Don't hold your breath, Mitch.

Mitch, you are misrepresenting this story, and grossly at that.

The Nation made the point that the LEADERSHIP of the College Republicans (also known as the big business sychophantic rowing team), as well as the Young Americans for Frat Parties (err Freedom), has not enlisted, not any of them, not a one.

It made no statements about the rank and file, and candidly, that 6 have joined, out of how many, 2500? more? That's no great shakes. BTW the 6 number is my recollection of your earlier post.. not really even worth the time to go back and check.

The flat fact is the VAST majority of enlistees come from the lower half of the income scale.. which means nothing politically, but it does mean something that those at the upper end (YAF and CR leadership), are a bit disingenuous to call for others to enlist, when they already do, yet they will not.

Whether you like the story or not is not the point, saying that they are factually inaccurate when they made no claims about the consituency, is wrong, seemingly purposefully.

It is also making an issue out of something which it was not. The Nation didn't accuse YAF or CR members of not being supportive, or of enlisting. Once again, you twist the argument to something it isn't for your own purpose, rather than dealing with the root issue, which is, why is it that we have folks who thump their chest soooo hard about "patriotism" yet are nearly unwilling to sacrifice for it.

Freedom isn't Free is your line, not mine. I don't believe Iraq has a darned thing to do with Freedom (outside of the Iraqis of course - but not ours), but even if it does, I'm not likely to throw out cliche'd crap. Freedom is achieved by people standing up for what is right.

I'd instead say, as I was taught in the Service, Leadership is done by example, and don't ask anyone to do that which you will not do yourself. These folks want to lead, set the example, and it's pretty darned clear that their answer to enlisting is "what are you crazy?? It's dangerous over there." If you love this war so much, Freedom isn't the issue, it's leadership, go lead. Stop asking others to do your work.

PB

No, PB, I am not. You are misrepresenting me, and Ens. Hill.

The Nation said Hill had opted not to serve; he is in fact in the service.

They lied.

Period.

Well,

A few things.. first, at the time of the article, Mr. Hill was not actually commissioned, meaning, he was not actually in the active service. He was in RESERVE officer training corps. As a former ROTC member, I have an idea what that entails, it doesn't include getting shot at.

Second, what a self-aggrandizing bloviating jackass this guy must be. (Read high probability of combat). If he put that in - he's dead freakin wrong - if you did, you should know better, and then it's not him that is the bloviating self-congratulatory jackass.. but as I understand it, it's him.. As a member of Naval Aviation USN, he most likely will fly one of about 5 aircraft. An S3A, P3, an F-18, a mail-carrier, or an F-14 while they are still in the fleet. I don't believe officers fly Helo's in the Navy.. but I could be mistaken. Regardless, his chance of seeing combat is about 1 in 10,000. That's not really "high".

That of course is not the point. To have lied, and this jag-off used the term "slander" which of course is both syntantically flawed (it would be libel), and factually flawed, it's libel if it falsely accuses him of a crime, or accuses him of a crime not yet proven. It's defamation if some sort of harm could be shown, but that's a civil charge. Regardless, how did the Nation come about the response from him that he'd chosen instead to get his Master's? I suspect HE told them such, so all they did was print his information.

Beyond that, the Nation, unlike classless organizations on the right, likely will print a correction. It still hardly puts lie to the assertion that the leadership of the organization (except for one officer who will- assuming he gets his Masters, never see combat) does not actively engage or support with their own necks, that which they so steadfastly assert others should do.

Mitch, what I don't get is you complain about the "elitist" lefty saying you're dumb, and then use comments like the "insufficiently bright community", and back this group of elitist, blue blood chicken hawk crowd. You are no more them than you are a chicken, why defend these morons (sorry I don't want to call them stupid), ok these charlitans? Saying ONE guy received his commission. out of..what.. dozens.. oh, wow.. the exception proves the rule I guess then.

