...i guess that's why i walked so many hours.

i also must have missed the point where west point came up in the conversation. suggestion: rather than confirming for everyone that you don't know what you're talking about, read this:

http://tachesdhuile.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-hell-is-going-on-in-arghandab.html

the argument isn't about us snobby west pointers, it's about how to execute COIN operations. i do kind of agree with you about the creepy evangelicals though.

SOAP, the Army’s high command and most important command billets are more frequently than not held by West Point grads. Supposedly, we are led to believe that exalted institution imbues into its cadets a deep and abiding respect for ‘Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal Courage’ per your recommend web site. Undoubtedly, many West Pointers possess those sterling qualities at least until the rubber meets the road and they must display them thus hazarding their careers. Ironically, for most West Pointers the display of physical courage is probably the least challenging and most reliably demonstrated of the eight above qualities. It is the seven remaining ‘moral’ factors that they seem to struggle with yet they are the ones that likely make up the bulk of the senior leadership cadre of the Army. And it it’s the tone of the senior leaders that establish the ‘command climate’ even if it is the junior officers and NCO’s whole will be dumped on.

"Undoubtedly, many West Pointers possess those sterling qualities at least until the rubber meets the road and they must display them thus hazarding their careers."

oookkaayy...are we talking about field grade officers here? because i think it's reasonable to assume that anyone who has invested over 10 years in their job would be concerned with keeping said job, regardless of commissioning source. it sounds to me like COL Tunnell was an epic fail not because of his graduating from west point (do we even know this to be true? i looked and couldn't find anything other than he got an MA from purdue) but because he didn't listening to his commanders on the ground.

if you're talking about company grade officers, than you are even further removed from reality. if we take it as fact that the COIN fight is a company grade officer's war, then the PL is squarely between the road and the tire. i don't know how many PLs you've talked to, but i assure you that in my BN, i've never heard anyone utter the phrase "hazardous to my career." all the PL wants to do is stay with his/her platoon as long as possible, because everyone knows that the further you get away from the line, the more your job sucks. why? because the line is where the rubber meets the road. and that's where you want to be! if you wanted to make sure your career was on track, you'd probably fight to be an company XO and only a masochist would do that.

honestly, i just don't understand where your ideas are coming from. do please explain, because it sounds like you're just echoing stereotypes about west pointers that ceased being relevant years ago. remember...it's a PL's (be they OCS, ROTC, USMA or where ever) war...

also, where the hell was the PL in all this kill team nonsense? the platoon sergeant? why is there no mention of them in the article? if you literally have a dismount squad killing civilians at will, how can you not know about it? or that they're smoking hash? to put it perhaps offensively mildly...that does not reflect well.

Soap McTavish wrote: "it sounds to me like COL Tunnell was an epic fail not because of his graduating from west point (do we even know this to be true? i looked and couldn't find anything other than he got an MA from purdue) but because he didn't listening to his commanders on the ground. "

USMA 84

we (army) conduct urinalysis testing on a regular basis. stateside, anyway...i don't remember if i ever had to pee in a cup in iraq. probably not. but there were numerous health and welfare inspections that resulted in about a platoon and a half worth of joe getting busted with steroids (iranian equine growth hormone, no less...i can't imagine that even works as an anabolic steroid for humans).

incidentally...i ran into a seal team near sadr city and those guys were all massive. same with the sf dudes and rangers that were running around breaking everything. it's held as common knowledge (among us garden variety army types) that all SOCOM guys are on steroids...not just using, but actively encouraged to do so. any truth to that?

The guys in SOCOM are just encouraged to work out all the time and hence do, they have also invested tens of millions into better workout programs for them, the Navy alone has spent almost 30 million on a new place for trainees to workout at in Great Lakes prior to BUD/S and SOCOM has spent close to that on a Human Performance Program. Nothing to do with juice of any kind, although I am sure some do it out of the tens of thousands of people in SOF, but it is not encouraged, sanctioned or needed.

The guys in SOCOM are just encouraged to work out all the time and hence do, they have also invested tens of millions into better workout programs for them, the Navy alone has spent almost 30 million on a new place for trainees to workout at in Great Lakes prior to BUD/S and SOCOM has spent close to that on a Human Performance Program. Nothing to do with juice of any kind, although I am sure some do it out of the tens of thousands of people in SOF, but it is not encouraged, sanctioned or needed.

still happens down range; 10% is covered usually by having a policy of testing those who return from mid-tour leave once per month. For the most part, it still happens. As far as steroids are concerned, Army Urinalysis does not test for it. Pot, cocaine, Meth, and others, but not steroids.

Look at the pictures of the guys who fought WWII, all scrawny pencil necks who would probably fail the PT Test of today's Army.

The standard in the 10th Mountain Division (and I adhered to it) was 10% of each company per month, and an additional 100% urinalysis once a year.

I was at FOB Speicher, one of the largest in Iraq, and was able to conduct my 10% urinalysis each month, even while deployed. Not one single person tested positive.

I had a briefing document on entering BUD/S (around '95-6), and there was a whole section on workout-supplement policy and training recommendations... Basically, the policy was "we tolerate nothing except Vitamin A (Advil) and lots and lots of food." Creatine was specifically banned. You were warned you'd be tested regularly. Steroids? I dont think so. Frankly I think they'd do more harm than good. They train primarily via endurance methods rather than power. A pre-BUD/S workout-prep I was part of involved running 100yds, dropping, doing 20 pushups, running back 100yds, doing 20 situps... and repeat, and repeat, and repeat, and repeat.... non-stop until you can only walk and do 1 of each. It took *hours*. Each person quits when they can't do 1 or can't walk anymore. And that was just prep work. I remember I quit, and went home, did laundry, saw that it had started raining, watched a movie, called a buddy who said "come over", and I was driving over by the field... and noticed there were *still* 3 guys doing the drill. Like 3 hours after I quit. In heavy rain. That was an enlightening moment.

Bill,

I could not agree more with your post. Simply put, this issue goes much higher than the BCT Commander. In my mind, some of this can be unfortunately connected to the fundamental change in the U.S. Army's outlook since 2003.

The noxious "warrior ethos" was foisted on the Army in late 2003 by the inept GEN Peter Schoomaker and amplified by the feckless GEN Casey and SMA Preston. The "warrior ethos" replaced the US Army Soldier's Creed that was developed PRECISELY as a result of similar events in Vietnam. The Soldier's Creed was written in the wake of Vietnam to acculturate soldiers that such acts were 1) unacceptable; and 2) that soldiers had an affirmative, moral duty to report/prevent actions which would bring discredit on their unit.

The 2003 Warrior Ethos swept all of this away. The old creed that acknowledged the inevitable "gray areas" of combat was replaced by a binary, knee jerk and jingoistic outlook towards a soldiers' obiligation to the Army and nation he/she serves. The "warrior ethos" fundamentally rewrote the soldier's relationship to the society he serves. Ahistoric absolutes like "never leave a fallen comrade" entered the lexicon. A soldier's primary relationship to society and nation was distilled to "deploy, engage and destroy, the enemies of the United States in Close Combat." Tragically, the following passage from the old Soldier's Creed was excised:

"I will use every means I have, even beyond the line of duty, to restrain my Army comrades from actions disgraceful to themselves and to the uniform.
I am proud of my country and its flag.
I will try to make the people of this nation proud of the service I represent, for I am an American Soldier."

Events like this underscore the folly of hastily undoing decades of well-considered tradition/doctrine in a rapid manner. Schoomaker and his ilk neglected to examine the second and third order consequences of their actions. The revision of the Soldier's Creed needs to be Job #1 of the new army Chief of Staff. I'm not holding my breath....

New (post-2003) Soldier's Creed/Warrior Ethos:

I am an American Soldier.
I am a Warrior and a member of a team.
I serve the people of the United States, and live the Army Values.
I will always place the mission first.
I will never accept defeat.
I will never quit.
I will never leave a fallen comrade.
I am disciplined, physically and mentally tough, trained and proficient in my warrior tasks and drills.
I always maintain my arms, my equipment and myself.
I am an expert and I am a professional.
I stand ready to deploy, engage, and destroy, the enemies of the United States of America in close combat.
I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life.
I am an American Soldier.

Pre-2003 Soldier's Creed:

I am an American Soldier.
I am a member of the United States Army -- a protector of the greatest nation on earth.
Because I am proud of the uniform I wear, I will always act in ways creditable to the military service and the nation it is sworn to guard.
I am proud of my own organization. I will do all I can to make it the finest unit in the Army.
I will be loyal to those under whom I serve. I will do my full part to carry out orders and instructions given to me or my unit.
As a soldier, I realize that I am a member of a time-honored profession--that I am doing my share to keep alive the principles of freedom for which my country stands.
No matter what the situation I am in, I will never do anything, for pleasure, profit, or personal safety, which will disgrace my uniform, my unit, or my country.
I will use every means I have, even beyond the line of duty, to restrain my Army comrades from actions disgraceful to themselves and to the uniform.
I am proud of my country and its flag.
I will try to make the people of this nation proud of the service I represent, for I am an American Soldier.

First off, go read the Army Soldiers Blue Book, it is a lot of the same stuff that has always been there. Second, if you think platitudes caused those kids to act like sociopaths then you need to get a grip on reality. Go read some of the other "Creeds" or "Ethos" from around the world, lots of macho BS but yet no mass killings. The Army is a huge org, if you do not think that same stuff would happen under the "Old" wording, you are really mistaken. In the end, it is about recruitment, training and leadership, nothing to do with words on Poster Board.

ERIC_STRATTONIII, sums up nicely all that is needed to be said about this sordid spectacle the Army has treated us to. It's worth repeating:

“In the end, it is about recruitment, training and leadership, nothing to do with words on Poster Board.”

Eric,

We're talking about more than platitudes here. The "Warrior Ethos" was only the start - the proximal cause - of a vast number of institutional/cultural changes made by the Army during the last 7 years.

You need to examine the cavalcade of changes that the new "ethos" put into motion. The Orwellian renaming of things to "Warrior" is a good place to start:

Then - Now:

Citizen-Soldier - Warrior Citizen
Army Reserve Magazine - Warrior Citizen Magazine
Primary Leadership Development Course - Warrior Leader's Course
Drill Weekend - Battle Assembly
Medical Hold Company - Warrior Transition Unit
Soldier Medic - Warrior Medic
Soldier of the Year Competition - Best Warrior Competition
Soldier's Common Tasks - Warrior Tasks

The above are just a nandful of examples. There are hundreds of similar changes.

This is not an inocuous creed that no one reads. It symbolized the start of a concerted effort to fundamentally alter the way soldiers view their relationship to the society they serve. We can roll our eyes. 19 year olds can't because they have no frame of reference other than the current environment.

You could also say that GEN Schoomaker's effort to make the Army Combat Uniform the default Army attire - regardless of the situation - is a visual manifestation of this trade.

I would invite you to peruse the Summer 2010 issue (latest) of the Army Reserve's "Warrior Citizen" to see the pervasiveness of these revisions. Damn near every article amps up the "warrior" terminology - even for seemingly benign topics. Remember, this is the Army Reserve - an overwhelmingly support-oriented organization with only a handful of combat units:

http://www.usar.army.mil/arweb/NewsAndMedia/warriorcitizen/Pages/magazine.aspx

If the USAR is pushing this message so hard for the past years in "ash and trash" units with theater-level sustainment missons, what's happening in active duty combat units with a 1:1 deployment tempo?

So, by your reasoning then no sociopathic events from Soldiers occurred under the old "Soldier" vs "Warrior" creeds? Hmmm....gonna have to ask you to read our history a little more IRR, that view does not hold up under the light. If you want to get better recruits, give them better training, better leaders and instill in them a code, all for it. If you really think it is was words on a poster, sorry, doesn't cut it and smacks of someone who thinks books and posters indoc people. Having worked with the Army on several occasions, I can assure you that the only thin they are indoc into is bureaucratic nonsense and a CYA command structure.

Again, I think ERIC_STRATTONIII is making the most sense here with his dismissal of connecting the ‘Warrior’ vs. ‘Soldier’ creed or code or whatever inchoate nonsense is popular in the Army today with this egregious lapse of discipline. The Army's (or anyone else’s) obsession with ‘warriorism’ is silly and ridiculous in its own right but has little bearing on the Army’s notorious and historic tradition of bureaucratic buck passing, avoidance of responsibility and cover-ups. As Tom almost weekly reports the Navy seems to be on the warpath in shit canning officers who violate their code of conduct yet I hear nothing like that coming from the Army?

Eric,

You are disingenuous in this argument.

1. I explicitly stated that the old Soldier's Creed was written in the wake of Vietnam. It incorporated the terrible leassons we learned there the hard way. It was an attempt - by forward thinking Army leaders in the 1970's in institutionalize new soldiers with the notion that they had an affirmative duty - to go beyond the call of duty if necessary - to prevent events like this from happening. These passages were conscientously abandoned in 2003 and American soldiers, for the first time, were directed to refer to themselves as "warriors." Please re-read my first post. This should be as clear as day to anyone who isn't trying to be a disingenuous contrarian.

