Should the military create a warrior class?

Dam sarge really that kind of argant it takes around 8 REMF to get you the things you need
How about the 88M that jumped back into a burning vehicle with fuel soaked gear on to save his
comrades in arms ?
Not trying to be a smart ass but dam

Stupid thread, the Military is the Warrior class of America.

I was Military Police. Non-combat arms. We did regular humps up to 20 miles in full gear and occasionally crew served weapons. We did convoy security, bringing supplies to "Infantry and Operators" and even offered direct support to Force Recon (at the time) Marines on operations. Where would that fall in your lineup for respect?

everyone has their cross to bear, I have worked both sides of fence and believe it or not I experienced allot of hardship working out of combat arms, not as many as in but enough to feel a warrior class is not needed, that's why they have tan berets CIBs and other recognition symbols. If anything after working some of the non combat jobs I have an even greater respect for behind the line jobs

Infantry is the infantry. Yes they find themeselves in more bad situations than any other MOS I'm sure. But infantry are the pawns of a chess board. They are just a distraction on the battlefield as we use artillery, rockets, CAS to really make a statement. And not to mention what about the MOS that have to cover down and do the same maneuvers that you do. I am an artilleryman and proud of it. I was first deployed as a maneuver unit using infantry tactics as we controlled a city in Afghanistan back in 2003. We busted in doors, got in firefights, and work with special op forces to eastablish their security. So why would they be held in a higher class. And then you look at the knowledge of what the infantryman really has to learn. It's minimal compared to other MOSs. Their equipment is a lot less. And then again these other MOS are doing your duties at times. So why would hold them at a higher level. Hey already have their awards specifically to infantry. Isn't that enough. I'm still waiting for the day artillery gets a special identifying mark to wear with the uniform. I really would like to see the gold stripe on an asu uniform changed to a red one. It's history. Enough said. The infantry is the basic soldier in my opinion. King of battle.

While I do agree that the military is a team, and it takes every soldier in every MOS to get the mission done. The Infantry and SF do deserve to be held at a higher level, in some ways. If anyone has ever read the Book Starship Troopers, one part states you know your in a messed up military, when you have more Corprals/E4's than you do privates and more support troops than combat soldiers. I feel the whole issue would go away, If most support units would act and conduct themselves as if they were Infantry Units. Adopt a Warrior First Mentality

Sounds like a bunch of whining to me from another person that thinks everyone owes them something. We do this for a different reason other than people owing us something, but nice try anyway, maybe someday you will truly understand what it means to be a Soldier.

I had a very wise Drill Sergeant (SSG Boone) that once told us during the AIT phase at Fort Benning, that although we were the "queen of the battle" not to forget that if we fail in our job, every other soldier, sailor, and airman not in the Infantry becomes part of the fighting force - everyone would have to pick up a rifle. He warned us that it takes every one - cooks, medics, clerks, and even second lieutenants all doing their jobs so that we can do our job.

Although your post did bring up a good discussion, how would elevating the combat arms MOS higher than all the others benefit the Army, which is supposed to be one big team, help in unit cohesion, mission readiness, and morale? I started my military career as an 11B, then was reclassed as part of the 11X program to become an 11M. Because of injuries sustained in the line of duty, I was later reclassed to 71D (Legal Specialist in 1989). I carried the teaching of Drill Sergeant Boone with me for the remainder of my military career - and to assure that the men of the infantry and armor units I was assigned to were able to do their best, I set a higher standard for myself in the capacity of my new MOS. I dunno, maybe I am wrong, but even the most elite combat units need their non-combatants to do their jobs so the rest of the unit can stay mission centered.

I think this comment comes out of a different culture completely. It's a different job and a different outlook then I'm used to. Either you're at sea or your on shore duty. If you're at sea, your part of a team that contributes the whole mission of your ship, with all the shared dangers and responsibilities of acting on a ship. So, no, there shouldn't be any differentiation between "grunt" or "POG." It doesn't really apply across the board.

I wasted enough of my life reading this feed.....