Beyond that, and the final point, he also is misrepresenting something. 90+% of the officers commissioned do NOT go to graduate school. Those that do go for specific reasons. They need lawyers, accountants, dentists, etc.. but its a non-combat rate. I am pretty familiar with the program having spent 2 years in it (albeit 20 years ago).. and I'd like to ask Ens. Hill whether he'll be a line officer (i.e. one in a combat specialization). If not, then his pompous complaint is so much air, but what's more, it shows that he's doing it for show, he's in fact NOT PUTTING HIS NECK ON THE LINE.

He's really not doing it anyway, the danger in the Navy is from falling off a ship, but heck, service is service, so I'll cut him slack there, but if he's getting a Masters, what in? If it's to be a JAG member, or to do book-keeping, then guess what Mitch.. the Nation was right and you owe them a retraction, because in fact, none of the leadership volunteered or enlisted to serve in Iraq.

PB

That number of 6 from an earlier post was 6 people from the Campus Republicans (not the College Republicans, there were 2 groups at the time on the U of M campus, long story). And that number of 6 was sizeable compared to the fact that no more than 20 people ever attended a Campus Republican meeting. Meaning a full 25% of the membership of my former group enlisted in one way or another into the military.

That included Bob Gindorf, the Chairman-elect (i.e. the LEADER of the group) who wasn't able to serve out his chairmanship.

That left us fat asses, asthmatics, and sports injuries in the leadership of the group.

The Campus Republicans changed their name to the Campus Conservatives, and now they're a much smaller group, no doubt because the loss of leadership suffered by some of our members enlisting. It's something we're proud of as a group.

And PB is slandering Chris Hill's name.

PB,

You have slipped the surly bonds of reason, and have escaped to touch the hand of Kos with your last comment. Cheeeeeee-rist, where to start?

"A few things.. first, at the time of the article, Mr. Hill was not actually commissioned, meaning, he was not actually in the active service. He was in RESERVE officer training corps. As a former ROTC member, I have an idea what that entails, it doesn't include getting shot at."

SO FARGING WHAT?

I mean, could you move the goalposts a little further? By your definition, everyone in Basic Training, AIT, West Point, or the Special Forces qualification course is a chickenhawk - they're not getting shot at yet! Everyone who is in the military but not in a combat theater is a chickenhawk! Everyone who's in a rifle company HQ rather than a squad is a chickenhawk!

Or is it just people who support the war and are Republicans for whom you'll keep moving the goalposts?

More later.

"Second, what a self-aggrandizing bloviating jackass this guy must be. (Read high probability of combat). If he put that in - he's dead freakin wrong - if you did, you should know better, and then it's not him that is the bloviating self-congratulatory jackass.. but as I understand it, it's him.. As a member of Naval Aviation USN, he most likely will fly one of about 5 aircraft. An S3A, P3, an F-18, a mail-carrier, or an F-14 while they are still in the fleet. I don't believe officers fly Helo's in the Navy but I could be mistaken. Regardless, his chance of seeing combat is about 1 in 10,000. That's not really "high"."

PB, you're an old friend of mine, so please accept this in the spirit in which it's intended, with a nudge and a wink - but that statement above is the very height of bloviation and jackassitude!

So it's not enough to volunteer for the armed forces - and a particularly arduous and, under peacetime conditions, dangerous part of them at that? What are you saying - that some military service is more valid than others? Or only for Republicans?

When the subject comes up, who is the FIRST person to refer to his 12 years of military service? And yet were you combat? No? Well, then by your logic you have no right to comment!

Incidentallyh, 'd like to introduce you to my old pal Fingers, a fella I've known even longer than you, PB. Without giving away any secrets - perhaps he can talk with you about some of the further intricacies of your statement above.

In any case, this is perhaps the most amazing example of moving the goalposts I've ever seen.

"That of course is not the point. To have lied, and this jag-off used the term "slander" which of course is both syntantically flawed"

That's "Syntatically"... ;-)

"(it would be libel), and factually flawed, it's libel if it falsely accuses him of a crime, or accuses him of a crime not yet proven."

There is a broader definition of libel and slander that is not *legal* but ethical. And Hill is right. The Nation defamed him.

"Regardless, how did the Nation come about the response from him that he'd chosen instead to get his Master's? I suspect HE told them such, so all they did was print his information."

Ah. So we're down to "you suspect". Because The Nation would NEVER screw with, selectively ignore, or not-especially-arduously check their facts. Would they?

Well, it would seem they did. What would have been Hill's motivation for soft-pedalling his own facts? Certainly weaker than The Nation's motivation for muffing them.

"Beyond that, the Nation, unlike classless organizations on the right, likely will print a correction."

And then sunshine will effuse from their asses.

" It still hardly puts lie to the assertion that the leadership of the organization (except for one officer who will- assuming he gets his Masters, never see combat)"

First - among the half-dozen people named, that's a 16.6% enlistment rate. Second - as Marty above noted, it's more than one. Third - again, you move the goalposts.

"Mitch, what I don't get is you complain about the "elitist" lefty saying you're dumb, and then use comments like the "insufficiently bright community",

First: I don't care if some moron calls me "dumb"; it's demonstrably wrong, and if that's the best he can do, then I feel only pity for him.

The "insufficiently bright" bit is a riff on "reality-based" community.

""and back this group of elitist, blue blood chicken hawk crowd."

Wow. Stereotype much? I know several of these people; they're no more "blue blood" than you or I are (I know, why piddle on a good stereotype?), and as Marty has already demonstrated, they have joined the Armed Forces at a rate vastly higher than society at large.

However, since they didn't all skip basic training to join rifle squads, I guess they're still chickens? Or perhaps if they end up getting sent to Bosnia or Korea or a submarine or a Coast Guard air-sea rescue unit, they're just a bunch of cowards?

"You are no more them than you are a chicken"

PB, I'm going to ignore that statement. It's hard to pick, but it may be the dumbest thing you've ever said.

"Beyond that, and the final point, he also is misrepresenting something. 90+% of the officers commissioned do NOT go to graduate school. Those that do go for specific reasons. They need lawyers, accountants, dentists, etc.. but its a non-combat rate. I am pretty familiar with the program having spent 2 years in it (albeit 20 years ago).. and I'd like to ask Ens. Hill whether he'll be a line officer (i.e. one in a combat specialization). If not, then his pompous complaint is so much air, but what's more, it shows that he's doing it for show, he's in fact NOT PUTTING HIS NECK ON THE LINE."

That's pretty much up to the Navy, now, isn't it?

I mean, whatdya do? Go up to the Command Master Chief and tell him "Put me in a SEAL platoon or I'm gonna whup your ass?"

Your selective assignment of merit to different types of service is, shall I say, curious.

Oh, and that "dumbest thing you've ever said" bit from above? I spoke too soon:

"He's really not doing it anyway, the danger in the Navy is from falling off a ship,"

Fingers - weapons free. I repeat, weapons free.

Mitch,

I decided to use my word processor to draft some of the responses going forward. Your system really doesn't allow for editing, and I wanted to be very clear with my response in this case.

The primary thing that I don't like/agree with about your post is that you accuse The Nation of lying, when it seems pretty clear they had little to no idea that this guy, Hill, was now commissioned, or would be, at the time they wrote the article. Further, it appears his own comments would cause them to justifiably believe that he'd decided to pursue other interests.

Regardless of that, his service in fact doesn't put him close to "In Harm's Way" (a decent WWII flick btw), and realistically, it sounds like he purposefully chose a path which would pretty well guarantee his distance from combat. This means he essentially proved the point of the Nation's commentary, namely, that those who "lead" are not willing to actually lead. As for his self-aggrandizement regarding Naval Aviation equating to combat, my reaction is “since when?” When did the insurgents get Triple-A, or SAM ability to bring down a fast mover? They haven't. The major risk he might take IF he actually does serve in a combat jet, for which master's degrees are not required, is that he may crash his jet taking off of or landing from a carrier. I don't mean to demean that sacrifice, it's risky, and it's service to be appreciated in it’s own right, but it ain’t combat. He should know better if he's in the service, and based on your own self-described expertise about all things military, so should you. I’ve never asked for, nor accepted, gratitude for my service which I’d equate to being comparable to those who served in combat, that he would look to overstate his risk says some pretty major things about the character of this person. If I’m wrong, and he serves in a combat jet, even if it’s dropping bombs in a no real threat zone, then I’d be willing to retract a portion of my derision for him, but only a portion. Equating the danger of dropping bombs from an FA-18 to serving in the infantry, i.e. High likelihood of combat – is still such an overstatement that the guy would get laughed out of the room by most real soldiers.

