Page 9 of 19 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 361

Thread: Officer Retention

  1. #161
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    A bit of a shifting of gears, but this is recently in regarding the "weight" of a advisory tour compared to serving in an operational billet:

    ALMAR 046/07
    MSGID/GENADMIN/USMTF 2007/CMC WASHINGTON DC MM//
    SUBJ/QUALIFICATIONS OF SERVICE AS TRANSITION TEAM MEMBER OR
    /AS JOINT INDIVIDUAL AUGMENTS IN SUPPORT OF GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR//
    POC/W.J. MCWATERS/MAJ/UNIT:HD MMPR-1/-/TEL:278-9703//
    GENTEXT/REMARKS/1. CONCERNS OVER COMPETITIVENESS FOR PROMOTION BY
    MARINES SERVING IN NON-TRADITIONAL OPERATIONAL BILLETS HAS INCREASED
    WITH THE EXPANDING REQUIREMENTS FOR TRANSITION TEAM MEMBERS AND
    INDIVIDUAL AUGMENTS SUPPORTING JOINT/EXTERNAL OPERATIONS. PROMOTION
    BOARD MEMBERS RECOGNIZE THAT MARINES ON TRANSITION TEAMS AND
    INDIVIDUAL AUGMENTS SERVE IN BILLETS OF VITAL INTEREST TO OUR WAR
    EFFORT, AND THAT MARINES ARE FILLING THESE BILLETS IN LIEU OF KEY
    OPERATIONAL BILLETS WITHIN THEIR MOS TRADITIONALLY COVETED FOR
    CAREER PROGRESSION AND COMPETITIVENESS TOWARDS PROMOTION.
    2. FY08 ENLISTED AND FY09 OFFICER PROMOTION BOARD PRECEPTS NOW
    INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE TO EMPHASIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF
    SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF TRANSITION TEAMS OR JOINT INDIVIDUAL
    AUGMENTS: "THE WAR ON TERRORISM HAS SEEN THE GROWTH OF BILLETS
    TRADITIONALLY NOT FILLED BY MARINE OFFICERS (STAFF NONCOMMISSIONED
    OFFICERS FOR ENLISTED BOARDS). OFFICERS (SNCOS) ASSIGNED TO NATION
    BUILDING AND CRISIS OPERATIONS BILLETS ARE CRITICAL TO THE SUCCESS
    OF OUR COUNTRY'S POLICIES. THE BOARD SHOULD BE ESPECIALLY DILIGENT
    IN WEIGHING THE QUALIFICATIONS OF OFFICERS (SNCOS) SERVING IN
    TRANSITION TEAMS (TT) AND JOINT INDIVIDUAL AUGMENTATION (IA)
    BILLETS. SERVICE IN THESE CRITICAL BILLETS SHOULD WEIGH EQUAL TO
    TRADITIONAL MARINE CORPS OFFICER (SNCO) BILLETS IN THE OPERATIONAL
    FORCES SUPPORTING THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM DURING BOARD
    DELIBERATIONS."
    3. THIS POLICY WILL CONTINUE FOR SUBSEQUENT USMC AND USMCR
    PROMOTION SELECTION BOARDS. THE CORPS MUST CONTINUE TO SEND ITS
    BEST AND BRIGHTEST TO FILL THESE CRITICAL BILLETS.
    4. COMMANDERS ARE DIRECTED TO DISSEMINATE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED
    IN THIS ALMAR TO ALL MARINES UNDER THEIR COMMAND.
    5. SEMPER FIDELIS, JAMES T. CONWAY, GENERAL, U.S. MARINE CORPS,
    COMMANDANT OF THE MARINE CORPS.//
    That's nice to see. Does it mean that more bright and talented folks will volunteer or at least go gladly to these types of jobs? Time will tell.

  2. #162
    Council Member Rob Thornton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fort Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    1,510

    Default

    Hi Maggie,
    I'm glad you took an interest in this from the perspective you offer. I'll try and answer a few of these.

    How do us civilians get the chance to help support/mainstream (?, peculiar choice of words, given the usage in other fields)/or in general treat the military families as what they are, a part of our society, when for the vast majority of us "the military" is an abstract hidden away on a base few of us can even visit?
    In most cases civilians can access military posts if they desire to do so - its generally a process of registering at the gate and getting a 24 hour pass. In the larger scale of things you get folks who like to live on and some who like to live off post/base - depends on how they view the housing, on post housing availability, and perhaps a desire to invest in real estate ( I have some friends who buy a house every post they go then try and rent them out.) My wife likes to live on post - this is in part due to the challenges of PCSing every so often and getting integrated so she (and our family of 4 children) can resume a more normal life as quickly as possible. You don't always get to pick when you PCS - it comes with the orders which are generated based off of circumstances derived from Army requirements. There often is no time for the military spouse to help the family get integrated - particularly now - units have only one speed right now - wide open. The spouse checks in to his new unit and might be deployed, sent TDY or involved in field training within 5-10 days - leaders are expected to suck it up - comes with the territory. The families are also wide open - by living on post some of that is mitigated because there are generally at least a few families who are already plugged in and willing to help out - they've been there, so they understand.