2. Please reference my second post where I tried to illustrate (with numerous examples) how the 2003 "Warrior Ethos" was the start - the proximal cause - of a disturbing trend. This campagn was nothing short of an attempt to rewrite the social contract between soldiers and American society. The relentlessness with which this campaign was carried out should leave no doubt that this was much more than "words on a poster." Again, reread my posts. They addressed - on point - the strawman arguments you just presented.

Only by a willful reading of IRR's post can you assert that "by [his] reasoning then no sociopathic events from Soldiers occurred under the old 'Soldier' vs 'Warrior' creeds." Huh? That's not even remotely suggested in his statement. Innocuous platitudes ("perseverance;" "discipline," and any number of other bromides that festoon the walls of h.s. football locker rooms--and wannabe "leaders") are one thing, but we discount the pernicious effects of all this "warrior" branding nonsense--which _has_ sunk in, at some level, in ways IRR's posts illuminate--at our peril.

IRR, I don’t know about ERIC, but I strongly agree with you that the ‘warrior code’ infection that has stricken the Army is absurd and counter-productive to good norms of discipline. But long before our troops officially became worshipers of the ‘warrior’ ethos atrocity incidents and indiscipline were not an unknown feature of the U. S. Army. I recall my uncle ruefully telling me that troops in the U.S. 1st Div. in which he served shot unarmed prisoners of war all the way from Normandy to the Rhine. On more than one occasion U. S. troops butchered civilians in Korea and of course Vietnam was a graduate course in depraved behavior. Yet these troops were instructed in the code of the disciplined 'soldier' not that of the asinine ‘warrior’ ethos. The break down came from precisely what ERIC said the reality of a failure of leadership not words.

JPWRL,

Good points and good historical references. I guess my key point is that the Soldier's Creed that was dumped in 2003 was developed in the 1970's in response to all of the historical events you mentioned - especially Vietnam. It was an initiative adopted by forward thinking Army leaders who had resolved to try to prevent such things from happening again.

I agree in principle with what you are saying. I am just trying to highlight the significant pivot in Army thinking that the 2003 "Warrior Ethos" represented. I am also trying to point out the catalyst effect it had on hundreds of second and third order changes within the Army - the overwhelming majority of which were never imagined, let alone considered, by the proponents of the new "ethos."

No, a creed won't stop all soldier misdeeds. That said, why tempt fate and make such a sweeping change 7-8 months after invading Iraq.

How can you miss my point? A simple reading of history, as I suggested, would have made that clear and it is nothing to do with being "disingenuous", you implied that the creed was a primary cause of what happened, I simply pointed out that those types of things have always been going on well before the "Warriors" creed/ethos. It is pretty simple.
A creed is nothing, by saying the "creed" influences the soldiers that much you are saying they are in effect being indoctrinated, I assure you, they are not, heck, I wish they were a little more indoc'd like the Marines are, they would be better in the field but they are not.
The creed also is not the cause of the failures in discipline-recruiting standards, poor training and poor training standards and very poor leadership are the causes, to say it is due to anything else is a weak argument and looking to place blame on something else over who the blame should fall on-the soldiers and their command structure.

But as someone who served from 1978 to 1998 on Active Duty, Reserves and the Guard, I have seen a decline in the quality of leaders.

They have become only capable of spouting the latest doctrine, any attempt to suggest or try something different is shot down.

Over the last 30 years, the Military has gotten fat & happy on almost unlimited budgets. And, like the Special Olympics, everyone gets a Medal!

Warriors and War-fighters sound sooooo cool!

Seriously, I agree 100%

Maybe he's arguing its a symptom, not a primary cause.

I have no particular opinion on this matter otherwise. Other that "don't ask/don't tell" applies to more than being gay, in some cases... in this case: fellow soldiers running amok. As others have said, I don't believe for a second that platoon leaders didn't know what was going on. The fact they're also charging the whistleblower seems to me a case of pretending that this was a "few bad apples" type situation, not something any higher-ups want to have to explain. A la Abu Ghraib.

