oh good, by dint of presidential fiat my country's military is being gutted today

[raketenjagdpanzer]

(mods wrap an anchor chain around this and toss it off the pier at midnight, would you?)

[Webstral]

Yellow light on politics.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Yellow light on politics.

You're absolutely right and I apologize.

[Webstral]

For anyone who feels unsettled by the military drawdown in the US, I understand completely. It’s possible to discuss the issue from a technical standpoint without bringing politics into it. It’s even possible to mention some of the political pressures on the decision-makers, just as we would in a conversation about any historical event.

[Targan]

Darn, started reading this thread too late to know what the original post said. Can we have an apolitical summary, please? The thread title has picqued my interest.

[B.T.]

I see it very much from Targans point of view. What was this to be all about? And if Webstrals advice is kept in mind, that should not be a problem, right?

It’s possible to discuss the issue from a technical standpoint without bringing politics into it. It’s even possible to mention some of the political pressures on the decision-makers, just as we would in a conversation about any historical event.

[ArmySGT.]

The current Administration announced their plans for reducing the Department of Defense budget now and in the coming years.

Force reduction.

Cutting programs.

The Two theater doctrine is being done away with.

It is being discussed on all the American news networks tonight.

What the Nations UNfriendly to the US just heard was that the DoD is going to be able to fight one War and in one Theater.

Should it all go south in the Middle East and the US goes back, someplace like say North Korea could have a long lead time to prosecute a war strategy.

So our various smaller Allies are wondering... Will the US still help us?

[Schone23666]

The current Administration announced their plans for reducing the Department of Defense budget now and in the coming years.

Force reduction.

Cutting programs.

The Two theater doctrine is being done away with.

It is being discussed on all the American news networks tonight.

What the Nations UNfriendly to the US just heard was that the DoD is going to be able to fight one War and in one Theater.

Should it all go south in the Middle East and the US goes back, someplace like say North Korea could have a long lead time to prosecute a war strategy.

So our various smaller Allies are wondering... Will the US still help us?

Unfortunately, this is coming as no surprise, given the current situation.

As for various smaller Allies wondering if the U.S. still will help them if shit hits the fan...I fear in some cases that one famous quote from that game we all know and love may apply:

"Good luck...your on your own..."

[Matt W]

I don't think you should panic

U.S. military budget

2000: $375 billion
2002: $425 billion
2004: $527 billion
2006: $561 billion
2008: $618 billion
2010: $687 billion
2012: $705 billion
2013: $662 billiion

As far as I can work out, the ambition is to cut defence spending back to something like 2004 levels (and hoping to achieve this by 2022)

It is true that the US Army and US Marines are being decreased in size - but that usually happens at the end of land wars

This document outlines the strategy. Basically,

1. There will be no US troops getting blown up in Afghanistan (an unimportant place which is economically worthless to the US).
2. There will be fewer troops in Europe (which - although important - isn't particularly worried about any military threats)
3. There will be more US military personnel doing useful things in Asia/Pacific (which is hugely important to the US economy and includes North Korea and China)

http://www.defense.gov/news/Defense_Strategic_Guidance.pdf

[raketenjagdpanzer]

It's not even necessarily the loss of funds, it's what's going to be done with the reorganized money. My wife works for the Army so this directly impacts me...

[pmulcahy11b]

OK, I'll put one thing in: The level of military spending by our country is unsustainable. We have to draw down. My worry is when the former servicemembers and their families go looking for jobs, and a lot won't find any. We need to draw down spending, but the people who want to stay should be allowed to. The ones who find no opportunities in the civilian world should be allowed to come back if they wish. But Iraq and Afghanistan have been drawn out far too long, with precious little accomplished (and a nice power vacuum in Iraq). We've been protecting Europe too long, South Korea too long, and we've been the world's policeman too long. Time for the rest of the world to start taking care of themselves for a while,

[Schone23666]

OK, I'll put one thing in: The level of military spending by our country is unsustainable. We have to draw down. My worry is when the former servicemembers and their families go looking for jobs, and a lot won't find any. We need to draw down spending, but the people who want to stay should be allowed to. The ones who find no opportunities in the civilian world should be allowed to come back if they wish. But Iraq and Afghanistan have been drawn out far too long, with precious little accomplished (and a nice power vacuum in Iraq). We've been protecting Europe too long, South Korea too long, and we've been the world's policeman too long. Time for the rest of the world to start taking care of themselves for a while,

I can see where you're coming from Paul, and I agree wholeheartedly about the veterans.

But, (and I'm going to resist getting into politics here, slippery slope) I think the world, much like the U.S. itself, has a rather mixed record at best when it comes to "looking after itself".

I know, drawing down is inevitable, can only sustain such operations for so long and everyone knows it, just bothers me when I hear more and more isolationist talk these days, as if the "magic cure" to all the world's ills is to go the other extreme and the United STates to go and proverbially stick it's head in the sand.

Okay, definitely getting too much into the political slope, gonna step off the podium and go hibernate again...

[Badbru]

OK, I'll put one thing in: The level of military spending by our country is unsustainable. We have to draw down. ,

I recall being shocked, no that's too strong, impressed seems too positive, perturbed perhaps, when I saw a stat one day which said that US military spending not only exceeded the sum total of all other nations on this earth, but it exceeded it many times over. Food for thought if accurate.

Further, given the free society claimed in the US, one should feel free to question the moral implications of such a large portion of that nations economy and infrastructure based upon the production of war material. This is undoubtably a hold over from the second world war. I offer no judgement myself as it would be hipocritical given my interest in all things military but feel it is something that all humanity should consider.

[headquarters]

most informative and to the point. It would seem the US will be able to win any military engagement they will get into the next 50 years as they have done the past 50 years. As a long standing ally we have trusted the US to ensure our soverignity since WWII. ( We neighbour Russia and the Nazis invaded us in 1940). After considering the implications of the budget cuts I am not alarmed. The US will still be by far the most powerful military on the planet - several times over compared to the runner ups.

As for what Badbru is writing about the comparrison of military budgets world wide - The US is spending app-. 2 000 000 dollars every minute of the day -365 days a year.

I don't think you should panic

U.S. military budget

2000: $375 billion
2002: $425 billion
2004: $527 billion
2006: $561 billion
2008: $618 billion
2010: $687 billion
2012: $705 billion
2013: $662 billiion

As far as I can work out, the ambition is to cut defence spending back to something like 2004 levels (and hoping to achieve this by 2022)

It is true that the US Army and US Marines are being decreased in size - but that usually happens at the end of land wars

This document outlines the strategy. Basically,

1. There will be no US troops getting blown up in Afghanistan (an unimportant place which is economically worthless to the US).
2. There will be fewer troops in Europe (which - although important - isn't particularly worried about any military threats)
3. There will be more US military personnel doing useful things in Asia/Pacific (which is hugely important to the US economy and includes North Korea and China)

http://www.defense.gov/news/Defense_Strategic_Guidance.pdf

[Mahatatain]

I don't think you should panic

U.S. military budget

2000: $375 billion
2002: $425 billion
2004: $527 billion
2006: $561 billion
2008: $618 billion
2010: $687 billion
2012: $705 billion
2013: $662 billiion

As far as I can work out, the ambition is to cut defence spending back to something like 2004 levels (and hoping to achieve this by 2022)

I think that Matt W has made a very good point here - the reduction in US Military spending is very significant but it is less than the increases that occured a number of years ago and the level it is falling to is still something like 50% higher than when the War on Terror started.


This document outlines the strategy. Basically,

1. There will be no US troops getting blown up in Afghanistan (an unimportant place which is economically worthless to the US).
2. There will be fewer troops in Europe (which - although important - isn't particularly worried about any military threats)
3. There will be more US military personnel doing useful things in Asia/Pacific (which is hugely important to the US economy and includes North Korea and China)

http://www.defense.gov/news/Defense_Strategic_Guidance.pdf
Just with regard to point 2 above I actually don't understand why there are still significant numbers of US military personnel in Europe. I can see there would be some to pilot, service and protect aircraft that are based in Europe but what is the need to keep US ground forces in Europe? Is Russia and/or other parts of Eastern Europe still seen as a potential threat?

Likewise the British Army still have a significant number of troops in Germany and with our commitments in Afganistan I can't understand the reason. The government announced in 2010 that these troops would withdraw from Germany by 2020 but I don't understand why there is the delay.

Is there an economic impact here of having US and British troops (and possibly others - I don't really know) stationed in mainland Europe, i.e. those troops spend a lot of money in the local communites they are based in and so the hosting countries would rather they withdraw gradually? Or is that a rediclious suggestion?

[Legbreaker]

Of course the value of the US dollar has tanked somewhat in the last decade, so looking at the raw figures is a little misleading. Even so, it's still a totally unsustainable amount of money and there's no way the US should continue down that slippery slope.

[rcaf_777]

Not sure I agree with the gobal policeman bit there Paul, most of the US operations have been its national intrests the UN has US WAY DOWN list on Peacekeeping,


Second I think the US is doing a slow draw down in Europe to keep troops on gound incase of another crisis who know what will happen in Russian in a year or Libya or Syria and the list gose on

[James Langham]

Not sure I agree with the gobal policeman bit there Paul, most of the US operations have been its national intrests the UN has US WAY DOWN list on Peacekeeping,


Second I think the US is doing a slow draw down in Europe to keep troops on gound incase of another crisis who know what will happen in Russian in a year or Libya or Syria and the list gose on

Who would have predicted deploying into the former Jugoslavia for example?

Anyway nothing will happen about withdrawing from Germany until a tanker of crude oil turns up! :-)

[ShadoWarrior]

Who would have predicted deploying into the former Yugoslavia for example?Anyone who's studied European history, particularly the history of the Balkans. I'm sure that there were quite a few CIA analysts, several War College professors, and plenty of historians both in the U.S. and in Europe who could have told anyone who asked what would happen once Tito's regime fell. That Europe would then fail to act to police the area was equally predictable, given the historical inability of the continental powers to ever collectively agree on anything, least of all anything involving force. Which, of course, leads to most everyone then looking to America to be the police. And why not? It's politically very expedient back home and it shifts costs, as well as blame for anything messy that might happen, somewhere else (to the Americans). It's a win-win for both the Europeans and the Americans. How so? The Europeans get to keep their hands from getting dirty, and the Americans get to once again preen about riding in to save the day. It's almost a cliche. And as I said, all quite predictable.

[Cdnwolf]

All that money spent on the military didn't stop a few fanatics with box-cutters from crashing planes into buildings. Or a nutcase getting into the British subway and killing a few people there. More money will not solve the worlds problems.

[rcaf_777]

Anyone who's studied European history, particularly the history of the Balkans. I'm sure that there were quite a few CIA analysts, several War College professors, and plenty of historians both in the U.S. and in Europe who could have told anyone who asked what would happen once Tito's regime fell. That Europe would then fail to act to police the area was equally predictable, given the historical inability of the continental powers to ever collectively agree on anything, least of all anything involving force. Which, of course, leads to most everyone then looking to America to be the police. And why not? It's politically very expedient back home and it shifts costs, as well as blame for anything messy that might happen, somewhere else (to the Americans). It's a win-win for both the Europeans and the Americans. How so? The Europeans get to keep their hands from getting dirty, and the Americans get to once again preen about riding in to save the day. It's almost a cliche. And as I said, all quite predictable.

Actually American did'nt really get involed till the end of the conflict, and comitted a small ammount of troops given its size at the time, Most of European Nations were there trying to stop the War, but since it was under a UN mandate it was doomed to failure. American bigest move was getting the parties to table and talk and supply the air power to enforce Dayton accord I personally think most american were unware off what there forces did durring the entire period 1995-2001

[ArmySGT.]

Actually American did'nt really get involed till the end of the conflict, and comitted a small ammount of troops given its size at the time, Most of European Nations were there trying to stop the War, but since it was under a UN mandate it was doomed to failure. American bigest move was getting the parties to table and talk and supply the air power to enforce Dayton accord I personally think most american were unware off what there forces did durring the entire period 1995-2001

I was at KFOR Main, Film City, Pristina Kosovo, from 2001 - 2002.

Camp Bondsteel is still open to the best of my knowledge though with significantly less Military and far more contractors.

[Cdnwolf]

The UNPROFOR was composed of nearly 39,000 personnel, 320 of whom were killed on duty. It was composed of troops from Argentina, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany , Ghana, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Lithuania, Malaysia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, the Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and the United States.

[weswood]

The UNPROFOR was composed of nearly 39,000 personnel, 320 of whom were killed on duty. It was composed of troops from Argentina, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany , Ghana, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Lithuania, Malaysia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, the Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Damn those Venezuelans for not coming out to play!

[dragoon500ly]

After watching the latest talking heads and their doom-and-gloom (not to mention cruising some of the right-wing websites) one is left with the impression that our current administration is hellbent for disarmament to pre World War I levels. To be sure, the announced drawdowns are certainly going to fuel some very lively debates once the presidental election starts rolling....its going to be impossible to to discuss the drawndown in calm, reasonable language, especially as the November Follies kick off.

So...whats the reality on the ground?

The defense needs of the US are, to say the least, unique. Our position in North America does not require a large land component. Sorry, but there it is. A Marine Corps of two-division equivalants plus support is more than adequate for its mission of rapid reaction/deployment.

The Army and its move to brigades as the primary combat unit is cutting out a lot of the waste. To be sure, I do not agree in anyway with the decision to become more "Medium" and please! Let's not even get me started on the Stryker Uber Weapons System! But it boils down that the Heavy configuration of the Army just isn't sustainable in this era of "Police Actions". Troops that can be rapidly transported and married up to pre-positioned equipment may be the most efficient use of our manpower.

We need a strong Navy because so much of our economic lifeblood depends on control of the seas. So the current plans to gut the Navy's air, surface, submarine and amphibious capabilities are, at best, the by-products of severe self-medication and at worst a demonstration of extremely piss-poor judgement.

As for the Air Farce, err Force....The needs to control the skies of our nation as well as the skies over our deployed troops should be paramount. They need to have the best, most advanced aircraft that we can field and in such numbers that they seize and hold control of the air anywhere in the world.

The Department of Defense is not the most efficient organization in the world, we need to streamline and prioritize what our defense budget is spent on. There should be no waste and there should be no cost-overruns!

Just a few thoughts.....

[Webstral]

The US Navy definitely needs to be able to keep open the sea lanes that carry so much of the nation’s economic lifeblood. However, I’d be perfectly happy sharing this job with China. The Chinese Communist leadership has all but abandoned communism in favor of fascism. They recognize that economic well-being for the nation is the best and most cost-effective guarantee of the longevity of the current regime. So long as China continues to move forward economically and scientifically, there’s no real risk of Sino-American conflict. Therefore, they can help keep the sea lanes open. After all, the Chinese are arguably even more dependent upon maritime commerce than the US is.

The Air Force does need a qualitative edge over its most likely rivals. How much of a qualitative edge is necessary is a matter for debate.

The Army… ah, the Army. I believe pre-positioning is wise. Additionally, though, we should eliminate 90% of the combat arms in the National Guard while moving most of non-combat brigades into the Army Reserve or the Army National Guard. Non-combat jobs are more forgiving of intermittent practice than combat jobs. The trigger pullers (including the tankers and cavalry, artillery, air defense, and combat engineers) need constant practice to stay at the top of their game. Once the balloon goes up, the combat arms brigades deploy with their organic support. Corps, and maybe divisional, support comes out of the reserve force. The reserves, by the way, should be expanded to at least twice their current size. Some support brigades would be earmarked as high-readiness, which would require the brigade to be ready to go in 30 days from mobilization. The line companies would be manned by folks who have a comparable civilian job, or the line companies would have an adjusted training schedule to keep the reservists fresh. High readiness would not be for everyone.

While we’re at it, though, the pay and privileges for the infantry and the infantry alone should be increased significantly. The Army needs to be in a position to refuse applicants for the infantry. Every private should be smart, fit, and motivated. There should be a backlog or waitlist so that any rifleman who can’t cut it or loses his motivation can be sent to another MOS—no harm, no foul. Thanks for trying; we still want you on the big team. Any soldier from another MOS can apply for the infantry at any time, just like Special Forces. Can one imagine what the Army might be able to accomplish if every battalion measured up to the Rhodesian Light Infantry?

As an added benefit, NCOs who either get tired of infantry life or who don’t make rank could transfer to another MOS after getting some retraining. These NCOs would carry the infantry mindset with them. This cannot help but be good for the other combat arms or the support types.

Of course, with a highly motivated Infantry Branch, the whole commissioning process would have to be reworked. I’ve said plenty about my views on the commissioning process, so I won’t repeat them here. But imagine, if you will, the effect of having second lieutenants who first had to earn their membership in a rifle company as a junior enlisted man and perhaps pass the grade as a team leader before being accepted into an officer training program. There might be a shortage of new lieutenants, but everyone in the platoon would have confidence that their platoon leader was the right man for the job.

[Targan]

As an added benefit, NCOs who either get tired of infantry life or who don’t make rank could transfer to another MOS after getting some retraining. These NCOs would carry the infantry mindset with them. This cannot help but be good for the other combat arms or the support types.

I've never understood that "up or out" policy the US military has. If a soldier is happy in the role they are in and don't want the extra responsibilities associated with gaining rank, why should they be penalised? In the Australian Army there are many, many intelligent, skilled, motivated soldiers who have no interest in going for promotion and are allowed to work in the role they are happy in and suits them, with no predjudice against them for turning down promotion opportunities.

[ArmySGT.]

I've never understood that "up or out" policy the US military has. If a soldier is happy in the role they are in and don't want the extra responsibilities associated with gaining rank, why should they be penalised? In the Australian Army there are many, many intelligent, skilled, motivated soldiers who have no interest in going for promotion and are allowed to work in the role they are happy in and suits them, with no predjudice against them for turning down promotion opportunities.

It was a tool in 1992 when the US Army was drawing down from a Cold War 2 Million to 800,000. In theory it gets rid of the unmotivated, in practice it bashes square pegs into round holes.

[ShadoWarrior]

As for the Air Farce, err Force....The needs to control the skies of our nation as well as the skies over our deployed troops should be paramount. They need to have the best, most advanced aircraft that we can field and in such numbers that they seize and hold control of the air anywhere in the world.

The Department of Defense is not the most efficient organization in the world, we need to streamline and prioritize what our defense budget is spent on. There should be no waste and there should be no cost-overruns!

