TRADOC ordered to watch President?

[Ron Humphrey]

what any of that means. Sorry.

Could you clarify that a little, por favor?

In relation to the concerns Schmedlap and others have brought over how wise it is to "study" implications of actions and words of politicians and the somewhat predictable fact that this would inevitably lead to a level of dissatisfaction with our masters.

They are the ones who make the important decisions which determine our nations direction at any given point. As such what they say, about what, and how carry great implications for exactly how we do our job.

The reality is as you and others have pointed out the fact that there is so much distance between where the Gen pop is and the military and in turn how thats not necessarily a bad thing. I might suggest that soldiers studying and becoming more in tune with the extent of that seperation wil

1- Perhaps lead them to become somewhat dismayed by what they percieve as a lack of recognition for what they do and why.

2- Help remind or (relearn) them why thats ok
* That we do what we do because we choose to not because we have to. And the actual goal is that of allowing others to be able to live without having to worry about what we do.

So the fact that the nation is not at war "with" us is OK in some ways because it means their still able to choose what they will to be concerned about or what they want to be a part of. Part of the reason they hold the military in such regard is because thats what it provides them.

To tie this back into the study discussion. It is guaranteed that regardless which political party is in charge at any given point, there will be those who fail to consider the long term implications of their words or actions because their more concerned with how their support base percieves them. That is also ok (in the grander scheme) but it does come with costs, quite possibly lives. When your defenders watch it happen and then tend to get frustrated with it it will of course cause some signifigant change in how they interact with those politicians.

The key to why this type of awareness through study is beneficial might be found in its ability to shape future military leaders on how to more effectively interact with those individuals in ways that can actually help at least cut down on the times when local and international politics conflict.

Not sure thats any clearer but I tried

[Ken White]

In relation to the concerns Schmedlap and others have brought over how wise it is to "study" implications of actions and words of politicians...

I don't think he, I or anyone else has said that such study is not a good idea; the issues, I thought, were whether and more importantly how that could or should be be encouraged; that and the ever popular 'apolitical' military argument.

and the somewhat predictable fact that this would inevitably lead to a level of dissatisfaction with our masters.

My observation over many years has been that the majority of people in uniform of all ranks are continually, constantly and always dissatisfied with their civilian masters -- but that such dissatisfaction does not preclude them from doing their job nor does it pose the slightest danger to the nation. I'll also note that the degree of dissatisfaction is directly attributable to the political / ideological affinity or lack thereof between the individual service member and the government of the day -- even if they're attuned, there will still be some dissatisfaction. In particular, see Congress, US.

...I might suggest that soldiers studying and becoming more in tune with the extent of that seperation wil

1- Perhaps lead them to become somewhat dismayed by what they percieve as a lack of recognition for what they do and why.

2- Help remind or (relearn) them why thats ok
* That we do what we do because we choose to not because we have to. And the actual goal is that of allowing others to be able to live without having to worry about what we do.

Well, yes. I don't see that as a problem. There are now and always have been -- probably always will be -- a few malcontents who can't accept or intensely dislike that but the majority in my view have been and are cool with it.

...When your defenders watch it happen and then tend to get frustrated with it it will of course cause some signifigant change in how they interact with those politicians.

Possible I suppose but in my observation over time it's made little difference. The problem is not the military folks -- the guys at JCS level are quite politically attuned, they have to be -- the problem you cite is the Political class and their egos and that has been true and has not changed in my lifetime. They are in charge and they are prone to reject advice, no matter how good, they don't want to hear. See Viet Nam, support of and Iraq, Invasion of...

ADDED: { I should mention Eisenhower as an exception. For Viet Nam, early on, John Foster Dulles SecState wanted to send troops and about half the advisers agreed. Bradley, the CJCS was ambivalent on the issue -- enough so that Eisenhower asked the CofStaff Army, Ridgeway, what he thought -- Ridgeway was adamant that no troops be sent and Eisnhower so ruled. That proves that even the senior military folks can be divided and/or give bad advice and that some politicians do listen. Occasionally. }

The key to why this type of awareness through study is beneficial might be found in its ability to shape future military leaders on how to more effectively interact with those individuals in ways that can actually help at least cut down on the times when local and international politics conflict.

Again, I don't think anyone questions that potential. The problems I have seen in that are fall far more on the civilian than the military side. Again, egos.

Not sure thats any clearer but I tried

It helped; thank you...