Politics

[BSO Dave]

You have spoken several active military servicemen and younger veterans..........

As I stated above, my only desire is to offer a different perspective than the "facts" you have sited based on your understanding of the Army.

You're basically calling me a liar, which is fine. But, I am stating facts... Do you honestly think I just make this crap up to be argumentative with you? LOL..

I never claimed to have any deep understanding of the Army or any other branch of service for that matter... My "understanding" of the Army is irrelevant to acknowledging that what is happening is certainly not making our military stronger.. I am only stating what I know to be occurring based on what I have been told by servicemen who have experienced this crap first-hand. They all say the collective effects of these policies are divisive distractions that is hardly benign..

Please don't take my word for it.. The internet is full of articles that cover how all of the branches of the military have implemented equity, diversity, inclusion, and wokeness policies in the last decade. Google the Army's newest ACFT physical fitness test and see for yourself how the physical minimums are now adjusted for gender and age.

The lowering of physical minimum standards aside, every branch of the service now conducts some form of sensitivity and/or diversity training. Trump banned a good amount this specifically the CRT crap through EO's early in his term. However, the Brandon Administration via a declaration by none other than Defense Secy Lloyd Austin himself reversed all of the EO's and the training has since resumed. Your Generals and Commanders can claim all day long this sort of stuff has no effect, which makes them either in denial or complicit.. The implementation of double-standards in any merit-based organization will never have a good outcome.

 

[rookhawk]

I am confident that the army will continue to defend the constitution "against all enemies, foreign or domestic."

And yes, I know a very great deal about the US Army. I genuinely regret that seems to upset people.

The paradox of the unwinnable game.

A.) Red Leg could argue using an appeal to authority/expertise, (e.g. He is literally Lord Mountbatten or D. Eisenhower for arguments sake)

B.) Thread would just pivot: "See, you're part of the problem, that's not real expertise anyway, you're a political hack."

Sometimes its best to just go fishing.

In defense of our military officers, they get to eat a turd-sandwich on a weekly basis by being told to carry out the orders of the president, usually for political posturing that has nothing to do with a battlefield matter. They then have to carry out the orders of the next character in the Oval Office that wants just the opposite. It's amazing they all haven't turned to heavy alcoholism under such a bizarre management structure at 1600 Penn. Pity we can't let them focus on what they are good at, killing the enemy, rather than being dragged into social policy.

 

[BSO Dave]

One of my all-time favorite movie scenes from Full Metal Jacket..

I remember seeing this movie when it first came out in '87. My best friend growing up went into the Marine Corps after graduating high school, and I went to the police academy. We watched this movie together during one of his visits home and I noticed he wasn't laughing.. He told me that scene was about as accurate of a portrayal as anyone could imagine and that it wasn't funny when you lived it..

My experience in the police academy was actually pretty similar without the racial components. I firmly believe a lot of our societal problems are caused by getting away from this type of training in high-stress jobs. The trophy for everyone ideology isn't working..

 

[BSO Dave]

In defense of our military officers, they get to eat a turd-sandwich on a weekly basis by being told to carry out the orders of the president, usually for political posturing that has nothing to do with a battlefield matter. They then have to carry out the orders of the next character in the Oval Office that wants just the opposite. It's amazing they all haven't turned to heavy alcoholism under such a bizarre management structure at 1600 Penn. Pity we can't let them focus on what they are good at, killing the enemy, rather than being dragged into social policy.

The Joint Chiefs are appointed by the POTUS. As I pointed out earlier, they have a choice to accept the position, and a choice to resign if they feel their ideologies do not alight with the agenda of the Administration they serve. They are the ones who decide to allow themselves to become political or not.. Austin and Milley have both made willful decisions to support the political agenda of this POTUS.

You are correct in pointing out that other military officers who do not wish to become political are often forced to make the choice between eating a turd sandwich, disobeying orders, or resigning. Not great choices, but they do have choices nonetheless..

Lt.Col. Stu Scheller was a career Marine who made such a choice when he criticized his superior commanders for not taking responsibility for the Afghanistan debacle. They put him in the brig and was going to be court martialed for it.. He made a choice and lost his career for it, but kept his principles..

 

[BSO Dave]

 

[Dragan N.]

The paradox of the unwinnable game.

A.) Red Leg could argue using an appeal to authority/expertise, (e.g. He is literally Lord Mountbatten or D. Eisenhower for arguments sake)

B.) Thread would just pivot: "See, you're part of the problem, that's not real expertise anyway, you're a political hack."

Sometimes its best to just go fishing.

In defense of our military officers, they get to eat a turd-sandwich on a weekly basis by being told to carry out the orders of the president, usually for political posturing that has nothing to do with a battlefield matter. They then have to carry out the orders of the next character in the Oval Office that wants just the opposite. It's amazing they all haven't turned to heavy alcoholism under such a bizarre management structure at 1600 Penn. Pity we can't let them focus on what they are good at, killing the enemy, rather than being dragged into social policy.

I totally agree with you there.

But I also see an element of institutional policy vs. ancedotal personal experience here. In this argument for instance the army as an institution would not ask a service member who wants to re-enlist if they would be willing to kill American citizens. However, with the example of that young man being asked that- it is totally possible. From what I gathered, from that member's post, that young man had what seems to be a verbal conversation with another service member about re-enlisting. This service member then proceeded to ask him if he would be willing to kill American citizens if the need arose. It is possible that this individual asked that question. But that does not represent the policy/view point of the US army. Its a question posed by one individual member of that institution. The US army is a huge institution and in any institution you have some members who behave in inappropriate ways. Some may cross an even further line and commit criminal acts even. However, I would not say that these individuals are representative of institutional policy or how most members of that institution act...

 

[Doug3006]

Hey @BSO Dave. There’s a big difference between being told you’re wrong and being called a liar. My read is that @Red Leg is saying that your limited sample size is leading you to an opinion that’s not 100% correct. He’s offering a different perspective based on his experience.

 

[CoElkHunter]

The Joint Chiefs are appointed by the POTUS. As I pointed out earlier, they have a choice to accept the position, and a choice to resign if they feel their ideologies do not alight with the agenda of the Administration they serve. They are the ones who decide to allow themselves to become political or not.. Austin and Milley have both made willful decisions to support the political agenda of this POTUS.

You are correct in pointing out that other military officers who do not wish to become political are often forced to make the choice between eating a turd sandwich, disobeying orders, or resigning. Not great choices, but they do have choices nonetheless..

Lt.Col. Stu Scheller was a career Marine who made such a choice when he criticized his superior commanders for not taking responsibility for the Afghanistan debacle. They put him in the brig and was going to be court martialed for it.. He made a choice and lost his career for it, but kept his principles..

Yeah, I don't get what the upside is to someone in the military who has attained the rank of General or Field Marshall or something, and decides to go along with policies they don't agree with? I would think that retirement would be the better moral choice? Austin and Milley will be removed IMMEDIATELY when Brandon loses in the next election to a Republican and will go down in flames (history) as two of Brandon's clowns who pandered his woke and failed military policies. I personally would be embarrassed to have been part of that fiasco when an Honorable retirement was available.

 

[Red Leg]

You're basically calling me a liar, which is fine. But, I am stating facts... Do you honestly think I just make this crap up to be argumentative with you? LOL..

I never claimed to have any deep understanding of the Army or any other branch of service for that matter... My "understanding" of the Army is irrelevant to acknowledging that what is happening is certainly not making our military stronger.. I am only stating what I know to be occurring based on what I have been told by servicemen who have experienced this crap first-hand. They all say the collective effects of these policies are divisive distractions that is hardly benign..

Please don't take my word for it.. The internet is full of articles that cover how all of the branches of the military have implemented equity, diversity, inclusion, and wokeness policies in the last decade. Google the Army's newest ACFT physical fitness test and see for yourself how the physical minimums are now adjusted for gender and age.

