FM 22-5 Drill & Ceremonies Obama Style

[sated buddha]

The fact that they didn't serve doesn't bother me at all. LBJ and Nixon both served in the Navy and mostly spent their time cheating at poker and running various scams. So there is serving, and serving with honor. I worked in the Pentagon under the Clinton administration. I briefed his SECDEF several times, and his Vice President once. I loved the former and despised the latter . . . and he served in Vietnam. What bothered me about Clinton was not that he was a Democrat (although I am not one . . . nor a Republican), or that he didn't serve. No, what bothered me is that he protested against the Vietnam War, and in a foreign country into the bargain. I didn't like that war either, but being a Navy junior, I knew there were things one just does not do when people are fighting and dying in the field. People died because of what Clinton and others of his ilk did, because no matter how we want to rationalize or sugar coat it, from this side (the uniformed side that is) of the ledger, that's "giving aid and comfort to the enemy," and THAT I will never forgive. As far as I'm concerned, given who educated him (Alinsky et al.), the current occupant of the White House is just as bad, if not worse.

Thanks for clearing that from the military angle sir. I see your point and would feel the same, regardless of whether I had served or not.

I read some of the old debates here when Obama was to be re-elected and somehow had (erroneously) gotten the impression that at least for some it was more of an "old boys club" thing. Where Obama did not belong.

[desertswo]

Thanks for clearing that from the military angle sir. I see your point and would feel the same, regardless of whether I had served or not.

I read some of the old debates here when Obama was to be re-elected and somehow had (erroneously) gotten the impression that at least for some it was more of an "old boys club" thing. Where Obama did not belong.

He neither understands, nor "likes" us. Frankly, he acts as if we were a bunch of automatons to be sent out to do his bidding, without him REALLY understanding the cost. Also, and this one will probably be controversial, he REALLY doesn't understand the US and its people. He may have been born here (although, if like me, you've been to Hawaii about a bazillion times, you kind of wonder if it's really part of the US), though some may still have an issue with that, but he spent his formative years in freaking Indonesia. He just doesn't "get" us, and it shows in just about every thing he does.

[sated buddha]

He neither understands, nor "likes" us. Frankly, he acts as if we were a bunch of automatons to be sent out to do his bidding, without him REALLY understanding the cost. Also, and this one will probably be controversial, he REALLY doesn't understand the US and its people. He may have been born here (although, if like me, you've been to Hawaii about a bazillion times, you kind of wonder if it's really part of the US), though some may still have an issue with that, but he spent his formative years in freaking Indonesia. He just doesn't "get" us, and it shows in just about every thing he does.

But yet he was elected to lead you, not once but twice. Does that reflect a fundamental schism amongst the electorate or do you think it was a one-off. A reflection of the times. Of a war weary post-Bush America, feeling a bit rebellious?

[desertswo]

But yet he was elected to lead you, not once but twice. Does that reflect a fundamental schism amongst the electorate or do you think it was a one-off. A reflection of the times. Of a war weary post-Bush America, feeling a bit rebellious?

I believe it is the result of an All Volunteer military. We, most especially those of us who hang around for a full career, become divorced from the rest of the US. We are different, and hold ourselves apart. Not everyone believes this, but trust me, it is a weltanschauung that permeates the force from head to toe. In my view, that is a little dangerous. See the work of the late Northwestern University Professor Charles Moskos, whom I was fortunate to meet and learn a great deal from while at the Pentagon, working on changing the pay and retirement system (it became a readiness issue, and that was my main brief on the Joint Staff, and I worked a good deal with the J-1 folks on that one), and Making The Corps by Thomas Ricks, who used to write for the Military Times corporation. He has/had his finger on the pulse of the military for a long, long time, and even though not "of us," he had us figured out, and was able to see things that the rest of us don't because we are part of the situation (I don't say "problem" because I don't know for certain that is what it is). It's pretty interesting stuff.

With regard to the Commander-in-Chief, I would follow any legal order that came down from him. The problem is that he has a little problem with understanding the Constitution that we both swore an oath to "support and defend." The US government is currently doing a lot of things with regard to information gathering that are patently illegal. I used to serve as a kind of "pimp" for NSA from my nest in the E-Ring. I had access to a DoD personnel database that had the name and location of every linguist in the military, and believe me when I tell you that there are a lot of them. They got sent to NSA and occasionally the FBI to be used to do a lot of things; some of them good, but as recent revelations by our friend Mr. Snowdon have shown, others not so much. I knew what those guys at NSA were capable of, and a lot of it ain't pretty. Using that sort of capability against the American people is wrong and needs to be stopped. Were I in any of those roles, I'm afraid I would have had to resign from the military as I could not, in good conscience do what is being done.

As regards Mr. Obama as a person, I wouldn't cross the street to urinate on his intestines if they were on fire. I believe he is dangerous in many ways, and he knows it.

[Albany Rifles]

We, most especially those of us who hang around for a full career, become divorced from the rest of the US. We are different, and hold ourselves apart.

Sir, then shame on us.

We are not better....we are from that population.

We owe it to that population to make sure we stay connected.

We can disagree but we cannot place ourselves above....because as much as we like to think we are above the general population, we are not.

[S2]

Pretty sure I felt different even if I didn't feel superior. I just knew there were things going on which I understood very well and much of the public couldn't, wouldn't and didn't.

[desertswo]

We, most especially those of us who hang around for a full career, become divorced from the rest of the US. We are different, and hold ourselves apart.

Sir, then shame on us.

We are not better....we are from that population.

We owe it to that population to make sure we stay connected.

We can disagree but we cannot place ourselves above....because as much as we like to think we are above the general population, we are not.

Hey, 'm not saying it's a good thing. However, the evidence for it was pretty profound based on surveys by outfits like RAND, and Professor Moskos whose life long study as a sociology scholar was the culture of the military, and again Ricks who'd been around us and writing about us since Christ was a mess cook. i didn't like it, but I had to agree that the differences were there.

I went to my 40th high school reunion the other day, and four of us had been career military officers; two Marines (one of whom did a stretch as an Army enlisted man), and an Army guard guy who literally was blown up in Iraq (lost a lung, half his liver, required a total hip replacement, and has more shrapnel continuously leaking out of him than the law allows). We tried to explain to old friends we hadn't seen in a while, the sorts of things we did for 20 plus years, and they just don't "get it." I don't lose much sleep over it, but it isn't a good thing, because in my mind, it lays the foundation to the "Seven Days In May" scenario. Like so . . .

[Gun Grape]

Thanks for clearing that from the military angle sir. I see your point and would feel the same, regardless of whether I had served or not.

My take on this. There is no "military angle"

The people in the military are a reflection of society. We have Liberals, Conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, Independents and those that don't give a damn.

Who the President is, or what he believes doesn't matter to the average military person. We have a job to do and we do it.

I was active duty under 4 Presidents. Reagan, and the Bushes (Sr and Jr) supposedly liked and respected the military. Clinton was suppose to hate the air we breath. ALL of them sent me places where I got shot at. I couldn't tell any difference. Didn't hold it against any of them They had their job to do, I had mine

[sated buddha]

I guess Hollywood could be to blame here (The Rock), but there is always the fear of a strong and powerful military force becoming so alienated (and disgruntled) with its own populace, as to take over and run things their own way.After wreaking retribution for wrongs it perceived to have been done to them and their institution as a whole.

I must admit I have seen pretty much the same thing desertswo describes amongst the forces in India as well. Whether LT or DCL would corroborate or not. I speak from a purely civvy perspetive of course, looking in, so I might have sen things they take as regular or unnoteworthy.

That said, purely academically, could a modern military the size of either the US or India, ever take over and successfully (sustainably) hold their populaces in control - should the populaces not quite like or agree to the idea? Demolish, yes. Hold, I think unlikely.

[desertswo]

I guess Hollywood could be to blame here (The Rock), but there is always the fear of a strong and powerful military force becoming so alienated (and disgruntled) with its own populace, as to take over and run things their own way.After wreaking retribution for wrongs it perceived to have been done to them and their institution as a whole.

I must admit I have seen pretty much the same thing desertswo describes amongst the forces in India as well. Whether LT or DCL would corroborate or not. I speak from a purely civvy perspetive of course, looking in, so I might have sen things they take as regular or unnoteworthy.

That said, purely academically, could a modern military the size of either the US or India, ever take over and successfully (sustainably) hold their populaces in control - should the populaces not quite like or agree to the idea? Demolish, yes. Hold, I think unlikely.

The best template for this sort of thing is Latin America, where the populace of many countries have more than once DEMANDED THAT THE MILITARY TAKE OVER. I don't see that happening here, partly because we are so well inculcated with the idea of civilian authority over the military and our constitutional role. We get this in the higher ranks at the various war colleges and staff and command schools scattered throughout the force, and the country. And yet . . . I can tell you that from my own perspective, the pig tracks that this particular administration has trotted all over the Constitution have made me angrier than I've ever been. It's not the first time this has happened, but I was an adult during Watergate, so I have a sense of proportion, and in my opinion, Obama makes Nixon look like a mere piker. I honestly don't know how guys wearing four stars can serve this man, but they must be made of sterner stuff than I, because I would have said, "Sayonara Motherfecker" and walked out the door a long time ago.

[sated buddha]

I don't see that happening here, partly because we are so well inculcated with the idea of civilian authority over the military and our constitutional role.

Sir this story is as old as Rome itself. Where the senate, corruption intrigues and all, controlled the armies and the generals.

By its very nature and function, an army cannot be a democratic institution.

So a democracy with an army is essentially ideologically pretty apart. Maybe that's some of what the upper echelons of the military find difficult to digest. The chaos and the dissent and the questioning by anyone and everyone regardless of his or her "station" in life and the pecking order - which the miltary thrives on.

[Officer of Engineers]

Sir this story is as old as Rome itself. Where the senate, corruption intrigues and all, controlled the armies and the generals.

By its very nature and function, an army cannot be a democratic institution.

So a democracy with an army is essentially ideologically pretty apart. Maybe that's some of what the upper echelons of the military find difficult to digest. The chaos and the dissent and the questioning by anyone and everyone regardless of his or her "station" in life and the pecking order - which the miltary thrives on.

Rome was not a democracy and the Legions chosed the Emperor more than a few times.

[sated buddha]

Rome was not a democracy and the Legions chosed the Emperor more than a few times.

Rome was a little bit like Pakistan in that way. Yo-yoing between the army and civilian rule. Which is actualy what I meant in context of this discussion. The military and the civilians and the interaction between the two. So please don't get hung up on the democracy bit technically.

Even here in India, even in the so called peace postings, the army guys rarely mingle much with the civies, staying to their bases and quarters and messes. The kids thankfully gets to mix with civvy kids, but even there we have these schools which are predominantly for army kids.

It does breed a certain isolationism. And I wonder if that's good.

A soldier fights to protect his people. But here he is increasingly cut off from his people.

[Officer of Engineers]

Civilian rule? Are you kidding me? It was not until the late 1700s that countries started not to rely on kings. An Emperor by definition ain't a civilian.

[Officer of Engineers]

A soldier fights to protect his people. But here he is increasingly cut off from his people.

No, he's not. Not even back in the days of Rome. You can't be a soldier forever. You've got former military here doing civilian jobs with the same civilian concerns. We're worried about our kids, our retirement, our pensions, and our healthcare when we really actually need it. Back in the old Rome days, the legionaire is hoping for a piece of land he can farm after his service. Yeah, we think different because we lived different but our concerns are the same as everybody else.