Posted on Nov 18, 2016
This poll of U.S. military personnel suggests 1 in 4 troops is worried about life under Donald...
1.41K
41
10
3
3
0
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 6
"In September, he hinted that he would dismiss or sideline generals that disagreed with his plans to combat terrorism, comments that upset critics"....Honestly there is nothing wrong with that. McArthur got canned when he thought he was higher than the President. He found out who was the real boss. If you cannot, will not, and do not want to play ball, save the military the hassle of dealing with you. It only ends with you holding less rank, and a discharge that kills any dreams of grandeur you had. You'll be forced to work in the porn industry or Bunny Ranch. Those are about the only places where your 214 won't be needed. I think the focus is on the wrong thing. If you are in when he takes office, you will salute and march to the beat of his drum. Or look for another job. As much as I do not like Trump, he will be the CINC. Time to move on and stop speculating and making issues of a NON issue. I think I'm going to go downstairs and rinse my brain out with .45 hollow points. Me defending Trump again...........
(6)
(0)
SSG Jeffrey Monk
Statistics. Numbers are easy to play with. Kinda like the glass half empty or half full. Thanks for pointing it out I thought the same thing.
(0)
(0)
The comment of dismissing the sideline Generals, to go after ISIS is somewhat understandable. For the last 8 years, any higher ranking officer, that did not agree with the administration has been relieved and replaced with yes men. That is not saying they are yes men because they believe in the current administration, they may be smart enough to know when not to fight a loosing battle, and just waiting for a Commander and Chief. Trump was not my first choice, actually my third, but, he did not get to where he is by blowing off the source experts in their fields. He has the nads to make hard decisions and will be unpopular in some of them. My thought, when I see him is that I am looking at an American, who genuinely wants whats right for AMERICA. Can't say that about the last 8 years.
(4)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
As I recall it wasn't so much disagreeing with the president in private, it was disagreeing with him very publicly in news sources. Any high ranking general should know that's going to get them fired, regardless of who the POTUS is. Sometimes people at that level in the organization start to forget they are still an employee.
(2)
(0)
SFC William "Bill" Moore
I agree, going public with most of the stuff was not a smart move, but, some of the disagreements were fleshed out in private discussions to no avail. More than quite a few were made on the ground, in the heat of the moment with very little time to have a sit down. I know that theater doctrine was hashed out by the heads inside the beltway, and public (insert foreign) perspective won, over ground commanders needs and experience. Their frustration in having to lead with one hand and both feet tied, bled out to the public, which should not have. Kind of a flash back to the Vietnam war. I was very young, and am only talking about my perspective, but, if the Generals would have marched in to Johnsons office and demanded that they either be allowed to fight, and win, or start an immediate withdraw, a lot of our service members would not have perished. However, they were not allowed to do either. I have the utmost respect for our Vietnam veterans. However, again, I agree that the Military leadership has to keep their opinion out of the public view. But, to the original concern voiced in the article, I fall back to the thinking that those officers that have been relieved, were replaced with either left leaning officers, or hopefully, officers that know when not to fight the loosing (bureaucratic) battle, and definitely not in public.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next