Aliens - 1986 movie (was Dog Soldiers)

[Eddie]

Gentlemen,

Please take this post as what it is, an unemotional explanation of what I consider a few key points. You may or may not agree with the importance I've assigned them.

First off, I'm not an overemotional, pubescent teenager. I didn't take any of the comments made in this thread as personal against "me." However, I do love my country and found Legbreaker's comment offensive. I dislike being stereotyped just as much as I'm sure all of you do.

Secondly, when I was commissioned in the Army, I was told I became a member of "the profession of Arms." It's a little manipulative phrase to instill a little professional pride in what we do, but it achieved its purpose with me. I do take great pride in my job and the organization in which I work. So once again, when a stereotype is posited that "all of x are only worth anything if they have y background," I responded.

Bottom line facts: a good officer is made by the sum of his parts. His initiative, his morals, his judgment, his intelligence, and his capacity to adapt. Training, education, experience, physical fitness....all of those are important, but I submit that each are part of the five broad characteristics I first mentioned; subsets if you will. What gives me the right to say that? Nothing intrinsically more than any of you, but as a Company Commander, I do get paid to rate junior officers on their performance and potential (granted, about a 75%/25% split in importance at my level). Still yet, your opinion may vary and you are by all means entitled to it.

Of the six that I rated as a Company Commander, two were super-squared away (one prior service, one a West Pointer), one had potential but lacked the confidence (prior service Air Force officer who transferred to the Army), one was like Gorman (tactically sound but lacked the experience and interpersonal skills to bond with his platoon), one was prior enlisted in the Navy and the Air Force before gaining a commission in the Army Infantry and had a bona fide Band of Brothers "we won't go to combat with him" moment in Iraq and ended up being a total shithead, and one could barely speak English and was an overpaid PVT (literally, I sent him to 13 weeks of English as a Second Language training; unsuccessfully, and had to kill his career). That is the truth of leaders, in general, not just military officers.

Granted also, as Webstral pointed out to me in a PM, I don't know anything about him other than his profile says he is a teacher in the San Francisco Bay area. Were I to take that limited knowledge and apply stereotypes, he is a liberal, homosexual who wears metallic costumes on Friday night and has his nipples pierced while jumping cars down the hills. That may or may not be the case, I don't know and most likely never will, but I have never pictured him in mind that way (and hope I never do again after writing that). However, I do know my background and knowledge base, and have seen, worked with, and been a part of the commissioning system and officer corps that he spoke about.

I should also point out, that I'm one of the group he espoused make better officers. Again, I was not personally attacked or insulted by his post and do not want to be misconstrued as feeling all butt-hurt about "him saying bad things about me."

Originally Posted by GDWFan

About this argument in particular I say if Web has problems with the commision system then he should be allowed to voice them but move them to a post dedicated to the positives and negatives of the system.

I encourage this. I have no qualms with a debate of the commissioning system. I do, however, get antsy with absolute statements based on personal opinion.

As for Eddie I agree that noone here should have to have there carreers or personal life demeaned here. However the offensive post did not call out Eddie. Web seemed to be talking more about Vietnam and Eddie didnt fight there and hes not a space marine so I dont see how he could be that offended.

I wasn't offended by Webstral's post. I just despise that argument because it's a load of crap that stereotypes all officers that aren't prior enlisted. Note that I did NOT say that Webstral is a load/piece/reeks of crap. No, Webstral was talking more about the qualities that make a good officer with respect to the commissioning process. His initial argument was replete with absolute statements of opinion and personal interpretation presented as empirical fact. Which irritates me in general, but moreso when it involves the specific argument of "No officer should ever be commissioned without being a private first!" The commissioning process was almost a subtopic in his post.

I hear that particular statement/discussion/argument every time I turn around. From enlisted guys wanting me to agree with them, from civilians that armchair general every decision made by the military, by friends and family just wanting my opinion. I make no apology for being passionate about it nor for being sick of it.

And while we're on the subject, yes, I admit that the commissioning system has its flaws. I however don't believe that the system is the culprit so much as the evaluators in said system are. The human factor of the process is where it breaks down, in my opinion. This is because the system mechanics do exactly what they are designed to do. At least in the US Army, I can't speak with authority about the other branches of the US military.

The commissioning system mandates that all officers be commissioned with 15 core subjects being trained. There are tests and evaluations to measure mastery of the materials, and most importantly, the standards are uniform throughout the commissioning sources. However, the human factor allows for subjective assessment of a cadet's/candidate's potential; which, in turn allows a hopeful officer to fake the funk for whatever duration necessary to earn said commission. By that point, the Army has invested so much into that young officer that no senior leader really has the guts to do the morally right action of telling someone that they need to find a new career. I was lucky in the fact that my BN Commander agreed with me about my two problem children.

Heinlein, in Starship Troopers (and perhaps elsewhere), presented the idea that no one should be allowed to be an officer without first seeing combat.

Heinlein also posited that no one should be a citizen without serving a minimum tour in the military.

On reflection, Apone doesn't come off so well -- he does a poor job of being a senior NCO faced with a poor officer.

Incompetence is not limited to the Officer paygrades.

I agree that ultimately the success or failure of the mission rests with the senior leadership.

I agree. That leader is responsible for everything his unit does or fails to do. It's a cop-out when you're looking at it clinically, but when you analyze that the leader in charge, be he officer or enlisted, has been given the trust from his nation to take his subordinates into harm's way and return them as safely as possible, you can understand why it is still around.

I disagree. The ultimate responsibility for Gorman's command failure was Burke's greed.

No, I disagree. Judgment and Initiative by Gorman. Had Gorman exercised those two characteristics, he would have come to the decision of what was best for success of the mission. Then he would have told Burke to piss up a rope.

So, in summary, I took no personal insult at any of the comments made in this thread. I have addressed the ones that I took offense to, though. Insult v. offense may be a semantical difference, but I know what I mean even if you don't.

I also want to echo the apology for further detracting from this forum. It was not my intent and I tried to be subtle about it at first. I won't mar this forum again as this will be my last visit.

Good luck. You're on your own.