Bunker Mulligan "Let us endeavor so to live that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry." ~Mark Twain

December 30, 2004

Cannon Fodder No More

Filed under: Military,Society-Culture — Bunker @ 7:44 am

Nearly a year ago I wrote about the differences between people who are smart and those who are simply intelligent. I went back to read that post again this morning because of something that came to mind after hearing Lago mention he would have MajorDad on with him this morning by phone. Jim says he was impressed with a post on minimum wages which he considered to be definitive.

That made me think, which has been a chore recently. And it sent me back to that post to clear my mind a bit before deciding what to write.

I have heard many times in my life from many different directions that people in the military are somehow intellectually challenged. The words stupid and loser are sometimes salted throughout commentary. I want to challenge that. And I believe I am imminently qualified to do so.

Let’s simply consider a group of young men and women who graduated from college four years ago. If anyone bothered to collect a broad cross-section of those new graduates and compared their knowledge at that point and then compared them today, there would be a significant difference between two primary groups: those who went to work in the private sector or went on to get graduate degrees and those who chose to enter the military.

I see a lot of heads nodding in agreement right now. Some who are nodding believe those who went into business or education would blow the military folks away intellectually. Others are nodding because they understand the truth.

What is that truth? Those who enter the civilian workforce tend to expand their knowledge in their field of endeavor–and often become very good at it. For the first four or five years after graduation, their focus is on improving those skills, because that’s where personal progress is.

The group that enters the military does the same. They learn their particular craft to the best of their ability. But they also have other requirements of the profession, and those skills are developed just as strongly. This is called Professional Military Education. It encompasses everything from public speaking and writing to practical psychology and sociology. It also includes analytical history and management. And it is all taught in real-world application. The education a military officer gets from college is a very simple beginning for the much broader practical education in dealing with people from all backgrounds and cultures. Within that, their military specialty is but a small part. At USAFA there is a statue of an eagle and her offspring which the cadets all the “Knowledge is good” statue. The quote on it is “Man’s flight through life is sustained by the power of his knowledge.” Education and practical learning are emphasized throught the military. Every installation has an education office and access to all forms of learning.

I’ll be the first to admit that my skills as an engineer are less than those I graduated with. They focused on engineering after graduation. I couldn’t. It was important, but simply a part of what I was expected to know. But I was one of the best aircraft maintenance managers in the world, leading some of the best aircraft mechanics in the world. And a pretty good engineer on top of that.

Okay. Some will now say I’m talking simply about officers. What about the enlisted slime? Well, I were one. For eleven years. Later, I was in charge of over 300. Many of those had a year or two of college behind them and joined the military out of boredom with school. Most were enrolled in some kind of educational program, working on a degree or some technical skill they could use when they separated. I had several senior NCOs with college degrees, and one with multiple graduate degrees.

But that is simply their formal education. They also had professional military education programs which differed little from those for officers. At NCO Leadership School when I was an E-5 our management section of the course was derived from a graduate school management course.

But the technical aspect of military jobs is also pretty strenuous. A tanker must know how to operate, maintain, and effectively use his M1A2 tank. Everything. My helicopter maintenance course included not just nomenclature and tool use, but the aerodynamics of helicopter flight–how do all these parts work together to make it fly. And infantrymen are no longer simply cannon fodder. Some of the brightest young men you’ll ever meet carry an M16. They know people and societies, and can work with a team in ways civilians cannot even grasp.

I’m not saying those in the military are the smartest group on Earth…. Yes, I am. As a group. There are geniuses, and there are idiots in the military. I’ve managed to discharge some of those idiots and promote some of those geniuses.

The military is not a refuge for incompetents. It is not society’s trash heap. In general, it is populated by people with a far broader education than you will find anywhere else, and a worldview that is far more inclusive than that of our friends on the far left. And that broader practical learning experience makes them smart, and not simply intelligent. That opportunity is lacking in civilian life and must be actively sought. Not everyone has that ambition. In a military career, there is no choice. Learn, or leave.

Man’s flight through life is sustained by the power of his knowledge.

December 20, 2004

Rummy Should Stay

Filed under: Government,Military — Bunker @ 6:22 pm

Some people want Donald Rumsfeld gone.

“I’m not a fan of Secretary Rumsfeld,” Lott, R-Mississippi, told the Biloxi Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday morning. “I don’t think he listens enough to his uniformed officers.”

Lott added his voice to that of John McCain, the Man Who Would Be King. Paulie, et al, talked about this topic. Nathan Hale thinks it’s time for Rummy to go, too.

I pay attention to Paulie and the gang because they are far closer to the Pentagon action than I am. But I worry that the “uniformed officers” Lott is talking about are senior ones–generals and admirals–at the Pentagon. They are seldom happy about change, and Rumsfeld has been very (dare I say it?) progressive about the form the military should take. My knowledge of junior officer opinion comes second-hand, and they overwhelmingly support Rumsfeld.

If Rumsfeld manages to make it through eight years as SecDef, the military will change. Eight years is a third of the normal military career. It represents some 24,000 new officers graduating from the military academies and assuming leadership positions. Those commissioned second lieutenants or ensigns in 2001 can end up with gold oak leaves in that time. Bureaucracies change slowly, but military line units adapt far more rapidly than ossified headquarters. And the Pentagon houses many relics in uniform or suit and tie.

Personally, I’d like to see him stick it out for both Bush terms. His attitude can certainly bring change, and the young professionals out there can make sure it meets the requirements of line units rather than those of people far removed from operations.

December 17, 2004

Saigon

Filed under: Military — Bunker @ 5:49 am

Kev had an interesting sojourn enroute to visit his old haunts. Any time I hear how distraught all Vietnam veterans are about their experience, I think of people like Kev and others I have known who have a tremendous desire to revisit.

Seeing things through older eyes and a different perspective is somehow reassuring.

You guys did good, and you did right. God bless you all. Have a great time.

December 16, 2004

Wrong Conclusions

Filed under: Media,Military — Bunker @ 11:43 am

The Christian Science Monitor carries a story regarding “The pattern of discontent in US ranks.” Brad Knickerbocker finds all kinds of things wrong, and suggests that military personnel are disgruntled. He finds support:

But they also note a growing trend for GIs to speak out and to find leverage points to protect their interests – including personal safety. “I am amazed that it is not greater,” says retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner. “The war continues to go badly. Their equipment is in bad shape. Supply problems continue. Tours are extended. Many are on a second or third deployment to a combat zone. I would expect a louder voice.”

Perhaps that louder voice you expect isn’t coming because active duty personnel don’t see things through as dark a glass as you do, Colonel.

Since the fighting began in Iraq, the number of Guard and reserve troops on active duty has more than doubled. Critics say this is an indication that US forces are stretched too thin.

Perhaps they are spread too thin. Active duty force levels were reduced in favor of Guard and Reserve units during the drawdown that began in… 1992. Bush 41 and SecDef Cheney had a plan for reorganizing and a managed drawdown. That plan went out the window in January 1993. And the expanded drawdown was coupled with extensive deployments of units to other garden spots of the world in support of NATO and UN commitments. Now, the Guard and Reserve units are losing people just as they did after the Gulf War in 1991. There are some in those units who joined never expecting to ever do anything other than play soldier one weekend a month. When the bell rings, they’re not so sure it’s what they really wanted–that paycheck isn’t worth it.

Not that I can blame someone with a healthy income no longer supplemented by but replaced by GI pay. And being away from the wife and kids for a weekend or two weeks is far different from twelve to thirteen months in the desert, where people want to kill you.

“What is driving the resistance is the same thing that drove it during Vietnam – a lack of trust in the civilian leadership and a sense that the uniformed leaders are not standing up for the forces,” says retired Army Col. Dan Smith, a military analyst with the Friends Committee on National Legislation in Washington. Colonel Smith doesn’t expect the kind of “fragging” incidents that occurred in Vietnam where soldiers attacked their own officers. “This force is too professional,” he says. “But the lack of trust and the inequity of the tours will very likely be reflected in the numbers of Guard and reservists who vote no-confidence with their feet.”

That already appears to be happening. The Army National Guard is short 5,000 new citizen-soldiers.

From reports of people I know, there is no “lack of trust in the civilian leadership”. But perhaps I just know the wrong people. Of course, the article wouldn’t be complete without reference to Vietnam. And that war is mentioned no less than five times.

We went to a reduced military in favor of an increased Guard and Reserve so that Clinton could claim he reduced the size of government, even though every other department grew while Defense was reduced. The net was a reduction. It is time to reevaluate that mix.

**** UPDATE ****
Will has some info on desertion rates.

(Thanks, Rob!)

November 29, 2004

Russ Vaughn

Filed under: Military — Bunker @ 5:35 pm

Russ often sends me poems, and I’ve posted a couple of them. Usually, though, several others have beaten me to the punch, so I deferred. Today he has some prose to share at American Thinker. If that site isn’t one of your regular reads, make it happen.

Politics of personal destruction

Filed under: Military,Politics — Bunker @ 10:26 am

“Politics of personal destruction” is a phrase used extensively by Bill Clinton and picked up by the others in leadership for the Democratic Party. I can understand how Bill would be able to rationalize that to himself. I never saw it in those terms myself, and I’ve always felt it was a pot calling a kettle black. The Democratic Party head-shed have become purveyors of bad news and personal attack. To them, however, saying John Kerry had no record in the Senate to run on was a personal attack.

Today, Deacon asks, “What ever happened to Steve Gardner?”

Steve Gardner served on a Vietnam swift boat crew with John Kerry. He was the only member of the 12 man crew who spoke against Kerry, thus becoming a key figure in the most fascinating and, I believe, significant story of this year’s election.

He directs us to an article by Mary Laney in the Chicago Sun-Times which details the grief that came to a man willing to speak out against the Democratic nominee.

“I’m broke. I’ve been hurt every way I can be hurt. I have no money in the bank but am doing little bits here and there to pay the bills,” he said.

I really didn’t expect to relive the election. But this thing just struck me hard. In the eyes of DNC faithful, John Kerry is the only veteran who ever spoke the truth. Any other vet fits well in their vision of red-state Americans, and deserves any bad things that might befall him. I take personal umbrage. Until that attitude changes, I cannot see myself ever again voting for a Democrat for national office.

November 26, 2004

SI Sportsman of the Year

Filed under: General,Military — Bunker @ 3:39 pm

Who comes to mind?

Rob has it figured out. As much as I believe Lance is dominant, someone else should get the award, and you can go vote here. Scroll the pictures until you reach the right one, select it, then vote.

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress