SMALL WARS COUNCIL
Go Back   Small Wars Council > The Small Wars Community of Interest > The Whole News

The Whole News Post and debate the news; good, bad and ugly. News ignored by the mainstream media especially welcomed here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-02-2008   #21
wm
Council Member
 
wm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: On the Lunatic Fringe
Posts: 1,237
Default Hot Off the Presses

from the local community newspaper that serves the area around West Point

Quote:
Campbell and three Army teammates ó fullback Mike Viti, punter/kicker Owen Tolson and wide receiver Jeremy Trimble ó are the first football players to take advantage of the policy.

"This is a way of serving your country," said Viti, one of four regiment commanders among Army's 4,000 cadets.

"I think a lot of people had the misconception that if you're not getting bullets slung by your head, you're not serving your nation in a time of war."
wm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2008   #22
Tom Odom
Council Member
 
Tom Odom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: DeRidder LA
Posts: 3,949
Default

Quote:
"I find it, in some ways, motivating to make sure I make the team."
I bet he does...
Tom Odom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2008   #23
selil
i pwnd ur ooda loop
 
selil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Belly of the beast
Posts: 2,112
Default

I had it pointed out to me by a couple of acaddemy representatives yesterday that I was in error. Seems my post on SWC got me some attention. The Navy I was told is not nor will they be doing this with accademy graduates, and the Air Force doesn't have that good of football players. Well that is what Navy said. The Air Force representative quoted Fisher DeBerry saying their job is to make Air Force officers not NFL players. Yeah I know DeBerry left in 2006, but I thought the sentiment was in the right place. I have not verified any facts as to either sides case.
__________________
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.
selil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2008   #24
RTK
Council Member
 
RTK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Wherever my stuff is
Posts: 823
Default

He got picked up by the Detroit Lions in the 7th Round.

Meanwhile his peers will be visiting me and other TRADOC establishments this summer getting ready to lead real Soldiers into armed combat with people trying to kill them.

IF he makes it through training camp without getting cut, I hope he can live with himself when his first classmate is mourned at West Point after giving their life for their country. This guy has zero credibility, zero personification of the Army Values, and exemplifies everything that is wrong with officer selection right now.

If I have a young hotshot E5 who is good at baseball and goes up to the Braves open tryouts next year and makes it, is he going to get out of his contract? I doubt it. And that's wrong.

If he gets hurt and has to come to the force, he'd better not be my ADA officer. He'd get cut from my team.
__________________
Example is better than precept.
RTK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2008   #25
SWJED
Small Wars Journal
 
SWJED's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Largo, Florida
Posts: 3,988
Default Out of the mouth of babes...

Quote:
Originally Posted by wm View Post
"This is a way of serving your country," said Viti, one of four regiment commanders among Army's 4,000 cadets.

"I think a lot of people had the misconception that if you're not getting bullets slung by your head, you're not serving your nation in a time of war."
... horse s***.

And of course they are getting 0-1 pay and the difference over that payed by the NFL is going to the Army? Right? Right?
__________________
Small Wars Journal

Last edited by SWJED; 05-03-2008 at 11:13 PM.
SWJED is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2008   #26
Ron Humphrey
Council Member
 
Ron Humphrey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,099
Question To me

There may be some confusion on why this would be a good or bad program plan overall. If there where someone who is a biiig fan of military service and who wanted to join but already had a very large persona from a professional career then great they will be more effective as a recruiting rep, etc.

But allowing those who happen to be good enough to "skip" out on their real obligations after already reaping the benefits of enlistment will continue to result in exactly what we see here. This discussion has pointedly brought out what the perception is and that is the reality when it comes to anyone who will come in contact with that person as a recruiter.

Now if the institutes were to allow those who achieve this sort of thing to "buy" their way out through a combination of service Recuiting videos, and an equivalent of reimbursement for whatever the military would have spent in fair market pricing I think there might not be as large a stigma. Don't know but might be something to consider. At least to me that would seem to follow with looking to what the individuals skillsets are that help most to facilitate successful operations.

