Training

[Cole]

This was posted over at the Canadian string by TonyM...I thought it was a cool article so I'll post it here
Death of the Warrior

Death of warrior culture dooms military -- TOM CRUISE, move over. The military has its own mission impossible -- recruiting and keeping key personnel. After falling 7,000 short of its recruitment goal last year (despite dangling lavish sign-up bonuses), the Army is now offering to help enlistees find civilian jobs when their tour of duty ends. The New Action Employment Service? For the last two years, 35 percent of those it did recruit failed to complete their initial enlistment -- a historic high. Young officers are stampeding for the exit door. In 1988, 6.4 percent of Army captains did not re-enlist. In each of the past three years, 10 percent left. Last year, only 35 percent of junior officers said they intend to make the Army a career, compared to 52 percent at the beginning of the decade. To understand why, the Army recently surveyed 760 officers enrolled in its Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth. In the words of one instructor, "Virtually every officer was negative." Lack of confidence in the brass was reflected in the comment, "Senior leaders will throw subordinates under the bus in a heartbeat to protect or advance their career." Junior officers dislike the shift to peacekeeping operations -- serving as nannies to squabbling Third World clans. But this is part of a more pervasive problem. An instructor who saw the survey forms commented: "Because of gender integration and homosexuals in the military, there is a feeling that being a soldier is less macho, less soldierly. ... A lot of it has to do with the perception, right or wrong, that the Army has turned into a "politically correct social organization." Alas, the perception is correct. West Point, once the temple of the warrior ethic, now looks increasingly like a sensitivity training session. In April, a luncheon talk by a World War II combat veteran was canceled because some cadets were offended by the vet's earlier objections to women in combat. In 1997, Col. James Hallums, a much-decorated Vietnam veteran, was relieved of his position as head of the academy's leadership program for criticizing the touchy-feely ethos reigning among faculty. Women complained that Hallums stressed his combat experience in a way that made them feel excluded. The Army doesn't want anyone to feel excluded ("Are you comfortable with firing that mortar?"), as Stephanie Gutmann's new book, The Kinder, Gentler Military elucidates. Gutmann, who spent two years writing her book, visited bases in seven states, observed training and talked to personnel (mostly off the record). "Degrading" terms like "wus" are out. Obstacle courses have become "confidence courses." Gutmann writes recruits "no longer do a required number of push-ups to a count, the drill sergeant exercises along with them as a sort of role model and they drop out when they feel like it." In the book, a colonel rationalizes easier physical tests for women as "equal points for equal effort." Before she does a rope-swing, a timid recruit asks her drill instructor, "Will you catch me?" More capable men and women wonder if they're in basic training or on the jungle cruise at Disney World. Call it the draft-dodger's revenge. Clinton has pushed an emasculated military with a vengeance, removing exemptions for women from 250,000 close-to-combat positions. He's turned the military over to bureaucrats who despise everything it once represented. Recall former Assistant Army Secretary Sara E. Lister's sneering comment that the Marines were "extremists." The armed services will never be able to meet the economic incentives of the private sector. Once, they compensated with psychic rewards. Foremost among these was the feeling, assiduously cultivated in the ranks, that soldiers were doing something tough and dangerous of which few were capable. Soldiers took pride in surviving a harrowing boot-camp experience. Career men cherished tour-of-duty ribbons and field decorations. Male-bonding and unit-cohesion were more than sociologic jargon. Now, the warrior culture is dying. Feminists, sensitivity trainers, those who mistake the military for an equal opportunity employer and generals who'll tell politicians anything to earn their next star are tugging on the life supports. National security will be the ultimate casualty. Try fighting the next war with troops who are used to calling a "time-out" when they're stressed.

WILLIAM B. WELSH MAJ, SF Chief, Special Forces Training and Doctrine Division Thomas M. Hatfield, Dean Tel: (512)471-2777 Continuing & Extended Education Fax: (512) 471-9677 TCC 1.116 E4300 The University of Texas at Austin hatfield@mail.utexas.edu Austin, Texas 78713-7548

Isn't it a piss off when the answer to the problem seems to be sitting right infront of us, but the ones capable of fixing it are ignoring it.



[This message has been edited by Cole (edited 09-08-2000).]

[E19]

I guess SF was a leader in political correctness because the obstacle course at SWC was called the confidence course when I was there 34 years ago.

E19 Out

[Baker]

To Those Who Know: Is all this shit true?
Say it ain't so guys...
I've seen the posts dealing with the current state of the Military, and it just seems to be getting worse.

[This message has been edited by Baker (edited 09-08-2000).]

[JY]

And it will continue to get worse as long as you have the likes of Willie or Willie Jr.(Al the kiddies pal) in office. I see the King(King Willie) has told the UN they need to interfere more in internal problems of the countries of the world, woo-hoo, more UN deployments not in the interest of the US.

The above post "Death of the Warrior" is a mild version of the truth. The military is just a mirror of the US as a whole, values have been trashed, morals thrown out, responsibility evaded, with the attitude of "I/ME"...Throwing way freedoms and rights for so called safety.

