We -- all the Armed forces -- used to do that,
select folks that seemed suited for a job and see how they did. If they did well, they stayed there and did that. That process worked. so we don't do that anymore... :rolleyes:
Two things happened. civilian HR practices got introduced to military personnel systems -- no matter how inappropriate they were.
Then Congress got overly involved as a result of not understanding the Armed Forces but instead deciding to listen to whining service folks and parents (as opposed to having to listen to them) and to attempt to reduce their whining workload, dictated 'fairness and equality' would rule all personnel decisions.
Thus as a result, Congress and the Personnel people have totally screwed the services by insisting that one size fits all, that all persons of like education and experience are equal in all respects and that they are thus totally interchangeable. While that is obviously incorrect and is potentially dangerous -- sooner or later, someone not suited for command is going to really screw up badly and get a lot of people killed -- they are simply refusing to do what you sensibly suggest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jcustis
as well as allow our best and brightest to stay within those field without career impairment simply because they did not get their ticket punched by one of the big three of drill field, recruiter, or MSG duty.
The Drill Field and Recruiting take particular mindsets (and I suggest anyone who excels at one job will be miserable at the other in the case of those two). So does other Instructional work, so does staying in a TOE unit and doing the job called for there, so does command or staff work. :cool:
We ignore that and opt to go for -- even force -- mediocrity and then wonder why performance today is far from stellar and why it take so long to implement change. :rolleyes:
Mediocre loves company and stays mediocre as long as it can possibly do so... :mad:
Google is ready when you are:
LINK.
The all knowing seem to constantly stumble over small things. Amazing..:wry:
The false attribution to P. Arbiter is deemed due to the fact that no one likes to credit Americans with capability for original thought. S'Okay, we're used to it and don't mind a bit... :cool: :D
Partly true. The Marauders made good copy and there was some
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
We need some more of that derring-do in the current conflicts.
derring do, no question -- but on balance, they were only marginally effective militarily and what little they did achieve was at excessive cost. I've talked to several former members and most were and are quite proud of their service but have little good to say about the efforts overall effectiveness.
Different time. While daring action occurs on a small scale and locally today, it is not broadly tolerated in the west. Those days are gone, they were killed off by the politically correct movements of the 70s and are highly unlikely to return short of a major, existential war. Risk avoidance is all too prevalent today, a societal (and thus quite difficult to reverse), not a military impact.
You need to broaden your information sources...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
Sadly it seems the same will be written about most of the forces deployed in Afghanistan.
Probably not but it today is, as I said, a different time, different even to your and my wars, much less Burma in WW II.
Quote:
So exactly is the point of going into action in Afghanistan then?
I'm the wrong guy to ask. You'll need to ask G. W. Bush who made the determination to stay there or B. H. Obama who made the decision to continue the effort there. I agreed with going and toppling the Taliban. I did not agree with staying. I do now believe we cannot leave to precipitously but neither can we stay indefinitely (which has always been true and is why I didn't and don't agree with the decision to stay...). No win situation -- it always was.
Afghan campaign (?) usefulness
I am also in favor of a punitive raid, but if we had funded and led a successful insurgency in Iraq as well (opposed to a conventional war) would those two actions have not put enormous pressure on Iran (which I contend is the true target of GWOT in SW Asia)?