Military Purge (at least Obama doesn't shoot them like Stalin did)

http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/purge-sur...her-commander/

A record number military commanders in all branches have been retired, dismissed, or frozen in rank under Generalissimo Barry. Many have run afoul of muslim outreach, gay outreach, and female outreach. Too many were relying on religion, the Constitution, and the ideals of the military service to do their jobs.

Snick snick

http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/purge-sur...her-commander/

A record number military commanders in all branches have been retired, dismissed, or frozen in rank under Generalissimo Barry. Many have run afoul of muslim outreach, gay outreach, and female outreach. Too many were relying on religion, the Constitution, and the ideals of the military service to do their jobs.

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

As in other branches of society, too many white men have monopolized all the good jobs. They need to hit the road in favor of a more inclusive America, that looks like America. Adios, Republicanos!!

Considering the incompetence of the Obamacare leadership, do you really feel secure about those officers promoted by Obama?

Good to see you are in favor of incompetent officers JD . Like the two in Afghanistan with lax security that got people killed. Oh right you blamed Obie for that.

Of course you never read the story or you wouldn't have embarassed yourself just now.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/purge-sur...her-commander/

A record number military commanders in all branches have been retired, dismissed, or frozen in rank under Generalissimo Barry. Many have run afoul of muslim outreach, gay outreach, and female outreach. Too many were relying on religion, the Constitution, and the ideals of the military service to do their jobs.
Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

What an amazing pile of crap that article is. A few valid points surrounded by a lot of muck.

Just a few comments since that unjournalism isn't worth much:

--Yes, morale is low. Tight budgets and stupid political bickering/gridlock does that. Most DoD folks I know (and that is quite a lot) are not happy with sequestration, not happy with reduced funds to do what they firmly believe they need to do to defend the country. But most of them are also smart enough to realize it is because BOTH parties are using them as a pawn in their ego-driven tantrums.

--What a shock: macho guys relieved of duty are upset and believe THEY did nothing wrong! Wow, I would never believe THAT!!!!

--I keep seeing a definite trend in the article: "We're Manly Men and we want to ignore the reality of changes in society around us!". Some of the issues brought up (reducing PT standards for example) I completely agree are wrong. But many of the others are largely the Good Ole Boy clique wanting to keep the next generation of GOs looking as 99.4% White Male (and preferably Southern & Protestant) as possible.

Let's look at the reality of promotions for centuries: the majority have been the Peter Principle at work. The best tank driver or fighter pilot is assumed to make the best CEO. That is crap in the medical field, and crap in the military. DoD has long been in need of a complete overhaul in how it grooms and selects leaders. Even after the turnover there are far too many O-6s and GOs who refuse to acknowledge the financial realities of DoD acquisition have changed. How many new major systems can we afford to start acquiring per year? Single digits? Yet the Services keep insisting they need dozens (which they probably do in an ideal world) and won't make a decision! Then, when the SecDef, President, or Congress does select one or two, the same Service GOs scream they selected the wrong ones.

The other area the Services are in major need of an attitude change is in their Service centered parochialism. The Joint Staff has been around for decades but the Services remain in a adversarial role about $$$ far too much. I've lost track of how many times I've heard a Service chief essentially say, "We're the (insert any service), we don't work for OSD/JCS/Congress!). The hell you don't! Those who insist on pushing sub-optimal service perspectives that cost more to produce less SHOULD be removed. There DO need to be a lot of marginal GOs moved aside, the key questions are will be do we move the right ones aside and will we move up the right ones. I've seen some signs of hope, but it's too early to tell. The turnover itself is not the problem.

I don't know all the GOs mentioned, but I do know a lot who have been moved aside gently or forcefully. Of the ones I know a couple were "for cause", many were essentially because they probably never should have risen that high and we as a country can't afford meritocracy in those positions, and some I don't know enough to comment on. I know some (including a couple I would count as friends) who are very good PEOPLE, were outstanding soldiers/sailors/airmen, but were NOT great CEOs. In tight, tough times we need different skills at the top than they possess.

On the note of appointees and some senior civilians, I think the article is right.

Of course you never read the story or you wouldn't have embarassed yourself just now. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

After Old-T's post it appears you were the one that did not get past the headline.

Of course you never read the story or you wouldn't have embarassed yourself just now. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Story was chock full of "I believe" and innuendos little facts. Sp embarrassed prof.

Old T has his own agenda. I believe in a military leadership that is good at killing and breaking things (this includes countries). A leadership that is trusted by the rank and file. A leadership that has protecting the US as job one and not social issues. These "macho" men as Old T refers to them should not have to worry about every little pansy who can't do the job. Or some woman who FEELS that she should be in charge when she can't carry her weight. Too many of these warriors have run afoul of social issues and not performance issues. How different things might have been if Patton has been retired in 1943 and not leading the 3rd Army in 1944 and 45. The relief of Bastogne, crossing the Rhine, relief of POW camps, and discovery of concentration camps. Patton penetrated all the way to Czechoslovakia before he was called off.

Old T has his own agenda. I believe in a military leadership that is good at killing and breaking things (this includes countries). A leadership that is trusted by the rank and file. A leadership that has protecting the US as job one and not social issues. These "macho" men as Old T refers to them should not have to worry about every little pansy who can't do the job. Or some woman who FEELS that she should be in charge when she can't carry her weight. Too many of these warriors have run afoul of social issues and not performance issues. How different things might have been if Patton has been retired in 1943 and not leading the 3rd Army in 1944 and 45. The relief of Bastogne, crossing the Rhine, relief of POW camps, and discovery of concentration camps. Patton penetrated all the way to Czechoslovakia before he was called off. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

back to work janitor boy

Good to see you are in favor of incompetent officers JD . Like the two in Afghanistan with lax security that got people killed. Oh right you blamed Obie for that. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

And you and the rest of your elk have done nothing but make excuses for the most incompetent and corrupt administration ever. Why is no one ever held accountable in the Obama administration? Lax security got 4 brave Americans killed in Benghazi. No one was fired for this incompetence. (3 or 4 people in the State Dept. were reassigned but not fired. They are still on the State Dept. payroll.) And no one has been fired for all the other screw ups in the Obama administration.

As in other branches of society, too many white men have monopolized all the good jobs. They need to hit the road in favor of a more inclusive America, that looks like America. Adios, Republicanos!! Originally Posted by Bert Jones

Yeah, good luck with that.

Inclusiveness is yet another "blather" word, like "diversity" that means whatever nebulous idea the speaker wants it to mean and cannot actually be proven to accomplish anything.

Competence, skill, and training win battles, not inclusiveness. This country will rue the day - if it doesn't already - when it pushed women into combat roles.

But, hey, enjoy this nice multi-culti thread posted by Stan.Dupp:

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=894306

It's all about the anal rape of a man, David Eckert, who made the mistake of appearing to clench his buttocks in front of some "inclusive" officers.

Key quote:
--------------------
David Eckert is suing The City of Deming and Deming Police Officers Bobby Orosco, Robert Chavez and Officer Hernandez.

Eckert is also suing Hidalgo County Hidalgo County Deputies David Arredondo, Robert Rodriguez and Patrick Green.
--------------------

Isn't it great to have police officers who "look like" America, instead of a bunch of white guys?

And you and the rest of your elk have done nothing but make excuses for the most incompetent and corrupt administration ever. Why is no one ever held accountable in the Obama administration? Lax security got 4 brave Americans killed in Benghazi. No one was fired for this incompetence. (3 or 4 people in the State Dept. were reassigned but not fired. They are still on the State Dept. payroll.) And no one has been fired for all the other screw ups in the Obama administration. Originally Posted by NiceGuy53

You have trouble with comprehension also? Don't think you will find where I have made excuses or defended the administration. You will find I have poked fun and called out some of the dumb things you and your ilk post here. Or should I have said elk?

What an amazing pile of crap that article is. A few valid points surrounded by a lot of muck.

Just a few comments since that unjournalism isn't worth much:

--Yes, morale is low. Tight budgets and stupid political bickering/gridlock does that. Most DoD folks I know (and that is quite a lot) are not happy with sequestration, not happy with reduced funds to do what they firmly believe they need to do to defend the country. But most of them are also smart enough to realize it is because BOTH parties are using them as a pawn in their ego-driven tantrums.

--What a shock: macho guys relieved of duty are upset and believe THEY did nothing wrong! Wow, I would never believe THAT!!!!

--I keep seeing a definite trend in the article: "We're Manly Men and we want to ignore the reality of changes in society around us!". Some of the issues brought up (reducing PT standards for example) I completely agree are wrong. But many of the others are largely the Good Ole Boy clique wanting to keep the next generation of GOs looking as 99.4% White Male (and preferably Southern & Protestant) as possible.

Let's look at the reality of promotions for centuries: the majority have been the Peter Principle at work. The best tank driver or fighter pilot is assumed to make the best CEO. That is crap in the medical field, and crap in the military. DoD has long been in need of a complete overhaul in how it grooms and selects leaders. Even after the turnover there are far too many O-6s and GOs who refuse to acknowledge the financial realities of DoD acquisition have changed. How many new major systems can we afford to start acquiring per year? Single digits? Yet the Services keep insisting they need dozens (which they probably do in an ideal world) and won't make a decision! Then, when the SecDef, President, or Congress does select one or two, the same Service GOs scream they selected the wrong ones.

The other area the Services are in major need of an attitude change is in their Service centered parochialism. The Joint Staff has been around for decades but the Services remain in a adversarial role about $$$ far too much. I've lost track of how many times I've heard a Service chief essentially say, "We're the (insert any service), we don't work for OSD/JCS/Congress!). The hell you don't! Those who insist on pushing sub-optimal service perspectives that cost more to produce less SHOULD be removed. There DO need to be a lot of marginal GOs moved aside, the key questions are will be do we move the right ones aside and will we move up the right ones. I've seen some signs of hope, but it's too early to tell. The turnover itself is not the problem.

I don't know all the GOs mentioned, but I do know a lot who have been moved aside gently or forcefully. Of the ones I know a couple were "for cause", many were essentially because they probably never should have risen that high and we as a country can't afford meritocracy in those positions, and some I don't know enough to comment on. I know some (including a couple I would count as friends) who are very good PEOPLE, were outstanding soldiers/sailors/airmen, but were NOT great CEOs. In tight, tough times we need different skills at the top than they possess.

On the note of appointees and some senior civilians, I think the article is right. Originally Posted by Old-T

Don't slam the article.

A lot of it has already been reported in other more reputable news sources.

There is a lot of truth in the comments about downgrading physical fitness standards in combat units so that women can be in them. And a lot of truth about family breakups caused by co-ed units. After a six month deployment, even the butch looking women in your unit start to look good.

It is idiotic. The sexes are not physically equal, yet women's advocates think they can bend reality to their agenda. The same thing was tried in NY City in the 1980s when they tried to dumb-down physical standards for firefighters. Instead of being able to do a shoulder carry of a 220 pound dummy, it was proposed that the test be changed to dragging a 170 pound dummy across the floor (and just think about how much fatter we have gotten since the 1980s). Fortunately, intelligence prevailed in that instance

All this is being done to try to prove that anything a man can do, a woman can do. But can that ever be true if you have to make the test easier to enable women to pass it?

And the leading advocates of such nonsense are frequently (mostly?) women who wouldn't be caught dead in a uniform. They are making rules for other people to live by.

And I think your comments about procurement are somewhat off the mark, too. Our primary problem is Congressmen wanting to protect weapon systems that are made in their state. The current fiasco with the F-35 fighter is an prime example of that.

There are a lot of weapons that Pentagon doesn't want that they are forced to take - and in quantities they don't want. Like when they are forced to buy more Abrams tanks than they want. The DoD is a jobs project for many in Congress.

And, you don't need a CEO to run the military. That is the wrong skill set. You need trained warriors. The CEO types can work on budgets and procurement. Let the service academies produce the fighters.