Caste Forth

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Former professor at the United States Military Academy at West Point writes about the failure of leadership at the academy.

But enough hammering on the Army.  Let’s talk about the Navy, with two collisions this year, what’s happening to its leadership?

Makes one wonder: do we need a professional officer corps?  Would senior non-coms be enough to teach new recruits the basics, leaving strategy and tactics to a small group of experts?  Do we need military officers worrying about diversity and career opportunities for women – aren’t there enough people in academia, the media and politics doing that already?

Joe Doakes

It’s not an academic question.

5 thoughts on “Caste Forth

  1. Many point to the lack of military hardware as proof of the deliberate damage Obama did to our national defense. That nis true enough, but the worst thing he did was his pogrom against senior military leaders; it was unmatched by any predecessor.

    He replaced them with PC bootlickers, homosexuals and craven cowards. They, in turn, infiltrated the lower ranks with their ilk.

    I have two family members in the Navy (one is a Marine). Both report low morale and an environment of entitlement by protected status that is frightening. The Chain of Command has been corrupted with fear of retribution and loss of career.

    While the reprobate MSM is fixated on his hilarious tweeting program, Trump is quietly remaking government from the inside out…just as Obama did, but in reverse.

    I have no knowledge of what’s going on in the military leadership today, but one might not be remiss to observe there is hope there, too.

  2. What’s gone on, as far as I can tell, is that the generals and CiC (former at least) have elevated requirements for diversity and inclusion above the honor code (“We will not lie, cheat, or steal, nor tolerate those among us who do.”) and basic tenets of soldiering and seamanship. It’s the same thing that happens in any organization where executives value anything above the quality policy, really.

    To reverse it, you more or less have to figure out who the ringleaders of that movement are in the upper ranks of officers and replace them with people who value the honor code. Unfortunately, this will be extremely difficult, as there were hints of the demoralization of the DoD in the Clinton and Obama administrations both. In those 16 years (24 if you include degradation during the Bush administration), a young officer can be expected to progress pretty much from 2 Lt. to resignation, retirement, or general staff.

    In other words, recovering the integrity of the officer corps is going to take decades, if it occurs at all. This is also huge in any military that is consistently deployed, as bad things happen when locals see the foreigners as lacking honor, and get worried about their wives, daughters, and (today) sons.

  3. “Makes one wonder: do we need a professional officer corps? Would senior non-coms be enough to teach new recruits the basics, leaving strategy and tactics to a small group of experts?”

    I was commissioned through Officer Candidate School, in lovely Ft Benning, GA, after being enlisted (was even a platoon sergeant for a bit) for nine years. In answer to Joe’s question, I say that yes – we need an officer corps. And it needs to be professional. It also needs to be leaner than it is. I was on a division staff for awhile, and it was so bloated with officers (and senior NCO’s), that a Major was little more than a coffee boy.

    Officers play a key role, even at platoon level. A good platoon leader/platoon sergeant team is like having a mom and dad. They work together, with each in their respective roles. Same for a company commander and 1SG. The officer in these situations focuses on the mission. The NCO focuses on that as well, but also on the soldiers.

    Now, I guess the follow on question, is what is a professional officer corps? Is it graduates of a trade school (ie – West Point and Naval Academy)? Or can it be OCS and ROTC? I think that those institutions have their role. But, I’m also a fan of the system I saw when training in Norway – you couldn’t become an officer until you’d been a sergeant. However, enlisted time didn’t always make for a good officer. I saw both sides of the coin with that. (see LT Spenser Rapone for an example of the bad).

    BikeBubba – agreed that it’s going to take a long time (if ever) to sort things out. I saw (in the name of diversity) soldiers that horribly failed a test (example – 12 mile ruck march in a certain time frame) that were able to pass on a re-test just a few days later. Was there “undue command influence” there, to ensure that these diverse soldiers were able to graduate? I’d bet money that there was. However, they went on to become logisticians and administrative types. Does it really matter if they can go 12 miles in 3 hours, carrying 35 lbs?

    However, I would ask this – is it the fault of the military? I agree when it comes to not enforcing standards. However, the military is getting what society gives them – overweight, not used to physical training, low discipline. The list could go on. How do you change that in eight weeks? In 90 days? In four years?

  4. Shaking, I’m thinking that if it were only a matter of failing to meet physical standards, that would be a relief, if the former West Point professor can be trusted on the matter. It’s one matter of morale when a truck driver or such in logistics has “Dunlop Disease” (plus some performance/safety issues I’d guess) and the infantry see that “some guys don’t need to qualify”. It’s a much bigger deal when, e.g. Rapone, it’s an honor code violation and a refusal to uphold the Constitution.

  5. I have no knowledge of what’s going on in the military leadership today, but one might not be remiss to observe there is hope there, too.

    Scott Adams wrote about (as was quoted on this blog prior to the election) how Trump has been “leading” as a tactic of persuasion. Propose something outrageous, let the ensuing shitstorm run its course, and then propose something less outrageous and watch as it is accepted as “not as radical as the last suggestion”

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/25/politics/trump-transgender-military/index.html

    I expect sometime in the near future Trump will propose something a little less radical, yet still providing some needed reforms/reversals.

    Either that or he threw that one out there to generate the expected shitstorm and then is quietly enacting other reforms while the spittle-flecked crazies’ heads are exploding over the above issue.

Leave a Reply