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

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro

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]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

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]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

...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]

Originally Posted by Raellus

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]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

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]

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

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.]

Originally Posted by 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.



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]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

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.]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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.

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

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.

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

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.

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

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.

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

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.

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

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.

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

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.

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

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.

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

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]

Originally Posted by weswood

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.]

Originally Posted by Webstral

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]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

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]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

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]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

.

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]

Originally Posted by Cdnwolf

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

Originally Posted by 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?

[Medic]

Originally Posted by headquarters

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.