Just a few thoughts.....No cost overruns. Nice in theory. Not so easy in practice. What do you do when the unexpected happens? Kill the program(s)? There goes your "best, most advanced aircraft that we can field and in such numbers" such as the F-35. Killed by a budget axe because it went over-budget. Ditto almost every completely new weapon system. Missile defense? Over-budget. New ships? Over-budget. (Well, most of them. IIRC there's one class that came in under budget.)

Want to cut waste in the DOD? Cut out 99% of the nukes. Damned things are obscenely expensive to build and more so to maintain. We could do just fine with a tiny fraction of the inventory that we have. The hundreds of billions saved could go towards other, better weapon systems. But any time that anyone even hints at reducing the absurdly large stockpile that the U.S. has the right-wingnuts cry that whomever is suggesting it is a commie or some such nonsense.

[dragoon500ly]

It was a tool in 1992 when the US Army was drawing down from a Cold War 2 Million to 800,000. In theory it gets rid of the unmotivated, in practice it bashes square pegs into round holes.

"Up or Out" really dates back to the mid-1950s. As the War and Navy Departments were being combined into the new Department of Defense, the civilian leadership of the armed forces begain to be increasingly drawn from corporate America. Part of this was a drive to further educate the military leadership be encouraging more and more college style education. For the most part, this drive for more education in the officer/NCO corps is good. Where it fell apart was the DOD's efforts to insure that ALL NCOs/Officers HAD to have higher education.

As the US begain to become involved in Vietnam, there were several policy changes that were made. First was the one-year tour of duty that was implemented following the unsatisfactory points system of the Korea War. Great for morale, right (only another 127 days and a wakeup!) but utterly destroyed the fighting capability of units as the one year mark approached.

But DOD also implented a policy of posting an officer to a combat unit for six months and then rotating them to a staff position for the remaining six months of their tour. Since Vietnam was a battalion-level war, this put a lot of pressure on the green 2nd Lieutenants, just as the LT was getting experienced enough to become a real leader....POP! He was now a staff weenie back with the REMFs.

As the need for more and more lieutenants became apparant, the decison was made that if officers didn't meet certain performance and education milestones, then they would be RIFe'd (Reducation in Force), "encouraged" to seek positions with the National Guard/Reserves, "retired" to recruiting or ROTC duties or flat out be encouraged to resign.

As the Vietnam War wound down, "up or out" became firmly inbedded in the Armed Forces. Now DOD is willing to lose a combat proven officer because he didn't make his performance metric and get his promotion to major within three years (because he was in the field leading the troops instead of kissing the colonel's ass as a staff weenie). But some jerk-off whose best skill is his ability to kiss ass without wearing knee pads is on the fast track to becoming a general.

Yup, up or out is working so well.....

[dragoon500ly]

No cost overruns. Nice in theory. Not so easy in practice. What do you do when the unexpected happens? Kill the program(s)? There goes your "best, most advanced aircraft that we can field and in such numbers" such as the F-35. Killed by a budget axe because it went over-budget. Ditto almost every completely new weapon system. Missile defense? Over-budget. New ships? Over-budget. (Well, most of them. IIRC there's one class that came in under budget.)

Want to cut waste in the DOD? Cut out 99% of the nukes. Damned things are obscenely expensive to build and more so to maintain. We could do just fine with a tiny fraction of the inventory that we have. The hundreds of billions saved could go towards other, better weapon systems. But any time that anyone even hints at reducing the absurdly large stockpile that the U.S. has the right-wingnuts cry that whomever is suggesting it is a commie or some such nonsense.

Never made any claim that controlling overruns would be easy. But the entire process that DOD uses to buy equipment needs to be cleaned up, and preferably with C-4 and flamethrowers!!!! And a lot of the so-called contractors need to be guests of honor at an old style lynching!

The whole process of getting "the best price for our equipment" is insane. Take a look through the Congessional Records, look at what the winning bids were for virtually every weapons system used by the US in the last 40 years and you will see a cost overrun (and for every reason under the sun!). I accept that there can be overruns for legitimate reasons...but I also state that every possible effort should be made to keep the overruns to a minimum.

I agree that the nuclear arsenal is a waste of defence dollars. But the world is a harsh place and with nations like North Korea and possibly Iran getting their hands on nukes...if you believe that their current leadership won't hesitate to use them on US troops given half a chacne...then there is some prime farmland in the Everglades that I'd like to sell you! :D

Still, does the Air Farce need to maintain an aging arsenal of ICBMs. Nope, decommission them. Cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads are a more efficient use.

Do we need a large arsenal of aircraft-deleivered nuclear bombs, nope, decommission them.

Does the Navy need to maintain its SLBM fleet. I'd have to agree with that, SSBNs are a hell of a lot harder to track and destroy than a static ICBM field in the Dakotas.

Does the Army need a stockpile of artillery-delivered nuclear missiles...nope. I'd even go as far as turning over the remaining Pershing fleet to the Air Force....in return for the A-10s that they don't want!

[dragoon500ly]

The US Navy definitely needs to be able to keep open the sea lanes that carry so much of the nation’s economic lifeblood. However, I’d be perfectly happy sharing this job with China. The Chinese Communist leadership has all but abandoned communism in favor of fascism. They recognize that economic well-being for the nation is the best and most cost-effective guarantee of the longevity of the current regime. So long as China continues to move forward economically and scientifically, there’s no real risk of Sino-American conflict. Therefore, they can help keep the sea lanes open. After all, the Chinese are arguably even more dependent upon maritime commerce than the US is.

Given the current regime in China, I'd be very relucant to trust (or share) control of the sea lines of communications (SLOC) to them. I am not stating that a Cold War II is about to break out. But simply that the USN needs to control these SLOCs vital to the US. Bit hard to do with the current administrations plans.

The Air Force does need a qualitative edge over its most likely rivals. How much of a qualitative edge is necessary is a matter for debate.

We can't be the world's policeman anymore, nor can we use our military to stiick the American way of life down the throats of every person on this planet. It tends to annoy the natives. What would be a good level for the Air Force? An air wing committed to NATO, another committed to South West Asia, 3-4 in the Pacific, and at least another 6-8 in the US and that would be the active duty Air Force, AFNG and Reserve should have another 10-14 air wings. And these would be combat aircraft, not including tankers and transports.

The Army… ah, the Army. I believe pre-positioning is wise. Additionally, though, we should eliminate 90% of the combat arms in the National Guard while moving most of non-combat brigades into the Army Reserve or the Army National Guard. Non-combat jobs are more forgiving of intermittent practice than combat jobs. The trigger pullers (including the tankers and cavalry, artillery, air defense, and combat engineers) need constant practice to stay at the top of their game. Once the balloon goes up, the combat arms brigades deploy with their organic support. Corps, and maybe divisional, support comes out of the reserve force. The reserves, by the way, should be expanded to at least twice their current size. Some support brigades would be earmarked as high-readiness, which would require the brigade to be ready to go in 30 days from mobilization. The line companies would be manned by folks who have a comparable civilian job, or the line companies would have an adjusted training schedule to keep the reservists fresh. High readiness would not be for everyone.

While we’re at it, though, the pay and privileges for the infantry and the infantry alone should be increased significantly. The Army needs to be in a position to refuse applicants for the infantry. Every private should be smart, fit, and motivated. There should be a backlog or waitlist so that any rifleman who can’t cut it or loses his motivation can be sent to another MOS—no harm, no foul. Thanks for trying; we still want you on the big team. Any soldier from another MOS can apply for the infantry at any time, just like Special Forces. Can one imagine what the Army might be able to accomplish if every battalion measured up to the Rhodesian Light Infantry?

As an added benefit, NCOs who either get tired of infantry life or who don’t make rank could transfer to another MOS after getting some retraining. These NCOs would carry the infantry mindset with them. This cannot help but be good for the other combat arms or the support types.

Of course, with a highly motivated Infantry Branch, the whole commissioning process would have to be reworked. I’ve said plenty about my views on the commissioning process, so I won’t repeat them here. But imagine, if you will, the effect of having second lieutenants who first had to earn their membership in a rifle company as a junior enlisted man and perhaps pass the grade as a team leader before being accepted into an officer training program. There might be a shortage of new lieutenants, but everyone in the platoon would have confidence that their platoon leader was the right man for the job.

PREACH ON BROTHER!!!!!

:D

[Legbreaker]

...nor can we use our military to stiick the American way of life down the throats of every person on this planet. It tends to annoy the natives.

Agree 10,000% with that! Bad enough that we have to endure American sitcoms.

[pmulcahy11b]

Agree 10,000% with that! Bad enough that we have to endure American sitcoms.

Well, make some decent Australian sitcoms, I'll watch them!:D

But I've said that for a long time. You can't force democracy on a people at gunpoint. Pretty much, an outside culture cannot do "nation building." The people have to be ready for democracy and they have to want to come out of the stone age. The Afghan people aren't ready for either. Most of the rest of the Middle East are people who have a Middle Ages mindset but are playing with 21st century toys. That does make them dangerous, but no one can force them into the 21st century except the people of those countries themselves.

[Legbreaker]

The best that can really be done is containment while holding out the hand of friendship for those who want to get out.
However in places such as North Korea where knowledge of the outside world is STRICTLY controlled, many may not even know there IS an outside world, let alone it's potentially a better place to be.

[Targan]

But I've said that for a long time. You can't force democracy on a people at gunpoint. Pretty much, an outside culture cannot do "nation building." The people have to be ready for democracy and they have to want to come out of the stone age. The Afghan people aren't ready for either. Most of the rest of the Middle East are people who have a Middle Ages mindset but are playing with 21st century toys. That does make them dangerous, but no one can force them into the 21st century except the people of those countries themselves.

All very true, Paul.

[ShadoWarrior]

Most of the rest of the Middle East are people who have a Middle Ages mindset but are playing with 21st century toys.Most of the Muslim countries from North Africa to Pakistan are arguably still socially in the stone age. Women had more rights in the European feudal era than they do today in many so-called 'modern' Muslim nations. And tribalism, which pervades almost all Muslim countries, is a stone age concept. Nation is a bronze age invention, and these folks haven't yet grasped that simple concept.

Some people talk about bombing someone "back to the stone age". These so-called nations are still in the stone age. Cave dwellers with AKs. Or in the case of Pakistan, missiles and nukes.

[dragoon500ly]

Agree 10,000% with that! Bad enough that we have to endure American sitcoms.

It could be worse...try American sitcoms dubbed in German!

[pmulcahy11b]

It could be worse...try American sitcoms dubbed in German!

I've heard the worst is Star Trek TOS dubbed in German!

[dragoon500ly]

I've heard the worst is Star Trek TOS dubbed in German!

It was bad....but the worst was Smoky and the Bandit in German!!!

I think I lost brain cells when I saw that one!

[Medic]

Most of the Muslim countries from North Africa to Pakistan are arguably still socially in the stone age. Women had more rights in the European feudal era than they do today in many so-called 'modern' Muslim nations. And tribalism, which pervades almost all Muslim countries, is a stone age concept. Nation is a bronze age invention, and these folks haven't yet grasped that simple concept.

Some people talk about bombing someone "back to the stone age". These so-called nations are still in the stone age. Cave dwellers with AKs. Or in the case of Pakistan, missiles and nukes.

As said earlier, the attempts to Westernisize the Middle Eastern countries are really as useful as teaching a fish to ride a unicycle. It might be entertaining at first, but with such fundamental differences, it has very little of a chance to work in reality. And the word is often, fundamental. Pun intended.

I can remember the Iraqi guy who went to High School with me - he was telling the class about Islam and said something along these lines: "The Shiites are really brutal and uncivilized - you steal, they cut off your hand from the wrist. We Sunnites are much more civilized - we only cut off your fingers."

The fact is, the U.S. of A. meant well by ridding Iraq of Saddam and removing Taleban from the seat of power in Afghanistan, but the attempts to "help" are most often misguided by misunderstanding the local culture. You can't just remove a head of state and tell the people of the said state they are now free to elect someone in his stead. That way you only create a vacuum of power - a vacuum that is going to be filled by something else, most often a puppet of the faction that removed the previous head of state.

A very good description of this particular thing is the episode of Over There, where the team enters a village in Iraq to provide protection for the negotiations between the villagers and the oil company that wants to build a pipeline next to the village. The oil company representative doesn't want to build a mosque for the village and encourages the wife of the local hardliner imam to demand for a school, which eventually leads to her banishment from the village by her own husband, partially because Dim tries to help her as well.

I'm not really saying all of the Americans are like this, but from what I've come to see is that most of you don't really see what goes on beyond the borders of your own state and even far less, beyond the U.S. borders. Of course this is a bit of generalization, just like saying most of the Muslim countries are socially in the stone ages. They are culturally very different from the western world and yes, they treat their women poorly, if they get out of line, but then again, there are some Christian factions that are just as stone aged, if you ask me. It doesn't matter, what the religion is - fundamentalists are fundamentalists everywhere and they act pretty much the same everywhere, no matter what the religion is.

As for the U.S. military diminishing it's power, I don't really see that generally as a bad thing. I can't say I'm anti-U.S., but I kind of frown to the way, you guys have driven your own agendas at gunpoint ever since the Iron Curtain came down. The appeasement policy the U.S. has towards Israel is something very disturbing - UN sanctions against Israel harassing people, who lived in the region before someone got the bright idea to actually erect a jewish colony there, can not be put in to action because the motions are vetoed by the U.S..

What the world would most definitely need is a bit broader point of view. And thus endeth the rant. No hard feelings, people. I know some very intelligent and nice Americans, who actually know where Finland is and have enough curiosity to get to know other cultures and societies. ;)

[ArmySGT.]

So if I can wear the Crown for a day what would I do with the Dept of Defense.

1) Rename it the War Department. We are not going of to fight a "Defense" now are we? Mindset people.

2) Single parents. Thanks for your help. He is a severance check equal to six months. Buh-bye.

3) All the Family and Community stuff on Stateside bases. Redundant and frequently prices are cheaper for the Soldier and the quality higher off post. Overseas I get it, Stateside,NO.

4) The Marine Corps. I would remove it from the Department of the Navy and slot it under the Department of the Army. Make for a massive reduction in procurement efforts. Going to the Marines would be like going to the Airborne. A specialized assignment but still just an assignment. It would still be Corps sized, though reshaped on the Brigade Combat Team concept. The Navy can protect their ports and other facilities with Master at Arms or draw from their Shore Duty sailors.

5) The Airborne. Dead concept on Brigade and Division level. Consider the 21st century threat detection capability and Theater air defense missiles that could destroy not just damage cargo aircraft. Lets be real. The Brigade drop hasn't even been used in Afghanistan where such an effort could actually have achieved total surprise and seized terrain and taliban assets. With upcoming Laser technology anything rising above the horizon is dead upon detection. The chips are in the air on SOF units and air delivered supplies.

6) Close Air Support is an Army function and should be at the Brigade level. Possibly even with prop driven dirt strip capable air craft.

7) Army Bases should be in areas where there is room to train. Those Posts in the Eastern US or worse inside large cities would be closed even turned over to the Park Service. We know why there still there and tradition is bullshit. Their there to dazzle Congressmen and Senators on visits and to be close to the White House and the Pentagon.

8) Joint Bases. This would be the new normal. Where ever possible all installations would be multi-service. Keeps the operating costs and FORCES cooperative interoperability. Shut down post or installations could become housing for Veterans of all wars. It is not fancy but, it will be familiar, with people that understand or share experiences, and would coordinate care and services better.

9) Ditch the short and quick Non Commissioned Officer Courses. The Primary Leadership Development Course is the first induction into the NCO Corps. This course should be the damned hardest. Candidates should have to show a commitment like re-enlisting to get to into it. The Course should be at a minimum 12 months classified as a hardship tour without relocation of dependents. The Graduates should all be very proficient in Infantry Operations regardless of the MOS, be able to operate any weapon system, use any radio, and drive any vehicle that is not aircraft or watercraft greater than a RIB craft. The lectures and presentations given by students on facets of military history, tactics, strategy, and concepts of the operational art should graduate each student with an Associates degree in Military Science. If their Professional Soldiers than Professional training with formal classes and measured results should be standard.

10) Controversial idea. Reduce the carrier fleet and increase the Submarine fleet. More SLBMs afloat. The Carrier itself is beginning to be threaten by ballistic missiles (China is first here) with non nuclear warheads anywhere at sea in the missiles radius. Reduce the Navy Carriers to six with two at sea in the areas of most interest. Give two to the Coast Guard for humanitarian missions and disaster relief missions. CG aircraft carriers with Opreys and Helos would benefit missions on the scale of Katrina and the SE Asian Tsunami event.

more rants to follow. :)

[Legbreaker]

Some pretty sweeping changes there and I tend to agree with much of the idea behind it, if not the actual detail.
Might run into some issues with discrimiation with the single parents (although I understnd the rationale).
Renaming the department is likely to cause more problems than it solves in a democracy (ok, ok, it's technically a republic!). PR issues must be addressed.
Some military establishments are needed in built up areas, if only to act as recruiting stations, administration hubs, and so forth. Posting combat arms to them is however just plan STUPID unless they're there to support the recruiting efforts or whatever else is happening there.
I don't know much about the US NCO programs (bugger all to be honest) but 12 months seems somewhat excessive to train a junior NCO.
Certainly agree that the US has too many carriers for it's needs. Reallocating to the Coast Guard seems like a good idea, although it won't help the budget all that much given operating costs won't be greatly reduced. They'd still need to be protected when deployed outside US waters in case some other country takes the opportunity to sink one - a carrier, even if not officially in the navy, is still a carrier and can be used as such with a quick polish and rearming.

[dragoon500ly]

So if I can wear the Crown for a day what would I do with the Dept of Defense.

1) Rename it the War Department. We are not going of to fight a "Defense" now are we? Mindset people.

There are arguements pro and con to this, in concept, I agree. We don't fight a defense. I'd keep it a combined department, i.e. no Navy Department etc.

2) Single parents. Thanks for your help. He is a severance check equal to six months. Buh-bye.

Harsh. But I do understand, there was nothing worse than deploying on a FTX or, even worse, a combat op and having a sizeable portion of your unit nondeployable because they are single parents or preggie. I don't know about outright kicking them out....perhaps converting them to recruiters or admin duties only. Certainly not in Combat or Combat Support units.

3) All the Family and Community stuff on Stateside bases. Redundant and frequently prices are cheaper for the Soldier and the quality higher off post. Overseas I get it, Stateside,NO.

Agreed!!! Just as an example, the Post Exchange was originally started to gve enlisted personnel a place to buy necessary goods cheap. Its now a warehouse where officers and retirees can buy name brands at cheap prices. EVERY enlisted member I know buys diapers at WalMart, better selection and better prices. But if you need that 72-inch Flat Screen for the den......

4) The Marine Corps. I would remove it from the Department of the Navy and slot it under the Department of the Army. Make for a massive reduction in procurement efforts. Going to the Marines would be like going to the Airborne. A specialized assignment but still just an assignment. It would still be Corps sized, though reshaped on the Brigade Combat Team concept. The Navy can protect their ports and other facilities with Master at Arms or draw from their Shore Duty sailors.

One can already hear the screams from the Navy and the Marines! Overall, you may be right, but I don't see this happening much before 5500AD!!!!! Now converting the Marine logistical support to the Army, and streamlining the Marines into BCT organizations, requiring joint field exercises may be a better way to go, not to mention cutting down on the screaming (noise reduction is good, AND you get to met OSHA guidlines).

5) The Airborne. Dead concept on Brigade and Division level. Consider the 21st century threat detection capability and Theater air defense missiles that could destroy not just damage cargo aircraft. Lets be real. The Brigade drop hasn't even been used in Afghanistan where such an effort could actually have achieved total surprise and seized terrain and taliban assets. With upcoming Laser technology anything rising above the horizon is dead upon detection. The chips are in the air on SOF units and air delivered supplies.

I can see the 82nd Airborne has a holding division with a variety of Battalion Combat Teams under its umbrella. But the chances of a Brigade or Division combat operation is roughly that of Angelina Jolie dumping Brad Pitt and moving in with me.

6) Close Air Support is an Army function and should be at the Brigade level. Possibly even with prop driven dirt strip capable air craft.

Can't agree with each Brigade getting its own CAS squadron, but CAS needs to be an Army function with the pilots required to serve with infantry/armor units before going on to flight school.

7) Army Bases should be in areas where there is room to train. Those Posts in the Eastern US or worse inside large cities would be closed even turned over to the Park Service. We know why there still there and tradition is bullshit. Their there to dazzle Congressmen and Senators on visits and to be close to the White House and the Pentagon.

Turn the ones near cities into admin posts, but Combat Arms needs maneuver room. Build them in areas away from the cities.

8) Joint Bases. This would be the new normal. Where ever possible all installations would be multi-service. Keeps the operating costs and FORCES cooperative interoperability. Shut down post or installations could become housing for Veterans of all wars. It is not fancy but, it will be familiar, with people that understand or share experiences, and would coordinate care and services better.

Agreed!

9) Ditch the short and quick Non Commissioned Officer Courses. The Primary Leadership Development Course is the first induction into the NCO Corps. This course should be the damned hardest. Candidates should have to show a commitment like re-enlisting to get to into it. The Course should be at a minimum 12 months classified as a hardship tour without relocation of dependents. The Graduates should all be very proficient in Infantry Operations regardless of the MOS, be able to operate any weapon system, use any radio, and drive any vehicle that is not aircraft or watercraft greater than a RIB craft. The lectures and presentations given by students on facets of military history, tactics, strategy, and concepts of the operational art should graduate each student with an Associates degree in Military Science. If their Professional Soldiers than Professional training with formal classes and measured results should be standard.

Nope. For the non-U.S. military members, when you enlist, you are Uncle Sam's for six years, you will hear a lot of BS about 2-year, 3-year and 4-year enlistments, its just a recruiting trick. You are in for six years, it may be 2 years active, but it will be 4-years Individual Ready Reserve...read the fine print!

That having been said, there needs to be changes in how the service recruits its NCOs. The Primary Leadership Development Course should be directed at those eligible for promotion to E-4 (E-1 to E-3 is automatic based on time in service). It should really be a Corporal selection process where those who graduate pick up Corporal and those who don't do not get to reenlist. It should be a 4 month course. After that, every level of NCO development should be proceeded by a 6 month course...and if you don't pass, you don't get the promotion!

10) Controversial idea. Reduce the carrier fleet and increase the Submarine fleet. More SLBMs afloat. The Carrier itself is beginning to be threaten by ballistic missiles (China is first here) with non nuclear warheads anywhere at sea in the missiles radius. Reduce the Navy Carriers to six with two at sea in the areas of most interest. Give two to the Coast Guard for humanitarian missions and disaster relief missions. CG aircraft carriers with Opreys and Helos would benefit missions on the scale of Katrina and the SE Asian Tsunami event.

Disagree and why an Army puke is defending the squids....).

We need a carrier air arm. Control of the sea lines of communications (SLOC) requires control of the air and sea, and we can't always post an air wing within range to cover potential problems. Enter the carriers, they provide a reasonable size air group and even more important, a US air base that does not depend on the good graces of a nearby country. We should maintain a carrier force of between 11 to 13 carriers. This normally allows one in the Atlantic and two in the Pacific on station, three more working up for deployment, three returning from deployment and 2-3 undergoing major overhauls.

Yes they face a more deadly threat, but given current technology, there is nothing that can replace a carrier. We need more submarines, both nuclear attack boats as well as coastal diesel-electric boats.

Decommissioning the USAF ICBM fleet would save many and increasing the Navie's SLBM force would make for a more effective (and safer) nuclear arsenal.

As fas as giving the Coast Guard carriers....there is no need, a couple of large merchant hulls can be converted into aviation support ships and used for disaster relief.

just a few peanuts from the gallery...

[Targan]

But the chances of a Brigade or Division combat operation is roughly that of Angelina Jolie dumping Brad Pitt and moving in with me.

You can have her after she's finished being in a sweaty three-way with my wife and I. :D

[dragoon500ly]

I'm not really saying all of the Americans are like this, but from what I've come to see is that most of you don't really see what goes on beyond the borders of your own state and even far less, beyond the U.S. borders. Of course this is a bit of generalization, just like saying most of the Muslim countries are socially in the stone ages. They are culturally very different from the western world and yes, they treat their women poorly, if they get out of line, but then again, there are some Christian factions that are just as stone aged, if you ask me. It doesn't matter, what the religion is - fundamentalists are fundamentalists everywhere and they act pretty much the same everywhere, no matter what the religion is.

The reality is much harsher, most Americans are in the dark as to who their town's mayor and city councils are, let alone what they are doing. When you start adding in what the various states and even the federal governments are up too....most Americans would rather watch the various sitcoms and sports programs. Toss in what is going on over seas....I doubt that the vast majority of Americans can even pinpoint Iraq and Afghanistan on a map, let alone have any idea of what is going on. Toss in the religious nuts....I always have felt that the founding fathers shouldn't have stopped with the seperation of Church and State, they should have added that Chruches are forbidden to have anything to do with the State!

Case in point, that certain little church in Kansas that feels it is necessary to "attend" every military funeral so that they can scream their racist/sexist agenda and blame the service member's death on the government's failure to keep >INSERT MINORITY GROUP OF CHOICE< under control. I've always believed that the freedom of speech should be defended, even when you don't agree with what the other party is saying, but this group of lunatics is enough to make one doubt the validity of that argument.

Coupled to a complete failure to teach American History or Civics and I fear for the future.

As for the U.S. military diminishing it's power, I don't really see that generally as a bad thing. I can't say I'm anti-U.S., but I kind of frown to the way, you guys have driven your own agendas at gunpoint ever since the Iron Curtain came down. The appeasement policy the U.S. has towards Israel is something very disturbing - UN sanctions against Israel harassing people, who lived in the region before someone got the bright idea to actually erect a jewish colony there, can not be put in to action because the motions are vetoed by the U.S..

What the world would most definitely need is a bit broader point of view. And thus endeth the rant. No hard feelings, people. I know some very intelligent and nice Americans, who actually know where Finland is and have enough curiosity to get to know other cultures and societies. ;)

The problem is that whatever political party that is in control of the government at the time, is made up of a collection of weak-minded dips**ts who answer to the various special intrest groups and whatever briefing points that their staffs draw up. This is perhaps the greatest weakness of the American system of government. Not the election of the most populat vs. the most qualified, but the willingness to allow any political action committee to have the degree of power that these special intrest groups have. They need to be banned or have their degree of access rigidly controlled...perhaps no more than 5 minutes per decade.

[dragoon500ly]

You can have her after she's finished being in a sweaty three-way with my wife and I. :D

So Solly! Once she gets a look at my handsome face......

[StainlessSteelCynic]

...I've always believed that the freedom of speech should be defended, even when you don't agree with what the other party is saying, but this group of lunatics is enough to make one doubt the validity of that argument...
I too believe that people should have freedom of speech but I also believe it needs to be qualified with responsibility. That is to say, yes, you have freedom of speech but only so long as you take responsibility for what you say.
The church you mentioned is a case in point, they don't appear to care that the only people that hear their brand of BS are the families of the deceased. People that are going through a very emotional time, they certainly don't need some dickhead using the funeral as a flagpole upon which to hoist their agenda. I believe in such cases those church members should be held accountable for their actions.

[weswood]

..... they treat their women poorly, if they get out of line, but then again, there are some Christian factions that are just as stone aged, if you ask me. It doesn't matter, what the religion is - fundamentalists are fundamentalists everywhere and they act pretty much the same everywhere, no matter what the religion is.



I agree with a lot of what you've said, but I have to ask what Christian fundamentalist sect kills a woman by stoning for having extramarital sex?

I really do agree with you but I keep hearing how Christians are no better than Muslims. Maybe at one time, over 200 years ago, we had the Inquisition and witch burning, but we're over it.

[weswood]

Once upon a time my father told me we- members of the U.S. military- have the duty to ensure citizens freedom of speech, even when they are protesting us (Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Airmen). I believed that then, and still do.

I also think society would be a lot more polite as to what is said if duelling was legal. Pistols with one round, seconds, a judge, and televise the whole thing. People would have to really believe what they say and have to be willing to back it up.

And yes, I may be crazy, but I'm okay with it :D

[Targan]

I agree with a lot of what you've said, but I have to ask what Christian fundamentalist sect kills a woman by stoning for having extramarital sex?

I really do agree with you but I keep hearing how Christians are no better than Muslims. Maybe at one time, over 200 years ago, we had the Inquisition and witch burning, but we're over it.

Abortion clinic doctors being gunned down on their doorsteps. Shootouts at isolated Christian sect compounds. Atheists like me look on in abject horror.

It's been going on for thousands of years and I doubt it will end any time soon - countless numbers of human beings slaughtering each other over, basically, whose fairy tale is the "correct" one. From where I'm standing it's just plain madness.

[Targan]

So Solly! Once she gets a look at my handsome face......

Exactly! That's what I thought would seal the deal in my favor :cool:

[Legbreaker]

You're all wrong. Angelina is mine.
How can she turn down an Adonis like me? :p

[Targan]

You're all wrong. Angelina is mine.
How can she turn down an Adonis like me? :p

Good question, but the fact remains, she's been doing just that for some time now. :D

[Webstral]

So if I can wear the Crown for a day what would I do with the Dept of Defense.

1) Rename it the War Department. We are not going of to fight a "Defense" now are we? Mindset people.

I’m fine with this. However, the original purpose behind having a Department of Defense was to provide greater continuity between conflicts. Inevitably, the public will ask why we’re paying for a Department of War when there is no Department of War. Defense is always good.

2) Single parents. Thanks for your help. He is a severance check equal to six months. Buh-bye.

I agree in principle, but there needs to be room for nuance, etc.


4) The Marine Corps. I would remove it from the Department of the Navy and slot it under the Department of the Army. Make for a massive reduction in procurement efforts. Going to the Marines would be like going to the Airborne. A specialized assignment but still just an assignment. It would still be Corps sized, though reshaped on the Brigade Combat Team concept. The Navy can protect their ports and other facilities with Master at Arms or draw from their Shore Duty sailors.

The Army would destroy the Corps within five years. There might still be troops wearing some sort of Marine identifier, but they’d lose what makes them Marines. As for procurement, the Marines spend their money more wisely than the Army. I strongly suspect that whatever gains we would make in further centralizing the procurement process would be lost when the Marines rose to the Army’s level of wastefulness.

5) The Airborne. Dead concept on Brigade and Division level. Consider the 21st century threat detection capability and Theater air defense missiles that could destroy not just damage cargo aircraft. Lets be real. The Brigade drop hasn't even been used in Afghanistan where such an effort could actually have achieved total surprise and seized terrain and taliban assets. With upcoming Laser technology anything rising above the horizon is dead upon detection. The chips are in the air on SOF units and air delivered supplies.

Reluctantly, I’m forced to agree. If some way could be found to preserve what makes the 82nd Airborne a special formation while doing away with the airborne division concept, I’d buy in.

6) Close Air Support is an Army function and should be at the Brigade level. Possibly even with prop driven dirt strip capable air craft.

I’ve heard the USAF burns heretics for less. Like Galileo, you may even have to wait centuries for not-quite-an-apology.

7) Army Bases should be in areas where there is room to train. Those Posts in the Eastern US or worse inside large cities would be closed even turned over to the Park Service. We know why there still there and tradition is bullshit. Their there to dazzle Congressmen and Senators on visits and to be close to the White House and the Pentagon.

I think Congressmen are less dazzled than self-interested. Base closure is a serious blow to the local economy. Some Congressmen survive a base closure in their districts. Others do not.

Realistically, the only way to make closures of smaller Army posts work is to align units of every type with the existing base structure. If you can’t have any heavy brigades in a state with insufficient maneuver space at its posts, then many states east of the Mississippi will lose what heavy units they have left in their National Guards. I’m okay with this, since I’ve already advocated that the combat units ought to go the active Army.


8) Joint Bases. This would be the new normal. Where ever possible all installations would be multi-service.

A good idea. Lots of politics will emerge as the services jockey for key leadership positions on the combined posts, though.

9) Ditch the short and quick Non Commissioned Officer Courses. The Primary Leadership Development Course is the first induction into the NCO Corps. This course should be the damned hardest. Candidates should have to show a commitment like re-enlisting to get to into it. The Course should be at a minimum 12 months classified as a hardship tour without relocation of dependents. The Graduates should all be very proficient in Infantry Operations regardless of the MOS, be able to operate any weapon system, use any radio, and drive any vehicle that is not aircraft or watercraft greater than a RIB craft. The lectures and presentations given by students on facets of military history, tactics, strategy, and concepts of the operational art should graduate each student with an Associates degree in Military Science. If their Professional Soldiers than Professional training with formal classes and measured results should be standard.

Another excellent idea. This one would require improving the pool of candidates, though. There would have to be a much higher throughput of junior enlisted folks through the forces to yield the required quality at the team leader level. Let’s face it: a lot of the junior enlisted folks are guys and gals who didn’t do well at school.

I do like the idea of a serious firebreak in the enlisted progression, though. In addition to my previous comments on improving pay and privileges for the infantry, I’d improve pay for E-5 and above. (I’d pay for it by getting rid of 40-50% of the general officers and 25-30% of the field grade officers.) That way, an enlistee can do his/her single enlistment, get the bennies, and feel good about serving his country. But the real carrot ought to lie just on the other side of selection for PLDC and promotion to E-5.

10) Controversial idea. Reduce the carrier fleet and increase the Submarine fleet. More SLBMs afloat. The Carrier itself is beginning to be threaten by ballistic missiles (China is first here) with non nuclear warheads anywhere at sea in the missiles radius. Reduce the Navy Carriers to six with two at sea in the areas of most interest. Give two to the Coast Guard for humanitarian missions and disaster relief missions. CG aircraft carriers with Opreys and Helos would benefit missions on the scale of Katrina and the SE Asian Tsunami event. more rants to follow.

That is a controversial idea.

[weswood]

Abortion clinic doctors being gunned down on their doorsteps. Shootouts at isolated Christian sect compounds. Atheists like me look on in abject horror.

It's been going on for thousands of years and I doubt it will end any time soon - countless numbers of human beings slaughtering each other over, basically, whose fairy tale is the "correct" one. From where I'm standing it's just plain madness.

Ya got me there, I forgot about those lunatics.

[dragoon500ly]

You're all wrong. Angelina is mine.
How can she turn down an Adonis like me? :p

Our friends from down under need to face reality...with me she gets a handsome face, a body like a Greek God, access to a knife collection larger than her own...not to mention the never to be forgotten thrill of dallying with a real live cavalryman!!!!

How can you compare to that combination?

:p

[pmulcahy11b]

Our friends from down under need to face reality...with me she gets a handsome face, a body like a Greek God, access to a knife collection larger than her own...not to mention the never to be forgotten thrill of dallying with a real live cavalryman!!!!

How can you compare to that combination?

:p

Not to mention the imagination of Leonardo da Vinci!

[Sanjuro]

a body like a Greek God
Would that be Dionysus?

[Legbreaker]

...not to mention the never to be forgotten thrill of dallying with a real live cavalryman!!!!
Cavalryman - there's your problem right there! :D
Having to deal with that just once would be enough to turn a strong stomach, just seriously considering a repeat would destroy sanity!

[Targan]

Would that be Dionysus?

Or perhaps Hephaestus?

[pmulcahy11b]

Or perhaps Hephaestus?

Did the Buddha ever visit Greece?

[dragoon500ly]

:p

Just because the cavalry lends diginity to an otherwise vulgar brawl....

Besides, where else can you get that combination of lots of leather, really cool boots, spurs and a long...sword?

;)

[Targan]

Besides, where else can you get that combination of lots of leather, really cool boots, spurs and a long...sword?

Now you're just being boastful :rolleyes:

[Fusilier]

:pBesides, where else can you get that combination of lots of leather, really cool boots, spurs and a long...sword?

Any given Saturday night out with Targ... I mean, these guys.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-pJqWpU38Mqo/TY-VOaSM52I/AAAAAAAAABM/e-icaf8nVfs/s1600/berty-leather-chaps.jpg

[Medic]

I agree with a lot of what you've said, but I have to ask what Christian fundamentalist sect kills a woman by stoning for having extramarital sex?

I really do agree with you but I keep hearing how Christians are no better than Muslims. Maybe at one time, over 200 years ago, we had the Inquisition and witch burning, but we're over it.

Not by stoning but I've read quite a few reports about those Christian-sect families that consider every ailment an act of god and do not take their kids to see the doctor, effectively causing the death of the said child of an illness that could be treated. Also, there has been quite a bit of pedophilia in one of the sects common in Finland. And while extramarital sex has not caused any stoning to death, I know quite a number of cases where a slight infringement of the sect rules has led to banishment from the said sect in a degree where the parents of the said offender have disowned their child.