    Try and remember that civilian families often have the same or similar stresses that military families do--even in wartime. There are civilian employees of many companies in the ME, for instance. Or even closer to home--my dad worked for a utility company and was sent, more than once, to work on construction at other plants away from home. A brother in law moved his family three times for an employer because jobs are tight in his field. Families of police and firefighters never know if their loved ones are going to come home each day. They die even when there's no war on. Coming home is not a given for anyone, comes to that. Traffic accidents claim over 50,000 civilians each year. A sister-in-law was killed in one four months after the wedding--an innocent bystander in a high speed police chase.
    There are differences here - but I'll have to address why on a case by case basis. First, I have several friends and family members working as contractors in the ME - they are compensated much differently, can quit if they choose, and live under different rules and conditions. From my perspective - this is very different.

    Yes civilian families do have to move to find work - my wife's father had to - they moved often - she hated it, and it caused stress - but they were generally together, not separate.

    My own father is a retired police officer - 25 years with Nashville Metro PD - lots of that spent as a patrol officer - lots of danger there - but he'll tell you his line of work and mine are different - he would come home at the end of his shift, sleep in his bed, touch base - he had long hours - often spending almost a second shift in court- add in the 2nd job he kept to pay for things and did not see him nearly as much as I'd have liked - it eventually cost him his marriage. Police Officers, Firemen and other public servants are also not compensated justly.

    Yes civilians do get killed here - driving in today's traffic with the way people abuse drugs, get consumed with their own world and an overall lack of common courtesy makes for a bad time - but when I get on 495, nobody is shooting at me, has an IED laid out in an ambush, is willing to drive a vehicle filled with explosive into me, etc. Also if the people do get in an accident, its unlikely that there is an RPG ambush waiting and that if they are taken captive they will get their heads cut off. It gives a whole new twist to the way you drive. Generally when people shoot at you or trigger and IED on you - its because you were the intended target.

    All of these things happen in very compressed times with military families (in some cases all at once). When you get one, the current (since 2003) and quite possibly long term conditions in the world will require these families to line up and do it again, and again, and again - until either the military spouse gets out, retires, is killed, or the world becomes peaceful.

    I'm not trying to be trite, but this is our perspective on how the world works. If you ask a small percentage of the population and their families to take on these circumstances for more then just a one time shot - or if we desire to build and sustain a professional military that is the best at what is does, takes the oath to defend the constitution and is willing to go where and when asked for the long term - its different then what we asked prior to 9/11.

    Even within the military there are different standards of "quality of life" -or at least the perception of it - there are lots of people that might be willing to do some jobs, but not others - I know of no other job that suffers more at peace and at war then the rifleman in the ground services (or someone re-tasked to that job), but who in this war is the most critical in the aggregate - just one of many jobs where we need the best and brightest.


    Yes, it's different being a soldier. But the solution is not to further isolate the military and refuse possible ways of building understanding between the military and the rest of us by stating that integration of military families within civilian society is bad for the families because we can't understand at all what military families go through.
    I whole-heartedly agree with this - and we don't want to isolate ourselves by living within the military posts - its just the way we mitigate the effects of our profession on those we love. We try and engage the public where ever possible to promote understanding and keep the public informed on the issues which effect us all - in fact this is one of the reasons I write on this site. We cannot exist as a professional volunteer force without public support - we want the brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, fathers and mothers to take pride in their nation's military and support us in recruiting, funding, inter-action - we are your military. The issues of integration and segregation between the American general public and its military are probably expected given the nature of a professional, all volunteer military that has been at war for awhile and will probably remain so for some time to come. There is blame to go around for all.

