A letter from a Navy Wife to the Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy.

[Vantage]

IPD, I didn't attempt to back track on what I said, I simply apologized for the verbiage I used to say it.

oh, and don't give me BS about how the military should do like the civilian world and hire newbies at 1/2 the pay to replace the old-timers who've been there forever. that's a sure-fire way to create brain-drain and to instill a sense of being "get what you can while you can" across the entire DOD. with an average wage of less than 50k across the all branches (last time i checked). that's not a lot of dough for someone who not only is away from CONUS on a frequent basis, but also is sworn to die in defense of the US constitution if necessary.
again though, i guess the rational aspects of it elude you.

I never made any statement remotely close to this. I guess once reading comprehension eludes you, so maybe your core can get a little sicker.

Okay, Vantage, here's your chance.

In the build up for war, policy makers DELIBERATELY recruit men and women who lack the intellect/skills to EVER do much besides cook/clean/act as infantry. We swell the ranks with otherwise nearly unemployable men and women, stick them in where they can contribute, if not excel. We allow them to remain in the service, even if they fail to advance. We know they barely have the aptitude/learning capacity to perform their entry level assignments, and will never be leaders. We promise them a retirement they can survive on if they stay in 20 years. Then, 10, 15 or 19 years on, we tell them "we don't need your services any more, here's a class on how to get a job."

You continually take my statements to the extreme. The "Sanctuary" program is designed to stop things like that from happening, and active duty personnel are automatically enrolled. True, it only kicks in at the 18 year mark, but that seems to be the majority of your examples, so I guess it's quite appropriate.

You talk about fairness and equality, so where is the fairness for the guy in the fox hole next to your sub-par performer? Why should Jimmy be mowed down by the horde because 14 year E-4 Johnny, a decade later, still can't figure out how to reassemble his M240? Where is the fairness in that? Who is going to write that letter to Jimmy's family letting them know their son died because it was only right we gave Johnny a chance. Who's the victim now? I guess you should write a letter to SMA Chandler letting him know he's an elitist, self-righteous asshole because he only wants to keep the "best and brightest" in the Army. Why are you not outside your local MEPS, protesting, letting them know just how terribly their bigotry is when they turn people away for mental or health issues. It's not the fault of those people, why shouldn't they be given a chance to serve their country?

You say the military is anything but a welfare check, but yet here you are, proposing it become exactly that. I guess the intelligent elite like myself and SMA Chandler will never understand why good people should put their lives at more risk than they already do, just to give those who lack intellect/skill a job.

[Vantage]

p.s.
i also call BS on the "making yourself essential". military policy (as pushed by the bean counters who have never held a rifle in their goddamn lives) is one which promotes sycophants over scholars; brown-nosers over the bold; and shirt-thumbers over the shit-hot. i've watched quite a handful of my peers get drummed out--even while completing all the "wickets" that they're charged with completing. it's based on year/rank & total number in your field--nothing else. there isn't anything remotely logical about it. frankly, who gives 2-shits if you're overmanned in year "x". simply STOP recruiting for a period of time. regardless of how top-heavy the field may get, you'll still get to the end strength you want, and with very little pain involved for the members currently serving.

Like I've said more than a few times, I speak from my experiences in the Army and that's it. Just off the top of my head, heres a few ways to accomplish such a status in the Army.

1) Move to a JSOC unit. All JSOC units are fenced and their personnel are "untouchable" and not subject to these boards. They are also almost always short handed on support personnel.

2) Become 'Victor qualified' (Ranger School). You are automatically a critical asset, and pretty golden for your next promotion. Your job is now safe.

3) Reenlist for a critically short MOS. You'll get a pretty bonus and will no longer fear for your job.

There's 3 off the top of my head ways to reach the "untouchable" status I mentioned previously.

[IPD]

you make the over-reaching assertion that cross-training will be allowed. even IF a member has the aptitude and capability to function in the new career field...the service may not allow that transition.

[Vantage]

Straight from the Armys reenlistment website:

3. Approval of the requested MOS is not automatic because the Soldier meets the MOS qualifications; RMT decision is
based upon Army strengths and training seat availability. If the requested MOS in para 2c is not available, RMT may
reply with ONE MOS training option that is non-negotiable. In rare cases when RMT is unable obtain a MOS for the
Soldier; RMT may offer a one-time extension of UP TO 9 months for the purpose of obtaining the minimum qualifications
for an MOS listed as balanced (N/N) or shortage (Y/N). The opportunity to extend will be provided by RMT in the hotline
response and may not be requested by the Career Counselor.

4. Soldiers must be aware that training seats could result in a quick ship PCS and must be prepared and available for
PCS. If training is offered it is non-negotiable and Soldiers must remain fully eligible for the MOS and PCS.
Soldiers placed on assignment instructions in conjunction with training who refuse to take action to meet the
SRR for the follow on assignment will sign a DCSS (when applicable), IAW AR 601-280 para 4-11 and 4-12.

5. Soldiers offered retraining will have 14 days from the approval date to execute their reenlistment. Soldiers,
who fail to reenlist within 14 days from the approval date will be deleted and no longer eligible for the Army
training reenlistment option. These Soldiers should be counseled on DA Form 4856 stating they have been afforded
the opportunity for continued service in the Army but have decided not to take action.

It would seem the Army is doing what it can to hold on to soldiers, and appears to be the rule, rather than the exception.

[BaadVR4]

I agree with your assertion about Jimmy should not be made to suffer for Johnny's ineptitude. Where we disagree is in where the responsibility for the problem lies. Johnny was recruited and repeatedly retained, despite his ineptitude, by the policy makers and beancounters. You want to blame Johnny. You think it's perfectly okay to shunt him aside now that he isn't needed to "fill a hole". But Johnny didn't create the problem, he didn't exacerbate the problem and he certainly didn't do anything intentionally to harm Jimmy.

When Johnny is separated involuntarily, it isn't just Johnny who is hurt. His wife and children suffer with him. It is likely the entire family will end up on welfare and the American public will support them all, just like the way you bemoan we do through the "military welfare" system.

The problem I have with your positions is that you keep wanting to blame the victim, Johnny. But all Johnny did was BLINDLY OBEY ORDERS FROM HIS SUPERIORS. Just like you said everyone should do. But Johnny's reward was separation.

The word is "empathy".

"Empathy is the capacity to recognize and, to some extent, share feelings (such as sadness or happiness) that are being experienced by another sapient or semi-sapient being. Someone may need to have a certain amount of empathy before they are able to feel compassion."

That is what I find so lacking in you, Vantage. It is my greatest hope that you are never in a leadership position until you are able to feel empathy. Only then will you not blame the victim; only then will you be able to see the problem-the real problem. Only then will you be see others-all others- as valuable human beings. Only then will you be able to lead.

IPD, I didn't attempt to back track on what I said, I simply apologized for the verbiage I used to say it.



I never made any statement remotely close to this. I guess once reading comprehension eludes you, so maybe your core can get a little sicker.



You continually take my statements to the extreme. The "Sanctuary" program is designed to stop things like that from happening, and active duty personnel are automatically enrolled. True, it only kicks in at the 18 year mark, but that seems to be the majority of your examples, so I guess it's quite appropriate.

You talk about fairness and equality, so where is the fairness for the guy in the fox hole next to your sub-par performer? Why should Jimmy be mowed down by the horde because 14 year E-4 Johnny, a decade later, still can't figure out how to reassemble his M240? Where is the fairness in that? Who is going to write that letter to Jimmy's family letting them know their son died because it was only right we gave Johnny a chance. Who's the victim now? I guess you should write a letter to SMA Chandler letting him know he's an elitist, self-righteous asshole because he only wants to keep the "best and brightest" in the Army. Why are you not outside your local MEPS, protesting, letting them know just how terribly their bigotry is when they turn people away for mental or health issues. It's not the fault of those people, why shouldn't they be given a chance to serve their country?

You say the military is anything but a welfare check, but yet here you are, proposing it become exactly that. I guess the intelligent elite like myself and SMA Chandler will never understand why good people should put their lives at more risk than they already do, just to give those who lack intellect/skill a job.

[Vantage]

You mistake me. I absolutely think senior leadership and bean counters deserve blame, and should be held accountable. The way they have handled the military the past 10 years and grew it to such a large extent so quickly, was neither wise nor sustainable. At the time, America was all about the troops, and wanted whatever it took to help them. The result was grow the military to increase dwell time. It's effectiveness is a topic for another time. But the American public has a short memory and politicians, as we've established, will due what it takes for votes. The current trend is getting our budget on track, and unfortunately the DOD is an easy target. The lack of accountability for members of Congress and the Americas senior leaders is ridiculous. Their inability to effectively and efficiently create a long term force solution is due to nothing more than their lack of intestinal fortitude in the face of forgetful voters.

Johnny may be the victim, but I do not think he's blameless. His inability to ever learn his job, which resulted in the death of his buddy Jimmy, can't not be placed solely on the shoulders of his leaders. There comes a point when someone is just not trainable, and just not suited for the military. So what then? What should become of Johnny? Should he be moved to a desk job in the States, put into a non-deployable status, and left there until retirement? What if Johnny is single? Should he get the same benefits and treatment even if he doesn't have a family? And what of his peers? Is that really fair to them? For the same pay and benefits, they get to deploy time and again, leaving behind their families, all because they are dependable and competent? Is that their fault? Why should they have to pick up the slack that Johnny left behind? All the players here are victims of different circumstances, how do you decide who gets the shaft, and who doesn't?

If putting lives over livelihood makes me unemphatic and an elitist, I'll sit on that pedestal all day long.

[BaadVR4]

Empathy is unconditional. It does not discriminate. You continue to place blame where none exists and choose expediency over creative problem solving. Clearly you are either unable or unwilling to see the difference. Maybe the next step in your thinking is "because Johnny is a liability in the field, we should take him out ourselves before he gets one of US killed"?

Enough. I will leave you to your own devices and hope they don't hurt too many others.