It's funny, how Christians consider their own religion as morally superior and a religion of peace, love and forgiveness, while there are so many immoral (and illegal) deeds committed by officials of the religion. The majority of all wars on the planet have been fought by Christians. The denial of same-sex marriages (because marriage is said to be sacred) and the bullshit revolving around that theme - which actually, being discussed in the Finnish TV in a panel caused a huge wave of resignations from the church. Also, when looking at the peace, love and forgiveness of the Americans (really, I don't have anything agaist you guys in general) - the way some Christians over there talk about us atheists, saying we should all be killed or at least driven out pf the U.S. - I think I can pretty much rest my case...

[Webstral]

Not by stoning but I've read quite a few reports about those Christian-sect families that consider every ailment an act of god and do not take their kids to see the doctor, effectively causing the death of the said child of an illness that could be treated.

It’s awful how children suffer for the deeds and misdeeds of adults.

It's funny, how Christians consider their own religion as morally superior and a religion of peace, love and forgiveness, while there are so many immoral (and illegal) deeds committed by officials of the religion.

Religions are practiced by people who turn their backs on the premises of the faith. The most devout among us fail to live up to the standards of our faiths. Some of us fail more than others.

The majority of all wars on the planet have been fought by Christians.

A statement like this requires substantiation.

Also, when looking at the peace, love and forgiveness of the Americans (really, I don't have anything agaist you guys in general) - the way some Christians over there talk about us atheists, saying we should all be killed or at least driven out pf the U.S. - I think I can pretty much rest my case...

Assessing Christianity, or American branches thereof, based on the rantings of extremist yahoos is like assessing Islam based on the actions and words of the Wahabbists.

[Webstral]

Any given Saturday night out with Targ... I mean, these guys.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-pJqWpU38Mqo/TY-VOaSM52I/AAAAAAAAABM/e-icaf8nVfs/s1600/berty-leather-chaps.jpg

Hey, someone has been in my neck of the woods! That's an ordinary Thursday night in some parts of San Francisco.

[Legbreaker]

Hmm, first it's wallabies, then it's leather and chains....
Are you trying to tell us something Web? :D

[rcaf_777]

Single parents. Thanks for your help. He is a severance check equal to six months. Buh-bye.

Why? not sure, something wrong with single parents? dose'nt the US Military pay for childcare when deployed or out in the feild?

[ArmySGT.]

Why? not sure, something wrong with single parents? dose'nt the US Military pay for childcare when deployed or out in the feild?

No.

This extends into all manner of the duty day. Single parents late for PT formations because of child care. Single parents not assigned duties like Charge of Quarters because it is over night or a week end and a sitter isn't available. Exercises, and all other Details, Duties, and Commitments carried by all the other Soldiers in the Unit (married with children, or Single and childless). Throw in the allowances for quarters, separate rations, and a host of other perks and single parents (mostly female) have become an epidemic. It drains man hours and it is poor for morale to see someone else having the easy life while everyone else commits extra to make it happen.

[Webstral]

I agree with the idea that single parent soldiers are a problem for the force. However, I’m wary of any policy that issues marching orders to any single parent soldier automatically. For one thing, Congress will squawk that the policy is discriminatory against women. Female members of Congress will bleat that divorce essentially will oblige a female parent and soldier to choose between soldiering and parenthood. Husbands therefore will gain control over the careers of female soldiers by threatening divorce, therefore threatening female parents and soldiers to make the terrible choice. The female members of Congress would have a point.

Of course, putting them in the rear permanently imposes on everybody else who isn’t a single parent soldier. In the 1980’s, this was not a big deal. However, after 9/11 and the start of the year-out/year-home cycle, the problem with granting some soldiers permanent nondeployable status reared its ugly head.

There is a solution that the Army has been loathe to put into practice: allow single parent soldiers to have 1-2 family members considered dependents. The military is firmly wedded to the ideal of the nuclear family. This is a wonderful ideal, but it’s not realistic. If a female soldier parent finds herself divorced, rather than throw her and the Army’s investment in her skills out the door, give her a grace period to bring in a family member or two who become new dependents. These people then play the role that the spouse is supposed to play in terms of child care, etc. If the single parent soldier is unable to meet the deadline, then she gets the boot. The candidates for special dependent might be mother, father, brother, sister, adult child, or even grandparent. I’d be open to discussing whether uncles, aunts, and cousins ought to be considered.

Here’s the bottom line for me: children are a forever commitment, marriages end, and the force needs skilled professionals to stay in. Any jackasses can run off to Vegas and get married, thereby entering a special legal status that makes massive impositions on the military. Having kids is even easier. A force based on fidelity and commitment needs to recognize which commitments are more durable than others and work with the lasting ones to keep its skilled personnel in the force. If that means being flexible about who is called a dependent and gets to enjoy the privileges of post life, so be it.

[pmulcahy11b]

Another exception for single parents should be those who lose a spouse due to disease, accidents, murder (by someone else other than the service member, of course!), or other unforeseen circumstances. These troops can be used at home to do paperwork, as trainers, intel work in places like the Pentagon, or a myriad of other jobs that do not require a soldier to be deployable.

I mean, think about it. "Jones, it's damn awful that your wife was murdered, but now I'm going to have to chapter you out because she screwed up and got herself killed." That's just shitty.

[Targan]

Any given Saturday night out with Targ... I mean, these guys.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-pJqWpU38Mqo/TY-VOaSM52I/AAAAAAAAABM/e-icaf8nVfs/s1600/berty-leather-chaps.jpg

LOL! I'm glad you got me on a good angle with that shot.

[Webstral]

It drains man hours and it is poor for morale to see someone else having the easy life while everyone else commits extra to make it happen.

The life of a single parent is not the easy life. I have two children under three. My wife and I can barely keep things going with only one of us working. A single soldier pulling a normal duty day, then playing mommy at night, does not have it easy. What she has is an inequitable distribution of soldiering duties because other soldiers have to pick up the slack so she can meet her commitments to her kids. In a sense, the unit becomes her support network when other soldiers take up duties that rightfully belong to her. That needs to stop. But never would I characterize the life of a single parent as being the easy life.

[Webstral]

I mean, think about it. "Jones, it's damn awful that your wife was murdered, but now I'm going to have to chapter you out because she screwed up and got herself killed." That's just shitty.

Or, "Jones, it's a shame your husband was KIA in the sandbox. Too bad for your fifteen year investment, too, because we're kicking your freeloading ass and your two kids out on the street. I don't know where we'll find another senior interrogator who speaks Arabic to replace you, but this man's Army ain't no place for a single parent."

All that said, I agree with the premise that family responsibilities have caused the burden of work and responsibilities to be shifted onto the backs of soldiers who have either a sufficient family support structure or who have no family commitments. Single parent soldiers should not be allowed to enlist unless they have a "special dependent" who can meet whatever criteria the Dept of Defense sees fit to impose for said special dependents.

[Legbreaker]

On the other hand perhaps the military could step up here and offer free long term childcare for single parents while they're deployed/on duty? Give them a headstart on indoctrinating the next generation of mindless zombies/infantry soldiers. :p
Could even extend it to cover other single parent family and orphans. ;)

[Webstral]

On the other hand perhaps the military could step up here and offer free long term childcare for single parents while they're deployed/on duty?

Part of me likes the idea, part of me does not. The big drawback is that child care is the duty of the family, not the service. I suggest a "special depenedent" because a family member cares for the child(ren). Yes, the service member is drawing additional pay for having a family, but this is no different than the traditional model of nuclear family with dad wearing the uniform and mom raising the kids. The single parent soldier just inserts another member of the family into the child care role. No additional expenses or special privileges need be invoked.

Give them a headstart on indoctrinating the next generation of mindless zombies/infantry soldiers. :p


We prefer the term "young patriots" for our zombies.

[ArmySGT.]

The life of a single parent is not the easy life. I have two children under three. My wife and I can barely keep things going with only one of us working. A single soldier pulling a normal duty day, then playing mommy at night, does not have it easy. What she has is an inequitable distribution of soldiering duties because other soldiers have to pick up the slack so she can meet her commitments to her kids. In a sense, the unit becomes her support network when other soldiers take up duties that rightfully belong to her. That needs to stop. But never would I characterize the life of a single parent as being the easy life.

Military life has but few civilian analogs possibly police, fire fighters, some federal agents. Why should everyone else pickup the slack, and even be paid less (no BAH, no BAS) in the case of single soldiers. In the mean time Ms. Single Mom works 40 hours with nights, weekends, and holidays hers because childcare is difficult or more expensive. Why should the tax payer foot the bill? Why should you pay more taxes so that Ms. "Did not get married" can have free child care along with the free health care? Who enlisted to be that single parents support network? Who enlisted to work sixty hours so that Miss "Doin it on my own" doesn't have to go over 40? When did the quality of someones elses family time become a priority for National Defense?

:confused:

[ArmySGT.]

I agree with the idea that single parent soldiers are a problem for the force. However, I’m wary of any policy that issues marching orders to any single parent soldier automatically. For one thing, Congress will squawk that the policy is discriminatory against women. Female members of Congress will bleat that divorce essentially will oblige a female parent and soldier to choose between soldiering and parenthood. Husbands therefore will gain control over the careers of female soldiers by threatening divorce, therefore threatening female parents and soldiers to make the terrible choice. The female members of Congress would have a point.

Of course, putting them in the rear permanently imposes on everybody else who isn’t a single parent soldier. In the 1980’s, this was not a big deal. However, after 9/11 and the start of the year-out/year-home cycle, the problem with granting some soldiers permanent nondeployable status reared its ugly head.

There is a solution that the Army has been loathe to put into practice: allow single parent soldiers to have 1-2 family members considered dependents. The military is firmly wedded to the ideal of the nuclear family. This is a wonderful ideal, but it’s not realistic. If a female soldier parent finds herself divorced, rather than throw her and the Army’s investment in her skills out the door, give her a grace period to bring in a family member or two who become new dependents. These people then play the role that the spouse is supposed to play in terms of child care, etc. If the single parent soldier is unable to meet the deadline, then she gets the boot. The candidates for special dependent might be mother, father, brother, sister, adult child, or even grandparent. I’d be open to discussing whether uncles, aunts, and cousins ought to be considered.

Here’s the bottom line for me: children are a forever commitment, marriages end, and the force needs skilled professionals to stay in. Any jackasses can run off to Vegas and get married, thereby entering a special legal status that makes massive impositions on the military. Having kids is even easier. A force based on fidelity and commitment needs to recognize which commitments are more durable than others and work with the lasting ones to keep its skilled personnel in the force. If that means being flexible about who is called a dependent and gets to enjoy the privileges of post life, so be it.

*edited to fix typos and clarity*
Bullshit. <--------- I still stand by that. This just adds a dependent increasing the BAS and BAH for the Single Mom further increasing costs. This also assumes that there is a dependent relative capable of providing child care, willing to provide child care, and dependable to do it at a moments notice. That dependent would also have to move with Single Mom on each transfer to a new assignment.

That is more crowd pleasing for the masses. A populist view that every one should be cared for, and it is the duty of someone else to care for them.

That someone else is frequently named as a governmental entity.

Bullshit. It is the taxpayer. Other Soldiers and Civilians are working harder and taking home less because some self centered twat can't take adult precautions and not cause a pregnancy. Males are not immune from this scorn either.

The purpose of an Army is not to provide affordable childcare.

The purpose of an Army is to fight their Nations Wars and win them.

Cut
the
Fat.

Your idea creates entitlement for some other sub par slacker to set themselves up at the government trough. Not Fair.

Indeed it creates another dependent to care for the Child. One the Single Mom will receive supplementary pay for just to care for two.

I am all about pay and incentives! A twenty year retirement sets so many out with a pension at age 38! Current medicine makes having children, even having In Vitro with ova harvested at age 18, very, very possible. Frozen ova and sperm would be a minor cost and a huge savings compared to all the childcare costs incurred by an organization meant to fight wars. Even paying women a bonus for the implantation of a long term birth control device like norplant for instance is preferable to all the facilities on post now.

[ArmySGT.]

Or, "Jones, it's a shame your husband was KIA in the sandbox. Too bad for your fifteen year investment, too, because we're kicking your freeloading ass and your two kids out on the street. I don't know where we'll find another senior interrogator who speaks Arabic to replace you, but this man's Army ain't no place for a single parent."

All that said, I agree with the premise that family responsibilities have caused the burden of work and responsibilities to be shifted onto the backs of soldiers who have either a sufficient family support structure or who have no family commitments. Single parent soldiers should not be allowed to enlist unless they have a "special dependent" who can meet whatever criteria the Dept of Defense sees fit to impose for said special dependents.

This falls upon a special board. One that should be blind to race, gender, age, and other identifiers. A board that is convened solely for the purposes of retention. The official records of the Soldier should indicate their commitment to their profession of Soldier. The military schools they have attended, the correspodence the have completed, the civilian education they have amassed, the voluntary stuff like submissions for military schools, service clubs, and other voluntary community activities. That board shouldn't see just the latest PT test and weigh in but every single test from day one. That board should not see just the latest weapons qualifications but every single one. That board should also be presented with a report from the National Crime Information Computer aka the FBI database so that minor and major criminal offenders are in consideration too.

Skill ultimately can be bought.

[ArmySGT.]

On the other hand perhaps the military could step up here and offer free long term childcare for single parents while they're deployed/on duty? Give them a headstart on indoctrinating the next generation of mindless zombies/infantry soldiers. :p
Could even extend it to cover other single parent family and orphans. ;)

Pragmatic, however unpopular in a Republic were in Military Service is voluntary.

[pmulcahy11b]

Pragmatic, however unpopular in a Republic were in Military Service is voluntary.

I've often thought that government service (not necessarily military service) should be required in almost all cases. Not everyone is cut out to be military, but you might want to send a doctor or nurse to an underprivileged area, have people work on urban renewal projects, build and repair infrastructure, or otherwise use whatever skills to contribute to their country. They could even be taught skills, like doing a stint in the military does, in return for their service. College money or technical school money could be negotiated for at enlistment time.

[ArmySGT.]

I've often thought that government service (not necessarily military service) should be required in almost all cases. Not everyone is cut out to be military, but you might want to send a doctor or nurse to an underprivileged area, have people work on urban renewal projects, build and repair infrastructure, or otherwise use whatever skills to contribute to their country. They could even be taught skills, like doing a stint in the military does, in return for their service. College money or technical school money could be negotiated for at enlistment time.

This comes back to the issue of FRANCHISE or the issue of the VOTE.

How do you limit the quality of the vote to those qualified to vote??

[atiff]

This comes back to the issue of FRANCHISE or the issue of the VOTE.

How do you limit the quality of the vote to those qualified to vote??

Starship Troopers?

[dragoon500ly]

Starship Troopers?

That depends....are you sticking with the traditional Heinlein Starship Troops or are you going with the watered-down, touchy feel goody Hollywood version?

[Legbreaker]

Pragmatic, however unpopular in a Republic were in Military Service is voluntary.

Umm, everyone does realise this was a tongue in cheek suggestion and not to have been taken seriously? :confused:

[Webstral]

There is clearly a good deal of feeling underlying your position, Army Sgt. I'm glad of it, because those who love the Army are the most focused on the good of the Army. Your assertions deserve a well-considered reply. I'm not going to be in a position to write such a thing today, so a well-considered reply will have to wait until tomorrow, for the most part.

This falls upon a special board. One that should be blind to race, gender, age, and other identifiers. A board that is convened solely for the purposes of retention. The official records of the Soldier should indicate their commitment to their profession of Soldier. The military schools they have attended, the correspodence the have completed, the civilian education they have amassed, the voluntary stuff like submissions for military schools, service clubs, and other voluntary community activities. That board shouldn't see just the latest PT test and weigh in but every single test from day one. That board should not see just the latest weapons qualifications but every single one. That board should also be presented with a report from the National Crime Information Computer aka the FBI database so that minor and major criminal offenders are in consideration too.

I couldn't agree more. I will point out, though, that this idea flies in the face of an automatic severance for all single parent soldiers.

Skill ultimately can be bought.

No, it cannot. To be certain, money is involved. Failure to pay probably will result in a lack of needed skills. But the skills of the senior NCOs cannot be purchased like software or a weapons system. The skills that are the backbone of the force must be grown and developed over years of training and hard experience. Again, money is involved; but we cannot slap down a quarter-million dollars and get a quality sergeant first class off the shelf. Commodifying human qualities is the mistake made by capitalists; the assumption that money solves all problems belongs to people who have plenty of money and little practical experience. You don't strike me as a capitalist (not to be confused with someone who views capitalism as the engine of economic growth) or as someone who has more money than sense, Army Sgt.

Now, before anyone gets up in arms about how the idea of growing the skills of the senior NCOs has some sort of direct correlation to the young single moms making careers in the rear while other soldiers pull their weight, there is no direct correlation. I make it practice to point out fallacy where it appears. When I fail to do so, the unaddressed fallacy often reappears and bites me; ergo, I address it when it appears.

[ArmySGT.]

There is clearly a good deal of feeling underlying your position, Army Sgt. I'm glad of it, because those who love the Army are the most focused on the good of the Army. Your assertions deserve a well-considered reply. I'm not going to be in a position to write such a thing today, so a well-considered reply will have to wait until tomorrow, for the most part.I was an MP so all those Units are mixed Genders. I just have personal experience in the matter. I have been in units where the pregnant females made a platoon strength element. A Floor Platoon Corps MP Company that cannot in actuality field four platoons. In Garrison that means that Four under strength Platoons. Each with three Squads instead of four. If not two and a half. When it is deployment time for Training or for War what happens? Three platoons and then a Platoon is borrowed from another unit. All those females make up a huge rear detachment. A Lieutenant, a Platoon Sergeant, then Squad Leaders, and Team Leaders get screwed. They do not get that experience (ok well the metric F-Ton of paperwork) in Leadership on the ground doing their tasks. That kills their promotion down the road, especially Lieutenants. The problem then transitions into one of morale all the way down, not just the usual privates griping because it is not yet happy screw off time.

I couldn't agree more. I will point out, though, that this idea flies in the face of an automatic severance for all single parent soldiers.
That was in reply to the special "What if" of a long term NCO with a critical skill. That is unusual, since most of the single mom problem is first termers at or below the grade of E4. Those get the severance and the automatic not optional drop as it is now.

No, it cannot. To be certain, money is involved. Failure to pay probably will result in a lack of needed skills. But the skills of the senior NCOs cannot be purchased like software or a weapons system. The skills that are the backbone of the force must be grown and developed over years of training and hard experience. Again, money is involved; but we cannot slap down a quarter-million dollars and get a quality sergeant first class off the shelf. Commodifying human qualities is the mistake made by capitalists; the assumption that money solves all problems belongs to people who have plenty of money and little practical experience. You don't strike me as a capitalist (not to be confused with someone who views capitalism as the engine of economic growth) or as someone who has more money than sense, Army Sgt.

