U.S Military becoming a joke?

KingHashirama

Legendary Shinobi 🐸
Supreme
Joined
Jun 30, 2012
Messages
27,280
Reaction score
1,690
The article is below :

military judge last week found Army Sgt. John Russell guilty of gunning down five fellow soldiers at a base in Iraq.

Victims’ family members hugged and wept at the verdict. Russell stood quietly, head down.

Friends and family say he was “combat stressed” by a third tour. “Snapped,” they say. He should have been sent home.

Prosecutors argued that Russell was angry about not getting a mental disability discharge and took out revenge.

Is the respect that America holds for its military — a pride shown over the weekend in Armed Forces Day observances — being undercut by acts of mayhem, a growing sexual abuse scandal and a flurry of other misconduct cases grabbing headlines?

Jury selection is scheduled to start later this month in the court-martial of Maj. Nidal Hasan, the Army psychiatrist charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder at Fort Hood, Texas. By the time testimony begins for Hasan, the trial for WikiLeaks leaker Bradley Manning should also be underway.

There is Robert Bales. He is the Army sergeant charged with the massacre of 16 Afghan civilians, including nine children. At pretrial hearings, the military said it would seek the death penalty.

Throw in record suicides. Throw in what Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey deemed last week a “crisis” of military rape and vows by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to make the court-martial system more accountable.

Throw in 17 Air Force officers stripped recently of nuclear missile launch duty because of repeated failings. (“Rot,” a commander called it.) And add a Marine captain charged with dereliction because of an incident last year in which his men urinated on corpses of Taliban fighters.

“Every one of these cases is different. Each has its own logic. But I do think a broader phenomenon is at work” within a military that has been fighting nonstop since 2001, said John Nagl, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and expert in counterinsurgency.

“We’re seeing a strain on an institution that’s been asked to give probably more than it should have been asked to give,” he said.

This is a unique, troubling and puzzling time for the nation’s armed forces. Never before have they seen such a perfect storm of murder cases, self-destructive behavior and cries for help.

This in a country in which citizens consistently rank the military as the nation’s most trusted institution. “Support Our Troops” stickers adorn thousands, maybe millions, of cars. Strangers pick up restaurant tabs for men and women in uniform.

So for the next few months, as high-profile cases go to court and frustrated members of Congress call for sexual assaults to be removed from the military chain of command, what are people supposed to think?

“They are supposed to think we’ve been at war a long time and that bad things are going to happen,” said Cindy Williams, a principal research scientist and defense analyst in the securities studies program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

“If we’re at war long enough, My Lai happens,” added Williams, referring to the 1968 slaughter of a Vietnam village by a U.S. unit commanded by Lt. William Calley.

The spate of incidents is certainly raising questions about what happens to a military force in prolonged war with multiple deployments. As things play out, the reputation of the military could take a hit.

“At some point, it’s going to undermine public confidence in the military,” said Victor Hansen, a retired JAG officer and now vice president of the National Institute of Military Justice.

Eugene Fidell, a veteran teaching military justice at Yale, said, however, that we should not lose sight that the U.S. military is generally made up of well-behaved troops with a low level of criminality and few incidents of desertion and insubordination.

Nothing other than timing connects Russell, Bales, Hasan and Manning, he said. And most service personnel aren’t committing sexual abuse.

“But people should be concerned that these things are happening all at once,” Fidell said. “Red flags are obviously being missed. Even personnel matters that are staring them right in the face. Hasan clearly showed he should not have been in his job. Pvt. Manning should never have had security clearance.”

And in combat zones, field commanders don’t want to hear that a soldier is having issues.

“They don’t want to lose another soldier,” Fidell said. “So they say, ‘Hey, everybody’s a little goofy out here.’ ”


Is the Commander in Chief (The president) doing its job? Is he even the commander in Chief?

Should military laws get more strict? Should people only join the military , if they know they can take the stress?
 

Grammar Nazi

Anbu Operative 🎭
Veteran
Joined
Aug 21, 2011
Messages
3,742
Reaction score
440
is becoming a joke? when was it 'not' a joke?
 

Uchiha812

Jōnin Strategist 🧠
Regular
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
1,774
Reaction score
81
Most of the stuff they do is a joke
 

KingHashirama

Legendary Shinobi 🐸
Supreme
Joined
Jun 30, 2012
Messages
27,280
Reaction score
1,690

Ōkami

Legendary Shinobi 🐸
Supreme
Joined
Sep 11, 2012
Messages
21,781
Reaction score
2,396
Perhaps if they were better trained they wouldn't shoot each other on their off time.
 

Blunt

Anbu Operative 🎭
Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Messages
4,498
Reaction score
371
You actually think the President is commander and chief? And really the leader of the U.S. L.O.L, you are mistaken.
Besides, the US Navy is bigger and leagues ahead then the next big 17 combined. China made it's first operating aircraft carrier in 2000s, the US have had them since WWI I believe and WWII. That just goes to show.
 

Ōkami

Legendary Shinobi 🐸
Supreme
Joined
Sep 11, 2012
Messages
21,781
Reaction score
2,396
You actually think the President is commander and chief? And really the leader of the U.S. L.O.L, you are mistaken.
Besides, the US Navy is bigger and leagues ahead then the next big 17 combined. China made it's first operating aircraft carrier in 2000s, the US have had them since WWI I believe and WWII. That just goes to show.

Goes to show you guys like big expensive toys?
 

YowYan

Kage in the Making 👑
Legendary
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
15,124
Reaction score
1,838
Goes to show you guys like big expensive toys?

Goes to show how much money is being pumped into the military industrial complex so that the u.s. can spread it's imperialistic, interventionist meddling across the globe.
 

Typhon

Kage in the Making 👑
Legendary
Joined
Apr 29, 2009
Messages
15,991
Reaction score
603
I wouldn't characterize it as becoming a "joke", but its certainly being stretched too thin and overworked. As pointed out in your post most of these people who snap are on their 2nd, 3rd or 4th deployments in a war that's lasted longer than an other war in the country's history, save for Vietnam. Its a long time to be seeing violence and death and there are going to be a lot of people who's minds and bodies simple can't handle it. Some people are going to respond with violence, and that's where we get cases like those.
 

ROSH2

Anbu Operative 🎭
Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
4,688
Reaction score
208
human right watch organization & UN not take any action for that
 

Aim64C

Anbu Operative 🎭
Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2012
Messages
3,681
Reaction score
608
There are multiple problems that are growing within the military.

Politics is a huge part of it.

It's difficult to explain to people who are not in the military - who don't quite have the perspective. Reservists deal with the differences between military and civilian life on a daily basis - and the revelations are quite... disturbing.

In the civilian sector, there is a lot of truth to "it's not what you know, but who you know" - but that only gets you in the door. In the end - you have to achieve results. There are a few exceptions - but in your highly competitive business arenas (what I consider "real business") the focus is on results.

The military used to be relatively similar. When we 'fired up' in response to Pearl Harbor - the military didn't have enough officers, senior enlisted, etc to run and manage things. They brought private-side business men in to fill in demand. These were factory owners, tradesmen, shop foremen - they gave up their civilian jobs (often better paying) to serve their country. There was a heavy sense of honor and duty behind the way they structured and operated their commands.

The military long had a reputation of being very efficient and very effective at achieving results with minimal supplies.

That's no longer the case.

A number of factors have worn this edge down, and worn it down considerably. Several periods of contraction followed by rapid expansion of the military have had some of the most detrimental effects. The military rarely seeks higher-ranking members in either enlisted or officer positions from outside the military. Promotion is all internal.

When the military goes through a period of draw-down and manpower contraction - promotions grind to a halt. Since authority, rank, pay scale, and technical expertise are all combined into one pay grade system... you see a lot of very good and very effective leaders get recruited out of the military by private interests. Worse - some absolutely insane accounting theory has suggested that attrition of specialist jobs and quality leaders is preferable to retention.

What happens? By the time an eight-year term of military draw downs runs its course - most of your people who were field experts and good leaders are ready to retire. The driven people below them have, in some cases, been forced out of the military by high-year-tenure (because there -is- no room for promotion); in many others, they never renew their contract because they see there is zero potential for promotion and improvement within the military - and they can walk into a $75K a year job.

Who is left? Not the people you want in leadership positions. Worse - since a lot of the senior people are retiring - there ends up being a vacuum of senior leadership - which means a period of very rapid promotion for the "meh" crowd that lack both leadership experience and discipline.

Throw in a couple rounds of this - and you have a primary cause of many of today's problems in the military. It's why you have bases full of people who show up for 'work' (which might require them to be there for 2 hours of actually accomplishing something), twiddle their thumbs, and debate about how early is "too early" to call an end to the day and go home (because there's zero requirement for them to be there, other than policy established by people who can, for whatever reason, never be found in their office when you need them).... while contractors are brought in to mow the lawn.

Even worse - the high attrition rates are starting to cause an adoption of even more flawed policies. Technical training programs are being slashed in length and content. Problems the average technician was expected to troubleshoot and resolve are now handled by contractors (who are flown out at costs nearly twenty times the monthly pay of said military technician). Higher attrition rates influenced a decline in training quality (why spend money to train them if they are going to go someplace else?); but those same high attrition rates mean that the expertise necessary to fill in the gaps in the training programs with OJT often evaporates... which means the system becomes reliant upon contractors.

It's a mess.

It's frustrating.

You'll see good people who stand up for their subordinates put on the shit-lists of promotion boards, while chit-routing snitches get rocketed through the ranks. The people who seem to be out to destroy the careers of others tend to be more popular to promote, at least at present, than other individuals (this does vary from command/community to command/community - but the trend I've been picking up is generally not for the better).

Combine all of this with the fact that a lot of military types are generally small-government conservatives (kind of ironic, really), and that many of -us- are starting to see a conflict of interest with our affiliation to a military funded by the federal government (which has been pushing strongly in directions that most people in the military disagree with)....

It's a whole herd of white elephants in the room that no one really wants to admit exists.

And that's before we even start touching the insane amount of 'mission creep' that has our military flittering about the world on whimsical missions of good will that - while well intentioned - are usually naive and destructive in the long run. We'll go in, bomb a country to support rebels that want to vote... 'kay. Then we kind of forget about that as we rush off to some other corner... but the reality is that the people we 'spread democracy to' just voted on what ethnic group gets to persecute the other ethnic groups 'because they won the vote.'

It would be comical if human lives weren't involved.

Of course... to 'do things right' - we'd literally have to install a temporary government run under military authority to force those regions to 'play nice' and 'accept that people can live with different views' ... then let them vote 25-30 years later while slowly phasing to a puppet and finally an allied government.

But no one wants to get that deeply involved... not to mention it raises huge ethical questions: "So... what if they don't want democracy, and would rather just take turns at being the follower or subject of a warlord?"

Iraq will likely not survive the squabbling of the Shiites and Sunni. Either they will destroy the country, proper, or a new dictator will arise who can subdue the two groups.

Afghanistan is another discussion... but the major problem there is that a lot of the tribes, there, don't fully agree that they live within this "afghanistan" place. The entire concept of a nation and government is different for them than compared to us. For them - it's almost always been about the tribes. "Government" outside of these tribal bonds were just loose alliances and agreements with the other tribes; particularly after their numerous struggles against the Soviets left little in the way of organized institutions.

I mean... our military is still worlds better than a lot of the others out there (both in capability and environment/morale)... but it's not the same military I used to hear about from my parents and grandparents. The only branch that really seems to have preserved the older leadership qualities is the marines. They still do a pretty good job of filtering out the dead-beats before they get far enough along to consider a re-enlistment.
 

Vex

Kage in the Making 👑
Legendary
Joined
Jul 18, 2012
Messages
12,545
Reaction score
518
“Every one of these cases is different. Each has its own logic."

The events pointed out are a vast, vast, vast, minority. Lets say that your brother snaps, after doing an extremely strenuous job for years. Is the rest of your family inept?
 

KingHashirama

Legendary Shinobi 🐸
Supreme
Joined
Jun 30, 2012
Messages
27,280
Reaction score
1,690
You actually think the President is commander and chief? And really the leader of the U.S. L.O.L, you are mistaken.
Besides, the US Navy is bigger and leagues ahead then the next big 17 combined. China made it's first operating aircraft carrier in 2000s, the US have had them since WWI I believe and WWII. That just goes to show.
The President IS the Commander In Chief... But only few presidents have shown to fullfill that role (Washington, Lincoln, FDR).

President is the Leader of the people of the united States of America.. it doesn't mean he has full power.. but he is without a doubt the leader of the country.

FDR's quote on War:

“I have seen war. I have seen war on land and sea. I have seen blood running from the wounded. I have seen men coughing out their gassed lungs. I have seen the dead in the mud. I have seen cities destroyed. I have seen 200 limping, exhausted men come out of line—the survivors of a regiment of 1,000 that went forward 48 hours before. I have seen children starving. I have seen the agony of mothers and wives. I hate war.”

“Those who have long enjoyed such privileges as we enjoy forget in time that
men have died to win them."

Government/Politics:
“We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace—business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred.”

Perhaps if they were better trained they wouldn't shoot each other on their off time.
The problem comes back again to a "LEADER" , we don't have a leader.

“Every one of these cases is different. Each has its own logic."

The events pointed out are a vast, vast, vast, minority. Lets say that your brother snaps, after doing an extremely strenuous job for years. Is the rest of your family inept?

And how do you know it is the vast minority? Most of the stuff doesn't get out.. the only stuff that is talked about in the media is the "leaked" stuff. Do you really think the Military tells us everything that happens? Look at Veitnam.... Johnson and the other generals were telling the people half baked lies......
 
Last edited:

Aim64C

Anbu Operative 🎭
Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2012
Messages
3,681
Reaction score
608
I don't think everything can be appropriately tracked back to the President. The acting President usually mitigates or exacerbates the issue(s) depending upon his or her policies and behavior/performance.

But, the problems, themselves, stem from much deeper policy issues than what the President can set.

From the standpoint of Congress - there's not a very solid idea of what the military is supposed to do. We used to have "keep the commies out" as a mission - but the military has kind of been used for what-the-****-ever comes to mind. Guard foreign aid shipments? We'll commit soldiers to that. Pirates kidnap some people? We'll commit a ship and teams to that. Invade a country suspected of building chemcial, biological, and radiological weapons? We'll spearhead that. Shoot at drug runners? Sounds like a good time.

This is largely the fault of modern Congressional methods. They "compromise" by allowing both sides to have what they want with critical financial or structural factors removed. The liberals want to send aid to Africa - so we send some soldiers in with the U.N. to keep the war-lords from seizing the supplies and using it to strengthen their position. The conservatives want to shut down drugs. So they decide to do both with the same increase in funding necessary for one of those operations (not both). Funding gets stripped from some other command to support these operations at a lower tier of decision-making, and you have a cascading series of nonsense.

Now - decades ago, if this sort of stuff started to happen - we had people in leadership positions who would fire back: "Uh... we don't have the resources to make this happen." They knew what they were doing, and felt a responsibility to their people before a responsibility to their senior officials. They would actually give feed-back on what was wrong with the proposal - be it that it didn't have funding, didn't have a plausible plan, or that the expected results were not going to be achieved with the mission.

But the culture has bred a bunch of "'yes' men" who try and stand on the shoulders of the leadership before them and say: "You all need to figure out how to do this. When I was a green horn we were always told to suck it up and make things happen, so don't expect any different here." That's when they are trying to make a more structured argument. But it's always fun when they say stuff like: "There are guys in Afghanistan who don't have [what you are asking for]." .... Well, true - but if they did, they'd be using it... and calling us retarded for having it and not using it.

Then there are other issues - the inflation of medals/awards (officer promotions can be decided by how many within their command received awards issued by authorities above their own), the promotion policies that tend to unnecessarily restrict senior leadership positions to rate/MOS. For example - only so many hamburger flippers can be promoted to shift manager... even though the skills necessary to be a shift manager are unrelated to hamburger flipping - so the positions of shift manager should involve all qualified subordinate positions (if you've got a higher-quality cashier than you have hamburger flippers... then you should promote the cashier to shift manager even if no hamburger flippers get promoted).

Now, that's my experience with the way the Navy promotes people - and there are different ways that other branches determine promotions and positions...

But, it can also work the other way. Take some of the SH-60s. There are, if I remember correctly, 3 different block/model revisions currently in service. The differences between them are distinct enough that the people who work on one helicopter have to be re-trained and requalified to work on another. Yet, promotion structure doesn't take this into account - so you have people retiring out of these communities and leaving holes in manpower at the 'higher resolutions' that don't exist to the bureucrats looking at the larger numbers and determining how many people need to be promoted or re-assigned/retrained.

But few really care about making the military function the way it 'should.' Those that do, often give up after struggling to reach the levels where they can do something on a limited scale - and get worn down.

Don't get me wrong - I wouldn't give up my time in the military for anything - and there's a lot of opportunities, experiences, and lessons that I could not have had/learned anywhere else. But there are problems that will only become bigger as time goes on, unless there is a concerted effort to address the problems and consider serious revisions in pay, rank, promotion, funding, operational, and organizational structures (basically, considering restructuring everything).
 

Krauq

Leaf Village Regular 🍃
Regular
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
864
Reaction score
52
We need to nuke Israel.
 

Aim64C

Anbu Operative 🎭
Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2012
Messages
3,681
Reaction score
608
We need to nuke Israel.

That's a negative.

Israel, as opposed to a disturbing number of the countries that surround them, is able to conduct itself in an organized and peaceful manner.

True - they can be a little subversive and manipulative - but you can work with that.

You can't appease the other countries around them. You simply can't. It's "give a mouse a cookie." When you start to draw a line in the sand and refuse to give them what they want - they fund groups that like to send suicide bombers and rockets into your markets.
 
Top