 |  |
 
October 2012
August 2012 July 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003
     |
 Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by! April 2, 2006 Word War IBy Greyhawk(Updated/bumped from 2006-03-31 21:11:55) Glenn Reynold's MSNBC column on media bias is well worth a read (scroll to "Oh, that liberal media" if the link doesn't deliver you right there.) It's pretty much a media monoculture (Look at the results of this survey of reporters' political donations: "President George Bush didn't receive a single donation from any outlet or reporter in my search."). Sometimes Bush-hatred leads them to actually wish for American defeat in Iraq. Other times it just produces a one-sided fear of manipulation, in which the media is careful to resist spin from the U.S. military, but not so careful to resist the spin of the other sides.There's an important point that should be made here - much American media coverage from Iraq is designed to discredit George Bush. And this is why reporters can publish claims that US Soldiers tied up and shot a helpless 75-year old woman and a baby in a farmhouse or slaughtered unarmed worshippers in a mosque and then be aghast at claims they are "against the troops". In the minds of most reporters if the soldiers really did butcher babies it's not their fault anyway - it's because of Bush. And gosh, we don't really know who's telling the truth - but we know that the soldiers wouldn't have been there at all if it weren't for Bush. But GIs don't buy into the whole "we support the troops" claims made by the same folks who want to blame any failure of those troops on their leaders in Washington (whether said troops personally support those leaders or not). GIs tend to take responsibility for their actions (there are notable exceptions, but this statement is true for the large majority) and don't have very high opinions of those who attempt to shift blame. Such attempts are often looked upon with more disgust than the original transgression. It's a sign of cowardice, and that's an unforgivable character flaw in our world, and we don't appreciate those who would deign to take cowardly actions on our behalf. More from Glenn Reynolds: Honest and open bias would be better than a uniformly left-leaning media pretending to be above politics -- though, of course, honesty, competence, and fairness would be better still -- but the pretense of neutrality has worn a bit thin nowadays.Indeed. Cynthia Tucker is the editorial page editor for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. In a way her column last week almost achieves that "honest and open bias" description - but that might be accidental. She certainly reveals much bias, and shares a wealth of bad information. Beginning with the obligatory "I support the troops - not the war" disclaimer (a phrase I first heard just before Desert Storm) she moves to her main theme: the poor were over-represented in the military services in 1999. Guess last year's data weren't available to her: Many of today's recruits are financially strapped, with nearly half coming from lower-middle-class to poor households, according to new Pentagon data based on Zip codes and census estimates of mean household income.A fast read of that Washington Post story on the topic might make you think Tucker is correct. But read carefully and you'll see it confirms my point. If "nearly half" of recruits come from one group, then over half come from another - in this case, that group would be people with higher incomes. ( It also confirms the media bias – the wording used by the Post was a bold attempt to frame the discussion in a manner more accommodating to their beliefs.) More from Cynthia Tucker: Ah, but they volunteered, you say. Yes, they did. All the more reason to honor their commitment by making sure they aren't cannon fodder in a dubious cause. They took to heart the shopworn platitudes and easy slogans about duty and honor and service while many who are wealthier did not. Soldiers shouldn't be ill-used simply because they believed in their country and its leaders.Yes, they did volunteer. Most of the lower ranking troops did so after the invasion of Iraq. It's nice - in a way - to see a merely thinly disguised "workers of the world unite!" speech in opposition to the war, but a well-founded argument that the war was based on thin pretext should probably avoid arguments built on even thinner foundations. And if you're going to claim you're enemy uses "shopworn plattitudes and easy slogans" you'd be well advised to steer well clear of them yourself. But in a way it's refreshing to find a journalist admitting that her superior intellect and prospects compel her to protect the lower life forms - a written confession that yes, she is the living embodiment of that cliché. The attitude is repulsive - but the candor is appreciated.
Posted by Greyhawk / April 2, 2006 7:11 PM | Permalink 2 TrackBacksWhen the trailer played before “Inside Man” last week at the famed Grauman’s Chinese Theatre in Hollywood, audience members began calling out, “Too soon!” In New York City, where 9/11 remains an open wound, the response... Read More Mudville Gazette reports on a number of instances where the Big Story was false and the little story was the correction. The Big Story was the raid on a Mosque last week that al Sadr's group wailed loudly about. You Read More 27 Comments |
November 26, 2010America@war [Greyhawk]
I think anyone who's ever pondered the "comment" option - once only available on blogs and bulletin boards, now ubiquitous on almost any web site - will appreciate this:
The so-called faculty of writing is not so much a faculty of writing as it is a faculty of thinking. When a man says, "I have an idea but I can't express it"; that man hasn't an idea but merely a vague feeling. If a man has a feeling of that kind, and will sit down for a half an hour and persistently try to put into writing what he feels, the probabilities are at least 90 percent that he will either be able to record it, or else realize that he has no idea at all. In either case, he will do himself a benefit. That's wisdom from the past, captured for posterity at the US Naval Institute, shared via the web on the institute's 137th anniversary. From their about page:
"The Naval Institute has three core activities," among them, History and Preservation: The Naval Institute also has recently introduced Americans at War, a living history of Americans at war in their own words and from their own experiences. These 90-second vignettes convey powerful stories of inspiration, pride, and patriotism. Take a look at the collection, and you'll see it's not limited to accounts from those who served on ships at sea, members of the other branches are well-represented. I'm fortunate to have met USNI's Mary Ripley, she's responsible for the institute's oral history program (and she's the daughter of the late John Ripley, whose story is told here). She also deserves much credit for their blog. ("We're not the Navy nor any government agency. Blog and comment freely.") We met at a milblog conference - Mary knew (and I would come to realize) that milbloggers are the 21st-century version of exactly what the US Naval Institute is all about. Once that light bulb came on in my head, I mentioned a vague idea for a project to her - milblogs as the 21st century oral history that they are. "Put that in writing," she said (of course - see first paragraph above!) - and here's part of the result. Shortly after the first tent was pitched by the American military in Iraq a wire was connected to a computer therein, and the internet was available to a generation of Americans at war - many of whom had grown up online. From that point on, at any given moment, somewhere in Iraq a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine was at a keyboard sharing the events of his or her day with the folks back home. While most would simply fire off an email, others took advantage of the (then) relatively new online blogging platforms to post their thoughts and experiences for the entire world to see. The milblog was born - and from that moment to this stories detailing everything from the most mundane aspects of camp life to intense combat action (often described within hours of the event) have been available on the web... And et cetera - but since you're reading this on a milblog, you probably knew that. And you know that milblogs aren't just blogs written by troops at war, that many friends, family members, and supporters likewise documented their story of America at war online in near-real time, as those stories developed. The diversity in membership of that group is broad, the one thing we all have in common is the impulse to make sense of the seemingly senseless, and communicate the tale - for each of us that impulse was strong enough to overcome whatever barriers prevent the vast majority of people from doing the same. Everyone at some point has some vague idea they believe should be shared - we were the people who, from some combination of internal and external urging, found and spent those many half hours persistently trying to write it down. But where will all that be in another 137 years? Or five or ten, for that matter. That's something I've asked myself since at least 2004 - when I wrote this:
Membership in the ghost battalion has grown in the years since, and an ever growing majority of those abandoned-but-still-standing sites are vanishing. Have you checked out Lt Smash's site lately? How about Sgt Hook's? If you're a long-time milblog reader you know the first widely-read milblog from Operation Iraq Freedom and the first widely-read milblog from Afghanistan are both gone from the web. If you're a relative newcomer to this world you may never even have heard of them - or the dozens upon dozens of others who carried forth the standard they set down. If you have a vague notion that something should be done about that, (a notion I've heard expressed more than once...) then you and I and the good folks at the US Naval Institute are in agreement. Preserving the history documented by the milbloggers is just one of the goals of the milblog project, the once-vague idea that we're now making real. And it's a big idea, if I say so myself - too big to explain in one simple blog post, so stand by for more. Likewise, it's too big a task to be accomplished by just one person. So if you're a milblogger (and exactly what is a milblogger? is a topic for much further discussion on its own) I'm asking for your help. All I'll really need is just a little bit (maybe just one or two of those half hours...) of your time, and your willingness to tell the tale. We've already made history, it's time to save it. (More to follow...) Posted 4:02 PM | Permalink |
Comments (0) |
|
The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him. They prefer to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day they stand fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.
 
 
 Furthermore, I will occasionally use satire or parody herein. The bottom line: it's my house. I like having visitors to my house. I hope you are entertained. I fight for your right to free speech, and am thrilled when you exercise said rights here. Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1)the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2)the property of the Mudville Gazette, with free use granted thereto for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email. Original content copyright © 2003 - 2011 by Greyhawk. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed. Contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com  Tending Distant Far from hearth and home, watching What tales we'll tell When things grim Some distant sunset, vision fading Saluting fallen friends whose names - Greyhawk, Baghdad, December 2004 |
Greyhawk,
The chief problem with most of your "recruiting is fine, move along, nothing to see hear" rhetoric - and that of the DoD and the Heritage Foundation - is that your methodology is flawed.
Why?
You do not subtract the ENLISTMENT INELIGIBLES from comparisons. You are comparing those that enlist to an overall national 18-24 cohort that also includes meth addicts, kids with Downs Syndrome, dropouts, undocumented aliens, incarcerated felons, single parents, the Amish and countless other groups that cannot enlist.
The preponderence of "APPLE" enlistment ineligibles are found in groups with a lower socioeconomic status. When the kids that enlist are compared with those ELIGIBLE to enlist, they come from a decidedly lower socioeconomic standing.
A greater swath of "the bottom half" can't enlist compared to the upper half. When what remains is compared with those that enlist, the disparity becomes plain.
The educational attainment of enlistees, vice the national average, underscores this point.
So if we ignore the poor people who for various reasons can't serve in the military, and then create a new bell curve of the incomes of the remaining people in America, we'll find the similar bell curve for those that enlist is shifted to the left of that larger set.
Is there something about this point that makes it important enough to even undertake the analysis?
It should be obvious. If you compare ENLISTMENT ELIGIBLES to the US population, you will find that those with lower SES are "underepresented" among those that are APPLE qualified to enlist.
If you compare those that actually enlist with the enlistment eligibles and find that HALF of enlistees are "in the lowest 50%, those groups are DRAMATICALLY OVERREPRESENTED. The overall enlistment eligibles are more heavily skewed to the upper half of family incomes. They should be expected to comprise much more than 50% of enlistees if the force is to truly be reflective of who is actually eligible to enlist.
This is doubly true when you "drill down" into minority enlistments. 27% of Hispanics and 13.1% of blacks drop out of high school. Throw in other legal, moral and dependency issues and easily a quarter of these groups can not enlist - before we even get to ASVAB or physical disqualifiers. The mere fact that these populations send their share of the total US population to the military makes them statistically overrepresented. The fact they exceed that percentages reinforces the overrepresentation.
IRR,
Actually, both the bottom quintile and top quintile are underrepresented. The very poor, those people you mention, high school dropouts etc, and the very rich. The really poor are under-represented, because they not only don't qualify for a position in the Army, they also don't qualify for a position at McDonalds or pretty much anywhere else. That's why they are "poor".
So when you list the "inelegibles", you are actually excluding the bottom quintile. Which is in fact under repesented, as is the top quintile. The lower middle ,middle , and upper middle class are carrying the load. The upper and lower classes aren't.
Soldiers Dad,
Not so fast. The Heritage stats and those regurgitated by Mudville did not exclude anyone from comparison - they should have. You MUST exclude ineligbles to have any accurate reference of what the current AVF looks like in comparison with who it could potentially draw from. When that is done, our current volunteers are decidly skewed towards the lower 1/2 of eligible enlistees in almost every metric: parents educational attainment, family income. When that's done, you find it is really the top 30-40% that aren't carrying the load.
This entire debate is absurd. What is the point IRR is making? That nearly 50% of the soldiers in the service are better educated and come from better economic circumstances than the average...is a bad thing?
That the upper two quintiles of education and economic background are represented at all, let alone in the numbers it actually is, is nothing short of phenomenal in a volunteer army.
One would think that a democracies army that included representatives from across the spectrum and was still the best military on the planet would be a good thing.
Is IRR Soldier arguing that we need a military that resembles the Spartan's of 2500 years ago composed primarily of the upper middle class and led by the wealthy elites? They won the Peloponnesian War but they weren't a democracy
The Left, and I include IRR and Kevin, is making the argument that we are failing to maintain a Warrior Caste! Yet at the same time they are making the mistakes Athens’s made: the Athenian Assembly punished nearly every General it dispatched in the Peloponnesian War making the rest timid and scared of decision making.
The Spartan Alliance didn't win, the Athenians lost. Yet it is not inconsistent with Leftist thinking to make the mistakes that ancient democracy made while desiring the Army of the wealthy elites. Why shouldn’t the military reflect the tendency of the Left to speak of democracy while wishing for rule by the “smart” elite? Hence the disdain for a military which includes the Helots.
Reading your posts, and knowing that you are both a patriot and a veteran, it is astounding that any moron could characterize our military personnel as somehow being mentally inferior!
One has but to read your blog to see what utter nonsense that mantra of the left has become.
Quilly,
My goodness ... you have completely missed the entire point of my recent posts. I'm warning aginst the creation of a warrior caste that is drawn from a narrow, self-selected swath of society!! I am arguing that we should be maintaining a military of citizen-soldiers (not "warriors") that reflects the nation it serves.
The thesis of your entire post is absurd. I advocate a representative Army along the lines of what we fielded from 1940 through 1973. Was that "the wealthy elite?" Of course not. But, the weatlhty and not so wealthy elite served .... together ... as did Applachians, immigrants and others.
The issue is more than the wealthy elite ... it's about having folks (especially white and Asian ones) from Bergen County, NJ; Fairfield County, CT, Alpharetta, GA; Cary, NC etc. serve in any capacity in our military.
Writ large, a large percentage of our best educated, most physically fit citizens are not present in the military. This "seperateness" is the threat to democracy our founding fathers warned about. Most importantly, the skills and talents of our entire citizenry is needed to win the "long war."
Dagney,
I'm glad that in your world, whatever Greyhawk says is exactly how the military is. Unlike Greyhawk, my YG 98 peers are commanding companies and NCOs I served with are still on recruiting duty. Their reports are hardly rosy. All negative, no, but full of concern.
Over at Kevin's site, the Command TOC, you'll find about 2 dozen IRR officers - that served our nation in peace and combat. They (and I) have a different view than Greyhawk.
If Greyhawk has this musch time to blog as a field grade officer, he either isn't working hard enough or is deservedly serving in a position of minimal responsibility.
Why would anyone enlist?
Not to change the subject or anything (back to the post, as it were) but that's the question isn't it? And the answer is "because they are poor and stupid."
I can't help but take that argument personally, even though I'm not a minority. I *certainly* count as having grown up poor... not that I thought too much about it. Rural areas tend to be *very* poor.
Please let me make ONE point. Poor people, minorities or not, who are eligible to enlist in the military HAVE OTHER OPTIONS. By definition.
Back to "why would anyone enlist?" Some people really can't imagine why anyone would. Just the other day I "pitched" a movie idea to a script-writing critique group I'm joining. (An "encounter with friendly aliens" story.) One character is a girl, 3 weeks from reporting to Marine boot camp. They liked my story. What was interesting was *what* they liked about it, mainly, this girl. Why? Because her goal was exotic and strange. Why, I was asked, does she want to do this? The question "why" took me by surprise and I really didn't know how to answer it because in my head I was thinking, "What? Who doesn't secretly fantasize about being a warrior."
Undoubtably some people don't. Which is okay. I just wish they'd quit projecting their motivations on everyone else and deciding that people who join the service do so because they just aren't smart enough to know better.
My character's motivation is her personality. At 17 it doesn't go much deeper than a desire to test herself and have an adventure. In martial arts terms, she's a tiger. (Her brother in the story is a deer. It reflects in their personalities and goals, but not on their character.) The answer I gave when asked "why would she want to enlist in the Marines?" was... "She likes shiny pointy things?"
It was accurate enough.
What they thought of how *I* thought the military would react to a crashed alien space ship with survivors was also... interesting. ;-)
IRR Soldier said,
"My goodness ... you have completely missed the entire point of my recent posts. I'm warning aginst the creation of a warrior caste that is drawn from a narrow, self-selected swath of society!! I am arguing that we should be maintaining a military of citizen-soldiers (not "warriors") that reflects the nation it serves."
If your ideal military reflects the nation it serves, would it not include the ENLISTMENT INELIGIBLES you wish to exclude from the statistical picture?
IRR soldier continues,
"The thesis of your entire post is absurd. I advocate a representative Army along the lines of what we fielded from 1940 through 1973. Was that "the wealthy elite?" Of course not. But, the weatlhty and not so wealthy elite served .... together ... as did Applachians, immigrants and others."