Most certainly is. Those Private Military Contractors like Blackwater gutted the MP Corp in 2004 and 2005. Two E7 Platoon Sergeants in addition to many E6 Staff Sergeants left. There were at least 8 Corporals and that promotion seldom happens just to fill Team Leader slots.

Even with the bonus pays and tax free the Army pay couldn't touch the $100,000 tax free pays going to PMCs.

I think what your speaking of is Training and that is something the Army is reluctant to invest in. Hence my above rant about NCO schooling. It is why I think that the first school the "Primary Leadership Development Course" should be a year long hardship tour and one that a person probably re-enlisted just to be eligible. Just like why the Military likes 16-18 year old recruits. You got them. Their still malleable and impressionable after a year of schooling the traits the Army needs will be ingrained in so deeply that it won't be conscious thought. Your going to wash out some their just going to fail on their own account, still better than finding out when the bullets are for real.

Now, before anyone gets up in arms about how the idea of growing the skills of the senior NCOs has some sort of direct correlation to the young single moms making careers in the rear while other soldiers pull their weight, there is no direct correlation. I make it practice to point out fallacy where it appears. When I fail to do so, the unaddressed fallacy often reappears and bites me; ergo, I address it when it appears.

Thought this went without saying?

[ArmySGT.]

Umm, everyone does realise this was a tongue in cheek suggestion and not to have been taken seriously? :confused:

Meh, who's angry?

[pmulcahy11b]

This comes back to the issue of FRANCHISE or the issue of the VOTE.

How do you limit the quality of the vote to those qualified to vote??

Right to vote and qualified to vote are two different things. Qualification, to me, smacks of Jim Crow and all the crap pulled by prejudiced, white people over time to limit the ability of minorities to vote. Or the crap being pulled by Republican governors or legislatures these days to prevent liberal and Democratic voters from voting. In my mind, even a homeless person who is a US citizen should have the right to vote.

Right to vote, however, deals with the requirements of the Constitution to vote, possibly (and I really mean possibly, reviewed by courts if there is the slightest question of unfairness) modified by state and local law. While I believe in a national service system, failure to take part should not remove your right to vote.

[Legbreaker]

Personally I believe the US system which doesn't require ALL those meeting the necessary criteria (age, nationality, etc) to vote is just plain asking for trouble. You can't possibly get a realistic representation of the peoples will from just those who can be bothered to show up and make their mark.
Sure in a compulsory system you get those who only show up just to get their name marked off, or donkey vote, or cast an informal vote, or otherwise screw up the simple task, but 99% still get the process right (even if they cast a boneheaded vote).
Yes, I get that whole "freedom to decide to vote or not" thing, but seriously, if you REALLY don't want to vote, then there are ways to avoid making your voice heard.

[Webstral]

Most certainly is. Those Private Military Contractors like Blackwater gutted the MP Corp in 2004 and 2005. Two E7 Platoon Sergeants in addition to many E6 Staff Sergeants left. There were at least 8 Corporals and that promotion seldom happens just to fill Team Leader slots.

Even with the bonus pays and tax free the Army pay couldn't touch the $100,000 tax free pays going to PMCs.

Blackwater lured your NCOs away, but Blackwater didn’t groom them. Without the institution of the Army, there would have been no experience base for Blackwater to purchase. The Army can’t produce seasoned veterans out of thin air no matter how much money Congress might decide to spend, and neither can Blackwater or anyone else. Money like what Blackwater was willing to spend can help shift existing assets around, but it can’t grow those assets without the additional inputs of time and experience.

Thought this went without saying?

So very many things that should go without saying don’t go without saying.

[atiff]

That depends....are you sticking with the traditional Heinlein Starship Troops or are you going with the watered-down, touchy feel goody Hollywood version?

The book, which I admit to not having read; although I have read articles summarizing the book's details.

[pmulcahy11b]

The book, which I admit to not having read; although I have read articles summarizing the book's details.

Well, the Hollywood version? There's a reason I refer to it as "That movie which shall not be called Starship Troopers."

[Fusilier]

Well, the Hollywood version? There's a reason I refer to it as "That movie which shall not be called Starship Troopers."

I thought it was a pretty funny movie.

[B.T.]

I thought it was a pretty funny movie.

Hm ... more or less. The novel by Henlein was a piece of serious utopian (or, if you like it better: dystopian) literature. The movie followed some elements of the story, but the sincere topics of the novel could not be transported into the movie. The movie was more a mix of WW II German uniforms and a lot of Games Workshop stuff.

The novel is worth reading, the movies is, from my personal point of view, nothing important.

[Fusilier]

I know, I read the book. Well most of it anyways. I just don't think the people who made the movie were trying to replicate the book too much. It was a just simple action/comedy flick.

[Webstral]

Personally I believe the US system which doesn't require ALL those meeting the necessary criteria (age, nationality, etc) to vote is just plain asking for trouble. You can't possibly get a realistic representation of the peoples will from just those who can be bothered to show up and make their mark.

Another way of looking at the issue is to see it in terms of self-interest. Citizens who seem themselves as having something to defend show up to vote. People who view themselves as disenfranchised don’t vote. I make a distinction between those who have a stake in the shape of the government—everybody—and those who perceive themselves as having a stake—less than half. Although I don’t much like Darwinian logic when it is applied to people off the battlefield, there is a degree to which those who can’t be bothered to participate deserve to be f***** in the *** and f***** hard without lube by the monied interests who always show up to vote. If you can’t be bothered to come out to vote every two years, why should the government or the rest of the nation give a damn about your well-being?

Sure in a compulsory system you get those who only show up just to get their name marked off, or donkey vote, or cast an informal vote, or otherwise screw up the simple task, but 99% still get the process right (even if they cast a boneheaded vote).
Yes, I get that whole "freedom to decide to vote or not" thing, but seriously, if you REALLY don't want to vote, then there are ways to avoid making your voice heard.

I’m far from convinced that compulsory voting solves any problems. Genuine participation requires informed opinion. I don’t know how it is in other nations, but here in the US the average voter knows vastly more about his local sports franchise than he does his elected officials. The ease with which the American voter is duped by the most transparent propaganda is disturbing. Bad as I thought things were in the early 1990’s, Fox News has demonstrated that a large segment of the American population will swallow any tripe they are fed, provided there’s lots of flag-waving and Patriotism Lite thrown in. You can get these people to the polls, but their votes only increase the dog-and-pony show aspects of the political system.

As for the issue raised by others regarding qualification v right to vote, I would vastly prefer to have some sort of investment in the well-being of the state required for voting. The idea that people get political power as some sort of birth right is Medieval. I don’t want universal conscription any more than anyone else concerned for the long-term effectiveness of the Army. However, some sort of investment ought to be required. The challenge, though, is to create a system that enables all those willing to bite the bullet (so to speak) to gain full voting citizenship, regardless of whether they are in a wheelchair or what have you while addressing the problem of grandfathering. At what age do we tell Americans they have to execute national service in order to keep voting? How do we handle the 50+ crowd? The obstacles to implementing such a scheme are so daunting as to make me think we can’t there from here, regardless of how much better the Promised Land might be.

[Webstral]

In keeping with the Army philosophy of putting the bottom line up front, I will say that I wholeheartedly agree with Army Sgt’s thesis that the purpose of the Army is to fight and win the nation’s wars. Every policy of the force needs to support the Army’s ability to fight and win at the lowest achievable cost in life and treasure. Policies that diminish the Army’s ability to fight and win at an acceptable cost must be modified or eliminated outright.

The issue at hand is policy regarding single parent soldiers. I agree with Army Sgt that the majority of soldiers in this category are women under the age of 24, though obviously there are women who are older and some single parent soldiers who are men in the force. The diversity of the population matters because the Army’s policy on dealing with single parent soldiers (I’m going to abbreviate single parent soldiers as SPS from this point forward) must reflect a commitment to fair treatment and the good of the force. The former matters because tort law and Congress are powers unto themselves, even if one does not agree that fair treatment is a necessity for the maintenance of morale among the troops. Dealing with the matter of SPS is a matter of improving the readiness of the force, not a witch hunt to get them unmarried moms who are riding the system.

Without a doubt, SPS present the force with a problem. SPS receive special treatment in the form of lax enforcement of professional duties. The child care responsibilities of the SPS population transform themselves into additional duties for other soldiers who either have their family care situation squared away or who have no family care obligations. In effect, the Army provides child care by displacing the SPS in question from her duties. This is horribly unfair, and everyone knows it. I was never exposed to this in the infantry or the combat engineers, but in MI I saw this sort of thing on regular basis. The CSS units on post suffered from this phenomenon even more than the MI units. Morale suffers. The ones who pick up the slack for the SPS are, by and large, men with families of their own and young men living in the barracks. Their attitudes towards this problem directly translate into retention issues.

While there is no doubt that the SPS phenomenon is a problem for the Army, a solution that satisfies everyone is difficult to find. Let’s face it: families are a double-edged sword. It’s bad enough that many of them men are distracted by their home lives. The challenge to find the right policies for managing military families became even more acute when women started joining the services in significant numbers. Soldiering and fertility do not mix well.

One of the more extreme solutions is to tell female soldiers that they cannot have any children as long as they wear the uniform. I’m not going to debate whether this approach is sensible or not because there is no chance that the US military will be able to enact such a policy. Congress will not stand for it. Rightly or wrongly, such a policy will be stillborn upon arrival in D.C.

Given that fertility and soldiering are unhappy bedfellows of the modern military, we need to come up with a way of managing the women in uniform who have children. For the purpose of this work, I’ll stick to the issue of managing SPS. They come in a few varieties. The type that so irks Army Sgt (and many others) is the single mom who either entered the service with children or who bore children after entering the service. No in-house support network is present, although these SPS may have arrangements with neighbors, etc. Another type is a divorcee who finds herself with custody but no husband. Yet another type is a widow. These latter groups are much, much more common today than they were the last time I lived on-post in the 1990’s. There are a few men who are SPS, but they pretty much fit into the same categories as their female counterparts. All of these varieties of SPS have a strong potential to place part of the burden of their responsibilities onto the shoulders of other soldiers. Late night missions to the motor pool (or wherever), Charge of Quarters, Staff Duty, and other garden variety responsibilities are pushed off onto soldiers who do not have children at home with no other support network besides the parent soldier. Deployments can be deferred or delayed, resulting in other soldiers assuming the burden of deployment. I can’t say it enough: it’s a crappy situation that needs to be addressed efficiently and effectively.

The solution of serving all of these women (and men) with their walking papers and severance pay is tempting by dint of its simplicity and seeming finality. This solution is both crude and indiscriminate. Moreover, the group being targeted—the SPS who is young and early in her career and who may never have married—has a ready-made solution: marriage. If PFC Smith, who is 20 and has a child but no husband, is presented with the prospect of being thrown out of the Army because she has no husband, she will find herself a husband rather promptly. To some degree, the issue of having extra duties passed off on other members of the unit will go away once PFC Smith has her new husband moved in. However, PFC Smith probably will be distracted. Impending divorce will hang over the house and therefore over Smith’s execution of her duties. As her marriage of convenience frays, Smith will worry more about her children than her responsibilities. While the tough-minded among us may say that this will provide us with the opportunity to shed PFC Smith, we should think about the process. There are no winners in this scenario—just some who lose more than others. The Army needs to put policies in place that are more constructive than punitive. Neither the institution of marriage nor the Army will derive benefit from further encouraging the types of marriages that so often occur at the Defense Language Institute. The Army communities don’t need any more marriages of convenience, any more divorces, any more soldiers who are so distracted during the execution of their daily duties that we are thankful that no one lost an arm today. Trying to boot out all SPS to get rid of the ones who are at the heart of the problem diminishes one problem at the expense of exacerbating others.

In the cases of women who find themselves SPS due to divorce or death, the issue becomes even more complex. Some of these women possess skills the Army needs. Personally, I find the idea that the Army would throw out an SPS who has lost her husband in the War on Terror morally and professionally repugnant. Worse, such a practice simply invites Congress to get even more into the Army’s business, since their interpretation of such a practice would be that the Army is full of moral degenerates who can’t be trusted to look after their own. Army Sgt already has proposed a thoroughgoing review by a board that would have access to records of the soldier’s entire career. I support this idea wholeheartedly.

At the heart of the problem with SPS is the conflict of time between the needs of the service, which extend beyond the 40-hour work week, and the needs of the children of soldiers. Even if we were to bar single mothers from enlisting, we can’t prevent women in uniform from having children. The Army can’t prevent them from divorcing, nor can it keep their husbands from dying. As long as there are women in the service, there will be SPS. However emotionally satisfying throwing them out on their fourth points of contact might be, doing so is not a viable option. Another solution has to be found.

Earlier in the thread, I proposed having SPS be empowered to designate a special dependent, which I will abbreviate SD. This suggestion got more-or-less the reception I expected for more-or-less the reason I expected. And let’s face it: the idea of telling a single mom whom we already believe is taking advantage of the system to the detriment of her fellow soldiers and the readiness of the force that she can move in her mom, her dad, her sister, or her cousin at the expense of the Army sticks in the craw. But let’s look at the battlefield objectively for a moment. The SPS could get married at any time, thus incurring the cost of an adult dependent at any time. If SPS aren’t getting married, it’s because they don’t see the need yet. Provide sufficient motive, and they will bring in a husband lickety split. If our objection genuinely is that the Army shouldn’t spend money on having these SPS bring an SD on post at the government’s cost, then our objection is flimsy to the point of being ridiculous. So if push comes to shove, the Army will find itself obliged to spend the money anyway.

So if we’re given a choice between a marriage of convenience for the SPS and allowing an SD, should we not choose in favor of the SD? Given that we’re not conducting a witch hunt to punish SPS for having children out of wedlock, for having a marriage that failed, or for becoming widows, is the goal of shifting the burden of child care from the unit back to the soldier and her dependents served just as well by allowing an SD as by having the SPS run out and find a warm body to marry? From the standpoint of stability, an SD is much better choice than a marriage of convenience. If need be, I’ll paint a picture of why the soldier’s mother, father, sister, grandmother, etc. are all better choices than marriage of convenience; but we’re all big boys here. This, at least, should go without saying.

Yet we are prejudiced against such arrangements, aren’t we? The idea of single moms in uniform eats at us. The idea of altering the time-honored arrangement of having only nuclear families on post is anathema to us. But why should it be? Look at the divorce rate among service members. Clearly the sacred nature of marriage isn’t being observed. Just as we would change our tactics on the battlefield, perhaps we need to be a bit more flexible in the rear. Heck, for all I care the SPS can bring their lesbian lovers on post, marry them, and have that kind of family. So long as the SPS is executing her responsibilities, and so long as the cost of her adult dependent is no greater than the cost of a male soldier with a wife at home raising the kids, then I don’t give a damn who her adult dependent is. If having the mother of the SPS live at home and mind the kids enables the Army to send the SPS overseas every other year, then I’m in favor of it. Better this than a marriage of convenience.

[rcaf_777]

No.

Ok we do in the Canadian Military not so much as paying for the whole daycare but we top up to offset costs incurred by 24 Hr care, most base also provide child care and base community support center maintian another list of those who provide child care, and also here in Canada we get money from the government for child care based on income so maybe if you had that in place single parents could make a good go of it

food for though

[Targan]

This is OT, and please don't think I'm criticising the USMC as a whole (as it is an instution for which I have great respect), but I must say I'm surprised and disturbed that after more than 6 years and a number of detailed investigations, the only outcome of the killing of 24 unarmed civilians in Haditha, Iraq , is a USMC Sgt receiving a demotion and no prison time or monentary penalty. All the other marines involved were exonerated.

Am I alone in my view on this? If I was a relative of any of those killed (which included 10 women and children) I would feel absolutely outraged at this outcome. I wasn't there, but in light of the facts as they stand it would seem to me that justice most certainly has not been seen to be done in this case.

[waiting4something]

This is OT, and please don't think I'm criticising the USMC as a whole (as it is an instution for which I have great respect), but I must say I'm surprised and disturbed that after more than 6 years and a number of detailed investigations, the only outcome of the killing of 24 unarmed civilians in Haditha, Iraq , is a USMC Sgt receiving a demotion and no prison time or monentary penalty. All the other marines involved were exonerated.

Am I alone in my view on this? If I was a relative of any of those killed (which included 10 women and children) I would feel absolutely outraged at this outcome. I wasn't there, but in light of the facts as they stand it would seem to me that justice most certainly has not been seen to be done in this case.

It's too hard to tell without really being there ourselves. We use combat soldiers like cops and then we act like we are shocked at the outcome. Civilians will always get killed in wars, they always have. For some reason it is viewed worse if you shoot them with a rifle, instead of dropping bombs on them.

[Legbreaker]

You can point your finger at the Private with the rifle and cry "SCAPEGOAT"!
Not so easy to do to a General and his staff who planned and ordered the airstrike.

[Webstral]

You can point your finger at the Private with the rifle and cry "SCAPEGOAT"!
Not so easy to do to a General and his staff who planned and ordered the airstrike.

We are excellent at blaming soldiers for the shortcomings of their leaders. Lt. Calley is a prime example. Abu Ghraib is another perfect example of what happens when the senior leadership creates a climate ripe for abuses. Individual soldiers need to know right from wrong, but senior leaders need to create command climates that support a soldier's human need to meld with the mentality of the organization.

[Webstral]

We use combat soldiers like cops and then we act like we are shocked at the outcome. Civilians will always get killed in wars, they always have. For some reason it is viewed worse if you shoot them with a rifle, instead of dropping bombs on them.

This is why I advocate two distinct field forces: an Army that kills folks and breaks things and an Army that handles peacekeeping, nation-building, etc. The soldiers who sign up for killing folks and breaking things should be kept doiing that and nothing else.

The Regular Army should handle the first job, for which they have the time and resources to train. Obviously, MP units from the Regular Army can be used in the peacekeeping role; but the combat arms of the Regular Army are attack dogs to be let off the leash only when we mean for them to take someone's arm off.

The National Guard should handle the second category of jobs: peacekeeping, nation-building, policing, etc. Temperamentally, the Guardsmen are better suited for not shooting people. The Guard generally have other jobs on the outside. Collectively, the Guard understands the situation in which the local nationals find themselves far better than the Regular Army. It's not that the Regular Army is full of bad people or unimaginative people. Maturity and life experience count for something, though. A Guardsman who runs his own business at home is going to understand the plight of the local shopkeeper better than a Regular Army rifleman who has been in the service since the day he graduated high school. Understanding the situation of the locals is the cornerstone of good policing, which is what OIF2 through the end were mostly about.

Of course, one can't do without the Regular Army. Every peacekeeping brigade needs to have at least a company of killers and breakers. In places where the peacekeeping effort borders on LIC, a given brigade might be mostly Regulars with peacekeepers attached. Overall, though, peacekeeping ought to be done by the older, part-time soldiers.

This means a much larger National Guard and Army Reserve, though. We can't have reservists called up for years at a time without a crisis on the scale of WW2. How we get a reserve force 2-3 times its current size is a matter for some consideration.

[Fusilier]

Am I alone in my view on this?

No, no you're not.

[pmulcahy11b]

I know, I read the book. Well most of it anyways. I just don't think the people who made the movie were trying to replicate the book too much. It was a just simple action/comedy flick.

I'd love to know what Heinlein's estate was thinking when they approved the use of his name...

[Fusilier]

I'd love to know what Heinlein's estate was thinking when they approved the use of his name...

Free money probably.

It got me wondering though, so I followed the usual tradition that everyone's does and read wikipedia. I found this...

"...most of the writing team reportedly were unaware of the novel at the time [pre-production]. According to the DVD commentary, Paul Verhoeven never finished reading the novel, claiming he read through the first few chapters..."

So it never really was intended to be a close adaption of the novel in the first place. With enough deviation from the original, there was little Heinlein's estate could have done with creative licensing anyway.

[pmulcahy11b]

"...most of the writing team reportedly were unaware of the novel at the time [pre-production]. According to the DVD commentary, Paul Verhoeven never finished reading the novel, claiming he read through the first few chapters..."


That's not just ridiculous, it's pathetic. Writing a screenplay for a book you know nothing about, and apparently wasn't really interested in reading.

[Fusilier]

That's not just ridiculous, it's pathetic. Writing a screenplay for a book you know nothing about, and apparently wasn't really interested in reading.

It wasn't for a book though... just a loose version of it.

Many films are inspired from books or even real life events, but deviate and are made differently on purpose. Apocalypse Now for example, is one the greatest films ever made, yet is quite different than Heart of Darkness, which it was adapted from.

[ArmySGT.]

That's not just ridiculous, it's pathetic. Writing a screenplay for a book you know nothing about, and apparently wasn't really interested in reading.

Actually Paul Verhoeven hated the book, it disgusted him. he threw away his copy calling it a "Fascist Utopia". Then went on to make a movie based upon the book, while lampooning the book at the same time dressing up everyone as Agents of the SS.

[ArmySGT.]

In keeping with the Army philosophy of putting the bottom line up front, I will say that I wholeheartedly agree with Army Sgt’s thesis that the purpose of the Army is to fight and win the nation’s wars. Every policy of the force needs to support the Army’s ability to fight and win at the lowest achievable cost in life and treasure. Policies that diminish the Army’s ability to fight and win at an acceptable cost must be modified or eliminated outright.

The issue at hand is policy regarding single parent soldiers. I agree with Army Sgt that the majority of soldiers in this category are women under the age of 24, though obviously there are women who are older and some single parent soldiers who are men in the force. The diversity of the population matters because the Army’s policy on dealing with single parent soldiers (I’m going to abbreviate single parent soldiers as SPS from this point forward) must reflect a commitment to fair treatment and the good of the force. The former matters because tort law and Congress are powers unto themselves, even if one does not agree that fair treatment is a necessity for the maintenance of morale among the troops. Dealing with the matter of SPS is a matter of improving the readiness of the force, not a witch hunt to get them unmarried moms who are riding the system.

Without a doubt, SPS present the force with a problem. SPS receive special treatment in the form of lax enforcement of professional duties. The child care responsibilities of the SPS population transform themselves into additional duties for other soldiers who either have their family care situation squared away or who have no family care obligations. In effect, the Army provides child care by displacing the SPS in question from her duties. This is horribly unfair, and everyone knows it. I was never exposed to this in the infantry or the combat engineers, but in MI I saw this sort of thing on regular basis. The CSS units on post suffered from this phenomenon even more than the MI units. Morale suffers. The ones who pick up the slack for the SPS are, by and large, men with families of their own and young men living in the barracks. Their attitudes towards this problem directly translate into retention issues.

While there is no doubt that the SPS phenomenon is a problem for the Army, a solution that satisfies everyone is difficult to find. Let’s face it: families are a double-edged sword. It’s bad enough that many of them men are distracted by their home lives. The challenge to find the right policies for managing military families became even more acute when women started joining the services in significant numbers. Soldiering and fertility do not mix well.

One of the more extreme solutions is to tell female soldiers that they cannot have any children as long as they wear the uniform. I’m not going to debate whether this approach is sensible or not because there is no chance that the US military will be able to enact such a policy. Congress will not stand for it. Rightly or wrongly, such a policy will be stillborn upon arrival in D.C.

Given that fertility and soldiering are unhappy bedfellows of the modern military, we need to come up with a way of managing the women in uniform who have children. For the purpose of this work, I’ll stick to the issue of managing SPS. They come in a few varieties. The type that so irks Army Sgt (and many others) is the single mom who either entered the service with children or who bore children after entering the service. No in-house support network is present, although these SPS may have arrangements with neighbors, etc. Another type is a divorcee who finds herself with custody but no husband. Yet another type is a widow. These latter groups are much, much more common today than they were the last time I lived on-post in the 1990’s. There are a few men who are SPS, but they pretty much fit into the same categories as their female counterparts. All of these varieties of SPS have a strong potential to place part of the burden of their responsibilities onto the shoulders of other soldiers. Late night missions to the motor pool (or wherever), Charge of Quarters, Staff Duty, and other garden variety responsibilities are pushed off onto soldiers who do not have children at home with no other support network besides the parent soldier. Deployments can be deferred or delayed, resulting in other soldiers assuming the burden of deployment. I can’t say it enough: it’s a crappy situation that needs to be addressed efficiently and effectively.

The solution of serving all of these women (and men) with their walking papers and severance pay is tempting by dint of its simplicity and seeming finality. This solution is both crude and indiscriminate. Moreover, the group being targeted—the SPS who is young and early in her career and who may never have married—has a ready-made solution: marriage. If PFC Smith, who is 20 and has a child but no husband, is presented with the prospect of being thrown out of the Army because she has no husband, she will find herself a husband rather promptly. To some degree, the issue of having extra duties passed off on other members of the unit will go away once PFC Smith has her new husband moved in. However, PFC Smith probably will be distracted. Impending divorce will hang over the house and therefore over Smith’s execution of her duties. As her marriage of convenience frays, Smith will worry more about her children than her responsibilities. While the tough-minded among us may say that this will provide us with the opportunity to shed PFC Smith, we should think about the process. There are no winners in this scenario—just some who lose more than others. The Army needs to put policies in place that are more constructive than punitive. Neither the institution of marriage nor the Army will derive benefit from further encouraging the types of marriages that so often occur at the Defense Language Institute. The Army communities don’t need any more marriages of convenience, any more divorces, any more soldiers who are so distracted during the execution of their daily duties that we are thankful that no one lost an arm today. Trying to boot out all SPS to get rid of the ones who are at the heart of the problem diminishes one problem at the expense of exacerbating others.

In the cases of women who find themselves SPS due to divorce or death, the issue becomes even more complex. Some of these women possess skills the Army needs. Personally, I find the idea that the Army would throw out an SPS who has lost her husband in the War on Terror morally and professionally repugnant. Worse, such a practice simply invites Congress to get even more into the Army’s business, since their interpretation of such a practice would be that the Army is full of moral degenerates who can’t be trusted to look after their own. Army Sgt already has proposed a thoroughgoing review by a board that would have access to records of the soldier’s entire career. I support this idea wholeheartedly.

At the heart of the problem with SPS is the conflict of time between the needs of the service, which extend beyond the 40-hour work week, and the needs of the children of soldiers. Even if we were to bar single mothers from enlisting, we can’t prevent women in uniform from having children. The Army can’t prevent them from divorcing, nor can it keep their husbands from dying. As long as there are women in the service, there will be SPS. However emotionally satisfying throwing them out on their fourth points of contact might be, doing so is not a viable option. Another solution has to be found.

Earlier in the thread, I proposed having SPS be empowered to designate a special dependent, which I will abbreviate SD. This suggestion got more-or-less the reception I expected for more-or-less the reason I expected. And let’s face it: the idea of telling a single mom whom we already believe is taking advantage of the system to the detriment of her fellow soldiers and the readiness of the force that she can move in her mom, her dad, her sister, or her cousin at the expense of the Army sticks in the craw. But let’s look at the battlefield objectively for a moment. The SPS could get married at any time, thus incurring the cost of an adult dependent at any time. If SPS aren’t getting married, it’s because they don’t see the need yet. Provide sufficient motive, and they will bring in a husband lickety split. If our objection genuinely is that the Army shouldn’t spend money on having these SPS bring an SD on post at the government’s cost, then our objection is flimsy to the point of being ridiculous. So if push comes to shove, the Army will find itself obliged to spend the money anyway.

So if we’re given a choice between a marriage of convenience for the SPS and allowing an SD, should we not choose in favor of the SD? Given that we’re not conducting a witch hunt to punish SPS for having children out of wedlock, for having a marriage that failed, or for becoming widows, is the goal of shifting the burden of child care from the unit back to the soldier and her dependents served just as well by allowing an SD as by having the SPS run out and find a warm body to marry? From the standpoint of stability, an SD is much better choice than a marriage of convenience. If need be, I’ll paint a picture of why the soldier’s mother, father, sister, grandmother, etc. are all better choices than marriage of convenience; but we’re all big boys here. This, at least, should go without saying.

Yet we are prejudiced against such arrangements, aren’t we? The idea of single moms in uniform eats at us. The idea of altering the time-honored arrangement of having only nuclear families on post is anathema to us. But why should it be? Look at the divorce rate among service members. Clearly the sacred nature of marriage isn’t being observed. Just as we would change our tactics on the battlefield, perhaps we need to be a bit more flexible in the rear. Heck, for all I care the SPS can bring their lesbian lovers on post, marry them, and have that kind of family. So long as the SPS is executing her responsibilities, and so long as the cost of her adult dependent is no greater than the cost of a male soldier with a wife at home raising the kids, then I don’t give a damn who her adult dependent is. If having the mother of the SPS live at home and mind the kids enables the Army to send the SPS overseas every other year, then I’m in favor of it. Better this than a marriage of convenience.

My self Marriage of any sort is between the individuals entering it such a Contract. A contract that care for the parties in it, and the equitable distribution when the Contract is dissolved. Be that Man and Woman, Man and Man, Woman and Woman, or multiples in Polygamy or Polyandry. The Evangelical movement spends a lot of time and money here in Colorado Springs wooing Air Force Academy Cadets, to influence the Military in the future.

So for myself I don't care, but will the Armed Forces change the 18th and 19th Century ideals in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Seems like it could go either way, the Evangelicals were able to remove pornography from the Post Exchange with a "Service Members Morality act" or some nonsense, and lost the gays serving openly fight. So will the Military have to recognize gay marriage even in States where this is not recognized? Certainly.

Now back to the Single Parent Soldier issue. I still recommend without reservation their dismissal from the Service with a severance package, to include the complete GI bill if they have not served long enough to pay it off. I think the majority would jump for it, and a policy that the Army might even come to regret itself if it sees a surge in female enlistment only to find the majority are exiting the Service in under 12 - 18 months.

The marriage of convenience. It happens, no denying that. However for all the reasons cited they dissolve just as quickly with even more permanent consequences for the SPS. Fraud being foremost among the charges. It is a rare one indeed that makes good on the intended purpose.

I don't believe adding another dependent with the hope that person could be a responsible caregiver, then watching, waiting, doing counselings, meetings, tours of the residence, and in general drawing the process out so there is a "indisputable case" is really a priority for an organization in armed conflict. It is the one in place. So while a unit should be resting, recuperating, integrating new Soldiers, training and promoting new Leaders.......... They get bogged down by Soldiers that have other priorities, and no longer meet the needs of the Service. Time taken to counsel and correct problem Soldiers; is time taken from training and Mentoring the stellar performers, that make units great, sometimes Elite.

I will support a plan that objectively evaluates a Soldier in many regards, and truthfully maybe a Single Parent Soldier is so valuable that the Army should retain them. However even if they are the units sole proficient speaker of Farsi, Pashtun, Yemeni; if everything else such as fitness, weapons quals, and pursuit of personal and professional education marks them as the bare minimum performer dismiss them.

I still advocate for their dismissal with six months severance in lieu of the costs that are incurred in caring for them, their dependent, and the harm they will cost units in Morale, training effectively, and in retention of good soldiers. Those getting a quick marriage to stay in? Good for them, I hope they make it. One in ten will, the rest will still get discharged in time often with less than honorables and criminal record.

BTW while Congress can get involved in the Military and propose acts that can become Law if the President signs them, most are aware of what a large voting block Soldiers and Veterans are.

As for Tort Laws, the Feres Doctrine prevents Soldiers from suing the Army. Can't do it. You can petition for recompense through the Veterans Administration as a recourse..

[ShadoWarrior]

Actually Paul Verhoeven hated the book, it disgusted him. he threw away his copy calling it a "Fascist Utopia". Then went on to make a movie based upon the book, while lampooning the book at the same time dressing up everyone as Agents of the SS.Which just demonstrates that he utterly failed to comprehend the book. The Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers) article on the book goes into nice detail refuting Verhoeven's cluelessness regarding what fascism is and how the society in book is categorically not a fascist state. Fascist states don't have democratic elections. Of course Verhoeven would have had to bother to read the whole book, and read it carefully. I'm sure that he started reading what little he read with preconceived notions and only saw what he wanted to see.

Starship Troopers is one of Heinlein's finest works, IMO, and deservedly won the Hugo award in 1960. Its messages still resonate over 50 years later.

[Webstral]

Army Sgt., your argument deserves a well-considered reply. I'll keep working on it as time allows.

[Webstral]

After thinking about your defense of automatic dismissal of all single parents, Army Sgt, the most important question is this: what is the mission statement for your policy? What are we trying to accomplish? The obvious answer is that you want to improve the quality of the force, and you seem to believe that a blanket policy of dismissal is going to achieve that end with the greatest efficacy and the least cost to the force. Let’s go beyond that and restate the problems you want to address as specifically as possible.

By the way, I did read that you agree that a board of review is a good idea. I note as well that you want meeting the minimums to count against the SPS in terms of retention. From a management standpoint, this idea doesn’t stand. The minimum is the minimum because that’s a passing grade for the force. If you don’t like the minimums where they are, advocate moving them. I certainly don’t believe that 60/100, which was the minimum in 2005, is acceptable as a fitness standard. I don’t believe that 24/40 is an acceptable standard for marksmanship when only 3 of the targets are 300 meters from the firing position. Regardless of my beliefs, though, the Big Army says those standards are sufficient for retention. We can’t set up separate standards for soldiers who happen to be single parents by saying that the minimum is good enough to retain a married soldier or a soldier with no children but not good enough to retain a soldier who is a single parent. Either the soldier meets the established standards or she doesn’t.

What you can do is prevent favorable actions being taken on behalf of the soldier who hits the minimum consistently. No PLDC, no other schools, etc. until the soldier meets some other standard that applies to everyone in the force or at least everyone in the specific command. We also can advocate for raising the minimum. We can and should raise establish minimums by MOS, such that the combat arms have to get 80/100 or some such. Of course, this action is likely to affect a lot of people beyond the single parents. But then, we’re not conducting a witch hunt here, are we? We’re not attempting to create policies that target a whole group we don’t like; we’re looking at specific and measurable performance criteria that improve the ability of the force to take to the battlefield.

Now back to the Single Parent Soldier issue. I still recommend without reservation their dismissal from the Service with a severance package, to include the complete GI bill if they have not served long enough to pay it off. I think the majority would jump for it, and a policy that the Army might even come to regret itself if it sees a surge in female enlistment only to find the majority are exiting the Service in under 12 - 18 months.

I respect your service. I respect your obvious commitment to the good of the Army and the sacrifices you have made for the good of the nation. Your ideas are worth taking seriously, if only because you’ve paid the price. Within that context, this is a terrible idea. Worse, you seem to know it but advocate it anyway. This is why I use the term “witch hunt”: you want these young ladies gone so badly that you defend a policy you know has a seriously negative outcome for the force.

Let’s think this one through for a moment. The Army invests real money in getting a recruit through her IET (or whatever Initial Entry Training is called these days). Let’s look at a linguist or an electronics specialist who has a lengthy IET and therefore costs more than the average new soldier. If the Army establishes a policy of getting rid of SPS automatically, then we’re setting ourselves up to be taken to the cleaners financially and in terms of readiness. Sally Jones, who has reasoned this all through, joins the force and gets the good training, plus a paycheck besides. She stays in long enough to qualify for the GI Bill, then gets herself pregnant. Once she gives birth, the Army gives her a severance and puts her out. She gets the GI Bill to attend the college of her choice, she goes home without serving, she gets to have that good Army training in a technical field, and the Army is now back to square one in terms of filling the need for a junior enlisted specialist in whatever field Jones was trained in. The Army is now out the cost of training Jones, the GI Bill, Jones’ severance, and Jones’ monthly pay up to the point she was put out for having a child out of wedlock. Worse, Jones tells all her friends how she did it. How long does it take before the recruiters are deluged with young women willing to put up with 12-18 months of BS to get the GI Bill, the pay, the marketable skills etc.? How much money does the Army throw down that hole before the bean counters demand a change of policy?

Again, I agree that the SPS presents a problem. Just as we need a more sophisticated philosophy for dealing with hajji than “shoot ‘em all”, we need a more nuanced philosophy than “kick ‘em all out” or even “set ‘em up to do the wrong thing, punish ‘em, and then kick ‘em out”.

[Webstral]

Starship Troopers is one of Heinlein's finest works, IMO, and deservedly won the Hugo award in 1960. Its messages still resonate over 50 years later.

I agree. I especially appreciate his thesis that the people who are best fit to run the State are the ones who put their lives on the line in service of the State. Character outweighs capability.

I'm sick to death of American chickenhawks who couldn't be bothered to serve when they were young, then become warmongers after they are too old to participate. "We need to go get them Iranian/Muslims/terrorists/bad people/foreign nationals" when there's no "we" about it. I'm sick to death of Americans whose idea of citizenship is limited to the grudging payment of taxes. If only folks who had completed national service (not limited to the military) voted or could hold office, American politics would shift somewhat to the Right, but at least everyone in Congress would have similar experiences. They'd be able to sit down around a table with mutual respect for each other and the knowledge that everyone there had a commitment to the nation's best interests.

