Update:
For those who haven't heard, GEN Odierno extended the beer policy to everyone else in Iraq.All the Division commanders outside Baghdad weren't going to allow it, but he overrode them. As to how it will affect readiness? They're reshowing the game later in the day, to allow most others a chance to drink their 2 beers.
What amazing log leadership we have.
If getting joe some beer is really this big of a hassle, perhaps the problem is with those responsible for getting joe beer, not the policy of getting joe beer.
This truly is the bike helmet generation. I sincerely hope that officers at the lowest levels who have been degraded by such policies as no beer will pull their collective heads out and do something about it when they have the authority.
Those against this idea remind me of the major I worked for who would meekly allow some SF gaurd (that's Air Force, not green beanie) to inspect all our pax for ID cards instead of taking his word that his convoy was secure.
When I brought up that the gaurd has basically just insulted the hell out of his command and compentence, he became incensed with the policy and fired off a few hate mails. Probably to no effect. At least he is saved.
The point is that no man would allow another man to treat him this way, certainly without a great deal of bitching and kvetching. Our society has all but done away with men though, so the ranks are fairly quiet and accepting.
Hope I can remember this rant when I come into my "majority."
The society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools.
---A wise old Greek
Leadership is motivating hostile subordinates to execute a superior's wish you don't agree with given inadequate resources and insufficient time while your peers interfere.
And Schmedlap
That unit's situation is due directly to our policy of not having doctrine defenses regarding pro-wire and claymores, something I ran into over and again in that country. Beer or no (in the case of that OP, no) we are always going to be prone to massive wave assualts. And I would take a drunk E1 with a good spread of claymores over a sober one without a single protective mine any day. Not that we have to choose, I just don't care for the red herring.
The society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools.
---A wise old Greek
Leadership is motivating hostile subordinates to execute a superior's wish you don't agree with given inadequate resources and insufficient time while your peers interfere.
Not sure if that's a policy or not. Granted this was Iraq, rather than Afghanistan, but we had claymores in OIF III. Lots of 'em. I remember it vividly because 3 months after we emplaced them, we were informed that we were not permitted to do so unless the - get this - the DIVISION COMMANDER personally improved their emplacement. No kidding, I had to draw detailed sector sketches (using Microsoft Paint) of every OP, strongpoint, and our patrol base, showing the detailed position of about 40 claymores (12-digit grids to each), orientation (in degrees), where the trigger mechanism(s) would be, and give detailed orders regarding when it would be detonated, and then email this up the chain to Division. Of course, I had nothing better to do, right? We were running a 24/7 graphic design and Kinko's office in that lovely, dust-covered patrol base. This small task was nothing in comparison to submitting individual award packets for each Soldier, for each CIB and service award, in triplicate (4 or 5 times because Bde and Div kept changing the standards).Originally Posted by sapperfitz82
Thankfully, two months later, the Division Commander graciously gave his warmest blessings for the emplacements (we never recovered them while awaiting his approval). Given the detailed information that he requested about the emplacements, I expected lots of changes to be dictated. But, apparently, our judgment was flawless. He did not direct us to change a single thing - not even turning a claymore one degree to the north or shifting it 2 meters to the east - nothing. This was very encouraging and reassuring to those of us who were insecure about our tactical competence. Had we detonated them prior to receiving his approval, I'm not sure how that would have been received. Thank goodness the General did not slough off a decision of such far-reaching strategic importance onto his subordinates.
Nobody ever questioned our use of concertina or pickets. I guess they were just assuming some risk in allowing us to figure it out for ourselves.
We're not alone. As long ago as 1962 or thereabouts
the British Forces in the Borneo Confrontation had to go to London to get specific permission to fire SS-11 Missiles form RAF Helicopters...
Too much peace time is bad for Armies...
Beats the alternative, tho'
Well, maybe.
Every 45 days rated me two beers while afloat the USS Bataan in 2001. Say what you will about addictions, but those two drinks tasted like God himself sealed the can.
Baghdad, 2006: One of our units decided to mount claymores to the front of their Humvees. I think that fell in the good initiative, bad judgement category.
Please tell me that you are kidding. Nobody could be that stupid.
SFC W
And I thought I was alone in the world...
It's always nice to know there are others out there...
I just found my new signature, thank you sir!
Reed
Your major is wrong..
That security guard doesn't make up ID-checking requirements on his own. Security (to include when and how ID's are checked) come from the installation/base/whatever commander or his/her designated representative. The SF guy was just doing his job by enforcing the current security posture and he insulted no one. If anything, the major insulted the installation Commander by complaining about his/her security measures. The reason there was no reply was probably because the guy was doing his J-O-B.Those against this idea remind me of the major I worked for who would meekly allow some SF gaurd (that's Air Force, not green beanie) to inspect all our pax for ID cards instead of taking his word that his convoy was secure.
When I brought up that the gaurd has basically just insulted the hell out of his command and compentence, he became incensed with the policy and fired off a few hate mails. Probably to no effect. At least he is saved.
I've done basically the same thing. If there's some person I don't know in one of my classified briefings, I have every right, and indeed it is my duty, to ask for proof of the proper clearance, and I will ask. That's not an insult either. That's my job, and my authority to protect classified information does not get thrown away simply because someone happens to be a higher rank than me. This is often called "positional authority" and is separate from authority based on rank.
Obviously, in such cases, proper customs and courtesies must be observed and such positional authority should not be abused.
AKA the Similic generation: in memory of the enzymes that made kids tough back in the day, kept them from whining, breaking bones, and being general pansies; enzymes that are present in breast milk but were left out of the chemical makeup of manufactured formula.
Example is better than precept.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks