JGPH1A
Topic Author
Posts: 15080
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

Politics And Military Morale...

Sun Aug 19, 2007 3:09 am

From a thread in MilAv regarding the naming of US Navy aircraft carriers and other ships (in which I have had my ass comprehensively handed to me for daring to suggest that naming ships after politicians might be misinterpreted politically), the subject of military morale and the effect of political leadership on those who serve, has arisen, and I thought I'd bring it over here to NonAv to discuss further...

The discussion ran as follows:

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 50):
Your argument makes little sense (I don't mean that disrespectfully, by the way) because what you are implying is that by virtue of the Office of the President, anyone who is President should have an equal shot at having a capital ship named after him or her. The fact is, the President is Commander-in-Chief, which is to say he/she is the supreme commander of all armed forces. So, by analogy, think of him/her as a supreme general. Well, throughout history we have had good generals and we have had bad generals. But we do not honor generals that have proven to be bad military leaders or whose conduct has proven detrimental to the well-being or morale of the service. You'll never see the names Benedict Arnold, George B. McClellan, or Lloyd Fredendall honored in any way even though they were all commanding generals. So why should we honor Presidents who have proven to be bad commanding generals (Commanders-in-Chief) for the military?

Your argument is persuasive, however, as has been indicated by other posters, the opinion as to who is a "good" Commander in Chief and who is a "bad" Commander in Chief, is often a subjective one. What are the yardsticks of "goodness" ? Success in war ? Fair enough. Should only "wartime" Presidents have the honour ? What constitutes "wartime" ? A state of war declared by Congress ? I'm not suggesting any of these should actually be the decision criteria, my point (and my criticism) is that the selection criteria could be perceived (and perception matters) as politically motivated (even if they aren't).

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 58):
"Subjective" means personal. I can assure you that the military's impressions of certain Commanders-in-Chief are hardly subjective. William Clinton had a deleterious affect on the morale of the armed forces. I can assure you that morale was not "subjective" under his presidency. And I can also assure you that morale is one of the most important factors in fighting -- and winning -- wars. You can have the best equipment in the word, but without high morale and confidence -- the willingness to fight and die for the decisions of those who lead you -- all the hi-tech equipment in the world won't make a difference.

So to continue...

At the risk of sounding brutally uncaring, surely it is not for the military to decide whether or not it wants to fight for those who lead it - it's about following orders, not so ? Budget cuts and job losses in any organisation are hard on those who remain, but consider this (and I'm not wishing to start a whole fight about the morality of military service or any such thing) - in an ideal world, nobody would NEED a military. Therefore it is to be expected that as we progress as societies in this world to the point where military force is no longer required to further diplomacy by other means, military forces will shrink and be disbanded. This sounds hopelessly utopian, no doubt, but I hope this is what we are all striving for, at least.

Therefore, is it reasonable for military forces to hold in contempt their political masters for pursuing policies that might reduce the need for militaries to exist at all ? Similarly, and this also in response to points raised in the other thread, is it reasonable for military forces to take objection to political steps taken to bring the military into line with the social model that politicians would like to see in greater society ? I am referring here particularly to the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy in the US Armed Forces. As a reflection of society, and paid for by society, should not military forces reflect what is best and noblest about society, including inclusivity and equality of opportunity for all citizens ? I am sure I will hear arguments about combat suitability and morale, but can these considerations be all that guides how the military is run ? If that were the case, there would be no "rules of engagement" or "military justice", it would just be about winning at any cost - is that what we want ? Morale and combat effectiveness is important, but should a loss of morale resulting from a politically-inspired opposition to intolerance really be justification for maintaining and supporting prejudice ?

This will no doubt call down coals of fire on my head from our more gung-ho contributors, but I think this is a debate worth having.

I will now put on my tin helmet...
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Politics And Military Morale...

Sun Aug 19, 2007 3:26 am

Quoting JGPH1A (Thread starter):
in an ideal world, nobody would NEED a military. Therefore it is to be expected that as we progress as societies in this world to the point where military force is no longer required to further diplomacy by other means, military forces will shrink and be disbanded.

You are describing Utopia. But as you probably know, Utopia litterally means, 'no-place'.

There will always need to be a military, even if only for deterance.
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
JGPH1A
Topic Author
Posts: 15080
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: Politics And Military Morale...

Sun Aug 19, 2007 3:33 am

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 1):
There will always need to be a military, even if only for deterance.

Only if someone else has a military.

Yes it is Utopian, but if we are not working towards a world where war is unnecessary, what are we doing ?
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
usnseallt82
Posts: 4727
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Politics And Military Morale...

Sun Aug 19, 2007 3:38 am

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 2):
Only if someone else has a military.

In the world we live in, and the world that will continue to be, we will ALWAYS have someone with a force, either be it a traditional military or an unconventional force, out to overpower us.

As already mentioned, what you describe is an unrealistic idea.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 2):
Yes it is Utopian, but if we are not working towards a world where war is unnecessary, what are we doing ?

Protecting our ass.

That's as simple and real as it gets.
Crye me a river
 
JGPH1A
Topic Author
Posts: 15080
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: Politics And Military Morale...

Sun Aug 19, 2007 3:47 am

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 3):
Protecting our ass.

And the idea that this should go indefinitely, doesn't bother you ? That thousands of years from now, your great-great...great grandkids will be doing exactly the same thing ? I thought the point was to fight for a better world, not just to keep it the same.

But we're not answering the question. Should efforts to reduce the need for war be legitimate grounds for loss of morale amongst serving military personnel ? Should efforts to introduce social change into the military as a reflection of similar changes in broader society be prevented because of their short-term effects on morale ?
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: Politics And Military Morale...

Sun Aug 19, 2007 4:00 am

Quoting JGPH1A (Thread starter):
Therefore, is it reasonable for military forces to hold in contempt their political masters for pursuing policies that might reduce the need for militaries to exist at all ?

Yes, but acting on that contempt is not usually a reasonable or responsible course of action. You don't have to look far to find examples of soldiers who have wished thier job was not necessary. Omar Bradley and Dwight Eisenhower come to mind. I think John Adams reflects this sentiment when he says," I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy." No one I know in the US military currently, or retired from, actively craves war or combat to justify thier existence or as a means to increase thier power or budget. They much prefer the role of deterent. They understand that the existance of the military is required by the state of our imperfect world. At one point or another, every soldier and even every tax payer thinks about what else we could do with the resources that are currently allocated to defense.

Quoting JGPH1A (Thread starter):
Similarly, and this also in response to points raised in the other thread, is it reasonable for military forces to take objection to political steps taken to bring the military into line with the social model that politicians would like to see in greater society ?

Yes. The military is not a place to conduct social experiements or modeling. It is not a place to impose someones' concept of social justice. Such a thing is secondary to the purpose and mission of the military. It detracts, distracts, and insults those who have no choice but to take part. It need not even reflect the larger society that it protects, because I know many people who have no desire to live in such a structured environment, but such an environment is effective in the furthering military missions. Now if you could demonstrate that a particular social model would increase the effectiveness or efficiency of the military, then you would have a case for implimenting it.

Quoting JGPH1A (Thread starter):
I am referring here particularly to the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy in the US Armed Forces. As a reflection of society, and paid for by society, should not military forces reflect what is best and noblest about society, including inclusivity and equality of opportunity for all citizens ?

At the heart of this policy is the question of, "does the military need to be involved in the sex life of its soldiers?" I think the policy, is an effort to stay as far from the bedroom activities of the troops as possible. There are certain cases where involvement is necessary; sex between subordinates and superiors comes time mind. It is not a perfect solution, but no solution out there will please everyone.

Quoting JGPH1A (Thread starter):
Morale and combat effectiveness is important, but should a loss of morale resulting from a politically-inspired opposition to intolerance really be justification for maintaining and supporting prejudice ?

Do you have actual proof that this is taking place, or is this just rhetorical?
Proud OOTSK member
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: Politics And Military Morale...

Sun Aug 19, 2007 4:05 am

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 2):
Only if someone else has a military.

There was a television show that used to run in Japan called Mobile Suit Gundam. In one of it's variations, after years of horrible warfare, mankind collectively decided to destroy all their weapons and live forever in peace. The concept lasted only until the one guy who hadn't destroyed his weapons decided to take over the world. Ooops.

