Chuckling over Air Guard experiences
...I had in Tennessee, my growing up home area.
I was from Nashville, back from 6 years active USAF regular service (a Captain) and joined the Tennessee Air National Guard to complete my 20, which ended up being 31 years.
My second drill...my unit was the newly formed 228th Mobil Comm. Squadron at McGee Tyson Airport, outside Knoxville, Tenneessee...remember I am commuting from my home in Nashville to new drill site in Knoxville...and then and now Tennessee is very, very parochial, East, vs. Middle, vs. West Tennessee is like three different states!
A grizzled old Lt. Colonel (who I believe has since passed away) who was very involved in East Tennessee Democratic partisan politics...at my second drill in Knoxville...tries to shake me down for a sizable donation to his cousins race for Sheriff, on the Democratic ticket, of Knox County.
I, typical hard headed Irishman that I am, answered him, remember, I then held Captain's rank earned on active duty so the Guard has not given me any rank I didn't already earn...replied: "Colonel, first I don't live here locally, I live in Davidson County, Nashville, where our Sheriff is an elected Republican. I myself am a Republican, and have no interest in any Democrat running for sherrif up here in East Tennessee...
The grizzled Air Guard Lt. Colonel pushed harder, didn't stop, so I then added: "Just to respond to you about a local election I will mail in a check for $50 to whoever the Republican nominee for Sheriff is here in Knox County. Good day!" And I walked away.
The Lt. Colonel tried in months to come to scuttle me on my next OER as a new Guard Captain. What he didn't know was that the Chief of Staff of the Tennessee Air Guard then in TN was a lifelong family friend of ours, a grizzled old Major General who was also President then of GENESCO in Nashville (General Shoe Corporation)..got that nasty OER...turned it around and attached the Lt. Colonel's own pending OER to it...sent it back to him...and said I will not sign either one until both have the same high level rating on both OERs!
How do I know this? I still knew the Air Guard Major General socially and he told me about it, and said the OER when resubmitted looked like I could walk on water!!!
Humor has it's place here.
I've seen and issued a whole bunch of lawful orders...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cavguy
I have just learned the idea did originate with the CAC CG. Not sure in what form it was presented or what the task/purpose was originally. I think like George indicated the original intent was misinterpreted/amplified/poorly executed (or all of the above) at some levels.
Happens all the time. As an old Armor Colonel once told me "If the execution is fouled up, then the guidance was wrong."
Quote:
That said, for all the hyperventilating about very little, I agree with Bob's World, Hack, Ski, and others...
Hyperventilating? Seems to me most of that came from those who saw no problem. Most of the rest of us agreed it was not much of a problem, said we wouldn't have done it or done it that way and explained why -- that why was what caused the hyperventilating, generally due to misunderstanding or misinterpreting the 'why.'
Quote:
...who pointed out this was a lawful order.
Possibly arguable but I'm not going to argue that. Let the Lawyers quibble bout that. I will comment that it was IMO, unwise and certainly poorly executed -- just as some of my own lawful orders turned out to be. :(
Just as most everyone's have been, are or will be... :wry:
Generals, in particular should know that their eyebrow raises are often misinterpreted. Your comment on the message around the circle is quite correct and appropriate.
Quote:
...and it wasn't a political rally, but an address to both houses of Congress by the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, was valid homework, and even if not we've stood in formation listening to all kinds of similar things.
Not sure anyone disputed most of that. I've certainly stood in many a formation listening to much less material bloviating.
The issue I continue to raise is that people should be careful what they say and they ought to consider how subordinates perceive their word. Little more. We all know that and we all tend to forget it all too easily. That's the only real issue in all this to me, all the rest is amplifying nonentity.
Quote:
The Republic is still safe.
I KNOW no one implied that it was not... :cool:
P.S.
Not just a US thing apparently, this just in from Australia:
Quote:
"It is absolutely imperative that the public affairs function within Defence, senior people in Defence, need to remain apolitical at all times … they cannot be part of the Government's political message. What we should report are the facts and we should not go any further than that," he said.
LINK.
I don't recall anyone asking why /this/ President
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ODB
Someone along the way in this thread mentioned nevering having heard of this being done before. Someone was questioning why now, why this President?
but I'm the one who asked if anyone had ever heard of something like this before, mostly because I had not and I've been around uniforms all my life.