What troubles me though about your post, is that YOU would so virulently exaggerate the issue. That ONE person of dozens chose to serve in what will probably be a desk-job MAYBE bringing him in the proximity of Iraq, does not amount to some egregious deception on the part of the Nation. Really, it makes you all seem like a bunch of hyper-sensitive nerds that you'd leap up and say "SEE THEY LIED!!!!!", when you find out that one person may be actually going to do something AFTER the story was written. You've made WAYYYYY more out of an apparent change in the situation than it ever deserved, and called it purposeful deception when it seems, based on Hill's own words, it was neither purposeful, nor deception. The story was accurate, to the best of the Nation’s knowledge, at the time they published. It seems more likely Hill sand-bagged them. Given the slimy nature of his own chest-thumping, I’d say it seems probable.

If you want to be taken seriously, challenge Hill for his gross exaggeration of his own personal dangers and whether he was forthright about his statements to the Nation, as well as challenging the Nation to correct itself. It should do so and I whole-heartedly support any effort to have them do so, but if they should correct themselves here, so should you.

PB

As for your response.. yes you can in fact volunteer for combat, it's called the Marines, and he could have joined MROTC after his second year, and even up to after his third if he'll go back through some training.

The timing of the article is relevent, as is Mr. Hill's apparent desire to deceive them... that's FARGING what. He said he was pursuing something else, not they.

Mitch,
The last thing I want to do is get drawn into this mess.

But....the cultures of the various sevices are an interesting beast. It becomes immediately obvious what the background of the commenter is/was--"formers" are the worst because the 'Joint' perspective hasn't been around that long, when they spew. Ignorance of another services' risks/liabilities/etc was, and unfortunately still is, common. Of course everyone tends to think their job is/was the most critical, important, most dangerous, etc. Inter-service rivalry is great when it advances ideas/efforts on a competitive front, but becomes counter-product when it leans into the realm of dismisal of value and 'one-upmanship'.
In the end, there is absolutely no difference between dying in training and dying in combat--you're still dead!
What truly makes our armed forces the best in the world is our ability to work together, leverage each other's capabilities in a synergistic manner to achieve the desired strategic/operational/tactical effects resulting in an outcome that is in our nation's best interest. All else is crap!
As for the MSM et al's unspoken desire to see President Bush fail in Iraq--I think DOD (yes even the REMFs) would say "not on my watch!"

that is all.

Well put, Fingers. And I won't draw you into any more messes, unless they're musical...

The part I thought was interesting - and potentially offensive - is that PB's thesis seems to be that if you're a supporter of the war, you'd better be in a Marine rifle squad RIGHT NOW or your service really doesn't count. To say the least, it's a creative moving of the goalposts; as if Chris Hill's going for Naval Aviation is a sign of cowardice.

He can call me a chicken all he wants - he doesn't know what's in my heart, and besides, comments are cheap. But it seems to me, the interested observer, that calling someone who's a double volunteer for what could amount to fairly hazardous duty a chicken is - well, it's the sort of "counterproductive" I'd like to see the whole left do, actually!

By the way, PB - while pilots are probably fairly safe in the current war, the next one can be, and usually is, different.

Monday-morning quarterbacking of other peoples' hearts and souls and motivations is a dicey thing. I intend to make it much, much dicier.

Fingers.. NOTHINIG you said refuted ANYTHING I said, not one tittle, iota, or otherwise, other than you and Mitch conflating a statement that this self-aggrandizing jerk talks about "high likelyhood of combat" is a self-aggrandizing jerk, with saying that service is not dangerous or honorable. Who said it wasn't? Where? When? Further, your pretentiousness is a little insulting. I'd guess I have a fairly decent background, and a pretty good ability to comment on many things related to service. I won't go into my background, and I wont question your's. Please refrain from making assumptions regarding my motivations (inter-service rivalry). I have a LOT of respect for the Navy. My point was more around the fact that combat does not equate to flying mail planes. The reality is that I was downplaying MY OWN service by doing so, and did so admittedly and openly.

Whatever, I am not going to be drawn too into a debate about a subject that is a charade, an invention. Please try REALLY REALLY hard to comment on whether some pencil-neck REMF should be claiming he is likely to be in combat? Do you think he is? Or are you saying, well I don't care that he made this claim, even if others put their necks in far greater danger, it's all the same. That's laughable, it's not the same. No one, nowhere said dying in basic doesn't equate to service, but saying volunteering to serve in the NoGo Stateside equals volunteering for the SEALS is absurd.

You all want to misrepresent this as claiming service isn't service, I think your readers can figure out I'm bashing someone who mislead the Nation, corrected them after the fact, and claimed he was going into combat, when he wasn't. You don't want to talk to that, because it will make the whole thing about it being a lie look bad.

Beyond that, Mitch, please don't state my thesis. I never said that service in the military is only valuable if it is in the Marines. WHAT I SAID WAS HE HAD A CHOICE, HE COULD HAVE JOINED THE MARINES, to your comment that it's entirely up to his higher command. The point was about service in Iraq (please try really really hard to be truthful about what I said and what you claimed about the Nation). The Nation's assertion is that those who support the war should serve in Iraq. Hill isn't going to, probably not even get close.

Fingers, please tell me what combat rate (officer spec) in Naval Aviation someone would require for Naval Aviation? How many need this "Masters" for Flight School? How many need it to be a RIO, or an ELINT Officer in an EA6B? Or maybe a Sonar Officer on an S3A or a P3? Do you know? I'll give you the answer, they don't.

This guy mislead the Nation to sand-bag them Mitch. The Nation does itself no good to knowingly misreport, because they have to issue retractions and look bad for it, even moreso and especially when they don't. Hill didn't correct hiimself til later with them. He allowed the Nation to assume (and I think justifiably assume) that his response about pursuing a Master's in lieu of entering service meant he wasn't going to.

It would be REALLLY REALLY nice if you (Mitch) would try to actually respond to what you were asked.. namely, do you think it's a good idea for Hill to claim he's going into combat, when he's not (most likely)? Do you consider serving in a desk the same as serving in combat in Iraq? I didn't say it was the ONLY way to serve, or that not doing so was valueless, I said it was not doing what the NATION was writing about.

Finally, do you consider Hill's failure to advise the Nation that his statement did not mean he was not going to get his commission as in part, his responsibility? He corrected it AFTERWARD, not immediately. The text of what he said would cause me, and I think most, to assume he had decided to pursue other opportunities.

I'm curious why you defend someone who would say something as pompous as "read high probability of combat" and "but I know people", comments that sound like they come from a juvenile delitante?

Mitch, your comments about being safe in the next war (or not) are hardly the point, beyond that, do you seriously think I or anyone else isn't aware of this? Clearly DS1 showed being a Naval Aviator can be dangerous, but this is about THIS WAR, NOW, in that CR and YAF back THIS WAR, but won't volunteer to serve in THIS WAR. Again, PLEASE stop conflating one thing for another. You are ducking the questions over and over and over again. It would be nice if you didn't say that I devalued service when I don't, you are insulting me, as well as anyone else who considers combat different from non-combat. I support service, I don't support claiming you've been in combat, or will be, when you likely won't be. Ask Ens Hill what he is getting this Masters for. The Army has an award called the Combat Infantry Badge (CIB), which looks alot like the Expert Infantry Badge (a Badge I earned but could not receive because of the fact that I was an FO rather than 11B). If I had worn the CIB instead, I'd have been in violation , potentially criminal, and been disrespecting those who had in fact served in combat. The Army gets that, why don't you?

What is the problem Mitch, why do you seem to have a problem actually dealing with the actual facts of what I said rather than making the argument about the topic you want?