Yeah, it's a TV show, but the concept is exactly the same. It only takes one asshole to screw up the game, and there will always be at least one asshole on the planet.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
JGPH1A
Topic Author
Posts: 15080
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: Politics And Military Morale...

Sun Aug 19, 2007 4:13 am

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 5):
Yes. The military is not a place to conduct social experiements or modeling. It is not a place to impose someones' concept of social justice. Such a thing is secondary to the purpose and mission of the military. It detracts, distracts, and insults those who have no choice but to take part.

But if the military is supposed to be supporting and defending the values of society, shouldn't it reflect the best possible values of that society ? It isn't the mission of the military, but how is it insulting to insist that a publicly-funded military reflect the values of the society it is defending ? Should the military have some kind of automatic immunity from the sometimes awkward but inevitable process of social enlightenment ? No doubt many felt that the military discipline of the Royal Navy would suffer when the stopped flogging sailors for breaches of discipline, but society had moved beyond that form of punishment, and the military had to reflect that.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 5):
No one I know in the US military currently, or retired from, actively craves war or combat to justify thier existence or as a means to increase thier power or budget. They much prefer the role of deterent. They understand that the existance of the military is required by the state of our imperfect world. At one point or another, every soldier and even every tax payer thinks about what else we could do with the resources that are currently allocated to defense.

I hope you're right.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 5):
Do you have actual proof that this is taking place, or is this just rhetorical?

I can't quote specific examples, but the quote from Redflyer in the threadstarter at least implied that the "social engineering" implemented by President Clinton had caused active resentment among service personnel - this may be just his personal experience, I don't know to what extent it reflects the experience of other military personnel, and I would be interested to hear others' opinions.
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
usnseallt82
Posts: 4727
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Politics And Military Morale...

Sun Aug 19, 2007 4:16 am

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 4):
And the idea that this should go indefinitely, doesn't bother you ?

Of course it isn't the most desirable concept in the world, but its REALITY. As long as there are people out there who want power, there will be the need to limit their power and protect ourselves.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 4):
I thought the point was to fight for a better world, not just to keep it the same.

2 years in the military and you didn't at least come out with the realization that fighting for a better world includes protecting yourself from those who wish to destroy it?

Come on now....you know you're in a utopian mindset and know that this isn't possible in the world we live in.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 4):
Should efforts to reduce the need for war be legitimate grounds for loss of morale amongst serving military personnel ?

Here is where you STILL don't seem to understand.....efforts to reduce the need for war include eliminating those who wish to destroy that set of ideals. Do you honestly believe that if war was thrown out of our vocabulary around the world, all future disagreements would always be solved peacefully without any armed conflict?

If you honestly think that, what do you propose we do to those who don't wish to follow the international community and seek power regardless of the means used to achieve it? Should we just send a memo expressing our sincere disgust? How far do you REALLY think that will go?  irked 

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 6):
It only takes one asshole to screw up the game, and there will always be at least one asshole on the planet.

Exactly.  checkmark 
Crye me a river
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: Politics And Military Morale...

Sun Aug 19, 2007 4:21 am

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 7):
But if the military is supposed to be supporting and defending the values of society, shouldn't it reflect the best possible values of that society ?

Only to the extent that it aids the military in accomplishing its mission. Taken to an extreme, it would not work to have a military reflect the values of a pacifistic society. It is generally good to be peaceful, but not if your purpose is to defend others. To look at it from the reverse angle, most of the training in the military revolves around, killing, destroying, deceiving and subduing an opposing force. These skills and values are good to the extent that it aids in accomplishing a mission, but not always desirable in wider society.
Proud OOTSK member
 
JGPH1A
Topic Author
Posts: 15080
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: Politics And Military Morale...

Sun Aug 19, 2007 4:24 am

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 6):
Yeah, it's a TV show, but the concept is exactly the same. It only takes one asshole to screw up the game, and there will always be at least one asshole on the planet.

Or to put it another way "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance" - yes, agreed, nobody ever said it was easy, or that it would happen, but universal peace is a laudable goal.

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 8):
2 years in the military and you didn't at least come out with the realization that fighting for a better world includes protecting yourself from those who wish to destroy it?

The "better world" for which I was supposedly fighting involved strictly enforced racial segregation, and the constitutional disenfranchisement of 85% of the population, as well as (incidentally) maintaining an illegal control over an entire other country (Namibia). You can understand my reluctance to put my heart and soul into it, I'm sure. "Destroying", and what is being "destroyed" is, in some cases, a question of point of view. It is the same with power, and who is trying to take it.
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
usnseallt82
Posts: 4727
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Politics And Military Morale...

Sun Aug 19, 2007 4:34 am

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 10):
The "better world" for which I was supposedly fighting involved strictly enforced racial segregation, and the constitutional disenfranchisement of 85% of the population, as well as (incidentally) maintaining an illegal control over an entire other country (Namibia).

So when people decide to do this, what do you think is the main motivation that powers them to change?









(I'll give you a hint....it probably has something to do with the fact that someone will blow their ass away.)
Crye me a river
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Politics And Military Morale...

Sun Aug 19, 2007 5:01 am

NUmber one....I know for a fact that there are a large number of homosexuals serving in the US Armed Forces. I know of two that have earned medals for valor (one an ARCOM with V, the other Bronze Star with V and Purple Heart). I also know that most of them don't let their orientation out while serving. The ones that do seem to be either careless or intent on making a political statement. Only one I have heard about has used it to avoid hazardous duty....and there are plenty of hetero soldiers avoiding that by practicing their own sexuality and getting pregnant. Being homosexual doesn't impact ones ability to be a soldier. What it impacts is unit cohesion and morale, which impacts a unit's ability to accomplish the mission with minimal casualties.

Quoting JGPH1A (Thread starter):
I am referring here particularly to the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy in the US Armed Forces. As a reflection of society, and paid for by society, should not military forces reflect what is best and noblest about society, including inclusivity and equality of opportunity for all citizens ? I am sure I will hear arguments about combat suitability and morale, but can these considerations be all that guides how the military is run ? If that were the case, there would be no "rules of engagement" or "military justice", it would just be about winning at any cost - is that what we want ?

Its difficult to say what is right and wrong as far as social behaviour and interaction goes, since much of what we tolerate is defined by our societal mores, and those are constantly changing.

If you're specifically discussing the current policy regarding sexual orientation and perhaps comparing it to other "social engineering" such as racial integration of the armed services then I believe there is a real difference.

For the same reason men and women are kept apart during basic training, and in the quarters/barracks, open homosexuals are a problem for many in the service. If you can answer for me why men and women are assigned separate showers and latrines, and why they aren't assigned as roommates in the military, then you can answer the question concerning open homosexuals serving in military units. I knew a couple of guys who were homosexual in my unit. One got drunk at a party and tried to give his unconscious buddy oral sex (known as the ether bunny treatment), and he was reported for not only assault but homosexual acts. He was tossed out. The other one never allowed himself to display his behaviour and no one was the wiser, and he served his tour and was released honorably at his ETS date. The unit was seriously distressed by the incident with the guy who acted out. Guys were uncomfortable in the showers (communal showers) and soldiers spent more time looking to see if their roomies were looking. All because unwanted sexual attention is a problem to morale and unit cohesion. Our unit suffered. Because of behavioural based issues. The guy who did not act out served and even though there were some questions about him (since he lived off-post in an apartment with a male roomie and he was...shall we say...delicate?" and there were no problems because we could separate the ideas of 'definite' and 'possible'.

Racial segregation was wrong because a man can't help being black, and the other races/ethnic groups weren't being segregated (Asians and Latinos had already been integrated). There was no question of potential sexual tension or aggression as a rule....although there were certainly incidents. The difference is one of behaviour. Sexual orientation involves behaviour and tension, and that's a distraction to say the least.

I guess we may evolve past the point that men and women can't shower together in the military, but until that happens....or the military decides to let the heteros shower with the homos of the opposite sex then we're probably stuck with non-disclosure being the rule of the day that safeguards morale and welfare of the troops and ensures combat effectiveness. Because that's the main point of having a military.

Quoting JGPH1A (Thread starter):
Morale and combat effectiveness is important, but should a loss of morale resulting from a politically-inspired opposition to intolerance really be justification for maintaining and supporting prejudice ?

