Posted on May 9, 2016
You have been given the authority to change three things in your branch or DoD wide … What are they?
24.7K
424
271
11
11
0
Policy
DoD
Improvements
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 78
3
3
0
Change the rules for enlistment. When I enlisted in 1983 if you felt you were LGBT, you better stay in the closet or get a dishonorable discharge.
(3)
(0)
PO2 Deborah Burr
Oh for crying out loud! Work is work. Sex is sex. Sex should not be going on at work. Who a person has sex with is NOT anyone's business. Keep it out of work! If you can shoot as well as I can, if you can work as well as I can, who cares? Non issue. Moving on.
(0)
(0)
CPL Wilfred Roberge
I have been in the Reserve for a good 15 plus years, I have been down range, I have seen quite a change in things in the new "politically correct" army with the repeal of dadt, we have one soldier who is "rudy tudy fresh and fruity" lacking in discipline and we are not allowed to get on him for it to act like a soldier!!!!! We have females who STRAIGHT that are less effemenate!!! I know some active duty people will say "but it's the Reserve" but it's not, he came fresh out of Basic like this!!!!!!
Political Correctness connected with the repeal of DADT (along with other issues) is a disaster for dicipline that I think has made the military weaker. Too many boxxes to check!!!!
Political Correctness connected with the repeal of DADT (along with other issues) is a disaster for dicipline that I think has made the military weaker. Too many boxxes to check!!!!
(0)
(0)
Capt Michael Greene
Col Jim Harmon - You had me until you suggested/said that LGBT are somehow disabled, and suggested they should not be allowed to serve their country down range. is that really what you meant?
(0)
(0)
Col Jim Harmon
Capt Michael Greene, Where did I state that LGBT persons were 'disabled'?
I wrote that their inclusion in the military was representative of the “leveraging of social taboos upon the military”. Until very recently LGBT personnel were considered to be socially, taboo. Until the early 1970s homosexuality was a diagnosed mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association. I am not arguing the right or wrong of that position, merely stating historical fact.
As society evolves and changes to accept or alter what is, and is not, an acceptable social norm, the military also evolves. The military by necessity does not rush with open arms to embrace social change. We must assess, study, and evolve at a different pace. This is necessary because of what we do. Our rules, regulations, and traditions were written in blood. Either because someone dorked it up and got people killed, or because we are overly cautious about tinkering with the internal workings of an efficient machine.
I did not imply that LGBT persons were lesser human beings, disabled, or less in any respect. Their life style choice however is one that until very recently was not accepted by the majority of people in Western nations. That position has changed and evolved. The military is now likewise changing and evolving to assess how these LGBT persons fit into our structure.
The key issue here is not about sexual orientation, but about logistical support and needs. If a transsexual person must receive regular doses of hormones to maintain their lifestyle, then their medical need falls squarely into the same category as a person with diabetes or Parkinson’s. There are no guarantees of medical resupply on the battlefield. That is the reason that we do not let people with bad teeth, flat feet, or other long term chronic medical conditions deploy.
It does not mean they are disabled. It means they have a medical condition that requires regular treatment and that puts another burden upon the forward deployed unit that does not need to be imposed.
I wrote that their inclusion in the military was representative of the “leveraging of social taboos upon the military”. Until very recently LGBT personnel were considered to be socially, taboo. Until the early 1970s homosexuality was a diagnosed mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association. I am not arguing the right or wrong of that position, merely stating historical fact.
As society evolves and changes to accept or alter what is, and is not, an acceptable social norm, the military also evolves. The military by necessity does not rush with open arms to embrace social change. We must assess, study, and evolve at a different pace. This is necessary because of what we do. Our rules, regulations, and traditions were written in blood. Either because someone dorked it up and got people killed, or because we are overly cautious about tinkering with the internal workings of an efficient machine.
I did not imply that LGBT persons were lesser human beings, disabled, or less in any respect. Their life style choice however is one that until very recently was not accepted by the majority of people in Western nations. That position has changed and evolved. The military is now likewise changing and evolving to assess how these LGBT persons fit into our structure.
The key issue here is not about sexual orientation, but about logistical support and needs. If a transsexual person must receive regular doses of hormones to maintain their lifestyle, then their medical need falls squarely into the same category as a person with diabetes or Parkinson’s. There are no guarantees of medical resupply on the battlefield. That is the reason that we do not let people with bad teeth, flat feet, or other long term chronic medical conditions deploy.
It does not mean they are disabled. It means they have a medical condition that requires regular treatment and that puts another burden upon the forward deployed unit that does not need to be imposed.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
1. (ARMY) Bring back the Specialist career path. If officers have NCOs, Then warrant officers should have an enlisted specialist that are not for leadership but only to be experts in their own field.
2. If we are downsizing our military, then hold a petitioning board per Division to process voluntary separations.
3. Beards though not as serious as the first part of me reply but none the less. Neatly groomed facial hair unless deployed, should be allowed. People cry conformity and uniformity, but look at the differences in haircuts for men, shaving profiles, and hairstyles for women. And then the picture become a bit more blurry on iniformity
2. If we are downsizing our military, then hold a petitioning board per Division to process voluntary separations.
3. Beards though not as serious as the first part of me reply but none the less. Neatly groomed facial hair unless deployed, should be allowed. People cry conformity and uniformity, but look at the differences in haircuts for men, shaving profiles, and hairstyles for women. And then the picture become a bit more blurry on iniformity
(3)
(0)
Sgt John de Nugent
It seems to me that bearded guys like Ulysses S. Grant, Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson were pretty good warriors. ;-)
(2)
(0)
MAJ John Adams
Sgt John de Nugent - And the lack of uniformity in their uniforms -- how disgraceful! Obviously, none of these men were fit to command. I bet they couldn't pass a PT test either. And worst of all, none had an approved RREO program!
/sarcasm
/sarcasm
(2)
(0)
MSG John Wirts
Sgt John de Nugent - I still say that as long as chemical weapons are a possibility, and protective masks are issued, beards may interfere with the seal of the mask, that endangers that person, if I am counting on him to cover me that endangers me and the rest of the unit. The revolutionary war and Civil war did not have poison gasses, so beards are a mute point there!
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Well, whoever it was that gave me a blank check on policy seems to have never met me. Those fools!
1) Allowing Soldiers to place hands in their pockets, for any duration. Oh, sure, there's going to be someone who says how it doesn't look very professional, but it looks a lot more professional than having your hands down your pants, which is allowed.
2) Allow Soldiers to drive tactical vehicles, wait for it...without a helmet. I drive a POV everyday, no helmet, and to date (I love living on the edge) there has not been a catastrophic loss due to my reckless, non-helmeted operation of a SUV.
3) Allow myself the authority to change three more things.
Of course, if that fails...
3A) Outlaw the use of "behoove", "caveat", and "BLUF". If the 'BLUF' really is present in the way it's advertised, it is not required. Unless you're a fan of "ATM Machine", and "CAC Card".
1) Allowing Soldiers to place hands in their pockets, for any duration. Oh, sure, there's going to be someone who says how it doesn't look very professional, but it looks a lot more professional than having your hands down your pants, which is allowed.
2) Allow Soldiers to drive tactical vehicles, wait for it...without a helmet. I drive a POV everyday, no helmet, and to date (I love living on the edge) there has not been a catastrophic loss due to my reckless, non-helmeted operation of a SUV.
3) Allow myself the authority to change three more things.
Of course, if that fails...
3A) Outlaw the use of "behoove", "caveat", and "BLUF". If the 'BLUF' really is present in the way it's advertised, it is not required. Unless you're a fan of "ATM Machine", and "CAC Card".
(2)
(0)
CPL Wilfred Roberge
NO!!!!!!! But I love harrassing ROTC Cadets on Campus when I see them with hands in thier pockets!!!!!!!
(1)
(0)
(2)
(0)
MSG John Wirts
I guess I'm really old school, in my day we drove M series vehicles w/o helmets, safety goggles,or hearing protection! Gasp however did we survive. We also were not allowed hearing protection on the ranges, we might miss hearing a command!
(2)
(0)
CPL Wilfred Roberge
SSG Vik Polivka - True, let me see for walking arroud w/o head gear, using I-pods, um.... improper headgear (Sports Team Ball Cap Because they Forgot thier Cover), best time ever though was Veterans Day I went to Campus in my Class A's, some dipshit Cadet tried to correct me and tell me "you can't wear JrROTC Ribbons on your ROTC Uniform" (an Iraqi Campaign Medal is a JrRotc Ribbon?) well an LTC at my unit heard about it and told me to "go find that cadet and go tell him him to fuck himself and tell him Colonel A_________ said so!!!!!!"
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
1. Polishitans who were never in military should NOT have access that affects military. POTUS & rest of worthless can only say: Sick 'em or Heel, stand ready! 2. All branches should be ready to send runts to the front! Too many said: That's not my job/MOS. "i just joined for the GI Bill!" 3. Have 1 bootcamp in Garden City, KS, where you make it, or you don't;)
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
1. Merge the Marines and Army, no need for two land forces. Make three branches, land, sea, and air, that are completely interoperable. They should have cascading doctrine with the same uniform and PT standards.
2. Reduce our OCONUS footprint to support our Allies, not be the main effort. In effect reducing our OPTEMPO and allowing units more time for collective and individual training.
3. Slow down officer promotions, more time as a LT and pre command CPT. Also separate the logistics back to Ordnance, Transportation, and Quartermaster. Finally, put rank and branch back on the collar. I want to know who is who.
2. Reduce our OCONUS footprint to support our Allies, not be the main effort. In effect reducing our OPTEMPO and allowing units more time for collective and individual training.
3. Slow down officer promotions, more time as a LT and pre command CPT. Also separate the logistics back to Ordnance, Transportation, and Quartermaster. Finally, put rank and branch back on the collar. I want to know who is who.
(2)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
"Finally, put rank and branch back on the collar" ... Concur.
RE point 1 ... Saying that in this forum oooph ... you're a brave man and I respect your courage.
RE point 1 ... Saying that in this forum oooph ... you're a brave man and I respect your courage.
(0)
(0)
MSG John Wirts
I hate to rain on your parade, but the Air Force is too in love with SEXY FIGHTERS , to keep slow, ugly, and efficient Attack Aircraft(A-10 Warthog). Unless the Army/Marines can get the attack aircraft support missions, the Air Force will whine, beg, plead until they can dispose of the A 10, for an F22 OR F35. I surprised they have accepted the 60 year old BUFF(B-52) for so long.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
completely reboot the following:
1. Acquisitions & Budgeting: Throw out the entire system and start from scratch. Eliminate unnecessary positions in the acquisitions process and break the perception that the Federal Govt is a bottomless moneybag to be siphoned from. If the DoD has to pay more that the free market price for the exact same product, something is massively wrong and much trimming is needed. As for budgeting, end the practice of blowing money of at the end of the year to make sure it is allotted for next year. Allow units at some level (say Brigade for example) to save that money for singular anomalous situations.
2. Military Education: Absolute standardization across the board. We are all part of the same Army, Military, etc. Regardless of component (active, guard, reserve), all major OES, NCOES, etc will be conducted in the same fashion. Example, a Captain's Career Course should never be reduced to "online training" that should be relegated to single subject lessons such as accident avoidance, Commander's Safety Course, etc.
3. Standards: A soldier is either qualified for the position in question or they are not, regardless of any conceivable classification, protected class, etc. One Army, one standard to speak of my Service, substitute Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force as needed. Side note, further standardizing basic stuff such as HR practices probably wouldn't hurt either. We need to return to the "we're all green (& genderless) in the Army" logic.
1. Acquisitions & Budgeting: Throw out the entire system and start from scratch. Eliminate unnecessary positions in the acquisitions process and break the perception that the Federal Govt is a bottomless moneybag to be siphoned from. If the DoD has to pay more that the free market price for the exact same product, something is massively wrong and much trimming is needed. As for budgeting, end the practice of blowing money of at the end of the year to make sure it is allotted for next year. Allow units at some level (say Brigade for example) to save that money for singular anomalous situations.
2. Military Education: Absolute standardization across the board. We are all part of the same Army, Military, etc. Regardless of component (active, guard, reserve), all major OES, NCOES, etc will be conducted in the same fashion. Example, a Captain's Career Course should never be reduced to "online training" that should be relegated to single subject lessons such as accident avoidance, Commander's Safety Course, etc.
3. Standards: A soldier is either qualified for the position in question or they are not, regardless of any conceivable classification, protected class, etc. One Army, one standard to speak of my Service, substitute Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force as needed. Side note, further standardizing basic stuff such as HR practices probably wouldn't hurt either. We need to return to the "we're all green (& genderless) in the Army" logic.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
1) Be prepared to drop contractors for violations of their contract. This goes all the way from mom-&-pop type operations with consultants, all the way to large contracts like aircraft carriers and jet fighter programs. If you can't deliver agreed upon features/quantity at the agreed upon price - get dropped and BANNED from further contracts. PERIOD. Enough is enough, it's getting completely out of hand lately.
