January 09, 2003
Basic Training, Part III
Argh. This is getting crazy. It seems that I should have paid more attention to the comments in my Basic Training post. A lot of it is because a whole bunch of kiddies have posted comments which slam not just basic training, but the Green Berets, the Rangers, and George S. Patton himself. So first off, let me state the following:
I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT ANYTHING OTHER THAN BASIC TRAINING!!!
I am not talking about the Rangers, the Green Berets, the Navy SEALs, Marine Force Recon, Delta Force, or any other type of elite/special forces/really badass unit. Those units are immaterial to what I was talking about, and, as recent events have shown, they have done an excellent job in Afghanistan. A force of Rangers parachute into the middle of Islamofascist Central, gather intelligence, and get pulled out with no more than a couple of sprained ankles. At most a battalion of various special forces are infiltrated into the theatre, and in the course of two months direct enough firepower onto the Taliban to crush them flat as a stain. Not since the Rourke's Drift have so few troops had such an impact on a battlefield. So let me repeat--whatever criticism I have of the Army does not extend to the special forces, OK?
Now I am going to go through all the comments, and pick out the real gems among them and comment, and try to salvage in some way shape or form my credentials as being in favor of a strong military. This writing might be disjointed, but that is because I'm responding to umpteen different posts, from umpteen different people, of varying attitude. I'm not responding to them all, just the best of the bunch.
From Grognard:
Canteen on muzzle I can understand. Even though the M16 is only about 8 lbs., firing the thing from the standing position can fatigue the arms, especially if you lack a lot of upper-body strength. Adding weight to the weapon will make it seem lighter and easier to manage when it comes down to actual firing. As far as technogeeking goes, I have lost count of how many shooters I've coached who were flinching while trying to shoot. Dry-firing is about the best way to overcome that, even better if you have some sort of device to kick you in the shins every time you flinch and miss the simulated target with your laser.
Accurate shooting is 90% attitude and 10% skill. Canteen and laser exercises assist the skill. A DI or PMI jumping up and down screaming at you because you are an idiot assist the development of proper attitude.
But, there is no substitute for the satisfaction of seeing the little holes punched through your target. Paper or plastic.
From Bravo(no e-mail or webpage):
As far as the origional article goes: Putting a dime or quarter on the front sight post of your rifle during dry firing is the single best way to learn trigger control... a slight sideways pull translates to a miss in real life. If you can get the dime to stay on the post while you are dry-firing the rifle, then you've applied a correct squeeze to the trigger.Hanging a canteen off the muzzle is not for making the rifle heavier. You do it because the water inside will begin to move if you move. The canteen will start to swing visibly so the coach can see it. Slight movements in the muzzle translate to BIG movements as the round travels down range.
When I saw the canteen drill being performed, it was done while the soldiers were in a prone firing position. The explanation was that it strengthened the muscles for firing. To me, that made no sense. If a recruit is expected to do dozens of pushups and pullups, shouldn't he by default be able to hold an 8lb rifle? However, the idea that by its absence, the rifle feels lighter makes some sense(though not when in a prone position). The idea of using the canteen as a motion sensor, though, makes A LOT of sense, and honestly, I hadn't thought of using it that way. BTW, there was an actual dime balancing thingy that goes on the muzzle brake(I think that's the term) on an M-16. The Army probably calls it the M-1a2 dime balancer or something . And I wouldn't be surprised if they also have a milspec dime, which the pays General Dynamics $2.50 apiece ;.
From an unnamed poster:
There are alot of differences between marines and Army. The differences are in scope of practice more than ablility to serve. The Army operates on a more continental basis with more specialty on a wide variety of topics on everything from medicine to clerical work to the infantry. No one in any of the said branches are there forced to its the joy of America its a voluntary service. Now takin that fact the overall concept of marines better than army is a rather arrogent one. I joined up to serve my country and not to be better than anyone else. Infantry, however, in the army its not that bad. When you get up into Ranger, Special Forces, Green Berret and then the legendary Delta Force. Anyone one of these specialties is just as good if not better than the marines. So overall lets cut the crap of marine better than army and do it for the country.
But I'm not talking about Infantry training. I'm talking about Basic Training. And you are right, the Army has a broader mission, and has to deal with logistics to a degree the marines really don't. Marines are expeditionary in nature, the Army is concerned more with fighting a major war. That means the army has more logistics, more specialized units, medical units, etc that the Marines don't have. But that isn't my point. If the shit hits the fan, and those clerks, truck drivers, and various and sundry others who make up the rear area of the modern Army are pressed into service, the only infantry training they will have will be basic. And I think Basic training in the Army falls short. Not advanced infantry training. Not Ranger School. Not special forces training. Basic Training.
From an unnamed poster:
Who in the hell wrote all that bull shit up top apperantly has not been to either Army basic or marine boot camp. What a dumb ass? You're going off tv shows. Hell, Star Trek is on tv but that doesn't mean its real. You said Army Bct isn't segragated. Take a look at Ft.Benning or Ft.Knox see how many women are there. How about you actually try one one off the branchs before you talk shit about it.
First of all, yes, it is from a TV show(two different ones, in fact), but not solely from a TV show. I have heard about the problems with coed basic from sources other than that show as well. Also, unless I am mistaken, neither the Army nor the marines do basic training in public, and I doubt they would want to have that training done in the middle of Yankee Stadium. Secondly, both services projected the image that their leadership wanted to project. I seriously doubt that the approval for either documentary was done at any level less than the Pentagon itself, and the Pentagon deliberately showed Coed Basic training as a model to be followed(even if there are Army camps which are male only).
So I get my information where I can. And I do want that information. As a citizen, it is my responsibility to learn all I can about what is going on in government, including the military, so I can make an informed choice come November, and lobby my congresscritter to provide for creating the strongest military possible. I could just sit on the sidelines and applaud, but what does that serve? When your training budgets are cut, do you want me to sit on my hands, or do you want me to speak out? What I am doing now is no different.
From InfantryMarineLt:
I have been in the Marine Corps for 8 years, 6 of which enlisted, the last two as an Officer. I have been through Parris Island recruit training, Marine OCS,TBS, Marine infantry school etc. There is nothing in life I am more proud of then my corps, and the proud Marines who serve in it. However, I am the first to admit that much of the "hype" about Marines is not accurate.
The extra weeks of Marine recruit training, as opposed to Army basic is primarily the water survival course which lasts an entire week. Also you have a much longer training phase on the rifle range. The discipline is harsher than the Army, and there is more "top of the lungs yelling." We also have an everyday obstacle course, which the Army does not. Also, many of the obstacle courses we go over 2 or 3 times, whereas the Army only hits them once. But as far as most other aspects I wouldn't think it is that much worse.
To me, the issue isn't the extra three weeks of training. Sure, it would be nice for Army basic to be 12 weeks instead of 9, but that wasn't my beef. The discipline is the main issue.
The main flaw of Army BCT is that each location varies in certain aspects, different locations emphasize different things in greater or less detail, whereas there only two MRT locations. Ft. Knox and Ft. Benning do not even train female recruits, so they are all males.
I don't consider that a flaw. That's a feature. That different locations use different methods can contribute greatly to effectiveness. It means DIs can vary their training somewhat, which means there is an opportunity for some creativity in how training is structured, and that means that there is more opportunity for improvement. In business it's called "sharing best practices," and provided the end goal to such creativity is building a more effective(not more PC) army, I'm all for it.
And to cover the last area in question, elite military units. Marine recons, and force recons are some very highly trained guys no doubt, but I would say giving the different functions, they are not "the most elite of elite." The Army special forces (they are the green berets) are trained o perfection. They are in my opinion the most highly trained infantry fighters in the world. Navy SEALs undergo the harshest training by far....yet much of it is combat irrelevant. I mean sure, the tougher you are the more combat ready, but not necessarily the more combat trained. Rangers school is no joke, I have been to it to get a look, and they are put through harsh training, but its oriented towards making them ready to lead the Army into war, not so much special secret combat missions like SEALs and Berets.
I'm not touching the SEAL quote with a ten foot pole :-). Someone else talks smack about Rangers, and the entire complement of Rangers jump down my neck. Someone talks smack about SEALs, I'm going to wake up one morning finding my boat sunk by a limpet mine. Thank heaven noone has talked smack about pilots yet. I don't think the neighbors want to be subject to JDAM urban renewal.