Better end before I get rolling =80 But YES it's very bad, YES it's getting worse, YES we need a drastic change...Jim

[Ler]

HI JY,
Do you say more UN deployments are bad for the US because it spreads our forces too thin? That is what I think. Could you please elaborate a little more so when my liberal F*ck-Head professor gets to cheering on the UN I can fire for effect. Thanks,,Ler..

[Jeff Rambo]

I'm not answering for JY, but what *I* see him saying is that our forces aren't peacekeepers, we're a military ... not the worlds 911. Therefore we shouldn't be taking part in everyone elses disputes. It does indeed thin our forces down, but at the same time the greater fault to it is the fact that it doesn't sit well with our own troops as most of them too, don't wish to serve as the worlds 911.

Our military is just that, *OUR* military. Not Kosovo's military, not Sierra Leone's military, not Somalia's military, not Bosnia's military etc. etc. etc.

JY, I apologize in advance if I read you wrong.

------------------
w/ Regards,
Jeff Rambo

------------------
I Want A Four Man Team On A Midnight Run ...

[Ler]

Thanks Jeff.

[Ler]

Oh Yeah!,
The President (ie CINC) has the right to change the policy on gays in the military, right? Clinton said he would lift the ban but instead he enacted the Don't ask Don't tell policy. I've heard that if Gore gets elected that he will lift the ban on gays and appoint Chiefs of Staff who will follow this policy of open gayness in the military. Does anyone know what Bush's plans for gays in the military are?
Opinions,,Facts,,Anyone??,,,,,,,Ler..

[LRSC Grunt]

If I remember correctly he commented that the current policy doesnt work. That can go two ways good or bad. But as a fellow texan and guardsman under governer bush, I feel hes against gays serving in the military overall, but dont quote me on that.

[Baker]

Here's a nice read for all of you. Pay special attention to the part about "peace being more important than territories and borders"
Good ol' BJB just giving our sovereignty away...
I am ashamed to call him president. And they actually wonder why morale is so low????? http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/9/6/112634

[JY]

Hi Ler and Jeff;

You both read it right. We have an administration that spreads the troops to darn thin doing a job we are NOT there for. All these "go pass out bread and wipe their nose" ops have NOTHING to do with US security. We have a SOCIALIST administration right now, a president who called himself a COMMUTARIAN in the past, who seems to think this is what the US wants. By sending US troops to "aid" UN "peace keeping"(read meddling in a sovereign country's internal affairs) and strangely on the WRONG side a majority of the time resulting in supporting MASS MURDER and GENOCIDE.He is in effect destroying YOUR security and the instrument that provides it, the US Military, with a long slow death ending in it being a UN entity under it's command. This IS the US and it's citizens military sworn to it's defence, not to world socialism (touchy feely, feel good until your freedoms gone trash)or UN causes(read the same).

This spreading the military so thin with "UN" dog and pony shows results in troops on CONSTANT deployment. This results in them not being combat ready for their real job the security and protection of the US and it's citizens. This also puts strains on any family life they may have left, and not many have that anymore as of this date. Small wonder there is no retention of the professional soldier. Combine this with the feminizing of the military with standards being lowered time and again for the "can't do the job but "I" should be allowed to do it anyway because "I'am" special" and you have just what whats happening...low morale...low re enlistment...discontentment.

On a roll, better shut up before the PC police grab my butt.=80 To put it in the words of that well known American hero, Kilroy, "if ya don't like what I say...bite me." Kilroy was "insensitive"=80...Jim out

Darn! missed a whole bunch while rolling =80 Baker thanks for the link, my point exactly. And the twits still back his little puppet Gore. should have left all the things in I took out =80



[This message has been edited by JY (edited 09-08-2000).]

[Jeff Rambo]

Jim,

I honestly couldn't have said it ANY BETTER myself. Those are my thoughts exactly.

Baker,

Thanks for the link, very interesting article.

I can see it now ...

"United Nations Special Foreign Forces"

"United Nations 85th Seaborne Ranger Division"

"United Nations SEAL Demolitions Squadron"

"United Nations Rapid Air Transit Pararescue Force"

Sincerely,
Jeff Rambo
Commanding Four Star Minister of Defense
3rd United Nations Special Cladestine Forces Group
Ft Braggetteten - Johannesburg, South Africa

P.S. Tom, time to start a new forum I suppose.

[This message has been edited by Jeff Rambo (edited 09-09-2000).]

[TR]

Here's some sobbering facts to contemplate on... we've lost in the States here some 1-3 million troops in the military since 1992. All the while deployments have risen 300%... source of that fun factoid is the wonderfull AP.

I guess I should be glad I can't be in the military or whats being done to it would surely break my heart.


T.R.

