PDA

View Full Version : Why Study War?



SWJED
08-21-2007, 01:00 AM
20 August City Journal - Why Study War? (http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_military_history.html) By Victor Davis Hanson (Hat Tip CPT Holzbach on SWJ Op-Ed Roundup comments)


Try explaining to a college student that Tet was an American military victory. You’ll provoke not a counterargument—let alone an assent—but a blank stare: Who or what was Tet? Doing interviews about the recent hit movie 300, I encountered similar bewilderment from listeners and hosts. Not only did most of them not know who the 300 were or what Thermopylae was; they seemed clueless about the Persian Wars altogether.

It’s no surprise that civilian Americans tend to lack a basic understanding of military matters. Even when I was a graduate student, 30-some years ago, military history—understood broadly as the investigation of why one side wins and another loses a war, and encompassing reflections on magisterial or foolish generalship, technological stagnation or breakthrough, and the roles of discipline, bravery, national will, and culture in determining a conflict’s outcome and its consequences—had already become unfashionable on campus. Today, universities are even less receptive to the subject.

This state of affairs is profoundly troubling, for democratic citizenship requires knowledge of war—and now, in the age of weapons of mass annihilation, more than ever...

Rob Thornton
08-21-2007, 04:16 AM
Hanson makes some great points (and provides a great book list). By historical standards we're not too far from where we began in 1776 (in terms of the time line I mean) - certainly not too far to have it taken away - there are plenty of people who'd prefer us not to be around.

I was watching John Wayne the other day with Maureen O'Hara - "Big Jake - Little Jake?" The bad men were riding up and O'Hara tell her foreman to ask them if they want work. He remarks they might be trouble. She remarks with "its 1905, things like that just don't happen anymore." The men come in and kill most of the ranch and make off with Little Jake demanding a ransom for $1 million. Later, MRS McCandles (O'Hara) and the now returned Jake McCandles (Wayne) decide the bad men should not get their 1 million ransom, the deserve what they have coming to them. So Wayne, the old Apache buddy, the dog, and McCandles two sons go off and hunt them down and get the boy back.

That movie came out in the 70s I think. Lots of good movies from that decade. Still lots of folks around then who remembered that there are bad folks out there who will abuse the liberties of others.

Hanson may be right about the cause. But I also think it has something to do with birth rights (inheriting something vs. having to obtain it yourself). Too many Americans don't understand what those inherited rights cost in the recent past and even the present. We've allowed the public (ourselves) to ignore that the freedoms we enjoy everyday are paid for at a heavy price. As I rode home on vacation this week through W.VA to KY, I was amazed at how much we have in terms of just land, water and clean air - the basic things that life are made of. I don't think there is any place in the world like the United States - just being born here provides you a much better chance at survival and living well then any other place in the world.

Last week we finished up our staff ride at Appomattox. I wonder how many Americans have actually visited places like that - maybe by %? How many academics, politicians or others who influence and decide?

I think the average American has little to no regard for just how tenuous, just how near a thing some of the most pivotal moments in our history were. How things could be much different without those who had the intestinal fortitude to start them and see them through. Lincoln's political future was looking a little uncertain in 1863.

Hanson references the Peloponnesian Wars. I think one of the books the average college student, citizen or politician should be taking a look at is the "Landmark Thucydides". I think there are a great many potential parallels to any generational struggle. I've read a few of the others he mentions as well, I suspect they are probably all pretty good.
R/S Rob

selil
08-21-2007, 04:48 AM
Peace studies. Is it really academic welfare? I get about a dozen solicitations of conferences each day and I peruse them. My area is technology so I look for cyberwarfare, information assurance and security, emissions security and such.

I notice a trend in academic conferences towards "defense against cyberwarfare", "risk analysis for security", "protecting data", and other passive or suggestive of failure topics within the proceedings. Defining cyberwarfare is not wanted or is not considered a valid scholarly topic.

I see a small change coming though. The wrinkle in the fabric is homland security. The impetus are the returning veterans. They are returning to classes, returning for higher education, returning and making changes. Many are studying pseudo security topics and then pushing the boundaries.

I'm working up a series of book reviews as part of my research (about 50 of them) on low intensity conflict, cyberwarfare, and such. These will be books that my students will be asked to read or a suggested reading list. This study of war and conflict is important for wider view than just all out war. It is a simply a value add to a good engineering technology education. I'll have to start looking at classics to see if they would be apropriate. The list in the article has a good spread to consider.

Thanks for the link it's good reading.

Watcher In The Middle
08-21-2007, 05:49 AM
I'm working up a series of book reviews as part of my research (about 50 of them) on low intensity conflict, cyberwarfare, and such. These will be books that my students will be asked to read or a suggested reading list

Sam:

If you might be willing to PM me with your list of selected cyberwarfare reading materials, I would certainly appreciate it.

Any additional insights we can pick up would be much appreciated. Thank you.

WitM

jonSlack
08-21-2007, 10:56 AM
Hanson may be right about the cause. But I also think it has something to do with birth rights (inheriting something vs. having to obtain it yourself). Too many Americans don't understand what those inherited rights cost in the recent past and even the present. We've allowed the public (ourselves) to ignore that the freedoms we enjoy everyday are paid for at a heavy price.

Something I've been batting around in my head for a bit: Does the volunteer military create a "free lunch" in American society?

As an ecomonics student in college I learned there was no such thing as a free lunch, everything has a cost. However, with a volunteer military, is there now a "free lunch" for those who decide not serve, especially during a time of war or conflict. For those adult Americans who are not serving or have not or served and without direct relations to a servicemember (Wife/ husband or child of a servicemember under the age of 18) what is the cost to them?

Yes, they pay taxes that financially support the military. However, as a servicemember I pay the same taxes, (In effect I helping to pay my own salary every year (When I'm not deployed atleast).) For that reason, I do not think taxes count as a true cost to those who do not serve since they are not unique to them, they have not incurred those costs specifically because they have chosen not to serve.

If taxes are not considered a "cost," what costs are there for the person who chooses not to serve that make the "lunch" not free?

Obviously, the underlying assumption of my argument is that those who do not serve gain a benefit, the free lunch, that is provided by those who do serve: security.

However, if you argue that our operations ISO GWOT are making the US less secure, not more secure, it would follow that there is "no free lunch" because the purported benefit, security, is not being delivered.

Unfortunetly, I do not think you can assess if there is a benefit "now" or if they will be one in the future. However, it could be argued that there has been a benefit over the past several years because the US homeland has not been attacked since 9/11, the starting point of the GWOT for the US.

Back to my initial question: Does the volunteer military create a "free lunch" in American society?

tequila
08-21-2007, 11:25 AM
Something I've been batting around in my head for a bit: Does the volunteer military create a "free lunch" in American society?

I'd say no.

The main thrust of your argument appears to be that because members of the military also pay taxes, this invalidates the idea of "payment" or "shared sacrifice" on the part of the civilian world. Howeover, this argument could also apply to any employment sector which provides a "public good", since I an unaware of any major tax exemptions for doctors, teachers, lawyers, police, engineers, sewer workers, emergency response, etc. Thus by this definition, soldiers who are not also doctors enjoy a "free lunch" in terms of health care, since they have not also embraced the sacrifices involved in being part of the medical profession.

Steve Blair
08-21-2007, 01:23 PM
The bulk of American military history has been based on a volunteer force, so to carry this statement to the extreme, our entire country has been based on a free lunch.:)

Sorry...I'm not trying to belittle the idea, but using an extreme example to point out that the volunteer force has been the RULE not the exception in American military history. We have also fought wars without the draft, although the standard since 1917 has been to create a draft in time of war. And I think most Americans don't know that because history instruction in this country has been gutted to "deal" with the "math and science gap." That combined with the practice of making the coach the history teacher as well (I had one in elementary school who insisted that B-52s bomber Tokyo in 1944 and would accept no evidence to the contrary) creates generations who have no idea what came before and may have been so battered by poor instructors that they don't care to know.

And I really don't think a draft would change that. A draft doesn't guarantee any real historical knowledge or link with military affairs. What it would take is a recognition that the "history gap" is as real as the "math and science gap" and we need to deal with it if we want to create a pool of volunteers who understand what they're defending and can at least locate their latest deployment location on a map. Until you do that, and it's a comprehensive, multi-angled requirement, you're just looking for another Band-Aid that may or may not do anything. IMO, anyhow.

selil
08-21-2007, 01:26 PM
Sam:

If you might be willing to PM me with your list of selected cyberwarfare reading materials, I would certainly appreciate it.

Any additional insights we can pick up would be much appreciated. Thank you.

WitM

No problem give me a week or two I'm putting it all into endnote libraries right now. It will also be in my blog. I've been asked to send my reviews to a journal first but after that any that don't hit there will also be on my blog.

John T. Fishel
08-21-2007, 02:55 PM
The concept in economics is that of a "free rider" - someone who partakes of a public good without paying for it because it is available to all. The classic case is a lighthouse. To be a bit more sophisticated, all taxpayers do pay for security but most do not feel (subjectively) the cost so, in terms of military security, I would argue are free riders.

While the US has, historically, had a volunteer regular force, we usually had an involuntary militia force. Under the Militia Act of 1789 ( exact date?) all male citizens age 16 to 45 (or 60?) were members of the militia with drilling obligations and call-up in times of emergency both state and federal. The creation of the National Guard about 1916 changed the involuntary nature of the militia to a voluteer force.

Tom Odom
08-21-2007, 03:11 PM
who insisted that B-52s bombed Tokyo in 1944

HAH!!!! Everyone knows it was B-47s. What a moron! The B-52s didn't start singing until the 1970s! :D

Steve Blair
08-21-2007, 03:16 PM
The concept in economics is that of a "free rider" - someone who partakes of a public good without paying for it because it is available to all. The classic case is a lighthouse. To be a bit more sophisticated, all taxpayers do pay for security but most do not feel (subjectively) the cost so, in terms of military security, I would argue are free riders.

While the US has, historically, had a volunteer regular force, we usually had an involuntary militia force. Under the Militia Act of 1789 ( exact date?) all male citizens age 16 to 45 (or 60?) were members of the militia with drilling obligations and call-up in times of emergency both state and federal. The creation of the National Guard about 1916 changed the involuntary nature of the militia to a voluteer force.

Actually the militia act has always been something of a misnomer, since militia drill wasn't really obligatory. You did see some communities with militias, but there were a fair number of others that simply ignored the provisions. There's also the consideration that many militia units were more ceremonial guards or drill societies than they were functional military units. Also, the national guard existed well before 1916 and tended to be active on Land Grant schools (in, if I recall correctly, an attempt to correct many of the problems with the militia/state troop system that were seen during the early days of the Civil War).

While there have been many theoretical efforts to create a standing/required militia, the historical fact has been a volunteer army that was intended to serve as a cadre for expansion when war came. Although the idea of militia was attractive to many political leaders (especially after the Civil War when there were a number of former Volunteer generals in Congress), it was often more talk than action. Historically, America has fielded on average (excluding times of major war) an all-volunteer force that for many years was more foreign than it was native born.

Steve Blair
08-21-2007, 03:40 PM
HAH!!!! Everyone knows it was B-47s. What a moron! The B-52s didn't start singing until the 1970s! :D

It was the B-36!!!!! The magnesium overcast!!!!!

wm
08-21-2007, 04:26 PM
HAH!!!! Everyone knows it was B-47s. What a moron! The B-52s didn't start singing until the 1970s! :D

Maybe that history teacher was a big Olivia Newton John fan and just took her advice, "Please Mister, please. Don't play B17." :wry:

And wasn't it Deep Purple who made the biggest explosion in Tokyo?

Tom Odom
08-21-2007, 05:54 PM
Maybe that history teacher was a big Olivia Newton John fan and just took her advice, "Please Mister, please. Don't play B17." :wry:

And wasn't it Deep Purple who made the biggest explosion in Tokyo?

Smoke on the Water...

Maybe Steve can tell us who the lead singer was for B36 :wry:

Now I need to counsel myself for destroying in the intellectual continuity of this thread...

Self: Surely you can't be serious about such trivia

Self 2: I am seriously trivial and don't call me, Shirly

LawVol
08-21-2007, 06:00 PM
Something I've been batting around in my head for a bit: Does the volunteer military create a "free lunch" in American society?

I would say that there is a free lunch, but I think that limiting the "cost" to a purely monetary figure completely understates it. Obviously there is the ultimate cost borne by both the servicemember and their family, but cops & firefighters may also pay this cost in providing safety and security.

The cost we pay comes in the perceived lack of stability in our lives. I am currently stationed in an area that has a very small military presence (less than 100 active duty). I was completely surprised that most of the people I come across say that they could not deal with moving around every few years or have their spouse gone alot. Being a military brat, I know no other life (never been anywhere more than 4 years and that was only once), but this is something people actually fear and that cops and firefighters, etc. do not do. Moreover, we miss family time not just when we are at work, but also for a full number of days (weeks, months, etc) when we're TDY or deployed. This is a cost many are unwilling to accept. And as long as we have folks like us that are willing to pay that cost, I'd say that we continue to let the rest of America have a free lunch and maybe we can all feel a little proud that we help provide it.

One other thing on this: whether the public views us safer or not because of Iraq, or the war on terror is irrelevant. The military continues to provide safety and security from those that might do us harm.

Tequila:


Howeover, this argument could also apply to any employment sector which provides a "public good", since I an unaware of any major tax exemptions for doctors, teachers, lawyers, police, engineers, sewer workers, emergency response, etc.

Although I nearly fell out of my chair when I read this quote, as a lawyer, its nice to know someone thinks of us as providing a public good. Maybe we can get rid of the lawyer/shark comparisons. :D

Rob Thornton
08-21-2007, 10:29 PM
Maybe Steve can tell us who the lead singer was for B36

Didn't they have the hit "Love Shack"? or are we back to B52s?:D

RTK
08-21-2007, 11:24 PM
Smoke on the Water...

Maybe Steve can tell us who the lead singer was for B36 :wry:

Now I need to counsel myself for destroying in the intellectual continuity of this thread...

Self: Surely you can't be serious about such trivia

Self 2: I am seriously trivial and don't call me, Shirly


I love reading Tom's inner monologue.

RTK
08-21-2007, 11:29 PM
Last week we finished up our staff ride at Appomattox. I wonder how many Americans have actually visited places like that - maybe by %? How many academics, politicians or others who influence and decide?

We did one a Chickamauga at the beginning of the month. Two days later I took the wife and kids to Perryville for the day with the Combat Studies Institute Staff ride guide. We spent 6 hours walking all 17 stands. They loved it and it gave my 5 year old a greater appreciation for what daddy does. Then she told me:

"Daddy, you should take all your lieutenants and make them do this too."

If I only could, Audrey. If I only could. This week, though, I'll be happy if they get down the 5 paragraph OPORD format to standard.

Rank amateur
08-22-2007, 01:32 AM
Something I've been batting around in my head for a bit: Does the volunteer military create a "free lunch" in American society?


I think everyone chips in their fair share for nuclear deterrence and many of the other things the military does, but it's pretty hard to argue that the costs of Operation Iraqi Freedom are borne equally by all Americans. In order to determine whether or not there's a free lunch you'd need to figure out exactly what the benefits were and who was enjoying them.

In terms of military knowledge it would be nice if voters understood the basic difference between conventional operations and asymmetric combat. The people who thought that the first gulf war would turn into another Vietnam and those who thought that the second one would be over in a couple of weeks have caused some problems.

Tom Odom
08-22-2007, 12:25 PM
The people who thought that the first gulf war would turn into another Vietnam and those who thought that the second one would be over in a couple of weeks have caused some problems.

Amateur,

You said a mouthful there! :wry:

Best

Tom

Ken White
08-22-2007, 04:53 PM
...

"Daddy, you should take all your lieutenants and make them do this too."

If I only could, Audrey. If I only could. This week, though, I'll be happy if they get down the 5 paragraph OPORD format to standard.

process. METL, ArTEP, Tasks, conditions and standards were adopted after a lengthy gestation process in the late 60s-early 70s to train to minimal competence a large Draftee Army (even as the Draft ceased before the system got truly embedded in the Army..).

For that, they worked fairly well. I was never an ArTEP fan; the process did get rid of the valleys in unit training but it also chopped off the peaks. We paid and pay lip service to the process but when doo doo occurs when we tend to go into a specific trainup for deployment -- as we should -- to peak the unit for its impending missions.

The Army as a result of the old hard core WW II Commanders reducing NCOs and firing nice guys of all ranks for failing Army Training Tests in the 50s and 60s moved away from performance testing into the gray area of ArTEP / ORT etc. completion with no penalty for bad failures. That was absolute reality when I hung up my war suit in 1977. The NTC and JRTC modified that a bit but there still is no hard benchmark -- or, more correctly, there was not when I last retired in 1995. Maybe there is now, I hope so.

Hopefully things have changed and we're willing now to test people and units and react harshly to real failures (as opposed to over reacting to minor nits; a practice at which we excel...). I've never understood that objection to testing -- other than the political correctness angle, of course. Can't make the Personnel management system look bad. :wry:

Same problem occurs with the Standards routine in individual education and training, it gets everyone up to a minimally acceptable baseline but it stifles the sharp guys. Having taught a slew of AOB students over several years in another lifetime, I witnessed first hand the undesirable side effects, the stultifying results on the really good in order to allow the not so good to survive (a caveat on that, 2LTs need to be given a break, a lot of folks don't get into their groove for a couple of years, saw a number of marginal Gold bars come back to Knox later with two silver bars and they were totally different people by thatb time. Some didn't change much, of course :o).

I also watched a number of tasks which had low 'Go' rates farmed out for unit as opposed to institutional training in order to make the rates look good. Not to mention modifying the standards to do the same thing on occasion. Or the games with Instructor Contact Hours...

I'm not at all sure that we truly realize we really do have a professional Army nowadays and that these kids are capable of doing a whole lot more than we tend to let them do...

Not really criticizing anything or anybody; just random thoughts from a long time doer and observer.

Rob Thornton
08-22-2007, 06:27 PM
Hi Ken,
You know that is a very valid line of thought. In any course these days, there seems to be all the things that have to be taught in order to ensure the student gets to the baseline. Someone always crams more requirements into the baseline while leaving little time to explore how those ideas fit and can be used - sometimes I wonder if the purpose of PME is to build better leadership potential, or just to cover the latest crisis of the day.

I'd also say that some of those injected things often seem to remain in a POI long after the crisis passes, or is relevant. Some courses are more dynamic, but overall it seems that because of the nature of change/adaptation (we talked that one in another thread), most courses reflect POIs more relevant to the past.

The answer on the surface would appear to build in more time so we could do both - check the required blocks and spend some time looking forward. However, it seems to be a zero sum gain. Only so much is going to get funded, and there is the issue of getting bodies back from the schoolhouse into jobs that must be filled. So it would seem to be serious about changing education and training is going to require more people and more money so we can invest more into the people - which always gets me back to the observation about if you want to see what is really important to someone look comparatively at what they spend their money on.

I'd also say that there are those rare instructors who are passionate about building leaders, and will do everything they can to prepare students for the challenges ahead. They seem to be able to find a way to balance meeting requirements and building leaders who can face the challenges ahead. Sometimes this may mean just providing relevant context to the required subject matter. Sometimes it means starting at the required place as written, but willing to depart as the students become more participatory and take the conversation where it needs to go.

Finally, I always worry about the bigger rucksack. It sounds great until someone makes a packing list full of stuff that used to go in the dufflebag, but now goes in the MOLLE. If we did have more bodies and more $$$ would we really trust ourselves to leave white space and fund things like week long staff rides for everybody? We have a cultural A type predisposition to wire things tighter then the crack of dawn. We efface that type of inflexibility in many other ways as well - and inhibits our finding solutions that are timely and practical, but unorthodox and might invite criticism if they don't work out perfect.

If we want to change the nature of PME and training, I think we really have to get to how our service culture influences our approach. Guys like Tom & RTK are leading the charge on this, but it may take awhile to permeate out to the branches.

Regards, Rob

wm
08-22-2007, 07:04 PM
Hi Ken,

The answer on the surface would appear to build in more time so we could do both - check the required blocks and spend some time looking forward. However, it seems to be a zero sum gain. Only so much is going to get funded, and there is the issue of getting bodies back from the schoolhouse into jobs that must be filled. So it would seem to be serious about changing education and training is going to require more people and more money so we can invest more into the people - which always gets me back to the observation about if you want to see what is really important to someone look comparatively at what they spend their money on.

Rob,
I suggest that if we want to get serious about education and training, then we need to revise the model that we use and then enforce it. We could follow the lead of other professions and require that our military members do additional training on their own time to maintain currency. A paradigm already exists in DoD--uinder the auspices of the Defense Acquisition University, the acquisition career fields require that one achieve a certain level of education and training to be certified at one of three levels. Some of this training is available via distance learning, but some requires in-residence instruction. Once one is certified, Federal statutes require that one take continues learning coursework to retain certification. However, to the best of my knowledge, nothing happens to folks who fail to meet their continuing learning requirements.

This model was partially implemented when the Army started SQT testing, but I do not think it made it all the way to the entire force. And I don't remember ever hearing of a soldier getting the boot for not passing an SQT.

BTW, formal education in a group environment, only establishes a minimum baseline of competency. To go beyond that level would, I suspect, require some invocation of what would probably end up being charged as elitist selection processes. Such a charge would definitely result in curtailed funding (to your money point).

Anthony Hoh
08-22-2007, 07:38 PM
The NTC and JRTC modified that a bit but there still is no hard benchmark -- or, more correctly, there was not when I last retired in 1995. Maybe there is now, I hope so.


Ken,
As a fellow no slacker, I wanted to give a first person perspective that is a little more current. When I went to ANCOC in 2004, a significant portion of our POI was dedicated to some newer technologies like the MCS-Light. However, we also still covered some cold war techniques, the one that sticks out in my mind was our two days at the demo range. Believe me I understand that as an 11B you should be a jack of all trades. However, in my 15 years I have never been given any form of demo in training or in combat, to include blasting caps, C4, det cord, or flex charges without a current and qualified Army Engineer or EOD tech by my side. It just doesn’t happen. Two days wasted. Now without putting a stick in anyone’s eye let me tell you why I think it was a waste of time.
Most of us agree with the concept of the strategic corporal, his powerful impact in COIN, as he/she interacts positively with the populace. By default where is the strategic Squad Leader/ Platoon Sergeant? The COIN center of excellence and other organizations put together great briefs on planning and implementation. However, there is a problem, the venue for these briefs are usually BDE and BN Commanders. I feel privileged to be in an Army with great leadership and I could not do it better. However, from a first person perspective what commanders learn in these seminars is not trickling down below the Company Commanders. To my knowledge, and I have checked within the last few months there is no COIN classes or briefs placed in the NCOES from WLC (a.k.a PLDC) through ANCOC. Our course here at Polk has a great STX with a MRE feel, But a lot of flag officers agree that the strategic corporal is the answer. My BDE Commander obviously circulates in a higher sphere of influence…(Mayors, Provincial, Governors) He is just one man. How many specialists are in a BDE, how many people do they interact with in one tour? Ok what are we doing to train him from a school house perspective on COIN? ….Nothing.:(

Ken White
08-22-2007, 08:44 PM
Hi Rob. Good points all, paricularly agree with your first paragraph. I remember reading years ago a comment from an ergonomics guy that he was constantly amazes at how little though most people put into the best way to arrive at the goal they wanted to achieve..

Both you and Anthony make a valid case on the things that stay in the POI seemingly in defiance of logic. Sometimes its there, logic I mean, but is obscured by other things. Take his Demo classes. He makes a valid point about an Engineer being around for anything stronger than an M80 -- but is that due to military necessity or a protective action on the part of the system to make sure one of us dumb grunts doesn't blow up the TOC? I submit the latter. That from the perspective of one who used a fair amount of demo in Korea and a little bit in Viet Nam (in 66, by 68 an engineer was required...:( ). I also suggest the some of the protectionism is not safety or the rep of the institution driven but parochial. Back in the day, the Signal Corps fought the AN/PRC series radios tooth and nail as they could see jobs and spaces melting away...

Having spent some time in TRADOC before I manged to escape, I'm familiar with the time problem. And the money problem. The mantra was then and is now that we cannot afford to train a guy for other than his next job. I fought that tooth and nail (lost) on the basis that, due to someone's death being the kicker, we could not afford to fail to train a guy for a job two levels above his next job. My favortie question of every AOAC was ""How many of you have already commanded a Company or Troop?" followed by "How many of you have been at the Deputy Dog level on a Brigade staff?"

We do have a training fund allotment problem and I contend it is largely Congressionally driven, that and the institutional protection syndrome / budget dollar battle. Congress is willing to spend megabucks on big ticket hardware produced with sub-contractors in multiple districts, the more the better. they are not willing to spend money on training from which they derive little benefit. The services all acquiesce on that.

Agree on the good instructors except I don't think they're all that rare; my guess would be about a third are willing to cheat, lie and steal to properly train their charges, that so many do is a tribute to them and is proved by the fact that the system works as well as it does and almost in spite of itself.

On the bigger ruck bit, when my kid first described the Molle sack some years ago and its size; all I said was "that's really dumb, we're gonna trade a fifty buck little ALICE ruck for a big whomping internal frame that cost $200 plus and that you can't carry a water can on; one that will rapidly get filled to over 100 pounds? Neat." and lo... :)

Hi WM: Thanks. My experience was that most members of the Armed forces spent a fair amount of their own time training on their own dime. That was certainly true in most units I was in. YMMV.

Not sniping at you, you were simply citing a principle, I realize -- but I'm unsure that the Defense Acquisition Community is a model for much other than how not to do things.

I agree that you probably didn't hear of a soldier getting the boot for not passing a SQT (not that those tests were all that swift) but I suggest that with a properly designed and administered test, we probably should see some departures for failure. At all levels.

I also think I am expressly pointing at an elitist selection process; like the drug war, the current egalitarian system isn't doing all it should do for the money spent on it...



Hi Anthony; Thanks for the update. Heh. Hear you on the Demo; been to four courses where rappelling was part of the course; made over 200 combat or recon patrols and have never had to rappell. See my Demo comment to Rob, above.

I totally agree with you on the Strategic Sqd Ldr and Plat Daddy. Had they started out as strategic Corporals, it would've been okay. They didn't and it isn't okay. Major failure on the part of TRADOC and the branch schools -- and the Sergeant Majors who are supposed to keep an eye on stuff like that...

The Bn and Bde Cdrs should also be plunking for that and I'm sure some are but the majority are too busy fighting bureaucratic Alligators to even see much less drain the swamp. That, by the way is not a lick on those commanders. It is, however, one on their bosses bosses...

Thanks.

wm
08-22-2007, 11:16 PM
Maybe my choice of Defense Acquisition was ill advised. It is probably best as a venue for learning how not to do things, but that was part of my point. We can learn a lot from studying how not to do things too.

One point of my examples was that we usually only do well when the boss checks up on us or, in what amounts to the same thing, if there is a negative consequence for not doing well. Back in the days of the old 5 event PT tests (remember the trip, stumble, and fall; the horizontal hand ripper, etc.) most folks I knew scored a llittle over 300 points even thought the max possible was 500. As long as you scored 60 points in each event you were good to go--no negative consequences. Why try to "over achieve" when the only positive for maxing the test was an attaboy from your leadership (maybe a three day pass, which became an almost useless incentive when all off-duty time became free time).

I was also trying to suggest that our post-entry training and education ought to be more like that of other professionals out there--doctors, nurses, PMI-certified project managers, teachers, even lawyers all have some kind of recurring professional education requirements to maintain their certifications or licensure. Military members are "licensed" professionals as well. Maybe we need to prove that we are keeping current and competent in our profession in order to stay in it. I submit that this might be a much better way to keep a competent and ready force than the current techniques of "up or out" promotions.

Ken White
08-23-2007, 01:00 AM
humor needs work. Our snotty, sorry kids agree with her...

That may have given the impression I disagreed with your comment, I do not. I agree on the continuing education. The services of course do that to an extent. You don't get promoted unless you go to the requisite schools for each step and it's a rare Field Grade Officer that isn't working on or does not have an advanced degree. As I also said above, most folks, even the NCOs do devote some to much of their own time -- and money, in many cases -- to education and training. In any event there's room for improvement and a method of rotating out to the world or sabbatical -- long term adventure training on the British model -- lot of things could be done to improve the process which is today to heirarchial and check-the-box. not to mention that the quality of some instruction is cast about two or three levels below the capability of most students.

You're absolutely right on failure without consequences; that has been an annoyance to me for many years. In the pre-dawn of the late fifties with a lot of old hard core WW II folks around if you failed you got tossed (conversely, fairly minor disciplinary stuff was overlooked. Fortunately for me :) ). By the mid 80s, one could fail without fear of failure (except for minor disciplinary stuff that got people thrown out of the service) and that is absolutely the wrong message. That too may have improved since '95 but it was still the case then. Thus my "elitist' schtick; what's wrong with being elite? Mediocrity in military performance will get people killed, yet we tolerate it. Doesn't make sense.

Also agree that up or out is problematic -- in fact, I think its counter productive. That process is really going to need a relook -- particularly as the high reenlistment rates today in the combat arms are going to create a massive surplus of SGT/SSG pretty soon. Of course, the Army can do what it's done in the past; forcibly reclassify them to odd job MOSC (and cause them to get out). My all time pet was the chopper pilots in Viet Nam. They commissioned the top 30% of the Warrant Officers, the best there were and those guys got up to CPT and then they threw most of 'em out of the Army. Not back to Warrant or even back to an old enlisted grade; out. There were a few exceptions but not many. Terminally dumbbb. And the Personnel community has not burnished their image since...

Rob Thornton
08-23-2007, 02:05 PM
Hey WM, hey Ken,


We could follow the lead of other professions and require that our military members do additional training on their own time to maintain currency. A paradigm already exists in DoD--under the auspices of the Defense Acquisition University, the acquisition career fields require that one achieve a certain level of education and training to be certified at one of three levels. Some of this training is available via distance learning, but some requires in-residence instruction. Once one is certified, Federal statutes require that one take continues learning coursework to retain certification. However, to the best of my knowledge, nothing happens to folks who fail to meet their continuing learning requirement

I'm not against distance learning but I sometimes disagree with the way institutions use it as the cure all to their educational problems. For a deployed military, the IT tools may be there, but the time due to optempo might not be. I think PME or ACS that allows the leader to step out of his responsibilities for a period is of immense value because it allows for:
-The opportunity to reflect on how the experiences make sense in terms of what they are learning now
- The opportunity to interact with peers (could be military, could be civilian) and consider personal experiences in the context of those of the class (cold be just considering a different point of view, or could be a different geographical area and a different enemy)
- Feedback from the instructor/professor and the class in a real-time, personally interactive way (some IT has brought this along, but it requires BW and also requires students to be online at the same time - again, a bit harder to do in a deployed environment)
- There is often the opportunity for guest speakers and discussion that follows.
- Staff rides that compliment and reinforce course objectives using a historical venue on physical terrain so you can visualize the scope.
- I believe it a quicker route to making what is learned tacit.
- Then there is also the opportunity to just relax and turn it down a notch - maybe spend some time with the family - and balance things out a bit.

I've done some distance learning while doing a current job - its not easy. Self study offers some benefits, and by all means should remain a part of our education strategy (I've just about finished my masters online), however, we should maximize every opportunity to send our folks to schools - be they a demo course, ILE or ACS. IF the military is going to be the primary beneficiary and tack on additional service requirements, then it should not require further stress on the military family.

What we need is to look at every soldier, sailor, airman, marine as a potential 20 - 40 year service member. This sort of long term view of human capital requires a different investment strategy. It probably scares the hell out of some because people are expensive, and good people more so - but we've already identified that in the types of wars we are currently engaged in (and will be for some time,) - good people on the ground are critical to turning tactical successes into opportunities for operational advantages and then translating those into strategic success.

The degree to which people are invested in (goes beyond the educational investment) I think corresponds how effective they are and how long they will stick with the organization.

Ken is spot on about how the $$$ are divvied out. An FCS or some piece of hardware that directly benefits a congressional district in a short-term, quantified way is easy for them to support and argue for. However, long term investment in a subjective way that improves the quality and effectiveness of our Armed Forces as a whole and also creates a thinking citizenry that comes back and contributes to the nation beyond their service commitments - and also educates the community on what is required to secure our liberties for future generations.

While new hardware and tech are good things, we must not waiver in our commitment to the people who employ them. I heard a good definition for tactics which I modified a bit - it is the thinking, human application of technology on the battlefield to achieve a purpose. I liked it because the soldier, sailor, airman or marine are central to employment of the technology.

Ski
08-23-2007, 03:48 PM
I'm not a big believer in DL for any kind of accredited Army schooling. It works to an extent, but Rob has highlighted the major deficencies of DL. I'm taking a Master's degree through DL, and while it is great because of the instructors and the material, the lack of real interaction with my peers leaves a lot to be desired.

I also have a bit of a problem with Active Component schools in general - they are too long and do not make the best use of the time allowed. We used to joke in AOAC that it was the best 8 weeks of training jammed into 16 weeks anyone could devise. Of course, that was the same course when a certain troop commander told us that it was designed to develop BN and BDE staff officers, not commanders. It was funny, but not "ha-ha" funny. I've also been told that the schools are long because it is a break from the operating force. Well, that might be true, but it seems to me that the personnel system has been the hub of a lot of evils within the AC. Can't rotate officers too quickly out of command (what is the current policy on company command in the AC? it was 12 months back in 02?) you know!

I also agree with the problems associated with not teaching/training platoon sergeants and squad leaders about COIN or assumption of greater responsibility when there are casualties. That seems awfully myopic to me seeing that COIN is a Company and below fight for the most part.

Investing in people - that will never happen with the Army's personnel policies. Everything is demand and percentage driven. It's all about meeting mission - whether it be recruiting (hey don't look now - we like criminals more than gays!), fill for deployment (we just can't have less than 105% fill for this deployment!), etc...

jcustis
08-23-2007, 04:03 PM
While new hardware and tech are good things, we must not waiver in our commitment to the people who employ them. I heard a good definition for tactics which I modified a bit - it is the thinking, human application of technology on the battlefield to achieve a purpose. I liked it because the soldier, sailor, airman or marine are central to employment of the technology.

That is so getting stolen...

slapout9
08-23-2007, 04:04 PM
Instead of always uprooting people to go to schools why not move the schools to the people. By that I mean the Instructors,guest speakers,etc. should go to the location where the people need them instead of the other way around. This is not a total cure as in some case you would have to go to a particular spot (staff Ride,etc.) but may be that could be handled by a field trip:) Seems a lot easier to have the instructors mobile than having to keep thousands of students always on the move.

Ken White
08-23-2007, 04:06 PM
DL has good points but is no substitute for the interaction. I've learned as much in bars all over the world as I ever learned in classrooms... :D

The cramming of 8 weeks into 16 is older than I am (Yes, that is possible... :p ) and it needed to be stopped long ago; a great deal of that is related to the rather stupid bureaucratic way we 'justify' the staffing of instructors and cadre.

People is / are what it's all about. Most will try to do the right thing most of the time -- we all have bad days -- and most are capable of far more than we ask of them. We see that every day in the Army, people performing way above their 'potential' or nominally expected capability but we don't take advantage of it. We should.

We need to look at the upcoming SGT/SSG bubble and at long term retention. These guys are staying in because of the challenge; they and the LTs and CPTs that are sticking it out in spite of family concerns are going to require some thought to retain when things settle down and the challenge departs.

We ought to be able to pay or otherwise reward people for doing a really good job without necessarily promoting them in rank. While I firmly believe most people are capable of doing far more than we generally ask of them, I'm also firmly convinced the Peter Principle is valid. :wry:

Kudos, by the way, to Cody for asking those Captains what they though about their generals -- and listening to them.

jcustis
08-23-2007, 04:18 PM
We need to look at the upcoming SGT/SSG bubble and at long term retention. These guys are staying in because of the challenge; they and the LTs and CPTs that are sticking it out in spite of family concerns are going to require some thought to retain when things settle down and the challenge departs.

Somethign struck me when read this bit Ken, and made me wonder if we simply have it all wrong.

We employ EAS counseling sessions, exit surveys, and a litany of other transition tools to try to determine why servicemembers are getting out...perhaps we should be more concerned with why folks are staying in, then cultivate that.

Think about it. Once joe signs up for another hitch, the establishment is golden. He gets a bonus, maybe a choice of duty station, and then moves on. If we're lucky his leadership is engaged and understands what drives that person. Once someone decides to re-enlist, it seems to end there. I know of very few surveys aimed at tracking the metrics of why a member CHOSE TO BE RETAINED. He or she made choices just the same as someone who chose to leave, yet we aren't listening to what they have to say.

Anthony Hoh
08-23-2007, 04:30 PM
We employ EAS counseling sessions, exit surveys, and a litany of other transition tools to try to determine why servicemembers are getting out...perhaps we should be more concerned with why folks are staying in, then cultivate that.


10 characters

Ken White
08-23-2007, 05:31 PM
the answers will be as vague as all those in all the surveys that ask "Why did you enlist." I also suspect that the real answer is "Because I'm doing something that's a challenge, I'm making a difference and I'm doing something a lot of people won't or can't do and I'm working with some of the best people I've ever known."

And having cool toys doesn't hurt... ;)

However, we still ought to ask -- and we ought to pay attention to what we hear.

Rob Thornton
08-23-2007, 11:10 PM
DR/COL (R) Mike Matheny, our BSAP (Basic Strategic Arts Program) guru at Carlisle - although I added the piece about people because I felt it was incomplete without it (I thought about it a long time before I was comfortable with it).

Thanks to him and my fellow 59s I'm starting to better understand the linkages between the levels of war.
Best, Rob

selil
08-24-2007, 02:09 AM
I think PME or ACS that allows the leader to step out of his responsibilities for a period is of immense value because it allows for:

-The opportunity to reflect on how the experiences make sense in terms of what they are learning now

- The opportunity to interact with peers (could be military, could be civilian) and consider personal experiences in the context of those of the class (cold be just considering a different point of view, or could be a different geographical area and a different enemy)

- Feedback from the instructor/professor and the class in a real-time, personally interactive way (some IT has brought this along, but it requires BW and also requires students to be online at the same time - again, a bit harder to do in a deployed environment)

- There is often the opportunity for guest speakers and discussion that follows.

- Staff rides that compliment and reinforce course objectives using a historical venue on physical terrain so you can visualize the scope.

- I believe it a quicker route to making what is learned tacit.

- Then there is also the opportunity to just relax and turn it down a notch - maybe spend some time with the family - and balance things out a bit.


I don't want to derail the thread but I'm just finishing a rather substantial project to deliver high value, collaborative, multi-media enriched, content via distance learning. Except for spending time with family we answer most of Rob Thortons curricula questions using a suite of technologies. If anybody is interested I'll provide a link to the design document (it will be the original not the current sorry) but it is heavy in information technology that supports.

We can all say it together "but, technology it's not like being there"...

Really we get you there, but it has to be seen to be believed and right now it's mainly set up towards teaching technology.

Rob Thornton
08-24-2007, 11:33 AM
Sam,
Thanks. Can you give us a summary of the differences between what we currently see in DL and how what is new will improve DL. It'd also be good to hear what you think are the shortfalls.

If we can get DL to a point where supplemental education - which is ever growing as more requirements are placed on soldier & leaders to prepare for mission sets, transition to a new type of unit, or prepare for promotion boards - then maybe we can focus quality on core educational experiences where personal interaction is best utilized.

The requirements are starting to add up. As IT improves DL I think the expectation will point towards the "soldier-scholar-pentathlete". I hope we are not building unrealistic expectations for the amount we are willing to invest to achieve those expectations (recruit, train, maintain, retain).

Regards, Rob

wm
08-24-2007, 11:50 AM
Rather than cramming 8 weeks of training into 16 (or in the case of my advanced course, cramming one month of training into 6), we could do something really creative--do a DL component followed up by an in-resident component, which would give one the best of both worlds.

Back in the day, I was an early attendee (known today in the software world as Beta testers) of the Combined Arms and Services Staff School (CAS-cubed). Before we went to the in-resident phase at Leavenworth (short course, not wearing brown-dyed fatigues with a P on the back), we had to do a bunch of reading and take a pretest on that reading. Then we got to go to interact with folks from across the Army in our various staff groups. That CAS3 was the best training experience of my career--most of the value I received from the peer interaction was learning how not to do things.
I reached MEL4 via correspondence course while still a very junior O-3. I found that my ability to operate on a Division staff was just as good as that of my peers who did the resident version in Kansas (of course that may have more to do with the people involved and less to do with the training venues.)

BTW, I was told that the reason the advanced/career course lasted 6 months was based on a funding issue--it was cheaper to PCS us than to pay us per diem. So, the course had to be for longer than the 179 day max TDY period. Ain't it great when beancounting RM folks force your decisions?

jastay3
08-24-2007, 11:36 PM
Something I've been batting around in my head for a bit: Does the volunteer military create a "free lunch" in American society?

As an ecomonics student in college I learned there was no such thing as a free lunch, everything has a cost. However, with a volunteer military, is there now a "free lunch" for those who decide not serve, especially during a time of war or conflict. For those adult Americans who are not serving or have not or served and without direct relations to a servicemember (Wife/ husband or child of a servicemember under the age of 18) what is the cost to them?

Yes, they pay taxes that financially support the military. However, as a servicemember I pay the same taxes, (In effect I helping to pay my own salary every year (When I'm not deployed atleast).) For that reason, I do not think taxes count as a true cost to those who do not serve since they are not unique to them, they have not incurred those costs specifically because they have chosen not to serve.

If taxes are not considered a "cost," what costs are there for the person who chooses not to serve that make the "lunch" not free?

Obviously, the underlying assumption of my argument is that those who do not serve gain a benefit, the free lunch, that is provided by those who do serve: security.

However, if you argue that our operations ISO GWOT are making the US less secure, not more secure, it would follow that there is "no free lunch" because the purported benefit, security, is not being delivered.

Unfortunetly, I do not think you can assess if there is a benefit "now" or if they will be one in the future. However, it could be argued that there has been a benefit over the past several years because the US homeland has not been attacked since 9/11, the starting point of the GWOT for the US.

Back to my initial question: Does the volunteer military create a "free lunch" in American society?
__________________________________________________ _____________

Calling a voluteer military a "free lunch" is odd. The purpose of the military is to be the "uniforms that guard us when we sleep"-in other words to make sure that as many people can have a "free lunch" in that sense as is plausible.
I tend to think that using conscripts for Small Wars is ineffective(for, by necessity morale will be strained and conscripts cannot maintain the subtlety necessary). It is also unethical because few conscripts have an immiediate personal stake. Conscription should be reserved for times when the danger to the country is obvious, extrodinary, and immiediate.
In fact I think we should go the other way. Accept that Professionals are Professionals and don't worry to much when they are doing their jobs. We do our, "brave young men and women in uniform" no favors if we interfere with their task by sentimentilizeing them as if they were refighting World War II instead of dealing with what is basically another Savage War of Peace.

jastay3
08-24-2007, 11:47 PM
"Calling a voluteer military a "free lunch" is odd. The purpose of the military is to be the "uniforms that guard us when we sleep"-in other words to make sure that as many people can have a "free lunch" in that sense as is plausible.
I tend to think that using conscripts for Small Wars is ineffective(for, by necessity morale will be strained and conscripts cannot maintain the subtlety necessary). It is also unethical because few conscripts have an immiediate personal stake. Conscription should be reserved for times when the danger to the country is obvious, extrodinary, and immiediate.
In fact I think we should go the other way. Accept that Professionals are Professionals and don't worry to much when they are doing their jobs. We do our, "brave young men and women in uniform" no favors if we interfere with their task by sentimentilizeing them as if they were refighting World War II instead of dealing with what is basically another Savage War of Peace."<br>


In fact that is a very good reason to study war-to remind us that nothing unusual is happening. The whole point of terrorism is essentially theatrics. If we can acknowlege that it is a regretable part of life then it will be less effective.
That doesn't mean, "terrorism is a law-enforcement problem": it is the problem of whichever agency can deal with it conveniently. What it does mean is part of defeating terrorism is not being terrorfied. And part of that is letting people do their jobs.

Tom Odom
08-25-2007, 12:32 AM
__________________________________________________ _____________

Calling a voluteer military a "free lunch" is odd. The purpose of the military is to be the "uniforms that guard us when we sleep"-in other words to make sure that as many people can have a "free lunch" in that sense as is plausible.
I tend to think that using conscripts for Small Wars is ineffective(for, by necessity morale will be strained and conscripts cannot maintain the subtlety necessary). It is also unethical because few conscripts have an immiediate personal stake. Conscription should be reserved for times when the danger to the country is obvious, extrodinary, and immiediate.
In fact I think we should go the other way. Accept that Professionals are Professionals and don't worry to much when they are doing their jobs. We do our, "brave young men and women in uniform" no favors if we interfere with their task by sentimentilizeing them as if they were refighting World War II instead of dealing with what is basically another Savage War of Peace.
Jaystay,

Your opinion in context is welcome. This, however, is not in context ansd the opinions are nearing the offensive. I suggest you go to this thread (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/forumdisplay.php?f=33) and introduce yourself.

Regards,

Tom

jastay3
08-25-2007, 01:38 AM
No offense was intended. If this sounded like it was insulting our troops it was not intended that way. It was a criticism of the rhetorical style in which they were described.

selil
08-25-2007, 03:35 AM
Can you give us a summary of the differences between what we currently see in DL and how what is new will improve DL.

Currently a large number of the issues in distance education revolve around the lack of scholarly contact, peer to peer learning, cooperative learning, contextual learning, and much more of the in person learning gained from an instructor.

Many of these issues are about "presence" and a feeling of inclusiveness in the classroom.

If we're doing distance learning then we can't put the body in the classroom.. It's sort of a rule. What we can do is move the intellect into the virtual classroom. Using technology we can put the student in the classroom. There are two forms (synchronous, and asynchronous). Here on SWC we deal with asynchronous and yet friendships, alliances, and enmities are created. Using the appropriate technologies (a loaded euphemism for sure) we can put the intellect in the classroom. In many cases we can provide the same rich peer to peer, scholarly, cooperative learning environment regardeless of location.

We can use web cameras to put a face to a concept. We can listen to lectures, replay those lectures many times, in some cases we can shadow the student and interact inside of THEIR computer, instant messenger allows for much more ad hoc contact, flexibility means students are in a learning mode rather than managing mode. In our case we can provide more, better, consistent lecture content and learning modules.

All that being said distance learning isn't for everybody. My non-technical students use MySpace, FaceBook, Digg, BitTorrent, iTunes and understand and live with those technologies. For many of my students there has ALWAYS been an Internet. My students world context has to be reached to integrate my classroom context. They're ready for this shift in methodology.



It'd also be good to hear what you think are the shortfalls.

There are several short falls, but most of them have to do with me as an instructor rather than the student.

I can't see the glass eyed look that says "I'm lost and the compass just fell in the bay". I have to adapt content extensively and in my case I use Socratic method to make the students interact for me to assess.

I can't see that student "a" is the one sitting down to take my test and that it isn't really student "b". It's unfortunate honor is not more rampant than cheating. The issue isn't with the student it is with me. I am the only one who can bestow trust. I just prefer to give exams that require the student to reference items they've already self identified early on as opinions that instantly show if somebody is cheating. If two grade points are based on an essay with multiple check in points and substantial referencing with the instructor cheating becomes near impossible.

I can't just "wing it" as an instructor. I've got to have every lecture ready for ANYBODY to comment and review. Since everything is recorded I'm always on and know if I flub it I'm a dead duck. Some professors can't deal with that.

These are just a few of the issues. Most though can be managed but some are "just the way it is".


If we can get DL to a point where supplemental education - which is ever growing as more requirements are placed on soldier & leaders to prepare for mission sets, transition to a new type of unit, or prepare for promotion boards - then maybe we can focus quality on core educational experiences where personal interaction is best utilized.


I recently read the article from Parameters titled "The Coup of 2012". Within that paper it was discussed in depth how the military is used to cover the sins of society and "wars" on drugs, poverty, insanity all degrade the core capability of the military. Much like the military is used outside of it's core competency education is asked from the earliest levels to solve societies problems like abstinence, evolution, drugs and much more are handled politically rather than scholarly. In general over the last 100 years we've gone from "a" bachelors degree to concentrations, to vocational training, to specialization to the n'th degree. You can now get a Bachelors Degree in Computer Science in Graphical Simulation and Design (wooooooo).

Distance learning is a response to the idea that everybody should go to college. We as a society are pushing for universal college attendance. In some ways that is a great idea, but in the same vein we know that it is a doomed failure. Boosting the requirements for civics and personal responsibility along with academics in middle school would push the education further than any other action we could take. So after telling you how great distance learning is I'm going to be the first to tell you it doesn't solve all the problems. But, I'll leave you with one question (see Socratic method in action)



"Why do we send kids to school if we know that home schooled kids out perform their peers by several grades in academic achievement by a substantial margin? What is the difference?"

And, it isn't because home schooled kids are smarter. We know that IQ tests suggest home schooled kids are relatively average in intelligence just like their peers at school.

jastay3
08-25-2007, 07:25 PM
Jaystay,

Your opinion in context is welcome. This, however, is not in context ansd the opinions are nearing the offensive. I suggest you go to this thread (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/forumdisplay.php?f=33) and introduce yourself.

Regards,

Tom



Perhaps this is irregular. I am sometimes unskilled of speech and can give offense accidently but I assure everyone no offense was intended. Nontheless I am appealing to the general opinion of SWC. Was I really out of line?

RTK
08-25-2007, 11:08 PM
Perhaps this is irregular. I am sometimes unskilled of speech and can give offense accidently but I assure everyone no offense was intended. Nontheless I am appealing to the general opinion of SWC. Was I really out of line?

The more you post without appealing to the PMs of at least two moderators to introduce yourself and fill out your profile, the more out of line you are. You had best unscrew yourself quickly or you may end up here (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=375).