From Bravo(again):
I'm a former Marine Infantryman, and a former Drill Instructor. Someone said that the Rangers were just volunteers or something? You're just wrong. I'll tell you what, if you think that way, you aren't qualified to carry a Rangers rucksack. Without going into it, they're some hard core guys, and... for what it's worth, Ranger School is the most desirable school in the Marine Corps Recon Community. Getting INTO the Rangers is about as hard as anything gets, but getting out is really easy, all it takes is one or two small slips. Further, the Ranger Regiment is comprised of the best soldiers in the Army. I'd be proud to serve with any of them.As far as the differences between Marine and Army recruit training, the Corps has its reasons... We seperate the sexes so that everyone can focus on training. We spend more time on team building and instilling Esprit de Corps. The focus of recruit training in the Marine Corps is to turn out basically trained Marines: Men and Women who will go on to further training within thier fields. The Army is simply weeding out the bottom 10% and gettng the rest ready for a career in the Army.
Which is the main issue of the original post. I want to see more team building and esprit de corps in the Army. It was my top beef. I think segregating the sexes goes a long way towards encouraging that. I wouldn't be surprised if the male only Basic Training camps show more of that than the coed camps. But the Army didn't want to show a male only camp! Maybe my opinion might have been different had I seen a male only camp. But the Army wanted to show a coed camp, they wanted to be PC, and that impression, right or wrong, is of their own making. As for the first paragraph, no complaints from me. You're spot on.
I fully agree that Army Basic Training is sorely lacking, but lets NOT confuse that with Ranger training or compare it to Recon (They are different animals by the way).It is apparent by reading this thread, who has served and who has not...
Also, stand by for a whole bus load of Rangers to drop by and say "Hi... how about a nice big cup of SHUT THE FUCK UP!"
Semper Fi
So it was you, huh? Why I oughtta.....
From Rachel Green:
I do not agree with the comment you made about the Army not dividing sexes. In service for military you need to be able to get along and treat everyone equal. Just becasue you are a female does not mean that they want to distract the males. If you are there you want to work hard otherwise you wouldn't be there right? If you were at war you need to talk to females and learn to work with them so why not start now at basic training.
Because it isn't the time to do it. The concentration needs to be on discipline, esprit de corps, and physical competence. Integrating the sexes promotes fraternization, proves to be a distraction(trust me, when I was 18, I was distracted by anything remotely female), and reduces physical fitness of troops. And I am not the only one to think this way. Colonel David Hackworth(ret) says much the same thing:
...as we enter 1998, the Marine Corps is the only outfit in Clinton's armed forces that can still fight the hard fight.The Army, the Navy and the Air Force have caved into political pressure that has marginalized their fighting ability and made the often quoted statement that "America has the finest fighting force in the world" the biggest lie since the Pentagon said "Gulf War syndrome doesn't exist."
I'm an old Army doggy not a Marine. So saying this is out-right heresy and will cause a lot of Army loyalists to want to nail my dog tags to my forehead.
But I'll take the risk. Because if our armed forces continues to slide down the gender-bending tube -- which is destroying fighting spirit and driving out fighters -- we'll lose future battles, wars and eventually our freedom.
So it isn't me, know-nothing civilian, who says that, but the most decorated living soldier, who joined the army as a teenager and rose through the ranks to full colonel. And he is saying the exact same thing I am.
Posted by: Tracy-Paul Warrington:
First, it's obvious by the verbiage who's a real-deal and who's not.
True. But in my case, I haven't represented myself as anything other than what I am--a civilian who is profoundly interested in keeping the military as combat effective as possible.
Second, my son's Infantry OSUT was 14 weeks and is now an Airborne Infantryman. He sees no real difference between Army and Marine Infantry; and he works with them almost every damn day.
True. But I'm not comparing those with advanced infantry skills. If that were the case I wouldn't have created the shitstorm that has occurred.
Third, the only people who can make any educated comparison are the experienced military personnel. The rest of you are children playing an adult's game; albeit very poorly.
