Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 121

Thread: Warrior Ethos

  1. #81
    Council Member reed11b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Olympia WA
    Posts
    531

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    I
    All that is idle comment -- point is; Our training is marginal. If we better trained at initial entry, Officer and Enlisted, we could eliminate a lot of this conjecture. It would be nice if in that training, we treated both as if they were more mature than they may be; people tend to rise to expectations. Do that and we will have no problem with full spectrum operations. The US Army trained for it before, successfully IMO, no reason they cannot do so again. That seems particularly so given the increased quality of troops today versus then...

    We do need to stop the excessive PCS and we need to scrap up or out. We also should stop running decent kids off for minor disciplinary infractions. Schmedlap's tour idea is good; a year is a long stint and sending units to different AOs in succeeding rotations during operations like Afghanistan and Iraq is just tactically stupid -- the modular effort is great but there's a time and place.
    Agreed, I also feel that after intial training, most training should be unit based. That "Ranger" example eluded to earlier has always steamed me a bit. Do it as a unit and you get a unit, with the sense of team spirit and cooperation only improved. Do it as individuals and individuals you will get; and individuals make poor soldiers and TEAM members. Just my sleep deprived 2 cents.

    Reed
    Quote Originally Posted by sapperfitz82 View Post
    This truly is the bike helmet generation.

  2. #82
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default

    Posted by Wilf,
    Very much the point. This is the danger in the "COIN is not Warfare" approach that suggests that "in COIN" you do X and Y, instead of emphasising WHY things are done give an particular circumstance or condition, and this dependant on judgement. You want to provide a broad set of tools and education that is as widely applicable as possible. This is impossible in a culture that has become emotionally dependant fitting warfare into separate boxes.
    Excellent post, and you identified the words I have been looking for. Ken also hit the nail on the head in another forum where he discussed the Army's training down fall when it started adapting training methods from industry, which was check the block training on each task. If you put the right hand guard on first you get a no go, if you don't tie a perfect square knot on your pressure dressing you get a no go, and of course both of the requirements were no value added, but everyone had to waste time to learn how to respond like a robot instead of a thinking person. Even Specail Forces adapted this stupid training methodology. Old timers cringed, I wasn't experienced enough at the time to see the danger in the methodology, but I see it clearly now. During that transition period, many of our officers spent more time reading and quoting the latest business books (management fads) than they spent studying war fighting. I can see how we got to the point where we couldn't transition to changing environments well over the years. Hopefully those days are long behind us.

    Posted by Reed,
    Agreed, I also feel that after intial training, most training should be unit based. That "Ranger" example eluded to earlier has always steamed me a bit. Do it as a unit and you get a unit, with the sense of team spirit and cooperation only improved. Do it as individuals and individuals you will get; and individuals make poor soldiers and TEAM members.
    Good point Reed, although I'm not sure what you do with the 50% of the unit that can't make Ranger school, but we do need more very tough unit level training. I still think JRTC and NTC are excellent training venues for units. The Army did good when they stood up these training centers. I haven't been through a rotation in recent years, so I can't speak to their effectiveness now, but it is an excellent concept.
    Last edited by Bill Moore; 06-02-2009 at 06:47 AM.

  3. #83
    Council Member Brandon Friedman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    What language? Whose customs?
    No idea. I mean, it's an important question that would have to be worked out. Fortunately, there's a lot of overlap--as in, Muslim culture has similarities from Indonesia to Morocco. Also, because we don't start new conflicts every year, we could target relevant regions for languages. For instance, we're not leaving Afghanistan or Iraq any time soon, so you could start with Arabic and the Persian languages. But it would likely have to also include a random mix of languages and customs (like Somali, Korean, Urdu, etc.)--that is, unless the Army went along with Schmedlap and started PCS'ing people every five or six years and sending units back to the same places. In that case, you could really target soldiers for regions.

    Bottom line, I don't know. It's just an idea. I just think that having half a dozen trained and qualified counterinsurgents in each platoon would alleviate a lot of this debate on "fighting" versus "COIN."

  4. #84
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brandon Friedman View Post
    By setting up a course like this, you wouldn't have to spend time training every young soldier on the tenets of COIN while he's just trying to learn how to fight and how to use the 240 and the ANCD (if we still use those).
    I think this has been what Ken has specifically argued against repeatedly. Part of learning how to use one's weapon and how to move as a member of a fire team, et cetera (all of those "skills" that are trained) is also learning how to apply those skills in different situations. In other words, you shouldn't separate training into COIN and high intensity. And, by extension, there is no need to teach "tenets of COIN" to the rifleman or the platoon leader. Just train them to apply force as a unit, how to increase or decrease as necessary, and why.

