ATR has a clipped a nice little op-ed for us outlining just how very little some military academics actually know or care about history.  It’s worth a read.  But Schwarz also notes an important facet of institutions that grant credentials to this kind of sloppy work: 

But just the problem I identify should be enough to disqualify this guy from teaching anyone anything anywhere. Moreover, even if the crazy-filter failed to catch him before he got tenure, in a non-insane country the country's most prestigious newspaper wouldn't be printing something like this. 

Fortunately for academia, doctorates are granted to those displaying academic rigor of enough significance to advance their fields and not just to those opinions that are held to be popular. 

Unfortunately, the standards beyond the PhD level drop significantly and are based primarily on two things - publishing and fundraising.  In International Relations, the latter often goes to those willing to tow the mainstream Realist line in support of policies favorable to political / economic institutions.  This seems to have the double-effect of legitimizing the crazies while simultaneously further entrenching the hawkish policies as the academic mainstream.  Of course, this then makes it easier for such people to publish and the cycle continues. 

Particularly with regard to military academies, there is a tension between fostering an environment of academic integrity - which tends to gravitate towards what Americans erroneously consider more of a "liberal" agenda - and appeasing the symbols of both the political winds and the pressures of military hegemony. 

To be fair, I have to imagine that the higher administration of such institutions fancy themselves social scientists and have, like the rest of us, been instilled with a need for diversity of opinion, sound methodological practices, and exterior collaboration/conferencing.  But it is doubtful that such institutions will change their stripes in the near future for two  reasons.  The first is that they have become homogenized to such an extent that they believe inherently minor differences constitutes broad diversity (and the rest of the "liberl" IR community are a bunch of quacks) and so little effort is made in recruiting outsiders.  The second is that they don't convey much sense of invitation to other institutions through conference presence, publications, enagagement outside the Ivory tower, etc. 

I'm (hopefully) finishing my PhD in April and have been job hunting myself for the past few months.  My work is specifically in counter-terrorism and I have a lot of ideas on contemporary conflicts that are not only pragmatic, but deliberately address Realist concerns.  I think I would make a fabby addition to any military academy - except for the fact that I would never, NEVER apply for the post.  I have no intention of approaching a university that (seemingly) hates what I stand for and in which I would be unlikely to make tenure.  I can see that this is unfair to myself, the institutions, their students, the profession, and the country as a whole.  But I doubt I am alone in my hypocrisy.