There is a clear implication that in Bill and IRRs view that the new "Ethos" is a leading factor in what made these troops do this. The USMC regard themselves as warriors, train hard, etc...and yet do not seem to have these things go on. In the end, the fault lays with the troops and their leaders, not on the ethos, not on platitudes nor in some character fault in America as a whole as some have implied on other posts. The fault fall totally and utterly on these cats. The Army has lets it standards slide on recruitment, training and just overall standards and leadership but even that is not a real reason, these kids were just wrong in more ways than one and it is that simple.
However, I do believe it is a few bad apples-when you look at the numbers of troops that have gone through Afghanistan and Iraq since 01' combined with the type of combat and yet we still have had very few incidents as a whole.

"In the end, the fault lays with the troops and their leaders, not on the ethos, not on platitudes nor in some character fault in America as a whole as some have implied on other posts."

Oh, I totally agree...

But I just think you both might be making much ado about different angles to the same point. He has a beef with the technical details of 'creed' (which like you, i dont put any stock in)... however, he does have some general point about the change in 'marketing' and the psychological environment that some younger Army guys have been exposed to. I've met a bunch of guys I'd graduated from high school with who'd enlisted Army who ranted about 'waxing hajis' and generally acted like bad cartoon versions of some liberal's worst nightmare. I'm not saying its endemic - just that maybe the guy has a point (not saying he does!) that there's some laxity in how the Army deals with soldier psychology, or an environment that doesn't root these cats out more effectively than they could. I really wouldn't know, frankly - I was NROTC and never did squat, went private sector as soon as the opportunity presented itself.

While you point out these incidents are 'rare', it doesn't take a whole lot to create the impression that some things have gone to shit. How many My Lais were there? Yes, the Marines are more disciplined - yet they still had their Haditha. Throw in Abu Ghraib, deaths of prisoners during interrogations, and the now-7/9-year war is starting to build its own collection of ugly incidents. I'm not suggesting that 'culture' is entirely to blame at all. Just that this shit happens, and the reasons are probably very complicated. Is it just 'bad apples'? Probably. But then, as I think you and others said... who's not picking the bad apples out of the bin? Where's the platoon command? Where's his boss? Why is this stuff always a shocking surprise to the people out with these guys every day...? One thing I'm not going to do is excuse this stuff as 'unavoidable'.

See, here is the deal though, in Corporate or Military Orgs., saying things vs doing things are a huge difference. You will always hear young kids go off about "waxing" people and it usually means one of two things, either they did not really do it or they talking the talk to fit in with what they consider their peers. I have seen the Army in action and as I pointed out in earlier posts on this topic as soon as IRR and Bill attempted to make a correlation between the "Ethos" and "Creed" BS and the actions of these troops-a problem the Army has had is low recruiting standards, training standards and leadership.
As for the USMC, Haditha is not a good example to use, the Scan Eagle Video pretty much got those cats off the hook, it showed them getting fired at, showed an exchange of fire and backed up their side of the story. Also, a CID investigation was done on the way the Taxi Occupants were shot and CID is one of the few orgs. in the world with a full forensic lab and investigation team for just such scenarios, again it backed up the Marines side of the tale. The Haditha incident has been talked about prior on this blog, what happened was a tragedy but you cannot expect a USMC Platoon or Squad to clear a house using Hostage Rescue style CQC when A.) They are not trained how to do so and B.) They did not know that civilians were in fact in the house they were being fired at from.
Lastly, the SEAL Teams also have a creed and ethos, the Creed is at a 3rd grade level for grammar and if it got any cheesier it could be spread on bread. The Ethos is pretty simple and straight forward. Both were implemented out of an mid-guided attempt by an officer to control "off duty" incidents. It was rushed through as a "solution" to a problem that always will be around and I have yet to see either the creed or ethos cause problems for the teams, as a matter of fact I am willing to bet that the Vietnam era SEALs, who had nothing of the sort were far more "aggressive" in their pursuit of contacts and all done without a "creed" or "ethos".
The Army has a lot of problems, the Creed and Ethos they have might be way on the side of cheesy but it is not a cause for poor troopers and leaders.

There are many different types of causation. Absolutely there is some "setting of conditions" involved in having a "warrior ethos" that encourages mental masturbation like going around calling yourself a "warrior." The culture is so pervasive, it makes no sense at all to say it is not having an affect or an impact. That is the very reason the guys on top started all this self-deception in 2003.