[Cableguy]

Okay, here's my $.02 I'm no frequent poster to any of these forums, but a few of you know me, and I've seen these conversations come and go. I agree whole heartedly with you guys. I'm in no way comfortable with the state of my military, a government organization that underpays, violates, overstresses, and in some cases needlessly kills its own good soldiers. We have a major problem here, on that has to be solved, and FAST. We're losing our military to the WORLD...becoming everyone else's saving grace, and we're falling apart ourselves. I was reminded of a letter posted some time ago, and since filed away on THIS VERY SITE. Please, if you're new or have just overlooked it, TAKE THE TIME TO READ THIS ALSO! http://www.specialoperations.com/Focus/letter.html


Thanks!

[Jeff Rambo]

I almost forgot ...

We will also now be calling those who bear the stars on their collar: Supreme Commander, Supreme Cosmo Commander, Supreme Allied Commander, Supreme Being of UN Command, Supreme Four-Star Scooby Snack Commander etc. etc. etc.

On a serious note however ... Cableguy,
Thanks for the link. VERY GOOD letter. And your opinions are dead on for the most part as well.

------------------
w/ Regards,
Jeff Rambo

------------------
I Want A Four Man Team On A Midnight Run ...

[Rat on a Stick]

Yeah, and if our high command decides to begin accepting large numbers of high school dropouts again, you will see our military again drop to 1970s quality. Cracking down on high school dropouts in the military and NOT allowing them to enlist even if they got a GED was one of the smartest things the US military ever did.

We would be better off with a slightly undermanned military than a military with a bunch of high school dropouts in it.

High school dropouts do not make good military personnel, no matter how much extra training you give them. They are stupid, prone to drug and alcohol problems and having ten kids by the time they are thirty. And they are insecure about their lack of education. Their insecurity about their lack of education leads to control freakish leadership styles when they make it to NCO levels (Just an observation of mine). A modern day military that is trying to decentralize itself according to the principles found in Sun Tzu The Art of War does not need a bunch of high school drop outs who lack motivation and drive.

Keep the high school dropouts out of the enlisted ranks and you will have a pretty good quality military. Let them back in like in the post Vietnam era of the seventies and watch things deteriorate.

Where you need a bunch of high school dropouts is when you have an old style military with the old style centralized chain of command. Where all the planning and orders comes directly from the top and the people in the rank and file get the idiot treatment. Just charge that hill boy, or go to the brig. Thats when you need a bunch of high school dropouts...for a cannon fodder military. Or a fuckup military.

[Jeff Rambo]

You have once again shown your ignorance Cumstain on a Stick.

I hate to knock you off your soapbox, but you may want to open up another book (as opposed to the book I told you to open on the SEAL Forum) and read into your history.

Some of the most successful AMERICANS that were ever bred in this nation were those with GEDs.

You're obviously looking at things from a one sided prospective.

Unfortunately, high school isn't challenging to young minds that excel anymore. Especially in states such as New York, Chicago and California where the dropout rate is fairly high compared to other states.

Those who have the ability to excel in a classroom are often overlooked by their teachers, as well their peers. Say for instance if Tom was to finish an math assignment that would normally take 45 minutes to complete in 15 minutes tops. Not only would Bob, Sue, and Bill look at him as if he were "weird," but Ms. Johnson, your friendly Math Teacher would automatically think he was up to no good, goofing off etc. Thats how it goes in many school districts now unfortunately.

THERE IS NO ROOM TO EXCEL ANYMORE. All of a sudden, its become a crime to be intelligent for some odd reason in most of our schools. Therefore with this happening, many of our young minds begin not to find high school as a challenge which leads them to dropping out and seeking other things, such as the GED which they then use to obtain entrance into some of the best universities this nation has to offer.

Remember, just because you have a GED doesn't mean you're dumb, a alcoholic, or a drug addict in all cases. I agree (can't believe I'm agreeing with you Cumstain on a Stick, but your eyes do read right), in MANY cases that is the truth though.

Hell, here in California (in the SoCal tech sectors such as Century City, Culver City, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills etc., and the NoCal tech sectors such as San Mataeo, Palo Alto etc.) high school kids who are in some instances as young as being Sophomore's are being recruited by some of the industry leading dot-com's and technology companies out there because these kids are just what I described above, those that excel in the classroom beyond belief and use the free time that they receive from this to apply towards greater studies, which they learn BY THEMSELVES.

I personally know someone who is 17yrs old (birthday was actually 2 months ago), no high school diploma who is very happy making $75,000 per year. The kicker to this is, THATS A GOD DAMN ENTRY LEVEL SALARY FOR HIS POSITION.

When it all comes down to the thick of things, the 90% of the "GED Scholars" within the military are unfortunately, apart of that 10% outcast. Alcohol, Drugs, Sex etc.

But because of that, don't overcast a shawdow on all those with a GED in full.

To conclude, what is your educational background? I'd love to hear the answer to this question.

Footnote: "2. Must be a high school graduate or have a general educationaldevelopment certificate (GED)." - US Army Special Forces Recruiting Criteria. The Army isn't exactly cutting down on GED Enlistee's. The Corps, Navy, and Air Force however is, to my knowledge atleast. But I'm not positive of that.

