Post by: Stand_watie on January 20, 2007, 09:34:41 PM
One of my recently favorite authors included in the bio on the book jacket that he was a West Point graduate.
I would assume the obvious, that West Point might have strong programs in areas like engineering, military history, political and military leadership, etc., but other than hearing a commencement congratulation that inferred that a young man who had been accepted at West Point had achieved something worthwhile, I have no knowledge of just how prestigious a school it is (or isn't).
Is a West Point education equivalent to an "Ivy League" school? A second tier school like the "University of (name your favorite)", or what?
Post by: wmenorr67 on January 20, 2007, 09:37:53 PM
Post by: Stand_watie on January 20, 2007, 09:50:15 PM
I would place a West Point degreee above a Ivy League education. The education that one would get at any service academy would be second to none.
Could you name the other "service academies" that you know of for me?
I can only think of "The Citadel", the "Air Force academy", and that Texas A&M used to be a service academy.
Post by: Phantom Warrior on January 21, 2007, 12:19:43 AM
The Citadel is NOT a service academy. It is a military academy type school, but it also includes civilian students and the "cadets" are not required to join the military.
Post by: wmenorr67 on January 21, 2007, 01:16:25 AM
Post by: 280plus on January 21, 2007, 03:01:58 AM
Post by: Leatherneck on January 21, 2007, 03:39:50 AM
I don't know of anyone who faults the academic program at any of the academies--top-drawer all the way. As witnessed by the 10% or so acceptance rate. They're very competitive.
TC
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 21, 2007, 05:51:40 AM
Post by: Dannyboy on January 21, 2007, 06:00:09 AM
Post by: slzy on January 21, 2007, 02:38:57 PM
Post by: Ezekiel on January 21, 2007, 05:37:26 PM
2. Automatons.
3. Brainwashed.
4. Subserviant.
"If you go for that..."
Post by: Stand_watie on January 21, 2007, 05:52:08 PM
Guess you've never enlisted in the military. If you had, it would be enough to know that they produce officers.
Actually I was Air Guard for six years. Whether you consider that "military" service or not is up to you. I knew (at the 'aquaintance' level, not the 'friend' level) quite a number of Air Force and several Army officers (actually Air Guard and Army Reserve at that time, but they had almost all been prior active service officers), and I don't recall any of that (let's say several dozen) bunch of folks having mentioned having been to a service academy. I know for sure that many of them had been to regular colleges to get their degree education. I'll grant that the Air Force is probably by far the most "civilian" of all the branches, with MD's, DDS's, EE's and CPA's probably far outnumbering battlefield (or battle"air") tacticians, but I've gathered from that, that in the Air Force anyway, officers with an Air Force Academy degree are the exception rather than the rule.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 21, 2007, 06:25:32 PM
Then there's Ezekiel, who's just into bigotry or hatred or whatever. Good to know he can think for himself.
Post by: Stand_watie on January 21, 2007, 06:49:35 PM
Oh. My point was that officers, as every enlisted man knows, are idiots.
Then there's Ezekiel, who's just into bigotry or hatred or whatever. Good to know he can think for himself.
Then there's Ezekiel, who's just into bigotry or hatred or whatever. Good to know he can think for himself.
I'll say I disagree with Ezekiel, though I won't attempt to interpet his feelings, etc.
Recognizing that your comment regarding officers is partly tongue-in-cheek, and also that it's a common (but not at all unanimous) comment/feeling among Air Force enlisted personell, I'm curious as to your branch of service?
My own impression of officers, is that of my impression of Joe Blow business professional, throwing in there that in general they wisely (if not perfectly) attempt to emulate the senior enlisted men when performing command duties.
To give examples, in general I'd much rather attempt to explain a convoluted supply chain scenario, or a complicated administrative manner to an officer, and if my leg were pinned under a deuce and a half or a water buffalo, to get help from an enlisted guy or gal.
Post by: Stand_watie on January 21, 2007, 06:52:35 PM
Guess you've never enlisted in the military. If you had, it would be enough to know that they produce officers.