2) Have a better promotion system that doesn't consistently promote people for the achievements of others. Somehow, every now and again we have a wave of blow-hearts who rise to the top. We don't need more talkers - we need doers. We need people who are educated and know, rather than people who just know how to yell at those people. That's not leadership - it's not good for the overall ethos of the armed forces. Too many still get promoted based on perceived accomplishments rather than actual ones.
3) Make the US Army wear cooler hats than the Marine Corps. Seriously. Baseball caps? 250 year history and we wear baseball caps?!! Not cool.
2) Have a better promotion system that doesn't consistently promote people for the achievements of others. Somehow, every now and again we have a wave of blow-hearts who rise to the top. We don't need more talkers - we need doers. We need people who are educated and know, rather than people who just know how to yell at those people. That's not leadership - it's not good for the overall ethos of the armed forces. Too many still get promoted based on perceived accomplishments rather than actual ones.
3) Make the US Army wear cooler hats than the Marine Corps. Seriously. Baseball caps? 250 year history and we wear baseball caps?!! Not cool.
(2)
(0)
Sgt John de Nugent
I have served in both the Army (National Guard) and the Marine Reserves, and I really resented the Army clothing styles. I honestly (not to offend anyone) felt like a nerd in them after being in the Marines. I would just go with what the Marines wear and change the color a bit. The Army too has a lot of great warriors, and they deserve the snappiest uniforms possible!
(1)
(0)
Sgt John de Nugent
Nothing wrong with Ferrari Red! The Germans had a nice bluish gray. Burgundy.... All sexy colors.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
1. Stop congress and senate from dictating how the military operates or what with. Give them a budget and let DOD and the Commanders of each branch figure how to divide it. then let each branch decide how to spend it.
2. Let congress and the POTUS decide what conflicts and results they want us involved in and then DOD working with the Commanders will come up with a battle plan, time line, and ROE and cost.
3. Make one standard for all soldiers in a branch. It takes the same amount of physical strength for a 40 year old 1SG to fight an enemy as it does a 17 year old E--1. Regardless if they are male or female. somehow get rid of the PC police has to fit in one of these three.
2. Let congress and the POTUS decide what conflicts and results they want us involved in and then DOD working with the Commanders will come up with a battle plan, time line, and ROE and cost.
3. Make one standard for all soldiers in a branch. It takes the same amount of physical strength for a 40 year old 1SG to fight an enemy as it does a 17 year old E--1. Regardless if they are male or female. somehow get rid of the PC police has to fit in one of these three.
(2)
(0)
1SG Harold Piet
PO2 Robert Aitchison - congress is responsible for buying most of the junk because the lobbyist comes in and sells them ideas, and congress will spend tax payer money on anything that gets themselves something big
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
1) Allow NG awards to be worn regardless of status. We allow the wear of foreign country awards, why wouldn't we allow the wear of awards from part of our family. One Army, right?
2) I would get rid of the PT/HT/WT flagging actions for awards. It seems absurd to me that you cant recognize outstanding performance because you don't look right.
2) I would get rid of the PT/HT/WT flagging actions for awards. It seems absurd to me that you cant recognize outstanding performance because you don't look right.
(2)
(0)
LTC Robert McKenna
I suppose I could go for this if there was only one set of National Guard awards, as opposed to 52, that way they could just be like each services awards.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
LTC Robert McKenna - Its not like any one person is going to have all the awards from all of the states. In my case, it would be 5 additional ribbons/medals.
(0)
(0)
LTC Robert McKenna
LTC (Join to see) -
That's a bunch.
I believe tying to a federal legal entity is a better way to go. You would also have to cut off access to service awards for the same time period.
With the exception of campaign awards there have been very few foreign awards authorized, states award thousands or tens of thousands a year.
That's a bunch.
I believe tying to a federal legal entity is a better way to go. You would also have to cut off access to service awards for the same time period.
With the exception of campaign awards there have been very few foreign awards authorized, states award thousands or tens of thousands a year.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
LTC Robert McKenna - Not sure I agree. If the awards are presented from a sovereign government then duplication of service periods is irrelevant. It has happened before. Gulf War - Liberation of Kuwait medals from both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google