    Attracting and retaining the best people and the support of their families will remain a challenge - particularly when they have proven what a value they can be to any organization they decide to work within, have amazing self-confidence, and are openly courted by outside organizations. They see the incredible stress placed on their families and can offer no clear rational to them as to why they should stay when there are clear options which starkly contrast with their current quality of life, their absence and the constant circle of worry that spouses and children must undergo - with no end in sight. Within our community now - members, spouse and children all know lots of service members killed or severely wounded and the wives and children devastated by those deaths and wounds. For as big as the military is - its really a small community - we've gotten to know death better then we ever thought we would pre-9/11. Its weird - you know what you are signing on to do, you know that armies go to war, your told early on in your career by older vets who went to war "to look around the room - some of you will be killed while you serve", but you really cannot fathom it - and neither can your families - until the first or second friend or acquaintance is killed, then you start to understand what war costs - you can put a face on it. My own wife told me its like the soldier's wife and family dies too because they are removed from that military family - move back home (wherever that might be) and start over. Our spouses are strong but they all live in fear of that image of somebody showing up in a Class A uniform, and feel guilty when the car drives on - my wife told me a story about how her and what I called the bus-stop gang (the moms coffee clutch who put their kids on the bus in base housing) noticed 2 officers in class As trying to find a house in the neighborhood - and the range of emotions that they went through as the 2 men eventually drove to a street over. The last emotion - the one following rage, anxiety, fear, and relief was embarrassment - how dare they thought that they should think for one minute those men might be coming to tell them their husband or the friend of a husband might have been killed. Since the war began - scenes like this play out wherever there are deployed soldiers & sailors, airmen and sailors serving in OIF/OEF - this is a daily occurrence not in response to an event - just daily life - the scale has a quality unlike anything else. There are few jobs that require families to cope with that day in and day out while the media covers every second of it and adds to the stress.

    I just wanted you to know how our perspectives are shaped. Glad your on the SWC.

    Best Regards, Rob
    Last edited by Rob Thornton; 11-02-2007 at 02:31 AM. Reason: added something I remembered my wife writing me

  3. #163
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Thornton View Post
    I whole-heartedly agree with this - and we don't want to isolate ourselves by living within the military posts - its just the way we mitigate the effects of our profession on those we love. We try and engage the public where ever possible to promote understanding and keep the public informed on the issues which effect us all - in fact this is one of the reasons I write on this site. We cannot exist as a professional volunteer force without public support - we want the brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, fathers and mothers to take pride in their nation's military and support us in recruiting, funding, inter-action - we are your military. The issues of integration and segregation between the American general public and its military are probably expected given the nature of a professional, all volunteer military that has been at war for awhile and will probably remain so for some time to come. There is blame to go around for all.
    Best Regards, Rob
    Rob, isn't there that much more strain on military families when they have to send their kids to non-DoD schools and access non-Dod services? One of our members a week or two ago mentioned that his daughter found herself more or less on the "outside" in a non-Dod school because the kids there just can't relate to what her family's way of life is like. De facto isolation of military families from mainstream society is just a fact of life that, apart from the periodic media story, that society as a whole has little way or incentive to relate to military families. I bring this up not to be a contrarian, but to say that, practically speaking, how can military families "make it" without effectively being separate to a real, tangible degree, from mainstream society?

    Government cuts to military personnel benefits and to miltary family services force said to seek the same in the mainstream, and military families have to deal with people that just don't understand where they're coming from, and often don't have the money to pay for the same benefits that they used to receive as part of taking "The Queens' Guinea".

    In the English-speaking world, mainstream society has little way or even incentive to relate to the special problems of military (or for that matter LE/ES) families. How can they relate to what such families have to face? Why would they even want to? Traditionally, mainstream society has looked down upon the military, and largely ignored them. Military families of course, as a matter of sanity and survival, banded together and tried to look out for each other.

    The sorts of benefits and services that the Government started to give troops and their families in the decades after WWII raised most of them out of real poverty; the reduction or elimination of these benefits and services makes a real difference to those same families. Cut the benefits and the services, send the kids to schools where they are treated as outsiders by teachers and students alike, and force them to seek and pay for services outside of the military, and it's no wonder so many troops find they have to get out. And the only way to keep such people is by restoring these benefits and services and some day bringing (in the future) overseas deployments down.

    But practically speaking, I don't see how it really helps military families any to be integrated, as if that were actually possible, within the mainstream. Their circumstances, and the tendencies towards indifference to those circumstances by civilians, just naturally lead to military families grouping together and separating themselves to a noticeable degree from that mainstream. I just don't see how it works out any other way in practice for most military families.
    Last edited by Norfolk; 11-02-2007 at 01:39 AM.

  4. #164
    Council Member Rob Thornton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fort Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    1,510

    Default

    Rob, isn't there that much more strain on military families when they have to send their kids to non-DoD schools and access non-Dod services? One of our members a week or two ago mentioned that his daughter found herself more or less on the "outside" in a non-Dod school because the kids there just can't relate to what her family's way of life is like
    There was strain on my kids - the member was me - part of it is the rip em up and put em back down, followed by rip em up and put em back down we're currently going through - we're about done though (with regards to the current 8 month enroute odyssey we are on - one more rip em up and hopefully I can put em down for a good 2 1/2 to 3 years in a DoDs school at LVN. I think they'll be OK - kids are pretty resilient - but I plan on a more permanent arrangement down the road - its pretty important to my wife and me that the kids spend their teen years in the same school - pretty critical & formative time in their lives, and as such will reflect a change in our priorities - I mean, if we can't afford our kids the best opportunities for a future we're probably missing the broader point of life - but that is a personal opinion.

