Men, real men, Warriors, require respect. It is the coin of the Warrior Realm.
Socially engineering their craft is very disrespectful.
2 Likes
The principals and traits of leadership used to mean something. The mission has to be first, but you can’t do the mission without your troops. Making sure they were respected, properly led and trained, and that you were looking out for their interests can’t be stressed enough.
A truth of armed conflict is that bullets, bombs and blades don’t differentiate between identities. Another is that teamwork and esprit de corps are often the deciding factor in close battles.
I was thinking something similar when I first read the thread.
Toys don’t win wars, Men do.
Which is why the importance of the attitude of leaders, and the command environment they create, with the resulting presence, or absence, of earned loyalty from their troops can not be overstated. We ask our warriors to go into close combat, at very real risk of death, or serious injury.
1 Like
This thread appears to make people uncomfortable.
It is a very good topic, but it requires actual identification of the elements that go into military readiness. The personnel portion, including leadership, battle focus, development and team building are significant areas. We still have equipment, maintenance logistics and training to add to the mix. Not a topic well suited to simple snark, unless the objective of the poster is disruption, for disruptions sake.
Well, if the ■■■■ hits the fan, the US is so ■■■■■■■
Fair question. And I will answer as a civilian. And I know you won’t believe this but I actually do try to be informed about military matters. As much as I can. So I’ll honestly say that what I focus on is our ability to have our resources available for hostile situations. I check Fleet Tracker every day to see what is available for situations. Where are the carrier groups and where are the MEU’s if needed. Which is a huge part of our foreign policy options. So I want to know that the units behind all of that that are training and prepping are available to replace the ones that we see in the news. After they’ve done their job. Again, I’m a civilian, but when an Osprey goes down off Japan, I worry if that’s an accident or another issue.
But long story short, probably a lot of my belief is in reports of the military doing their job. Intercepting Russian Bears(which is normal) in Alaska, doing the air protection in Europe, shooting down Houthi missiles(thank god our destroyers are not all talk), watching our arms do well in Ukraine. A whole other issue, but HARMs and HIMARS and other things seem to work really well. So a lot of that. Sorry, Lions just won so I need to get a drink.
And I like the official reports that tell us the percentage of units that are combat ready. Those GAO reports are awful.
With our military in its current state (of which there seems to be some difference of opinion), who in the world is better?
The real question is who’s forces are in better readiness in a specific area, compared to potential adversaries.
1 Like
Navy is riddled with readiness problems, Army is undermanned and has about two hours worth of materiel for full fledged action. Air Force, well there is a reason the other services don’t take them seriously.
1 Like
I think we have our positives, and our negatives.
I know (based on experience from some of my own kids and nephews) that the wokeness is certainly problematic. Ditto discipline. (Some things that would never have been tolerated years ago are now glazed over when the perpetrator is in a hard-to-fill position, for example.)
But I have to question whether or not that translates into lower capabilities of individuals or units. When the bullets fly, I believe (gut feel, so don’t ask for more than that from me) that people will perform.
As for technological capabilities, we see our military picking off drones and missiles in the Red Sea. So far, so good. Of course, only one hostile projectile has to be successful for the narrative to rev up and declare us incapable. And we see our contributions to the Iron Dome succeed admirably. And we see Western armaments besting Russian armaments.
The question I have is whether or not we would have adequate amounts of material if we were drawn formally into a war (or multiple wars.) Strategic oil reserves? Sufficient missiles? Vehicles? The whole gamut.
Nice post. I especially like the concern about materials. Just as an example the Ukraine war has shown us that we need way way way more artillery rounds. And our production should be up to triple what it was before the war, but not sure that’s good enough.
You can’t look at it in a military “vacuum” either. It is bound by the civilian leadership.
The moral authority to lead.
This is what I was talking about.
What “reports”? How are they generated?
GAO. Theyr’e publicly available.
Afghanistan’s.
1 Like
Define “perform.” Define “people.”
Did they last time?
Why?
…