[Sanjuro]

I'm sick to death of American chickenhawks who couldn't be bothered to serve when they were young, then become warmongers after they are too old to participate.
Not only a problem in the US.
When he was leader of the Liberal Democrats , Paddy Ashdown (former SBS) used to say he was the only trained killer to be a party leader. Then he would add:
"Mrs Thatcher was entirely self-taught."

[Raellus]

I agree. I especially appreciate his thesis that the people who are best fit to run the State are the ones who put their lives on the line in service of the State. Character outweighs capability.

I agree with the sentiment of this idea, but I think that the premise is a little thin.

There was a really interesting article in TIME magazine a couple of months ago about the U.S. military becoming more insular over the past decade or so. Real wages for members of the military have risen faster than the national average. The proportion of Republicans vs. Democrats currently serving in the U.S. military has been skewing further and further right. The military is currently not a representative cross section of the rest of the country. More military men and women hail from the south and midwest than from other regions. The military is, in effect, one very large red state.

I guess I'm just afraid that Heinlein's political ideal would in fact lead to a martial society and/or fascist or feudalistic state. Any civilization/state in history that has based citizenship/voting rights and office-holding on military service has gone that route, except maybe for Athens.

Instead of military service being a prerequisite for voting rights, make it any public service job- a year in the peace corps, teaching in public schools, working for a free clinic, etc.

I'm sick to death of American chickenhawks who couldn't be bothered to serve when they were young, then become warmongers after they are too old to participate. "We need to go get them Iranian/Muslims/terrorists/bad people/foreign nationals" when there's no "we" about it. I'm sick to death of Americans whose idea of citizenship is limited to the grudging payment of taxes. If only folks who had completed national service (not limited to the military) voted or could hold office, American politics would shift somewhat to the Right, but at least everyone in Congress would have similar experiences. They'd be able to sit down around a table with mutual respect for each other and the knowledge that everyone there had a commitment to the nation's best interests.

Hear, hear! This reminds me of the scenes in F911 where Moore acosts Congressmen and asks them if they'd be willing to send their kids to Iraq. IIRC, only one congressman had a kid on active duty in Iraq at the time.

[dragoon500ly]

There was a really interesting article in TIME magazine a couple of months ago about the U.S. military becoming more insular over the past decade or so. Real wages for members of the military have risen faster than the national average. The proportion of Republicans vs. Democrats currently serving in the U.S. military has been skewing further and further right. The military is currently not a representative cross section of the rest of the country. More military men and women hail from the south and midwest than from other regions. The military is, in effect, one very large red state.

Sad but very true, but then the military has always had a large percentage of its people come form the West, Mid West and Southern states. And that usually means that the military tends to be a lot more conserative than the rest of the country. Two of the most populous states are NY and CA...and its surprising how few people from those states serve.

I guess I'm just afraid that Heinlein's political ideal would in fact lead to a martial society and/or fascist or feudalistic state. Any civilization/state in history that has based citizenship/voting rights and office-holding on military service has gone that route, except maybe for Athens.

Instead of military service being a prerequisite for voting rights, make it any public service job- a year in the peace corps, teaching in public schools, working for a free clinic, etc.

I can live with some form of national service, be it Meals on Wheels, March of Dimes, Habitats for Humanity and so on...right on up to offering to pay the tution for doctors/nurses in return for 6 years in a free clinic. The key point is that as long as the individual contributes to society, than they earn the right to take part in leading that society...

Hear, hear! This reminds me of the scenes in F911 where Moore acosts Congressmen and asks them if they'd be willing to send their kids to Iraq. IIRC, only one congressman had a kid on active duty in Iraq at the time.

Hmmmm, intresting question...does Mr. Moore have any children who serve their country? If you can't walk the walk...then shut the f**k up!!!

[Panther Al]

Not only a problem in the US.
When he was leader of the Liberal Democrats , Paddy Ashdown (former SBS) used to say he was the only trained killer to be a party leader. Then he would add:
"Mrs Thatcher was entirely self-taught."

You know, for all the reasons that I liked the Iron Lady, her willingness to take anyone and everyone to task has always been the tops. And that quote is spot on!

[Raellus]

Hmmmm, intresting question...does Mr. Moore have any children who serve their country? If you can't walk the walk...then shut the f**k up!!!

I don't think he has kids period. But he didn't vote to go to war, so it's apples and oranges regardless.

[Legbreaker]

...does Mr. Moore have any children who serve their country? If you can't walk the walk...then shut the f**k up!!!

I doubt it matters if he has children or not since he's only asking those in power you are making the decisions whether or not THEY have children in the military who THEY would be willing to put in harms way along with everyone elses kids....Mr Moore's opinion and personal position isn't the issue - the Congressmens is.

[Webstral]

Instead of military service being a prerequisite for voting rights, make it any public service job- a year in the peace corps, teaching in public schools, working for a free clinic, etc.

I agree wholeheartedly. I might quibble about how long a non-hazardous commitment might have to be, but like you, Rae, I see hazards in having a society run exclusively by veterans. National service ought to be a genuine act of self-sacrifice or deprivation that causes folks from all walks of life and income levels to rub elbows as they serve the interests of the State for their term of service. Doctors working for a free clinic for a period of time certainly would end up paying their dues.

[Adm.Lee]

[QUOTE=Raellus;43244
There was a really interesting article in TIME magazine a couple of months ago about the U.S. military becoming more insular over the past decade or so. Real wages for members of the military have risen faster than the national average. The proportion of Republicans vs. Democrats currently serving in the U.S. military has been skewing further and further right. The military is currently not a representative cross section of the rest of the country. More military men and women hail from the south and midwest than from other regions. The military is, in effect, one very large red state.

I guess I'm just afraid that Heinlein's political ideal would in fact lead to a martial society and/or fascist or feudalistic state. Any civilization/state in history that has based citizenship/voting rights and office-holding on military service has gone that route, except maybe for Athens.

Instead of military service being a prerequisite for voting rights, make it any public service job- a year in the peace corps, teaching in public schools, working for a free clinic, etc. [/QUOTE]

From my readings, the rightward (and evangelical Christian) shift among the services has been a slow increase since the '70s (i.e. the shift from conscription). I don't know that it is correctable, or needs correcting, but it should preclude something like military service before voting rights. Now, if conscription had remained in place, my opinion might have been different.

Either way, I prefer the idea of national service of some kind before voting rights* . I would prefer it not to be purely military service, not least because my own medical history prevented me from serving. Teachers' Corps, service jobs, big infrastructure projects, doctors to rural or urban clinics, whatever.

*Perhaps just before Federal voting rights? A high-school diploma/GED gets you the right to vote in local and state elections, but service is required before rights to vote in Federal elections? Just thinking out loud.

[dragoon500ly]

I doubt it matters if he has children or not since he's only asking those in power you are making the decisions whether or not THEY have children in the military who THEY would be willing to put in harms way along with everyone elses kids....Mr Moore's opinion and personal position isn't the issue - the Congressmens is.

Last time I checked, the Congressional Record (2009), some 41% of the members of both houses had served in the military or had children who were currently or had served in the military. IMHO, when some one shoves a microphone into the face of a Congressman and bellows "do you have children who serve..." kinda ignores the fact that some members of both houses really do have full knowledge of what they are asking their fellow countrymen to do when they make the decision to send our troops into harm's way.

Michael Moore generates a lot of heat with his actions, to be fair, he does have some valid points, but, again, IMHO his primary purpose is not to make a difference, but to rake in money. All power to him! He has every right to earn a living at whatever makes him happy and I respect him for that. I am also of the opinion that Mr. Moore either ignores or completely disregards the facts when they may happen to interfere with the story that he is spinning.

Sorry, but when I see someone trying to score points for their agenda by pulling, for example, some of Mr. Moore's stunts, I do tend to see red and start asking, "and when did you last serve your country sir?"

[ShadoWarrior]

IMHO, when some one shoves a microphone into the face of a Congressman and bellows "do you have children who serve..." kinda ignores the fact that some members of both houses really do have full knowledge of what they are asking their fellow countrymen to do when they make the decision to send our troops into harm's way.
OTOH, most of the leadership of both parties, especially most (if not all) of the committee chairpersons, have not served. Nor do their privileged children. Yet they are the ones that set agendas and ram them down the throats of everyone else. Usually to the detriment of the nation.

[dragoon500ly]

OTOH, most of the leadership of both parties, especially most (if not all) of the committee chairpersons, have not served. Nor do their privileged children. Yet they are the ones that set agendas and ram them down the throats of everyone else. Usually to the detriment of the nation.

No argument here!

That's the most important part of the problem that is currently infesting our capital. We have elected individuals who have kissed the right bums, sold their souls to their local PACs and have utterly forgotten, if they ever understood, that they are there to represent the citizens of the United States.

But is that the fault of the elected (mis)representatives?

Or is it, instead, the fault of the voters who no longer bother to look at the qualifications of the candiates?

[Legbreaker]

Or is it simply the fault of a deeply flawed system that allows such travesty?

[Webstral]

In a representative form of government, the people elect folks like themselves. The citizenry of the US largely has avoided military service, so they elect representatives who have avoided service. The last fighting leader was Bush the elder. Perhaps not coincidentally, he was wise enough to lay out strategic objectives for the military and leave the operational aspects to the men in uniform. He also was not interested in winning on the cheap, which the US tried to make work in Iraq until we hand the mess off to the locals, and which we have been trying to make work in Afghanistan.

Interestingly enough, Bush the elder was willing to accept the possibility of tens of thousands of casualties in Operation Desert Storm. He went with the Vietnam-born philosophy that if you need one division, bring three. He listened to his generals and admirals. His son, on the other hand, went with the philosophy that the lowest bidder among his advisors must be the guy with the best plan. He got rid of generals who told him he'd need to put some skin into the game to win the right way. It may be a coincidence that one of these men fought in WW2, while the other managed to duck out of the National Guard before it sucked him into something uncomfortable. It may not be a coincidence, though.

[pmulcahy11b]

I also agree with Bill Maher: "Never underestimate the stupidity of the American voter."

[ArmySGT.]

After thinking about your defense of automatic dismissal of all single parents, Army Sgt, the most important question is this: what is the mission statement for your policy? What are we trying to accomplish? The obvious answer is that you want to improve the quality of the force, and you seem to believe that a blanket policy of dismissal is going to achieve that end with the greatest efficacy and the least cost to the force. Let’s go beyond that and restate the problems you want to address as specifically as possible.

By the way, I did read that you agree that a board of review is a good idea. I note as well that you want meeting the minimums to count against the SPS in terms of retention. From a management standpoint, this idea doesn’t stand. The minimum is the minimum because that’s a passing grade for the force. If you don’t like the minimums where they are, advocate moving them. I certainly don’t believe that 60/100, which was the minimum in 2005, is acceptable as a fitness standard. I don’t believe that 24/40 is an acceptable standard for marksmanship when only 3 of the targets are 300 meters from the firing position. Regardless of my beliefs, though, the Big Army says those standards are sufficient for retention. We can’t set up separate standards for soldiers who happen to be single parents by saying that the minimum is good enough to retain a married soldier or a soldier with no children but not good enough to retain a soldier who is a single parent. Either the soldier meets the established standards or she doesn’t.

What you can do is prevent favorable actions being taken on behalf of the soldier who hits the minimum consistently. No PLDC, no other schools, etc. until the soldier meets some other standard that applies to everyone in the force or at least everyone in the specific command. We also can advocate for raising the minimum. We can and should raise establish minimums by MOS, such that the combat arms have to get 80/100 or some such. Of course, this action is likely to affect a lot of people beyond the single parents. But then, we’re not conducting a witch hunt here, are we? We’re not attempting to create policies that target a whole group we don’t like; we’re looking at specific and measurable performance criteria that improve the ability of the force to take to the battlefield.



I respect your service. I respect your obvious commitment to the good of the Army and the sacrifices you have made for the good of the nation. Your ideas are worth taking seriously, if only because you’ve paid the price. Within that context, this is a terrible idea. Worse, you seem to know it but advocate it anyway. This is why I use the term “witch hunt”: you want these young ladies gone so badly that you defend a policy you know has a seriously negative outcome for the force.

Let’s think this one through for a moment. The Army invests real money in getting a recruit through her IET (or whatever Initial Entry Training is called these days). Let’s look at a linguist or an electronics specialist who has a lengthy IET and therefore costs more than the average new soldier. If the Army establishes a policy of getting rid of SPS automatically, then we’re setting ourselves up to be taken to the cleaners financially and in terms of readiness. Sally Jones, who has reasoned this all through, joins the force and gets the good training, plus a paycheck besides. She stays in long enough to qualify for the GI Bill, then gets herself pregnant. Once she gives birth, the Army gives her a severance and puts her out. She gets the GI Bill to attend the college of her choice, she goes home without serving, she gets to have that good Army training in a technical field, and the Army is now back to square one in terms of filling the need for a junior enlisted specialist in whatever field Jones was trained in. The Army is now out the cost of training Jones, the GI Bill, Jones’ severance, and Jones’ monthly pay up to the point she was put out for having a child out of wedlock. Worse, Jones tells all her friends how she did it. How long does it take before the recruiters are deluged with young women willing to put up with 12-18 months of BS to get the GI Bill, the pay, the marketable skills etc.? How much money does the Army throw down that hole before the bean counters demand a change of policy?

Again, I agree that the SPS presents a problem. Just as we need a more sophisticated philosophy for dealing with hajji than “shoot ‘em all”, we need a more nuanced philosophy than “kick ‘em all out” or even “set ‘em up to do the wrong thing, punish ‘em, and then kick ‘em out”.

I consider this with one short term and one long term goal.

The short term goal is to break the "Single Mom is ok in the Army" Culture of acceptance. Leadership has been running away from the issue. Otherwise hard ass Sergeant Majors haul ass at the sight of a Private with a pregnant belly. We know from experience that the hint of impropriety is as good as conviction when it comes to Boards and Awards. An accusation of Misogyny is a career killer in Combat Service Support (CSS) units.

I want to break that cultural shift. This is called the Service. Programs to aid Single Moms are called Welfare. This is not a third world army with 500,000 on the payroll to keep the unemployment numbers down.

The second is the long term. That female terp or tech is costly. No doubt. What is 80,000 to the US Army that bulldozed the four year old Bob Hope Chow hall? This cost 8 million to build?

That 80,000 is going to balloon way up over time. Look at all the facilities, the incentive pays, the housing, the education. The Army could lose 80 to 100k discharging the single mom, and retain many, many, many times that amount in not having to build and staff day care centers, salaries for pediatricians, child development workers, child psychiatrists, and all the other support structures and facilities.

I think a consistent record for hitting the minimum should be a bar to service. That prior to the E5 board you have to have maxed the correspondence course points. There is no excuse it is free, and only requires time. That PT tests and Marksmanship are an average of qualifications on the primary weapon system (or the M16A2 if the primary is something like the M1A2 Abrams)not a one time score.

The Army just announced today (2/6/2012) there are plans in the works to further reduce the Army to pre-9/11 strengths of 480,000.

If .01% of that force is an undeployable single parent; that is 4,800 Soldiers re-assigned to Stateside desk jobs and programs. A Brigade equivalent.

Can we really afford that?

[Legbreaker]

That PT tests and Marksmanship are an average of qualifications on the primary weapon system (or the M16A2 if the primary is something like the M1A2 Abrams)not a one time score.

The one adjustment to that I'd make is the average should be over the last say 24 months, not a soldiers entire career. Skill levels change over time and so does fitness - somebody who was an olympic level athlete when they joined up 10 years previously could have fitness results that skew them a decade later when they're a 300 lb tub of lard. Marksmanship skills could likewise be skewed by having been woeful on day one but improved to sniper skill levels later.

Less than 24 months runs the risk of aberant results ruining (or making) a career, greater than 24 and past screwups/heroic performances have too great an impact.

Naturally some allowance would need to be made for unusual circumstances such as an injury effecting performance or a two year deployment to the arctic reducing the soldiers opportunity to practise for a swim test....

[ArmySGT.]

The one adjustment to that I'd make is the average should be over the last say 24 months, not a soldiers entire career. Skill levels change over time and so does fitness - somebody who was an olympic level athlete when they joined up 10 years previously could have fitness results that skew them a decade later when they're a 300 lb tub of lard. Marksmanship skills could likewise be skewed by having been woeful on day one but improved to sniper skill levels later.

Less than 24 months runs the risk of aberant results ruining (or making) a career, greater than 24 and past screwups/heroic performances have too great an impact.

Naturally some allowance would need to be made for unusual circumstances such as an injury effecting performance or a two year deployment to the arctic reducing the soldiers opportunity to practise for a swim test....

Yes, obviously and for those reasons.

With that I would propose to new Specialties for the Army. A Physical Fitness Corps and a Marksmanship Instruction Corps.

I have scene far to much pencil whipped score cards. Having these instructed upon, tested, and evaluated by NCOs outside of a Units Chain would be a vast improvement for the US Army especially in CSS units.

If you need an example the British Army has had a PF Corps for something like 100 years.

[Legbreaker]

Here in Australia PTI's (Physical Training Instructors) are part of the Medical Corps, a minimum rank of Corporal and fully trained as medics (to resuscitate their victims). Universally loathed for the torture they inflict on the average soldier (and dreaded by those below average) they are the embodiment of physical prowess - they put civilian gym instructors and body builders to shame in both fitness and sadism. PTI's off duty are usually found running marathons or triathalons just for fun.

Marksmanship is handled "in house" by the individual unit. Usually instructors are at least Corporals (equivalent to US Sergeants) but occasionally a talented Lance Corporal or even senior Private might get the job (more common in the infantry, less in other Corps).

[Webstral]

Let’s start with the areas in which we see eye-to-eye.

Otherwise hard ass Sergeant Majors haul ass at the sight of a Private with a pregnant belly. We know from experience that the hint of impropriety is as good as conviction when it comes to Boards and Awards. An accusation of Misogyny is a career killer in Combat Service Support (CSS) units. I want to break that cultural shift.

I agree with changing the culture 100%. I won’t relate any of my stories about the abuses of the system inflicted by women because a) none of them will surprise you, Army Sgt and b) I’d like to keep the temperature suitable for cool-headed reasoning. I know I can’t think clearly when I’m thinking about the ways in which some folks in uniform (I won’t grace them with the title “soldier”) work the system to their own advantage and to the detriment of their unit and the Army. The culture has to change.

I think a consistent record for hitting the minimum should be a bar to service.