The reality is that such policy as coed basic training, etc are made by civilians. Congress in conjunction with the President set much of military policy. Congress makes the budget for the military, and the President is responsible for much of the policy, and voters appoint both. Military readiness is an issue I think is important enough for me to speak out on. When congress fails to adequately fund for spare parts and new equipment, I'll speak out. If pay scales for personnel are too low, I'll speak out. And when I see something amiss in basic training, I'll speak out too, and I'll vote accordingly.
Fourth, the Army and Marines have different purposes and missions. It's almost coincidental they have anything in common. Both services are happy with the way they conduct training and operations; both have handicaps; both have dedicated troops trying to improve things. The rest of you candy-asses remind me of college students quoting rhetoric with no clue whatsoever what-the-hell you're talking about.
But their missions overlap as well. At heart, the smallest unit of both is the infantryman. The difference is that the Marines are primarily expeditionary in nature(rescue Americans from a Third World Rathole, etc), and the Army is concerned more with supporting a sustained campaign(march on Baghdad, defend the inner German border/DMZ), with all the logistics that entails. But there is overlap in those roles as well. The Marines took part in a campaigning role in the Gulf War. The Army was used as an expeditionary force in Panama. So there is crossover.
Lastly, I was in Somalia for nine months as the XO of the Special Operations Command and Control Element in Mogadishu. I worked with Rangers, Marines, SF and 10 other 'elite' units from around the globe. This horse crap that Somalis did not engage the Marines because of Aideed's son or they were afraid of them is pure unsubstantiated drivel. The Rangers did not fail in their mission. They got the SNA Leaders they were looking for and accomplished the mission with no casualties. They, and several other units, took casulties when they went after the downed air crews. They were making the pick up on fallen comrades AFTER they finished the Mission. That is what we call in the Army "HOOAH".
That is an interesting take on Mogadishu, and not something that has been talked about much. I think the Rangers did an AWESOME job there under thoroughly lousy conditions. Minimal air support, no armor, and surrounded by a bazillion bad guys. What burns me up about Mogadishu is not happened during, but what happened before and after. Had one lousy platoon of Bradleys or M1s been on scene(to break roadblocks), there would have been no casualties at all. Had there been AC-130 support, there would have been no casualties. But the Rangers were left out there with nothing to back them up. What happened afterwards was worse. I remember at the time my blood boiled when I heard that we were flying Aideed to some conference. The guy killed Americans and we acted as his chauffeur. It still burns me up today.
posted by jarhead(no web address or email):
p.s. as for all of you fuckwads whose only experience with the military is either through TLC and Discovery, SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!
You have no idea what you are talking about. So, quit commenting on what you THINK the military is all about. And as for you little Delayed Entry Program wannabe's, my advice to you is to simply close your cockholsters and open your eyes and ears and absorb as much info as possible.
It isn't just me who says it. David Hackworth says much the same thing. The Center for Military Readiness said it multiple times. So it isn't just from "watching a TV show," ok? What I saw confirmed what I had read from numerous sources who know a hell of a lot more about the army than me.
So, now that I've managed to go through every post that I wanted to go through. So let me sum up.:
1) I didn't say anything about Rangers at all. Zero, Zip, nada. It wasn't even the main thrust of my post until the Ranger board read posts by other people and rained hell upon me for what they said.
2) Balancing the dime(and there was a plastic dime balancing thingy that went into the muzzle brake!!) and hanging the canteen didn't seem to make much sense. But having read a number of plausible reasons to use it, I'm willing to change my mind and admit I might have been wrong. The use of lasers instead of a rifle range is still kind of technogeeky, though.
3)As far as coed basic training, and the effects on discipline, physical fitness, esprit de corps, etc, I still think I'm right, and postings here from DIs, and writings from David Hackworth and others confirm this. The fact that the documentary was filmed at a coed camp shows that the Army brass and the civilian leadership want to promote this. They could have sent the film crew elsewhere, but they didn't. The Army I saw in the documentary is what the Army itself wants me to see. .