I advocate an Army (and Navy and Air Force and Marines and Coast Guard) that first and foremost can get the job of the nation's defense done. Anything else is a potential distraction and/or detriment to that primary goal.
FRNM,
My follow up questions to your posts are the following:
- Are Cat IV enlistees the folks to "get the job done" in an assymetric war on terror?
- In a war where LTs and CPTs have the potential to incite international events, should Army OCS have a 100% sllection rate for civilian applicants?
- Are 42 year old E-1s the best folks to "get the job done" in a long war?
- Might we not want to leverage the educational experiences, life experience and abilities of our most gifted citizens? As our Army consistently says, languages and cultural literacy (along with good ole' tactical skills) will be the keys to winning in the 20th century. If that's the case (and I agree it is), we had better start figuring out a way to engage all our citizens in the fight.
FRNM,
The military has decided which citizens are not up to serving in uniform: asthmatics, most convicted felons and most dropouts etc. These folks are viewed as detriments to the military and statistical experience with first term attrition supports it.
We do want our military to reflect the eligible population. They will be the leaders in the next century and we had better figure out a way to have them exposed the military and its unique role in our society. Two weeks ago I attended the Nat'l Democratic Law Students conference at harvard. Of 190 attendees, I was the only vet. The room was full of future judges, politicians, CEOs and policy makers. The situation isn't much better on the GOP side.
Frankly, I'd rather see at least 5% of these future leaders serve. a much more important policy goal and benefit to our military than recruiting ineligible dregs.
IRR Soldier writes,
"We do want our military to reflect the eligible population. They will be the leaders in the next century and we had better figure out a way to have them exposed the military and its unique role in our society."
Again, that is putting the cart before the horse. We must first survive for those leaders of the next century to have anything to lead. The primary goal of the Military must remain the defense of the nation. Putting anything ahead of that, even something as noble as ensuring all facets of civilian society have a strong veteran component, is simply asking for trouble.
Yes, it is troubling that many talented and gifted people never even consider military service. Yes, it would be better in the future if we have strong veteran representation in business, government, academia, etc.
Without mandating to the Military who will and won't serve, how do you propose solving those anticipated problems?
Hello,
I need some help and hope you can assist me.
Have you ever written or seen any stories about our returning Troops who later discover they suffer from PTSD and perhaps are being discriminated against? Or have gotten into Legal trouble of some sort, as a result of PTSD?? If so, would it be possible to share some of those with me? I am on a 'mission' of putting a face on PTSD.
HONOR needs to be restored to our 'Wounded Troops.'
I hope you take the time to read the following...it is the very foundation of my 'mission' of putting a face on PTSD!!!
I've done hours and hours of research on this and have been on and read many Military BLOGS...written by our returning Troops. This (below) is one of them.
I've got more stories that are similar. Been on lots of Military BLOGS and have some letters written--hoping to get responses from returning Troops.
We send our Troops out there--putting their lives on the wire every minute they are over there...we have them performing heroic actions... getting shot at...total disregard for their own lives...doing their jobs for which they were trained to do--then when they come back...WOUNDED... the Military throws them away. PTSD is WOUNDED inwardly! It is sustained in COMBAT!
This story is about a returning Troop, 1st Lt. Goodrum, who is or was being charged with going AWOL when he sought help for PTSD! He was turned away from his local Medical Care Facility when he was having a nervous breakdown, so he checked himself into a Civilian Psychiatric Hospital.
I do not know the outcome of 1st Lt. Goodrum...I will look into that and definitely get/have that information. If you have any information on the outcome of 1st Lt. Goodrum, please let me know.
Thank you kindly for your time!
Respectfully,
Linda Michaud
***************************
Musings of a Few Corpsman
http://corpsmanmusings.blogspot.com/
Mental problems following war
This is an issue that show it’s ugly head after every war, people returning back who are suffering from some sort of mental disorder.
A report released in July from The New England Journal of Medicine of Iraq combat veterans showed that at least one in eight -- between 15 and 17 percent -- seemed to suffer from major depression, generalized anxiety or PTSD.
My unit wasn't at the forefront and we didn't see heavy combat for which I'm glad but there are small signs in us too.
Being at Edward's AFB, there are usually a dozen or so sonic booms a day, for the first couple of weeks after we got back, every time one went off, everybody in the room would duck.
Whether we admit it or not most of us suffer from some form of anxiety, mostly mild. It faded fairly quickly for most of us and we went on with life. Not too many people talk about it because of stigma attached to mental illness. Face it being called crazy once most people think you're crazy for the rest of your life.
This story was pointed out to me by a new addition to my Milblogs list (on Doc in the Box), Eddie from To New Frontiers.
1st Lt. Goodrum came back from Iraq suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and was turned away from his local Medical Care Facility when he was having a nervous breakdown so he did the next best thing and checked himself into a Civilian Psychiatric Hospital.
The problem with mental disorders is that they are internal and mostly a judgment call by the medical staff. We can't go into the head of the patient, to us they might appear normal and calm but internally they're one straw from going stark bonkers.
The problem with the situation above is that he didn't put leave papers in, so he's being charged with being AWOL.
I don't know the facts behind the story other then what is in the Washington Post article printed but it is bothersome that someone who is clearly sick is also being charged with a crime that was clearly caused by his illness. If the charges go through, he could be imprisoned and kicked out and the underlining reason for this all left untreated.
Obviously I'm a big supporter of the military but I do think there is a clear need for better psychological counseling available for the returning troops that is easier to get to then the current system. An open door policy that is always available with a minimum of flak or paperwork. These are the people that need the real help when they get back, now while it's still fresh so they can recover and get on with their lives.
I for one don't want to see them on some street corner in twenty years with a sign that says “Help a Disabled Iraqi Vet-Hungry-Need Food.”
posted by Sean from DocintheBox @ 9:56 AM 3 comments
Perhaps IRR Soldier might be more effective making his argument to the hate-America anti-liberators who protest and harass recruitment centers on university campuses in order to discourage students from considering a career in the military.
In all respect due to his prior service, can't he see the least bit of irony in his statement:
'Writ large, a large percentage of our best educated, most physically fit citizens are not present in the military. This "seperateness" is the threat to democracy our founding fathers warned about.'
...at the same time he ran straight for the exemption and discharge line after an order came down he didn't like?
LJD,
I've never been recalled. I can resign today if I wanted to.
Syn,
I have taken this message to groups you suggested and actually asked Howard Dean, the chair of the DNC, "What are you going to do about the civil-military divide in encouraging young people to serve" during an open forum at the Nat'l Democratic Law Students Convention at harvard two weeks ago. I've also written several letters to the editor at campus newspapers.
FRNM,
Yes, we should be concerned. For starters, I would hope that USAREC would but at least minimal effort into recruiting in more affluent areas ... they currently don't.
Likewise, ROTC programs should be expanded (the 10,554 LT/CPT shortage in the USAR demands it) and placed on campuses that better achieve the goal of commisioning qualified, representative citizens. For starters, the Navy not having NROTC ANYWHERE in NJ or CT is something that must be changed. Likewise, should only 1 AFROTC Detachment, at a small unknown catholic college, be the only unit serving the 12.7 million people of NYC, Long Island and Westchester County, NY? How many AFROTC units serve Alabama, Missisippi, Arkansas - states whose COMBINED population is about the size of NYC alone.?
Linda,
Something seems funny about the whole "Lt. Goodrum." He was an overaged "quickie" commissionee which the USAR has been doing a lot of lately to plug the 10,554 wholes that exist in its LT/CPT force structure. From what I've seen, Goodrum was a flake befoire he ever even left for Iraq. He probably never would have been commisioned 15 years ago. Now, the USAR is giving direct commisions to E-4s with 2.1 GPAs (no OCS) because they need officesr that badly. Wrong way to go, IMHO.
I guess I confused you with a poster by the same name at another blog who was pushing through his D&E at the start of OIF.
If you are an active IRR Soldier, what the hell are you doing hanging around INDYmedia? It seems like they don't want any military at all, ever.
You posted, "Now, the USAR is giving direct commisions to E-4s with 2.1 GPAs (no OCS) because they need officesr that badly"
I would love to see a link to this, because I think it is BS.
Yeah, I am throwing the BS flag at that one too.
I happen to be upper middle class, have three degrees (BA, MA, JD) and don't find myself to be that great an exception in the ILARNG. Can I be a "future leader" then?
LJD,
The case I describe (E-4 direct commision, 2.1 GPA and no OCS) is a real live story from the [deleted]. [deleted] is the name of the individual and his direct commision packet - to include ERB, College transcript etc. were included on a powerpoint presentation on how to do a "direct commision" packet.
As unbelievable as it sounds, the entire powerpoint show is there if you have AKO access [deleted].
As for Indymedia, I'm a pretty big regular over at counterrecruiter and my posts, under the same pen name, are there for all too see. I disagree with their tactics aimed at colleges and universities. My posts should reflect this.
It took some searching, but I found your 'source'.
While your statement may be factually true, your use of it is intellectually dishonest.
You paint the picture that the Army is just pulling E-4s off the streets and GIVING them commissions. You are making judgement based only on his rank and GPA, without his other service records. Obviously, some one in his command thought he would be a good officer, and he was able to convince the board. You do this officer, and his command, a great disservice.
What's with the snobby, elitist view? Audie Murphy didn't go to West Point.
LJD,
Another site you might want to visit is www.armyocs.com - run by the OCS Foundation and very strictly moderated. The Army Reserve is now offering "direct commission" enlistments into the basic branches for civilians and no OCS. Yes, this is happening.
As for [deleted], he served a whopping year as a junior enlisted [deleted]. His glowing "recommendation" was from his company commander. The letter lists such laudable accomplishments as "exceeding APFT standards". Nothing shows why he should get a direct commision and an RA 11B4V has to attend the "Benning School for Boys."
Tell me why USAR MP, SC, TC and EN LTs need LESS precommissioning training. What about their OIF/OEF deployments make them need to be less experienced? Nothing does. At least the RA LTs have a deeper bench of experienced NCOs to draw on.
I hope that you can see the same thing. I fear that your unwillingness to see where our officer accession policies are taking us puts you in this "land of make believe" that everything okay.
Do look into the "direct commission" program being hawked by the USAR - it's something to watch.
I'd suggest putting forth a competent officer/OCS recruiting strategy before we open the gates to anyone with a degree/pulse/110 GT.
I also saw some posts at the OCS web site about troops that have had waivers rejected, or their 61 rejected for various reasons.
So what exactly IS precomission training? Going to college and drinking kegs? What so valuable about yours?
Remember, these 'candidates' still have to go to OBC and pass. It is not handed to them. I have enough faith in the cadre to mold a young person into a very good officer. Like my reference to Audie Murphy before, very good officers have followed very non-traditional paths.
In my situation, I am an IRR NCO with a combat MOS. I maxed out all of my ASVAB scores. I enlisted with a Bachelor's Degree and some Graduate School. I am an overseas Veteran. I graduted at the top of my PLDC class. I have an excellent service record with awards, NCOERs, etc. I currently work as a Civil Engineer.
At the start of OIF I started to look into how I could contribute. Many Guard and Reserve recruiters have contacted me to resume my prior ENLISTED duties. The problem is, I make too much money as a civilian, and I have a family to support. I would have considered a guard or reserve commission, against the wishes of my wife. Because we like where we live, active duty is no longer an option.
You would think the army would be begging to pin butter bars on me. All of MY calls to various POCs have resulted in offers to enlist FIRST, then maybe get a commmission. It's just not worth it to me. I have more than paid my dues.
If I were to believe the Army was so needy, I would think things would be alot different.
LJD,
Again, I think you KNOW what right looks like, but for political face-saving purposes you try to minimize the reality of what's taking place.
For starters, pre-commisioning training (whether USMA, OCS or ROTC) has a standard set of core tasks that must be acheived - e.g. proficiency of land navigation and squad/platoon tactics and troop leading procedures that are not taught in equal detail/depth at BCT and PLDC - especially RC PLDC/WLC.
Additionally, there is an intense leadership evaluation components be it at USMA Sumer Training, ROTC Advanced Camp or OCS. In other words, thrird parties, outside your Chain of Command, are assessing your skills and signing off that you are "good to go."
The direct commission route fails on both of these counts. As I said before, if an RA 11B4V or SF CW2 has to attend OCS, why the haell are we giving a pass to USAR 92A10s that never served on active duty. What in BCT, AIT and a single year of traditional drilling duty makes someone like 2LT [deleted] qualified to bypass OCS? - nothing. I would urge you to look into the POI of OCS a little closer before dismissing the course content.
Secondly, your comments on OBC are wildly off the mark. I will concede that IN, EN, FA and AR OBCs are a "crucible" of sorts. TC, SC, MS, OM and other CS/CSS OBC are entirely different animals. TC OBC involves no firing of actual weapons and no dismounted land navigation training. The POI is based on the assumption that these skills were taught in precommissioning and in 99% of cases they were. OBC is not a remedial CTT/land nav/BRM/STX course. Who fails OBC other than IN, EN, FA and AR "screwups"? Almost no one. It's not the job of the branch schools to teach common core skills that everyone else already learned.
As I said before, what makes these DCs so special? [Deleted} and others could easily find themselves cross-levelled to medium truck companies bound for Iraq as a PL or XO - in fact, that's the likely scenario. Why should a combat bound USAR LT with a shallower base of NCO experience and lives at stake be allowed to deploy with inferior training?
A real world example: A friend, Matt, was a ARNG 96B10 that received a DC as an MI 2LT. He was cross-levelled to an FA Battery that was reflagged as a "provisional MP" company and deployed to Iraq for a year. He led the provisional MPs for a year. Prior to deploying, he had never touched a crew-served weapon outside of basic. had he attended OCS, he would have been familiar with the 240B, M249, control of fires etc. These skills are not taught in MI OBC. This is but one example of where the DC system put a good soldier in a bad situation. I don't want to hear" he had great NCOs - he didn't. They were 155 SP artillerymen with the same 5 weeks of MP training from the 1SG to the newest E-1. We owe it to our country and soldiers to do better.
Audie Murphy is a WWII anomoly during a national mobilization. There is no comparison to the current conflict. We have no need to "experiment" with leadership and soldiers' lives. Things aren't bad enough to abandon standards.
If you have such a hard-on for a direct commission, you should contact the POCs on that powerpoint [deleted]. Obviously they are willing to commision most anyone - [deleted]. I'm sure they could direct you where to go.
The EN branch is hurting for officers in the USAR. B/854th EN was commanded for 18 mos. by an SFC and the HSC was led by a WO1.
The fact is the Army is in a crisis and the left hand and right hand have no idea what each other are doing. Example, despite gaping officer vacancies, the NYC Recruiting Battalion enlisted 1 USAR OCS contract (out of a cachment population of 14 million) while enlisting dozens of folks as USAR E-4s. Silly and a waste of resources.
Any Career Counselor or recruiter trying to get a college grad eligible for commisioning to enlist is out for one thing - their own quota. Considering the USAR is willing to DC civilians to the 16 basic branches, should tell you about the real shortage problem!
Perhaps I misspoke... I did not in any way intend to diminish the training at OCS. On the contrary, it seems an extremely valuable resource for combat leaders.
I would add, however, that many commissioned officers go through ROTC or accelerated academies, and do not get the same training. That said, is it really necessary? Depends on the job. I would not care if a physician knows how to salute properly, if they are handy with a scapel and can do their job- saving lives. I suppose the same goes for an administrator or logistician.
In times of war, the military has always adapted to fill the necessary slots. When casualties ar high (as they are NOT now), those slots are available much more often. Somehow, we always manage to get troops trained up to snuff, and as with any job, much of the learning is hands-on. If you're a combat leader, that's a big deal. If you're a paper pusher, not so much.
LJD,
Who are the "paper pushers" these days in the Lieutenant ranks. Rumsfeld et al. are civilianizing almost every damn support position they can. We are seeing officers of virtually every branch be cross-levelled into positions outside of their respective branches.
TC officers, like [deleted], deploy as platoon leaders to lead soldiers. A high number of Army reservists - enlisted and officer - have been killed, many in combat specialties.
The 507th Maintenance/Jessica Lynch debacle highlights the fallacy of your assertion that certain MOS/branches will never need to be proficient in combat tasks. Consequently, the Army retooled BCT, PLDC and added a new officer course called BOLC. Despite these improvements, we are "looking the other way" in direct commissioning officers.
With 10,554 LT/CPT slots empty, officers are being thrown into a variety of unexpected scenarios. Aggressive, intense and competence building training is a mechanism to help these folks stay alive and keep their subordinantes alive.
As for ROTC Camp and USMA Summer training. Both programs involve TAC/NCO officer evaluations in a third-party setting. ROTC land nav training is more intense than PLDC and there an entire academic year - MS III - devoted to FM 7-8 Infantry Platoon and Squad.
While not the 14 weeks of OCS, those programs are designed to provide an objective assessment of a candidate's potential.