I understand your point, but it is nonetheless a wrong association, as it is demonstrated by IQ testing. IQ testing is superior measure than degree to know if someone is intelligent, average, dumb etc. I know your point is that american officers are incompetent or lack intelligence I agree with you, it isn't the point. You might have interpreted that because I said punishing critical and vertical thinking is going to normally be punished in an army, but I was practically talking about how military structures would favor the hierarchy and give benefits to those who are compliant with it no matter how rotten, by which I didn't mean anything opposing your claims on the US army, as I don't have neither knowledge nor experience with it.
Engineering might require stronger critical thinking abilities, but engineers have an average composite of lower IQ to philosophers despite being trained in abilities related to IQ, which would mean that engineering students have an average de facto IQ score lower than philosophy students despite training (and usually higher than political scientist, despite the latter composites not being low either). Most people study a specific degree because either they are interested in the field, interested in working in that field or because it could open the door to a better job. I sincerely think anyone average to high intelligence can finish any form of education, although it might be related to me not being american thus not fully knowing the extent to which education there is taught and the differences between degrees there. I also believe that in order to judge the levels of intelligence of someone one must judge by demonstration and not degree (AKA your officers are retards because they were born retards, their college degree is secondary to me). And that idea is supported by the fact that when tested on actual intellectual abilities only very low-level degrees (psychology, business, medicine) fall far beyond 5 to 6 points to engineering and technical degrees.
I'm not trying to say for myself that engineers have lower IQ than philosophers and scientist, I'm providing data corroborating that (If I had to say why this is the case it would be quite politically incorrect). My point is that using degrees as a measure or associating traits with groups by degrees might make you take mistakes on other people, as compared to judging by personal characteristics and competence (as a good portion of major technological companies are starting to do)
On a personal note, my brother-in-law (LSE) is a dropout from a human resources degree, and he got hired for managing, supervising... metallic constructions (Bridges for example) with one of his workmates being an industrial engineer. The result of that was that my Brother in law would end up doing half of the jobs destined to the industrial engineer because he either was too lazy or had not been capable of finishing, in the end that industrial engineer resigned from the job if I remember correctly, partly because of harsh work conditions.
If you have another type suggestion for me I take those gladly. I see how a psychologist has had lesser mental pressure in his career, and that the barrier for completing psychology is lower than the barrier for completing a technical degree, but I would personally not judge a persons ability through that as there's other possibilities for choosing easier careers.
Also I'm not offended, I just saw a pretty common line of thinking which I believe is inaccurate and not optimal for judgment and answered, don't worry I'm that much autistic with practically everything.