Actually I was Air Guard for six years, only (approximately) five months in "active" (all service school training) billets. Whether you consider that "military" service or not is up to you. I knew (at the 'aquaintance' level, not the 'friend' level) quite a number of Air Force and several Army officers (actually Air Guard and Army Reserve at that time, but they had almost all been prior active service officers), and I don't recall any of that (let's say several dozen) bunch of folks having mentioned having been to a service academy. I know for sure that many of them had been to regular colleges to get their degree education. I'll grant that the Air Force is probably by far the most "civilian" of all the branches, with MD's, DDS's, EE's and CPA's probably far outnumbering battlefield (or battle"air") tacticians, but I've gathered from that, that in the Air Force anyway, officers with an Air Force Academy degree are the exception rather than the rule.
Post by: cosine on January 21, 2007, 06:53:58 PM
My point was that officers, as every enlisted man knows, are idiots.
I just want to let you know, fistful, I'm filing all statements like these away for future
Hmm, now, that raises the distinct possibility of you someday discovering that you're not my friend anymore.
(I kid, I jest...)
Post by: Bogie on January 21, 2007, 06:59:40 PM
In addition, people, regardless of who their families are/they may know are not trained as pilots or put into situations where they are commanding others who may go into harm's way unless they are competent. There are varying degrees of competency, but they all have my great respect.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 21, 2007, 07:14:02 PM
cosine, please, like I want to be friends with an officer, anyway.
It is odd how the military puts fresh-faced college grads in charge of units that are actually run by more experienced NCO's who in some cases have no college degree. Not to say the NCO's aren't expected to get degrees also.
Post by: cosine on January 21, 2007, 07:29:12 PM
The Air Force I generally don't insult as we Army-types are too far above them to even notice they exist.
Huh. Sure, maybe figuratively. But in reality, who's above the other? Ha!
Post by: Stand_watie on January 21, 2007, 08:25:58 PM
..It is odd how the military puts fresh-faced college grads in charge of units that are actually run by more experienced NCO's who in some cases have no college degree. Not to say the NCO's aren't expected to get degrees also.
But the reality is that (in my experience) the "fresh-faced college grads" (the 90% of them who have a little bit of common sense) are letting the senior NCO's run things, and
A) are doing the more complicated paperwork that you atually need a college education to figure out
B) giving exhortative speeches on topics "suggested" to them by their senior NCO's
C) are figuring out orders from higher ranking officers and translating them to the senior NCO's
The better of those officers stay in the military and are promoted to continually higher command billets, the lesser go into private businesses and either learn anew and advance or get stuck in HR, or go to the Pentagon and learn how to be DC beaurocrats.
Those in the "technical" fields are just about exactly like the civilian versions of themselves, IMHO. For example, an Air Force MD will be as good a doctor as he'd be as a civilian, he has a lesser pay, but a more stable clientel, and fewer worries of liability.
Post by: Phantom Warrior on January 22, 2007, 12:11:27 AM
Quote from: Ezekiel
1. Indoctrination.
2. Automatons.
3. Brainwashed.
4. Subserviant.
2. Automatons.
3. Brainwashed.
4. Subserviant.
*snicker*
Yeah, those are the kinds of words that come to mind when I think of the "Happy Ranger", "Stank", and all the other West Point grads running around here. (names changed to protect the innocent). These are the guys that came up with the coolness points board and gave the battalion commander the lowest score. Brainwashed automatons, my ass.
Quote from: Stand_watie
The better of those officers stay in the military and are promoted to continually higher command billets, the lesser go into private businesses and either learn anew and advance or get stuck in HR, or go to the Pentagon and learn how to be DC beaurocrats.
Maybe things are different in the Reserves. Believe me, some of the best active duty officers I know are getting out of the Army. The deployment schedule is part of it, but the amount of dumb in the Army doesn't help. And believe me, command billets have NOTHING to do with being a good officer.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 22, 2007, 02:45:04 AM
But the reality is that (in my experience) the "fresh-faced college grads" (the 90% of them who have a little bit of common sense) are letting the senior NCO's run things,
Yeah, that's the odd thing about it. "Here, you're in charge, now run this platoon just like Sarge tells you to." It's a mentoring system, in a way, but a very odd one.
