Politics

[Red Leg]

DOD needed people. We were in the longest war in our nations history. Most people even forgot the war was going on while society got fatter and prescribed ADHD medication creating significant issues at MEPS. We did lower some standards. For everyone. Not just females. The lowering and raising of standards is an algorithm that has happened many times in our history.

I would say I was paying attention. Probably a lot more than you were. Actually if you were paying attention the scores for the males to max their APFT were significantly faster than they were prior to 2014. When I first entered the US Army I had to run an 11:54 2 mile run to max my APFT. Post 2014 the same age bracket had to run a 13:00 min 2 mile run to max. That had nothing to do with DEI or "Gays". The Army was not woke.

+1 I went on active duty in 1974 at the start of the volunteer army and served three decades. Fitness standards have fluctuated over the years - always driven by the recruiting base - never in my experience by social experiments. The 1980 PFT consisted of sit-ups, push-ups, and a two-mile run. One must be faster today by nearly a minute at all age groups than I had to be in 1980. All of which is largely irrelevant because the US Army has maintained the finest noncommissioned officer corps of any military in the world. They have a long and storied history of turning those bits of human clay into the finest soldiers serving in any army anywhere.

 

[Ridge Runner]

+1 I went on active duty in 1974 at the start of the volunteer army and served three decades. Fitness standards have fluctuated over the years - always driven by the recruiting base - never in my experience by social experiments. The 1980 PFT consisted of sit-ups, push-ups, and a two-mile run. One must be faster today by nearly a minute at all age groups than I had to be in 1980. a long and storied history of turning those bits of human clay into the finest soldiers serving in any army anywhere.

I can half ass agree with you. Just not totally agree.

I have had more good than bad experiences. It depends on the type unit and the NCOs in the unit.

These are just two of my adverse experiences.

At post command the productive soldiers were less likely to get promoted than the non productive soldiers for the good of the unit. In other words if a soldier was a fu'k up they would be promoted as fast as possible so they could be transferred out of the unit. Whereas a soldier that could meet or exceed the standards was delayed promotion for the good of command to meet military unit standards for the commands readiness and chain of command's NCO and Officer promotions.

At the aviation unit it was an option of 2 mile run or walk within 90 minutes to pass the PT test. The NCOs encouraged lower enlisted to make minimum standards to pass the PT test so as not to make the NCOs look bad on readiness.

Earned my demotion from E-5, having turned down E-6 twice, to 2nd Leuitenant (O-1E) and Branched Engineer.

Long story short I was reassigned to the worst company with the least amount of leadership and questionable NCOs. With the given the mission by the Battalion Commader to "........do whatever needs to be done.....[to ] get the Company Commander promoted." with the BC's assistance if needed and report directly to the BC.

I was in transition between commands when officer promotions were being made so I don't know if the Company Commander made Major (0-4) or was relieved of duty due to his inept ability to "jack up" the NCOs staff in the manner I did.

My second assignment again I'm (was) only an O-1E. With "a history". This new assignment was the only slot available, a desk job, Battalion Property Book Officer (PBO). [For those in the civilian corporate world a PBO is a CFO]. New mission from the Group Commander a Leuitenant Colonel (LTC)(0-5) evaluate and get this particular battalion deployable.

Had time not been of the essence I probably would have made a better first impression on the Battalion Commander LTC (O-5). The Battalion Personnel Officer a Captain (0-3) as per protocol introduced me the the Battalion Commander. Upon and after my reporting to the BnC, the Bnc asked my analysis of the unit. Upon my reply the BnC immediately excused me so he could have a private conversation with the Captain. Guess I shouldn't have been so direct in my response: " Sir! This Battalion is Non Deployable! Sir!". Later that day the after many meetings with various senior officers captains and majors. The BnC had the Supply Officer and the Personnel Officer report to him. I probably shouldn't have been so direct in stating what needed to be done. That got me another 10 minute wait outside his office door.

In the end I did accomplish the mission and the Battalion deployed 3 months later.

All of which is largely irrelevant because the US Army has maintained the finest noncommissioned officer corps of any military in the world.

Debatable, but would like to think so....with the exceptions.....BULLSHIT!!!

The whole point of my long winded thread is it's not just the NCOs it's the whole damn unit's chain of command. Those in "authority" covering for those up and down the Chain of Command.

Now that those previous "Good Ole Boys" are currently in command, senior enlisted and officers, they are now having to justify their previous ineptitude of command/leadership by adjusting, readjusting, whatever it takes, trying to play tippy toe, to further their carrers, with politicians.

This is through my personal experiences.

 

[Newboomer]

I can half ass agree with you. Just not totally agree.

I have had more good than bad experiences. It depends on the type unit and the NCOs in the unit.

These are just two of my adverse experiences.

At post command the productive soldiers were less likely to get promoted than the non productive soldiers for the good of the unit. In other words if a soldier was a fu'k up they would be promoted as fast as possible so they could be transferred out of the unit. Whereas a soldier that could meet or exceed the standards was delayed promotion for the good of command to meet military unit standards for the commands readiness and chain of command's NCO and Officer promotions.

At the aviation unit it was an option of 2 mile run or walk within 90 minutes to pass the PT test. The NCOs encouraged lower enlisted to make minimum standards to pass the PT test so as not to make the NCOs look bad on readiness.

Earned my demotion from E-5, having turned down E-6 twice, to 2nd Leuitenant (O-1E) and Branched Engineer.

Long story short I was reassigned to the worst company with the least amount of leadership and questionable NCOs. With the given the mission by the Battalion Commader to "........do whatever needs to be done.....[to ] get the Company Commander promoted." with the BC's assistance if needed and report directly to the BC.

I was in transition between commands when officer promotions were being made so I don't know if the Company Commander made Major (0-4) or was relieved of duty due to his inept ability to "jack up" the NCOs staff in the manner I did.

My second assignment again I'm (was) only an O-1E. With "a history". This new assignment was the only slot available, a desk job, Battalion Property Book Officer (PBO). [For those in the civilian corporate world a PBO is a CFO]. New mission from the Group Commander a Leuitenant Colonel (LTC)(0-5) evaluate and get this particular battalion deployable.

Had time not been of the essence I probably would have made a better first impression on the Battalion Commander LTC (O-5). The Battalion Personnel Officer a Captain (0-3) as per protocol introduced me the the Battalion Commander. Upon and after my reporting to the BnC, the Bnc asked my analysis of the unit. Upon my reply the BnC immediately excused me so he could have a private conversation with the Captain. Guess I shouldn't have been so direct in my response: " Sir! This Battalion is Non Deployable! Sir!". Later that day the after many meetings with various senior officers captains and majors. The BnC had the Supply Officer and the Personnel Officer report to him. I probably shouldn't have been so direct in stating what needed to be done. That got me another 10 minute wait outside his office door.

In the end I did accomplish the mission and the Battalion deployed 3 months later.



Debatable, but would like to think so....with the exceptions.....BULLSHIT!!!

The whole point of my long winded thread is it's not just the NCOs it's the whole damn unit's chain of command. Those in "authority" covering for those up and down the Chain of Command.

Now that those previous "Good Ole Boys" are currently in command, senior enlisted and officers, they are now having to justify their previous ineptitude of command/leadership by adjusting, readjusting, whatever it takes, trying to play tippy toe, to further their carrers, with politicians.

This is through my personal experiences.

I saw some of "The Peter Principle" during my military career. "Promote the f****ps out of the unit. They make us look bad." As a senior NCO E-8 and master trainer a lot of it fell on me to train up as many as possible. Sometimes it worked, sometimes not. Not a fun part of the job.

 

[Doug Hamilton]

Keep defending your tyrants.
Here’s another example for y’all to try to defend.

So, what exactly is your point? Police officers are human beings, therefore some will be inept. Some will be stressed out before they have an interaction with a civilian. Some will make a mistake in the dark of night. Yeah?

What you fail to understand, and I think it is a willful sweet are of the clear facts, is that there are hundreds of thousands of officers making millions of contacts every month and very few incidents go as far South as you would have everyone believe. If it was common, there would be a lot more evidence of it. Everyone has a cell and videos are everywhere. It is sad when anyone is killed due to a bad incident, but that does not mean all police officers are "tyrants" by any stretch of your twisted imagination.

 

[Corey0372]

DOD needed people. We were in the longest war in our nations history. Most people even forgot the war was going on while society got fatter and prescribed ADHD medication creating significant issues at MEPS. We did lower some standards. For everyone. Not just females. The lowering and raising of standards is an algorithm that has happened many times in our history.

I think mental illness is probably one of the biggest issues in the US military. Not depression or PTSD related stuff, just straight up weird behavioral issues. At a place I was employed at a little over a year ago I was a supervisor and had under me a younger guy, about 23 years old, who had recently left the Army. He was a tanker, had an honorable discharge, was a sharp and fit dude, no issues at the place we worked at. If I had to guess I'd say he was probably a fine soldier. He got out as a Corporal. He told me he didn't actually want to leave the Army, he wanted to be a soldier his whole life, his Dad was a soldier, grandpa was too. He explained to me his reasoning for leaving the Army and mostly what it boiled down to was he was just tired of being around what I can only describe as general degenerate behavior and just overall odd personalities. Essentially, he decided that potentially being involved in a serious war with the people he served alongside gave him little to no confidence.

Everyone who served can attest that there were usually a couple oddballs in any unit, we're humans, and a lot of times it's not really a big deal. But when he described to me how his Platoon Sergeant was basically an open "Furry", I almost didn't believe him. He had no reason to lie though, and I'd worked with him long enough to know he was an honest guy. It was hard for him (or anyone) to take this guy seriously, let alone look to him for mentorship. He told me of having a female crew member who couldn't lift tank rounds, or really do anything in the tank. I could go on but you get the idea.

While I think there's almost certainly a lot of "back in my day" stuff going on, things like gender integrated basic training don't seem to make much sense to even younger guys like myself. These things may seem subtle, but I believe being in an open squadbay with your entire platoon for the duration of basic training forces a sense of cohesion and conformity that lends itself to an increase in lethality. Leaders emerge more naturally, people are forced to break their own bad habits because they're on display in front of everyone else. You form a bond that I just don't see happening when you aren't living alongside every member, so it's impossible to replicate with males and females in the same basic training platoon because they aren't going to be bunking together. The Marine Corps was the last service to integrate genders at basic training and I think it's a mistake to do so.

I left active duty in 2017, and being in a SOF unit you get sort of isolated from a lot of what goes on in the rest of the military. After leaving I did some contract work overseas, working alongside various units in different capacities. I believe that in our general forces there are serious issues with things like porn addiction, weird obsessions with things like anime and video games, and I'm not a Doctor but I'd be interested to see how many service members are suffering from manic depression (again, not combat related) or something similar. I think this kind of stuff has the potential to affect the lethality and capability of a unit far more than lowering the standard on a 3 mile run time by a couple minutes. It's harder to address though.

I'm with you though, I think a lot of this says more about our culture as a nation, and less about the military itself. However, I think the military could do a better job in some ways of being that arbiter of the standard that we all want it to be. I think it's going to take some unorthodox approaches as well as admitting some truths that would perhaps make people a little uncomfortable. I also think that where we can enforce a standard, we should, and when people who are supposed to be holding a standard give warning that a standard is not being upheld they should be given a fair shake. I wasn't there and I don't know anyone involved, so I don't know the whole story, but some guys over at SFQC penned such a letter back in 2017 https://sofrep.com/news/careerism-c...warfare-center-end-special-forces-capability/
I would imagine similar letters of concern have ended up with people such as Pete Hegseth and others in his circle.

Perhaps we're at a point in time where we take a look at how the military itself is structured, maybe something like the opposite of the McNamara's 100,000, where instead of low-IQ troops supplemented with tech, we use high IQ troops supplemented with Tech. Maybe we look at increasing the standards across the board (to include MEPS), but also increasing the pay. Maybe we change how the rank structure works. The Marine Corps has implemented something called the Talent Acquisition program where you can skip a bunch of rank upon entry in certain MOS fields, does a guy with advanced degrees and certifications in tech really need to be a PFC? Or can we just pin E6 on him and send him to a SIGINT position where him and 4 guys are going to sit in a room and code all day? Maybe we look at letting troops waive promotion in rank and have to take on more responsibility that maybe they aren't ready for, but still allow them to get a small pay raise. Is there a guy out there who is a shit hot mortar section leader who just wants to do that for 20 years? Probably so, why not let him do it? I'm sure plenty of Infantry Platoon and Company Commanders would love to stay at that level, just like I'm pretty sure there's plenty of E-5s out there who would love the opportunity to become that platoon commander, and realistically are fit for the job, but don't have a degree. Why can't that guy go through a board, and then to the Infantry Officer Course and pin on Lt?

I don't think our military has gone "woke", but I'm also not going to pretend like it's all perfect and beyond reproach. I think in some ways standards have dropped in some areas, and been raised in others. It's not as bad as people think in some areas, but there's a likelihood it's worse than people think in some areas as well.

 

[Ridge Runner]

I saw some of "The Peter Principle" during my military career. "Promote the f****ps out of the unit. They make us look bad." As a senior NCO E-8 and master trainer a lot of it fell on me to train up as many as possible. Sometimes it worked, sometimes not. Not a fun part of the job.

One of the good - bad experiences I had was being involuntarily volunteered to train replacements; pre Basic Training. Another long story short. Had 2 soldiers not been in the same platoon, and all 5 of them being in the same basic training company. It would have been better for them. As it turned out they all graduated with honors; 4 with all top honors only the 1 of the 2 in the same platoon could only receive a co- runner-up outstanding soldier award. Not sure how the rest of those I trained graduated as I had been reassigned prior to their graduation. However I did get word my previous unit received some sort of command honor(s).

 

[Ridge Runner]

I think mental illness is probably one of the biggest issues in the US military. Not depression or PTSD related stuff, just straight up weird behavioral issues. At a place I was employed at a little over a year ago I was a supervisor and had under me a younger guy, about 23 years old, who had recently left the Army. He was a tanker, had an honorable discharge, was a sharp and fit dude, no issues at the place we worked at. If I had to guess I'd say he was probably a fine soldier. He got out as a Corporal. He told me he didn't actually want to leave the Army, he wanted to be a soldier his whole life, his Dad was a soldier, grandpa was too. He explained to me his reasoning for leaving the Army and mostly what it boiled down to was he was just tired of being around what I can only describe as general degenerate behavior and just overall odd personalities. Essentially, he decided that potentially being involved in a serious war with the people he served alongside gave him little to no confidence.

Everyone who served can attest that there were usually a couple oddballs in any unit, we're humans, and a lot of times it's not really a big deal. But when he described to me how his Platoon Sergeant was basically an open "Furry", I almost didn't believe him. He had no reason to lie though, and I'd worked with him long enough to know he was an honest guy. It was hard for him (or anyone) to take this guy seriously, let alone look to him for mentorship. He told me of having a female crew member who couldn't lift tank rounds, or really do anything in the tank. I could go on but you get the idea.

While I think there's almost certainly a lot of "back in my day" stuff going on, things like gender integrated basic training don't seem to make much sense to even younger guys like myself. These things may seem subtle, but I believe being in an open squadbay with your entire platoon for the duration of basic training forces a sense of cohesion and conformity that lends itself to an increase in lethality. Leaders emerge more naturally, people are forced to break their own bad habits because they're on display in front of everyone else. You form a bond that I just don't see happening when you aren't living alongside every member, so it's impossible to replicate with males and females in the same basic training platoon because they aren't going to be bunking together. The Marine Corps was the last service to integrate genders at basic training and I think it's a mistake to do so.

I left active duty in 2017, and being in a SOF unit you get sort of isolated from a lot of what goes on in the rest of the military. After leaving I did some contract work overseas, working alongside various units in different capacities. I believe that in our general forces there are serious issues with things like porn addiction, weird obsessions with things like anime and video games, and I'm not a Doctor but I'd be interested to see how many service members are suffering from manic depression (again, not combat related) or something similar. I think this kind of stuff has the potential to affect the lethality and capability of a unit far more than lowering the standard on a 3 mile run time by a couple minutes. It's harder to address though.

I'm with you though, I think a lot of this says more about our culture as a nation, and less about the military itself. However, I think the military could do a better job in some ways of being that arbiter of the standard that we all want it to be. I think it's going to take some unorthodox approaches as well as admitting some truths that would perhaps make people a little uncomfortable. I also think that where we can enforce a standard, we should, and when people who are supposed to be holding a standard give warning that a standard is not being upheld they should be given a fair shake. I wasn't there and I don't know anyone involved, so I don't know the whole story, but some guys over at SFQC penned such a letter back in 2017 https://sofrep.com/news/careerism-c...warfare-center-end-special-forces-capability/
I would imagine similar letters of concern have ended up with people such as Pete Hegseth and others in his circle.

Perhaps we're at a point in time where we take a look at how the military itself is structured, maybe something like the opposite of the McNamara's 100,000, where instead of low-IQ troops supplemented with tech, we use high IQ troops supplemented with Tech. Maybe we look at increasing the standards across the board (to include MEPS), but also increasing the pay. Maybe we change how the rank structure works. The Marine Corps has implemented something called the Talent Acquisition program where you can skip a bunch of rank upon entry in certain MOS fields, does a guy with advanced degrees and certifications in tech really need to be a PFC? Or can we just pin E6 on him and send him to a SIGINT position where him and 4 guys are going to sit in a room and code all day? Maybe we look at letting troops waive promotion in rank and have to take on more responsibility that maybe they aren't ready for, but still allow them to get a small pay raise. Is there a guy out there who is a shit hot mortar section leader who just wants to do that for 20 years? Probably so, why not let him do it? I'm sure plenty of Infantry Platoon and Company Commanders would love to stay at that level, just like I'm pretty sure there's plenty of E-5s out there who would love the opportunity to become that platoon commander, and realistically are fit for the job, but don't have a degree. Why can't that guy go through a board, and then to the Infantry Officer Course and pin on Lt?

I don't think our military has gone "woke", but I'm also not going to pretend like it's all perfect and beyond reproach. I think in some ways standards have dropped in some areas, and been raised in others. It's not as bad as people think in some areas, but there's a likelihood it's worse than people think in some areas as well.

I'm going to take just a wild guess here. I'm guessing you entered service around 2010 or after.

In basic training did you have a 3x5 card in your breast pocket? aka "stress card".

You obviously weren't around when promotions became mandatory. This was a command instruction/order....to eliminate "professional rank". Meaning soldiers were no longer allowed to hold a line number indefinitely. The soldier either accepted his new promotion or leave military service.

I knew 2 E-6s, Vietnam Vets rifted (Reduction In Force), basically they were battlefield promoted to 2nd LT after the war they were reduced/demoted to E-6 they were both bidden their time to retirement, as they would receive 50% of 2nd LT retirement pay. They eventually became Warrant Officers. Don't know how another E-6 held a simultaneously reserve officer rank. Last I heard he was promoted to major. He too was bidden his time to retirement at 50% major or higher rank pay. I can give a few more examples if need be.

The military does allow entry into service rank. Where a shortage MOS or Officer Branch, an off the street civilian with a degree or proper certification(s) can be enlisted or commissioned to a rank equal to those in that field. Just one example: A medical professional can enter service as a senior enlisted or officer based on their medical training.

This was done because soldiers were holding these line numbers preventing younger soldiers from being promoted within the unit.

When I was ready for promotion to major I was shafted by command as mission essential, only to be mandatorily retired 8 months later and 17 months short of full retirement for reasons: time in service, exceeding time in grade.

With exception enlisted and officer can retire after 20 years drawing retirement pay. Enlisted in certain MOSs and Officers are nonretirabled until age 60, subject to recall at anytime. It's nearing 13 years now and I'm still trying to get my full retirement. Trying to prove 22+ years of 26+ years military service because one or more clerk typist screwed up on my personnel file transitioning from enlisted to officer after my discharge.

 

[roverandbrew]

I can half ass agree with you. Just not totally agree.

I have had more good than bad experiences. It depends on the type unit and the NCOs in the unit.

These are just two of my adverse experiences.

At post command the productive soldiers were less likely to get promoted than the non productive soldiers for the good of the unit. In other words if a soldier was a fu'k up they would be promoted as fast as possible so they could be transferred out of the unit. Whereas a soldier that could meet or exceed the standards was delayed promotion for the good of command to meet military unit standards for the commands readiness and chain of command's NCO and Officer promotions.

At the aviation unit it was an option of 2 mile run or walk within 90 minutes to pass the PT test. The NCOs encouraged lower enlisted to make minimum standards to pass the PT test so as not to make the NCOs look bad on readiness.

Earned my demotion from E-5, having turned down E-6 twice, to 2nd Leuitenant (O-1E) and Branched Engineer.

Long story short I was reassigned to the worst company with the least amount of leadership and questionable NCOs. With the given the mission by the Battalion Commader to "........do whatever needs to be done.....[to ] get the Company Commander promoted." with the BC's assistance if needed and report directly to the BC.

I was in transition between commands when officer promotions were being made so I don't know if the Company Commander made Major (0-4) or was relieved of duty due to his inept ability to "jack up" the NCOs staff in the manner I did.

My second assignment again I'm (was) only an O-1E. With "a history". This new assignment was the only slot available, a desk job, Battalion Property Book Officer (PBO). [For those in the civilian corporate world a PBO is a CFO]. New mission from the Group Commander a Leuitenant Colonel (LTC)(0-5) evaluate and get this particular battalion deployable.

Had time not been of the essence I probably would have made a better first impression on the Battalion Commander LTC (O-5). The Battalion Personnel Officer a Captain (0-3) as per protocol introduced me the the Battalion Commander. Upon and after my reporting to the BnC, the Bnc asked my analysis of the unit. Upon my reply the BnC immediately excused me so he could have a private conversation with the Captain. Guess I shouldn't have been so direct in my response: " Sir! This Battalion is Non Deployable! Sir!". Later that day the after many meetings with various senior officers captains and majors. The BnC had the Supply Officer and the Personnel Officer report to him. I probably shouldn't have been so direct in stating what needed to be done. That got me another 10 minute wait outside his office door.

In the end I did accomplish the mission and the Battalion deployed 3 months later.



Debatable, but would like to think so....with the exceptions.....BULLSHIT!!!

The whole point of my long winded thread is it's not just the NCOs it's the whole damn unit's chain of command. Those in "authority" covering for those up and down the Chain of Command.

Now that those previous "Good Ole Boys" are currently in command, senior enlisted and officers, they are now having to justify their previous ineptitude of command/leadership by adjusting, readjusting, whatever it takes, trying to play tippy toe, to further their carrers, with politicians.

This is through my personal experiences.

I am sorry you had that experience. I just retired in 2020 from the Army and collaborate with DOD on projects I am currently managing. I personally have never seen anything like that. Generally the senior NCOs were the most proficient and in the best physical condition minus injuries of course. We often deployed without officers to pretty sensitive locations because we were proficient and could be trusted. Again, I am sorry for your experience with NCOs.

 

[Altitude sickness]

I think mental illness is probably one of the biggest issues in the US military. Not depression or PTSD related stuff, just straight up weird behavioral issues. At a place I was employed at a little over a year ago I was a supervisor and had under me a younger guy, about 23 years old, who had recently left the Army. He was a tanker, had an honorable discharge, was a sharp and fit dude, no issues at the place we worked at. If I had to guess I'd say he was probably a fine soldier. He got out as a Corporal. He told me he didn't actually want to leave the Army, he wanted to be a soldier his whole life, his Dad was a soldier, grandpa was too. He explained to me his reasoning for leaving the Army and mostly what it boiled down to was he was just tired of being around what I can only describe as general degenerate behavior and just overall odd personalities. Essentially, he decided that potentially being involved in a serious war with the people he served alongside gave him little to no confidence.

Everyone who served can attest that there were usually a couple oddballs in any unit, we're humans, and a lot of times it's not really a big deal. But when he described to me how his Platoon Sergeant was basically an open "Furry", I almost didn't believe him. He had no reason to lie though, and I'd worked with him long enough to know he was an honest guy. It was hard for him (or anyone) to take this guy seriously, let alone look to him for mentorship. He told me of having a female crew member who couldn't lift tank rounds, or really do anything in the tank. I could go on but you get the idea.

While I think there's almost certainly a lot of "back in my day" stuff going on, things like gender integrated basic training don't seem to make much sense to even younger guys like myself. These things may seem subtle, but I believe being in an open squadbay with your entire platoon for the duration of basic training forces a sense of cohesion and conformity that lends itself to an increase in lethality. Leaders emerge more naturally, people are forced to break their own bad habits because they're on display in front of everyone else. You form a bond that I just don't see happening when you aren't living alongside every member, so it's impossible to replicate with males and females in the same basic training platoon because they aren't going to be bunking together. The Marine Corps was the last service to integrate genders at basic training and I think it's a mistake to do so.

I left active duty in 2017, and being in a SOF unit you get sort of isolated from a lot of what goes on in the rest of the military. After leaving I did some contract work overseas, working alongside various units in different capacities. I believe that in our general forces there are serious issues with things like porn addiction, weird obsessions with things like anime and video games, and I'm not a Doctor but I'd be interested to see how many service members are suffering from manic depression (again, not combat related) or something similar. I think this kind of stuff has the potential to affect the lethality and capability of a unit far more than lowering the standard on a 3 mile run time by a couple minutes. It's harder to address though.

I'm with you though, I think a lot of this says more about our culture as a nation, and less about the military itself. However, I think the military could do a better job in some ways of being that arbiter of the standard that we all want it to be. I think it's going to take some unorthodox approaches as well as admitting some truths that would perhaps make people a little uncomfortable. I also think that where we can enforce a standard, we should, and when people who are supposed to be holding a standard give warning that a standard is not being upheld they should be given a fair shake. I wasn't there and I don't know anyone involved, so I don't know the whole story, but some guys over at SFQC penned such a letter back in 2017 https://sofrep.com/news/careerism-c...warfare-center-end-special-forces-capability/
I would imagine similar letters of concern have ended up with people such as Pete Hegseth and others in his circle.

Perhaps we're at a point in time where we take a look at how the military itself is structured, maybe something like the opposite of the McNamara's 100,000, where instead of low-IQ troops supplemented with tech, we use high IQ troops supplemented with Tech. Maybe we look at increasing the standards across the board (to include MEPS), but also increasing the pay. Maybe we change how the rank structure works. The Marine Corps has implemented something called the Talent Acquisition program where you can skip a bunch of rank upon entry in certain MOS fields, does a guy with advanced degrees and certifications in tech really need to be a PFC? Or can we just pin E6 on him and send him to a SIGINT position where him and 4 guys are going to sit in a room and code all day? Maybe we look at letting troops waive promotion in rank and have to take on more responsibility that maybe they aren't ready for, but still allow them to get a small pay raise. Is there a guy out there who is a shit hot mortar section leader who just wants to do that for 20 years? Probably so, why not let him do it? I'm sure plenty of Infantry Platoon and Company Commanders would love to stay at that level, just like I'm pretty sure there's plenty of E-5s out there who would love the opportunity to become that platoon commander, and realistically are fit for the job, but don't have a degree. Why can't that guy go through a board, and then to the Infantry Officer Course and pin on Lt?

I don't think our military has gone "woke", but I'm also not going to pretend like it's all perfect and beyond reproach. I think in some ways standards have dropped in some areas, and been raised in others. It's not as bad as people think in some areas, but there's a likelihood it's worse than people think in some areas as well.

The letter you attached clearly demonstrates an overall lowering of standards. For males and females. That’s a shame. We all have stories of “back when”

I was in a very demanding small specialty school once. They really did not care if a class produced one graduate per class. They reveled in that fact. If they didn’t get anyone they would get more applicants and try again.

I fell asleep during a particularly boring lull. All I remember is waking up on my back ( he flipped the desk with me in it) and an instructor putting his boots to me, then standing on my chest. He continued to yell at the others while standing on my chest. Now even then instructors were not allowed to physically assault students. But I sure wasn’t about to whine that I fell asleep and now need a hanky. And everyone else was more concerned about themselves. And happy it wasn’t them. Hey I screwed up and fell asleep.

Today instructors can’t even swear at others. Is that a lowering of standards or just getting more professional. I don’t know. I do remember lamenting how the US is screwed. Because of the Pu$$!3s we were producing and that we would never win another war.

I was wrong the GWOT proved me wrong. Great warriors came out of society. They are still out there.

We all know woman can fly a jet, cargo plane, helo. Many can shoot a rifle as accurately as a man.

The issue is if anyone on a small or large team is viewed by the other team members as not deserving of being there or not carrying their load. Male or female, it erodes the team. And that poor person that the “system” let on the team with lesser skills is screwed because they will never be trusted.

Everyone should be allowed a chance. Equal opportunity. Not equal outcomes.

 

[roverandbrew]

I think mental illness is probably one of the biggest issues in the US military. Not depression or PTSD related stuff, just straight up weird behavioral issues. At a place I was employed at a little over a year ago I was a supervisor and had under me a younger guy, about 23 years old, who had recently left the Army. He was a tanker, had an honorable discharge, was a sharp and fit dude, no issues at the place we worked at. If I had to guess I'd say he was probably a fine soldier. He got out as a Corporal. He told me he didn't actually want to leave the Army, he wanted to be a soldier his whole life, his Dad was a soldier, grandpa was too. He explained to me his reasoning for leaving the Army and mostly what it boiled down to was he was just tired of being around what I can only describe as general degenerate behavior and just overall odd personalities. Essentially, he decided that potentially being involved in a serious war with the people he served alongside gave him little to no confidence.

