Reply
Fri 5 Oct, 2007 07:43 am
I don't know if I would vote for him but I like him. I was reading a news story tonight and it was talking about him not wearing a US flag pin(not import to me) but he was also talking about the military.
He thinks we should promote the General of the National Guard to a four star general and give him a seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He was also talking about putting new restrictions on deployments for Guard and Reserves.
I'll start with what I like. I like the fact that he wants to promote the General and give him a seat. He makes a good point about how much we in the Reserves and Guard have contributed to the war on terror. I have been deployed and done my time and will be doing some more before this strange trip comes to an end. The rest of my Unit is coming home this month and we are stoked that they are coming home much like we did. Flying a lot and doing some good. Thank God they are all coming home safe and sound. Thats two trips between Aco and Bco and not a single person lost. All aircraft are coming home as well. Thats a pretty good record. 12 aircraft spent 2 years+ over there and they all still fly. I don't know how well at this point but they get the job done.
You can see that we have been doing out part and we should have a say in what goes on in the command decision process instead of just being told. Our top guy will have his input and that will make a difference.
Now what I don't like. He wants to put new restrictions on our deployments. While that sounds like a good thing it won't be. Our active duty brothers and sisters have been working their ass off and need a break just as much as we do. The way it stands right now the Reserves and Guard are on a 5 year turn around program. Its part of some new modular army program. They only send those that they need in a unit. When I went with Bco they sent over 200 soldiers. Cooks, flight crews, pilots, mechanics, tech and unit supply people. We all went and about a 1/4 of them didn't have real jobs. The cooks didn't cook because we had KBR, thank God!!! If you have ever had army chow you will know what I'm talking about. They got used as door gunners (they wanted to, they weren't forced) or worked for the unit admin as paper pushers. When my company, Aco replaced us they only sent over flight crews, door gunners and pilots. They totaled about 75 soldiers. I won't deploy for another 4 years but I'm going to volunteer before then so I can be home before my 10 year old is a teenager. I don't want to put my wife through that by herself. Why more restrictions then we already have? We didn't get the same extension of 15 month deployments. We still only do 12 month deployments, but I'm sure there will be some exceptions from time to time. Active duty now does 15 months which should give them more time between deployments but they also still have 15 month deployments. We are only doing 12 months and we don't as a unit rotate back in for another 4 to 5 years. That isn't fair to them.
I think Obama needs to rethink that aspect of his idea. I do support the concept of a seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I could see myself voting for Obama if he changed his position on just a few issues. Lets hope he beats out Hillary for the nomination.
Cool. A substantive take, based on personal experience, on an issue that's actually to do with concrete policy that will affect real lives.
In between all the rah-rah and hooha about an offensive campaign ad here and a radio host comment there, a rabble-rousing firebrand column here and an agressive postulate about Ron Paulism there, between the speculation about polls and fundraising numbers and the everpresent "youse stupid - no, youse stupider" to and fro between libs and cons, thats a nice relief.
Nothing to contribute myself for now, but kudos.
That's an interesting take, Baldimo. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that ideally there would be limits on National Guard deployments, but you don't see it as a practicality based on the situation at hand. Is that about it?
FreeDuck wrote:That's an interesting take, Baldimo. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that ideally there would be limits on National Guard deployments, but you don't see it as a practicality based on the situation at hand. Is that about it?
It doesn't seem practical with the current situation at all. When troop draw downs begin then I can see it but we have a few years I think till that begins. There is going to be a pressing need for different MOS's (army jobs) on deployments but we won't need them all. I will always be in need as long as we have troops there. Remember I'm a crew chief on a chinook and as long as there are troops there, they will need to be moved and that is my job.
I'm not blind, when the next president gets into office that will be the begining. I don't care who is elected pressure will set in. I hate to say it but I think a Dem is going to be elected and I hope its Obama. If Hillary get elected I won't be reenlisting thats for sure.
Are you in the Reserves or the National Guard, Baldi? What you say makes sense, but when we're talking about the Guard, I think it is important to limit their use overseas as we need them here. But, of course, the details of that I will leave to people who know more about it.
It comes down to what the purpose of the National Guard is and what the impact of their deployment is. I see the National Guard as the first line in case of national diaster and a force to tide the regulars over the first impulse of war, not as a supplemental regular fighting force. By its nature, those in the National Guard are not continuously trained on the latest equipment and kept in peak physical conditioning. Moreover, those in the NG are critical members of their communities back home. Many are fire fighters, policemen, etc and while the community can pull together to handle their short term loss, sending them onto active duty for many months and years at a time requires that the positions they held in their communities by replaced.
I believe that the NG should be limited to call-ups of less than six months. If a call up of greater than six months is required, the Joint Chiefs would have to provide a detailed plan on how they were planning to increase staffing to relieve the need for any National Guard troops. No National Guard call-up should go more than a year. To me, having a NG does not superseed the requirement to have an active military of sufficient size to accomplish their goals.
Or of limiting oneself to those military operations for which one has sufficient resources. That "shock and awe" bullshit did not take into account the possibility and the consequences of a long-term occupation of a hostile nation. The Iraqis were to have welcomed us by throwing flowers at us. Apparently, the Iraqis did not get the memo.
Good post Baldi.
Cycloptichorn
i have yet to hear a candidate promise to clean up the mess made of the constitution. in my opinion, we haven't even been "the united states of america" since then, and any candidate that doesn't realize and admit this is our top priority as a nation isn't worth a vote.
other than that, i like obama. i won't vote for him, i don't think he has a chance of winning, either, but he's as good as anyone else running. if he's good enough, he'll probably drop out before the election anyway. that seems to be what the most desirable candidates do. it's quite stupid, really. but i imagine it saves them a bit of cash.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace