The days of 'looking out for the troops' have been superseded by 'cover your ass and look out for your career.'
-
This commment is unpublished.The days of cover your ass and look out for your career really started way back when slick Willie started his downsizing.
-
This commment is unpublished.Seems to me those days have been around as long as there have been armies. I mean, it's not like Colin Powell's career didn't start before the Clinton presidency.
-
This commment is unpublished.Agreed. As I've written before, it's no use to blame a certain political party for this, as Red Crosses have not been respected for more than 60 years now. Say what you want about Bush, Powell, Panetta, Obama, Reagan, Clinton, etc., this particular issue predated them all, and it is thus a matter of not blaming anyone in particular for it, or blaming everyone (last option doesn't sound crazy). Honestly, turning a problem like this into a political one will hardly make it go away any faster, because then people will just sit and blame each other instead of doing something to save the lives of American and allied servicemen, which I am quite sure no one objects to.
-
This commment is unpublished.It's time for someone to stand up and say enough. Someone needs to be held accountable. God knows that the people squeezing the triggers are constantly being held to account by (it seems) the entire international community. Now it's time for some "leader" to get off their bellies and say "the buck stops here". We have (had) the greatest military in the world, with great leadership leading it. This issue, once corrected, will make it even better. Let the Swedes and Swiss fly red crosses on their unarmed aircraft if they want. We don't want it and I believe that if the American people were fully briefed on it most of them would agree.
It's time to ask each and every candidate for Federal office what their stance is on this ridiculous policy.
On another note, Mike, another check is on the way. Thanks for what you do!-
This commment is unpublished.Well, the Swiss aren't over there. But just to add some weight to how far this ridiculous habit the Army has of slapping Red Crosses on vehicles, I should mention that when the Swedish MEDEVAC choppers (Blackhawks) deploy to Afghanistan, they will serve as both MEDEVACs and cargo choppers, meaning they will not have Red Crosses, but will be armed with Ksp 58 (FN MAG, M240, L7, whatever one know them as) machine guns.
To sum it up: We have two armies: The last time Army S went to war was in the 60's, in a small scale UN mission. They had bolt action rifles and submachine guns, and its first choppers (painted in UN white though). Today Army S is preparing its first ever Medical evacuation helicopters that it will use in a real war. They will be armed and without Red Crosses.
Now let me introduce Army U. Army U has been in both world wars, it equipps its troops with technology many countries only issue to their SF, and it has been fighting two wars non-stop for more than ten years now. Army U still paint its MEDEVACs with Red Crosses, even though they have recognized that this makes them so vulnerable that they always need an escort.
-
-
-
-
This commment is unpublished.
-
-
This commment is unpublished.Sorry Steve but that has been the Army way since the Civil War. McClellan could have ended the conflict very early but put his political "career" such as it was first and failed to take Richmond early on.
Large organizations by their very nature are self protective and CYA is the order of the day. If not for individuals like Mike Yon and many others, inside and outside, they would get away with it every time. Courage on the battlefield is a given most cowardness takes place well off the battlefield. Always has always will.-
This commment is unpublished.I think John Gorman has it nailed.
-
This commment is unpublished.Correct Mr. Gorman. We call it institutionalized arrogance in academia. The belief that, if you are the smartest guys in the room, then everything you say or your peers say must be correct and unquestionable, even in the face of facts contrary.
-