    Here's an example. When I was a platoon leader in Bosnia, we never got into a firefight. We never expected to, either. Nonetheless, when my Soldiers entered a building/room, they still took up their points of domination or otherwise arrayed themselves in a tactical manner. That way, if a situation arose, they could immediately respond. That does not mean that they did a stack before moving through a door or moved with their weapons at the low ready. Their movement was casual. I suspect that none of the Bosnians had any idea that my Soldiers were actually arrayed in a manner straight out of a CTC handbook on urban fighting. But my Soldiers did remain cognizant of where they should be at all times and what sectors they were responsible for - as opposed to some units that viewed SOSO as something distinct from "warfighting" (rather than two ends of a continuum of operations) and just kind of milled about in a gaggle wherever they went. The same principles of movement as a member of a fire team applied. The form that the movement took differed only in the tempo and level of aggression. No need for two separate sets of training - clearing a building in high intensity and clearing in low intensity. Just teach how to clear, methods of breaching, et cetera, make sure Soldiers know the "why" for all of those considerations and they can operate in Bosnia or Iraq, peacekeeping or invasion, COIN or industrial war.

  5. #85
    Council Member CPT Foley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    What language? Whose customs?
    I see your point, there are hundreds, maybe thousands of languages and cultures to choose from, and it's hard two determine where conflicts will emerge in six years. Very true. I think it's less about turning our Soldiers into cultural/language experts than to giving them enough cultural/lang. info to be more effective. I have been working on Arabic now for 5 years and am convinced I have the linguistic capabilities of a wombat. Doesn't look like I'm on the expert path. It's much easier to recruit experts than develop them. But I do think it's really worth giving our troops the culture/lang. 101 & 102. Most of our troops are very conscientious. If we let them know that learning 50 key phrases in the dominant language in their AO will make them exponentially most effective - and safer - they will embrace it. We do it now to a certain degree, but with a lack of emphasis. It's like another crummy online class we have to complete. Not something vital to our efforts.

    Not to make group members pound the table and scare their family at breakfast, but I always felt we missed a big opportunity in Iraq to leverage the huge amount of Iraqi civilian workers (tens of thousands) on our bases. It's not hard to imagine an Iraqi worker at home listening to the extended family members debating how bad Americans are, how we should help with IEDs, etc., and have the worker say, "they seem like very good people. The men at the gate always say "ahlan wa shalan" when I come. The people who work in my building always say "salaam alaikum" and "shloon alahal" when they see me. The man I work for insisted I take some sweets home for the children. When I told him Yasin was sick he gave me aspirin. He insists I take a breaks for salat. They are good people. They are here to help."

    Ok, "OIF the Musical" written by Frank Capra IV has gotta hurt your head. Especially for those used to dodging bullets. But I want to be clear. I understand we still need to kill, capture, interrogate, intimidate, use force, etc., etc., - so please don't make it a hard vs soft choice. We can do both. But I think the benefits of having our troops actively trying foster an great PR image would be a force multiplier. We are losing the IO battle to people who cut off peoples heads with dull rusty knives. But we don't have to. I realize most of our IO problems originate from the strategic level, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't maximize our opportunities at the operational level.
    Last edited by CPT Foley; 06-02-2009 at 12:02 PM.

  6. #86
    i pwnd ur ooda loop selil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Belly of the beast
    Posts
    2,112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    What language? Whose customs?
    I'd suggest Klingon, with smatterings of Romulan. Now before y'all get your backs up and protest.

    Isn't the idea to teach principles rather than specifics?

    Don't you want soldiers to be able to operate in ANY environment rather than a singular environment?

    From my perspective as a "group" military establishments have a tendency to hold to silos of knowledge with the tenacity of drowning children. Some things need behaviorist (lock-step) automaton responses. This oozing social stuff though should be taught as principles and strategies, so says the technologist who doesn't go outside very often.
    Sam Liles
    Selil Blog
    Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
    The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
    All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.

  7. #87
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,188

    Default

    Warrior ethos - the ability of an individual to subjugate his emotional and physical pain to the well being of his unit and the chain of command. We have reached a point in our social evolution that outside of SF units, this is about impossible to achieve because the rights of the individual almost equal the rights of the collective. We compensate by trying to have smart soldiers with lots of technology at their disposal.

  8. #88
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by selil View Post
    I'd suggest Klingon, with smatterings of Romulan. Now before y'all get your backs up and protest.

    Isn't the idea to teach principles rather than specifics?

    Don't you want soldiers to be able to operate in ANY environment rather than a singular environment?
    Don't forget Borg! - well 7of9 anyway.
    ...but what you say is exactly correct and the silliness of the Combined Arms boys still using Soviet threat models, speaks to this, but not in a useful way.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  9. #89
    Council Member Surferbeetle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,111

    Default SWC break...

    Quote Originally Posted by Schmedlap View Post
    Now my question is, where are those people? Where were they? If we have people tasked for the purpose of standing up a government, are they doing it? Were they trying in 2003? Were they even in theater? Are they now?

    Assuming that we have properly identified the skill sets necessary to do this, and tasked the job appropriately (at least on paper), do we have nearly enough of these people to do the task that they have purportedly been given?
    Schmedlap,

    Google Links for On Point

    link

    …and On Point II

    link

    The U.S. Army's Combat Studies Institute describes this report as the "US Army's first historical study of its campaign in Iraq in the decisive eighteen months following the overthrow of the Baathist regime in April 2003." It "examines both the high-level decisions that shaped military operations after May 2003 as well as the effects of those decisions on units and Soldiers who became responsible for conducting those operations".
    These are very large documents and I have only sampled portions of them, however this would be a starting point from an official standpoint.

    JFQ has an article on Civil Affairs manning

    From a personal standpoint, Civil Affairs needs more troops...
    Sapere Aude

  10. #90
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    You can also get the On Point series from CSI. link

    They're both PDF and a heck of a haul on anything other than DSL or something equally fast.
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

  11. #91
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default No one else does either, therefor, Congress, correctly will not fund it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brandon Friedman View Post
    No idea. I mean, it's an important question that would have to be worked out.
    There are also other problems...
    Fortunately, there's a lot of overlap--as in, Muslim culture has similarities from Indonesia to Morocco.
    If you believe the cultures of Indonesia and Morocco have much in common, you need to travel more. Afghanistan and Iraq are far more closely located and they're two totally different cultures. Plus, who says the issues will occur in Muslim areas.

    I spent 45 years training or helping others to train for a land war in Europe. Never been there but I've eaten a whole lot of rice on many occasions in several nations over a good part of those years...
    Also, because we don't start new conflicts every year, we could target relevant regions for languages. For instance, we're not leaving Afghanistan or Iraq any time soon, so you could start with Arabic and the Persian languages.
    During the Viet Nam unpleasantness, we trained people to speak Viet Namese -- then sent a lot of them to work with Montagnards who did not speak Viet Namese. I have visions of Dari speakers playing with Urdu speakers -- or Arabic speakers.
    But it would likely have to also include a random mix of languages and customs (like Somali, Korean, Urdu, etc.)
    That doesn't address the personnel turbulence issue -- US Army units typically rotate about 20-30% of strength annually, thus your Dari speaker goes on PCS to Korea. We may improve on the turbulence and we should but it will still affect your proposal.
    ...that is, unless the Army went along with Schmedlap and started PCS'ing people every five or six years and sending units back to the same places. In that case, you could really target soldiers for regions.
    That's the point -- do not target soldiers for regions, that will in any implementation fragment units. Units are very important even though the US Army due to a 1917 derived personnel system consistently refuses to recognize that. Individuals are trained to be a part of a unit; Reed and Schmedlap are right, once you get an individual trained to be a competent soldier, he or she goes to a unit and that unit trains to do its job; COIN or MCO, the differences in what that unit does are relatively minor. How well -- or poorly -- it performs is largely a function of its leadership (the collective).

    You have to train Units for their job; the effort should be toward generic training with occasional forays into specialized training for various environments. For deployment to specific areas, Training Packages, tailored to echelon (Plat/Co; Bn/Bde; Div/TF/JTF) with language and cultural stuff and structured for rapid learning are used. Those package have to offer EXTRA information and guidance for NCO leaders, for Co Officers and for senior commanders (and their vastly oversized staffs). The Packages must contain not only cultural and custom information but also should be very current politically and culturally -- that currency would not be present in a School course; I spent seven years in TRADOC and they do not do current...

    Well, not very well, anyway.
    Bottom line, I don't know. It's just an idea.
    Nothing wrong with ideas, the more the better. However, in the end, the Army has to settle on ideas that are effective (not that it always does...); training individuals for specific locations faces the difficulties of which locations and how much training coupled with when and where those individuals are assigned. The bureaucracy doesn't handle those aspects at all well. The probability is that an excessive amount of training will be given on areas an individual never sees -- or that is dated and no longer relevant.
    I just think that having half a dozen trained and qualified counterinsurgents in each platoon would alleviate a lot of this debate on "fighting" versus "COIN."
    I suggest that it would merely move that debate into the Platoon that had a half dozen 'counterinsurgents.' The Platoon should be focused as a unit on its job -- which can be performed in all spectrums of combat.

    The key to that transition ability is well trained and competent leaders. For a variety of reasons, some valid, some specious, we do not address that fact as well as we should.

    You mentioned Ranger School and the 'philosophy' of having Ranger trained folks scattered through out the Army to sort of stiffen everyone. Good theory; in practice it doesn't work. Nor does Ranger School develop superior combat leaders -- it is too short and too intense; too much important stuff has to be left out. What Ranger School does accomplish is teaching future leaders that they're tougher and can do more than they might think. That's a big plus and is applicable in any spectrum of conflict. I can see no pluses in a Counterinsurgency School that would be short, intense and leave too much out.

    OTOH, if 'counterinsurgency' techniques which are universal were simply embedded in ALL training as it was at one time...

    It ain't that hard.

  12. #92
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Zactly...

    Quote Originally Posted by selil View Post
    I'd suggest Klingon, with smatterings of Romulan. Now before y'all get your backs up and protest.

    Isn't the idea to teach principles rather than specifics?

    Don't you want soldiers to be able to operate in ANY environment rather than a singular environment?
    That sums it up rather nicely. Full spectrum simply means just that. Soldiers don't pick the environment, politics do.

    Good job. You can have Sunday off...

  13. #93
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by selil View Post
    Isn't the idea to teach principles rather than specifics?....
    From my perspective as a "group" military establishments have a tendency to hold to silos of knowledge with the tenacity of drowning children. Some things need behaviorist (lock-step) automaton responses. This oozing social stuff though should be taught as principles and strategies, so says the technologist who doesn't go outside very often.
    LOL - are you trying to completely change the worldview of TRADOC ?

    Seriously, I do agree with you that it should be taught as principles, although I'm not so sure about "strategies" (I'd need some clarification on what you mean by that in terms of training).

    One of the most effective cultural training systems was, oddly enough, the Roman system in the 2nd century and, again, in the 4th century. The vast majority of "principles" were only "taught" to the centurianate and the tribunate, but there was an extensive use of exempla - "stories" - that were used to teach the legionnaires. On the whole, both the 2nd and 4th century systems worked pretty well for their environment (the 3rd and the 5th are another matter ).

    It should be possible to modify the 2nd century version - its weaknesses are not really apropos to today's environment (mainly that it encouraged the local revolt of generals once the imperial inheritance system of the Silver Age went down the tubes). The key to that system was to valorize innovative study of specific situations and inductively derive "lessons learned". This was encouraged by the shear number of exempla, stretching back over 1000 years. The final end product of this system, at least in terms of cultural training / education, can be seen in Maurice's Strategikon.
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  14. #94
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default When is language a capability?

    The debate about language training has been ongoing in SF for years. How much time to dedicate to it, what combat training do you drop so you can conduct language training, what languages do we train on, etc.

    It should be no surprise that there are several schools of thought in SF on this important topic, but of course the guy who has the most stars on his chest tends to carry the day on what school of thought is implemented.

    A couple of thoughts on the topic that may be worth considering:

    1. During the Cold War it wasn't unusual to have SF teams (ODAs) where everyone on the team spoke the same language, whether Polish, Russian, Chinese, etc., so just in case the ballon went up and we went to war they could deploy to that locale which they studied and conduct their mission (assuming they survived infiltration). IMO no argument, language was a critical capability for this mission set. You're not going to hire interpreters in a denied area.

    2. Over the past 20 our so years (and there are still exceptions) teams general have Soldiers who speak different foreign languages. Not only does it make it tougher to manage training, but also is this really a warfighting or IW capability? If Joe speaks Urdu, and Bill speaks Korean, and John speaks Arabic, does Joe become an interpreter for the team when their in Afghanistan, or does he still focus on his main job (medic, engineer, team leader, weapons, etc.)? Or is just a guy on the team who has a relevant language for "this" mission.

    3. For conventional forces I imagine the problems will be even more challenging, and as Ken states we rarely know where we're going, and in many countries they speak more than one language. I believe has at least 12 major languages for example. Even in long drawn out wars like OIF and Vietnam, which are somewhat predictable, we don't always get it right. There was at least one unit that recently was scheduled to go to OIF, and was diverted at the 11th hour to go to OEF-A. The Cdr being proactive and someone who gets the COIN fight, sent several of his Soldiers to Arabic language training, now they're going to Afghanistan. I'm not arguing that was a waste, but dedicating time and resources to language training (except for head start type train ups) involves some degree of risk. You're giving up other training venues in exchange for language training, so it is important to weigh that risk and not blindly go down the road that everyone needs to be a linguist. Not to mention it is a perishable skill, so it is the gift that keeps on giving.

    4. For SF and for officers in general, I think it is valuable to learn a language in the training pipeline because it does make you more aware of other cultures, so there are benefits that are not necessarily tangible. If you simply realize that words represent concepts and shape the way you think, and that not everyone uses the English language, then you're one step ahead, even if you're a Korean speaker working in Afghanistan.

    No recommendations at this time, just a caution to avoid thinking that language training for the GPF will solve the majority of our FID and COIN deficiencies. It is all about finding the right balance, which means conducting realistic risk assessments.

  15. #95
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Thumbs up Good post, Bill

    SF need language capability and cultural knowledge -- and, as you say, there are several approaches on how, precisely, to do that. As you also point out, the vagaries of a change in command can undo a great deal of precision. Plans and priorities change, as do people...

    The SF Troop is the FID/ SFA expert and hopefully will get in there, do his thing and preclude the need for the GPF to have to try -- poorly -- to do SF work. If the GPF have to go in and augment the SF effort or expand it considerably, everyone should understand that they will always only do a marginal job. That will generally be adequate but only rarely will they really do it well.

    That's okay, it isn't their job. There's a very valid reason for the difference in structure, rank and specialties between an SF ODA and a Rifle Company and that means neither can really do the work of the other, their expertise and construction are designed for different things -- all of us should remember that, remember to use the right tool for the job and also remember "best is the enemy of good enough."

  16. #96
    i pwnd ur ooda loop selil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Belly of the beast
    Posts
    2,112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marct View Post
    One of the most effective cultural training systems was, oddly enough, the Roman system in the 2nd century and, again, in the 4th century. The vast majority of "principles" were only "taught" to the centurianate and the tribunate, but there was an extensive use of exempla - "stories" - that were used to teach the legionnaires. On the whole, both the 2nd and 4th century systems worked pretty well for their environment (the 3rd and the 5th are another matter ).
    Would you believe that is how I teach? I was originally exposed to the principle as an undergraduate and the linkage between "stories" and socratic method.

    When I said strategies earlier methods might have been a better word. "How to" adapt, change, meet mission requirements. Fusion rather than fission?
    Sam Liles
    Selil Blog
    Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
    The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
    All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.

  17. #97
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Hi Sam,

    Quote Originally Posted by selil View Post
    Would you believe that is how I teach? I was originally exposed to the principle as an undergraduate and the linkage between "stories" and socratic method.
    LOLOL - it's how I teach too - at least when it is possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by selil View Post
    When I said strategies earlier methods might have been a better word. "How to" adapt, change, meet mission requirements. Fusion rather than fission?
    Ah, okay. That is a really good place to use exempla, so you can show how people at different times and in different places did it, but all based around a similar principle.
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  18. #98
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marct View Post
    One of the most effective cultural training systems was, oddly enough, the Roman system in the 2nd century and, again, in the 4th century. The vast majority of "principles" were only "taught" to the centurianate and the tribunate, but there was an extensive use of exempla - "stories" - that were used to teach the legionnaires. On the whole, both the 2nd and 4th century systems worked pretty well for their environment (the 3rd and the 5th are another matter ).
    That there, my old beaver worrier, is gold dust. Excellent point and many thanks!
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  19. #99
    Council Member Umar Al-Mokhtār's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Cirenaica
    Posts
    374

    Default Actually...

    Quote Originally Posted by Brandon Friedman View Post
    If you’re not willing to do that, then you’re conceding control of American defense policy to the people like you’ve described.
    From where I sit, I have more control over Defense policy then most elected officials. Which is in a way scary.

    As to politics, with my checkered past, were I to run for high office, the press would have a field day.
    "What is best in life?" "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women."

  20. #100
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    That there, my old beaver worrier, is gold dust. Excellent point and many thanks!
    Thanks, Wilf. A fair number of the Canadian and, I would assume, British regiments had a similar system. I got it from both sides of my family .

    On another note, I'm thinking of changing my avatar.... What do you think, Wilf?
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •