JOBS FOR VETS ?

[RyanShort1]

I think that my previous post came across a little too harsh. My apologies.

Ryan

[Bill Greenwood]

Ryan, I don't know about you, old buddy; here you go admitting you might be wrong, or at least a little excessive.
Are you sure you are a pilot? No pilot that I know ever admits any mistake since he never makes one. And you for sure must not be a Navy pilot or a fighter pilot, those guys can't even concieve of a mistake.
I warned you when I sent you that helmet that it contained some non standard ideas!

Now to be serious for just a moment, if I may take the liberrty. You write some interesting stuff, but without having met or gotten to know you, may I suggest that sometimes it seems that you take things too seiously. Don't forget to laugh, joke, and enjoy things sometime.Have a beer after work, not driving or flying of course.

[RyanShort1]

Ryan, I don't know about you, old buddy; here you go admitting you might be wrong, or at least a little excessive.

Excessive...

Now to be serious for just a moment, if I may take the liberrty. You write some interesting stuff, but without having met or gotten to know you, may I suggest that sometimes it seems that you take things too seiously. Don't forget to laugh, joke, and enjoy things sometime.Have a beer after work, not driving or flying of course.

Actually, I do take a lot of things seriously. I'm worried for my country. I see a lot of really dumb stuff happening and it isn't so much political as it is in everything. If you ever come down to SA, let me know and I'll see if I can break away for a bit.
That said, I have quite enough fun. Don't drink though, so I won't be taking that part of the advise!
As far as the vets stuff goes, I actually think EVERY young man over the age of 20 should be prepared to take part in the defense of the country, I just don't think that extended periods of service or mandatory 1 year drafts or something are appropriate. Also, the truth is that the military is a very different place to be in some respects as opposed to civilian life. I know most of the military folks would say it has to be that way, and I respect their opinion, but disagree. I have worked with a number of military folks in my flight training and they have all agreed that the civilian / lifestyle aspect of the military is actually much closer to a socialized situation with the military system of healthcare, provisions, housing, etc... That is what I'm referring to causing issues for SOME of the veterans when they get out.
BTW, the GI Bill stuff is alive and well, and I've had 3 or 4 calls about flight training with it in recent months. It's too bad that we can't help them as Part 61 flight training providers. They almost have to go to a 141 school unless they and the school want to jump through some hoops.
I take my own view seriously and can shoot decently well with a military style-rifle, know some about military tactics, and stay "up" with what's going on. If a US border was ever in serious danger and there was a need, I wouldn't hesitate to volunteer, though I'd hope maybe they could find some use for me in a cockpit instead .

Ryan

[Randy Haskin]

I actually think EVERY young man over the age of 20 should be prepared to take part in the defense of the country

Have you?

I know most of the military folks would say it has to be that way, and I respect their opinion, but disagree.

Do you REALLY believe that?

I understand your rationale, but the idea of never having a standing army, and the subsequent requirement to invent one out of thin air -- to organize, train, and equip -- at the exact time that it is needed is complete folly. It is a recipe for being steamrolled under the next Blitzkreig. In order to have an effective organization, regardless of the purpose, there has to be continuity, otherwise the lessons learned out of decades of strategization, trial, and error would have to be re-learned at the most crucial of times.

[RyanShort1]

I actually think EVERY young man over the age of 20 should be prepared to take part in the defense of the country

Have you?

Not yet. Being prepared to, and actually having to, are something I think everyone hopes doesn't happen. Thankfully, we haven't actually had a direct assault on our borders in recent times. Also, I did caveat my statements with the whole just war thing.

I know most of the military folks would say it has to be that way, and I respect their opinion, but disagree.

Do you REALLY believe that?

I understand your rationale, but the idea of never having a standing army, and the subsequent requirement to invent one out of thin air -- to organize, train, and equip -- at the exact time that it is needed is complete folly. It is a recipe for being steamrolled under the next Blitzkreig. In order to have an effective organization, regardless of the purpose, there has to be continuity, otherwise the lessons learned out of decades of strategization, trial, and error would have to be re-learned at the most crucial of times.

In one word: Switzerland.
In more words. Yes I do. I happen to believe that most or at least many of our troubles overseas since WWII have been self-induced. Korea, Vietnam, places like Somalia, Kosovo, etc.. weren't declared by Congress and don't necessarily fit just war theory either. I also believe that the founding father's didn't intend for there to be much more than a small standing army, if that, for good historical reasons.
They did allow for a Navy, on the grounds that it couldn't be built or trained as quickly, and I think they might have agreed that an air force would be reasonable, if kept within constitutional bounds.
On your comment about having to have a standing army trained and equipped, I'm not so sure. The US military seems to have a fairly hard time actually finishing the job against 5th generation fighters overseas. Give it a slightly different political climate and it might be much harder.

Ryan

[Brad]

As far as the vets stuff goes, I actually think EVERY young man over the age of 20 should be prepared to take part in the defense of the country, I just don't think that extended periods of service or mandatory 1 year drafts or something are appropriate.

Like any other business in the world, there are lots of people in the military that have stayed past their use by date and they should be sent packing. But I'm curious why you are against career military folks? If I go to look for a flight instructor I'm not gonna go to a brand new one. I'm gonna look for the old guy that has been doing it for a long time and knows more about it. It doesn't mean the new kid doesn't know his business but continuity and years of practical experience are what I'd be hunting for. Same thing if somebody needed killing. With the exception of the few times stop loss was implemented, all terms of service, extended or otherwise, are stictly voluntary. Nobody has been drafted in your lifetime.

Also, the truth is that the military is a very different place to be in some respects as opposed to civilian life. I know most of the military folks would say it has to be that way, and I respect their opinion, but disagree. I have worked with a number of military folks in my flight training and they have all agreed that the civilian / lifestyle aspect of the military is actually much closer to a socialized situation with the military system of healthcare, provisions, housing, etc... That is what I'm referring to causing issues for SOME of the veterans when they get out.

I've been a civilian and I've been military. It's not that different. Yes we wear uniforms and have to salute officers above us and such but it's really not as different a life as you think. Maybe some vets never do adapt to the post military life. Maybe they like to be told how to do things, when to do things and where to do them at. When you've been told every move all your life I guess it can be a hard habit to break. I think those people are few and far between. But along those lines, I've known a guy that intentionally violated his parole so he could go back to prison for life. He'd spent so long being told every move that he couldn't function in society. I will say that the one true benefit I see to the military that just doesn't happen in the real world is the fact that for an entire career, I've never had to wake up and worry if I still have a job.

As for the lifestyle aspect, not that many people live in the barracks or eat in the chow hall beyond their first couple of years in the service. I live in base housing. I pay rent to do so. It comes out of my paycheck. The USAF doesn't give me a place to live. As for healthcare, well I pay for insurance for my wife and we use it. The majority of healthcare I've had in my career was free. That being said, I've often seen horses get better care at the vet. Am I happy that when I retire I'll have free healthcare for the rest of my life? Yes but if my new job has insurance I'll dang sure use that before I go to the VA.

I take my own view seriously and can shoot decently well with a military style-rifle, know some about military tactics, and stay "up" with what's going on. If a US border was ever in serious danger and there was a need, I wouldn't hesitate to volunteer, though I'd hope maybe they could find some use for me in a cockpit instead .

I wouldn't think of stepping over your fence without an invitation as I don't doubt for a second that you are dead serious about this and would defend your land and family to the end. I also don't doubt that you'd be killed within a few minutes if slathering communist hoards come sneaking across the Rio Grande and such a defense of our beloved Texas was called for. It takes more than hiding behind a dead horse with a rifle like Augustus McCrae on Lonesome Dove when the crap hits the fan. I think you are carrying the military reenacting thing a bit far.

In one word: Switzerland.

You have got to be kidding. If you want to try it, Swissair flys out of Chicago every afternoon. You can probably connect from San Antonio. Let me know how that goes.

I happen to believe that most or at least many of our troubles overseas since WWII have been self-induced. Korea, Vietnam, places like Somalia, Kosovo, etc.. weren't declared by Congress and don't necessarily fit just war theory either. I also believe that the founding father's didn't intend for there to be much more than a small standing army, if that, for good historical reasons.

So if congress makes the declaration, it is okay to throw a war and it will go without a hitch? I'm curious as to your definition of a "just war"? You'll get no argument from me about many of our overseas problems being self induced, but it wasn't the military that induced them. I doubt the founding fathers ever figured we'd be going to other countries to fight anybody, for whatever the reason. I even doubt they thought much about defending anything or fighting anywhere besides the east coast.

On your comment about having to have a standing army trained and equipped, I'm not so sure. The US military seems to have a fairly hard time actually finishing the job against 5th generation fighters overseas. Give it a slightly different political climate and it might be much harder.

If you are well versed in some military tactics like you said earlier, you'd know this is not the military's fault. Leave it up to the standing Army, keep political correctness and politicians out of it and I think you'd be amazed how quickly those 5th generation fighters could be dealt with. In a take on your words, Give it a slightly different political climate and it might be much easier.

[Randy Haskin]

Not yet. Being prepared to, and actually having to, are something I think everyone hopes doesn't happen. Thankfully, we haven't actually had a direct assault on our borders in recent times.

If you are limiting 'just' to direct assault on the US borders, then you are really missing the point. I swore to protect and defend the Constitution, just as every other US military member does. That is a far more important and legitimate charge than simply defending the physical borders of the geographic United States. The integrity of the Constitution, as well as the rule of law that stems from it, completely transcends any physical real estate. We could lose California, Arizona, and Texas all to a Mexican invasion, and the Constitution would still guarantee a free and ordered nation in the other remaining states. Lose the Constitution, and who really cares about the physical border because the United States as an idea ceases to exist.

Although I tend to agree with your opinion about use of the US military as a primarily expeditionary force (and the international relations troubles that has potentially caused), your placement of the blame is entirely and wholesale incorrect. We do not have a military-led country; we have a civilian-led military. Any heartburn about how and where the military is used needs to be addressed directly to the people who work at the east end of Pennsylvania Avenue in DC.

On your comment about having to have a standing army trained and equipped, I'm not so sure. The US military seems to have a fairly hard time actually finishing the job against 5th generation fighters overseas. Give it a slightly different political climate and it might be much harder.

So, on one hand you say that an Army that has had generations of practice of it's craft is apparently incompetent...yet you believe one that is stood up out of thin air, and hastily during a time of real crisis, would have more success?

Wow. I just don't know what to say to that because it defies all rational logic.

[Randy Haskin]

The US military seems to have a fairly hard time actually finishing the job against 5th generation fighters overseas. Give it a slightly different political climate and it might be much harder.

Since you seem to be the thinking type, you should really explore this statement more.

Your US military has had NO trouble achieving the military objectives it has been charged with. It has expertly performed the duties it exists to execute. It is actually very, very capable of performing the duty that is the reason for it's existence.

What has transpired in Iraq and Afghanistan, however, have absolutely nothing to do with military objective.

Where the military has struggled is with it's use over the last three decades as a "nation-building" force, which is a charge that a military force is not designed to execute. It's like trying to use a screwdriver to tighten a nut. Here, I agree - the military has had an absolutely terrible time achieving that objective, just as it would be very difficult to tighten a nut with a screwdriver. You simply can't yardstick the merit of an organization by how it has executed a mission it is not designed, not trained, and not equipped to execute. You wouldn't throw the screwdriver away because of it's horrible nut-tightening capabilities, either.

The reason for this mis-use of the military, again, rests with the elected representatives that lead the country. Regardless of party affiliation, regardless of administration, regardless of time frame...every example which you've listed in your post has a root cause at the east end of Washington DC (the Capital building) and not the west end (the Pentagon).