It's not just political opposition. It's societal mores based on naturally defensible and instinctively ingrained issues. Sexuality is rooted in the need to procreate, and we've turned it into sport (one which I enjoy and intend on practicing as long as my equipment functions) so the point is do we punish the military by forcing a situation that weakens unit cohesion? Remember....the reasoning is more logical than racial issues ever were. Black men were seen to perform as well as white men in the military, at which point the barriers of unreason succumbed to logic and fairness. It was the right thing to do and it increased combat effectiveness, while increasing the available number of men to serve. It was logical all around.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 2):
Quoting Cfalk (Reply 1):
There will always need to be a military, even if only for deterance.

Only if someone else has a military.

Yeah.....and that's going to be for a long while.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 4):
And the idea that this should go indefinitely, doesn't bother you ?

It won't. At some point in the next couple hundred years we'll be at the point of planetary government, and the military will become a gendarmerie that spends most of it's time in Afghanistan and Palestine putting down insurrections and factional violence. Until the Proxima Centaurians arrive en masse with their colonization fleet and we're forced to organize Space Marines and an Interstellar Fleet to take the fight to the evil buggers. I desperately pray that the Alpha Centaurians arrive in time to give us the technology necessary to preserve our way of life, then, because restarting a military will be a bitch.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 4):
That thousands of years from now, your great-great...great grandkids will be doing exactly the same thing ?

See above. In thousands of years we'll be fighting with our outlying colonial worlds that have gradually moved away from earth politically, angry about taxation without representation and demanding to know why they should have to wait three years for communications from Earth before they can ratify laws. Plus they'll be pissed about sending their resources back to Earth which will by then be occupied by mostly the folks who couldn't leave and are involved in the next ice age.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 4):
But we're not answering the question. Should efforts to reduce the need for war be legitimate grounds for loss of morale amongst serving military personnel ?

How did we get to this question? Why would a reduction of the need for war be a morale loser for the military. Most of my buddies would be pretty happy to have no need for war. They'd need new jobs, and the pilots would be pissed since they couldn't fly the cool toys anymore, but we'd all be happier overall. And we could devote our resources towards getting our asses off of this planet to avoid mass famine from the population overpowering the Earths ability to produce food and water enough to sustain us.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 4):
Should efforts to introduce social change into the military as a reflection of similar changes in broader society be prevented because of their short-term effects on morale ?

No....but the effects of introducing individuals who's known sexual desires will present problems in unit cohesion is not a short term deal. You can't overcome the concern that Tom will fall in love with Bill and either cause a problem with Bills girlfriend/boyfriend and that start distractions and conflict.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 7):
implied that the "social engineering" implemented by President Clinton had caused active resentment among service personnel - this may be just his personal experience, I don't know to what extent it reflects the experience of other military personnel, and I would be interested to hear others' opinions.

His social engineering also involved making it difficult for the military trainers to use previous training methods because they were deemed too harsh. He and his administration sought to pussify the military, and make things there "fair" in ways that had nothing to do with equal opportunity. They did this while demanding more and supplying less to the military, and having it openly known that he despised the military (pull his letter to the guy who got him out of the draft), along with many in his administration who sought military funds for social welfare programs seen as a waste of money to buy votes.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
JGPH1A
Topic Author
Posts: 15080
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: Politics And Military Morale...

Sun Aug 19, 2007 5:01 am

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 11):
So when people decide to do this, what do you think is the main motivation that powers them to change?

I'll give you a better hint. It wasn't any kind of military threat or intervention that changed South Africa. The so-called "armed struggle" was going nowhere, the SA military and police were well equipped and could have held out indefinitely (the arms embargo had almost no effect on military preparedness). The economic sanctions had an effect (it took a while), but it was changing social attitudes and shear practical politics, combined with the need to end domestic unrest and the associated economic disruption. In this case, it was not a military problem nor was it a military solution.

Namibia is another story, but it wasn't the armed struggle that brought about Namibian independence either, it was the cost of the military engagement in financial terms more than anything, and the realisation that the situation could not go on forever. Militarily, SA could have held on to Namibia forever, there was never a question of any credible threat from the international community to intervene. Kind of like Zimbabwe and Darfur now.

A military threat isn't always the best solution to a political problem.
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
TheCol
Posts: 1857
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 9:30 am

RE: Politics And Military Morale...

Sun Aug 19, 2007 5:38 am

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 2):

Yes it is Utopian, but if we are not working towards a world where war is unnecessary, what are we doing ?

Maybe you should consider Tolkien's philosophy. As long as there is political power to be had, corruption is inevitable.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 13):

A military threat isn't always the best solution to a political problem.

Yes, but that doesn't mean a nation should put their armed forces on the back burner.
No matter how random things may appear, there's always a plan.
 
JGPH1A
Topic Author
Posts: 15080
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: Politics And Military Morale...

Sun Aug 19, 2007 6:38 am

Ian, thanks for your intelligent and reasoned response, you raise exactly the points I was hoping to discuss

Quoting DL021 (Reply 12):
What it impacts is unit cohesion and morale, which impacts a unit's ability to accomplish the mission with minimal casualties.



Quoting DL021 (Reply 12):
For the same reason men and women are kept apart during basic training, and in the quarters/barracks, open homosexuals are a problem for many in the service.

And yet women are being integrated, and (apparently) integrated well into military units, even combat units these days, and the behavioural problems you attribute to homosexual personnel must surely apply equally to heterosexual personnel of opposite genders. They too operate in close confinement for long periods, what's to stop them "acting out" ? Nothing except their professionalism and their understanding that such behaviour puts themselves and their unit at risk. I'm sure there will always be lapses in this regard, but why should it be worse, or less tolerable, when it is not heterosexual ?

Quoting DL021 (Reply 12):
It's not just political opposition. It's societal mores based on naturally defensible and instinctively ingrained issues.

Societal mores are not necessarily always defensible - and they do change, we hope for the better. Is it defensible therefore for an organization as respected as the military, to whom people look to find standards of decency and honour, to pander to what amounts to an outdated and nowadays irrelevant prejudice ? Just as it is not right to assume that women integrating with a previously majority male military would create an unavoidable and deleterious distraction and reduce combat efficiency, why should it be right to assume that homosexuals will be any worse ? You say yourself there are many already serving, who presumably manage to restrain themselves in the showers, contrary to stereotype.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 12):
I guess we may evolve past the point that men and women can't shower together in the military, but until that happens....or the military decides to let the heteros shower with the homos of the opposite sex then we're probably stuck with non-disclosure being the rule of the day that safeguards morale and welfare of the troops and ensures combat effectiveness.

I guess the same applies to men and women sharing facilities too - is it physically impossible for a healthy heterosexual male to share a shower with a healthy heterosexual female without them jumping on each other ? I'm pretty sure it is - this isn't the giggly, innuendo-laden 70's any more, haven't we moved to a point where respect and professionalism can overcome such adolescent prurience ? Time to give everyone a little credit, and take the risk that gender equality really can be just that.
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Politics And Military Morale...

Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:21 am

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 13):
A military threat isn't always the best solution to a political problem.

No, it isn't. However, it's often part of the solution and provides the environment whereby a political solution can be found by denying a group the opportunity to dominate militarily, thus forcing them to negotiate and engage in peaceful diplomacy......(with war being violent diplomacy).

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 15):
And yet women are being integrated, and (apparently) integrated well into military units,

Well is a debatable term to use here. Combat units require more supervision when they are integrated sexually, since it's natural for relationships to develop, and they do! It's a serious problem for the US military, albeit not often discussed for political reasons.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 15):
even combat units these days,

Mostly MP units, which are combat support, and service and support units who have been pressed into combat situations due to exigencies of the service. These units are still segregated in their cantonment areas, and have separate facilities and requirements physically.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 15):
behavioural problems you attribute to homosexual personnel must surely apply equally to heterosexual personnel of opposite genders.

Except that in the case of most heterosexual men the reaction to an expressed or perceived overture from a homosexual often goes beyond unwanted and into absolutely untolerated. Since many view sexual roles in the sense of natural selection they see homosexuality as an abberation of normalcy. Further they have their sexual identity secure until threatened by unwanted outside interest, which causes resentment and polarization in a group of people that are supposed to be on the same team. It goes beyond racial issues, as I expressed above, and into issues that are difficult to discuss without delving into philosophy.