4)The idea that civlians have no right to comment on the military is pure horseshit. First of all, that little thing called the first amendment which gives me that right. Second, Civilian oversight of the military is as old as the Republic itself. Lincoln never served a day in the military, and fired his generals left and right. If instead of Lincoln, it had been a civilian more deferential to the military, the Confederacy would have won the war. Churchill harassed his generals daily, and came up with the idea of the Mulberry artificial port used at Normandy. Generals routinely are called before Congress to testify about any and all sundry matters. Pay for soldiers is an issue decided by civilians. Choosing one weapon system over another is decided by civilians(Cheney killed the A-12 program, and Rumsfeld killed the Crusader). Civilians routinely write their congressmen about military issues and routinely comment in the media and elsewhere on military issues. If I was talking about how woefully Rangers were underpaid(and frankly, all the armed forces are woefully underpaid), I doubt I would be getting so many nastygrams saying I am a dumbass civilian who should STFU. If it weren't for civilian oversight of the military, we'd be just another third world shithole.
Posted by John Bono at January 9, 2003 02:26 AM | TrackBackSometimes when you talk about the military, just about every Tom, Dick and Harry with an attitude and a spellcheck malfunction's gonna come out of the woodwork and bitch at you. Tell them to fuck off and have a nice day.
I don't give a shit if you're a civilian and have opinions about the military. Hell, I'm glad you care enough to say something. As far not knowing what you're talking about, it's weird that those folks who told you to STFU never cared to enlighten you. You'd think they'd want to brag about themselves and their job.
Besides, most folks in the military don't know what the hell they're talking about anyway. They know their little piece of it, but the rest is rumor and conjecture. Those who really know don't say much.
Posted by: Paul on January 9, 2003 04:44 AMBravo, Paul. Those in the military who have the "need to know" don't say much. "Loose lips sink ships."!!
Posted by: Steve Plonk on January 9, 2003 11:14 AMJohn:
If you didn't take a swing at the Army or Marines, then you have nothing to worry about. However, on your web site rebuttal (http://www.noreplacementfordisplacement.com/archives/000992.html), I WILL take issue with some of your remarks.
First, any time someone hides behind the Constitution to defend their actions, it's a sure-fire indication how weak their position is. It's the same as defense attorneys attacking witness credibility when the evidence is overwhelming.
Second, it doesn't matter what any service decides on their objectives; until YOU, and YOU ALONE, attend that training your comments are just more noise we have to ignore in order for us to do our jobs. Information systems are probably MORE vital to our infrastructure than tactical units. Yet I don't see anyone like you DEMANDING changes to software development protocols to better protect our country. Microsoft would be out of a job if they had the same scrutiny placed on them as the DOD.
Third, Colonel Hackworth is so out of touch with reality right now, that the rest of us combat veterans want nothing to do with him. He meant well initially, but all he wants now is publicity. It was Hackworth that stated on national television in January 1991 that the US will suffer "thousands" of casualties if they start a war with Iraq. We suffered 146 KIA, 35 from friendly fire.
Your last comment just takes the cake:
"If it weren't for civilian oversight of the military, we'd be just another third world shithole."
Right up to this point, I thought I was actually addressing someone of thought and reason. You just couldn't keep your mouth shut, could you?
--Are these the same civilians that shove unwanted weapons down our throat because an influential congressman's district makes the system?
--Are these the same civilians who don't allow the military to close bases and SAVE money for training and pay because the bases' civilians and urban area would lose income?
--Are these the same civilians that send us into harm's way to hammer down some country because they want cheaper gasoline?
--Are these the same civilians that cut our military strength in half (1992), then TRIPLE our commitment to military operations overseas with no end-state?
ARE THESE THE SAME GOD-DAMNED CIVILIANS THAT GOT US INVOLVED IN VIETNAM AND THEN REFUSED TO LET US FIGHT TO WIN?
If it wasn't for the military, the United States would be largest third-world shithole on the planet. The only reason the military doesn't run the country right now is because we take our oath of service very seriously. No one has more to lose or less to gain from war than the troops tasked to fight it. Yet YOU claim that civilians, and not the military, are the real heroes?
By that one statement, you clearly showed your ignorance, your lack of research, your lack of military experience, and your very-clear bias against the military. You are a physical, intellectual and moral coward.
You make noise to be heard, not to solve problems. Your kind spouts rhetoric like "Peace in our time", "Peace with honor", "It takes a village", and (my personal favorite) "Can't we all just get along?" If you truly believe any of your missives, why don't run for office and disband the military? Obviously we don't fit into your utopian vision.
Yours in contempt,
Tracy-Paul Warrington
Chief Warrant Officer (retired)
US Army Special Forces
tracy.warrington@cubic.com
p.s.
Paul: What do you want enlightened? I don't recall bragging about anything I've done. Give me specifics, and I'll light you up too.
Remember, it was the same civilains who sent in the Rangers into Somalia, that failed to give them adequate support and allowed good men to die. It was civilians who forced the Marines in Lebanon to not have loaded weapons when they were hit with the truck bomb in 1983. (Sec. of Def. set rules of engagement to Marine Expeditionary Unit)
It has been because of politics and money that civilians have pushed the Osprey program in the Marines causing several deaths to date. The list can go on and on....we all are citizens and our rights are not watered down because we served in the military and its true you have freedom of speech, the same as us, which means you can expect the social ramifications for making inflamatory, uninformed, uneducated statements as you have done. You want enlightment, pick a service and join up...sacrifice a few years of your civilian life and give something back to your country as we have.
>>
Second, it doesn't matter what any service decides on their objectives; until YOU, and YOU ALONE, attend that training your comments are just more noise we have to ignore in order for us to do our jobs.
>>
So let me make certain I have you correct. Unless I paint a Picasso, I can't comment on art, right? Unless I've written my own novel, I can't comment on Mark Twain? Because that is what you are saying.
>>
Third, Colonel Hackworth is so out of touch with reality right now, that the rest of us combat veterans want nothing to do with him. He meant well initially, but all he wants now is publicity. It was Hackworth that stated on national television in January 1991 that the US will suffer "thousands" of casualties if they start a war with Iraq. We suffered 146 KIA, 35 from friendly fire.
>>
Hackworth wasn't the only other source I used either. I also used the Center for Military Readiness articles, and a Newsmax article that mentioned the results of a bipartisan commision investigating coed basic. Are they all clueless idiots?
>>
"If it weren't for civilian oversight of the military, we'd be just another third world shithole."
Right up to this point, I thought I was actually addressing someone of thought and reason. You just couldn't keep your mouth shut, could you?
>>
Look at the countries that don't have civilian oversight of the military. Noriega's Panama, Iraq, Libya, Zimbabwe, and dozens of other garden spots where human rights aren't worth a plugged nickel. That is why we have civilian oversight, and that principle is as old as the Republic itself. If that isn't enough, read up on the Newburgh Conspiracy and you will see just how close we came to just the opposite.
>>
--Are these the same civilians that shove unwanted weapons down our throat because an influential congressman's district makes the system?
>>
And other civilians cut systems because they are a waste of money. Or were the cancellation of such systems as the Sgt. York,
the A-12, and the Crusader a figment of my imagination?
>>
--Are these the same civilians who don't allow the military to close bases and SAVE money for training and pay because the bases' civilians and urban area would lose income?
>>
And other civilians pushed to have the bases closed as well. Don't forget that.
>>
--Are these the same civilians that send us into harm's way to hammer down some country because they want cheaper gasoline?
>>
Come now, you're not that foolish, are you? If we wanted cheap gas, we could have let Saddam keep Kuwait, and we'd let him slide on nukes too. I'd be paying $0.30 less a gallon if that were the case. But we're not, are we?
>>
--Are these the same civilians that cut our military strength in half (1992), then TRIPLE our commitment to military operations overseas with no end-state?
>>
And other civilians complained loudly about sending troops hither and yon in operations that had no bearing on National Security.
>>
If it wasn't for the military, the United States would be largest third-world shithole on the planet. The only reason the military doesn't run the country right now is because we take our oath of service very seriously. No one has more to lose or less to gain from war than the troops tasked to fight it. Yet YOU claim that civilians, and not the military, are the real heroes?
>>
Don't put words in my mouth. I claim that it is the duty of civilians to understand enough about foreign policy and the military to elect officials who will make the military as effective as possible, and make foreign policy decisions that do not fritter away American lives. It is also our responsibility as citizens that if we see something wrong that we comment on it. It doesn't make me a hero, just someone who actually gives a damn. But I guess you'd rather I sit on my hands and leave the military to the tender mercies of the Pat Schroeders of the world?
>>
By that one statement, you clearly showed your ignorance, your lack of research, your lack of military experience, and your very-clear bias against the military. You are a physical, intellectual and moral coward.
You make noise to be heard, not to solve problems. Your kind spouts rhetoric like "Peace in our time", "Peace with honor", "It takes a village", and (my personal favorite) "Can't we all just get along?" If you truly believe any of your missives, why don't run for office and disband the military? Obviously we don't fit into your utopian vision.
>>
You had best understand something, for your own mental health if nothing else. There are three kinds of civilians. The kind that loathe the military and all it stands for, the apathetic, and the kind that want the military to be as effective as possible. The problem is that you can't tell the difference between them, so if anyone remotely criticizes the military in any way, you ASSUME that the person is some dope--smoking drum-banging hippie.
Here's a clue, we're not. There are lots of us, more than you want to admit, who want the military to have the best equipment possible. We want the troops to be as well trained as possible, and we damn well don't want them to be left hanging on a limb like they were in Somalia.
But for you to accept that would mean that you would have to accept that there are civilians who actually give a damn about what happens to you and yours, and in your case, you just can't accept that fact, can you?
Posted by: John Bono on January 9, 2003 05:30 PMJohn:
Unless you paint a Picasso, the ONLY comment you can make legimately is whether or not you like it. Do you go up to artists and tell them (or novelists) how to improve their work? No, because they'll tell you to get lost.
Do you tell firefighters how to fight fires or what equipment they should buy from your congressional district?
Why are we different? The implied task here is apply your critique and demands equally to all aspects of our society.
The Constitution guarantees the right to mouth off. It does NOT guarantee we will believe or listen to you; especially if you don't know what you're talking about.
EXAMPLE IS A LANGUAGE ANYONE CAN UNDERSTAND.
Here's some countries with civilian oversight of their military:
Nazi Germany,
Union of Soviet Socialist Republic,
North Korea,
Iran,
Iraq,
Yugoslavia,
People's Republic of China,
Peru.
So, tell me again that civilian oversight guarantees civil rights...
You're so quick to go tit-for-tat on the great things civilians do for us; yet you can't see the forest for the trees. Taken as a whole, civilians are so splintered on their opinions of the military that the extremely small altruistic supporters are drowned out by the rest of the mob.
BTW, the Republic was based on the NATIONAL strategy of conquering the barbarian lands surrounding the Roman Empire; we call it forward basing nowadays. When that strategy fell out of favor, the empire fell also. It was the CIVILIANS of the Republic that destroyed their country; that same ones that had oversight of the Legions. The same Legions that did their duty regardless of the cost to them.
You imply that you "give a damn" about the military and ask if you should sit on your hands and let the Pat Schroeder's of the world run things. Consider this: I claim that you and Pat Schroeder are opposites sides of the same coin. To wit: you're both ill-informed civilians who selectively serve up data to support your cause. Both of you are well-intentioned to the extent it furthers your ambitions.
Neither type, pro or con, are needed or wanted by us.
EXAMPLE IS A LANGUAGE THAT ANYONE CAN UNDERSTAND. LEAD BY EXAMPLE.
You claim you're different. Prove it. Words and web pages are meaningless; and I doubt that you, Pat Schroeder, or the faceless hordes have the moxie to at least do real research instead of blathering on.
Tracy-Paul Warrington
Chief Warrant Officer (Retired)
US Army Special Forces
The road Hell is paved with good intentions and all you're doing is adding more asphalt.
"It was the CIVILIANS of the Republic that destroyed their country; that same ones that had oversight of the Legions. The same Legions that did their duty regardless of the cost to them."
I don't have time to give a detailed history of Rome, but I'll give a brief overview. Go read Gibbon for an enlightened start.
It was the Legions who destroyed the Republic as well as the Empire, or are you unaware of Caesar? I know he's a minor figure in history, of little note and no real consequence, but he was a Senator as well as a General of a legion. Prior to Caesar, the Republic was nearly destroyed by successive Civil Wars fought by competing Roman Generals/Consuls or Senators. After Caesar's assassination, there was yet another Civil War, with Octavian claiming victory.
No doubt the Legions made the Republic (and afterwards the Empire) what it was, but your distinctions of "Civilian" and "Military", as it pertains to Authority, simply did not exist at that time. Rome's political scene was dominated by a handful of powerful families, each jockeying for position and more power. They were also trained, in varying degrees, in the martial arts, since the one surefire path to power was through military conquest. There was no hard distinction between civilian and military in the government. For all intents and purposes, they were one in the same.
In the Empire, legions meant power, and he who controlled the best legions usually ended up controlling the Empire. As time went on and the Legions became more Germanicized, the Legions started deciding who wore the Purple either through direct placement, or through assasination. You can look at a list of Roman Emperors and notice that very few had long lives or reigned over extended periods of peace.
When Rome ceased expanding, the incentives for being in the legions dropped considerably. With no new land conquered, men in the legions could not get land of their own after 20 years of service. The legions, as I said earlier, became more Germanicized as a result, and those Germans wanted to be Roman (or at least, like the Romans. Rome meant Civilization and Order). By late Empire times, the Roman political authority and the legions were Germanic, and it was a Germanic General who knocked off the last Western Emperor and assumed power for himself.
The Legions are what made and un-made Rome.
As an aside, I've never seen such open contempt for civilian authority displayed by military members as I've seen here. What, one line paying lip-service to the Oath and rest just a laundry list of contempt for the self-same authority? Good God, it must be the Army, as if the dicked-up history and world-class bitching skills weren't the first clues.
Posted by: Paul on January 10, 2003 04:35 AMPaul,
I suggest you reread your copy of Gibbon.
On the original note:
"If the shit hits the fan, and those clerks, truck drivers, and various and sundry others who make up the rear area of the modern Army are pressed into service, the only infantry training they will have will be basic. And I think Basic training in the Army falls short."
Bullshit. You have nothing to base such a conclusion on. You have never seen the "shit hit the fan", you have never trained anyone for that situation, and you have no idea if your comment about the "only infantry training they will have" is accurate. Biased research will create biased results.
Posted by: on January 10, 2003 12:02 PMPaul:
Obviously your take on Roman History is different from mine. Military units installing governments and heads of state, hmmm...
Nothing new there. So what? The Roman Empire lasted almost 1000 years using that system. We're the rookies here with only 200 years experience. All we did was install our current form of CIVILIAN government by force of arms. Then we propped it up during a CIVIL war 80 years later.
If that wasn't enough, every war that CIVILIANS started we went in and installed/influenced other CIVILIAN governments that we liked. And we're going to do it again to Afghanistan, Iraq, and North Korea.
Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Russia, and the former Warsaw Pact countries are the most recent examples of CIVILIAN governments installed by the power of the US Armed Forces; by force, guile or economics. We also REINSTALLED CIVILIAN governments like France, Belgium, Denmark, Phillipines, Malaya, and Thailand.
Want us to stop?
I notice there is commentary on the rest of my rebuttals; hmmm...
Posted by: tracy.warrington@cubic.com on January 10, 2003 07:08 PMCorrection:
I notice there is NO commentary on the rest of my rebuttals; hmmm...
Posted by: Tracy-Paul Warrington on January 10, 2003 07:10 PMHere's something to close out and chew on:
Being in the Military is a lot like being a Virgin. Either you are, or you're not; and if you're not, no one really wants to hear your silly excuses.
The other commonality is there's always someone trying to screw you and tell you how great it will be.
Civilians, can't live with them, can't live with them...
Posted by: Tracy-Paul Warrington on January 10, 2003 07:25 PMI b'lieve Lincoln was a captain of volunteers during the Blackhawk War.
Posted by: Larry on January 11, 2003 03:26 PM"Ours is not to ask 'em why, ours is but to do and/or die." Or come out smelling like a rose...!
Posted by: Steve Plonk on January 13, 2003 12:59 PMI find it totally funny how people respond to your postings.
So many people pissed off and then saying they should ignore you.
This is America. They do have the option to just not read it.
Ha Ha Ha !!!
What dip-sticks.
I for one thank you for thinking about the issues that you do. Freedom is great.
Later,
rb