    I do know some military parents who have put their kids in private schools (yea it cost them plenty, but they were willing to pay for the peace of mind) and good public schools off post and had good things to say about them - but this was back when things were different - back before 2003.

    The broader point you make though is one I believe to be very valid. DoD schools make a positive difference to the educational and emotional health of those children whose parents are in a cycle of deployments - this is because having the services and people around who know what to expect and are watching for it makes a difference. Because their is greater interaction with the military parents and base leadership these teachers, counselors and school administrators become part of the military culture vs. having to have the kids adjust to people who may not understand the issues which effect our kids. This allows the deployed soldier some peace of mind on multiple levels - he/she knows his kids are better off, and he/she knows the stress on the spouse is less for similar reasons.

    Best regards, Rob

    Checking into the Army Covenant framework today - I think the Army Leadership understands and is committed to addressing some of the shortfalls we've let slip with regard to military quality of life issues like DoDS, etc. I think it was you who mentioned earlier that the these are not new things - these are things the military used to have, but fell away as political leadership cashed in on a "peace dividend". In some ways its like fore structure size - too often we take things for granted because we don't understand their value, the cost it takes to grow them or the rational for why they were put in place in the first place (Ken is a great American who has seen us go through this painful cycle many, many times who will also tell you in the aggregate policy level we just don't wise up - we just assume we don't need it anymore - when we do, we start looking around for somebody to blame.
    Last edited by Rob Thornton; 11-02-2007 at 02:26 AM.

  5. #165
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    The broader point you make though is one I believe to be very valid. DoD schools make a positive difference to the educational and emotional health of those children whose parents are in a cycle of deployments - this is because having the services and people around who know what to expect and are watching for it makes a difference. Because their is greater interaction with the military parents and base leadership these teachers, counselors and school administrators become part of the military culture vs. having to have the kids adjust to people who may not understand the issues which effect our kids. This allows the deployed soldier some peace of mind on multiple levels - he/she knows his kids are better off, and he/she knows the stress on the spouse is less for similar reasons.
    When I surprised one of my daughters at the end of school following an OIF deploy, her teacher cried with her when she ran into my arms. I in turn told her, and the teachers for my other two daughters, that they had my thanks for being a surrogate parent when I was gone.

    These same types of teachers are very adept at handling those situations when Johnny or Sally's mother or father doesn't make it back to the ship.

  6. #166
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA
    Posts
    21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Thornton View Post
    Hi Maggie,
    I'm glad you took an interest in this from the perspective you offer. I'll try and answer a few of these.
    Before I respond I'll tell you all that I had been mulling over the post I made over the last eight hours and actually asked that it be pulled a bit earlier tonight, believing it was both off topic and too heated a response to the post I was reacting to. I was told it wasn't and in fact elicted several replies--so here I am

    My POV on this comes living not far from Pentagon and between Washington and Quantico, as well as all the other offical type things that are found in the area. I've mentioned that I've had family in the military although I have not served myself. This makes me a "tweener"--I can understand some of both sides but I am getting overly frustrated and tend to start yelling "Yes, but--" at the drop of a hat anymore.

    In most cases civilians can access military posts if they desire to do so - its generally a process of registering at the gate and getting a 24 hour pass.
    I try very hard not to ramble and therefore often perhaps leave out too much in these posts. I haven't been on base in recent years--when going to Andrews I had to both be on a list beforehand and provide a reason to be going on base, and this was before 9/11. I had family there and so didn't have a problem unless my sister forgot to call me in! Would someone just 'wanting to visit the base' really be allowed in these days to stroll around? And would that really provide much insight into the military life? That was my point, actually, that when families live on a base where access is controlled there isn't much contact with people day to day to build lines of support with. It becomes another version of town vs gown with a gate separating the two (which is actually a very common pattern, unfortunately).

    There are differences here
    Yes, big differences and this was a victim of my anxiety about rambling. What I am looking at is finding *similar* things to relate to. From where I sit on the other side of the fence the PERCEPTION is that things are SO different in the military that it's not possible for a civilian to understand the military perspective at all. I can be guilty of that same thing re the fire service but at the same time it makes me aware of the problem. "You're not _____________ so you can't understand" cuts off all dialogue right there.


    [QUOTE]I'm not trying to be trite, but this is our perspective on how the world works. If you ask a small percentage of the population and their families to take on these circumstances for more then just a one time shot - or if we desire to build and sustain a professional military that is the best at what is does, takes the oath to defend the constitution and is willing to go where and when asked for the long term - its different then what we asked prior to 9/11.[QUOTE]

    Which is why I don't begrudge what the so-called "perks" are. I don't see them as "perks", I see them as necessities for those doing that job. I'm talking here about the perception between the two spheres which seem to be drifting further apart, not closer after 9/11. I don't see your answers as trite, either, I am concerned that perspectives be exchanged instead of stereotypes and common examples reach people where other examples might not.