Quote:
I thought for a bit, when it hit me. When in the history of this country have we face two wars and a crumbling economy all at the same time?
1940-41. Only one war but it was a little bit more of a war and it did cover two major fronts and both oceans; the economy had been in the tank -- not down; in the tank -- for over 10 years. Unemployment nationwide had gone down from over 25% but was still above 10% at the start of that of 1941 (now it's 7.6%).
1961 - no war per se but several major threats; Bay of Pigs, missiles in Cuba, lot of rumbling in Germany, Viet Nam. Economy was down, unemployment was about 7%, fairly similar to now.
Quote:
All these factors affect us in the Armed Forces, so to make it a requirement in a school environment to be discussed is the right thing.
One more time, no one has questioned that aspect so much; it's the way it was done.
Quote:
As far as staying apolitical, one cannot show support while in uniform or state ones affliation to the military. Then one would have to question politians using their son/daughter's service for political gain or any National Guard/Reservists serving in office or campaigning for office while in the Guard/Reserves.
Why?
That doesn't track. Sons and daughters have no bearing whatsoever and the rules for the Guard and Reserve are different as they should be.
Should've done some homework first
Quote:
Originally Posted by
patmc
What was so important about this speech, or this President as to warrant that order?
This was the line I was addressing.
Quote:
Ken White: 1940-41. Only one war but it was a little bit more of a war and it did cover two major fronts and both oceans; the economy had been in the tank -- not down; in the tank -- for over 10 years. Unemployment nationwide had gone down from over 25% but was still above 10% at the start of that of 1941 (now it's 7.6%).
1961 - no war per se but several major threats; Bay of Pigs, missiles in Cuba, lot of rumbling in Germany, Viet Nam. Economy was down, unemployment was about 7%, fairly similar to now.
Thought about WWII. I still wonder was it the policies prior to the war or the war that got the economy rolling again or both?
Didn't think about the 60s, didn't know the economy wasn't good then, thought that didn't hit till the 70s. Thank you for the historical perspective.
Quote:
Ken White: Why?
That doesn't track. Sons and daughters have no bearing whatsoever and the rules for the Guard and Reserve are different as they should be.
IMO it does track when said son/daughter is present in uniform along side the parents. Otherwise makes no difference to me. Understand the nature of the beast anything for an advantage, but would it be used today if there was no war? There being different rules governing the Guard/Reserves is good, but one should not be able to serve or run for office while serving in the Guard/Reserves, kind of a conflict of interest IMO.
Running for Congress while in uniform & at war
About not running for public office while serving in uniform.
The old norm, using the late US Congressman George Andrews, D, Union Springs, Alabama, as on example:
1. Andrews was Lt. jg Andrews at and when Pearl Harbor hit. He had volunteered for the Navy and as a college graduate and law school graduate the Navy put him through their 90 day commissioning program, thence to ship duty at Pearl.
2. A group of hometown folks, including my late Dad, who grew up with Andrews and was one of his best friends, formed a campaign committee, raised money, and entered Andrews name on the ballot (Alabama back then was a one party, ie, Democratic state).
3. Andrews beat all comers in the primary with over 50% of the vote and the Navy released him from active duty to enter Congress, in about 1944 or so, unsure of date, but during the WW II.
If this was acceptable then, it ought to be acceptable today, but I am unaware of such goings on today?
Pretty solid evidence that it was the war
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ODB
Thought about WWII. I still wonder was it the policies prior to the war or the war that got the economy rolling again or both?
as most of the pre war policies contributed to lengthening the depression. Those of us alive back then didn't question what made the difference.
Quote:
Didn't think about the 60s, didn't know the economy wasn't good then, thought that didn't hit till the 70s. Thank you for the historical perspective.
This is the fifth recession since the depression. First one after the war was 53-54 -- worse than any of the others so far including this one. Next on after the early 60s was 73-75 -- it was worse than this one so far. 'Nother in 80-2, not as bad as this one. Last one before now, 2001, was the mildest. There have been a few other dips that were technically recessive but those are the big five.
It's also noteworthy that there has been one after every war as the economy readjusts. That's why I'm not losing a whole lot of sleep over this one.
Quote:
...but would it be used today if there was no war?
Probably not, there'd be no advantage. I still can't follow your logic. If the son or daughter is active, they cannot do that in uniform. If they're Guard or Reserve, it's dicey and would depend on circumstance but I cannot see the link of that to the active forces being apolitical.
Quote:
There being different rules governing the Guard/Reserves is good, but one should not be able to serve or run for office while serving in the Guard/Reserves, kind of a conflict of interest IMO.
I don't think religious Clerics should be able to run for office but they do. Lately, I'm considering that Lawyers should not be able (talk about a conflict of interest...).
On the Guard and Reserve, I'm inclined to agree with you but they can, the rationale is that they are citizens first and soldiers second. It used to be that logic was reversed for the active folks. That's no longer true and I have no particular heartburn about that. I don't fully agree but it sure isn't a burning issue with me.
Still, the Guard and Reserve are different, they can run for office and do -- which is why the Guard and Reserve have so much political clout -- confirming your objection as valid...;)
There's a difference between Armed Frces that are
Quote:
Originally Posted by
George L. Singleton
About not running for public office while serving in uniform.
essentially a bunch of civilians in uniform ala WW II and a quote Professional unquote force. Your example was one of many at the end of WW II. That was then, this is now. We have not sent the whole nation to war (whether we should have is not germane, we did not), we have not seen a half million killed, a per capita rate of .00292 -- .3%.
Todays numbers are 1% of the WW II numbers, the per capita rate is .000016. It was a different time. Even your service and mine was in a different era. Remember also that most officers in WW II were, as I'm sure your example was, Reserve officers. Different rules.
Having said that, recall the Navy let John Kerry (a Reserve officer) leave early to run for office during Viet Nam and that the Army has released people to join sports teams in this war. Further realize that a number of folks who have gotten out of the services in the last few years have run for office waving their military credentials
Quote:
If this was acceptable then, it ought to be acceptable today, but I am unaware of such goings on today?
They're out there Google should find some for you. They're almost all Guard or Reserve officers except Joe Sestak.
This should clear up a lot
DOD Directive 1344.10
Quote:
This Directive applies to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Military Departments (including the Coast Guard at all times, including when it is a Service in the Department of Homeland Security by agreement with that Department), the Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Combatant Commands, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, the Defense Agencies, the DoD Field Activities, and all other organizational entities in the Department of Defense (hereafter referred to collectively as the “DoD Components”). Paragraph 4.3. applies to members of the National Guard, even when in a non-Federal status. Other provisions apply to members of the National Guard while on active duty, which, for purposes of this Directive only, also includes full-time National Guard duty.
DOD Directive 1344.10
How so? Most everyone's aware of that.
Most are more aware of the dictates of AR 600-20.
The DoD directive says nothing about this incident unless you want to count this:
Quote:
"4.1.5. Activities not expressly prohibited may be contrary to the spirit and intent of this Directive. Any activity that may be reasonably viewed as directly or indirectly associating the Department of Defense or the Department of Homeland Security (in the case of the Coast Guard) or any component of these Departments with a partisan political activity or is otherwise contrary to the spirit and intention of this Directive shall be avoided."
The issue then becomes whether anything that was done can 'reasonably be viewed as contrary...' Thus it becomes an opinion matter. I'd say it does not violate the intent of the Directive.
Which doesn't change the fact that it wasn't done well or there wouldn't be 52 comments on this thread.
What are we arguing about, anyway??? :confused:
My comments are almost always
Quote:
Originally Posted by
George L. Singleton
Thanks for your observations, which were correct in the main.
correct in the main, George. In the case of that particular comment; it's not in the main -- they were all correct. ;)
Well I certainly don't violate it! You should be ashamed.
Of course, I am retired and we do NOT want to talk about some years ago... ;)
I've always contended that if you could follow either the Chief of Staff of the Army, TJAG or the Provost Marshal General around for 24 hours and keep careful notes, you could put any of them in jail. Everybody goofs occasionally. When I was in the Marine corps, I had that down to a science, in the Army it was just a frequent occurrence... :o
I'm gonna put the coffee on for the AM and hang it up -- take care...