If you look at logic, then you say man+woman sex equals child. man+man sex equals ... well...nothing naturally occurs from that other than possibly orgasm if you swing that way (now...to be open about it....for many of the man+woman sex orientation the idea of woman+woman sex is perfectly ok as long as they are hot). And you can't prove otherwise. You can have theories, and show statistics saying "well, it's there!" but you can't logically argue it out with the people who believe it's not normal.

I'm not insinuating that I believe its abbie-normal, but I don't swing that way. And I'd have a problem with a guy in my squad announcing that he's gay as it would upset the balance of the male-bonding relationships absolutely required in a combat unit.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 15):
Societal mores are not necessarily always defensible - and they do change, we hope for the better.

Yeah....but some are less easily disposed of by force than others. Sometimes force is not the way to effect the changes you desire. Have I heard that somewhere else today?

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 15):
They too operate in close confinement for long periods, what's to stop them "acting out" ? Nothing except their professionalism and their understanding that such behaviour puts themselves and their unit at risk

Seriously....a group of 19 year old enlisted men and women are never....ever....EVER...going to be asexual in their relationships when put in close quarters . The hormones are running, and the smells will light fires, and the length of time and distance from home will lower barriers and reduce reasoning that prevents lapses of professionalism. THe human animal is designed to procreate, and as civilized as we want to be, we're still animals intent on propagating the species. Especially when we're young and healthy, which by definition most enlisted and junior officers are.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 15):
why should it be worse, or less tolerable, when it is not heterosexual ?

It's different, and I hate it for you that it is, but there you are. The sexual behaviour variable here is what's different. You're threatening the primal instincts (ok...sociologists....go ahead and tell me instinct doesn't exist in humans) of men and women who are looking at it much differently than you. And you can't say that it's a superficial thing. Would you want to serve with cannibals? Would most people? It's a behaviour issue...not an orientation issue. Orientation is not asked anymore....what is demanded in this organization is behaviour.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 15):
You say yourself there are many already serving, who presumably manage to restrain themselves in the showers, contrary to stereotype.

Sure....and that's not an issue, unless their orientation is become known. Then you have the same problems with letting women in the showers.....something is going to happen whether it's sex or suspicion.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 15):
Just as it is not right to assume that women integrating with a previously majority male military would create an unavoidable and deleterious distraction and reduce combat efficiency,

Women in combat is inefficient. Men tend to be more protective of women, especially the ones to whom they are attracted. Fact of life. The military is forced to go to extremes to try and suppress this....but I've gotta tell you that women in Iraq are under extreme pressure all the time sexually speaking. And sex is happening ALOT.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 15):
why should it be right to assume that homosexuals will be any worse ?

It's not right to assume anything but the worst case because when looking at the situation you have to account for the lowest common denominator of behaviour and expectation. Why is it right for you to assume that homosexuals will behave themselves? In a combat infantry, engineer, signals, artillery or cavalry unit you won't find females. Because these troops are always together in the field, and you have to assume that the women are going to be weaker in general physically, you have to assume that the women are going to need extra medical maintenance once a month, and you have to assume that 90% of the guys there will be trying to get in their pants, or defending their honor. Often both.

Support units get away with having females more because they're generally housed in segregated facilities and their missions allow them more leeway in how females can be given the additional attention they'll require from the command and supply structure.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 15):
is it physically impossible for a healthy heterosexual male to share a shower with a healthy heterosexual female without them jumping on each other

Yes. I know it's tough to believe, but if I've been in the woods or desert for a couple of weeks, been scared shitless and shot at, and am coming back to unwind....I'm going to try and copulate with the first female I see...and to put me in the shower with a nude female is too much to ask. THere's not enough saltpeter in the world to stop the copulating. It'd be like a warren of rabbits being fed viagra and coffee.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 15):
I'm pretty sure it is - this isn't the giggly, innuendo-laden 70's any more, haven't we moved to a point where respect and professionalism can overcome such adolescent prurience ?

No....sex is not about adolescent prurience at its root. It's about procreating, and it's instinctive. I imagine that it's fun because we're supposed to be doing it often to ensure that our species propagates. Only in the last 100 years has it become fashionable to use contraception so we can have sex without producing children. Only in the last 50 or 60 years have we in the west become worried about overpopulation.....christ...the Chinese didn't start worrying until the great famine of the 60s. You don't need alcohol and disco lights to want to screw......I had a very short relationship with a female intelligence sgt one weekend when we were both in DC to send a Frog parachute regiment home. It was fairly common, and it wasn't about the sexual revolution. It was about two young people in close quarters away from home and finding enough common ground to express our desires physically and keep company. We didn't continue it for long upon returning to Bragg.....but it happened and happens all the time in all sorts of situations.

Hell, that was when I was in a combat unit and we merely interacted with the intel unit a couple of times. In PLDC (an nco school) they were screwing in the woods on bivouac (laager to you SADF types) during training maneuvers. I waited until we got back and got a motel room over the weekend with a female nco who had previously had a relationship with the CWO over her platoon.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 15):
Time to give everyone a little credit, and take the risk that gender equality really can be just that.

Sorry, but I think you assign too many others the same set of mores you've aspired to for yourself. It's too great a risk in the military. Try it in college, first. Try it somewhere else so society changes allowing the military to mitigate that risk.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Politics And Military Morale...

Mon Aug 20, 2007 4:42 pm

Quoting DL021 (Reply 12):
Being homosexual doesn't impact ones ability to be a soldier. What it impacts is unit cohesion and morale, which impacts a unit's ability to accomplish the mission with minimal casualties.

If that is the case, then we need to look deeper into the quality of person we allow in the armed forces.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 12):

Racial segregation was wrong because a man can't help being black, and the other races/ethnic groups weren't being segregated (Asians and Latinos had already been integrated). There was no question of potential sexual tension or aggression as a rule....although there were certainly incidents. The difference is one of behaviour. Sexual orientation involves behaviour and tension, and that's a distraction to say the least.

A person can't help being gay either, so I don't see the point.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Politics And Military Morale...

Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:52 pm

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 2):
Yes it is Utopian, but if we are not working towards a world where war is unnecessary, what are we doing ?

Surviving. Only a naive fool believes that we can reach a utopian future overnight. Since it is going to take some time before we get to Utopia, we will need the ability to protect ourselves.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 4):
Should efforts to reduce the need for war be legitimate grounds for loss of morale amongst serving military personnel ?

Why aren't you asking the question this way - Should efforts to reduce the need for crime be legitimate grounds for loss of morale amongst serving law enforcement personnel ?

Your original question makes me wonder if you really did serve in the armed forces of any country.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 4):
Should efforts to introduce social change into the military as a reflection of similar changes in broader society be prevented because of their short-term effects on morale ?

Generally, I'd say no.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 7):
But if the military is supposed to be supporting and defending the values of society, shouldn't it reflect the best possible values of that society ?

Actually, it already does. In the U.S. at least.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 7):
I can't quote specific examples, but the quote from Redflyer in the threadstarter at least implied that the "social engineering" implemented by President Clinton had caused active resentment among service personnel

The reason the military disliked Clinton so vehemently was not just don't ask don't tell. It was lack of principled leadership (parsing the intercourse issue) and his general disdain for the military's value system that permeated his tenure as Commander in Chief. Hell, if he had just followed Truman's lead and banned discrimination against homosexuals outright, maybe a large percentage of the active duty population would have been pissed off, but they would have followed his orders. He would actually have eventually been respected for having the courage to make a difficult decision.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
JGPH1A
Topic Author
Posts: 15080
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: Politics And Military Morale...

Mon Aug 20, 2007 7:33 pm

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 18):
Your original question makes me wonder if you really did serve in the armed forces of any country.

What possible reason on earth could I have to lie about it ? I hated every second of it, more or less, but I did it. The military mindset of blind unquestioning obedience failed to take hold, as I resent being told what to do and how to do it by people of diminished intellectual capacity - I like to have a better reason than "because I said so". It was no picnic, but I wasn't required to shoot at anybody, and I learned how to send ICAO messages, and I got to fly on Hercules and C160's, so it wasn't a complete waste of time.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 18):
The reason the military disliked Clinton so vehemently was not just don't ask don't tell. It was lack of principled leadership (parsing the intercourse issue) and his general disdain for the military's value system that permeated his tenure as Commander in Chief. Hell, if he had just followed Truman's lead and banned discrimination against homosexuals outright, maybe a large percentage of the active duty population would have been pissed off, but they would have followed his orders. He would actually have eventually been respected for having the courage to make a difficult decision.