    I whole-heartedly agree with this - and we don't want to isolate ourselves by living within the military posts - its just the way we mitigate the effects of our profession on those we love.
    Which again is understandable but needs to be taken into account when talking to those outside. It's obvious you get get it but I've come across too many who don't on both sides. It makes perfect sense for many reasons but again, for many reasons it makes it hard for the general population to feel connected--and what I'm talking about here is pretty much all a discussion of emotional perceptions which are rarely amenable to logic.

    We try and engage the public where ever possible to promote understanding and keep the public informed on the issues which effect us all - in fact this is one of the reasons I write on this site.
    I see this as a big issue, perhaps even another topic , frankly I don't see what to do about it. My comment on this is NOT directed at this forum, or at any entity in particular, actually. "The public" in large enough numbers is not getting the message, and the old messengers--ie, newspapers/TV--are flubbing it. While the Internet does allow sites such as these, finding them is also a matter of already knowing what to look for. The first requirement is NOT asking a question, it is KNOWING a question needs to be asked. Take the COIN manual. I would venture a quess that most people have no idea such a thing even exists, never mind what it is. I had no idea either, until I started playing leap blog this summer after a chance comment on a totally unrelated forum let me know milblogs existed.

    We cannot exist as a professional volunteer force without public support - we want the brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, fathers and mothers to take pride in their nation's military and support us in recruiting, funding, inter-action - we are your military. The issues of integration and segregation between the American general public and its military are probably expected given the nature of a professional, all volunteer military that has been at war for awhile and will probably remain so for some time to come. There is blame to go around for all.
    Yes--and too many people seem to forget that, I agree. I also prefer to leave "blame" out of it; for me it's not a question of "blame", it's a question of how to illuminate the issues that cause division. Some of those issues are unavoidable, best find a way to work around them without worrying about whose fault it is.

    Attracting and retaining the best people and the support of their families will remain a challenge - particularly when they have proven what a value they can be to any organization they decide to work within, have amazing self-confidence, and are openly courted by outside organizations. They see the incredible stress placed on their families and can offer no clear rational to them as to why they should stay when there are clear options which starkly contrast with their current quality of life, their absence and the constant circle of worry that spouses and children must undergo - with no end in sight.
    After the third move my brother-in-law finally found a job with another company--and stayed put. It is entirely understandable that a soldier should decide that he or she has had enough. That makes it all the more important that the whys of benefits offered to soldiers are made explicit--which goes back to how to make the difficulties of military life clear to those outside. Which runs into what I acknowledge is a problem on "my" side of the fence, that those who volunteer, volunteer. What is missing over here is an understanding that those few carry the burden for many. Which again goes back to communication.

    I don't know how much my perspective helps (!) but I am concerned enough about what appears to be a growing divide to speak up.

  7. #167
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    389

    Default Compensation

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Thornton View Post
    My own father is a retired police officer - 25 years with Nashville Metro PD - lots of that spent as a patrol officer - lots of danger there - but he'll tell you his line of work and mine are different - he would come home at the end of his shift, sleep in his bed, touch base - he had long hours - often spending almost a second shift in court- add in the 2nd job he kept to pay for things and did not see him nearly as much as I'd have liked - it eventually cost him his marriage. Police Officers, Firemen and other public servants are also not compensated justly.

    Yes civilians do get killed here - driving in today's traffic with the way people abuse drugs, get consumed with their own world and an overall lack of common courtesy makes for a bad time - but when I get on 495, nobody is shooting at me, has an IED laid out in an ambush, is willing to drive a vehicle filled with explosive into me, etc. Also if the people do get in an accident, its unlikely that there is an RPG ambush waiting and that if they are taken captive they will get their heads cut off. It gives a whole new twist to the way you drive. Generally when people shoot at you or trigger and IED on you - its because you were the intended target.
    Rob, I agree with most of what you have said, but I have to point out one or two things. Yes, cops have it different from servicemen, but you cannot group all cops into one group just as you can't group everyone in the service into a single group. I grew up just outside NY and went to school in the city (a very nice section.) I've known some NYPD (mainly retired) officers and I have to say depending on your job and precinct, its different but it can be as difficult as many military positions (even now.) Cops who work in some of the really bad sections see and deal with horrors that are not of the scale of what soldiers are dealing with in Iraq, but they can be just as brutal. Overall the danger is less, but it never ends. When they're 70 and retired, most of them will still carry and worry who got out and might come after them or their family. Even though this is unlikely, it is something that will never leave their mind. For undercover officers this is only exaggerated (as is the danger.) Again, much of the police force does not have to deal with all of this, but a lot do. Cops are underpaid (starting wage for a cop is $24,000 which is bubkas in NY) and overworked. I am not demeaning the difficulty of military service in anyway, I am just pointing out that many big city cops are in similar positions. I also believe the NYPD has "officer retention" issues which are similar to the military's. The only reason NY still has a police force is because of its history and reputation. Every surrounding county almost doubles the pay. I know this has been off point, but I just wanted to toss this in. I also apologize for not discussing other public service jobs (firemen, ems, etc.) but this was the easiest.

    I should point out that I have never met an officer who would ever compare thier job the military. Most I have known did thier time in the service before joining the force. I'm just trying to say don't bunch them all into one group. I guess what I have been saying is that although the stresses on the family itself are normally not as great, the cop spends a lot of time worrying about thier family. My point is although you worry about the difficulties your family is facing, you don't spend as much time worrying if some gang member or rapist you busted is going to go after your family. Again, this is not likely but it is a definite worry especially for undercover cops.

    I still agree with you Rob (and everybody else who posted on this) I just like to point out these issues. This respone is not directed specifically at you. The respect for the stuff cops have to deal with has gone down hill. Personally I think many people think watching Cold Case, CSI, etc. gives them an idea of what its like.

    Adam

    P.S. I know I'm a little aggressive on this (and perhaps blowing it out of proportion,) but with the pay and benefit cuts the NYPD is suffering is abhorent. The NYPD will never go on strike though, so city council doesn't give a damn. They just worry about the teachers striking (they want a raise, again.)

  8. #168
    Council Member tequila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,665

    Default

    I've known some NYPD (mainly retired) officers and I have to say depending on your job and precinct, its different but it can be as difficult as many military positions (even now.) Cops who work in some of the really bad sections see and deal with horrors that are not of the scale of what soldiers are dealing with in Iraq, but they can be just as brutal. Overall the danger is less, but it never ends. When they're 70 and retired, most of them will still carry and worry who got out and might come after them or their family. Even though this is unlikely, it is something that will never leave their mind. For undercover officers this is only exaggerated (as is the danger.)
    I know a lot of current NYPD officers who are also USMCR and have deployed to Iraq once or twice. From what they have told me, nothing at work compares. The danger is not even close to the same. My own experience growing up in one of the worst neighborhoods of NYC during the homicide boom during the late 1980s - early 1990s (my hometown as described in this NYTIMES story from back then).

    The vast majority of cops carry off-duty due to cop paranoia and the ability to stop a crime in progress - not because they are specifically targeted. Actual vengeance killings of American police officers are incredibly rare, unlike in places like Iraq.

    The pay issues in the NYPD are genuine but not really relevant to the broader discussion, since as you noted most tristate area departments pay much more and require far less stress and work. The NYPD is having major retention issues due to this, but this is really a department-specific issue.

  9. #169
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    489

    Default

    My uncle was a cop in Philly for 30 years and was forced to medically retire after getting hit by a Chemlawn truck that left him with sever nerve damage in his feet and legs.

    He was an accident investigation cop - one of about 20 for a city of 3+ million, and used to spend 16-20 hours a day working. Half of that was actually doing his job, half of it was in court.

    Cops get the short end of the stick in our society - without any doubt.

    I still think the isolation of the active duty military is a terrible problem, especially when it's a volunteer force that is 100% reliant on selling a message to the civilian populace in order to sustain itself with personnel -that has become more isolated from the Active component.
    "Speak English! said the Eaglet. "I don't know the meaning of half those long words, and what's more, I don't believe you do either!"

    The Eaglet from Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland

  10. #170
    Council Member Rob Thornton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fort Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    1,510

    Default

    Hey Maggie,
    I'm glad you made the original post - I (and I don't think any of the rest of us) took it the wrong way - your other posts show you are quality folk - I think you raise some good issues, that if we were only talking amongst folks in uniform, or previously in uniform would not be raised. A discussion where everyone is in total agreement is not much of a discussion, and your questions show why society needs to have a better understanding of who are military is, the life they and their families lead, and consider what it takes to have a military. Too many equate people and hardware and spending in the same box. Its easy to do given the news media, the politics, Hollywood, etc. Public service in general is something the majority of our citizens seem no to really understand - they tend not to notice until something is not there vs. understanding what it takes to create and sustain it. I'm glad your here.

    Best, Rob

  11. #171
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Maggie,

    I liked your post because it points out something else as well...there are some folks within the military who don't know how civilians live these days. I say that because I work with military guys and see firsthand just how many problems they're going to have when they transition into jobs that don't have housing allowances, cost of living adjustments, or insurance plans (even though Tricare isn't great, it's better than what many of them will be facing). Being an Air Force brat I got to see both sides of the picture, and I'm convinced that there's almost as big a disconnect between the military perception of civilian life as there is the civilian perception of military life.