Post by: Ezekiel on January 22, 2007, 03:04:21 AM
Hence:
1. Indoctrination.
2. Automatons.
3. Brainwashed.
4. Subserviant.
Merely a single point of view.
Post by: Jamisjockey on January 22, 2007, 03:20:15 AM
I'm merely pointing out that the majority of information I've found -- I was quite curious -- indicates that you are, decidedly, unallowed to think during your first year, that there is a strict caste system, individual thought is verboten and adherence to a rigid/inflexible "code" is the norm.
Hence:
1. Indoctrination.
2. Automatons.
3. Brainwashed.
4. Subserviant.
Merely a single point of view.
Hence:
1. Indoctrination.
2. Automatons.
3. Brainwashed.
4. Subserviant.
Merely a single point of view.
A military cannot be effective if its not of collective thought and action. If someone is innovative and finds ways to make the military more effective, they are rewarded.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 22, 2007, 05:04:43 AM
I'm merely pointing out that the majority of information I've found....Merely a single point of view.
Then I apologize. I took it to be the same left-wing knee-jerk response that always comes out of you when the military is mentioned. It's obvious who's been brainwashed.
Post by: Ezekiel on January 22, 2007, 05:44:14 AM
It's obvious who's been brainwashed.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 22, 2007, 06:08:51 AM
Post by: roo_ster on January 22, 2007, 06:19:15 AM
I'm merely pointing out that the majority of information I've found -- I was quite curious -- indicates that you are, decidedly, unallowed to think during your first year, that there is a strict caste system, individual thought is verboten and adherence to a rigid/inflexible "code" is the norm.
Hence:
1. Indoctrination.
2. Automatons.
3. Brainwashed.
4. Subserviant.
Merely a single point of view.
Hence:
1. Indoctrination.
2. Automatons.
3. Brainwashed.
4. Subserviant.
Merely a single point of view.
Thought
You can think whatever you want. Saying whatever you want is restricted, but then, most civilian places of work have speech restrictions, too.
Oddly enough, an officer in my unit was also a fan of Ayn Rand's fiction. We would swap Rand paperbacks when on deployment & discuss them. No problem with libertarian thought and speech at my unit.
Caste
There is a caste system, but folks are free to move around in it, given their drive & ability. I knew plenty of mustangs (officers who had once been enlisted) during my time in service. Thye are usually highly thought of due to their high level of competence.
Similar systems exist in some civilian organizations. Labor vs management in a union shop being just one example.
Humans organize their organizations to suit their purposes. Sometimes an explicit hierarchy is what is needed.
Indoctrination
Yep, plenty of that. Like they say, "You're in the Army now, you're not behind a plow..." I also recall indoctrination when I first went to college and at my first corporate job. Thye armed services' indoctrination is quite a bit more rigorous, no doubt.
Brainwashed Automaton
The most intensive brainwashing* I have been subject to was not in the service, but at the university. All incoming freshmen were required to spend a week on "Orientation" and suck up lefty-loonie indoctrination & brainwashing. All the PC & postmodernist baloney was trotted out the THE proper viewpoint. All very serious. All very humor-less.
The Army's efforts to turn me into a killer were sometimes laughter-inducing. Where else can you sling a rifle & bayonet & holler "kill" at the top of your lungs with 120 other folks? Then, you get to run through an obstacle course with a fake** rifle & real bayonet, hollering at the top of your lungs, bayonetting targets while your drill sgts set off arty simulators & urge you on. What a hoot. When I am at Home Depot & some guy asks a HD employer, "What will make my grass grow greener?" I must suppress a giggle.
There was a deadly serious purpose behind the training, but a thinking being can see the humor (sometimes black) in it, most of the time.
Subserviant
Unless you are a hermit, you wil always be part of some human organization with folks above & below you. Even orgs that explicitly try to be egalitarian have a pecking order. It is part of being a human.
------------
Ezekiel, fistful has made a solid point. You have swallowed a line of bull and have placed your ignorance and indoctrination on display for all to see. A little time in the service would have done you a world of good in opening your mind to different ideas and provided depth to your critique of the armed services.
* Brainwashing is a mildly pathetic term used by most who do not understand its true meaning and use it as a substitute for other, lesser ,conditioning techniques.
** Called a "Rubber Duckie." The bayonet course was rigorous enough to cause us to break our rifles, so we used the rubber duckies, instead.
Post by: Ezekiel on January 22, 2007, 06:34:18 AM
Quote
Ezekiel, fistful has made a solid point.
Seriously, what would that be?
Quote
You have swallowed a line of bull and have placed your ignorance and indoctrination on display for all to see.
I would -- vehemently -- argue that the reciprocal is true.
Quote
A little time in the service would have done you a world of good...
Respectfully, "I don't think so." However, I grant your point that I would have a deeper understanding of that particular inherently screwed up bureaucracy. I prefer gathering information using other tools.
Thanks.
Post by: Gewehr98 on January 22, 2007, 09:48:51 AM
Quote
1. Indoctrination.
2. Automatons.
3. Brainwashed.
4. Subserviant.
"If you go for that..."
2. Automatons.
3. Brainwashed.
4. Subserviant.
"If you go for that..."
Nice. Really nice.
(Oops, gotta go, just washed my brain again and can't do a darned thing with it...)
USAF Retired, Brainwashed, and Subservient Automaton.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 22, 2007, 09:57:08 AM
Quote
When I am at Home Depot & some guy asks a HD employer, "What will make my grass grow greener?" I must suppress a giggle.
BLOOD! BLOOD! BRIGHT RED BLOOD MAKES THE GREEN GRASS GROW, DRILL SERGEANT!
That brain-washing sure works good.
Post by: wingnutx on January 22, 2007, 10:01:08 AM
Post by: Bogie on January 22, 2007, 10:11:42 AM
Post by: thebaldguy on January 22, 2007, 03:58:23 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 23, 2007, 05:27:59 AM
Quote
I knew plenty of mustangs (officers who had once been enlisted) during my time in service. Thye are usually highly thought of due to their high level of competence.
They are also thought of as being very hard-nosed, like an NCO, no surprise. The downside is that they are also prone to micro-management. Again, that would be expected.
Post by: wingnutx on January 23, 2007, 06:48:01 AM
People who disagree with me are brainwashed.
Post by: roo_ster on January 23, 2007, 07:04:37 AM
So true, so ture...
Post by: Balog on January 23, 2007, 07:25:00 AM
I know it's naive, but I wish the Universal part of the UCMJ were applied more often. In the couple years I've been in I've seen: a Lt get a DUI (no military charges pressed), a newly promoted GySgt lose a M9 because he disregarded SOP and didn't use a lanyard (lost his billet as head of the comm shop for six months, no charges), a SSgt openly take steroids in Iraq (just pretend it never happened), when we got back the same SSgt beat the *expletive deleted*it out of a boot Pfc (covered up, no charges), a GySgt responsible for providing water to a platoon training in full gear in the middle of summer do such a poor job that 16 Marines were heat casualties with one so bad he had to be air lifted to the hospital (no charges, no loss of billet), a 1stSgt who was chewing out a Marine with really severe PTSD pull out a knife put it on his desk and literally dare the Marine to try and kill him (no repercussions). Hell, I could go on but I think ya'll get the point. Meanwhile, a Lcpl files a travel itinerary for pre-deployment leave with a typo in the flight number (charged with "falsifying a .gov document", lost rank), a Lcpl puts his rifle down and walks ~20 feet away on a working party (charged with a couple things, lost rank).... ok, I'm getting really depressed listing it all out like this so I'm gonna stop.
Post by: Ezekiel on January 23, 2007, 07:47:14 AM
"Protect the instution...Protect the institution...Protect the instution...Protect the institution...Protect the instution...Protect the institution...Protect the instution...Protect the institution...Protect the instution...Protect the institution...Protect the instution...Protect the institution..."
[repeat ad infinitum]
Post by: doczinn on January 23, 2007, 08:24:25 AM
Ezekiel, you obviously don't know a damn thing about the military other than what you've heard.
