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

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

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!

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

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.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Targan

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

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

[Targan]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

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

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

[Legbreaker]

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

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

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.

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

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.

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

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.

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

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.

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

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.

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

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.

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

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.

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

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.

[rcaf_777]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

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.]

Originally Posted by rcaf_777

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.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

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.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by 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.

*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.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

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.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Webstral

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?

[rcaf_777]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by Targan

Am I alone in my view on this?

No, no you're not.