Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
“Army Values”
A report is out that West Point is removing “Duty, Honor, Country” from its motto. Instead it will have the words “Army Values”. The Superintendent is trying to argue that since Army values include duty, honor and country that it is no big deal.
Gilland made a point to say that West Point’s mission statement has changed nine times and that “Duty, Honor, Country was first added to the mission statement in 1998.”
The general added that “Army Values include Duty and Honor, and Country is reflected in Loyalty, bearing true faith and allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, the Army, your unit, and other Soldiers.”
Interesting that the phrase “Duty, Honor, Country” was only added in 1998. Many of us probably assumed it was much earlier, given the words of General Douglas McArthur’s famous farewell address included the following —
In the evening of my memory, always I come back to West Point. Always there echoes and re-echoes: Duty, Honor, Country.
So maybe it isn’t really a big deal. But when you replace specific values with a more vague (if arguably comprehensive) phrase, you are focusing on the vessel, not the contents. And any vessel can be emptied and refilled with something very different indeed.
Published in General
I’m with you that it’s surprising that the phrase was only added in 1998. When I saw this headline yesterday I thought of General McArthur’s farewell address. Agree that moving from the specific to the vague is the wrong direction.
As long as no virtues are referenced in the motto. Virtues are the new vices. All you white supremacists can consider yourselves on notice. And remember to check your daily pronoun updates, because patronizing sufferers from psychotic breaks is not just a good idea, it’s the law.
My daily pronoun updates can be sent to 3825968@idontcare.com.
Sometimes I think that these organizations just need to “pee on the fire hydrant” without any explanations. Pardon my coarse language.
No pardon required.
This is the new statement:
I do not like this. I do not think the U.S. Army should exist to serve itself. I think that is a dangerous attitude.
What is more inspiring than “Duty, Honor, Country”? Why don’t they start there?
Just so you have the complete mission statements, here they are.
Old: To educate, train and inspire the Corps of Cadets so that each graduate is a commissioned leader of character committed to the values of Duty, Honor, Country and prepared for a career of professional excellence and service to the nation as an officer in the United States Army.
New: To build, educate, train, and inspire the Corps of Cadets to be commissioned leaders of character committed to the Army Values and ready for a lifetime of service to the Army and Nation.
They made it a little shorter. It doesn’t strike me as a reversal of the previous sentiment.
‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ – unless breaking it is the point.
They also got rid of any words of substance: excellence, Duty, Honor, Country and turned it into typical HR pablum. You could take out “Army” and substitute just about any organization name.
When I was in high school I had a record with MacArthur’s speech on it. I highly recommend listening to it.
And they got rid of “United States,” which smacks of the awful vices of jingoism and xenophobia, and “officer,” which sounds militaristic and elitist.
Using the term “Army Values” is like writing a program with a variable, the amount of which can be defined or changed at any point in the program’s execution.
Just saying.
They also deleted “each graduate.” In my mind that is like spraying silicone on the slippery slope.
There is much to criticize in the new West Point mission statement. What strikes me as most despicable is this: by removing “Honor” from its mission, they also essentially gut the Honor Code: “A cadet will not lie, cheat or steal; nor tolerate those who do.” Of course, West Point (and the other service academies) have been weakening the Honor Code for decades, up to and including toleration of blatant organized cheating during the Covid lockdowns. From that point of view, removing “Honor” from the mission statement is not at all surprising. (“Yeah, all that ‘honor’ nonsense is SO old-fashioned, heteronormative, and evidence of toxic masculinity!”)
It’s never good when you babble about values without affirming anything of value.
As a non ring knocker, I do not have a dog in this fight.
Mottos, mission statements, whatever.
I can remember when the Army didn’t need a mission statement. We had a mission.
“To fight and win the first battle of the next war.”
At some point the Army adopted the “values” of Competence, Courage, Candor and Commitment. As a natural born skeptic I thought the values were a bit of lily gilding. We had a legacy, starting on Lexington Green, of over 200 years of myth, legend and lore.
At least the 4Cs were easy to remember.
Exactly. The values can change, erode or disappear but no need to adjust the slogan.
Perhaps the Constitution could be amended to affirm that our government is committed to American values and let it go from there.
“Army Values” actually has a specific definition. They are Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal Courage. It’s not common knowledge to the general public but they are definitely known to Army personnel, both uniformed and civilian.
Army Values
Yep… as someone who really loves that MacArthur speech A LOT, I hate to see the phrase go, but maybe the general public should reflect more on those values in full.
Pete Buttigieg would love the change.
Army Values are about LDRSHIP. …and they’re perfectly fine.
If your mission statement has seven ultimate values, chances are you’re doing none of them.
Not that I assert that West Point is “doing none of them“, but @stevefast has a point. I like hierarchical ordering because that means that you are striving for the top end goal that can only be accomplished by adherence to the nested goals. And Duty, Honor, Country did that. I know it’s semantics. But sometimes semantics are useful.
The Army should take a tip from Patton and make its motto “Make the other poor SOB die for his country.”
Apparently at one point (proposed or adopted) it was “preparing to fight and win the first battle of the next war”.
“Values” is key. Lefty values. West Point better not charge any signs. They will he told to change back January 2025. Otherwise, nothing shocks me anymore.
I’m relieved to see that many of you also know that although Israelis are not wild about Bibi in general (he still hasn’t taken any responsibility for Oct. 7), they still support his execution of the war.
Edit: I think I put this on the wrong post–oops!
Semantics are not only useful. They are important.