|
Realistic or a pipe dream?
Interesting article.
Being from the civilian side, I have little understanding as to whether such an approach would be effective. Is this sort of approach realistic or even desirable? https://townhall.com/columnists/kurt...first-n2610493 |
Interesting and thought provoking. Here are some of my ill informed and overly biased thoughts on the article…
Quote:
Grenada? Panama? Haiti? We went in, kicked their asses and came home but I'd hardly call any of those examples of the USA 'smashing whole armies' In contrast, when we went back to Iraq for “Gulf-2” we still stomped their fucking heads in within the first week - but then we decided to stay there for ten years. Most of that ten-year stay was owned by a republican and a lot of people complained when the democrats brought folks home. Then they complained when the same democrats sent folks back and expanded into Syria. Only to again, complain, when the republican tried to bring them back out of Syria. Eight years of Clinton military wasn’t undone and republican-ized in the eight months between Dubya taking office in January and Obama Bin Lodden attacking America in September of that same year - we stomped Iraq with a military that was being led by Clinton generals. On the other hand, we went into Syria and wiped our ass with Isis before most Americans really understood that we had gone to war in Syria, wiped our ass with Isis, and started drawing back down. We stomped the shit out of Afghanistan in less time than it takes most millennials to build a city in Mine-Craft… …but then we stayed there for 20 years because of the profit margin. We talk about that nifty army that rolled through Afghanistan back in the early months of the war after 9/11 – but let’s be honest – that Army was built during the Clinton years. No sirree - a bunch of "seventh-century freaks" didn't drive us out - we quit. The problem in the article isn’t something a president will ever be able to fix in his first term in office. They will need four years just to lay in the ambush. Then, right after the midterms during that 2nd term - fire EVERYONE - all the way down the chain until SSG Oklahoma gets to be a brigade commander and 2LT Backwoods takes command of a division due to the vacuum created by the ousting of a legion of leftist militicians. If a president rocks the boat in his first two years, the establishment WILL find a way to run him off. Even if that means having the head of the CIA and FBI fabricate evidence against him, leak it to journalists and activists, and then exploit our citizens social media addiction in order to drive an unfounded impeachment effort. It didn’t take long for a lot of us to realize that some of these “damn fine generals” that were going to help ’45 put things back on track turned out to be turncoats and backstabbers that were the opposite of loyal to the CINC. Besides, who are we using as example right now? Imagine if there was a top ranking general that learned political science from Princeton – does anyone really think he would “serve” a conservative president while zealously helping him push a conservative agenda? What if that same person also got a master’s degree from Columbia (that fine school that gave birth to the Cloward-Piven strategy) what if that same person that had studied at two of the world elite liberal universities ALSO decided to testify in front of congress that we should be teaching critical race theory in our service academies... ...would anyone REALLY expect such a person to help the next republican POTUS forward a conservative agenda seeking to 're-culture' the military? Is the next republican really going to going to “fire his way” into a conservative dominated military? …not when the service academies are already giving out 3rd Degree black belts in woke-fu-jitsu as part of their curriculum. Such an administration would spend most of their time fighting civil rights lawsuits from all of the service members that were being "discriminated" for their beliefs. Did any of the “conservative” leaders in the pentagon during the LAST republican presidents administration step up and help clear out the garbage when they had the chance - or did they walk softly and carry a balsa wood stick? The only thing permanent DC needs to do is fabricate seditious evidence that implicates the next republican POTUS as the one who bought Paul Pelosi his drinks the night he got his DUI and the time needed to “clean out” the military of its ne'er-do-wells will evaporate as the administration spins their wheels defending against endless calls for impeachment. The "current" republican congress certainly won’t help the next 'conservative' republican president – they’ve already proven that. They gave their first demonstration of their willingness to tell Americans to fuck right off the day that McCain was applauded by his peers for KILLING any chance of repealing BarrackHussienObamaCare. Then they did it again when they refused to defend his agenda. Then they did it again when they started campaigning for democrats. Then they did it again when they jumped on the 6-January impeachment bandwagon. Most recently, they did it AGAIN when well over 20 house and senate republicans decided that the democrats were right - your 1st. 2nd, 4th, and of course 10th amendment rights aren't worth a popcorn fart. Quote:
…”not on OUR watch” said the republican establishment. Quote:
For a while – but now, we are doing it again. Because we are all woman haters and racists – I know, because I've sat through THAT class too. Seriously; imagine a conservative president showing up on January 21st, 2025 and literally shit-canning every woke 2-3-4 start general in command of a TSOC, GCC, or Service component command and then watch how fast the congressional republicans start staring at their feet while the democrats, the media, media, and turncoats in the DOJ arms the next Schiff-Pelosi-Schumer triumvirate with just enough fabricated “evidence” to initiate the next round of impeachments. Rinse and Repeat. I wish I had Kurt Schlichters fond memory of the glory days of the last 30-40 years of military history – I also wish I had his positive outlook on the road ahead. But, I don’t. The last 30 years has jaded me to a point where unmetered and uncontrollable sarcasm is my only outlet. I could EASILY beat Randy Marsh out of his job as the Denver Bronco's Sarcastaball coach… …yeah, men in the military should TOTALLY be allowed to wear fingernail polish …duh, of course its safe to let females do parachute jumps with long flowing ponytails …maybe we should do war with simmunitions so we don’t hurt any Chinese people because war is barbaric. ...we should just throw balloons instead of hand grenades and whoever catches the balloon will run in a circle and give hugs to all the enemy soldiers I am uninspired and underwhelmed with the leaders that have been foisted upon us over the last 30-40 years. The good ones get ran off as O6’s or become disillusioned and get out before they even take over a BN. The rest are either mildly conservative but WILDLY self-serving or just straight up liberal militicians doing the bidding of the leftists in permanent DC. This is the way. |
America’s woke Army is facing a recruiting nightmare
A companion article to Grateful Citizens post above
SnT America’s woke Army is facing a recruiting nightmare Suppose they gave a war and no one came.” That was a slogan of the 1960s anti-war movement. Now it’s becoming a reality, at least for the United States Army, as recruiting woes mount. The problem is a simple one: Not enough people want to be soldiers — and with reason. The Army’s No. 2 officer told Congress Tuesday that the service has no choice but to reduce total force strength by 10,000 for the fiscal year starting in September, with the next year looking even bleaker: By the end of fiscal 2023, it could be up to 28,000 soldiers short of its 476,000-troop target. Army Secretary Christine Wormuth’s spokeswoman said it’s met only half of its recruiting goal so far this fiscal year — with just 2½ months left. Why is this? There are several potential explanations. One is that the new “woke” Army isn’t all that appealing to the kinds of people who traditionally join the military. As Jeff Groom writes in Spectator World, the Army has waged a culture war, and it’s a quagmire: “Imagine you are an eighteen-year-old, white, Christian male in Georgia with a family history of military service. As you progressed through your teen years, you watched Confederate statues being torn down and military bases being renamed, endless media and elitist demonization of your culture as racist and deplorable and backwards, and military and civilian leadership that thinks diversity and inclusion (i.e. fewer white men) is best thing since sliced bread. Would you volunteer? Identity politics works both ways.” Traditional masculinity is something today’s woke military seems hostile to, but it’s always been the driving force in encouraging people to enlist. A volunteer army needs volunteers, and why exactly would a traditional white male want to volunteer anymore? Note that combat soldiers disproportionately come from the South and face the greatest degree of demonization. But while the “Get woke, go broke” explanation has a lot of power in all kinds of settings — just ask Disney and Netflix — there’s more going on here. The worst part is this: The military leadership has broken faith with the troops. We don’t hear much about the debacle in Afghanistan that took place not even a year ago — since it makes a Democratic administration look bad, it’s not a fit subject for conversation in polite society — but people haven’t forgotten. Thousands of Americans, along with Afghan allies, were left behind while US troops were ordered to engage in an overnight skedaddle from Bagram Air Base and a humiliating withdrawal from Afghanistan. Reports at the time revealed outright rage among the troops at how they were used. A group of retired senior military officers called for Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin to resign. Service members openly mocked Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley. A series of encrypted messages leaked to the media showed officers on the ground in Kabul blasting their orders, complaining that they were being forced to leave Americans behind. “We are f–king abandoning American citizens,” wrote a colonel with the 82nd Airborne detachment there. Regular troops were reportedly apoplectic that they weren’t allowed to go rescue US citizens, as British and French forces did theirs. It’s one thing to enlist in an organization with a proud tradition and an ethic of protecting the country and looking after its troops. It’s another to enlist in a service with a corrupt and incompetent civilian leadership and a senior military leadership that’s no better. That military leadership, Milley and the entire Biden administration have betrayed their responsibilities, and everyone, especially the pool of likely recruits, knows it. To have a volunteer army, you need volunteers. What would happen if we had a war and nobody showed up? We may find out. Biden and congressional Democrats will likely face the ugly choice of letting the military flounder due to lack of troops or returning to the draft. Neither approach looks like a winner. Incompetence and contempt for the troops have a price, and the bill is coming due. https://nypost.com/2022/07/21/americ...ing-nightmare/ |
Glenn Reynolds article makes great points as well but I really think a lot of people are missing the context...
Quote:
Everything that the left does to the military is done with intent. It's NOT incompetence - it is intent. A military devoid of patriots is the return on that investment. Those same fucking hippies that where chanting “Suppose they gave a war and no one came.” back in the 1960's are the people executing these ridiculous policies. These 70-75-80 year old politicians were teenagers in the 60s. They played the long game and now they are in charge. Sure - we may be 28,000 troops short of our recruiting goals - but you know what ISN'T being cut? General Officer slots aren't being cut. We need our militicians WAY more than we need war-fighters - because we aren't interested in actually winning any wars. We dont really care care what goes on with Taiwan - our corrupt leaders have made all their investments with the folks on the mainland. We dont really care care what goes on Ukraine either - worst case, they get steamrolled by Vlad and his bullies and the people that would testify about our leaders long history of corruption and profiteering through cutouts in Ukraine are all either killed or imprisoned. Any "documents" that surface as evidence of US corruption wont matter because it will all just be attributed to "Russian disinformation" By the way, did everyone just seem to forget that a Biden flunky actually testified in congress to a question asked by Marco Rubio about the shifty research going on over there? ...of course you dont remember - its already been memory holed. Just like the Panama papers Just like Epstein's sketchy suicide Just like the mysterious lack of convictions coming from Ghislanes little black book ...memory holed. These aren't the mother fucking droids you're looking for asshole - now move along before these peas get shoved up your ass. Americas "woke army" is not experiencing a recruiting nightmare - Americas "woke Army" is living the dream. -the service academies have "adjusted" their curriculum -trans folks can come in to get their transition paid for by taxpayer dollars -infantry persons can take time off to have babies -headquarters buildings are even making lactation areas more accessible -we've finally accepted our inherent racism and sexism and are taking steps to root that shit out It's only a nightmare if you are a conservative. |
Quote:
All over the country, at dinner tables, in camp chairs around the grill, and during cross-country drives, family members are having discussions with their younger members. Nieces, nephews, young cousins, and grandchildren are all being advised that going in the Army isn't such a great idea right now. There is pain in the telling. This isn't a bill come due either; it just is. But it is like "tolerance stacking" - a little plus here, a little minus there, and pretty soon you have what you thought was a system that can't do what you thought it could. * including the softball exit-ramp that Rubio handed The Chemical Lady in her testimony. |
Just look through history - tyrants dont build an army to make the world better - tyrants build that army that first brings its own citizens to their knees...
...then they worry about conquest Caesar Queen mary The Ottomans Lenin Hitler Mussolini Stalin Mao The Kims ...rinse and repeat. You crush the homeland and forge your own sword Turning the US military into a legion of activists and climate crusaders makes them far more likely to help pacify the homeland when the cops cant - it's almost like thing same things that we spent the last 75 years doing to others - working the tribal Vietnamese against other tribal Vietnamese, manipulating governments in central/south America, turning the Iraqis on themselves, getting Afghans to fight the Afghanis, upsetting the balance in Libya, helping Taiwan resist China, and helping former Soviet States fight against the Soviet Union - it all looks a lot like a government marginalizing their current military in favor of a transformed military - demonizing the local police in favor of a federalized and transformative more "professional" police force - labeling opposing ideals as those of either extremist, dissidents, or outright domestic threats I'm not saying it whats happening, I'm just saying, it's what we have done all around the world over the last 100 years or so every time WE want to "change things" ...its certainly what I would do if I was in charge of trying to topple a nation mileage may vary - batteries not included - act now, supplies are limited... no returns no refunds |
Reply 1 to Box post 2
BOX,
I am in awe at your second latest post. Your satire rates you with the likes of H>L> Manchen and Samuel Clements, only in this post, yours is very serious. . I will need some time to ponder your message, but I can say that it left me feeling kinda good as someone finally “gets it”, and maybe we start “fixin” what’s broke. I was going to suggest that the Army should fix it’s own problems, much as had been done in the past “By the mid-1970s drug use, racial tensions, low quality troops, and inexperienced NCOs, “ticket punching” and careerism from the officer corps, left the Army in a state of disarray, . I just re-read Parts of Norman Schwarzkopf’s book where he and likeminded officers and senior NCO’s decided to stay in the army to help straighten it out. This would have been between 74 to 78 when Schwarzkopf was an O6 to O7. This group had limited initial success in fixing the army, .Eventually, thanks in part to a massive Reagan era military buildup; the army was nearing recovery, So even if we followed your analysis to “fire EVERYONE - all the way down the chain until SSG Oklahoma gets to be a brigade commander and 2LT Backwoods takes command of a division due to the vacuum created by the ousting of a legion of leftist militicians.” . Then, could the current army do what had been done in the 1980’s.(i.e. fix itself)? I think the REPLY is a big NO. We could never get them all, as they are coming on active duty every year. Some were hiding in the bushes of the 80’s recovery to cause problems in the future.(today) These (adjutive of choice) would either cause problems, serve a bad role models, or become roadblocks to any effort at fixing the current army problems. I checked the ranks of some officers during that period (1976 / 1986);., Clark Lt Col / Col Milley Lt / Capt Patraeus Lt / Maj Sonntag Lt I picked these General officers as sort of a list of “people with problems” that were allowed to move ever higher in the army command structure. How were these people allowed to continue serving. Did no one along the way give them corrective measures via counseling or in a OER. Some of their problems were going on for years. I Hope this is not so chopped up that I lose the thrust of comments. The balance of a reply I inserted into your post. I do not intend any reply to be flippant. Quote:
|
Post 2 in Reply to Box post 2
Quote:
Human nature is self serving, but setting criteria that each service member from Lt to General understands, and is measured against, will provide a better result than the last 50 years has provided. The hard partmay be getting such a program executed. I’m getting to old to worry about this crap, it belongs to the next generation. SnT. |
You're all missing a key point to all of this. We are NOT meeting our manning goal of "475,000." Those of us around throughout the last few decades when we experimented with force cuts remember that 495,000 was dangerously low. Multiple statements were made that we could NOT go below 495K and meet our mission. I remember Krulak when he was Commandant of the Marine Corps at a Senate hearing was THE only Chief who had the balls to tell the Senate: "No. No, I cannot do my mission the way you want me to do it with the resources you are giving me." Even Schoomacher knuckled under to the politicians and didn't express reservations to the force cuts.
We are now at "goal" 475K. 475K of jokesters, trannies-in transition (just pushed a packet for a tranny requesting an exception to policy to the Undersecretary of the Army; the amount of paperwork, resources, and hours in this windmill-titling exercise was incredible), fat bodies, head-cases, and snowflakes. We still have some great warriors, but not as a total in the force. And...we can't meet that 475K goal. In the past, we blithely claimed that technology will make up the difference. Well, that's all nice and good, but what do you do when China appears to be very close (maybe surpass us in some areas) of technology, AND they have a Billion zealots under arms? India far surpasses our troop strength. The NK far surpass our troop strength AND have the Chinese.... Ain't looking good for the home team. |
A tip of the ol' beret to Grateful Citizen for starting what, imho, may be the most significant thread in this forum since the 2nd A thread.
Joker, let's rename this thread to: "Reformation of the US Military: A Modest Proposal" and make sure it is permanent. The suggested title is in deference to one of the greatest satirists of the English language, Jonathan Swift. Sometimes I think Box is his reincarnation. :D |
The original article is focused on a top-down command approach.
While this is a necessary part of affecting any organization, the bottom-up input also matters greatly. No amount of organizational change will matter if the product coming in to the system is deficient. Far too many of the young men in society are soft, weak, and effeminate. To what degree can boys be targeted, from a young age, to prepare for a future (short or long term) in the military? The best time to plant those seeds is when the boys are 11-13 years old. Is there any mechanism in place to start influencing the boys who will be recruits in 5-8 years? |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
The clock would have to be rolled back a minimum of 50+ years 60 would be even better and I do not see that happening. I think we are screwed.
|
Comments on Box #2 above
Quote:
Quote:
As a 1st Generation SCOT, I did not think of Jonathan Swift Proposal as satire, and thought his idea of serving plump Irish kids for dinner was a practical solution for a race that cannot sing, shoots each other often, and drinks to excess Slange Var SnT As Box has said currently“Americas "woke Army" is living the dream” If we elect a strong leader,With proper guidance, military Flag officers could be shown the error of their ways by selective firing (or delaying / denying promotion) to O6 and up. Perhaps the problem is of a established firmly set mission statement for the military (writ large). I do not have to try and school any one this board, but Maybe if we were not active (and instead, had a small footprint) in every two traffic light country in the world, we wouldn’t need to support this General Officer Corp, that this whole world strategy promotes. “The Army Now Has the Most 4-Star Generals on Duty Since World War II”(slight uptick End Korea).The best way to view GO’s is WWII / Current vs number of troops: WWII Current Generals 2000 900 Ratio /Troops 1 -600 1-1400 That is correct, We have a GO for every 1,400 soldiers,sailors,marines/airman/coasties. It’s been a long time, but as I remember 1400 troops is a Brigade, usually commanded by a Colonel. Another avenue available to us to address this issue is to persuade our “elected representatives” pass a law that dis-allows (a word?) our GO corps from working at a defense contractor. This also may have the added benefit of actually lowering our acquisition costs, and introduce “try it before you buy it” one off contracts. I’m not sure if this is possible, as I think, the GO’s (Generally) view after service contractor employment as a service connected benefit, like the GI bill for Big Guys. I disagree with the Ukraine defense posture. Sleeping with some dogs will give you fleas. Along with a new mission statement, perhaps the military could school the civilian leadership on homeland defense, positioning troops, and discouraging nation building. We have no United States interest in Ukraine, Lithuania or NATO, and limited interest in Formosa or Quemoy. We do have a national interest in Tijuana, El Paso, Laredo, and Yuma. I agree with Box’s comment that this is NOT incompetence that is exhibited by the party of the left. It is well planned, developed and executed. (probably over the last 100 years). If you want an example, look at how CHEAP a bastard like SOROS is-- But he gets amazing results…for a small amount of money. Look at his support for State Attorney Generals and major city District Attorneys (DA’s) from coast to coast, and crashing the American Legal System, and causing a massive increase in crime rates (his goals)..—Cost “A few Million” Soros may be a huge influencer, but I believe the real political power lays in your local Teachers Unions. The NEA & AFT are the largest Unions in the country, and exert almost unlimited power to inculcate “progressive” ideals on the minds of the nation’s children. Fixin this solves many of our ong term problems. When Rumsfeld said “You go to war with the army you have, he was castigated by every “armchair General” in the congress or media. Rumsfeld was right. Nation building in Iraq was wrong. Just as todays War by proxy in the Ukraine is Wrong, with or without our Bio / Chem weapons, nuanced in Box’s writings above. Returning to a draft (Armed Service, civilian service ) may be a good thing for the nation, but not specifically good for the military, and it’s culture. Before someone shoots me, let me explain: In a equitable world, serving your country for 18-24+ months should not only be a duty, it should be an honor. This would provide a sense of discipline on a group that is currently undisciplined. The soothing voice of a drill Sergeant at 0’dark thirty is good for the soul, and may solve many of today’s social problems in the process. We may, in fact rescue a few warriors who hadn’t recognized their calling. while not drugging natural aggressiveness out of boys (toxic masculinity ), and treating boys as defective girls (ADHD,etc.). BTW The service also provides excellent role models of all ranks, cultures and religions. We have mistaken male hormonal expression for a lot of cultural sins, from sexism to rape culture. Today’s youth (especially males) are lost. They have no guidance, goals or desire to do much of anything. Society (US) is responsible for this screw-up. We let these kids down by not kicking their ass when they needed it. But wait you say, We weren’t in the home to do the discipline thing… Yeah, we weren’t, and aren’t there, We (collectively) have done the WHAM, BAM, THANK YOU MA’AM, and did nothing about Uncle Sugar taking over our rightful roles. So now we have a legion of females raising a gizillion bastards, without a bit of shame that should accompany getting pregnant out of “wedlock”,and without a clue or plan of how to take care of and raise a child. We also react to this with.. ‘cause damnit, They/we have birth control. How would we pay for it. We are already “overtaxed” and get little in return from our payday contribution. While I do not believe in a soak the rich policy, I am a great believer in providing incentives for desired conduct & outcomes.Thinking that there has to be a huge amount of illegal “haven income” that is not YET taxed, put a 1% confidential bounty on discovery and collection of illegal / illicit monies. With such an incentive, a massive amount of funds – from your local drug dealer up to nominal accounts in Americas islands of “off shore cultures”. If a news agency can come up with 2+ terrabites of financial data of this nature, imagine what underpaid book keepers could / would expose. That’s all my comments SnT SOROS https://nypost.com/2021/12/01/george...gs-nationwide/ https://nypost.com/2021/12/16/how-ge...s-crime-surge/ SOROS GUNS https://dailycaller.com/2022/02/22/h...it-in-the-u-s/ GENERALS https://www.reference.com/world-view...fc0fb2f17bb3d1 |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:26. |
Copyright 2004-2022 by Professional Soldiers ®