Drug testing, from a top-down institutional standpoint, is about the gross incidence of occurrence numbers, not individual accountability. You don't need chain of custody, if the scientific (small numbers) sampling is simply designed to tell medical command what the trend line is.

Without knowing the epidemiology, I'll guess that the longer a unit is in a neighborhood or on a base, the more opportunity to get drunk or high will emerge from the local economy, both military and afghan. Who hasn't heard stories of trading liquor for supplies and consideration? Move the army, and it slims down a bit, but that economy soon regenerates and reorganizes.

The communists were actively pushing dope at US troops in Viet Nam, and young men do like to get hammered. More than beer. The muj pushed dope and liquor at the Russians in the 1980's, and young men trolling for mines by day do like to get hammered at night.

Today's muj and their command are using the same land mine, sniper and corruption tactics on our armored forces as their uncles used on the Russians. When the occupiers grow corrupt and take reprisals, the insurgent gains advantage and takes a profit. The question is, are we any smarter institutionally, in predicting this kind of wars progression, and limiting the downside to the troops and the mission?

From the bottom up, forget the drug witch-hunt for the moment. Avoiding war crimes is a matter of identifying and eliminating individuals who capable of LEADING their platoon-mates into criminal acts. The murderers in this story (if true) were deliberately staging a provocation and ORDERING a non-conspirator to open fire first. That's a whole lot more troubling to me than drug use.

Serial conspiracy (reportedly practiced first in Iraq) to murder is worse than simple premeditation. It's a lethal virus. It indicates that noncoms either were passed thru screening, or after gaining rank had changed, gone rogue, and weren't stopped. Others in the chain of command failed to protect their men, and screwed the mission.

WW, as usual you produce an informative commentary. What do you see as solutions to the problem? It seems to me by the time it shows up in a company perhaps it is too late and the unit needs to be dissolved and responsible parties disciplined. Besides the criminality of murdering civilians it appears to me that there is a potentially lethal intimidation factor inhibiting NCOs’ and junior officers from taking action?

JP, Tyrtaois would tell us to look over at the Marines, who better maintain recruiting and training cadre standards, held to shorter fleet deployment cycles, and view their institution as a holy mother church. And after three years in Anbar, the Marines were running stop signs.

So far as drug testing, does the command really want to know that they have to send kids home, when they're short-handed? Several company and battalion officers have written well on this at BD, why 1-strike 0-tolerance removes useful discretion.

I humbly suggest doing it anonymously at first, as epidemiology, to track the disease, before getting wound up in chain of custody and prosecution under UCMJ. If gross testing of the company or platoon latrine is coming up dirty in the lab, and the non-coms don't know who needs a pop quiz, maybe there is a different kind of problem. But if the company latrine is always zero for illegals and nominal for prescription drugs, then somebody is cooking the books.

So far as intimidation, it's hard to believe that the sergeants mafia is so easily swayed by threatened violence. Military discipline starts with a sergeant who is scarier than the enemy. A sergeant going over to the dark side is really scary, and outside my reading and experience base.

In this case, it also sounds like the command was more intimidated by the threat of an investigation, than by the risk that something really bad was in the wind, and likely to repeat itself. So reducing the punishment heaped on a command that is belatedly rooting out a bad seed, that sounds worth looking at. But murder is not collatoral homicide, and too easily excusing the second breeds the first for reasons below.

Taking casualties without payback is, I'm told, hugely destructive to a fighting force, to it's morale, to its willingness to patrol into risky ground, to its dedication to population protection. Mines are a fact of this war, of the last one, and the one before that. Patrolling the same road or field to find a new mine is FUBAR, crazy-making, and guarantees casualties without payback. If the War College, DARPA, and human factors wonks haven't got a better idea than me, it's that other problem again.

Bill,

Again, great post and great insight. The Chief of Staff (CSA) needs to go. We truly need a momentum change. Not only has GEN Casey amplified/expanded some of the very worst initiatives dreamed up under GEN Schoomaker (the worst CSA in modern Army history - bar none), but he also decided to keep much of Schoomaker's "Dream Team" on board for unprecedented tenures. Two examples: Chief of the Army Reserve, LTG Jack Stultz and Sergeant Major of the Army (SMA), Kenneth Preston.

LTG Stultz has been instrumental in bringing much of the warrior "newspeak" to the USAR. He has also embarked on a campaign to trasnform the USAR into an "operational reserve." This transformation is being conducted without debate or any evaulation as to whether is is 1) a good idea; 2) sustainable; or 3) an institution that can attract and retain first-rate talent with demanding careers. GEN Casey reappointed LTG Stultz for a second term and he now he has 6 years to "transform" the Army Reserve into his own likeness and the one the GEN Schoomaker initially appointed him to execute.

SMA Kenneth Preston is approaching his SEVENTH year as Sergeant Major of the Army. He was handpicked for the job by GEN Schoomaker and GEN Casey elected to keep him on for his unprecedented tenure. Other than aggressively championing unwanted and ill-conceived uniform changes (ACU and ASU), SMA Preston was essentially AWOL as an advocate for the enlisted force. As the Army faces an unprecedented suicide epidemic, logic suggests that the SMA should be front-and-center on this issue. He is not.

Perhaps the most troubling development is the timing of SMA Preston's scheduled departure. His traditional 4 year term as SMA would have ended in the first year of GEN Casey's tenure. GEN Casey elected to keep him. Now, GEN Casey will select Preston's successor in March of 2011 - about 1.5 months before the end of his own term as CSA. This basically saddles Casey's successor with Casey's hand-picked SMA for almost his entire term. The new CSA will not have an opportunity to select his own senior enlisted advisor until the final months of his tenure. Could this be an effort to ensure that SMA Preston's successor is picked to continue his pet initiatives: 1) the ASU; and 2) the increasingly indefensible Universal Camouflage Pattern? SMA Preston knew from PEO-Soldier as early as 2004 that the UCP was a sub-optimal camouflage pattern. Facts be damned, its fielding/adoption was expedited. Congress actually had to LEGISLATE a more effective camouflage pattern (multicam) for Afghanistan.

Yes, the CSA needs to go - preferably before his "poison" pill SMA selection gets picked. The timing of Preston's retirement and the selection of his successor is an underreported story begging for some sunlight.

... is more then firings! It needs a good old Church of the Subgenius Style Head launching or two!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URrSpcqGNa0

Make the people responsible loose more then their positions. Kick them out on Dishonorables and let them loose everything!

As an experiment, back between 1993 and my exit in 1998, I tried to write an OER support form so OUTRAGOUS that the State Officer Personnel Officer would call me in for an ass chewing!

I claimed to be helping Space Aliens perform anal probes, that I was on the Grassy Knoll in Dallas in '63, that I was cooperating with the Bilderbergers and the UN for corrupt our freedoms. You name it, I put it down. And when I got my OER back, everything had been rewritten.

Later, we tried to get some incompetent NCO's removed, we wrote bad NCOER's on them. We later found out that NCOER's had been re-written and their ratings changed from The lowest to the "Promote ahead of Peers"

The Military has become like the Special Olympics, everyone gets a medal and everyone gets promoted. No matter if they had been caught red handed stealing GM parts from the State Guards Supply System, or videotaped yourself butchering a deer in the Chow Hall of the State Training Facility when you were supposed to be doing your AGR job.

Anon, the highly professional SEAL’s in Luttrell’s book were on a deep penetration combat mission in which they close (incorrectly in my view) to not take out a civilian that potentially compromised the security of the entire unit and the resulting consequences of that decision were devastating. That was a tactical mistake that is a hell of a lot different than criminalized out of control Army troops setting up civilians to murder for ‘sport’ – assuming the charges are true.

JPWREL: Your phrase "to not take out a civilian that potentially compromised the security of the entire unit" would, in my view, have been more accurately stated-to not kill a civilian who posed no immediate threat and who may, or may not, reveal the position of the unit to the enemy.

I don't consider that SEAL team's decision to have been a tactical mistake. The incident was one of the fortunes of war. The consequence of that fortune was disastrous, but there was no way of knowing that for certain that would be at the time the decision was made. What was certain at the time was killing on a suspicion would have been disastrous for the civilian.

This incident has been debated at length in the past and one of the unstated suppositions of people who feel the SEAL team should have decided otherwise is that the life of an anonymous Afghan is of less value than that of an American serviceman. That is my opinion. I wonder if this viewpoint might have had the effect of helping to create a climate that allowed these 3 killings to happen.

I just re-read my comment and I was a bit unclear. My opinion is that American and innocent Afghan lives are of equal value. It is also my opinion that some of the people who fault the SEAL team for their decision do not believe that to be true.

I apologize for poor writing.