Post by: wingnutx on January 23, 2007, 08:39:13 AM
I've been in both, and I've seen a command go from one to the other, both ways.
Post by: Ezekiel on January 23, 2007, 08:57:05 AM
Your opinion is, respectfully, noted.
Quote
Ezekiel, you obviously don't know a damn thing about the military other than what you've heard.
Post by: doczinn on January 23, 2007, 09:35:45 AM
Quote
There are commands that are great, and there are commands that are all clustered up.
I've been in both, and I've seen a command go from one to the other, both ways.
I've seen both, but the worst I ever saw wasn't as bad as what Balog is describing.I've been in both, and I've seen a command go from one to the other, both ways.
I'm avoiding questioning his perception, but it's pretty hard to believe.
Post by: Ezekiel on January 23, 2007, 09:44:41 AM
It is, however, radically close to the sorts of experiences related to me by active-duty folk in a variety of locales.
Sort of makes one doubt the efficacy of the machine, you know?
I've seen both, but the worst I ever saw wasn't as bad as what Balog is describing.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 23, 2007, 09:51:44 AM
Quote
Sort of makes one doubt the efficacy of the machine, you know?
Ya know, it IS a govt. operation. Zeke, I'd really like to see you design a military that works better.
Post by: wingnutx on January 23, 2007, 10:06:12 AM
It is, however, radically close to the sorts of experiences related to me by active-duty folk in a variety of locales.
Sort of makes one doubt the efficacy of the machine, you know?
Just as the news never reports that x number of cars made it safely home, no one is ever going to tell you about when things went smoothly at their command. They are going to tell you about the things that are all jacked up.
Post by: Ezekiel on January 23, 2007, 11:13:02 AM
Even equally poor attempts at such a goal would be a significant improvement.
Quote from: fistful
Zeke, I'd really like to see you design a military that works better.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 23, 2007, 11:17:54 AM
Post by: Ezekiel on January 23, 2007, 11:20:31 AM
If you desire to go "structural," we can: but efficacy would be dramatically increased by actually attempting something with strategic value.
Changing the subject, are we?
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 23, 2007, 11:25:09 AM
Post by: Balog on January 23, 2007, 05:01:27 PM
Balog, you are not describing the MArine Corps I know and love. Either it has changed greatly in the time I have been out, or an unbelieveable number of the f---ups somehow got clustered together where you were.
Well, that is a battalion's worth of incidents over a couple years. 29 Palms seems to make people hate life and be stupid. So do the grunts, but that's another story. Perception has nothing to do with it, everything I mentioned truly happened independent of my opinion.
Post by: Gewehr98 on January 23, 2007, 05:17:36 PM
Post by: wmenorr67 on January 23, 2007, 05:45:58 PM
Post by: Ezekiel on January 23, 2007, 06:13:50 PM
"Zeke's a little lit now to respond, but he recognizes the honesty/validity of your query and will get to it as soon as he is able."
I love high quality Cabernet!
Post by: RocketMan on January 23, 2007, 07:40:36 PM
Got to put Zeke back on the ignore list.
Post by: Ezekiel on January 24, 2007, 03:23:05 AM
I'm going to go search for aspirin, then consider wmenorr67's question.
My head is KILLING me.
Got to put Zeke back on the ignore list.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 24, 2007, 03:29:13 AM
Post by: RocketMan on January 24, 2007, 04:53:45 AM
I tried ignore a while back, but it didn't seem to work. Little help?
I was just speaking figuratively, fistful. Usually I just ignore Zeke's posts because of what I stated above. Once in awhile, however, like a moth drawn to the flame...Or maybe it's like being unable to avert ones eyes to an impending train wreck.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 24, 2007, 08:44:44 AM
Not on purpose.
If you desire to go "structural," we can: but efficacy would be dramatically increased by actually attempting something with strategic value.
If you desire to go "structural," we can: but efficacy would be dramatically increased by actually attempting something with strategic value.
Changing the subject, are we?
I guess it's safe to conclude that Ezekiel has no suggestions to improve the military.