Painting me as "hating" servicemen, of dis'ing service, of being ready to throw my service out at any turn, of being ignorant compared to your friend who said nothing at all about the facts I mentioned, is mistating what I said and lying to your readership.

It would be nice if you could actually speak to the topic. The topics, listen really closely:
1. Hill provided pretty imprecise and unclear information to the Nation.
2. Hill is a pompous windbag for claiming he was likely to be in combat (related to THIS WAR) - unlikely currently as a Naval Aviator and even moreso considering he is most likely not going to be a Naval Aviator. He has no freakin idea if he will be until he actually completes this degree and makes the request for flight school unless he's already been accepted, which is not very likely.
3. You are claiming the Nation lied, when the facts of Hill's service came out after the fact, and he was pretty evasive/cryptic/unclear about it on the front end.

If you want to challenge that The Nation should have followed up on what Hill meant, ok, then go there, and we can actually have an intelligent conversation.

If you want to claim that it's unknowable whether Hill will serve in combat in Iraq, ok, and I'd say, it's unknowable, meaning therefore it's not HIGHLY LIKELY (his words).

If you want to claim that the Hill was clear, I think we'd have something to talk about.

But continuing to claim that I have disrespected his service, that I am an "ametuer" or at least ignorant, that I demand people serve in the Marines for it to count, is lying. I never said any of those things, nor even came close. I brought up the Marines to refute your statement he had no choices, he did.

I'm not surprised that some would do so, it's the pattern of those who are not interested in a real dialogue, I'm surprised YOU would do so.

Unlike some of your other readers though, I'm not willing to play that game. Speak to the issues, stop lying about what I said (or should I say purposefully mistating?), stop putting words in my mouth, and ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.

PB

Oh, 1 more topic, and yep it was part of what I stated from the outset.

One guy, taking a job he most likely knows is relatively, does not equate to serving in Iraq. I get that you feel we should draw no distinction, and frankly, I normally wouldn't but it was the whole point of the Nation article, serve in the war if you believe in it. Take the risk, lead. That's not about the next war, that's not about whether it might be dangerous someday, it's not about whether being a rear-area mother...is valueless, the point is, it's NOT SERVING IN IRAQ, the point of the Nation's article.

I'll even go you one further. Serving in support of Iraq counts, the Nation should say so, I would. Hill clearly tried to mislead the Nation about his likelyhood of being in combat IN IRAQ.. or are you saying he was speaking euphamistically about a future war? Hill is the issue here Mitch, not the Nation, not me.

He mislead folks, both the Nation, and then with his self-congratulatory e-mail. You want to say the Nation lied, I'll assert Hill lied. He stated he was going to finish his masters rather than enter service, he didn't say "yet" or "at this time", he stated he was going to serve in combat, when his pursuit of a masters indicates he's NOT going to, and that he probably is NOT invovled in Naval Aviation, that's just what he initially chose and was identified with when he graduated (line spec), but that probably has been replaced by whatever thing he's getting his masters for. Regardless, even if he's going into Naval Aviation, in THIS WAR he's not going to be in combat, well, at least not for a LONG LONG time, until the Shiites take over the Government, boot us out and create an Air Force, or when the Insurgents get their own Air Force.

So who here is the liar Mitch, Hill or the Nation, for that matter, who is attempting to spin the discussion away from the point of your original post about the Nation lying,You, or me?

I'm stating the Nation had no idea that it was wrong, it talked to Hill, how many times should it go back?

You are stating I don't consider non-combat service worthwhile? hmmm... who is staying on topic here?

So, should the military then be the only folks who direct our military adventures? That is what you are actually saying even if you don't realize it. Think about it for a sec. You say that those that support the WOT should be the ones in harms way, which includes the Commander In Chief. In essence, when you say things like chickenhawk, you are effectively demonstrating that you have no relevant knowledge of how our Republic was formed and is currently run. To say that one has to be in harms way to support the WOT, Iraq, whatever, means one does not believe that civilians, which are clearly NOT in harms way, should send the military on any mission whatsoever. In other words, you do NOT believe in our Constitution. Rather interesting for one who is claiming to have taken an oath to defend the Constitution.

By the way, the article by The Nation in no way states that the College Republicans or YAF are calling for others to enlist or to be commisioned. The article is entirely about the 'chickenhawk' slander, which is an extremely poor argument.

One more thing, the WOT is a war in which not only are those on the front lines are in danger of being killed, but so are those in the rear echelon (cite the unprecendented use of armor on rear echelon vehicles), and, in reality, any one that opposes the extremely militant Islam that the terrorists are trying to hoist upon the world, which should be crystal clear after 9-11.

Lastly, I suggest you revise your opinion of those not on the 'front lines', which includes reservists and national guardsmen. The military is completely about Combined OPS (using all branches of the military) with reservists coming on board filling essential and non-essential billets. This is today's military and it is the reason why we don't have to have a draft.

I forgot one thing ...

In regards to the Navy, you will need a masters degree to advance higher up in the officer ranks.

"the danger in the Navy is from falling off a ship"

PB,

I was on a submarine. Falling off the ship was the least of my concerns. Actually, considering some of the numerous things that can go wrong on board a sub (weapons system malfunctions, water in the battery compartment, problems in the reactor, fire, flooding, getting hit by an enemy torpedo...), things could be MUCH worse than falling off the ship.

The fact that my sub never saw combat doesn't make my service any less dangerous nor less honorable. Those in the military, no matter their rate or duty station, deserve our respect, not our scorn.

In the world of precision strike and brilliant munitions, I have now seen what a carpet-bombing-of-words looks like! Dude, less is more!

REMF is correct. A masters degree is a must for promotion past O-4 in most services (yes there are always exceptions: read anything is waiverable) today.
Serving in combat, short of all out global, nation on nation conflict is really a matter of timing. Certain MOSs/rates/jobs are more likely than others to find themselves being shot at certainly, but then again serving for 20 vice getting out after 4 will also increase the likelihood of seeing action.
The National Guard and Reserves are totally involved in IRAQ plus still performing their traditional "at home" missions of wildland firefighting, disaster relief, etc.
In the end service is about "serving" ones country and fellow countrymen not about combat, though combat is a real possiblity for many (yes even truck drivers!) though not all.
While no one wants to deploy to war, I think one will find that most troops involved in the GWOT understand the importance of their mission and don't give a damn about all the queepy reasons they got there--they know we were attacked (more than likely because of years of international weakness). They just want to do the job and come home!
Fin

Once again Fingers.. you are not addressing the question I asked.

What I asked was "what Flight Rate requires a Masters to be a Pilot", the answer, and I knew it full well, is none. That you need a Masters to advance to Lt. Colonel is TOTALLY unrelated..that can be gained FAR later in your military life, and usually is. Hill's comments about the military "wanting bright people" was undoubtedly misleading.

REMF - no you don't fall of submarines..but there aren't too many planes flying off submarines... please be a bit more careful when reading, I said the MAJOR DANGER currently is falling of the ship.. That is the single leading killer in the Navy almost every year unless we are engaged in active combat.

You are also putting words in my mouth, I didn't say it should ONLY be for those who favor or direct, what I said was it shouldn't ONLY be for those who DON'T.

This Hill character seems more and more the blow-hard when I hear about him..

Also, Fingers, the military in fact does not REQUIRE you to have a Master's, it's merely that right now, in peacetime, it is so. In times of conflict.. you know we're in a war right now..Major's can become Lt. Colonels.. just like Sergeants can become Maverick Lts.

So if we're being purely factual, it's not required, however, that is splitting hairs, but as you've professed to be an expert.. you might want to check that.

PB,

I think it highly unlikely that any of the principles to this debate will see your response; I only saw it in my "recent comments" meter.

Since you claim some extra authority for your knowledge as a 12 year enlisted/NCO active duty and reserve veteran - correctly so, in many cases - I should point out that Fingers is (without revealing confidences) a field-grade combat-arms officer with nearly 20 years of active-duty service. He is a currently-serving officer in a highly-responsible billet. Fingers is an old friend, whom I've known for nearly three decades.

Just so any remaining readers can assign authority correctly.