------------------
w/ Regards,
Jeff Rambo

------------------
I Want A Four Man Team On A Midnight Run ...

[Baker]

Rambo - that 17 y/o = Holy Shit! WTF does he do??? Hell, I'm 25 and actually got through HS *LOL* and I don't make near that much, YET.

[This message has been edited by Baker (edited 09-09-2000).]

[abn_rngrr]

Never be so foolish as to confuse being educated with being intelligent.

[Jeff Rambo]

Baker,

Information Technology (IT)

abn_rngr,

Indeed.

Take Care.

------------------
w/ Regards,
Jeff Rambo

------------------
I Want A Four Man Team On A Midnight Run ...

[Dark Helmet]

Originally posted by abn_rngr:
Never be so foolish as to confuse being educated with being intelligent.

I would take that a step further and say that intelligence and wisdom are two very different things. Intelligence is the ability to learn, whereas wisdom is the retention and later application of knowledge.

[Baker]

I'm ASSuming abn_rngr's comment was directed at me, so I'll quickly clarify what I meant. I wasn't trying to imply that someone who had no diploma was not intelligent or educated. There are many kinds of intelligence and many ways of becoming educated. I just thought it was pretty damn great that this guy landed a job pulling in 75k straight outta HS. Many of his contemporaries are likely going the "normal" route HS, College, whatever and he obviously learned to excel at IT and passed the rest of them by. Pretty cool.
Meant no disrespect whatsoever. Apologize if it was taken that way.

[abn_rngrr]

Baker-

Wasn't directed toward you. Just a general observation.


Tack-

Couldn't agree more.

[wcollar]

Here's another article:

Military service warning labels

Fred Reed

If you are the parent of a young man who is thinking about joining the armed forces, permit me to offer advice:
Tell him not to. Be emphatic about it.
I've spent much of my life around the military — grew up on a military base, drove AMTRACS for the Marines in Vietnam, and spent decades covering the military as a reporter. I didn't do the Pentagon. Usually I didn't know who the Joint Chiefs of Staff were. I spent my working hours with the troops, in the tanks and fighters, aboard the carriers, in the jungles and swamps and war zones. It made me hard to con.
An observation: The armed services are today in the worst shape I have seen, and I remember the days of the post-Vietnam slump. You don't want your kid in this military.
You don't understand how bad it is.
This country characteristically goes into wars unprepared, and kills off large numbers of young men while trying to make up lost time. We then tell ourselves stories about the heroism of the needlessly dead, and about the evil Japanese and dastardly Viet Cong. We did this in World War II, Korea and Vietnam. We're getting ready to do it again. The military has decayed since the Gulf war, decayed badly. The public just doesn't know it. If a substantial war comes, soldiers will, again, die for no reason. Your son could be one of them.
He needs to know this. He also needs to understand that neither the political nor the military leadership much cares whether he lives or dies. Their careers come first. You doubtless think this sounds extreme, embittered, paranoid. And yes, any general officer will tell you that, why, he lives for the troops, cares for nothing else. He's a soldier's general.
Yeah.
In Vietnam, it was for some time military policy that enlisted men in the infantry spent 13 months in the field. Their officers often spent only six. If you don't believe this, check it out. The officers were getting their tickets punched: Combat command looked good on a promotion record. The Career. On the other hand, if you stayed out there too long, you might get shot. The fleshpots of Saigon were succulent. The consequence of course was that field troops always had green, inexperienced officers.
There were too many ticket-punchers. Officers who won't take the same risks their troops take are . . . I think the word is "cowards."
Guess what generation of officers is now reaching the top at the Pentagon. You don't want this crew commanding your kid.
Further, note that the United States regularly, with the occasional exception, puts politics ahead of the lives of its troops. Remember the 241 Marines killed in Beirut when their barracks was blown up by the terrorist truck? I was there on a story a couple of weeks before it happened. Know who killed those guys?
The United States.
It went like this. Coming down the road from the airport in Beirut, to get to the Marines you turned right on a small road that had a guard post with two Marine guards. Their rifles were at sling arms, no round in the chamber. Loaded rifles might cause an incident, and, hey, you can always get more Marines. Simply driving past the guards would have been — as it turned out, was — effortless.
A few feet later you turned right through one of those flimsy stick things that go up and down to stop traffic at toll booths. I probably could have broken through it without a truck. A few feet later you were in the middle of the Marine position.
Which is what the driver of the suicide truck did. Easy.
The Marines were undefended, naked, in a city known to be full of terrorists. Why? Because the State Department didn't want to look too military. We sacrificed our own men to keep up appearances for a pack of cookie-pushers in Washington. They'll do it again.
The foregoing is the norm. (We did the same thing in Mogadishu, for example.) Today politicization of the military is worse by far than it has ever been. The emphasis is overwhelmingly on social engineering: sensitivity training, toleration of homosexuals, feminization, promotion of minorities. Affirmative action runs rampant. Standards have been lowered drastically for women, many of them using the military as an improved form of welfare. Discipline has suffered. Commanders cannot discipline the protected groups, which makes it hard to discipline anyone.
If you think I'm kidding, talk to someone you know who is in.
Unsurprisingly, morale is way down. Equipment ages. The services are hemorrhaging young officers in the O-3 range (Army captain). Key enlisted men bail out. Second-raters move up the ranks. No, not all of them are, but too many. In war, there will be a price for this. Your boy, or someone else's. Getting the body bag isn't fun.
For eight years we have had an administration that is actually hostile to the military. This is new. Before, presidents have alternated between neglect and build-up, but haven't had the visceral loathing for the armed services that Bill Clinton has professed. To me, the damage looks deliberate. Nothing like the current wholesale gutting of the services by angry feminists has happened before. We have never had a government that would have allowed it.
The generals know all of this. They're self-serving, but they aren't fools. They are knowingly, willingly, allowing the institutions they oversee to deteriorate, while relentlessly lying to stay in their jobs. (The Marines remain stubbornly resistant, but they too are being slowly Clintoned down.) The brass know their troops regard them with contempt. They know why soldiers bail out. They don't care. Commanders like this — I don't think they can be called men — will preside over a slaughter if war comes.
You don't want your kid there. Especially if he is smart and gung-ho. If he just wants to get salable training, and get out, the services are probably a good idea. Electronics is always a good choice. The military is a good place for a woman who wants to have her baby and isn't sure which division is the father. But for a young man who wants to be part of something he can be proud of, a hard-charger who sets high standards for himself, it's a bad idea. He'll hate it. It will hate him. Should we ever need the military, it just might kill him. Don't let him do it.

[Ler]

WCollar,
Where did you get that article? It unfortunately contains a lot of truth. What a sad thing to admit to.. Ler..

[KrasnovianMadDawg]

Unfortunately, I would have to agree with many of the comments posted on this string. However, the purpose of the US Military is to serve our "voted" in civilian government. Our founders designed it this way. This may not be the most agreeable civilian government to the military that we have had, but it is still in charge.

We must, also, keep in mind that many soldiers are leaving the military because of the many job opportunities (that pay better!!!) are available in the civilian sector. The good thing about this is that for those of us who have no desire to find civilian job opportunities will not have to worry about making rank. I see this, and some of my peers are beginning to see this, so we wont have to worry about impressing our raters, or looking good on paper -- we can do our jobs. I do know that this will also allow more shit bags to make rank, but you can't have your cake and eat it to.

My final point refers to the recent concern over "PC"ness in the military. This is obviously a fallout from our current civilian government, so it is our duty to follow these changes. Some PC changes in the past actually have worked to make us stronger (ie. multi-racial integration). As professionals, we need to test and evaluate these changes. Whining and running from these changes aren't going to make the weak or unnecessary new policies go away. Unfortunately, most of the policies wont be fairly tested until we apply them in war...until then, be brave and do your professional duty.

[SAPPER317]

We must remember that a civilian government controls our military. That is in the Constitution. Remember: "This We'll Defend". Not just the parts we decide we like; then we are just as bad/evil as the leadership that wants to overlook some of our other rights.


Like it or not, WE as a nation will be involved in every UN or peacekeeping operation that will come down the road. Even if you don't see US servicemen on TV, understand WE are involved.

Something that several European nations have is a military unit that only works as a police type unit. An example is the Dutch Royal Marechaussee. Look at the definition at their web site. http://www.mindef.nl/english/rnlm1.htm

Quite simply, they do the peace keeping, while the Marines and Army do the soldiering. There is great interpretation here, as well.

NOTE! The UN and the member nations select the type of operation. Committing military to an operation is a long thought out process, with many nations involved.

It all comes down to YOUR elected officials. We in the military may not always agree with policy, but we're not there to object. The oath doesn't allow for it.


SAPPER317

[jbrookins]

I’m not sure I agree completely with the last two post. Yes a civilian authority governs the military, as it should be, but this does not mean we give up our constitutional rights as military members. It does not mean we don’t have the right to question authority either.

We may need to follow lawful orders but we can and must question those orders at all times or become blind robots swaying to all political whims. Besides how would you know a lawful order from an unlawful order if you never question them?

Truth is, policy is not the same as a platoon SGT ordering his platoon to move. Many have questioned the current policy and answered with their feet.

Blind obedience is an insult to the military member and only fosters a policy and leadership that will hurt not help this nation.

This doesn’t even touch on the issues of sovereignty or an Army beholding not to the US Electorate but a compilation of political bureaucrats and political opportunist (read UN).

Too many seem to hold the response “ yes sir, three bags full” in high esteem here lately.

Fred is right on track....

[RUDEDAWG]

jbrookins-

You're on target. The best leaders know how to listen to their troops even when they don't agree. Colin Powell in his biography "My American Journey" stated that before government should commit troops anywhere for any purpose they should:
1. Be a clear, specific purpose for military intervention("military presense" is not enough)
2. Do we possess the resources to accomplish this goal
3. Are the American people willing to sacrifice the lives of their sons and daughters to acheive this purpose

Like all opinions I'm sure anyone could shoot this reasoning full of holes, however it is safe to say that some of the major political/military mess ups in our history lacked all three of these criteria.
Vietnam being the worst case scenerio.

[wcollar]

Ler,
I believe the article was in the Sept 10 edition of the Washington Times. I saw it in another publication but it came from the Times.

jbrookins,
You were right on target with that last post. Civilian control of the military is absolutely mandatory but that does not take away our ability to think. In fact its embedded in our oath. Our oath is to support and defend the Constitution and there is a reason why that line is placed above that of obeying orders. The positioning of the phrases makes it crucial we not blindly give our obedience to unlawful orders simply because they're orders.
Our oath and laws righfully prevent us from engaging in political activities and questioning authority but they do not prevent us from providing feedback and advice in our jobs as military professionals. We can't just go around complaining or sniping because that disrupts good order and discipline amongst the troops, but to not comment in some form about policies that could decrease our military effectiveness ultimately jeopardizes the lives of our comrades. Using phrases like "just quit whining and get on with it" is not really doing your professional duty. The JCS used the above approach for the past few years and then suddenly turned around last year and cried for money, saying that we desperately needed the cash to maintain military effectiveness. Service needs were allowed to suffer because they didn't want to speak up (with the exception of the Marines. Go figure.) Vietnam was also a classic example of this. None of our flag officers resigned even though they had major issues with the conduct of the war. How many grunts died because of this approach (Read Dereliction of Duty by HR Mcmaster). At least Gen Johnston bitterly regretted not resigning as CJCS over the conduct of the war. He thought he could be the good soldier and work quietly within the system but he failed and he knew it.
Sorry to ramble but I'm sick of seeing the old can-do spirit being mutated from "get the job done" to "toe the party line even if it unnecessarily endangers everyone". Semper Gumby, wcollar.

[JSOCMarine]

General Harold K. Johnston was on his way to the White House resign as Army Chief of Staff because he felt Vietnam was unwinnable, and we were wasting young men's lives. When he got to the gate, he told the driver to turn around and head back to the Pentagon.

Years later he said and I quote, "I will go to my grave bearing the burden of knowing that I had a lapse in moral courage."

If I was in charge I would ensure that all Generals and Admirals had this quote prominently displayed on their desks. S/F

[soup82]

Speaking of soldiers with GED's, Jeff Lee was my senior medic when I first joined my team. Now I call him DOCTOR Lee. Some of you may have been treated by him. As said previously, don't mistake education for intelligence, motivation or capability. Some of my best soldiers in the 82d had GED's, some of my worst had college time. Why shouldn't the ASVAP be the standard for education required to enter the military?

As for the fall in capabilities, motivation and morale of the military, that problem starts at the top and flows downhill. That is where the standards are set and where leadership comes from. The military is not rotting from the bottom but from the top down.

Cheers,

Patrick LaRocque

[LRSC Grunt]

Hey dick on a stick,
Ive got a GED, cant you tell by my spelling, puncuation, and grammer(lol)? Enlisted ative duty without a problem 4 years ago and still serving today. Hell....... got some college courses too. My only regret is that I pissed the best years of my life away(high school) to join the army prematurely.

[This message has been edited by LRSC Grunt (edited 09-13-2000).]

[SAPPER317]

jbrookins,

I am not saying to "toe the line" and work like a robot. HELL NO! Some of my comment is based on what I have seen in recent years. For several years, I lived as a civilian overseas. Like our nation, that nation had soldiers under UN flag on "peace keeping" missions. I viewed the presence of US troops as interesting, as just about everybody had the idea that US troops meant things should quiet down. And that is exactly what our politicians were gambling on. In essence, the UN and our civilian leadership was using US troop presence, to deter problems. Watching CNN in Europe and seeing our guys getting the sh*t knocked out of them, while the leadership made bad call after bad call, really hurt. I felt like I had been lied too.

None of our leaders were following Powell's points. Soldiers should be used for intervention, in military matters.

I see the problem as many on this list see it. The senior military leadership has sold out the military for the benefit of their own careers. This may be normal in any other career field, but has very damaging effects on our military.

It scares the hell out of me to think we may get thrown into the fire, with no real purpose or plan. Who do we call?

And to challenge the legality of the order? If I recall, several members of the military challenged deployment under UN flag. Recently, several members challenged the Anthrax Vaccine. All have been or are undergoing UCMJ action. Though, there is legal basis for not following these same orders, they are all being tried under failure to follow orders.

Don't get me wrong; I am not happy about current leadership and trends in the military.

[Rat on a Stick]

Originally posted by LRSC Grunt:
Hey dick on a stick,
Ive got a GED, cant you tell by my spelling, puncuation, and grammer(lol)? Enlisted ative duty without a problem 4 years ago and still serving today. Hell....... got some college courses too. My only regret is that I pissed the best years of my life away(high school) to join the army prematurely.

