What is your most radical or unpopular opinion concerning the military?

I agree with your memories of the 60s and 70s.
I do regard today's reaction as superior to that, but I'd prefer to see a positive reaction that is short of regarding everyone as a hero.

(Truth in advertising: last time I wore rank, George W. Bush was a relatively new president. I'm an old retired guy).

I agree. I think that especially as the Air Force takes on less of a flying role and more of an intel role, as has happened at McConnell, those higher level intel, technology, and cyber warfare roles would be prime candidates to be filled by warrants, at least as the supervisors. Also, the other MOSs have a warrant in charge of most mechanic shops. I don't understand why a branch that deals primarily with aircraft doesn't utilize warrants in this way either. If a tank stops working during a training operation in the army, no one really dies. In the air force however, that plane is going to drop to the ground like, well, a tin can full of airmen.

COL (Join to see) I agree that age and gender should have no bearing on PT standards, but I do think there's a place for differences between MOSes and ranks.

SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA - Yes, I will buy that. I wrote "Services" but my actual word should have been "branches" or the service-equivalent term. The standard for ground combat MOSs should not be the same as for the judge advocate corps, but still should not be based on gender or age or any way.

One standard for sex and branch, everyone should be a rifleman. If their is anything Iraq should have taught us is even Navy people need to know how to shoot, they were filling civilian trucks with navy personnel, to make the civilians feel safer from ambush.

Try running a 15 minute 2 mile run at 60. age differences are needed, as you age your body, especially in the military, develops arthritis and other problems.

Jag and other REMFS should not get a break because they picked wimpy MOS's when all the infantry are dead they are the last line of defense. When the infantry is out on patrol and the fob gets over run the signal s guys have to be able to fight.

SPC Chris Ison - Fair true as far as age adjustments being needed. Balance in all things, though; don't overlook good looking for perfect. When I was a field medic, I wasn't great at polishing my boots and I only made weight by body fat percentage. I was (he said modestly) a great medic, though, and no injured man ever complained about my uniform or my weight.

I think for people in the military this is actually a widely held belief. Outside, however, is where we get all those idiots who would like to believe otherwise.

So a Sikh with a beard and a turban is less dedicated than a redneck who thinks the Constitution means he can have whatever gun he wants, and that you should be shot for kneeling during the national anthem?

The Constitution is a living document, and it is interpreted by the supreme court; You don't get to say people are un-american because they disagree with you, when the supreme court says they are within their rights.

The measure of a patriot is not how much he agrees with you; The measure of a patriot is how well he controls himself when faced with someone he wants to kick in the teeth.

I have seen many people bitching about the Constitution. I bet you don't know that document as well as you think you do, because it is more than the bill of rights.

The second amendment DOES NOT give the civilian populace the right to bear arms; it gives the STATES the right to keep a militia. That is why it says "A well regulated militia being necessary for a free state..."

SPC Chris Ison - A lot of straw leaking from the arms of your first paragraph. I will just assume it was flame bait for fun.

I can't imagine how anyone would think that the Founding Fathers thought they would have to give the government permission to be armed.

Your education sucks. That is SPECIFICALLY what the founding fathers wanted.

See the founding fathers had the Redcoats living in and among the civilian populace. These soldiers would steal and rape, and their was no legal recourse against them. And killing them meant death. The British monarchy used soldiers as the police force in the colonies, they were there to defend the colonies against the Indians and to keep order within the colony itself.

The second amendment reads as follows:
A well regulated militia (currently this is the national guard), being necessary for a free state (i.e. the police power, or military power). the right of the people (the states) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This was necessary to have because the militia used to provide its own kit.

The third amendment specifically states that the militia will not be housed in and among the civilian populace, to prevent the horrors that the colonists faced with the British Army.

Article 1, section 8 of the constitution (the enumerated powers of congress), specifically gives congress the right to "Keep and maintain a Navy" their is no provision like this for an Army. it instead says "The Congress shall have Power To: raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years" It also says that congress has the right to "call up the militia to repel invasion, suppress the south when it fucks up (insurrection), and to enforce the laws of the land."

It also establishes that congress will discipline the militia, but the states will appoint officers.

Up until the civil war the only decoration in the army was the wound chevron. As the founding fathers were anti military and anti military order as expressed in Article 1 section 9.

If you were to study your American History you would find that when the Constitution was written, and the United States was first established there was a "war" between he federalists who wanted a strong central government, and the Democratic Republicans wanted the majority of power to go to the states, with the federal government, more of a symbol of unity, than any real legislative body.

This is why you ave so many far right guys screaming about states rights, and not understanding that Individual states still regulate 80% of there day to day lives, and the federal government only regulating about 20%.

It is illegal at the federal level to discriminate, but you pay your property taxes to your city, and you DMV fees, and other agency fees go to the states, and or your local city/county government.

I forget the case, but the federal government was able to seize more regulatory control, based upon the interstate commerce clause, saying that if i buy alcohol, firearm, or any other item that might be banned in one state, and take it to another state I have put those items in the rights of the federal government, that is why the gun control issue is a federal issue.

Gee Commander - you sound like a disgruntled junior enlisted man. One aspect of training in the military that is entirely lacking is why we do what we do. No, it isn't always about defending our country. Its about building a world where we, as a nation, can prosper. The business of America is business and business is better in democracies. As to Afghanistan - getting Bin Laden was only one goal. The broader goal is to ensure Afghanistan does not become a platform for projecting terrorism and extremist ideology in the future.
I wish they educated out senior officers better so they could make better decisions.

MSG John Duchesneau - Well, thanks for the thinly-veiled insult, Master Sergeant, but I would simply ask you where in the Constitution it even authorizes a standing Army? Maybe the Constitution just isn't that important to you? When you look at American prosperity, do you even consider debt? Admiral Mullen did; in fact, he rated it as the number one strategic threat to our country. What has happened to the national debt as a result of the welfare/warfare state? What happens when, even through unintentional collateral damage, you kill innocent people in countries you invade to bring "democracy" to them? Do you think you create more terrorists or fewer? Could our invasions of Iraq and Libya have less to do with Democracy than with the fact that both of these countries had no western-style central banks and were looking to undermine the petrodollar by selling their oil for currencies other than US Dollars?

What do you think: do I still sound like a disgruntled Enlisted Man? Take heart: my colleagues at both the National Defense University and the Naval War College mostly thought like you do, and that was in 2002, when the generation-long war in Afghanistan was new, we were something like $15,000,000,000,000 less in debt (just government debt, overall debt was much less than that), and gasoline cost somewhere around $1/gallon.

OOH i got this one! article 1 section 8 of the US Constitution grants congress the power to call up the militia (national guard) to repel invasions, supress insurrections, and to enforce the laws of the land.

Furthermore it specifically limits congress' power to fund an army to two years; contrast that with the right to KEEP AND MAINTAIN A NAVY!

So according to the Constitution every war after Korea was an illegal use of our military. Just my humble opinion.

I may only be a specialist, but i know a few things about land warfare. for instance i know it takes 10 conventional forces to fix or destroy a single guerilla fighter, i also know there were 20,000 guerilla fighters in Afghanistan, and if we had put the 130k troops we sent to Iraq in Afghanistan instead we could have been done in probably 4 years.

how is that for a "disgruntled" lower enlisted man?

CDR Michael Goldschmidt - Many of our incursions have been due to CIA and their helpers, not for democracy, but to increase the wealth of big business interests.

The Navy now has more admirals than ships. Hummm…….