    That's always something worth keeping in mind.
    "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

  12. #172
    Council Member Rob Thornton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fort Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    1,510

    Default

    I got to thinking about when police cars always had 2 officers in them (partners) - and then one day -allot of departments decided 1 officer was enough - they had technology, etc. to mitigate it. The police department and FOPs told the local policymakers this was a bad idea - but the other side just could not see it their way. Later we had reason to question the decision - and we started to look at how individuals under stress make decisions vs. pairs and teams. We had to relearn what we already knew - quantity and quality do matter, and in cases making complex decisions that have life and death consequences for multiple parties - many departments have gone back to 2 officers in a patrol car.

    Best, Rob

  13. #173
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    389

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ski View Post
    I still think the isolation of the active duty military is a terrible problem, especially when it's a volunteer force that is 100% reliant on selling a message to the civilian populace in order to sustain itself with personnel -that has become more isolated from the Active component.
    I agree completely with your comment. Yes, the isolation being experienced must be terrible.

    Adam

  14. #174
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Blair View Post
    Maggie,

    I liked your post because it points out something else as well...there are some folks within the military who don't know how civilians live these days. I say that because I work with military guys and see firsthand just how many problems they're going to have when they transition into jobs that don't have housing allowances, cost of living adjustments, or insurance plans (even though Tricare isn't great, it's better than what many of them will be facing). Being an Air Force brat I got to see both sides of the picture, and I'm convinced that there's almost as big a disconnect between the military perception of civilian life as there is the civilian perception of military life.

    That's always something worth keeping in mind.
    Hence the reason why retirement is frankly terrifying for me right now, and I am still a few years away.

  15. #175
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Moving back into the original thrust of this post...

    I recently reviewed the message regarding the intermediate level school (Majors) selection process. It specifically sttes that recruiting station commanding officers who successfully complete their tour are automatically approved to attend resident PME.

    Those folks no doubt have stressful jobs, but it makes me wonder if the advisory component of our officers and SNCOs will eventually receive similar consideration.

  16. #176
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA
    Posts
    21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Thornton View Post
    Hey Maggie,
    I'm glad you made the original post - I (and I don't think any of the rest of us) took it the wrong way - your other posts show you are quality folk - I think you raise some good issues, that if we were only talking amongst folks in uniform, or previously in uniform would not be raised. A discussion where everyone is in total agreement is not much of a discussion, and your questions show why society needs to have a better understanding of who are military is, the life they and their families lead, and consider what it takes to have a military. Too many equate people and hardware and spending in the same box. Its easy to do given the news media, the politics, Hollywood, etc. Public service in general is something the majority of our citizens seem no to really understand - they tend not to notice until something is not there vs. understanding what it takes to create and sustain it. I'm glad your here.

    Best, Rob
    Thank you, although I'm still a little dubious here about my point getting across. I am tact-challenged and detest terms like 'dialogue.' In trying to be tactful and use current jargon I think I lost my focus.

    I brought up situations that I considered might have points of reference that connect somewhere so that both sides trying to communicate to each other have a place to start. I didn't intend to negate the unique problems of the military. Perhaps my point might be better conveyed if I fall back on the venerable "hearts and minds" campaign tactics, with us civilians playing the villagers.

    To use schools as an example, with the goal of improving quality of life re the retention issue:

    "Local schools suck so we need our own". I assume the goal here is to convince the villagers--uh, civilians--to contribute tangible support in the form of lobbying congress to provide DoD schools again, and to support the increased funding needed to do this. Not a good idea to insult the locals with that goal in mind, particularly when it's not even uniformly true. A much better tactic is to leave that one alone. It leads naturally right into "Yeah, our schools suck so why do they get their own while we're stuck?" Lotsa answers to that particulalr question but none that necessarily would get the civilians to help out here. I understand the reasons given, even agree that most of them are valid--and yet every time I hear this one my own eyebrow goes up.


    "Base schools are more sensitive to the concerns of military families". Yes and no, although this one is more promising. My area is extremely transient, with families moving in and out all the time, including children of military families who attend our public schools. The schools here also tend to have either a psychologist on staff or available through the school system and are used to dealing with issues similar to this. Small towns probably don't have the money for this and are more likely to suffer academically also because of lack of money. On the other hand, small towns near bases are more likely to be 'company towns' where the majority of students ARE military--in which case the 'more sensitive' point is moot. A better approach using this idea would be to borrow the idea of neighborhood schools that draw on shared ties and shared experiences/culture. This has worked for communities where bussing and school closings were involved. But, once again the local community still has to be considered--they are, after all, concerned about their children too. If a local school that depends at least in part on federal subsidies given for educating military children loses them because a DoD school opens on base (which doesn't accept local children) that isn't gonna sway public opinion favorably either. I think what I'm trying to say here is that welfare of one's children is a hot issue for *everyone* and something that needs to be handled carefully to obtain the desired result.

    "My daughter's teacher cried with her." This is where I really wish I was more tactful. I understand that a person feels more connected with those who share the same experiences. But----the apparent assumption that civilians would not also share the this emotion with a student does not help in garnering support among those civilians. This attitude is natural; it goes back to the point you mentioned, talking among those who are in uniform or have been in uniform will naturally be exclusionary. But, once again, in reaching out to the non-military community it is counter-productive.

    In my opinion, the point about public service that you mentioned is actually the biggest problem and it cuts across all levels of society. It IS unfair for a small number to bear the burden for so many but is it the difficulties of that life or the attitude toward public service that leaves so few to carry that burden? Even more importantly, what can be done to change that attitude?

  17. #177
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Bloomfield Hills, MI
    Posts
    5

    Default I know

    Maggie said It IS unfair for a small number to bear the burden for so many but is it the difficulties of that life or the attitude toward public service that leaves so few to carry that burden? Even more importantly, what can be done to change that attitude?"

    We can change that attitude by putting the faith of the executive back into the country. Many Western nations, most of whom I think we would consider not unlike us, have a national service. Greece, Sweden, Germany, et al. Their people allow this because they have faith that their country will use them in a sensible manner. I don't think that most Americans trust the executive (this one or past ones) enough. They fear the perceived willy-nilliness of past (and present) Presidents, and they don't want to give up their lives for something they don't believe in. If we could temper the foreign policy, the I think more people would put their trust in military service. Unfortunately, as the lone superpower, I'm not sure we'll be afforded the luxury.

  18. #178
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mktennis View Post
    Maggie said It IS unfair for a small number to bear the burden for so many but is it the difficulties of that life or the attitude toward public service that leaves so few to carry that burden? Even more importantly, what can be done to change that attitude?"

    We can change that attitude by putting the faith of the executive back into the country. Many Western nations, most of whom I think we would consider not unlike us, have a national service. Greece, Sweden, Germany, et al. Their people allow this because they have faith that their country will use them in a sensible manner. I don't think that most Americans trust the executive (this one or past ones) enough. They fear the perceived willy-nilliness of past (and present) Presidents, and they don't want to give up their lives for something they don't believe in. If we could temper the foreign policy, the I think more people would put their trust in military service. Unfortunately, as the lone superpower, I'm not sure we'll be afforded the luxury.
    I think you really need to go back much further than this to understand the American reluctance to deal with national service. For most European nations (excepting Great Britain, which does not have national service) conscription in some form or another has been a way of life for the majority of their existence (if not before...Germany is one example). I don't know if you could call it trust in the executive as much as you could possibly describe it as a resignation to a reality that has been with them for literally centuries in some cases.

    The United States, on the other hand, never maintained a large army until the end of World War II. If you look back, the early days of the Republic are littered with debates regarding the need for (and threat of) a standing army. The army was viewed as a dumping ground for new immigrants and the riff-raff of civilian life (witness the line from the 1800s - "soldier, soldier will you work? No indeed I'll sell my shirt"). Only in recent years (since possibly World War I and certainly since World War II) has it been considered an honorable profession (overall...officers sometimes held a higher position in popular regard than enlisted men). And when people talk about the post-Civil War congress having a number of members with military experience, it needs to be remembered that most of them were Volunteer officers and were in fact often hostile to the Regular Army and its needs. The navy has traditionally occupied a somewhat different position, based on the perceived need to protect US commerce, but they were still not held in high regard when compared to other occupations.

    People often treat the status of the military these days as some sort of historical aberration. The fact is that the Cold War period WAS the aberration and what we're seeing now is really far more typical of the country's relationship with its armed forces. The 20,000-man (on a good day) Army was desperately overstretched on the Frontier, and we're seeing the same thing today. The more things change...
    "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

  19. #179
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Bloomfield Hills, MI
    Posts
    5

    Default Ok

    Correct me if I am wrong, which does happen often, but haven't the militias always been healthy? If this goes back to a national identity and ethos, wouldn't the NG still be at healthy levels?

  20. #180
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    The militias were "healthy" when they were more or less social clubs and/or marching societies (which most of them were prior to the Civil War). Were they a dependable source of trained manpower (which was the intent of the National Guard...more or less, anyhow)? No.

    Militias were also very erratic in terms of forming and stability. They went through various periods of "vogue" or being in fashion, but would then fade from the scene. And they were often criticized as being ill-trained and otherwise unsuited for active service.
    "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

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
  •