Thought's
__________________
Quote:
Any man can destroy that which is around him, The rare man is he who can find beauty even in the darkest hours

Cogitationis poenam nemo patitur
Ron Humphrey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2008   #27
RTK
Council Member
 
RTK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Wherever my stuff is
Posts: 823
Default

Ron,

Here's my point. Pat Tillman set aside a very successful NFL career to fight for his country. This cat went to West Point over a year after we entered entered Iraq and almost 3 years after September 11th. He knew what the cost was when he entered service. It's time to pay up and he found a loophole which got Uncle Sam to pay for his four years of college.

Here's a stipulation they should put on this policy: No cadet will be allowed to go pro unless their team has a winning record over the course of their career.

Guess that would count the West Point football crowd out.
__________________
Example is better than precept.
RTK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2008   #28
patmc
Council Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ
Posts: 175
Default water

Half the grads are getting out at the end of their ADSO. Now cadets are getting out before they even start? What's in the water up there?

Letting someone take the easy way out because they are an athlete is the worst possible message. If you had a cadet that is going to cure cancer, ok, let him or her go do that. Otherwise, you are telling every Army cadet or candidate, regardless of source, that they are a sucker since they're following through with their committment and word. Being a 2LT "recruiter" helps the Army more than being a PL? Yeah right.

We also read that NFL is as much stress as Iraq or Afghanistan quote and did a collective, "not appropriate for print."
patmc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2008   #29
slapout9
Council Member
 
slapout9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,808
Default

Anybody remember Roger Staubach? The winning QB for the Dallas Cowboys who went to the Naval Academy. He completed his Navy commitment and THEN went PRO. Why should the Army be any different?
slapout9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2008   #30
Jedburgh
Council Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,097
Default

In contrast to USMA, here's a similar situation dealt with by the Naval Academy....

WP, 12 Jun 08: Draft Pick Must Serve 5-Year Active Duty
Quote:
A Navy graduate drafted last week by the Cardinals was denied a bid to play ball yesterday and ordered to report for duty.

Mitch Harris, a newly commissioned ensign, must serve a five-year active duty commitment, Navy Secretary Donald C. Winter ruled.

"He will report to his ship as ordered," said Cmdr. Jeff Davis, a Navy spokesman.....
Jedburgh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2008   #31
Granite_State
Council Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Green Mountains
Posts: 356
Default Update

Looks like DoD has reversed the previous policy and 2LT Campbell is back on active duty:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200....ap/index.html
Granite_State is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2008   #32
Tom Odom
Council Member
 
Tom Odom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: DeRidder LA
Posts: 3,949
Default

Quote:
"I think a lot of people had the misconception that if you're not getting bullets slung by your head, you're not serving your nation in a time of war."
Guess he was right--a lot of folks do including the DoD.
Tom Odom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2008   #33
jkm_101_fso
Council Member
 
jkm_101_fso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kabul
Posts: 325
Default Unfortunate Policy Change for 2LT Campbell

I maybe in the slim majority that is unhappy that 2LT Campbell won't be playing Free Safety for the Detroit Lions this year. I've read most of the posts on this from all of you (although I vehemently disagree with some) and it seems that we must consider this reversal of policy in terms of logic:

Apparently, 2LT Campbell is too valuable as a PL (ADA) to release to the NFL and recruit for Army football. Grounds for the decision:

*He went to West Point knowing of the military obligation and service requirement, in a time of war. He should fulfill his commitment.
*The taxpayers footed the bill for his education; not to play football, but to serve.

I SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING WITH UTTER FACETIOUSNESS:

If this is the logic for the decision, then in fairness, the following programs must be abolished, IOT "get these Soldiers in the fight", because they enlisted or were commissioned into the Army to fight wars, not do ďother non-essential activitiesĒ at the expense of the taxpayer:

-Golden Knights Parachute Team
-Army Marksmanship Team (who routinely sends shooters to the Olympics)
-Army Athlete Program (also sends Soldiers to the Olympics)

There is also another solution. Do away with competitive sports teams at West Point. Then we donít have to have this discussion. The Cadets arenít there to play games; they are there to learn and prepare to lead troops. Or, one could say that if USMA doesnít want to put (quality) athletes on the field with potentially professional talent, then why put a team on the field at all? Either do it well, or donít do it at all, right?

Can you see where this could go?

****FACETIOUSNESS CONCLUDED*******

Iím not jealous of Caleb Campbell because he has a talent that I donít. It doesnít make me angry that he can play professional football and not have to serve in combat, just like me and so many others. It doesnít upset me that he could make millions of dollars playing a pro sport and just ďdo some recruiting for USMA in the off-seasonĒ, even though he took the same oath I did. I donít have any animosity for the guy at all. I happen to believe that West Pointís Division I competitive sports programs are a great thing, and anything they can do to improve them into habitually victorious organizations should be done; to include recruiting ballplayers with professional potential; and letting them serve as a reservist to recruit other superior athletes to USMA in their respective off-seasons. What a phenomenal recruiting tool and morale booster that would be! Itís incredibly unfortunate this is not the case, dooming West Point football to mediocrity until the policy is once again re-instated.

Sometimes the level of martyrdom on this forum is amazing. Not just with this thread, but others as well. Remember this one? http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=5611
__________________
Quote:
Sir, what the hell are we doing?
jkm_101_fso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2008   #34
Ken White
Council Member
 
Ken White's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 8,060
Default I think there's more to it than logic...

Quote:
"Can you see where this could go?"
Sure can. It can lead one to make this sort of statement:
Quote:
"Sometimes the level of martyrdom on this forum is amazing."
Which may be logical but I suspect misses the emotional and psychological aspects by a great distance.

Logically, no one would ever go to war; it is undoubtedly one of the most stupid if not the most stupid of human endeavors. Logically, no one would ever want to be a soldier, it's entirely too risky -- yet people do want to be and are Soldiers. Why is that?

War transcends logic.
Ken White is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2008   #35
Tom Odom
Council Member
 
Tom Odom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: DeRidder LA
Posts: 3,949
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jkm_101_fso View Post

If this is the logic for the decision, then in fairness, the following programs must be abolished, IOT "get these Soldiers in the fight", because they enlisted or were commissioned into the Army to fight wars, not do ďother non-essential activitiesĒ at the expense of the taxpayer:

-Golden Knights Parachute Team
-Army Marksmanship Team (who routinely sends shooters to the Olympics)
-Army Athlete Program (also sends Soldiers to the Olympics)
That would be about the only thing in your post I agree with. I believe that taking the King's coin means serving in the field. That does not mean recruiting to fill football teams at the Point or slots in the Golden Kinights--many of whom in the 70s I knew and jumped with. Some of the Knights then were recruited and became instant corporals after basic so they could try out. As for the marksmanship unit, it has in the past done good work. But in the current environment, I fail to see the need for a pellet pistol champion.

In the case of the LT in question, I would not criticize him as an officer had he not opened his mouth first. That aside, I would criticize the priorities of the Academy and the Army that said he could side step his obligation.

If that is what you call martyrdom, then I am a martyr and a taxpayer.

Tom

Reference the other post, well that was started by someone essentially using the forum as a lab.
Tom Odom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2008   #36
Jedburgh
Council Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,097
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jkm_101_fso
Sometimes the level of martyrdom on this forum is amazing.
Martyrdom? Just my perception, but I viewed the issues brought out in both threads as more along the lines of personal integrity and operational ethics as opposed to entitlement and what's in it for me attitudes.
Jedburgh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2008   #37
jkm_101_fso
Council Member
 
jkm_101_fso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kabul
Posts: 325
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Odom View Post
In the case of the LT in question, I would not criticize him as an officer had he not opened his mouth first. That aside, I would criticize the priorities of the Academy and the Army that said he could side step his obligation.

If that is what you call martyrdom, then I am a martyr and a taxpayer.

You and I both know the level of media coverage he's recieved would eventually lead to him saying something "questionable" (he's 21 years old), resulting in criticism from those in the peanut gallery. I'm sure that his intentions were good regarding any quote he made that you found unfavorable or controversial.


I don't consider anyone a martyr in this case, unless your stance is "well, I had to serve in war and in the field, so should he". IMO, that viewpoint is immature and is a result of jealousy and anger, not actual reasoning...not to mention a failure to see the big picture beyond one's self.
__________________
Quote:
Sir, what the hell are we doing?
jkm_101_fso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2008   #38
Tom Odom
Council Member
 
Tom Odom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: DeRidder LA
Posts: 3,949
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jkm_101_fso View Post
You and I both know the level of media coverage he's recieved would eventually lead to him saying something "questionable" (he's 21 years old), resulting in criticism from those in the peanut gallery. I'm sure that his intentions were good regarding any quote he made that you found unfavorable or controversial.
He is 21 years of age and old enough to swear his oath as an officer. As for his intentions, his actions speak much louder.


Quote:
I don't consider anyone a martyr in this case, unless your stance is "well, I had to serve in war and in the field, so should he".
Interesting that you say that as you brought up the term. My stance is as I stated: you take the King's coin, you serve. I did not have to serve in a war; I did so as a volunteer who trained to do so as part of my job.

Quote:
IMO, that viewpoint is immature and is a result of jealousy and anger, not actual reasoning...not to mention a failure to see the big picture beyond one's self.
You are welcome to your opinion. I am neither jealous nor angry at the Lieutenant. He is a disappointment. You seem to equate the big picture with West Point football. I would say the issue is larger than that; apparently DoD thought so, too.

Tom
Tom Odom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2008   #39
jkm_101_fso
Council Member
 
jkm_101_fso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kabul
Posts: 325
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Odom View Post
You are welcome to your opinion. I am neither jealous nor angry at the Lieutenant. He is a disappointment. You seem to equate the big picture with West Point football. I would say the issue is larger than that; apparently DoD thought so, too.
I don't see how he is a disappointment...what do you mean? Because he agreed to the now-defunct policy of letting him play?

I think the big picture, at least initially, was West Point Football. The original policy (letting him play in the NFL) was designed to attract more quality players to USMA, thus resulting in the program becoming more successful. The policy was reversed, which means at some point, someone "in charge" thought it was a good idea. Apparently they were "trumped" by either a non-football fan or someone who was sick of hearing the collective whining from the force about 2LT Campbell's unique opportunity.
__________________
Quote:
Sir, what the hell are we doing?
jkm_101_fso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2008   #40
Tom Odom
Council Member
 
Tom Odom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: DeRidder LA
Posts: 3,949
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jkm_101_fso View Post
I don't see how he is a disappointment...what do you mean? Because he agreed to the now-defunct policy of letting him play?

I think the big picture, at least initially, was West Point Football. The original policy (letting him play in the NFL) was designed to attract more quality players to USMA, thus resulting in the program becoming more successful. The policy was reversed, which means at some point, someone "in charge" thought it was a good idea. Apparently they were "trumped" by either a non-football fan or someone who was sick of hearing the collective whining from the force about 2LT Campbell's unique opportunity.
Again all your opinion and that's ok. As for disappointment, an officer that takes an oath during wartime who feels playing football is more important than service fits that bill. I would say the same thing applies to those who framed the policy. DoD does in fact trump Army; whether it was a non-football fan or reaction to comments from the field is debatable.

We will have to disagree that West Point football is "Big Picture".

Finally I would also suggest you avoid the use of "whining" when dismissing other's opinions.

Tom
Tom Odom is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9. ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Registered Users are solely responsible for their messages.
Operated by, and site design © 2005-2009, Small Wars Foundation