If you’re looking for what’s best for the Army, Caleb Campbell would best serve the Army if he was allowed to play for the Lions right now. Even if he hadn’t made the team, he was still allowed to be drafted, allowed to compete for a spot, and he goes back to other duties after he leaves the Lions.

Athletes have a sort-of celebrity appeal. Lots of kids and young adults look up to them. They dream about achieving success in athletics. If they didn’t, why would there be so many athlete endorsement deals out there? A professional football player from West Point who maintains and promotes a commitment to the Army would be a very positive recruiting tool.

If the Army was trying to maximize their potential, like any organization, they would want to put their people to the best possible use. They probably wouldn’t want to take their best leader and make him a cook, or take their best sharpshooter and have him run a forklift. If Campbell was allowed to be a positive example for the opportunities the Army can offer, it would really help attract a lot of talent to the Army.

How many smart, determined, gifted young kids (presumably the kind of people the military wants to attract) would like to try to go into professional sports, and will not consider the military at all, because that would mean giving up their athletics dreams?

But if they see a few high-profile examples of guys like them who were afforded the flexibility to pursue athletic opportunities and still maintain the commitment to the military during and after their tenure in pro sports, they might be more likely to look into a military career, because it doesn’t require giving up other opportunities altogether.

If the most gifted students in the Army are allowed to excel in college first, and then go into full-time service for X number of years, what would be the harm in allowing the most gifted athletes in the Army the chance to excel in athletics first, and then go into full-time service for X number of years? There’s still a commitment to their obligations.

Generally, what worked for recruiting since the 1950’s might not be the most complete strategy today, in any industry. I’d like to think the military would want to use whatever positive channels are available to them, new and old, to attract new talent.

I still don’t see a justification for yanking Caleb Campbell. Not that the Army was wrong to do it (other than promising him an opportunity and taking it away), but just that it was stupid of them to do it because of all the bad press they got instead of the good recruiting value they could have had.

So in other words, you’ll need a data plan/Internet access.