The new military.
04-20-2005, 01:05 PM
#1
VIP Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
The new military.
Got this from a guy currently with 19th SFG. He also served with 2/75th Rangers, Korea LRSD and CSAR.
It covers current PC and red tape in the military through his eyes. Hoping gpatmac can chime in on this regarding training etc. During my last year in the Army I noticed range time, trips to MOUT cities and other highspeed training seemed long gone. It was much more common to receive an EO class (couldn't refer to it as an EO powwow without getting smoked) or some other type of ***** class. Hell, I had to give a few of them...
Just an interesting perspective so take it for what it's worth. This is why the military has to be more conservative than anything else IMHO.
It covers current PC and red tape in the military through his eyes. Hoping gpatmac can chime in on this regarding training etc. During my last year in the Army I noticed range time, trips to MOUT cities and other highspeed training seemed long gone. It was much more common to receive an EO class (couldn't refer to it as an EO powwow without getting smoked) or some other type of ***** class. Hell, I had to give a few of them...
Just an interesting perspective so take it for what it's worth. This is why the military has to be more conservative than anything else IMHO.
I look around in the military and I notice various things. I have found myself complelled to write this as the castration or our military cripples its effectiveness and efficiency. Being a member of the Army, it is definitely evident as I look around. We can't forget the other branches as they have been effected as well.
In todays military, we find ourselves in the most politically correct, affirmative action, corporate setting that our military has ever known. Through this I notice that the lower enlisted seem to have more power than a general....With the whip of a pen and a postage stamp, they have the power of a Congressional figurehead. Of course, depending on the congressman's view, politically speaking of course, depends on what actions are taken. It is a place where the officers are politicians, the NCO's hands are tied, the lower enlisted are spoiled and the warrant officers are trying to hide. The days of military might are being placed in the hands of civilians and mercenaries. Yes, mercenaries....why, because it is easier to do this, so the mission can be done vs. have the mission be bogged down with politics. We call them "Contractors", why....because it is more politically correct than saying, "Mercenary".
Websters Dictionary:
mer·ce·nary
Pronunciation: 'm&r-s&n-"er-E Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin mercenarius, irregular from merced-, merces wages: one that serves merely for wages; especially : a soldier hired into foreign service
We have had to resort to this, because we no longer get good people joining, our hands are tied during training and we have an embedded reporter looking over our shoulder every second armchair quarterbacking our every move.
In the SOF community, we shelter ourselves from this lack of reality and the fact that the enemy doesn't care how politically correct the soldier is that he blows up with himself. We realize this is crippling, however, as I have noticed in TRADOC, more time is spent training on such issues as EO, sexual harrasment, rape prevention, suicide prevention and sexual assualt education than learning the art of war. After viewing this, what kind of soldier am I really getting when I have to deploy??? I've listened to the Privates talk about the present day Basic Training. Issues like finding two females together in the latrine together, male and female having sex in a foxhole during an FTX, male and female having sex in a water buffalo and in dumpsters..etc... This list is endless. Hearing about how there have been 30 reported sexual assaults in the last three months on this post. The focus of our military has strayed away from combat to hormone control and political correctness. Even vocabulary is having to be changed, so not to offend. The word "harassment" has been converted to a word sounding like "heressment".
The Privates seem to have the most power. I've never experienced the opportunity to view someone with such little rank have so much power. The NCO Corps is suffering a crippling blow as we speak, because of the fear of a Congressional Investigation.... The potential of a false sexual harassment charge, because things didn't go their way....Worrying about how every word you say may be used against you in a UCMJ court of law....
Quick question. When are our funds going to be focused on the use of bullets vs. classes on how to behave???
Welcome to the new military.
In todays military, we find ourselves in the most politically correct, affirmative action, corporate setting that our military has ever known. Through this I notice that the lower enlisted seem to have more power than a general....With the whip of a pen and a postage stamp, they have the power of a Congressional figurehead. Of course, depending on the congressman's view, politically speaking of course, depends on what actions are taken. It is a place where the officers are politicians, the NCO's hands are tied, the lower enlisted are spoiled and the warrant officers are trying to hide. The days of military might are being placed in the hands of civilians and mercenaries. Yes, mercenaries....why, because it is easier to do this, so the mission can be done vs. have the mission be bogged down with politics. We call them "Contractors", why....because it is more politically correct than saying, "Mercenary".
Websters Dictionary:
mer·ce·nary
Pronunciation: 'm&r-s&n-"er-E Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin mercenarius, irregular from merced-, merces wages: one that serves merely for wages; especially : a soldier hired into foreign service
We have had to resort to this, because we no longer get good people joining, our hands are tied during training and we have an embedded reporter looking over our shoulder every second armchair quarterbacking our every move.
In the SOF community, we shelter ourselves from this lack of reality and the fact that the enemy doesn't care how politically correct the soldier is that he blows up with himself. We realize this is crippling, however, as I have noticed in TRADOC, more time is spent training on such issues as EO, sexual harrasment, rape prevention, suicide prevention and sexual assualt education than learning the art of war. After viewing this, what kind of soldier am I really getting when I have to deploy??? I've listened to the Privates talk about the present day Basic Training. Issues like finding two females together in the latrine together, male and female having sex in a foxhole during an FTX, male and female having sex in a water buffalo and in dumpsters..etc... This list is endless. Hearing about how there have been 30 reported sexual assaults in the last three months on this post. The focus of our military has strayed away from combat to hormone control and political correctness. Even vocabulary is having to be changed, so not to offend. The word "harassment" has been converted to a word sounding like "heressment".
The Privates seem to have the most power. I've never experienced the opportunity to view someone with such little rank have so much power. The NCO Corps is suffering a crippling blow as we speak, because of the fear of a Congressional Investigation.... The potential of a false sexual harassment charge, because things didn't go their way....Worrying about how every word you say may be used against you in a UCMJ court of law....
Quick question. When are our funds going to be focused on the use of bullets vs. classes on how to behave???
Welcome to the new military.
Last edited by Salty; 04-20-2005 at 01:09 PM.
04-20-2005, 01:46 PM
#3
VIP Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
LOL
SFG = Special Forces Group
LRSD = Long range surveillance detachment
CSAR = Combat search and rescue
PC = political correctness (so there's no confusion in this case)
MOUT = Military Operations on Urbanized Terrain
EO = Equal Opportunity (so there's no confusion in this case)
NCO = Non-commissioned officer (CPL to CSM)
SOF = Special Ops Forces
TRADOC = Training and Doctrine Command
FTX = Field training exercise. More commonly known as a "field problem" outside of basic training, schools and pogue units.
UCMJ = Uniform Code of Military Justice
SFG = Special Forces Group
LRSD = Long range surveillance detachment
CSAR = Combat search and rescue
PC = political correctness (so there's no confusion in this case)
MOUT = Military Operations on Urbanized Terrain
EO = Equal Opportunity (so there's no confusion in this case)
NCO = Non-commissioned officer (CPL to CSM)
SOF = Special Ops Forces
TRADOC = Training and Doctrine Command
FTX = Field training exercise. More commonly known as a "field problem" outside of basic training, schools and pogue units.
UCMJ = Uniform Code of Military Justice
Last edited by Salty; 04-20-2005 at 01:58 PM.
04-20-2005, 04:43 PM
#6
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,556
While I don't know much about the military, I would have to disagree with this.
"We have had to resort to this, because we no longer get good people joining, our hands are tied during training and we have an embedded reporter looking over our shoulder every second armchair quarterbacking our every move."
I think its crucial that reports be there. While they shouldn't be armchair quarterbacking they should be present to write down what happens. The good the bad and the ugly. They are sort of a check and balance to make sure our men aren't being abused and that our men are not abusing others.
Besides that I totally agree on the rest he talks about. But I honestly don't know how they can get "good people" to join the force. I still believe that they should make two years military standard for everyone that graduates highschool or is 18 years old. If not they should do some other service for the US. (I think im in the minority in this.) They won't get "good people" but they can be more selective on who they keep and offer positions after those two years.
"We have had to resort to this, because we no longer get good people joining, our hands are tied during training and we have an embedded reporter looking over our shoulder every second armchair quarterbacking our every move."
I think its crucial that reports be there. While they shouldn't be armchair quarterbacking they should be present to write down what happens. The good the bad and the ugly. They are sort of a check and balance to make sure our men aren't being abused and that our men are not abusing others.
Besides that I totally agree on the rest he talks about. But I honestly don't know how they can get "good people" to join the force. I still believe that they should make two years military standard for everyone that graduates highschool or is 18 years old. If not they should do some other service for the US. (I think im in the minority in this.) They won't get "good people" but they can be more selective on who they keep and offer positions after those two years.
04-20-2005, 05:46 PM
#7
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The Couve in Washington State
Posts: 559
Car Info: 02 BRP 2.5RS-T
Originally Posted by Oaf
This is the #1 reason that I left after one tour with the Army...the writing was on the wall back in the late '80s/early '90s.
Originally Posted by Unregistered
They are sort of a check and balance to make sure our men aren't being abused and that our men are not abusing others.
04-20-2005, 07:34 PM
#8
VIP Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Originally Posted by Unregistered
I think its crucial that reports be there. While they shouldn't be armchair quarterbacking they should be present to write down what happens. The good the bad and the ugly. They are sort of a check and balance to make sure our men aren't being abused and that our men are not abusing others.
Front-line reporting became popular in Vietnam and mainstream in OIF. Anyone else remember the reality TV coverage of Iraq around spring of 2003? It was insane how close they got. I actually remember watching a fire mission being called on a distant building. Anyone else catch that?
You just don't need to know about the petty stuff. I'm sorry but you don't. If reporters aren't allowed in a locker-room when teams are going over plays for the SuperBowl at halftime and sketch artists are hired to draw the events of a trial, then why isn't it the same for something that's potentially damaging to thousands of lives, public opinion and foreign policy? It's asinine to me!
You'll still hear about the major screw-ups like Abu Ghirab. Make no question about it. The difference is that we won't be getting Pvt. Snuffy's opinion on the topic when he should be focusing on the mission and staying alive.
Here's what I don't understand... People trust these men and women to protect them but don't trust their integrity to convey information on what they're doing? Does anyone here actually know any officers or NCOs? Most all of them cannot sleep at night unless they do the right thing. A Platoon Leader will go out of his damn mind unless he ran a perfect 6:30mile pace for "X" amount of miles during PT.
Originally Posted by Unregistered
Besides that I totally agree on the rest he talks about. But I honestly don't know how they can get "good people" to join the force. I still believe that they should make two years military standard for everyone that graduates highschool or is 18 years old. If not they should do some other service for the US. (I think im in the minority in this.) They won't get "good people" but they can be more selective on who they keep and offer positions after those two years.
I agree on the option of community service. I think there should be exceptions based on handicap and personal achievements. If a student has a 4.0Gpa and gets accepted to Harvard then he/she should be allowed to enjoy the fruits of their labor. Their debt to society will most likely be made-up in their profession anyways. Anywho...
Last edited by Salty; 04-20-2005 at 07:54 PM.
04-20-2005, 08:26 PM
#9
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,556
Originally Posted by Salty
It certainly isn't crucial for reporters to be on the front lines. It's a war. Mistakes will be made and lives will be lost. Reporting is almost negative by default. You rarely hear about stories that are positive unless it's crammed into a 2minute portion on your local news broadcast. That being said, reporting in a war-torn country will almost certainly be a negative force-multiplier in every aspect. It brings down morale regarding the lack of support from those that just don't "know much about the military" on all fronts and is a risk to intelligence and the mission. This has been proven many times over from scratched missions in the air to Geraldo Rivera spilling his guts over location.
Front-line reporting became popular in Vietnam and mainstream in OIF. Anyone else remember the reality TV coverage of Iraq around spring of 2003? It was insane how close they got. I actually remember watching a fire mission being called on a distant building. Anyone else catch that?
You just don't need to know about the petty stuff. I'm sorry but you don't. If reporters aren't allowed in a locker-room when teams are going over plays for the SuperBowl at halftime and sketch artists are hired to draw the events of a trial, then why isn't it the same for something that's potentially damaging to thousands of lives, public opinion and foreign policy? It's asinine to me!
You'll still hear about the major screw-ups like Abu Ghirab. Make no question about it. The difference is that we won't be getting Pvt. Snuffy's opinion on the topic when he should be focusing on the mission and staying alive.
Here's what I don't understand... People trust these men and women to protect them but don't trust their integrity to convey information on what they're doing? Does anyone here actually know any officers or NCOs? Most all of them cannot sleep at night unless they do the right thing. A Platoon Leader will go out of his damn mind unless he ran a perfect 6:30mile pace for "X" amount of miles during PT.
Front-line reporting became popular in Vietnam and mainstream in OIF. Anyone else remember the reality TV coverage of Iraq around spring of 2003? It was insane how close they got. I actually remember watching a fire mission being called on a distant building. Anyone else catch that?
You just don't need to know about the petty stuff. I'm sorry but you don't. If reporters aren't allowed in a locker-room when teams are going over plays for the SuperBowl at halftime and sketch artists are hired to draw the events of a trial, then why isn't it the same for something that's potentially damaging to thousands of lives, public opinion and foreign policy? It's asinine to me!
You'll still hear about the major screw-ups like Abu Ghirab. Make no question about it. The difference is that we won't be getting Pvt. Snuffy's opinion on the topic when he should be focusing on the mission and staying alive.
Here's what I don't understand... People trust these men and women to protect them but don't trust their integrity to convey information on what they're doing? Does anyone here actually know any officers or NCOs? Most all of them cannot sleep at night unless they do the right thing. A Platoon Leader will go out of his damn mind unless he ran a perfect 6:30mile pace for "X" amount of miles during PT.
04-20-2005, 08:48 PM
#10
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 352
Originally Posted by Unregistered
While I see your points, I still disagree. To me its not about seeing all the action, but its about justifying the wars, and like I stated before making sure our men aren't just put into harms way. I know it comes with a lot of negatives (Which I think if handled correctly their would be a lot less.) but thats not to say that the positives don't out weigh that, for me. It has always been my oppinion that if you leave a person with a lot of power unchecked they will eventually use it past the limits that they were given. In fact if I remember right, in one of my psych class from college, they showed this in action. And thats what worries me if no journalist are allowed access.
I think the point is that filming all of this, then sending it out, helps to enrage sensitive anti-war types and encourage terrorists. That puts soldiers in greater danger, and it also threatens support for the war, which is crucial for letting them do their jobs. Soldiers are in harms way in the first place. The cameras aren't going to tell you how to make more effective/safer soldiers. Let the military do its job.
And, what do you think the "authorities" would do in Iraq if there weren't cameras everywhere? They need Iraqi support to win the war. So what would you be worried about?
04-20-2005, 09:02 PM
#11
VIP Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Originally Posted by Unregistered
While I see your points, I still disagree. To me its not about seeing all the action, but its about justifying the wars, and like I stated before making sure our men aren't just put into harms way.
Here's the problem with that thinking. What could you possibly do besides complain in this type of situation? As a volunteer soldier, it's almost like having a controlling Catholic parent wanting to know if their daughter is putting their unborn grandchild in harms way via abortion. When do you bestow responsibility for one’s decisions?
Instead of creating a whirlwind of emotion that eventually reaches the front-lines and forces them into depression and loss of morale, why not just wait till you hear about it down the road? This way you're still informed and aren't any influence to a negative force multiplier on the ground. It's not like your opinion holds any water in the decision making process. If that was true then the protesting at RNC would have worked and people would actually care about the new anti-Bush art exhibit at the local gallery.
Last edited by Salty; 04-20-2005 at 09:11 PM.
04-20-2005, 09:39 PM
#12
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: I gotta have more cow bell!!!!
Posts: 9,198
Car Info: 05 STi
If I recall correctly we did a great job in WWII with very little media intervention. Letters from soldiers were censored, little to no actual combat was shown to civilians on the homefront and events where not reported in real time. If anything a reporter is a liability to a combat unit as it is one more civilian the ties them with more rules and compromises their combat power. I totally agree with Salty. Americans didn't know much of anything about what really happened in Normandy, the Battle of the Bulge or the Pacific Campaign until the actual soldiers got home to tell their stories. Not to mention every soldier I talk to talks about the good stuff they did while they were there and not about his bodies dying or the people he had to kill. The good things and accomplishments never make the news regardless so your really not getting an honest view of the war anyway. Hundreds of schools have been built, running water and electricity had been restored in many areas and commerce is starting to grow. When was the last time you ever heard any of those topics mentioned. Another thing is that if I was a terrorist or fighting as an insurgent in Iraq I would tune into Fox and CNN to get all my intel and potential hit spots. How well would Normandy have if Walter Cronkit was talking about the troops being held up by bad weather on June 5th. It would have failed miserably. The element of surprise is totally lost, Fallujah is a prime example. I could go on with this for hours as I am in the Army and this stuff is easy for me to talk about. Hope to see this thread continue. I'll actually chime in on the real topic tomorrow about the distribution of power and the Army's politically correct agenda tomorrow.
04-21-2005, 10:06 AM
#14
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: I gotta have more cow bell!!!!
Posts: 9,198
Car Info: 05 STi
About what Salty posted regarding his friend in the SF unit:
I think this is caused by the logistics issues caused by the new Army. Between Vietnam and Desert Storm the Army changed immensely. This is because it focused on specialization and wanted to make the most efficient force possible. They essentailly wanted the "support" aspects to be force multipliers for the troops on the ground. If you look at the Army today and the Army of WWII we have few soldiers in the Army today than we had infantrymen in WWII. This is because the Army, as ironic as this sounds to those who serve, is more efficient than ever before. This is because there are so many more support troops than combat troops. This is where the issues begin. In my experience support troops, although necessary, are horrible to manage. This is because the training is so limited which brings them to an idle and anyone that knows troops knows that if troops are left unattended the will entertain themselves and usually in the least desirable of ways. This is even further multiplied by the fact that women are allowed in support units which gives them one more thing to get in trouble with. This is where all the EO classes and politcally correct jargin comes into play. I am an infantry platoon leader and this really doesn't concern me simply because I can train my troops day in and day out on the FM 7-8 to the point where they don't have time to misbehave and their so focused on the task at hand that they have no desire to misbehave. Its tough to train a quartermaster or an admin. troop day in and day out. Once you know how to stock a shelf you've pretty much got it down. The brass has diemed it necessary to "maintain the force" by hopefully influencing them enough about "being a good soldier" that it will become second nature and that things that reduce combat power (i.e. sexual harrassment cases, suicides, alcohol problems, car accidents, etc...) will no longer exist. Lets face it, the things that endanger combat service support troops the most are things that they have total control over and usually inflict themselves. The biggest risk an infantrymen or an 18 series soldier will face could be anything from a buried IED to being in a fire fight or not having their chute open. About officers and NCOs not having power, this is entirely based on the individual. If they limit the likelyhood of having a conflict with EO problems (i.e. document everything on a developmental counseling form and counsel soldiers with a witness and an open door) than they have nothing to worry about. Another thing is when something does go wrong you have to cowboy up and fight it out. Officers that don't have the intestinal fortitude to fight for their soldiers well being are not worth having. Officers also need to trust their NCOs are competant and rely more on them. If you empower an NCO and give them the authority they need to regulate their troops (i like the way that sounds) than worlds of good can be done. All of this is based on things I have experienced so you may not agree. I hope this helps out a little bit.
I think this is caused by the logistics issues caused by the new Army. Between Vietnam and Desert Storm the Army changed immensely. This is because it focused on specialization and wanted to make the most efficient force possible. They essentailly wanted the "support" aspects to be force multipliers for the troops on the ground. If you look at the Army today and the Army of WWII we have few soldiers in the Army today than we had infantrymen in WWII. This is because the Army, as ironic as this sounds to those who serve, is more efficient than ever before. This is because there are so many more support troops than combat troops. This is where the issues begin. In my experience support troops, although necessary, are horrible to manage. This is because the training is so limited which brings them to an idle and anyone that knows troops knows that if troops are left unattended the will entertain themselves and usually in the least desirable of ways. This is even further multiplied by the fact that women are allowed in support units which gives them one more thing to get in trouble with. This is where all the EO classes and politcally correct jargin comes into play. I am an infantry platoon leader and this really doesn't concern me simply because I can train my troops day in and day out on the FM 7-8 to the point where they don't have time to misbehave and their so focused on the task at hand that they have no desire to misbehave. Its tough to train a quartermaster or an admin. troop day in and day out. Once you know how to stock a shelf you've pretty much got it down. The brass has diemed it necessary to "maintain the force" by hopefully influencing them enough about "being a good soldier" that it will become second nature and that things that reduce combat power (i.e. sexual harrassment cases, suicides, alcohol problems, car accidents, etc...) will no longer exist. Lets face it, the things that endanger combat service support troops the most are things that they have total control over and usually inflict themselves. The biggest risk an infantrymen or an 18 series soldier will face could be anything from a buried IED to being in a fire fight or not having their chute open. About officers and NCOs not having power, this is entirely based on the individual. If they limit the likelyhood of having a conflict with EO problems (i.e. document everything on a developmental counseling form and counsel soldiers with a witness and an open door) than they have nothing to worry about. Another thing is when something does go wrong you have to cowboy up and fight it out. Officers that don't have the intestinal fortitude to fight for their soldiers well being are not worth having. Officers also need to trust their NCOs are competant and rely more on them. If you empower an NCO and give them the authority they need to regulate their troops (i like the way that sounds) than worlds of good can be done. All of this is based on things I have experienced so you may not agree. I hope this helps out a little bit.
04-21-2005, 11:00 AM
#15
VIP Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Well put. Nice to hear some brass chiming in.
I'm hoping gpatmac will give his .02 on the topics we're discussing too.
1reguL8NSTi: PM your email addy and i'll send you some files on RTC 350-1-2 for another class down the road.
I'm hoping gpatmac will give his .02 on the topics we're discussing too.
1reguL8NSTi: PM your email addy and i'll send you some files on RTC 350-1-2 for another class down the road.