I agree, insofar that “bar to service” means “bar to reenlistment”. You can’t throw someone out for meeting the stated minimum, however much we may feel that the slugs who ride the minimum for PT test after PT test deserve to be kicked to the curb summarily. However, when it comes time to reenlist, the Army ought to bar these people.

That prior to the E5 board you have to have maxed the correspondence course points.

I like this guideline, but I think local units are going to have to have some flexibility. During the year I was at Ft. Carson, I spent almost eight months in the field. The brigade was getting ready for NTC. I completed some correspondence material, but I honestly don’t think it’s fair to hold someone with my field time to the same standard as a JAG E-4 who hasn’t seen the field since Basic. At the minimum, each brigade should come up with a standard that is a reflection of how much time the unit is spending in the field. Otherwise, I’m all in favor of insisting that candidates for sergeant show a little damned devotion before they get selected.

That PT tests and Marksmanship are an average of qualifications on the primary weapon system (or the M16A2 if the primary is something like the M1A2 Abrams)not a one time score.

I’m sold.

With that I would propose [two] new [s]pecialties for the Army. A Physical Fitness Corps and a Marksmanship Instruction Corps.

I’m sold on this, too.

I have scene far to much pencil whipped score cards. Having these instructed upon, tested, and evaluated by NCOs outside of a Units Chain would be a vast improvement for the US Army especially in CSS units.

Now my blood pressure is starting to rise because I know exactly what you’re talking about. It’s disgusting how readily the system lends itself to chicanery. In fairness, though, PT and marksmanship are different creatures. I have no sympathy for a soldier who can’t average 80 or better in each event. None. The PT score is a reflection of commitment, plain and simple. Some of us require practice to be good shots, though. I shot 36/40 in Basic, but I’ve never shot better than 31/40 since then. It comes down to practice. The Army doesn’t give enough money to BRM. I’ve gone to the qualification range without firing a single live round before shooting for record. The infantry should be on the range at least once per month. The CS and CSS guys should be on the range every quarter. Training (and I agree that a professional marksmanship MOS should handle the training) should involve relearning all the basics, plus time on simulators and live fires. Additionally, soldiers who fire at the bottom of the marksmanship scale (say, 26/40 or less) should be able to go to a range on-post on their own time to receive instruction from the dedicated professionals at the Army’s expense. But the Army is penny wise and pound foolish—another cultural shift that needs to happen.

I do want to point out that much of this has nothing to do with SPS. I’m fine with including other ideas for improving the force in a discussion about how to handle the problems that accompany SPS in the force; I just want to point out that we’re mixing apples in with our oranges.

Now I’ll get to some of the areas where we differ.

The second is the long term. That female terp or tech is costly. No doubt. What is 80,000 to the US Army that bulldozed the four year old Bob Hope Chow hall? This cost 8 million to build?

The logic here seems to be that waste justifies more waste. It doesn’t. Waste is waste. We might as well say that the pointless loss of a brigade in action justifies flushing another battalion down the toilet in an equally foolish manner. Instead of using the poor use of resources embodied in the decision about the Bob Hope facility to justify wasting yet more money someplace else, let’s decry the big waste.

That 80,000 is going to balloon way up over time. Look at all the facilities, the incentive pays, the housing, the education. The Army could lose 80 to 100k discharging the single mom, and retain many, many, many times that amount in not having to build and staff day care centers, salaries for pediatricians, child development workers, child psychiatrists, and all the other support structures and facilities.

This is an anti-family position disguised as a readiness and financial argument. If you just don’t like families in the Army, come out and say so. We can end the argument there because Army families aren’t going anywhere. If your issue is with the specific problems associated with SPS as opposed to soldier parents who are married to a civilian or another service member, then we need to address the specific readiness and behavior issues that separate the SPS from the other parents in uniform.

Programs to aid Single Moms are called Welfare. This is not a third world army with 500,000 on the payroll to keep the unemployment numbers down.

The goal of a policy shift regarding SPS needs to be focused on solving specific problems, not crusading for or against big picture issues. I decry (civilian) women in power who seem to believe that the military is the place to conduct social experiments. The sword cuts both ways. The Army can’t be out to get single moms because they don’t fit with our notions of what the Army ought to be. The Army needs to establish performance criteria that all soldiers either meet or don’t, regardless of marital or parental status.

I disagree with the punitive approach you recommend for handling SPS earlier in the thread. You seem perfectly ready to have SPS run out and get married, only to be found out and punished for it. This is what an insecure parent does to a child: he tells the child that she can’t have any cookies before dinner, then leaves a plate of cookies on the table where the child can’t miss them. The parent then watches through a cracked door, paddle in hand for the all-too-likely act of temptation. An organization of excellence does not make policy of setting its people up for failure, then self-righteously denounce them for having failed. An organization of excellence provides its people every reasonable opportunity to succeed, which precludes the idea of pushing them into a position of choosing a marriage of convenience or discharge from service.

Enabling SPS to select a special dependent (SD) allows both the Army and the soldier to bypass the challenges of marriages of convenience. The Army, who is going to have to pay for a husband of convenience anyway, shouldn’t balk at paying the same amount for an existing adult family member. If the SPS has no such family member, she can accept separation. I disagree with your unstated thesis that the SPS is incapable of selecting a family member who can be trusted with her child(ren). You might as well say that no single mom can select a good husband under any circumstances. Yes, some single moms are going to make bad choices—husbands or family members. Some single moms are going to make good choices when the Army enables them to make good choices.

If .01% of that force is an undeployable single parent; that is 4,800 Soldiers re-assigned to Stateside desk jobs and programs. A Brigade equivalent. Can we really afford that?

No, we can’t. An SD enables an SPS to deploy just as readily as a husband of convenience but with a greater sense of security that the child(ren) is being cared for by someone loved and trusted.

Enabling SPS to choose SD mitigates or eliminates many of the problems associated with SPS without many of the attendant costs of other solutions. With an SD at home, the SPS can perform all of the extra duties expected of other soldiers. With an SD at home, the SPS can deploy like any other soldier. The Army gets far fewer headaches because there are fewer marriages of convenience. As an added bonus, the Army can require all SD to go through an orientation process that will help the SD adapt to life as a service dependent—something I don’t believe is required of husbands of convenience. An ounce of prevention… The Army doesn’t have to replace every single female soldier who gets pregnant, who gets divorced, or who is widowed. JAG and the unit don’t have to concern themselves with running down as many fraudulent marriages. (They will still happen, but there will be fewer of them.)

You talk about culture change, Army Sgt. I agree wholeheartedly that the culture needs to change. Your proposed solution of summary separation of all SPS will not create that change any more than gun bans solve the problem of violent crime. Enabling SPS to bring in an SD solves the problems of readiness and deployability at a cost that the Army would have to pay for a marriage of convenience. The problems associated with fraudulent marriages are eliminated on a case-by-case basis and mitigated at the level of the entire force. The Army gets to avoid looking like it is persecuting an entire group, thus staying in the good graces of Congress. The last bit is distasteful in its necessity, but surely no more distasteful than picking up the pieces of a soldier left after a VBIED detonation. The SPS who are worth keeping can be kept. The SPS who are shitbags will out themselves in other ways.

[weswood]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmySGT.
I think a consistent record for hitting the minimum should be a bar to service.

I agree, insofar that “bar to service” means “bar to reenlistment”. You can’t throw someone out for meeting the stated minimum, however much we may feel that the slugs who ride the minimum for PT test after PT test deserve to be kicked to the curb summarily. However, when it comes time to reenlist, the Army ought to bar these people.

I have to disagree on this one. The minimum is the bottom line, but it IS passing. If the minimum is too low, raise it. Or maybe if the soldier cannot consistantly pass the minimum PT, certain MOS are unavailable to him, Basic Infantry comes immediately to mind.

[bobcat]

hell if we're gonna make improvements and toss the dead weights how bout this. all those wannabe politicians that play popularity games with the chain of command need to go home.

(maybe im just a little bitter about being one of the brokedicks being downsized)

[Webstral]

I have to disagree on this one. The minimum is the bottom line, but it IS passing. If the minimum is too low, raise it. Or maybe if the soldier cannot consistantly pass the minimum PT, certain MOS are unavailable to him, Basic Infantry comes immediately to mind.

In fairness, the original quote is mine, not Army Sgt.'s. If the soldier can't consistently pass the PT test, he needs to find a new career path. However, I'm forced to agree that a soldier who meets the minimum standard for PT probably ought not be barred just for that. I don't like the idea of reenlisting minimum-hunters, but you're right about the minimum being the minimum. I would fully endorse MOS-specific minimums.

[ArmySGT.]

In fairness, the original quote is mine, not Army Sgt.'s. If the soldier can't consistently pass the PT test, he needs to find a new career path. However, I'm forced to agree that a soldier who meets the minimum standard for PT probably ought not be barred just for that. I don't like the idea of reenlisting minimum-hunters, but you're right about the minimum being the minimum. I would fully endorse MOS-specific minimums.

Now, I am not against someone hitting the minimum. Hell, I had one completely clueless Unit hold a for record PT test, two days after mandatory flu shots, and all the other shots. We had another hastily scheduled for record PT, test two weeks later, after all Unit fitness levels are something a Company Commander is graded on.

No, I am saying consistently meeting minimums. 180 PT score, 26/40 Marksmanship, etc, etc. A pattern over a period of time. A complete lack of commitment on their part. Sure their getting by and it is a metric shit ton less paperwork than one failing in one or all categories. However they are still a drain on time and training.

I used to say "I spent 90% of the time I had' on 10% of the Soldiers. What would it be like, if they were the good ones?"

If you think my opinion is uncharacteristic, take a little time to read what the current CSM of the Army has to say in the Army Times.

[Legbreaker]

I used to say "I spent 90% of the time I had' on 10% of the Soldiers. What would it be like, if they were the good ones?"
Never going to happen outside elite units. The aim of the game after all is to get the unit up to scratch, not just a handful of it's members. The cream will always have to do the best it can without special attention, or apply for an elite unit (as they're probably already doing now).

[ArmySGT.]

Unfortunately it is much to late in the evening to continue. I will generate a longer reply for you Webstral in a few days, possibly the week end.

[Webstral]

If you think my opinion is uncharacteristic....

Who wrote any such thing? I’m not prepared to demonize you by claiming that you are some sort of rogue element; nor am I interested in dismissing your ideas as far-fetched tripe simply because I don’t agree with some of them. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, you don’t have to convince me that steps have to be taken to improve the quality of the force. You don’t have to convince me that SPS represent a real problem that has to be addressed. You don’t have to convince me that there are some serious problems with the Army culture. We differ on tactics, not on strategic goals. I happen to like most of your ideas for improving the force—just not all of them.

[Adm.Lee]

The aim of the game after all is to get the unit up to scratch, not just a handful of it's members. The cream will always have to do the best it can without special attention, or apply for an elite unit (as they're probably already doing now).

[wandering off on a tangent] Funny, this sounds like a lot of the talk about classrooms and kids and teachers that I hear every week or so. [/tangent]

[Webstral]

[wandering off on a tangent] Funny, this sounds like a lot of the talk about classrooms and kids and teachers that I hear every week or so. [/tangent]

You know, I was going to write almost the very same thing. In the classroom, I spend 90% of my management time with 10% of the kids. I, too, say "If only I could give that time and attention to the excellent kids!" Having been on the public and private sides of the fence now, I can say that while the ratio of time-to-kids isn't much different, the relative rewards of that time invested are much greater. I suspect that it's the same in SF: the bottom 10% of performers get the lion's share of the leadership's time and attention. The scale is just set much, much higher.

[Cdnwolf]

In a representative form of government, the people elect folks like themselves. The citizenry of the US largely has avoided military service, so they elect representatives who have avoided service. The last fighting leader was Bush the elder. Perhaps not coincidentally, he was wise enough to lay out strategic objectives for the military and leave the operational aspects to the men in uniform. He also was not interested in winning on the cheap, which the US tried to make work in Iraq until we hand the mess off to the locals, and which we have been trying to make work in Afghanistan.

.

Contrast that with the ideas put forth from Heinlein

In Starship Troopers, the idea that has taken the most heat over the years is that full citizenship, including the right to vote, ought to be a privilege reserved solely for veterans of public service, most commonly military. Only those who have personally shown willingness to lay down their lives for freedom are capable, Heinlein suggests, of properly appreciating freedom and are thus more deserving of its full benefits than those who haven't.

[headquarters]

Contrast that with the ideas put forth from Heinlein

In Starship Troopers, the idea that has taken the most heat over the years is that full citizenship, including the right to vote, ought to be a privilege reserved solely for veterans of public service, most commonly military. Only those who have personally shown willingness to lay down their lives for freedom are capable, Heinlein suggests, of properly appreciating freedom and are thus more deserving of its full benefits than those who haven't.

I think the ancient world / ancient Greece had some such mechanisms in some city states. If you didnt sign up for the common defense, you didnt vote. In a system of conscription the idea seemed to have some merit. The idea was actuallt debated in our country in the 1980s - without ever really having a chance of being implemented - a lot of the conscripts and reservists didnt like the fact that people were getting out of the lists without actual health problems.

As for todays society - I couldnt disagree more with Heinlein. ( Love several of his books though. The movie - of course - was weak tea compared to the sourcematerial, many films are).

I did read the book btw - didnt like his ideas on public executions either. You dont have to experience the horror of war to act responsibly if in power or at the ballot box. ( It cant hurt either). Also the influence of the military is something to keep an eye on in any society, as that great American soldier and statesman - Eisenhower pointed out.

Just my 2 cents.

[bobcat]

ah but again the military consisted of less than 20% of qualifying service in regards to the book. (correct me if im wrong its been awhile since i've read the book.) thus it would be infered that it is the willingness to take the risk and accept the responsabilities that is the qualifying factor moreso than the actual experiance. also in the book it specifically states that while on active duty you cannot vote "or the fools might just vote not to make a drop". however it is essential to have military experiance if you intend to lead any army.

after all would you want someone thats never driven before to fix your car?

[headquarters]

I didnt remember that in the book 80% of the qualified voters had gotten their franchise through non military means ( sympathetic idea - we have had conscription to military OR civilian service here for many decades, the two were equal in terms of fulfilling obligations to the nation). Still - I dont agree with the limitation of the right to vote..It just sounds ..wrong. But anyways- Heinlein raises many a good point and the ain idea is that people need to take responsibility and show commitment to the common good which I support 101%.

As for "having a commander in chief thats had no military service" question - I dont think that the CiC need any military background to actually be able to lead the nation in war. Political leaders need to be aware of the options and risk in modern warfare - but the actual operations and strategies needs to be handled by professional military men/women. Meddling politicians are almost always a risk of failure.

The civilian leader must be be able to say yes or no and have the moral backbone to stand by his/her decision. This does not require military service.
As for having seen the horror of war as a deterrent to starting future ones -you might be right. But I dont think any rank above private/spec4 is necessary to get the impression.

As you will see around the globe - people with military background in politics are rarely from the rank and file - they have been brass carriers.

I wouldnt want the guy to fix my car to be someone who had never driven - but I wouldnt mind if the owner of the shop was.

All of the above - just my take on it of course


ah but again the military consisted of less than 20% of qualifying service in regards to the book. (correct me if im wrong its been awhile since i've read the book.) thus it would be infered that it is the willingness to take the risk and accept the responsabilities that is the qualifying factor moreso than the actual experiance. also in the book it specifically states that while on active duty you cannot vote "or the fools might just vote not to make a drop". however it is essential to have military experiance if you intend to lead any army.

after all would you want someone thats never driven before to fix your car?

[Medic]

As for "having a commander in chief thats had no military service" question - I dont think that the CiC need any military background to actually be able to lead the nation in war. Political leaders need to be aware of the options and risk in modern warfare - but the actual operations and strategies needs to be handled by professional military men/women. Meddling politicians are almost always a risk of failure.

The civilian leader must be be able to say yes or no and have the moral backbone to stand by his/her decision. This does not require military service.
As for having seen the horror of war as a deterrent to starting future ones -you might be right. But I dont think any rank above private/spec4 is necessary to get the impression.

As you will see around the globe - people with military background in politics are rarely from the rank and file - they have been brass carriers.

I wouldnt want the guy to fix my car to be someone who had never driven - but I wouldnt mind if the owner of the shop was.

All of the above - just my take on it of course[/I]

There was a rather lively discussion about whether the CiC could be someone who has not served in the military, when Finland was having the presidential elections. The discussion was not that much because of the other candidate on the second round having done civil service instead of military one, but because he was openly gay and living with another man. Why I think, it was because of the latter, there are two answers. First, the current President of Finland, who will soon give way to the new one, is a woman who has not done service, because when she was of the age for it, there was no military nor civil service for women in Finland. The second thing is, the gay candidate is one of the very few civilian recipients (and probably the only one who has done civil service) of the Finnish Military Medal, which is given for either bravery in service or for performing great services for the Finnish Defence Forces. Also, Finnish CiC, in case of a war, will leave any military decissions to the generals.

So, I conclude, there is no need for a president to have military experience.

And yes, I know, I'm rambling partly off-topic. :p

[Nowhere Man 1966]

All that money spent on the military didn't stop a few fanatics with box-cutters from crashing planes into buildings. Or a nutcase getting into the British subway and killing a few people there. More money will not solve the worlds problems.

I came out of hiding myself here. :cool: Yeah, it seems like with all the high tech expensive toys we have, it can still come down to being defeated or at least given a hard time by someone who would use a much lower tech to fight back or some other way. It is like the old Kurt Vonnegut story, "Manned Missiles" (1958) where the technology has gotten so good on both sides, most battles were ended in a stalemate so they decide to go back to using piloted aircraft and kamakaze missiles to outwit the high tech computer controlled missiles and planes. I saw on the website, www.tvtropes.org, where there are plenty of examples of "rock beats laser."

Chuck

[Nowhere Man 1966]

Well, make some decent Australian sitcoms, I'll watch them!:D

But I've said that for a long time. You can't force democracy on a people at gunpoint. Pretty much, an outside culture cannot do "nation building." The people have to be ready for democracy and they have to want to come out of the stone age. The Afghan people aren't ready for either. Most of the rest of the Middle East are people who have a Middle Ages mindset but are playing with 21st century toys. That does make them dangerous, but no one can force them into the 21st century except the people of those countries themselves.

In short, it is a whole different world and outlook over there, they are still under the tribal idea of needed a strongman leader. I know we nation built in Japan and Germany after WWII, but Germany is a Western nation with common values and although Japan still held the views of the Samurai, they had enough taste of the Western way of life to be able to accept a Western form of government.

Chuck