Everyone who served can attest that there were usually a couple oddballs in any unit, we're humans, and a lot of times it's not really a big deal. But when he described to me how his Platoon Sergeant was basically an open "Furry", I almost didn't believe him. He had no reason to lie though, and I'd worked with him long enough to know he was an honest guy. It was hard for him (or anyone) to take this guy seriously, let alone look to him for mentorship. He told me of having a female crew member who couldn't lift tank rounds, or really do anything in the tank. I could go on but you get the idea.

While I think there's almost certainly a lot of "back in my day" stuff going on, things like gender integrated basic training don't seem to make much sense to even younger guys like myself. These things may seem subtle, but I believe being in an open squadbay with your entire platoon for the duration of basic training forces a sense of cohesion and conformity that lends itself to an increase in lethality. Leaders emerge more naturally, people are forced to break their own bad habits because they're on display in front of everyone else. You form a bond that I just don't see happening when you aren't living alongside every member, so it's impossible to replicate with males and females in the same basic training platoon because they aren't going to be bunking together. The Marine Corps was the last service to integrate genders at basic training and I think it's a mistake to do so.

I left active duty in 2017, and being in a SOF unit you get sort of isolated from a lot of what goes on in the rest of the military. After leaving I did some contract work overseas, working alongside various units in different capacities. I believe that in our general forces there are serious issues with things like porn addiction, weird obsessions with things like anime and video games, and I'm not a Doctor but I'd be interested to see how many service members are suffering from manic depression (again, not combat related) or something similar. I think this kind of stuff has the potential to affect the lethality and capability of a unit far more than lowering the standard on a 3 mile run time by a couple minutes. It's harder to address though.

I'm with you though, I think a lot of this says more about our culture as a nation, and less about the military itself. However, I think the military could do a better job in some ways of being that arbiter of the standard that we all want it to be. I think it's going to take some unorthodox approaches as well as admitting some truths that would perhaps make people a little uncomfortable. I also think that where we can enforce a standard, we should, and when people who are supposed to be holding a standard give warning that a standard is not being upheld they should be given a fair shake. I wasn't there and I don't know anyone involved, so I don't know the whole story, but some guys over at SFQC penned such a letter back in 2017 https://sofrep.com/news/careerism-c...warfare-center-end-special-forces-capability/
I would imagine similar letters of concern have ended up with people such as Pete Hegseth and others in his circle.

Perhaps we're at a point in time where we take a look at how the military itself is structured, maybe something like the opposite of the McNamara's 100,000, where instead of low-IQ troops supplemented with tech, we use high IQ troops supplemented with Tech. Maybe we look at increasing the standards across the board (to include MEPS), but also increasing the pay. Maybe we change how the rank structure works. The Marine Corps has implemented something called the Talent Acquisition program where you can skip a bunch of rank upon entry in certain MOS fields, does a guy with advanced degrees and certifications in tech really need to be a PFC? Or can we just pin E6 on him and send him to a SIGINT position where him and 4 guys are going to sit in a room and code all day? Maybe we look at letting troops waive promotion in rank and have to take on more responsibility that maybe they aren't ready for, but still allow them to get a small pay raise. Is there a guy out there who is a shit hot mortar section leader who just wants to do that for 20 years? Probably so, why not let him do it? I'm sure plenty of Infantry Platoon and Company Commanders would love to stay at that level, just like I'm pretty sure there's plenty of E-5s out there who would love the opportunity to become that platoon commander, and realistically are fit for the job, but don't have a degree. Why can't that guy go through a board, and then to the Infantry Officer Course and pin on Lt?

I don't think our military has gone "woke", but I'm also not going to pretend like it's all perfect and beyond reproach. I think in some ways standards have dropped in some areas, and been raised in others. It's not as bad as people think in some areas, but there's a likelihood it's worse than people think in some areas as well.

I know the guy "believed" to have penned the letter. He was not perfect.

During the last few decades a few damned if you do and damned if you don't created some hard decisions for everyone.

I attended the SFQC prior to 9/11. I was the SFQC Small Unit Tactics (Phase 1) Sergeant Major in 2011. There were differences. Some better and some worse. It was harder to remove candidates after the war started. I was in a position where I worked with senior leaders who had endless debates on how to increase the input numbers of candidates so the standards could be maintained and our output supported operational requirements. Bottom line is we took a lot of casualties and needed replacements. In-service soldiers were not volunteering for SOF and we were forced to take younger 18Xs as we had no choice. Those who say "i would rather fight with 3 x 100% guys than 12 x 90% guys" were never in a three sided near ambush, medic killed, and sustained 30% WIA moving to recover a downed helo. You want every body you can get. As an NCO your job is to train and work the task org to place people in positions commensurate with their skill set. If its all you have its all you have. It was all we had. Would I rather have a female medic than no medic...Yes I would. We all tried to balance unit standards with misison requirements. I got rid of quite a few guys.....but when it made sense. Lots of junior guys will bitch about the process because they were not responsible. They just had to show up to the mission brief and do their job. If they were responsible they would have made the same choices. Either modify standards or end the war. No other real options.

What bothers me the most with all these conversations is blame placed on Military leadership or politicians. Recruits come from society. Its pretty damn hard for a Drill Sergeant in basic training to turn your pasty white, over weight, porn addicted, helicopter parented child into a barrel chested freedom fighter in 8 weeks. Parents play a role. Own it.

 

[gearguywb]

I will admit that I havent finished my coffee.....

NCO's are what makes the Army work, period. I spent 8 years as an 11B before going to selection. I got sick and tired of every officer coming in and saying "I am going to be in command for 12-18 months, I need you to give me 100%". Then the next guy comes in.....

Most of them were not well skilled and more concerned about their one shot at a good OER in a company command position.

At group, the vast majority of the time, we were lucky to have in "O" on a team. The smart ones let the TS work the team

This is the entire reason that they finally decided to do a warrant officer program. Guys with a lot of tenure, that could get the job done, could make far more money on the outside instead of as an E7.

Are their "bad" NCO's? Of course, but word gets out quickly and those folks often found themselves elsewhere

 

[Dirtdart]

Under what criteria? There are literally millions of Americans that are white male, heterosexual veterans. Does that make them qualified also? Are we going for reverse DEI now for cabinet positions?

Just the opposite. Those criteria do not mean an individual is qualified but the incoming administration is not going to automatically disqualify a candidate for any of those reasons mentioned.

 

[Brent in Az]

And just like that, Carrie Underwood, is the lefts new villain for performing at Trumps inauguration

 

[PARA45]

This is my experience and my experience only.

1. Lower standards to meet recruitment goals. Allowing overweight individuals to meet recruiting goals and to fill hard AFSCs.

2. Allowing overweight individuals to continue to serve after failing weight standards, and their physical fitness test. They always found an excuse to extend their stay.

3. Lowering the standards for pilot training so the AF can a more diversified force. Nope, we should hire the best qualified individual regardless of race, color or whatever.

2. Promoting unqualified candidates to the rank of E-9s, where it was obvious these individuals were self-served, and they were doing this for them and not for the benefit of their unit. E-9s who looked like crap in their uniforms when they should have been a role model for others to follow. E-9 who should have stood up for the troops. Nope, they didn't want to create waves.

3. Lesbians and gays, and I'm fine with them as long as they can do their job when the sh*t hits the fan. That's all I care, and I really don't care what they do in the privacy of their home. I said that to my commander. But it was more of on your face and take it or leave it.

4. Fly the rainbow flag on base to celebrate gay pride, and gay troops wore a fag flag on their uniform as a morale patch. Really? No, the standards are set for what its mandatory and optional on the uniform, and this flag is not.

All this affected the morale of those who serve next to me and affected the promotion opportunities because you didn't fit the mold they were looking for. There are more issues I tried to remember, but these were the main ones that stuck in my head. Even one Senator yesterday said that the Secretary of the Air Force said that we had too many white officers. Ok, and what's the problem? Go to school and apply for OTS if you want to be an officer.

Maybe all this stuff has not affected other branches, but it sure has affected the Air Force.

 

[Hunt anything]

And just like that, Carrie Underwood, is the lefts new villain for performing at Trumps inauguration

Didn’t I see somewhere that the Village People are performing as well? I guess that puts the lefties in a bind. If I recall those guys are gay. At least that was the scuttle but back in the day.

 

[Corey0372]

In basic training did you have a 3x5 card in your breast pocket? aka "stress card".

No, the Marine Corps doesn't have those even to this day.

 

[Corey0372]

What bothers me the most with all these conversations is blame placed on Military leadership or politicians. Recruits come from society. Its pretty damn hard for a Drill Sergeant in basic training to turn your pasty white, over weight, porn addicted, helicopter parented child into a barrel chested freedom fighter in 8 weeks. Parents play a role. Own it.

Totally agree, a campaign cover doesn't make you a psychiatrist.

 

[Red Leg]

I'll simply say my experiences with the non-commissioned officers who served with me, in both tactical and administrative positions (and which covered a pretty wide swath of the army), are reflected in my comments above.

I am trying to get my head around the notion of a company level PBO being the same as a CFO.

 

[Corey0372]

I'll simply say my experiences with the non-commissioned officers who served with me, in both tactical and administrative positions (and which covered a pretty wide swath of the army), are reflected in my comments above.

I am trying to get my head around the notion of a company level PBO being the same as a CFO.

I can say my experience while I was in was along the lines of the old saying "everyone has their 10%". Meaning 90% good, which really isn't bad. You could see things starting to shift in a weird direction though, hard to put your finger on it.

 

[PARA45]

No, the Marine Corps doesn't have those even to this day.

When my son went through basic training 18 years ago, the recruits had a time out card for when they were too stressed. Also, the TI had to ask if it was ok to curse at them.