- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Women in Combat Arms: The Master Thread
Posted on 11/17/16 at 3:22 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Posted on 11/17/16 at 3:22 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
LINK
I realize that Trump isn't necessarily beholden to the Republican Party platform but I think with the right secdef and a few generals speaking up Obama's policies could be rolled back.
quote:
The Republican Party's 2016 official platform, drafted over the summer, seeks to exempt women from "direct ground combat units and infantry battalions."
Last month, Trump was asked about the women in combat issue at an event hosted by the Retired American Warriors in Virginia. In his response, Trump vowed to do "away with political correctness" in the U.S. military.
I realize that Trump isn't necessarily beholden to the Republican Party platform but I think with the right secdef and a few generals speaking up Obama's policies could be rolled back.
1
Posted on 11/17/16 at 3:28 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
And that's the problem with Champagne's theory on civil-military relations. That entire theory is based off the contstruct that "military proffessionals" act with a sense of integrity.
I don't think you understand my point fully. This isn't a theory. Civil-Military Relations are important for military and civilian DoD leaders at the highest levels. They understand how important it is to understand how the military and civilian society relate to one another.
There is a reason why civilian society persistently chooses the Military when they are asked to identify in a list of professions, which profession they think most highly of. It's because we've done a good job in this nebulous area that the War Colleges and Think Tanks call "Civil-Military Relations."
This is reality, not a theory. Ask anyone at Secretary-level or higher, or ask anyone wearing three or four stars whether Civil-Military Relations are just an unimportant theory.
As we endeavor to roll back Obama's misdeeds, we cannot ignore the realities, and we cannot ignore what our civilian society believes is fair and righteous. If the military were to lose the trust of our civilian society, it will be very difficult to repair that damaged Civil-Military relationship.
We've got to educate the civilian society on WHY our ideas are better than Obama's. Only then will the civilian leadership at Secretary level and higher will approve our requests to roll back Obama's misdeeds.
I'm sure you know full well that nobody in uniform has the authority to roll back Obama's work -- that will be up to the civilian leadership. That's why Civil-Military Relations lessons are so useful for us in this campaign.
This post was edited on 11/17/16 at 3:32 pm
Posted on 11/17/16 at 3:30 pm to Champagne
quote:
Ask anyone at Secretary-level or higher, or ask anyone wearing three or four stars
They're the problem.
Pass.
Posted on 11/17/16 at 3:34 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
They're the problem. Pass.
OK, then, if you are correct then we are wasting our time with any further discussion of the topic.
My expectation is that NONE of Obama's actions will be rolled back because nobody in the military will be willing to stick their neck out to raise the issue.
Posted on 11/17/16 at 3:36 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
They are not dumb. Just because they have rank does not mean they have expertise. They will gladly follow your lead. They want to make it out alive just as much as the next guy. This is not the movies.
Posted on 11/17/16 at 3:36 pm to Champagne
quote:
OK, then, if you are correct then we are wasting our time with any further discussion of the topic.
No we aren't. We're wasting our time asking their opinions of this. They will ultimately do what they are told or be replaced. Then we can talk about "relations."
quote:
My expectation is that NONE of Obama's actions will be rolled back because nobody in the military will be willing to stick their neck out to raise the issue.
It's not up to them.
Posted on 11/17/16 at 3:39 pm to Wolfhound45
quote:
They are not dumb. Just because they have rank does not mean they have expertise. They will gladly follow your lead.
Every one of them? Are you sure about that?
quote:
This is not the movies.
I know you did not just say that to me.
You might want to push it to 102 yds.
Posted on 11/17/16 at 3:43 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:Reasonably sure. Good enough?
Every one of them? Are you sure about that?
Or are you going to call every member of Rifle Security Company, Windward Side?
Posted on 11/17/16 at 3:45 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
It's not up to them.
No, it will be up to President Trump, but, don't you think he might want to hear from General Dunford? If the chief military advisor to POTUS and SecDef recommend NOT rolling back Obama's actions, why do you assume that Trump will overrule the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, whose job it is to be chief military adviser for POTUS and SecDef?
Posted on 11/17/16 at 3:46 pm to Wolfhound45
quote:
Good enough?
Sure.
Posted on 11/17/16 at 3:49 pm to Champagne
quote:
No, it will be up to President Trump, but, don't you think he might want to hear from General Dunford? If the chief military advisor to POTUS and SecDef recommend NOT rolling back Obama's actions, why do you assume that Trump will overrule the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, whose job it is to be chief military adviser for POTUS and SecDef?
This:
quote:
In his response, Trump vowed to do "away with political correctness" in the U.S. military.
He was elected by the people, not by Obama's appointees.
Posted on 11/17/16 at 3:54 pm to Champagne
quote:
My expectation is that NONE of Obama's actions will be rolled back because nobody in the military will be willing to stick their neck out to raise the issue.
Always a safe bet to vote for the cravens.
Posted on 11/17/16 at 4:00 pm to Champagne
quote:The concept of civil-military relations doesn't excuse Flag officers of their duties to speak out against harmful policies.
This is reality, not a theory. Ask anyone at Secretary-level or higher, or ask anyone wearing three or four stars whether Civil-Military Relations are just an unimportant theory.
Posted on 11/17/16 at 4:06 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Can you imagine this happening now:
"Marshall was ordered East to Washington and installed as Chief of the War Plans Division of the General Staff. Toward the end of 1938 he was made Deputy Chief of Staff, a post usually reserved for major generals, and he was still a brigadier general in May, 1939, when Craig, who was scheduled to retire in September of that year, took a leave of absence. President Roosevelt appointed Marshall Acting Chief of Staff in Craig’s place, advancing him over the heads of twenty major generals and fourteen brigadiers who were his seniors, a jump that was less startling than it seemed. A Chief of Staff is appointed to serve a fixed term of four years, and few indeed of the thirty-four generals senior to Marshall in 1939 had four years left before retirement. There was newspaper comment on the circumstance that Marshall was not a West Pointer, but six of the preceding fourteen Chiefs of Staff had not been graduates of that school. The Chief of Staff assumes the rank of full general when he begins his term and automatically ranks all other officers of the Army. Lieutenant General Hugh A. Drum, the only other candidate seriously considered, was not a West Pointer either."
LINK
This is pretty freaking cool too:
"On November 14, 1938 FDR convened a conference at the White House at which he proposed to build 10,000 war planes, the ostensible aim being the bolstering the strength of the Army Air Corps. Marshall and his chief thought they were in attendance to discuss that program. FDR’s real purpose was to supply the planes to the European democracies in the hope that such assistance might forestall the impending war, and thereby American involvement.
Attending his first conference with the president, Marshall was shocked by FDR’s plan and astonished that no one else had questioned the president’s proposal. After his presentation, FDR indicated that he thought that he had made a good case for his program. The discussion then ran around the room, finding much soothing support for the proposal, until FDR turned to Marshall sitting quietly off to the side. “Don’t you think so, George?” he asked.9
Marshall later admitted a flash of irritation over “such a misrepresentation of our intimacy.” He was never a first-name man. “I don’t think the President ever did that again,” he said later. At the time his response was more direct: “I am sorry, Mr. President, but I don’t agree with you at all.”10 Accounts by participants recount that a startled look came over FDR’s face and the conference abruptly ended. Afterward, Marshall’s associates, who had been eyeing him in silence, once again came by to shake his hand and to offer condolences. “Well, it’s been nice knowing you,” said Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau. As with the rest, Morgenthau made it obvious that he believed that Marshall’s bluntness had just ended his army career.11
In fact, it had not. FDR never again referred to the incident nor did he display any resentment toward Marshall. “Maybe he thought that I would tell him the truth so far as I was personally concerned,” Marshall speculated later, “which I certainly tried to do in all our conversations.”12 As with the earlier Pershing incident, Marshall’s bluntness impressed rather than alienated his superior. FDR apparently valued an officer who would tell the truth rather than what he thought the president wanted to hear...In April FDR decided for Marshall. Without informing anyone else, Roosevelt summoned Marshall to the White House to give him the news. “General Marshall,” he said, “I have it in mind to choose you as the next Chief of Staff of the United States Army. What do you think of that?”
“Nothing, Mr. President,” Marshall replied, “except to remind you that I have the habit of saying exactly what I think. And that, as you know,” he added, “can often be unpleasing. Is that all right?”
Marshall recalls that Roosevelt grinned and said, “Yes.” Marshall remained persistent. “Mr. President, you said yes pleasantly. But I have to remind you again that it may be unpleasant.” The President continued to grin. “I know,” he said. But he did not add “George.”
LINK
"Marshall was ordered East to Washington and installed as Chief of the War Plans Division of the General Staff. Toward the end of 1938 he was made Deputy Chief of Staff, a post usually reserved for major generals, and he was still a brigadier general in May, 1939, when Craig, who was scheduled to retire in September of that year, took a leave of absence. President Roosevelt appointed Marshall Acting Chief of Staff in Craig’s place, advancing him over the heads of twenty major generals and fourteen brigadiers who were his seniors, a jump that was less startling than it seemed. A Chief of Staff is appointed to serve a fixed term of four years, and few indeed of the thirty-four generals senior to Marshall in 1939 had four years left before retirement. There was newspaper comment on the circumstance that Marshall was not a West Pointer, but six of the preceding fourteen Chiefs of Staff had not been graduates of that school. The Chief of Staff assumes the rank of full general when he begins his term and automatically ranks all other officers of the Army. Lieutenant General Hugh A. Drum, the only other candidate seriously considered, was not a West Pointer either."
LINK
This is pretty freaking cool too:
"On November 14, 1938 FDR convened a conference at the White House at which he proposed to build 10,000 war planes, the ostensible aim being the bolstering the strength of the Army Air Corps. Marshall and his chief thought they were in attendance to discuss that program. FDR’s real purpose was to supply the planes to the European democracies in the hope that such assistance might forestall the impending war, and thereby American involvement.
Attending his first conference with the president, Marshall was shocked by FDR’s plan and astonished that no one else had questioned the president’s proposal. After his presentation, FDR indicated that he thought that he had made a good case for his program. The discussion then ran around the room, finding much soothing support for the proposal, until FDR turned to Marshall sitting quietly off to the side. “Don’t you think so, George?” he asked.9
Marshall later admitted a flash of irritation over “such a misrepresentation of our intimacy.” He was never a first-name man. “I don’t think the President ever did that again,” he said later. At the time his response was more direct: “I am sorry, Mr. President, but I don’t agree with you at all.”10 Accounts by participants recount that a startled look came over FDR’s face and the conference abruptly ended. Afterward, Marshall’s associates, who had been eyeing him in silence, once again came by to shake his hand and to offer condolences. “Well, it’s been nice knowing you,” said Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau. As with the rest, Morgenthau made it obvious that he believed that Marshall’s bluntness had just ended his army career.11
In fact, it had not. FDR never again referred to the incident nor did he display any resentment toward Marshall. “Maybe he thought that I would tell him the truth so far as I was personally concerned,” Marshall speculated later, “which I certainly tried to do in all our conversations.”12 As with the earlier Pershing incident, Marshall’s bluntness impressed rather than alienated his superior. FDR apparently valued an officer who would tell the truth rather than what he thought the president wanted to hear...In April FDR decided for Marshall. Without informing anyone else, Roosevelt summoned Marshall to the White House to give him the news. “General Marshall,” he said, “I have it in mind to choose you as the next Chief of Staff of the United States Army. What do you think of that?”
“Nothing, Mr. President,” Marshall replied, “except to remind you that I have the habit of saying exactly what I think. And that, as you know,” he added, “can often be unpleasing. Is that all right?”
Marshall recalls that Roosevelt grinned and said, “Yes.” Marshall remained persistent. “Mr. President, you said yes pleasantly. But I have to remind you again that it may be unpleasant.” The President continued to grin. “I know,” he said. But he did not add “George.”
LINK
Posted on 11/17/16 at 4:27 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
I could definitely see this happening. Without receiving pressure from the current administration none of these policies would exist. If a few high visibility generals speak out, with the support of the new generation, I think it's pretty possible.
Posted on 11/17/16 at 4:27 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
The concept of civil-military relations doesn't excuse Flag officers of their duties to speak out against harmful policies.
Of course you are correct.
But these high pay grade folks are political animals and may fib if they think that their Boss wants to hear something that's a fib.
Now then, HERE IS their chance to redeem themselves in your eyes and in our eyes. Now that we have a Non-PC POTUS, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the CNO, the Commandant, the USASOC(A) Commander and everybody else in that pay grade can express their honest opinion to President Trump without fear for their reputation of being "PC enough" for Wash DC.
In light of all of this, it is time for these high pay grade military folks to earn that money and help the new POTUS make the right call on this madness.
Posted on 11/17/16 at 5:47 pm to MrCarton
The tranny issue and women in combat arms MOSs are connected. As long as you have trannies serving, how can you tell any woman she can't be in a combat arms MOS? If 0311 LCpl Steve now thinks he is a chic and the DoD agrees, we now have chics in the infantry by definition.
Bottom line is trannies need mental help, not weapons. Women need to continue to serve in support MOSs, like most service members do.
NO ONE has a right to be in the military. NO ONE has a right to be in combat arms.
If a personnel decision doesn't forward the military's main mission of killing people and breaking things, then it needs to be done away with.
Bottom line is trannies need mental help, not weapons. Women need to continue to serve in support MOSs, like most service members do.
NO ONE has a right to be in the military. NO ONE has a right to be in combat arms.
If a personnel decision doesn't forward the military's main mission of killing people and breaking things, then it needs to be done away with.
Posted on 11/17/16 at 6:15 pm to 0369Tiger
quote:
Bottom line is trannies need mental help, not weapons. Women need to continue to serve in support MOSs, like most service members do.
Wait, Bradley Manning wasn't stable?
Posted on 11/17/16 at 6:17 pm to MrCarton
I'm glad this thread found life. We should do some spin off threads on other good topics from the PB.
Posted on 11/17/16 at 8:13 pm to 0369Tiger
quote:
The tranny issue and women in combat arms MOSs are connected.
I wrote that earlier in the thread, but, on second thought, I think that they should be treated as separate issues. There's every reason to roll back Obama's policy on this. Transgendered people should be excluded from service and Honorably separated from service if they decide to become transgendered during their service. Reason? The very difficult personal challenges and issues arising out of transgendered service.
Page 14 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News