioned by General Alfred M. Gray in 

1989. Semper Fidelis! 

Æ