Challenging The Generals - Page 3

**Razor** · 08-28-2007, 21:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by 60_Driver

Few medical doctors or archaeologists pursue degrees in international finance because the subject has little bearing on their respective fields and offers little in the way of improving their performance.

Career members of our present volunteer "professional" military are supposed to be just that...military professionals. This implies a dedication to the study of fields useful to the management of violence and the winning of wars.

I would counter that few doctors or archaeologists are often asked to perform a task well-outside their specialty, say for example a combat engineer officer acting as a town mayor, or an infantryman re-establishing the basic infrastructure to provide electricity to a village. Before you tell me those examples fall within the scope of Civil Affairs, remember how 'available' CA teams are for a specific project when there are thousands of projects requiring assistance.

Limiting one's self to only the "management of violence and the winning of wars" creates a one-trick pony with little ability to adapt to changing environments, such as those found in counterinsurgencies.

kgoerz · 08-28-2007, 23:17

[QUOTE=Jack Moroney]You know I have heard all this stuff since I was but a wee brown bar and I think the "leadership crisis" is but a symptom of a dumb personnel management "program". For those of you that are officers, stop and look back at your careers to date and tell me which one of you really spent enough time in any command or leadership position that you thought was really enough to prepare you to move to the next higher echelon. QUOTE]

Honestly I don't know how Officers do it. I look back at how much I learned from year two on a Team until I left. Thats where I learned. The first two years were for learning lessons. I truly felt sorry for the Captains when they had to leave after a couple of years. Especially the ones who had language School count against their Team time.
5, 4, 4, are the number of years for my first three assignments in SF. The last one was SWC. When the SWC time ended I went back to a Team. It was during this fourth Team assignment where my priorities changed. Learning took a back seat to teaching and influencing decisions.
The Captains who showed up overseas already had Team time. They got lucky and got to do it again. The difference was night and day. They made every day decisions that they wouldn't of even tried to influence the first time around. To give this opportunity to everyone one idea that was thrown around.
Give Officers a choice when selected for Major. Let them put it on hold without suffering any consequences. Placing their promotion on hold lets them return to a Team. The only thing they lose is the money they would of earned as a Major during this extra Team time. Two paths to choose from.
What they gain is two more years Team experience. This is reflected on their records of course, thus an edge career wise later on down the road. So when a new Group Commander arrives. The first question everyone will have is "Is this new guy a double timer or did he just do the minimum" I think most would choose to return to a Team in a heart beat.
OK, You can stop laughing. I still think it's a good idea.

**The Reaper** · 08-29-2007, 07:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Razor

I would counter that few doctors or archaeologists are often asked to perform a task well-outside their specialty, say for example a combat engineer officer acting as a town mayor, or an infantryman re-establishing the basic infrastructure to provide electricity to a village. Before you tell me those examples fall within the scope of Civil Affairs, remember how 'available' CA teams are for a specific project when there are thousands of projects requiring assistance.

Limiting one's self to only the "management of violence and the winning of wars" creates a one-trick pony with little ability to adapt to changing environments, such as those found in counterinsurgencies.

Do not forget that the CA units bring knowledge, but few real resources.

They have a ton of expertise, but cannot build a bridge, erect a school, dig a well, open a hospital, etc. without the engineer, MP, or Medical assets to make it happen.

kg, I agree that officers are on a team for far too short a time, but that is not their choice. In the big scheme of things, they have to move on so that all of the 18As get a certain minimum amount of team time. SF needs more CPTs and MAJs in the force than would allow for TLs to be there for more than 12-24 months. It is a shame, but that is probably long enough for the leadership to figure out if the TL gets it and is able to move on and up in SF or not. It also gives the TL the ability to know what it is like on a team when he is later making decisions that affect them. There were several jobs I had in the Army where I would have gladly stayed and forfeited all future promotions to remain there. They were all troop time, none were staff jobs.

TR

**The Reaper** · 08-29-2007, 17:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

Sir, I'm wondering, but isn't the military supposed to be completely subservient to civilian rule? If the military has power over the civilian leadership, couldn't that be a bad thing? I always assumed that civilian rule wasn't always the best idea, but that this was just a necessary evil of having a society with the civilians in charge (keeps the military from gaining too much power, but on the flip side, the civilians may not listen to their military advisors and make dumb decisions).

The first loyalty required is to the Constitution of the United States.

TR

brianksain · 08-29-2007, 19:16

Do not want to stray out of my lane in this thread ... but almost identical parallells can be drawn in LE as stated previously.

Have had virtually identical conversations with guys in my biz.

Very little respect for many up the food chain.

RTK · 08-29-2007, 19:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Reaper

The first loyalty required is to the Constitution of the United States.

TR

Amen.

CoLawman · 08-29-2007, 20:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Reaper

The first loyalty required is to the Constitution of the United States.

TR

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

**The Reaper** · 08-29-2007, 20:47

The real question in that oath is what action is required when orders of the POTUS or appointed officers are in violation of the Constitution. Not only can they be disobeyed, but may the leadership also be removed for doing so in order to further protect the Constitution?

Now that is a real tough one.

And don't tell me that the same men who planned for an armed society to ensure the freely elected government served the People did not consider that, because I believe that they did.

TR

bubba · 08-29-2007, 21:11

The answer sir is in the oath, ie, against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The big WHAT though, IMHO, is who is the deciding party on whom is an enemy? Just my .02

CoLawman · 08-29-2007, 22:32

The military can take no action against the civilian leadership without orders from civilian authority. They can bring evidence and offer testimony but that ends their role, without the civilian authorization.

**The Reaper** · 08-29-2007, 22:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoLawman

The military can take no action against the civilian leadership without orders from civilian authority. They can bring evidence and offer testimony but that ends their role, without the civilian authorization.

Citation and statute for that please?

TR

**Peregrino** · 08-29-2007, 22:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Citation and statute for that please?

TR

Please + 1. The issue at question keeps Patriots awake into the early hours. A definitive answer would be most welcome. Peregrino

Go For Broke · 08-29-2007, 23:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgoerz

Give Officers a choice when selected for Major. Let them put it on hold without suffering any consequences. Placing their promotion on hold lets them return to a Team. The only thing they lose is the money they would of earned as a Major during this extra Team time. Two paths to choose from.
What they gain is two more years Team experience. This is reflected on their records of course, thus an edge career wise later on down the road. So when a new Group Commander arrives. The first question everyone will have is "Is this new guy a double timer or did he just do the minimum" I think most would choose to return to a Team in a heart beat.
OK, You can stop laughing. I still think it's a good idea.

KG,

I was one of those who did the 2-years

...and then (kicking and screaming per the advice of my CPY CDR (now 1-1 CDR, LTC JEM )) was dragged up to Bn (I believe that there are still finger nail marks in the door frame and floors of the CPY). Managed to "stay" there for 6-months before (again kicking and screaming) was wretched out of / kicked out of Group and condemed to SF Command (where I managed to foul up every assignment I was given by //CC, BDDM, and BJ). Now stuck at ILE (old CGSC) where I am trying to 1) Sell SF and 2) Subvert the system

...Point is, I have at least had some experience with the "enemy": SF Command (sorry //CC) and ASOC...hopefully I can bring some of that experience with me back to a Group (fingers crossed)...but regardless, I treasure (and more importantly remember) the time spent with the team, and the lessons that they taught me. That helped to guide me at the Bn Level and "Div" level...even when dealing with FL based organizations that are Echelons Above Reality. Bottom Line - Officers have to go somewhere...might as well make the best of a "bad" situation, and try to help the Regiment. Also helps that I am able to stay in contact with my mentors (Officer, NCO and now GS Civilian), they help keep me straight (which is a full time job at times)

FWIW - I was luckier than one of the Echos on the team... he had 18-months as an E-6 before he was dragged kicking and screaming (and over the loud protests of his TL and TS) to Bn SIGDET where he pinned on E-7. FWIW, we did go up to the Bn Leadership...also FWIW, any future / current TLs reading this...don't step on your crank with the BC...while you may not care about your career progression, if you do not retain good rapport with the boss, you lose fights when it counts...

V/R,

CoLawman · 08-30-2007, 00:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Citation and statute for that please?

TR

I am assuming that this is a trick question. But I will wade into the mine field risking life and limb.

The only way to remove the President of the United States is through the House of Representatives bringing the articles of impeachment. The senate then is the legislative branch which trys the impeachment. This is all laid out under Article 1 sections 2 and 3 of the United States Constitution. The word "solely" obviously is a succinct use of a word to insure there is no ambiguity on how the President is to be lawfully removed from office.

So there is no cite and no statute addressing this. It is laid out in the constitution.

I would go into Posse Comitatus but I will save that for rebuttal and keep it holstered for now.

(keeping my fingers crossed that Airborne Lawyer is out there willing to jump to my defense if attacked.)

82ndtrooper · 08-30-2007, 00:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoLawman

I am assuming that this is a trick question. But I will wade into the mine field risking life and limb.

The only way to remove the President of the United States is through the House of Representatives bringing the articles of impeachment. The senate then is the legislative branch which trys the impeachment. This is all laid out under Article 1 sections 2 and 3 of the United States Constitution. The word "solely" obviously is a succinct use of a word to insure there is no ambiguity on how the President is to be lawfully removed from office.

So there is no cite and no statute addressing this. It is laid out in the constitution.

I would go into Posse Comitatus but I will save that for rebuttal and keep it holstered for now.

(keeping my fingers crossed that Airborne Lawyer is out there willing to jump to my defense if attacked.)

Didn't Posse Comitatus come into play with Waco ? Branch Davidians as a domestic enemy ? Hardly, but then again it was the Clintonian years and Janet Reno.

They made that decision pretty easily.

Sec. 1385. - Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus
"Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both".

I suppose both Bill Clinton and Janet Reno should have served those two years and or been fined.

Were the riots of 92 in Los Angeles Marshal Law or Posse Comitatus ?