[This message has been edited by LRSC Grunt (edited 09-13-2000).]

Who cares

[Rat on a Stick]

Originally posted by soup82:
Speaking of soldiers with GED's, Jeff Lee was my senior medic when I first joined my team. Now I call him DOCTOR Lee. Some of you may have been treated by him. As said previously, don't mistake education for intelligence, motivation or capability. Some of my best soldiers in the 82d had GED's, some of my worst had college time. Why shouldn't the ASVAP be the standard for education required to enter the military?

As for the fall in capabilities, motivation and morale of the military, that problem starts at the top and flows downhill. That is where the standards are set and where leadership comes from. The military is not rotting from the bottom but from the top down.

Cheers,

Patrick LaRocque

Bullhockey...the best personnel are almost ALWAYS high school grads. The worst period of the US military's history was in the post Vietnam era of the seventies and early eighties. Times were bad and moral was bad, discipline was bad, drugs were bad, attitudes were bad. And you want to know one of the main reasons why? Because the U.S. military had predominantly high school dropouts in its enlisted and NCO ranks during that period. Thats a FACT buddy.

Read up on some of former USMC Commandant Gray's thoughts on allowing high school dropouts to serve in the military. General Gray will give it to you straight. He didnt think high school dropouts were worth shit as Marines, soldiers, airman and sailors and I agree with him. He says when the USMC decided to crack down on letting dropouts in the Corp, the Marines began to improve somewhat, drug problems and discipline problems were not nearly as bad.

Dropouts never made good military personnel and they never will, unless all you are looking for is someone to give a rifle to and use them as pure cannon fodder. Which to be honest, sometimes that is what the military needs. But not as much anymore.

Letting in lots of dropouts creates an "idiot treatment" environment in the enlisted ranks that comes through loud and clear, which high school kids and their guidance counselors detect up pretty quickly. And the military wonders WHY they cant recruit enough good quality, high school graduates? LOL The answer is pretty obvious to me. Nobody who graduated from high school wants to take orders from some dipshit, retard, high school dropout, GED carrying NCO (who cares if you got a GED you are still a dropout) with an insecurity complex about their lack of education. Nobody who has half a brain these days wants a job where the idiot treatment is the norm...thats why the US military has recruiting problems.

And a big reason why the military has the idiot treatment so much is because its full of dumbass high school dropouts.

[Jeff Rambo]

Rat on a Stick,

What is *your* *opinion* on people who have COLLEGE DEGREES (Either it be a BA or a BS and in some instances Graduate Degrees as well as PhDs etc.) that have GEDs?

I'm curious to know where you stand from that front.



------------------
w/ Regards,
Jeff Rambo

------------------
I Want A Four Man Team On A Midnight Run ...

[Whatever]

1. Man-you guys need to meet at a predetermined location with your weapons of choice and a basic load (of both ammo and attitude) and settle this like gentlemen.

2. LRCS grunt was succinct, used bullet statements and the active voice-I figure that makes him both a true warrior and a graduate of the army writing program.

3. Seriously, the credentials don't make the man-the man makes the credentials. GED or PhD-either you can soldier or you can't. Either you're an asset or a liability and the only guys qualified to judge you are on your Fire Team/ODA. You can have a string of degrees, belong to MENSA and be an around smart guy and not have a lick of common sense and leadership ability.

4. If you're on "the outside" that shit (degrees/panache/savoire faire) is important. If you're in the green machine you simply need to be smart aggressive and motivated.

D.O.L.

[Jeff Rambo]

"Whatever,"

I respect your opinions greatly, and agree with you. Stickle Cell just gets to me due to his BS Degree in Ignorance.

Your words are now in the gas tank however.

Take Care.

------------------
w/ Regards,
Jeff Rambo

------------------
I Want A Four Man Team On A Midnight Run ...

[LRSC Grunt]

Village idiot on a stick,
Who cares? Exactly!!!!! Who cares if someone has a PHD, MBA, GED, or high school certificate. In the enlisted ranks its nothing more than a piece of paper. Do dickheads walk around with their diploma pinned on their chest? Fuck no! Who cares!!!!However, im not trying to say its better to dropout because its not.

Just to let you know, as I was hitting my one year mark, my classmates were still at home, in school, smoking weed, dropping acid, and sucking on mommies tit. Military wise, Im ahead of their power curve.

LRSC "dumbass high school dropout" Grunt

[RUDEDAWG]

Could be wrong, but I'm sure Bill Gates doesn't have a college degree and has stated that he was quite bored with high school and considered dropping out himself. I don't admire Bill Gates, in fact I dislike him. But I think it challenges the reasoning that you need education/credentials on any level to be successful. It helps, but it is not a neccessity...in civilian or in military life. I doubt that Merrill's Marauders(sp?) could read or write. Or any of the other subsequent generations that laid it on the line in the thick of battle. I say willingness to learn and motivation are much more important than some long-winded professor telling you whether or not you're good enough. And this is from someone 4months away from getting a degree.

[Ranger002]

Rat Dick,

I was on active duty during the time mentioned (as was Tracy) and yes times were tough on the Army but not just because 40% of army had no Diploma. The public's post war attitude about the service and Congress starving procurement had alot to do with it. Morale was low cause most of the troops had no money to train. Heck there was even talk of ELIMINATING Special Forces back in 79/80
If you read your history RAT boy you will see this pattern throughtout the Army's history. "So what"... even in our worst days we are still the most awesome military force in the modern world. And when I mean force I mean people Soldiers. If there was a crisis and the Nation was at stake Folks would pour into the service and they would be met by a dedicated professional cadre who would lead te way. Back in 1979 in my PLATOON, there were Men who had served tours in the Rangers in Vietnam and LEGENDS in the company with the NAMES LG,MATOON,CONRAD,BOWRA,POWELL,MOTT,BARTON. When RR built up the Military in the mid 80's these men help fill out the Batts and temper them for the conflicts to come.
So I think we need to take care of the boys but a soldier's education is not as important as his dedication. And I know a few dedicated soldiers who could turn chimpanzees into DELTA OPERATORS ha ha ha ha
WIlliam Hazen

[Rat on a Stick]

Originally posted by Jeff Rambo:
Rat on a Stick,

What is *your* *opinion* on people who have COLLEGE DEGREES (Either it be a BA or a BS and in some instances Graduate Degrees as well as PhDs etc.) that have GEDs?

I'm curious to know where you stand from that front.




I dont think it matters as long as you graduated from high school. Thats all that matters. I agree degrees dont matter that much. But there is a difference usually between those who actually make it out of high school and those who do not. Thats all Im saying. BE REAL ALWAYS. The truth sometimes hurts.

[RUDEDAWG]

Still haven't answered the question. You had some negative things to say about GED holders earlier. What do you think about GED grads with college degrees? Are they all still a bunch of dummies?

[Ted]

If you haven't graduated from high school, don't read this.


There's a buddy of mine here at medical school that has a GED. I damn near dropped out of high school myself, I hated the bookwork. But in a few years, we will both be practicing MD's. Oh, BTW, we were both prior enlisted.

So, Ratboy, the moral of the story is...you can be a good soldier, and continue on to better things in life, even if you didn't finish high school.

For all of you high schooler's that read this post after I told you not to, you guys need to stay in school. Trust me, getting a GED makes your life harder in the long run.

[Rat on a Stick]

Originally posted by RUDEDAWG:
Still haven't answered the question. You had some negative things to say about GED holders earlier. What do you think about GED grads with college degrees? Are they all still a bunch of dummies?

Lets be honest here RUDEDAWG. There are not too many high school dropouts who ever go onto getting a bachelor degree, even if they get their GED. Which most of them end up getting their GED. Sure, a few dropouts end up straightening themselves out and go onto college, etc. But the vast majority dont and the vast majority make poor enlisted military personnel. That is just the way it is. Im sorry if I sound so hard, cold and uncaring. I just feel strongly that one of the best ways to keep quality reasonably high is to avoid recruiting high school droputs as much as possible.

This might hurt the military short term. But as time goes by and fewer dropouts remain in the military, quality will gradually go up and the idiot treatment wont be needed as much. As time goes by the word will filter down to high schools across the USA that the military is no longer a place for dropouts and fuckups. And then the military will begin being seen more favorably among high school kids...as well as the highly influential high school guidance counselors. Recruiting would go up and the quality of the average recruit would be higher, almost entirely high school grads.

The enlisted military should no longer be another form of welfare for dropout losers who know if they dont join the military, they are going to end up working loading trucks or something. The military should not be a form of welfare for guys with minimal education or skills who want to use the military for free housing and medical care for their wife and kids. That is pathetic and is exactly what is going on and has gone on for a long time.

Ive known some of these dropout guys who enlist to escape the civilian world. Most of them are dropout losers when they enlist and the vast majority of them are still dropout losers when they are discharged.

[Ranger002]

Rat on a Stick,

Hey I got an idea lets build camps for all the drop out losers and then why when no ones watching we'll "dispose" of them. While were at it... lets include folks we don't like you know... the sick... the handicaped... hey how about all those with strange religous backgrounds...and what about those who are different looking?

I remember in Basic in those "dropout loser 70's" we had a riot in the barracks of all the drop out losers who hated each other. A few days later someone said something to me that has has stuck with me to this day.The only color in the Army is OD Green. This was a black dropout loser E-7 dude who had made something of himself.I know it's takes more money and effort to train up the uneducated but should we deny them that chance...Hell No.Whats its gonna be stupid? More jails and prisons or schools and a form of national service. You will do better giving a man the chance to have some dignity then you would trying to take it away.At least the Army says hey I'll trade you a bit of your life for the chance you might make something of yourself.I had read your shit over the last year Dick Stick and you should go back to all those Nazi-Skinhead chat rooms were you belong.
William Hazen.