See now that is interesting, is this an opinion you came across in your own experience ? It certainly paints a different picture of the situation.
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Politics And Military Morale...

Mon Aug 20, 2007 8:43 pm

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 19):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 18):
Your original question makes me wonder if you really did serve in the armed forces of any country.

What possible reason on earth could I have to lie about it

I have no idea what your motivation is. But to ask some of the questions you've asked makes me wonder if you've really ever served, the questions are so naive.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 19):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 18):
The reason the military disliked Clinton so vehemently was not just don't ask don't tell. It was lack of principled leadership (parsing the intercourse issue) and his general disdain for the military's value system that permeated his tenure as Commander in Chief. Hell, if he had just followed Truman's lead and banned discrimination against homosexuals outright, maybe a large percentage of the active duty population would have been pissed off, but they would have followed his orders. He would actually have eventually been respected for having the courage to make a difficult decision.

See now that is interesting, is this an opinion you came across in your own experience ? It certainly paints a different picture of the situation.

Yes. Almost 22 years on active duty.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
usnseallt82
Posts: 4727
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Politics And Military Morale...

Mon Aug 20, 2007 9:13 pm

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 13):
A military threat isn't always the best solution to a political problem.

No, but sometimes its the only solution. Who do you think would have taken up arms if your government had not changed?




(the people)

Quoting N1120A (Reply 17):
If that is the case, then we need to look deeper into the quality of person we allow in the armed forces.

Says the one who has never lifted a finger to defend anything.  irked 

Quoting N1120A (Reply 17):
A person can't help being gay either, so I don't see the point.

They can help being in the military.

When lives on are the line and you have to protect the men you serve with, the military doesn't have time to make sure every person's sexual orientation is catered to. We live in a society that is becoming very centered around people's feelings and whether or not they're offended. This doesn't work in a war zone.
Crye me a river
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Politics And Military Morale...

Mon Aug 20, 2007 9:23 pm

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 21):
Quoting N1120A (Reply 17):
If that is the case, then we need to look deeper into the quality of person we allow in the armed forces.

Says the one who has never lifted a finger to defend anything.

Why is it always those that have never served who are those that crow the loudest about the failings of the military?
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12423
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: Politics And Military Morale...

Mon Aug 20, 2007 9:44 pm

On this issue, to me the real problems are when the military has to carry out orders, such as in Iraq, without sufficient and accurate intelligence, without enough troops, without enough needed equipment like armoured vehicles, against an undefined enemy, locals that hate your occupation, with politicalized leadership (like under Rumsfeld), allowing the CIA to interfere (like at Abu Garath prison), few successes and without an 'exit plan'. Add to that: the financial crises many families suffer from their breadwinner being stationed for several and extended tours in harms way in Iraq or losing their jobs while deployed, the gutting of the National Guard in the USA putting us at risk at home if there is a major terror or natural disaster, the lack of and terrible conditions of facilites for seriously injured soldiers and what seems to be a complicated and apparently never-ending situation in Afghanistan (especially as to Pakistan). Of course, you have politicians more worried more about military contracts going to their districts then the need for the product, and if a deal is made, components have to be made all over the USA to keep the politicians happy even if it is terribly inefficient and raises the costs or back a war in Iraq to placate their major, military company campaign contributors and keep their district's citizens employed.
All that just has to sap the morale of many in the military from the buck private to the 4 star generals.
 
JGPH1A
Topic Author
Posts: 15080
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: Politics And Military Morale...

Mon Aug 20, 2007 10:32 pm

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 20):
But to ask some of the questions you've asked makes me wonder if you've really ever served, the questions are so naive.

How do you mean, naive ? I haven't served in the US military, which is what these questions are about primarily - the SADF was big etc but was not the complex global multi-trillion dollar enterprise that the US military is.

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 21):
No, but sometimes its the only solution. Who do you think would have taken up arms if your government had not changed?

(the people)

They already had, this was what the armed struggle was all about, but it was getting them nowhere, they didn't have the wherewithall or the support to effect change by military or offensive means. The armed struggle had been going on for 30 years at least. They had support from all the neighbouring states, and arms from Russia, China etc, but they were making no real headway, because the SA Defense Force was simply too strong, too well armed and too well informed. There were bombs and incidents, but no major military target was ever hit successfully. There was extensive cooperation with the Rhodesian Defence Force in their guerilla war, and so there was a great deal of experience in successful counter-insurgency. SA had a fully-fledged armaments industry that was able to produce tanks, world-beating artillery (G4, G5), attack helicopters and (with a little help from Israel) fighter aircraft. SA even had nuclear weapons (a couple, anyway), but voluntarily relinquished them in the late 90's when minority rule ended.
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Politics And Military Morale...

Tue Aug 21, 2007 12:57 am

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 19):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 18):
Your original question makes me wonder if you really did serve in the armed forces of any country.

What possible reason on earth could I have to lie about it ? I hated every second of it, more or less, but I did it.

If he didn't then he knows all the right things to say about his service. I believe he was a signals guy in the service....I think that service was compulsory at the time so it's only logical that he serves.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 17):
Quoting DL021 (Reply 12):
Being homosexual doesn't impact ones ability to be a soldier. What it impacts is unit cohesion and morale, which impacts a unit's ability to accomplish the mission with minimal casualties.

If that is the case, then we need to look deeper into the quality of person we allow in the armed forces.

You are refusing to acknowledge the difference between racial and behavorial issues. People have a legitimate issue when they say that sexual pressures impact a group dynamic in negative ways. You cannot just tell someone to get over their sexual desires or fears, and for you to refuse to deal with these issues is a common problem with far to their side liberals or conservatives who think everyone should think their way and act like they can't understand it when folks don't.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 17):
Quoting DL021 (Reply 12):

Racial segregation was wrong because a man can't help being black, and the other races/ethnic groups weren't being segregated (Asians and Latinos had already been integrated). There was no question of potential sexual tension or aggression as a rule....although there were certainly incidents. The difference is one of behaviour. Sexual orientation involves behaviour and tension, and that's a distraction to say the least.

A person can't help being gay either, so I don't see the point.

Because you refuse to. Are you saying you don't recognize the difference between natural behaviour and skin tone? Are you suggesting that the current physical restrictions and divisions between male and female servicemen are wrong? Are they based on physical differences or psychological ones?

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 19):
The military mindset of blind unquestioning obedience failed to take hold, as I resent being told what to do and how to do it by people of diminished intellectual capacity

Well, I still think you're being unfair by painting everyone who served above you with the same brush....but I too had issues taking orders from some of the people over me....the military was not the life for me over the long haul.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 19):
Hell, if he had just followed Truman's lead and banned discrimination against homosexuals outright, maybe a large percentage of the active duty population would have been pissed off, but they would have followed his orders. He would actually have eventually been respected for having the courage to make a difficult decision.

Maybe is a big word. I still believe that unit cohesiveness would have been negatively impacted. President Clinton would have been more respected by some for taking a stand, and for not issuing a waffling order, but I happen to think that the course he followed was the only one available to him other than the continued outright banning of homosexuals in the service.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 20):
Yes. Almost 22 years on active duty.

Hey...don't feel too badly....another couple of years and you may have gotten the hang of it!  Wink

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 22):
Why is it always those that have never served who are those that crow the loudest about the failings of the military?

Good question...but we stood up for their right to do it.....and I'll do it again if necessary. I'd rather he whine about things he doesn't understand than be oppressed to the point that he doesn't. Of course I think that all of you lawyers should line up hand in hand and then have every even numbered ones shoot the odd numbered ones. Then the world would be a little better off........of course exempting my personal friends and MY lawyers. Mine are the good ones.......isn't that how it works?  Big grin

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 23):
On this issue, to me the real problems are when the military has to carry out orders, such as in Iraq, without sufficient and accurate intelligence, without enough troops, without enough needed equipment like armoured vehicles

Tell me when intelligence has been infallible. Tell me when there've been enough troops to win without casualties. Share with us when the right equipment was available at the beginning of the war (hell the Sherman tank was known to be inferior...we just put enough of them out there and repaired the blown ones enough to overwhelm the enemy).