The lowering of physical minimum standards aside, every branch of the service now conducts some form of sensitivity and/or diversity training. Trump banned a good amount this specifically the CRT crap through EO's early in his term. However, the Brandon Administration via a declaration by none other than Defense Secy Lloyd Austin himself reversed all of the EO's and the training has since resumed. Your Generals and Commanders can claim all day long this sort of stuff has no effect, which makes them either in denial or complicit.. The implementation of double-standards in any merit-based organization will never have a good outcome.

No I do not think you are a liar.

I am simply pointing out you really have no actual understanding of the effect of any given policy on actual combat effectiveness and readiness of units. That isn't because you aren't well read, or can't pick up an opinion from an individual you have have met, but it is because you are drawing conclusions in an area where you have expertise rather like mine with respect to the best treatment for colon cancer.

But let me try to address this one more time.

Have Entry requirements varied with time? Of course they have. Can the Army, or any other branch, take a less fit enlistee and turn them into a fit, trained and effective soldier? Of course they can. They have been doing it for decades and will continue to do so as recruitment needs are evaluated. Currently, the potential pool of soldiers has become smaller and less fit. The key is to adjust training so they are fit when they arrive at their units.

Has the physical fitness test changed through the decades - absolutely. In the seventies I was doing pullups and monkey bars. It is very different now. The test is designed to fairly judge the broadest possible range of soldiers. Like any other sort of test, it is every so often changed - sometimes dramatically.

Is the military doing more "diversity training?" In some ways yes. Particularly in basic training. It is probably not a bad idea because the services have never been more diverse. Have changes been made to basic training? Of course, basic training has evolved tremendously during just my lifetime. It is perhaps worth recalling that the first Army female drill sergeants were assigned in 1972 to the dismay of the brown shoe army. Perhaps more than any other institution in this country, the military has been a leader in social change rather than a follower.

What is not happening, and the point I am trying to make, is that there is not some sort of dumbing down of the collective training or effectiveness of combat units. Are soldiers faced with interpersonal challenges that their grandfathers did not have - you bet. An artillery crew is different with female members. An Apache squadron is indeed different with female crews and maintenance personnel. The very few transgenders who actually show up in combat units will make some small difference as well. Soldiers need to be prepared to function seamlessly in that environment.

But collectively, in the important business of unit lethality, army units are becoming more not less effective. Collective training of brigades and divisions tasked with conducting combined operations hasn't been so comprehensive since the early 2000's. This has nothing to do with policies from the White House, but everything to do with a shift of mission away from counter insurgency warfare. In spite of very dated platforms, American Apache, M1 or M2 crewmen, regardless of ethnicity or gender, are the best in the world at their trade. Their NCO's and officers who lead those platoons, companies, battalions and brigades are the most professional on the planet. They represent a significantly better trained, more professional, and more lethal combat force than the one I entered in 1974.

For whatever its value, this does at least represent a professional assessment.

 

[Mekaniks]

Yeah, I don't get what the upside is to someone in the military who has attained the rank of General or Field Marshall or something, and decides to go along with policies they don't agree with? I would think that retirement would be the better moral choice? Austin and Milley will be removed IMMEDIATELY when Brandon loses in the next election to a Republican and will go down in flames (history) as two of Brandon's clowns who pandered his woke and failed military policies. I personally would be embarrassed to have been part of that fiasco when an Honorable retirement was available.

Because there are still people that come up through the ranks with a career over many years and many political administrations that believe in “service before self”

 

[CoElkHunter]

I was never in the military. LE was my career. But, from everything I've read about General James Mattis, he would be one of the few modern military leaders I would follow into battle. He refused to follow Trump's misguided orders a couple of times and retired Honorably rather than subject himself to more BS from Trump! Where are the military leaders like General Mattis?

 

[roverandbrew]

1) The Army or any service cannot recruit what does not exist. If you raised overweight children void of any responsibility or mentorship for 18 years DOD CANNOT fix this in two months of initial entry training. We are recruiting from a much different demographic than in the past due to failures at home.

2) The Army Fitness Test has been scored by age and gender for at least the 25 years I was in. This is not new. I can tell you the physical standards over the last 25 years in Special Forces have not decreased. They have increased in most instances.

3) Parents: As the NCOIC of the Small Unit Tactics phase of the Special Forces Qualification Course you would be amazed how many PARENTS would call the command to say we are treating their sons to harshly or are unfair and they are reaching out to their congressman. Did that happen 25 years ago when I went to the course? NOPE.

4) Wartime Standards: For two decades we were at war globally. Our recruitment had to change to replaced the KIA, WIA, retirees, and those who left the service to seek other opportunities. Did we lower some standards to increase throughput? YES. Did we work to adjust training on the back end to ensure those service members were able to serve? YES. We did our part to work with what we were given. I only have issue with fit and able bodies males 18-40 years old during our nations longest war who never served but feel free to judge. I have no issue with those who put their neck out but didn't quite cut it.

Maybe this is not inline with all the Spartan tough guy memes out there but I would much rather deploy with ten medics meeting 90% of traditional requirements than two medics meeting 100% of traditional requirements.

 

[CoElkHunter]

1) The Army or any service cannot recruit what does not exist. If you raised overweight children void of any responsibility or mentorship for 18 years DOD CANNOT fix this in two months of initial entry training. We are recruiting from a much different demographic than in the past due to failures at home.

2) The Army Fitness Test has been scored by age and gender for at least the 25 years I was in. This is not new. I can tell you the physical standards over the last 25 years in Special Forces have not decreased. They have increased in most instances.

3) Parents: As the NCOIC of the Small Unit Tactics phase of the Special Forces Qualification Course you would be amazed how many PARENTS would call the command to say we are treating their sons to harshly or are unfair and they are reaching out to their congressman. Did that happen 25 years ago when I went to the course? NOPE.

4) Wartime Standards: For two decades we were at war globally. Our recruitment had to change to replaced the KIA, WIA, retirees, and those who left the service to seek other opportunities. Did we lower some standards to increase throughput? YES. Did we work to adjust training on the back end to ensure those service members were able to serve? YES. We did our part to work with what we were given. I only have issue with fit and able bodies males 18-40 years old during our nations longest war who never served but feel free to judge. I have no issue with those who put their neck out but didn't quite cut it.

Maybe this is not inline with all the Spartan tough guy memes out there but I would much rather deploy with ten medics meeting 90% of traditional requirements than two medics meeting 100% of traditional requirements.

Resume the draft? Like many other countries a mandatory two years of service. Doesn't have to be in the military per se, but two years of Government service. Learn a trade or service (medical, accounting, etc.), work in a VA hospital or non profit and four years of college would be free. We have 7 MILLION men in this country right now, not working at all! It would get their lazy asses out from their parents' basements and mandatorily require them to do SOMETHING other than playing video games (some 7 MILLION hours/year) and smoking cigarettes while watching Captain Kangaroo on Nickleodean. The "parents" aren't doing it and we can no longer afford to have everybody on some sort of permanent Government assistance. Something has to change in our workforce and thus our country's economics soon or we're doomed.

 

[John Wasmuth]

Resume the draft? Like many other countries a mandatory two years of service. Doesn't have to be in the military per se, but two years of Government service. Learn a trade or service (medical, accounting, etc.), work in a VA hospital or non profit and four years of college would be free. We have 7 MILLION men in this country right now, not working at all! It would get their lazy asses out from their parents' basements and mandatorily encourage them to do SOMETHING other than playing video games (some 7 MILLION hours/year) and smoking cigarettes while watching Captain Kangaroo on Nickleodean. The "parents" aren't doing it and we can no longer afford to have everybody on some sort of permanent Government assistance. Something has to change in our workforce and thus our country's economics soon or we're doomed.

Now don’t tell me
There’s nothing to do…

 

[CoElkHunter]

Now don’t tell me
There’s nothing to do…

You're probably one of the few on here who got that. LOL

 

[John Wasmuth]

You're probably one of the few on here who got that. LOL

Lol well I spend a lot of time counting flowers on the wall but don’t really bother me at all.

 

[mdwest]

1) The Army or any service cannot recruit what does not exist. If you raised overweight children void of any responsibility or mentorship for 18 years DOD CANNOT fix this in two months of initial entry training. We are recruiting from a much different demographic than in the past due to failures at home.

2) The Army Fitness Test has been scored by age and gender for at least the 25 years I was in. This is not new. I can tell you the physical standards over the last 25 years in Special Forces have not decreased. They have increased in most instances.

3) Parents: As the NCOIC of the Small Unit Tactics phase of the Special Forces Qualification Course you would be amazed how many PARENTS would call the command to say we are treating their sons to harshly or are unfair and they are reaching out to their congressman. Did that happen 25 years ago when I went to the course? NOPE.

4) Wartime Standards: For two decades we were at war globally. Our recruitment had to change to replaced the KIA, WIA, retirees, and those who left the service to seek other opportunities. Did we lower some standards to increase throughput? YES. Did we work to adjust training on the back end to ensure those service members were able to serve? YES. We did our part to work with what we were given. I only have issue with fit and able bodies males 18-40 years old during our nations longest war who never served but feel free to judge. I have no issue with those who put their neck out but didn't quite cut it.

Maybe this is not inline with all the Spartan tough guy memes out there but I would much rather deploy with ten medics meeting 90% of traditional requirements than two medics meeting 100% of traditional requirements.

Point 1) is spot on... its easy to blame the millennials and the Gen Z kids (there is much to find wrong with those generations).. but the reality is Gen X is who birthed and raised them and trained them to be who and what they are..

Point 2) is spot on.. There is ZERO doubt in my mind that overall army fitness has not decreased within the SOF community.. I can look at pics of guys I was running around with in the late 80's and early 90's (who were physical studs).. and compare them to the guys I know that have come out of SOF in the last 5 years or that are still serving.. and frankly.. there is no comparison.. we were simply "hard" back in the 80's and 90's... and we did a lot of truly stupid shit that broke our bodies down, caused injuries, and made us combat ineffective at times in the interest of "fitness".. 12 mile ruck marches under 80+lbs of crap.. in boots.. on a hard top road.. is NOT good for the joints.. the army now employs sports medicine types, physical therapists, etc.. that design and oversee fitness programs.. there are freaking nutritionists assigned to some units that help with performance diets (we lived on Mountain Dew and Snickers half the time back in my day).. The standards are higher today.. and the guys are meeting those standards.. When I consider how much smarter soldiers have to be today than we did (using all kinds of tech, etc) combined with how much more fit they are as a general rule.. its actually pretty amazing... Are there some exceptions? sure.. we've all seen the obese NG private in the Iraq DFAC meme.. but its important to understand that these are exceptions.. not the rule..

Point 3) again, spot on.. Turd behavior exhibited by young soldiers.. consider the source of that learned behavior.. NCOs and officers are having to find ways to deal with the products that people the age of most of us on this forum produced.. and as often as not, theyre still dealing with the 50 year old soccer mom of the 24 year old freaking E4 who didnt leave mommas basement to join the army until after his 20th birthday.. We're really complaining about the wrong person in the equation.. do we blame the creation? or the creator?

Point 4) once again, spot on.. this has been going on for as long as there have been armies.. and will continue to go on for as long as armies continue to exist.. I enlisted during the tail end of the Reagan administration.. all you really had to do was raise your right hand.. the military was taking on anyone that wanted to join.. this was just before Reagan started the reduction in force (RIF).. With the RIF things got tougher.. the Army didnt need nearly as many people.. standards got tightened for enlisting.. standards for staying in got tighter.. incentives like reenlistment bonuses, etc either got reduced or went away.. I was commissioned around the time Clinton took office.. under Clinton the RIF increased substantially.. It was actually EXTREMELY competitive for guys coming out of ROTC programs to get an active duty slot (during my commissioning year only about 40% of our graduating class were even offered an opportunity to go on active duty as reserve officers.. and if I recall correctly only 1 was actually given a regular army commission upon graduation).. Standards continued to increase... if you need less people, you can be more choosey about who you take on and what you allow them to do.. basic laws of supply and demand apply (huge supply available.. but limited demand).. Fast forward to 2001... We suddenly needed A LOT of young men and women to do A LOT of things in the military.. of course standards get reduced.. its the only way to fill the voids.. and its not like they got reduced to the point where units were combat ineffective or incapable of meeting mission requirements.. the other way to look at it is.. the army simply stopped holding itself to the higher standards it created when it very intentionally wanted to reduce its size... (we're not just talking about physical standards like fitness/weight for entry, vision, etc... at one point you couldnt have visible tattoos below the elbow, and nothing above the collar line for example.. now soldiers can...).. When the Army gets really serious about another RIF.. rest assured, the easiest way to accomplish that is to boost standards and requirements..

 

[roverandbrew]

View attachment 520593

Have you ever sat down with General Milley? I have a few times. I found him to be pretty damn smart and competent. I am unaware of where he lies on the blame line and for what exactly. Do I agree with 100% of what he says and must execute based off lawful orders from those appointed over him... I do not. The "Well I would just quit and show them" mentally really never takes care of the guys because they can always bring in someone worse to replace you. You shape things to the best of your ability until you are too tired to do so then you pass the baton. I Guarantee he is not malicious nor creating the world we blame him for. He bears the burdon of command. You do not pick and choose what you enforce or comply with. You execute the task to the best of your ability attempting to balance men and mission. Very rarely is there a right answer. That is why its a burdon.

 

[BSO Dave]

Hey @BSO Dave. There’s a big difference between being told you’re wrong and being called a liar. My read is that @Red Leg is saying that your limited sample size is leading you to an opinion that’s not 100% correct. He’s offering a different perspective based on his experience.

And, I'm offering a perspective based on what I hear from active servicemen who have shared their personal experiences. I'm also basing it on the public data which is hardly a limited size sample that anyone can easily access specifically regarding how woke policy is being injected into the military. If you wish to believe it's effects are benign, that is certainly your personal prerogative.

2) The Army Fitness Test has been scored by age and gender for at least the 25 years I was in. This is not new.

The Army's newest ACFT test which was implemented in April of 2022 is what I was referring specifically... You are correct that the old APFT has always been curved for gender and age.. The Army's newest test ACFT was supposed to end that practice and making the requirements gender and age neutral. That had to be scrapped due to the colossal failure rates especially with women. The latest result is a version that is still gender/age based, but the minimum standards for pass/fail specific to age and gender is what has changed in an attempt to compensate for the differences.. My apologies. I should have been more clear...

The link related to the test is below if anyone is interested in the actual results of how the ideology of equity fails every time..

Army Scraps Gender-Neutral Standards Pushed by Discredited Social Engineers - CMR

www.cmrlink.org

Maybe this is not inline with all the Spartan tough guy memes out there but I would much rather deploy with ten medics meeting 90% of traditional requirements than two medics meeting 100% of traditional requirements.

First of all thank you for your service..

Secondly, my comments are not slights against any current or past military serviceman.. To the contrary, I believe that current U.S. military members represent the bulk of this country's remaining patriots.. I understand that those who volunteer to serve do not implement rules, nor do they dictate policy. However, I do believe that these policies and ideologies can and do have profound negative effects on morale, and overall fitness.

I've been a cop for nearly 30 years and I can tell you first-hand that woke ideologies and "equity" in particular are destroying the quality of candidates entering law enforcement. It's one of the reasons I retired early. I respect the point you are trying to make with regard to the level of qualifications of your peers, but I disagree especially when lives are at stake.. I personally would much rather serve with 1 cop that is 100% qualified than 10 who are marginally qualified...

And with respect to your personal opinion of Milley, I would also disagree.. I don't have to sit down and have a conversation with him or anyone else to recognize when someone has become politicized. He has a choice, and no I do not believe that he is just a good soldier obeying orders and taking one for the team. Milley, Austin, amd many like them chose political positions that I believe compromise not only their personal character but the national security of this country..

 

[Mark A Ouellette]

In reference to my post last night, how many of those criticizing the US military for being Woke at the direction of the Commander in Chief, have started to write their US Representative and Senators?

If you haven’t then for gosh sake, either quit complaining or take action and write to your elected representatives.

In reference to our concerns about the US military:

Acceptable Recruits
The military has forever been accepting recruits that are not qualified. Perhaps their virtues had to overshadow their shortcoming. Me for instance, when I enlisted in 1976. I had 5 stainless steel pins put in my hip when I was 11 years old. To enlist I needed positive recommendations from my surgeon and football coach. I served in the Marine Corps for 21 years before that hip was so severely worn out that I hobbled around for three days after a three mile run. I was no longer “combat deployable”. Along the way I was promoted to Gunnery Sergeant, Chief Warrant Officer 3, and finally Captain. I think that I must have been doing something right! During my service I performed a lot a technical work, provided leadership to units of 400 Marines, got an all-expense paid trip to a combat zone, and left the Corps a little better than I found it. Not bad for a potential cripple who on paper didn’t meet the acceptance standards. Like a lot of Marines, I just had to try harder than some of my peers. I've had two operations on my bad hip since retiring but still was able to put in 10 mile days chasing elephants in Zimbabwe.

The same be be said or thought about most career military.

Diversity Training
In 1978 and 79, we Marines participated in Human Relations, or “HUMROUTE” as we derogatively called in. Let me tell you, that was the absolute BEST diversity training I ever participated in!

For HUMROUTE us white guys would read from a script posing as “back on the block” black guys. The Dark Green Marines would in turn role play as either up-tight Caucasians or hillbillies. The commentary of those imitated gave each group insight about what it was like to be who we were. It was so darn funny that I laugh thinking about it!

The American Professional Non-Commissioned Officer:
Strategic Corporal and the Three Block War
In the January 1999 edition of Marines Magazine, General Krulak, Commandant of the Marine Corps described “the Three Block War” utilizing a fictional story of Cpl. Hernandez, who finds himself in a failed and famished central African state, leading a squad, and providing humanitarian aid. Alongside that humanitarian aid effort, peacekeeping missions are being conducted and mid-intensity conflict is occurring in different blocks of the city he is operating in. Cpl. Hernandez’s challenge is to correctly identify which “block” (and related operation) of the city he is in and respond with the appropriate amount of force required to achieve tactical goals while supporting strategic objectives. This environment requires junior leaders, like Cpl. Hernandez, to “confidently make well-reasoned and independent decisions under extreme stress.” And in today’s super-connected world, Krulak continues, where internet connectivity and video equipment abound, junior leaders’ decisions and actions will likely be captured by the media and every action will meet with the scrutiny of the “court of public opinion.”

This gives the actions of even the most junior leaders a degree of strategic impact that no previous battlefield did. To develop strategic corporals, Krulak stressed three developmental priorities.

• The first is the instillment of the Marine Corps’ enduring ethos. By educating Marines in the virtues of the Corps with an emphasis on building character, they are enabled to appropriately address what Krulak describes as the “moral quandaries” common on the battlefield.
• The second priority is providing quality professional military education, which “sustain the growth of technical and tactical proficiency and mental and physical toughness.”
• Finally, Krulak emphasized, the Marine Corps must provide examples of quality leadership to inspire Marines to “rise to the same great heights” as those who “who have set the highest standard of combat leadership” throughout the Marine Corps’ history.

Leaders inspire others to greatness!

One's Mindset
For those who NEVER served in the military, and those who served one tour long ago, and at over 50 years old are still in the same mindset as they were as a PFC or Corporal, please watch this. It's about being part of something larger than oneself. Such as Regiments Hand Down Forever

I first watched “Such as Regiments Hand Down Forever” in 1983 while assigned to escort fallen Marines home who died in the Marine Barracks in Beirut during 1983; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombings

There is a movie staring Kevin Bacon called, Taking Chance which tells of this much better than I ever could; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taking_Chance
This is our service, our family, we take care of our own.

Why don't the Generals all Resign?
If you cannot understand why every General Officer just doesn’t resign instead of serving Woke leaders, perhaps these miniseries may help:

Band of Brothers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Band_of_Brothers_(miniseries)

The Pacific https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pacific_(miniseries)

Senior leaders stay in service to guide their service, their Marines, soldiers, sailors, and airmen through the rough seas. LEADERS LEAD, they do not quit!