SEALs are too white.

[Streck-Fu]

I have no words....I'm pretty sure the Teams are already open to any male. This will absolutely improve the quality of the force overall.

LINK (http://news.yahoo.com/navy-seeking-more-minority-seals-141500687.html;_ylc=X3oDMTNuNmxiOG9zBF9TAzIxNDU4Nj gyNzUEYWN0A21haWxfY2IEY3QDYQRpbnRsA3VzBGxhbmcDZW4t VVMEcGtnAzdhYmE1ZDVlLWY1NTgtMzRkMi05NzU0LTVkM2E1Mm YyYTlmYgRzZWMDbWl0X3NoYXJlBHNsawNtYWlsBHRlc3QD;_yl v=3)

In nature, most seals are black, with relatively few white ones. The Navy's SEALs have exactly the opposite problem -- they're overwhelmingly white, with hardly any blacks. So they're trying to do something about it.

It's a fundamental challenge in a democracy with an all-volunteer force: recruits may be drawn from all segments of society, but elite military units -- and none is more elite these days than the SEALs, following their dispatch of Osama bin Laden last May -- tend to draw from small pools of talent. For the SEALs, that includes athletic young men who are smart and good in the water. For whatever reason, that has led to an overwhelmingly white SEAL force.

Say the SEALs:

Gaps exist in minority representation in both officer and enlisted ranks for Special Warfare operators. Diverse officers represent only ten percent of the officer pool (for example, African Americans represent less than 2% of SEAL officers). Diverse enlisted SEALs account for less than twenty percent of the total SEAL enlisted population. Naval Special Warfare is committed to fielding a force that represents the demographics of the nation it serves. This contract initiative seeks effective strategies to introduce high potential candidates from diverse backgrounds to the opportunities available in Naval Special Warfare.

The SEALs are considering hiring help to attract thousands of "minority males in the 16–24 year-old target age range" to become SEALs. "This contract will create a mechanism to enhance Naval Special Warfare's ability to conduct outreach, raise awareness, mentor, and increase self-selection to a career as a SEAL within minority communities," a recently-posted draft contract solicitation says.

[Sigaba]

The search button believes in equal opportunity.

http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31055

[Streck-Fu]

The search button believes in equal opportunity.

http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31055

I did not look that far s the article was dated today....Nevermind....

[fasteddie565]

Standards are standards, unless they implement some sort of social norming of the standards, which I highly doubt, guys who are "attracted" by this program vice being called from their soul will make their best effort and either pass or ring out.

[CSM-H]

Hey to all, Was the SGM at Camp McCall when we "lowered" the standard to allow candidates to continue in SFAS after flunking the swim test and lowering the initial GT score to 100 (although it [GT] has be waiverable for decades). Col B was the Tng Grp Commander. anyway after much heartache and trying we "gained" five, count 'em five additional SF soldiers when all was said and done after a year.
So one could say if their honest that yes we can teach you how to swim and even take into account a somewhat lower overall intelligence...But at the end of the day the system as it is set up and has been set up for generations works...you got to want it and it, what it is starts at an early age.... just saying. Good luck to the SEALS but I believe unless they make major changes their numbers won't change much either. CSM-H

[greenberetTFS]

They said that s**t before about SF........ When about 100 or so of us who volunteered in 1956 for the 77th SFG there was about 20+ Black guys including my best buddy Floinoy......... When I went to the 10th in 1959,same thing..........I think it's BS when the SEALS start playing the minorities card......... Guy's like GUY are always ready and around when their needed and their numbers in the service both SF and SOF,I believe are proportional to the other minorities,Latino and so on............ The SEALS are big time now and they are going to be in the MSM for a long time to come,with wants and needs being blown out for all kinds of s**t.............:rolleyes: :( :eek:

Big Teddy :munchin

PS,BTW where is Dusty when we need him?

[MTN Medic]

All this publicity might bring some more of these unthought of repercussions for the SEALs. I am sure this debauchery of a movie will be the nail in the coffin.

Don't thank us; we don't exist!

Those days are a thing of the past. I hope that WE, as a regiment, can keep the "Quiet" in Quiet Professionals.

[Sigaba]

Is the article linked in the OP about the Navy expanding the scope of its search for recruits with a high potential for success or is the article about lowering standards?

From the article that is linked above.
Suggested places for the SEAL hunt include:

-- Outreach to male athletes and fraternity members at junior colleges, colleges, and universities with high percentages of minority student enrollment.

-- Sponsorship of conferences and events, and engagements recognition of student leadership awards, and outreach to educators in the African American community.

-- Sponsorships and engagement with athletes and coaches of predominantly African American collegiate swim teams.

-- Sponsorships and engagement with football players and coaches in predominantly African American high schools and colleges.

-- Inner-city schools initiative providing mentoring to high school students in a "help those help themselves" program; focused on giving back to America, becoming better citizens, developing skills to become responsible and respectful adults, and developing community leaders.

-- Campus-based student initiatives to market NSW career opportunities to minority junior college, college, and university students.

-- A strategy to deliver NSW presence through outreach to coaches and influencers, awareness among the participants, mental toughness presentations to select audiences, and appropriate fitness events on a not-to-interfere basis at annual athletic competitions.

-- Civilian version of the Physical Screening Test (PST), the required qualification test for SEAL training, conducted at universities, colleges, junior colleges, and high schools with high percentages of minority student enrollment.

[The Reaper]

Frankly, I do not think that is the SEAL's problem.

You allow volunteers to apply for training, without discrimination, for or against anyone.

You assess and select against strict standards, without unfairness.

You train those who make it, regardless of their color or creed, and if they succeed, welcome them into their new brotherhood.

Screw all of this searching and helping. You make it, or you don't, on your own. This is allegedly an elite military unit, not a social program.

The security of the nation is no place to be playing games and making exceptions for anyone.

I accept that this concept may be hard to grasp for people who are not members of our brotherhood.

TR

[Sigaba]

Screw all of this searching and helping. You make it, or you don't, on your own. This is allegedly an elite military unit, not a social program.

The security of the nation is no place to be playing games and making exceptions for anyone.

I accept that this concept may be hard to grasp for people who are not members of our brotherhood.

TRTR--

With respect, I'm uncertain about how to reconcile the view on outreach that you expressed today with a viewpoint you offered back in 2004 <<LINK (http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2236#post2236)>>.

In my reading of that earlier post, you presented a compelling argument against affirmative action through the establishment of quotas and/or the lowering of standards. You also seemed to agree with the following practices as better solutions.

Our solution to increase minorities in SF is to try to get as many minority applicants into the pipeline as we can without lowering standards. Another good program is mentoring of minority soldiers (or any soldiers) by cadre members.
Have I misread your comments in that earlier thread or have subsequent events and experiences sparked a change of your viewpoint?

[SF_BHT]

It boils down to a demographic that has little interest in being a SEAL. What are they going to do "go out and Press them into service" like the old navy did in the 1500-1900's around the world?

Do not lower the standards just to satisfy a stat.......

[greenberetTFS]

Frankly, I do not think that is the SEAL's problem.

You allow volunteers to apply for training, without discrimination, for or against anyone.

You assess and select against strict standards, without unfairness.

You train those who make it, regardless of their color or creed, and if they succeed, welcome them into their new brotherhood.

Screw all of this searching and helping. You make it, or you don't, on your own. This is allegedly an elite military unit, not a social program.

The security of the nation is no place to be playing games and making exceptions for anyone.

I accept that this concept may be hard to grasp for people who are not members of our brotherhood.

TR

TR

You really can get "our" points(SF)across to those who don't quite get what it means to be a Special Forces soldier,or for that matter how we are trained and why and what we're actually all about......... The brotherhood,it's who we are...

Big Teddy :munchin

[plato]

When is the NBA going to recognize its obligation to proportionally represent little old grey-haired granny ladies?

Or will they continue to focus on victory vs. defeat?

[Sigaba]

When is the NBA going to recognize its obligation to proportionally represent little old grey-haired granny ladies?

Or will they continue to focus on victory vs. defeat?Does this metaphor work?:confused: Would applying the best practices from the private sector to the armed services improve military effectiveness? Does comparing the hard work of warriors to the virtuosity of professional athletes improve Americans' understanding of either? (Are all NBA franchises dedicated to winning or are some more interested in making money?)

In any case. Scouts for teams in The Association scour the globe looking for players that can help squads win. GMs draft players from Europe and Africa and Asia even though these athletes have not competed against Americans or played by the quirky rules of The Association. Coaching staffs develop players to maximize their potential. (The 2011 Association draft list is here (http://www.basketball-reference.com/draft/NBA_2011.html).)

[The Reaper]

TR--

With respect, I'm uncertain about how to reconcile the view on outreach that you expressed today with a viewpoint you offered back in 2004 <<LINK (http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2236#post2236)>>.

In my reading of that earlier post, you presented a compelling argument against affirmative action through the establishment of quotas and/or the lowering of standards. You also seemed to agree with the following practices as better solutions.

Have I misread your comments in that earlier thread or have subsequent events and experiences sparked a change of your viewpoint?

Getting minority candidates into the program who meet the standard and mentoring minority soldiers during training are not the same as the solutions you offered.

Many colleges already have ROTC departments and most areas have recruiters, including HBCs/HBUs. Many recruiters are, in fact, minorities. A large number of high schools have JROTC programs where retired military personnel serve as role models and mentors. Anyone who wants to join or take a contract can already do so, IF they meet the standards.

The majority of higher educators I have met of all races seem to feel that the military is an evil conspiracy which seeks opportunities to enslave impressionable youth and turn them into mindless killers. At some point of unsuccessful outreach and unchanging attitudes, you have to wonder if these efforts are worthwhile.

Not sure why you would think we are after football players. In fact, foreign language clubs, cross-country teams, and debating teams would generally produce better SF candidates than football teams, though those with skills in multiple of those areas would be even better. We seek not just physical excellence, but mental and cultural skills as well.

In my experience, minorities tend to gravitate toward support and service support specialties and shun combat arms. This has been discussed before, but minorites are already under-represented in combat arms, and that is by their own choice. No one is making people take a job as a cook or a medic over being an Infantryman, or SF. Would you prefer we draft people and make them go into specified MOSes and skills?

The military in general is competing for high school graduates with a zero to very limited history of substance abuse and criminality who score adequately on a written exam, and who can pass a basic physical. SF and other careers with security clearance requirements also require a pretty clean background, good financial history, limited foreign connections, etc. This same population is also highly sought after for college admissions and employers. For reason or reasons not fully understood, minorities who do meet those requirements choose either not to join the military, or if they do, to choose a non combat arms career field. Within the military, applicants for SF training tend not to be black. Most applicants are generally from the combat arms, and primarily, are infantrymen. Black soldiers are significantly under-represented in that field.

A recent ESPN article stated: "In Florida, drowning is the leading cause of accidental death of children younger than 4, and the state has the second largest number of drowning deaths in the nation. For children ages 5 to 14, drowning rates for African-Americans are more than two and a half times higher than those for white children of similar age, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. Nine drown each day, and that number is increasing....

In the 2005-06 academic year, the last year the NCAA published the data, 107 African-American male and female swimmers competed in Division I, compared with 7,121 whites, 207 Asians and 213 Latinos. African-Americans represented .012 percent, then, of the 8,515 Division I swimmers (which also includes Native Americans, international students and people categorized as 'other.'). In other words, Asians and Latinos were twice as likely as African-Americans to be on a Division I swim team, and whites were nearly 70 times as likely. The percentages were similar in Divisions II and III."

My parents taught me to swim in a pond. Do the black community and families have any responsibility to teach their children to swim? Both SEALs and SF are looking for people who can swim. The SF swimming standard is pretty basic. The SEAL standard is significantly more rigorous. If you are not comfortable in the water, they will inevitably discover that and either eliminate it, or the student. Better there in training than in a life or death situation later.

We have been in a period of reduced standards for the sake of numbers for several years now, since just after I posted that comment. I will let the guys on teams and who are dealing with this every day speak to the possible impact of taking people who do not meet the standards. We needed 750 graduates as a minimum per year, and so the command graduated that number or more. Quitting was discouraged and in some cases, refused. Undoubtedly, not all of our graduates met the same standards, or the standards were changed to permit more to pass. Should colleges lower grading standards to ensure more graduates? Would that policy be likely, in a professional degree field, be likely to result in equal or better graduates?

I have grown weary over the past few years of the increasing political correctness, excuses, and blaming of others. As a society and as individuals, we refuse to accept responsibility for our decisions. You should make it into the regiment the same way we all did, learn your trade, do your job to the best of your abilities, and take care of business. Then you can be SF (or SEAL, or whatever). Selected units of the military should mirror society for the sake of diversity the same way that the NBA should.

Would you prefer to watch a game where each team had to have seven white guys, two black players, two Hispanics, and an Asian/Pacific Islander, regardless of talent, because that is more reflective of our diverse population? Or do you want to see the players compete for a slot on the roster with only the best players being selected? Do you think the NBA really needs a diversity program where the white coaches and players at lower levels are groomed and mentored? Would the NBA have better ratings if the players more closely represented the diversity of the American population? I prefer to watch a game where the talent is the best available and people meet or exceed a standard of performance.

I reject the premise that we should spend a disproportionate amount of decreasing resources pursuing select groups of people who may not want to be a SEAL or an SF soldier, merely to make the force meet some predetermined diversity model. We recruit Americans to fill positions in the military and no one is standing in the door denying access to anyone. All you have to do is to meet the requirements and do your job. Recruiters spend their time and money where they get the maximum return for their investment. I seriously doubt that a recruiter would not bring in any qualified applicant he can reach, since that is his mission and his metric. Most recruiters I have spoken with have not had to look too hard to find recruits seeking an 18X contract. I am sure that a qualified minority member meeting the standards would have an equal chance at the same contract, if it were available and he asked for it. There is no history that I am aware of of past discrimination here. As you have seen pointed out here numerous times before, the people we are looking for have the drive and dedication to do their research, prepare themselves, and refuse to quit when the going gets tough. Those who fail to met those standards or who lack the initiative to take an active role in setting and attaining goals need to be rejected. We need the very best. Qualified applicants of all races are selected, every class.

I ran SF Engineer training for two years and spent four years talking with students attending our selection and assessment and training programs. I saw every race, creed and culture of student imaginable. Of those tens of thousands of students, there were zero who would state to me that they felt any sort of discrimination in the process. Universally, they wanted to see students who failed to meet the standard recycled or eliminated. They did not want to be on teams with people who did not meet standards either, regardless of race. When conducting final counseling for students who failed to meet the standards, all understood why they were being relieved and stated that they felt that the standard was applied fairly.

Sigaba, you cannot understand being SF any more than I can understand being you. I can read about it, and think about it for long periods, but you have to live it in order to understand it. I want to protect the integrity of the regiment to fight and win our nation's wars, not satisfy some bureaucratically established quota. I would be just as happy serving with an all-black team or an all-Hispanic team of SF soldiers as I would with an all-white team. As long as they all met the standards and could be counted on. But I probably wouldn't appreciate the music in the team room.

Why didn't you volunteer and request Special Forces training? Honestly. Ask your black friends the same question. Let me know what they say. I am curious.

TR

[GratefulCitizen]

In my experience, minorities tend to gravitate toward support and service support specialties and shun combat arms.

I am curious.
Is this also the case with Native Americans?

[scooter]

I've met quite a few native americans in SF.

[plato]

Does this metaphor work?:confused: Would applying the best practices from the private sector to the armed services improve military effectiveness?
Does comparing the hard work of warriors to the virtuosity of professional athletes improve Americans' understanding of either?
(Are all NBA franchises dedicated to winning or are some more interested in making money?)


Yes. Take the person with the best background and most promise. There will always be a dud here and there, but at least there's a more likely foundation. In combat, I always looked for the farm boy who was used to hunting with Dad. He was used to cold and sweat, being rained on, and listening for small sounds in the woods. It wasn't that he had endured it for a short time during basic, and could probably continue to endure, but that it was a lifelong natural part of him. I don't think apartment-dwellers had much chance of coming close for many years.
For civilian work, I hired ex-military. No need to explain urgency, to help them understand squads, companies, brigades and all the culture and restrictions involved. They understood it in their guts as well as in their heads. There may have been some great short-order cooks that I could have trained up and put into action after paying them for a few years, but I didn't.

Warrioring is hard work. (Yes, I made that word up.:D) It also takes the instincts, the inclinations toward what a warrior needs to know and do. IMHO, a top-notch warrior can perform very laudably a soloist as he also can in more complicated coordinated efforts. If you have to go out and coax someone into playing a violin, and spend your time bringing him up to par, will he ever be a great virtuoso?

Making money? Of course. But it's the winning teams that seem to pack the stadium. If that weren't true, wouldn't we have more little old granny-ladies? Wouldn't have to pay them much. The ticket sales would be nearly pure profit. ;)

Look at the parades after WWI and WWII. Americans understand winning. And, I never particularly wanted/needed to be understood by America. We walked away from each firefight alive. We all went home in one piece, some of us with a few scars, but "Chicks dig scars", so we got our appreciation our way. ;)

[Sarski]

Too white???

Nothing a little more time in the sun and surf won't fix. :D

[Edgerusher71]

Why didn't you volunteer and request Special Forces training? Honestly. Ask your black friends the same question. Let me know what they say. I am curious.


I have not yet left for basic but I am one of those qualified black candidates who has decided to pursue an SOF(albeit a different unit) career and I have black friends so I can give you one answer. In my experience with some of my friends who are already in the military when I tell them of my aspirations it's usually "You're crazy", "Hell no" and in one case "Man that shit is for them whiteboys." There is simply no desire for the most part out of the African American community to be SOF or even infantry the main reason being a desire to avoid getting shot at. This is the same for my friends who aren't military as well as soon as "Army" is said they instantly jump to a hail of bullets getting tossed at them and just as quickly say no dice. The Department of Defense can spend as much money on this as they want, I can tell them for a lot cheaper it's not happening.

So does that make me a minority in a minority? :D

Those who aspire to join these ranks will continue to have those aspirations regardless and it will never be as proportional as the American population...but neither is the desire to serve in the first place.

[Sigaba]

TR--

Thank you for your reply. I do think there is some mis-undertanding regarding a previous post of mine in this thread.Getting minority candidates into the program who meet the standard and mentoring minority soldiers during training are not the same as the solutions you offered.
To clarify, I did not offer any solutions, I quoted from the article in the OP a list of options the SEALs are considering. That is, the navy is considering outreach to athletic programs. Moreover, while some of the proposals target blacks specifically, others also discuss other minority groups as well as those from certain geographic and economic backgrounds.

I quoted from the article because the responses in this thread were criticizing the article for points it did not make. That is, the article doesn't say that the SEALs have a "problem,", that they're "too white," and that they might lower standards to get minority recruits. By my reading, the article is about the navy developing an opportunity to continue a tradition of public outreach by connecting its capabilities to the public imagination. This tradition reflects the belief that public support translates into favorable legislation and the perception of higher level of military effectiveness. (MOO, one cannot overstate the point that these outreach efforts often come at the expense of other services--especially the army.)

With respect, I do not know how my quoting from the article as I did can be interpreted as presenting a POV on the proposed suggestions one way or another. In fact, I've complied with a directive you issued that those of us who have not been there and done that are to keep our two cents to ourselves when it comes to controversial issues centering around combat. My ongoing compliance with this directive reflects my profound respect for you and my appreciation for wisdom of your implicit argument--which you've detailed in this thread. I also believed that the views you expressed in 2004 offered a sustainable alternative to quota based affirmative action.

My remarks on such matters instead center around the political sustainability or the historical accuracy of a stated view. In such cases, I'm thinking about how would such a remark play as a sound bite on the six o'clock news or during a national election campaign in the present day and the near future. Are rank and file Americans going to say "No matter what, we need to incorporate the wisdom of the BTDTs as we proceed in this debate"? Or will they dig in and insist that the 'best practices' for civilian institutions--such as the application of advanced technology--will work in the armed services?

In regards to your comments about the difference between thought and direct experience. Yes, you are correct. As you have been there and done that, you understand the experiences of warriors in ways I never shall. Yes, it is your brotherhood and it is your regiment, not mine. In my brief time on this BB, I do not believe I've offered any indication of disagreement with these facts.

At the same time, I understand that on numerous occasions, the American people have decided that it is their armed forces. If "we, the people," through their elected and appointed civilian political leaders, decide to pull the plug on reconstruction, or to make seniority the main criterion for promotion, or to put off the raising, equipping, and training of an army until a war begins, or to take Jim Crow to a war against fascism, or to mothball battleships amid rising third world tension, or to "transform" the way America fights its wars, their will is going to carry the day.

As a person somewhat familiar with how the navy has approached the '"we, the people" problematic' and who has read both here and across the street the available expressions of the ethos of the quiet professionals, I think that the arguments for and against certain policy options are going to turn on the tone of certain positions rather than on the positions themselves.

Over time, Americans have approached the notion of the professional soldier with a great deal of skepticism. At times, this skepticism has bordered on the type of cynicism often associated with racial bigotry. In some quarters, it is fashionable to hold the leftists of the 1960s responsible for this dynamic. However, historians of the American military experience can trace this component of civil-military relations back to the French-Indian War. There have been moments when this hostility was an outgrowth of sensibilities not directly related to the armed services. And there have been instances when the conduct of the armed services themselves--in particular the army--soured unnecessarily the perceptions of civilians. Hence, my over riding concern is that contemporaneous policy debates will unfold in ways that civilians will find cause to disregard and to punish elements in the armed services who disagree with a proposed policy option because they take exception to the tone, if not also the proposed option.

I reject the premise that we should spend a disproportionate amount of decreasing resources pursuing select groups of people who may not want to be a SEAL or an SF soldier, merely to make the force meet some predetermined diversity model. As noted in the article, this premise is coming from the SEALs themselves. Consequently, my questions are:

If the navy pursues this option and the army does not, how might the long term consequences play out for each service?
How are "we, the people" going to sort out the differing views if the underlying rational is that only members of the SOF community can truly understand the needs and issues of the SOF community, especially given the absence of a consensus?
Are "we, the people" going point to diverging viewpoints among BTDTs, and let that conversation take its course?
Or, are they going to cherry pick?
Or are they going to disregard the debate entirely and impose a solution?


To turn to your specific questions.
Would you prefer we draft people and make them go into specified MOSes and skills?Bluntly, I would prefer that considerations of military operational effectiveness ("the needs of the army") drive policy debates, especially during times of war. At the same time, I would prefer that opponents of certain policy options consider the possibility that politics (party, institutional, bureaucratic, personal, and identity), for worse and for better, drive the discussion.

To me, this consideration includes grappling with the notion that "political correctness" always has--and always shall be--the elephant in the room. The history of America's armed services has always had a component of "social experimentation." (Were this not the case, then why did the founding fathers not immediately emulate the 'best practices' of armed forces of European powers and instead pursue a different trajectory of national security policies?) Hence, opposing a policy option because its implementation would require bowing to "political correctness" is an argument that can cut both ways. Would you prefer to watch a game where each team had to have seven white guys, two black players, two Hispanics, and an Asian/Pacific Islander, regardless of talent, because that is more reflective of our diverse population? Or do you want to see the players compete for a slot on the roster with only the best players being selected? Do you think the NBA really needs a diversity program where the white coaches and players at lower levels are groomed and mentored? Would the NBA have better ratings if the players more closely represented the diversity of the American population? I prefer to watch a game where the talent is the best available and people meet or exceed a standard of performance.I believe this is an apples and oranges comparison that should not be used in discussions of military and naval affairs. I believe the comparison undermines critically the argument that the warriors' experiences are distinct from those of civilians and, therefore, the best practices of the civilian sphere may not translate to military institutions.

(Moreover, The Association and its teams approach issues of competition, representation, and diversity in ways dissimilar to your hypothetical.

A number of teams are run based upon the economic bottom line rather than on wins and losses.
Skilled players sit on the bench because they cannot--or will not--subordinate their play to the needs of the coaching staff.
One of the best players in recent years is PNG because he's considered a bad apple.
A number of franchises [especially those in smaller markets] field teams that "fit" into the cultural expectations of their communities.
The Association has imposed for many years a quota system in the form of a salary cap.
Some of the most successful teams of the last two decades can point to the scouting, drafting, and development of players off the beaten path as a key component of their competitive success.)

Why didn't you volunteer and request Special Forces training? Honestly. Ask your black friends the same question. Let me know what they say. I am curious.The short answer to first question follows. I was largely ignorant about SF until I began reading on SOF about eight years ago. Up until then, my interests had centered around the other end of the spectrum of conflict.

As for the second question, I will simply say that I've learned first hand the extent to which the anti-armed service views that you described in your post persist among many cohorts.

[The Reaper]

D:

You and I are in agreement on most points. Thank you for presenting your perspectives.

I was not accusing you of stepping across any line, you understand the limits and rarely have to be corrected.

I would offer one additional perspective. The professional military is accustomed to taking instructions from our civilian leadership that we may not agree with. We muddle through with what we are given. Anything, anytime, anyplace. As with your physician or lawyer, I am not sure that you really want to find out that your all-volunteer counter-terrorist force rescuing you is comprised of people who were given special dispensation when they failed to make the standards in training, but were assigned to the units anyway to create a more diverse force. Just think about the missions you are aware of and consider the potential for disaster. What if the aviators and SEALs who went after Osama were not the best available? How badly could that have turned out?

The same logic applies to the future of this all-volunteer force. If the public determines that the cost of the force exceeds its value, and makes the cuts and reductions that are being discused right now, causing the best and the brightest to leave, will a "good enough" force really be good enough when the chips are on the table with a nuclear Iran or NK?

I guess we are living in interesting times.

TR