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 23):
against an undefined enemy

the enemies are defined, it's whether the will to oppose them strongly enough exists.

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 23):
the CIA to interfere (like at Abu Garath prison),

An abberration...not the standard. We punished the perpetrators....does our enemy punish the people blowing up innocent civilians?

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 23):
few successes

More than are ever published......

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 23):
without an 'exit plan'

Exit plan is to get them self-sufficient and democratic. Once that's done we can leave. I do agree that there should be better public management of this war. The government/administration would do well to spend more time showing the positives, and explaining the progress, as well as defining what our goals are to the people who are constantly bombarded with media that is hostile to the administration and negative to the extreme on anything to do with the war.

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 23):
financial crises many families suffer from their breadwinner being stationed for several and extended tours in harms way in Iraq or losing their jobs while deployed,

Programs exist for helping soldiers families, both governmental and private/charitable.....and to be fair many of the soldiers who are mobilized are making more money in the service than they were prior to, when counting the combat pay, the VHA/housing allowances and other benefits their families are entitled to. Many problems come when families don't seek out their benefits or don't understand how to access them. This is why they have family assistance centers within the military. There's always going to be the exception and for those folks the private charities do an excellent job. Nothing is perfect, but that's why I pitch in financially for these organizations. PM me if you want to know how to help them out personally.

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 23):
the gutting of the National Guard in the USA putting us at risk at home

The NGs re-up rates in theater are incredible, and the issues of deployments is being addressed. It's no walk in the park, and again, the constant negative media bombardment of the issue is certainly playing it's part in the initial enlistment rates, which is another reason I'm pissed at the administration for how they've handled the public management here.

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 23):
if there is a major terror or natural disaster,

The National Guard is a military force. Their primary role is the defence of this nation, and responding to natural disasters is secondary. On top of that there are forces aplenty here to respond to disasters for the states that plan ahead for emergencies.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
JGPH1A
Topic Author
Posts: 15080
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: Politics And Military Morale...

Tue Aug 21, 2007 1:13 am

Quoting DL021 (Reply 25):
Well, I still think you're being unfair by painting everyone who served above you with the same brush....

You never met them - trust me on this ! OK not all of them, but the smart ones never issued unreasonable orders, they gave you a reasonable, worthwhile job to do and you got on with it. I never had a problem with the military once they gave me something worthwhile to do i.e. sending and recieving signals etc, it was all the running around for no reason and ironing beds and all that military do-as-your-told crap that I objected to - as if I needed that to be able to do my job, it's such bullshit. That and very ugly haircuts - like the length of your hair has any bearing on your ability to function as a rational human being.
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Politics And Military Morale...

Tue Aug 21, 2007 2:04 am

Ah....so we reach the root of your dishevelment with the military!!!!

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 26):
it was all the running around for no reason and ironing beds and all that military do-as-your-told crap that I objected to - as if I needed that to be able to do my job, it's such bullshit.

There is something to the theory that everything you do affects everything else you do, so the attention to detail and neat and orderly existence required of soldiers enhances their attention to detail on the job where small mistakes can make for huge disasters.

But I hated that shit, too. I paid a private to keep my wall locker straight and to clean my room for the last year I spent in the barracks.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 26):
That and very ugly haircuts - like the length of your hair has any bearing on your ability to function as a rational human being.

HAH! Actually the length of your hair does impact not just appearance but your ability to wear a protective mask, as well as it gets in the way of the medic trying to look at your scalp wound.

But...then again...I don't like long hair....that's for hippies and wierdos.....  Wink
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
JGPH1A
Topic Author
Posts: 15080
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: Politics And Military Morale...

Tue Aug 21, 2007 2:15 am

Quoting DL021 (Reply 27):
There is something to the theory that everything you do affects everything else you do, so the attention to detail and neat and orderly existence required of soldiers enhances their attention to detail on the job where small mistakes can make for huge disasters.

Oh please, you don't seriously believe that ? It's just an excuse to give you shit, like every other stupid military requirement. I don't need to run up hills and iron my bed to be consciencious about my job, that's not who I am. Provided the task makes sense, and has some intrinsic and explicable value, I will perform it to the best of my ability.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 27):
HAH! Actually the length of your hair does impact not just appearance but your ability to wear a protective mask, as well as it gets in the way of the medic trying to look at your scalp wound

Protective masks ? Who gets protective masks ? This was the SADF, you want a mask, tie a hanky round your face. Wimpy Americans with their bio-chemical warfare suits - suck it up, man !  Smile

Quoting DL021 (Reply 27):
But...then again...I don't like long hair....that's for hippies and wierdos.....

This is true, but my hair looks truly horrendous if it's cut very short - I need a certain length of flowing locks to look my most fabulous. Not long, but not Marine buzz-cut either.
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Politics And Military Morale...

Tue Aug 21, 2007 3:02 am

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 28):
Oh please, you don't seriously believe that ?

To a degree, I absolutely do. After that degree it becomes chickenshit....the line between chickenshit and purposeful is often blurred and arguable.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 28):
Wimpy Americans with their bio-chemical warfare suits - suck it up, man !

That's the point!

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 28):
This was the SADF, you want a mask, tie a hanky round your face

Did you guys call them hankies?!

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 28):
This is true, but my hair looks truly horrendous if it's cut very short - I need a certain length of flowing locks to look my most fabulous.

Yeah....so said the dancing hippo from Fantasia.....  duck 

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 28):
I don't need to run up hills and iron my bed to be consciencious about my job, that's not who I am.

Well, the running up hills was about physical fitness, and the bed was about uniformity and attention to detail.

It's the assholes who simply take if for face value and an opportunity to screw with the troopies that I despised.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 28):
Provided the task makes sense, and has some intrinsic and explicable value, I will perform it to the best of my ability.

There's your fundamental problem in the military....you ain't always gonna understand what the greater purpose of your little weather station in the Gobi desert.....until after the war and you found out you were providing weather information for meteorologists to predict weather for B-29 raids over Japan. Or you don't understand why that piece of cable needs to have silicon applied until you realize your cable is dryrotted and you can't make commo required for calling for fire that you may really, really, REALLY want right that bloody second.

It's all about perspective. And your tolerance for the brutish ogres you must deal with in any military (one of which I was not but could certainly emulate upon need).
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
JGPH1A
Topic Author
Posts: 15080
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: Politics And Military Morale...

Tue Aug 21, 2007 3:12 am

Quoting DL021 (Reply 29):
There's your fundamental problem in the military....you ain't always gonna understand what the greater purpose of your little weather station in the Gobi desert.....until after the war and you found out you were providing weather information for meteorologists to predict weather for B-29 raids over Japan. Or you don't understand why that piece of cable needs to have silicon applied until you realize your cable is dryrotted and you can't make commo required for calling for fire that you may really, really, REALLY want right that bloody second.

If someone takes 5 minutes to EXPLAIN the necessity for the weather station in the Gobi desert, it makes sense and everyone's happy. And knowing about the cable and the silicon will encourage one to apply the silicon diligently, because one is aware of the consequences of failing to do so. Simply saying "because you have to, because I said so" is entirely self-defeating.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 29):
Yeah....so said the dancing hippo from Fantasia.....

Pig from hell !  cry 

Quoting DL021 (Reply 29):
It's the assholes who simply take if for face value and an opportunity to screw with the troopies that I despised.

I never met an NCO in basic training that wasn't an asshole, and very few after that. As national serviceman you had about the same status in most PF (Permanent Force) eyes as the crud behind the refrigerator.
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Politics And Military Morale...

Tue Aug 21, 2007 3:21 am

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 24):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 20):
But to ask some of the questions you've asked makes me wonder if you've really ever served, the questions are so naive.

How do you mean, naive ? I haven't served in the US military, which is what these questions are about primarily - the SADF was big etc but was not the complex global multi-trillion dollar enterprise that the US military is.

the answers to your questions have nothing to do with the size of a military organization.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 25):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 20):
Yes. Almost 22 years on active duty.

Hey...don't feel too badly....another couple of years and you may have gotten the hang of it!

 rotfl  There are many people who will be glad to tell you that I never got the hang of it.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 25):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 22):
Why is it always those that have never served who are those that crow the loudest about the failings of the military?

Good question...but we stood up for their right to do it.....and I'll do it again if necessary. I'd rather he whine about things he doesn't understand than be oppressed to the point that he doesn't. Of course I think that all of you lawyers should line up hand in hand and then have every even numbered ones shoot the odd numbered ones. Then the world would be a little better off........of course exempting my personal friends and MY lawyers. Mine are the good ones.......isn't that how it works?

LOL, look, I'm not suggesting that people who haven't served don't have the right to question. I'm just saying that for someone like N1120A to question the quality of the people we're accepting into the military is about as appropriate as me questioning the caliber of the people hired by an airline I fly. I have no particular specialized knowledge of how AA or UA or DL hires its employees, so I'm not going to spout off about the quality of those employees - except for my individual experiences, of course.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 26):
I never had a problem with the military once they gave me something worthwhile to do i.e. sending and recieving signals etc, it was all the running around for no reason and ironing beds and all that military do-as-your-told crap that I objected to - as if I needed that to be able to do my job, it's such bullshit.

I see you never really understood the military you served in. You must not have had a proper accession training, and a good E-9 to kick you the ass when appropriate.

Once your are in the military, it is no longer about "you." It is about your squad, your platoon, your company, your ship, your squadron - etc. All those "mindless" tasks you detested are the building blocks for making each soldier, sailor, airman, marine and coastie a fully functional member of the team.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 28):
Quoting DL021 (Reply 27):
There is something to the theory that everything you do affects everything else you do, so the attention to detail and neat and orderly existence required of soldiers enhances their attention to detail on the job where small mistakes can make for huge disasters.

Oh please, you don't seriously believe that ? It's just an excuse to give you shit, like every other stupid military requirement. I don't need to run up hills and iron my bed to be consciencious about my job, that's not who I am. Provided the task makes sense, and has some intrinsic and explicable value, I will perform it to the best of my ability.

Like I said, you never really did "get it," did you?
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Politics And Military Morale...

Tue Aug 21, 2007 3:29 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 31):
I'm just saying that for someone like N1120A to question the quality of the people we're accepting into the military is about as appropriate as me questioning the caliber of the people hired by an airline I fly. I

Oh...and please don't mistake my feelings about his rights....I am offended by what he said, and will emphatically express those feelings in person at my next opportunity....but he's operating from a perspective uncluttered by experience and reality, and is just now joining the real world in his efforts to grow as a person. Therefore I don't take it too harshly.

That said....he's a good guy and we have a great time when hanging out together, and I've learned that he's not out for the destruction of America........he's just wants his ideal of fairness to completely permeate society....which is impossible as long as humans are involved. You can do some things, but in the end people have to earn things for themselves.

Plus...it's funny to push his buttons and get him rolling......
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
JGPH1A
Topic Author
Posts: 15080
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: Politics And Military Morale...

Tue Aug 21, 2007 3:36 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 31):
the answers to your questions have nothing to do with the size of a military organization.

No but possibly to do with the society that that military serves.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 31):
I see you never really understood the military you served in. You must not have had a proper accession training, and a good E-9 to kick you the ass when appropriate.

Once your are in the military, it is no longer about "you." It is about your squad, your platoon, your company, your ship, your squadron - etc. All those "mindless" tasks you detested are the building blocks for making each soldier, sailor, airman, marine and coastie a fully functional member of the team.

Well that is quite possible, although possibly the abuse and crap was some kind of teambuilding effort, but it failed spectacularly. I guess it didn't help that very few of us, me very much included, had any desire to be there, and none of us had anything in common. That didn't stop me from becoming part of a team and working cooperatively when I moved on to specialist training in telecoms. That actually made sense, and had obvious value, and I was actually very competent at my job. If we could have gone straight to that and skipped all the military bullshit, it would have been much better. I am perfectly capable in my natural, unaltered un-mind-fucked state, of putting "the team" first, provided I understand and empathise with the goals of the team.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 31):
Like I said, you never really did "get it," did you?

No I didn't - my mind just doesn't work that way, I'm afraid. Unthinking, unreasoning obedience is for the birds.
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
usnseallt82
Posts: 4727
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Politics And Military Morale...

Tue Aug 21, 2007 4:14 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 22):
Why is it always those that have never served who are those that crow the loudest about the failings of the military?

And usually without any substantial crumb of anything to back ANY of it up.

Another lawyer....need I say more.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 28):
It's just an excuse to give you shit, like every other stupid military requirement.

2 years probably wasn't enough time for you to remember how to wear your damn uniform, let alone grasp this concept. It isn't about how neatly your bed is made or how shiney your shoes are....its about making a habitual pattern of focusing on these little details that makes you focus on OTHER little details when the shit hits the fan. Its a developmental tool that makes people learn to pay attention to detail.

Its been working pretty well for us for a few years now. How many victories do the French have again?

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 28):
I don't need to run up hills and iron my bed to be consciencious about my job, that's not who I am.

Ahh....but you do. Its a lifestyle that fosters attention to detail. Does anyone give a rat's ass about your bed? No.....but you should.
Crye me a river
 
JGPH1A
Topic Author
Posts: 15080
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: Politics And Military Morale...

Tue Aug 21, 2007 4:21 am

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 34):
Its a developmental tool that makes people learn to pay attention to detail.

Maybe if applied correctly - as I said, I don't think this was an effort to instil attention to detail, it was a mind-fuck attempt to turn us into obedient cannon-fodder. What you keep missing is that fact that I was drafted - I didn't want to be there, and resented having to do military service at all. Possibly the "developmental tools" work on people who WANT to make a success of their career in the military. I couldn't care less, I just wanted it to be over so I could get back to my real job and my proper life.

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 34):
How many victories do the French have again?

How is that relevant ? I wasn't in the French military.  Yeah sure

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 34):
Ahh....but you do. Its a lifestyle that fosters attention to detail

Not if you already have an attentive and reasonably intelligent mind already. Mental discipline is not ONLY gained from ironing beds, you know.
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Politics And Military Morale...

Tue Aug 21, 2007 4:26 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 31):
You must not have had a proper accession training, and a good E-9 to kick you the ass when appropriate.

Damn skippy.  snooty 

JGPH1A, what Ian said above about the organization and the attention to detail is spot on. Now I fully concur with his other point as well . . . after a time, some of it is just ignorant. The mark of a good leader is to know when there's too much ignorant and not enough meaningful mission oriented training.activity.

There is however this:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 31):
Once your are in the military, it is no longer about "you." It is about your squad, your platoon, your company, your ship, your squadron - etc. All those "mindless" tasks you detested are the building blocks for making each soldier, sailor, airman, marine and coastie a fully functional member of the team.

Which tells another tale.

As long as you - as an individual - aren't singled out for the BS tasks, as long as everyone is doing the ignorant crap, believe it or not . . . my 24 years Active Federal Military Service experience speaking here . . . it builds teamwork. When it becomes uber-ignorant is when the Leaders cannot perform or refuse to perform to the same standard as the subordinate. THAT happens far too often. Unfortunately.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7878
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: Politics And Military Morale...

Tue Aug 21, 2007 4:34 am

Quoting JGPH1A (Thread starter):
Therefore, is it reasonable for military forces to hold in contempt their political masters for pursuing policies that might reduce the need for militaries to exist at all ?

I think the purpose of the military is to be used if and only if needed, not pursued. A leader who avoids a war is as good as one who wins a war. That said, in case of ships, the names tend to be reserved for those who truly had a great impact in making decisions in defense matters.

Quoting JGPH1A (Thread starter):
Similarly, and this also in response to points raised in the other thread, is it reasonable for military forces to take objection to political steps taken to bring the military into line with the social model that politicians would like to see in greater society ? I am referring here particularly to the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy in the US Armed Forces. As a reflection of society, and paid for by society, should not military forces reflect what is best and noblest about society, including inclusivity and equality of opportunity for all citizens ? I am sure I will hear arguments about combat suitability and morale, but can these considerations be all that guides how the military is run ?

I think it should be looked on at a case by case basis. No such generalization should be made. There are plenty of men, women, gay or not, that probably could not handle combat.

Similarly, if one individual causes any kind of trouble, he or she alone should be dealt with in whatever manner deem appropiate. In other words, equal treatment - in punishment or promotion.

Quoting JGPH1A (Thread starter):
If that were the case, there would be no "rules of engagement" or "military justice", it would just be about winning at any cost - is that what we want ?

I think it depends on how you look at war. In a self-defense war, any "rules of engagement" or "military justice" consideration simply fly out the window. You're fighting for your own life. The only ones with any consideration for that would be the aggressors. Treatment of POWs vary depending on the situation of each side is facing.

Quoting JGPH1A (Thread starter):
Morale and combat effectiveness is important, but should a loss of morale resulting from a politically-inspired opposition to intolerance really be justification for maintaining and supporting prejudice ?

Now that's saying a lot. I think it is very subjective, especially assuming it to be prejudicial.

Just because a certain leader is against using military force it should not mean he/she won't get a ship named after him/herself, but that depends on the actions he/she took. If these actions are judged by history as beneficial or important, then absolutely it probably will happen. However if they are deemed hurtful, then you can forget about being honored.

Looking at one example, you can see JFK and the Cuban Missile Crisis, yet he got a big boat named after himself.

PS: this thread is too long to read it all, so I figure I'll just give my input directly to the questions you made.

[Edited 2007-08-20 21:36:51]
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Politics And Military Morale...

Tue Aug 21, 2007 4:40 am

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 36):
As long as you - as an individual - aren't singled out for the BS tasks, as long as everyone is doing the ignorant crap, believe it or not . . . my 24 years Active Federal Military Service experience speaking here . . . it builds teamwork. When it becomes uber-ignorant is when the Leaders cannot perform or refuse to perform to the same standard as the subordinate. THAT happens far too often. Unfortunately

A-freaking-men....

I despise the "leader" who singles out people for special attention due to his personal likes and dislikes. A soldier in need of correction does not often require public humiliation to improve performance. However, a soldier who is not doing his share when everyone is cleaning the shitters with ka-bars and coathangers is likely to receive peer motivation for not executing properly.

If a guy can't make his bed then he sure as hell can't be trusted with prepping explosives...

I further despise the assmonkeys who can't/nevercould perform to the levels they demand. I actually remember a platoon sergeant in my unit riding in the jeep while he exhorted his men on a MOPP-4 ruckmarch. He was actually soon relieved of his position.

(if CWO4 Wilson is reading this....I know you were hurt and we never held it against you when you came back as an NCO before your flight clearance was granted back....you usedtacould and we all knew it).
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Politics And Military Morale...

Tue Aug 21, 2007 4:48 am

Quoting DL021 (Reply 38):
I actually remember a platoon sergeant in my unit riding in the jeep while he exhorted his men on a MOPP-4 ruckmarch

 faint 

Better be glad I wasn't his 1SG or CSM . . .

Quoting DL021 (Reply 38):
He was actually soon relieved of his position.

Better believe it.

One standard my first Battalion Commander had . . . . DL021 will remember the CTT Tasks*. He, I and the Battalion Staff got in line just like the rest of the widgets . . . and anyone senior had better know their crap. Period. End of story.

*CTT Tasks: Common Task Training/Testing.

Clear, Disassemble/Reassemble, Function check your M16.

Put on and Wear a Protective Mask

Army Physical Fitness Test

Etc, etc.

Basically, common tasks every soldier MUST know regardless of their military job.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
JGPH1A
Topic Author
Posts: 15080
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: Politics And Military Morale...

Tue Aug 21, 2007 4:50 am

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 36):
As long as you - as an individual - aren't singled out for the BS tasks, as long as everyone is doing the ignorant crap, believe it or not . . . my 24 years Active Federal Military Service experience speaking here . . . it builds teamwork.

I won't argue with your experience, but my experience, limited as it was, classified it more as "collective punishment" than "team-building". Again, it probably comes down to motivation - if your only motivation is to get the 3 months done with and get on with doing something at least with some useful content or at least brainwave activity of some description, nothing the military authorities do to you will ever be anything other than a massive inconvenience. If your motivation is to make a success of basic training with a view to improved career options, no doubt the frame of mind is different. Military service, from my point of view, was never anything more than a tedious and unnecessary distruption in my life, one which only the thought of 7 years in prison if I didn't go, could reconcile with my conscience, both moral and political.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 36):
after a time, some of it is just ignorant.

Yeah, after about 5 minutes  Smile
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
usnseallt82
Posts: 4727
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Politics And Military Morale...

Tue Aug 21, 2007 6:05 am

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 35):
What you keep missing is that fact that I was drafted - I didn't want to be there, and resented having to do military service at all.

You're right, I didn't catch that. It does make a difference, but instead of hating all things military, you could try to see the beauty of the machine behind it. It may have been a bad experience at the time, but you can look back on it and realize how it can improve those who WANT to accept improvement.

My fault about not catching the drafted part.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 35):
Possibly the "developmental tools" work on people who WANT to make a success of their career in the military. I couldn't care less, I just wanted it to be over so I could get back to my real job and my proper life.

Understandable, but realize that you were drafted....you didn't have a choice. So if you had to be there, why not make the best out of it? I don't fault you for having resentment for the whole thing, but I do fault your attitude towards all things military now. It can be a remarkable teaching tool for both volunteers and non-volunteers, if you accept it.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 35):
How is that relevant ? I wasn't in the French military.

Can't help it when you fly that flag next to your name.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 35):
Not if you already have an attentive and reasonably intelligent mind already. Mental discipline is not ONLY gained from ironing beds, you know.

I agree.

But for those who aren't necessarily in the right state of mind to begin with, it can be an exceptional tool to getting to the right spot. It may seem like manual labor with no point to it whatsoever, but it begins to train your mind into a detail-oriented state of being....far more than 99.9% of most civilian jobs.

I'm not questioning attentiveness and intelligence before military service, but I am defending the system for its ability to instill these traits over and over in people who don't have it right away.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 36):
The mark of a good leader is to know when there's too much ignorant and not enough meaningful mission oriented training.activity.

Agree completely.  checkmark 

This is something both noncom's and O's suffer from, from time to time. Its easy to get wrapped up in the present and not keep focus on the larger picture when it comes to training. You absolutely have to realize where that threshold is between adequate training and inadequate mindless labor. Once you cross it, you start losing what you've worked so hard for.
Crye me a river
 
JGPH1A
Topic Author
Posts: 15080
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: Politics And Military Morale...

Tue Aug 21, 2007 6:19 am

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 41):
You're right, I didn't catch that. It does make a difference, but instead of hating all things military, you could try to see the beauty of the machine behind

I don't hate all things military, at all. I have certain philosphical problems with some aspects of the military mindset, but that doesn't mean I don't recognise the value and current necessity for military forces. Military forces of all nations do amazing humanitarian good, and I would be the first to applaud when that happens. Kosovo, for example - if ever a military solution was required to protect and defend human life, it was there. I can think of other places too where a little military intervention would go a long way.

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 41):
if you had to be there, why not make the best out of it?

I kind of did, in the end - I learned useful skills that I use to this day, and learned some valuable lessons about mental abuse and how to resist it. I made friends, and did have some fun (it wasn't 100% wall-to-wall misery), and I know I had an overall better time than many friends who were in active combat and suffered terribly (physically and psychologically).

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 41):
Can't help it when you fly that flag next to your name.

It's where I live.

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 41):
I'm not questioning attentiveness and intelligence before military service, but I am defending the system for its ability to instill these traits over and over in people who don't have it right away.

Fair enough, but what if you came across a mind that had all that discipline already ? Would you leave them alone, or would you give them the same treatment in the name of team-building ? That, when it comes right down to it, is my problem with the system.
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Politics And Military Morale...

Tue Aug 21, 2007 8:06 am

Quoting DL021 (Reply 32):
Plus...it's funny to push his buttons and get him rolling..

That it is. If he could just shed that incessant need to be an expert at everything, he'd be a great guy.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 36):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 31):You must not have had a proper accession training, and a good E-9 to kick you the ass when appropriate.Damn skippy.

Whatever success I enjoyed as an officer I owe to the very good fortune to have been tutored as an O1 by CWO(Bosn) Ron Sixberry, QMC Billy Hopper, and MKC Monte Ownbey. I was commissioned back when junior officer training was left to the Warrants and Chiefs afloat, and I had three of the best. Thank you gentlemen, wherever you are.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Politics And Military Morale...

Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:41 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 43):
If he could just shed that incessant need to be an expert at everything

Because when there's more than one of us around it becomes necessary to prove who is smarter.....
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests