Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Intersting Thoughts - Military Officers Out At 50


Subdeacon Joe

Recommended Posts

Are you kidding me?

Not even close to being reasonable!

If there were more than that only proves the basic premise of this thread to be TRUE.

 

Consider this, O Bradley was one of the generals that had participated in a world war where 3 principal adversaries were defeated

and forces under his command dealt regionally with two of those adversaries.

The Italians resigned. The Germans were beat conventionally IE NO NUKES.

But the japanese took two NUKES to surrender.

 

How can a general come to the conclusion that ALL wars and other military adventures will end in the use of NUKES?

How does the USA rescue the staff at a beseiged embassy? Drop a NUKE, no, send the USMC!

How does the USA deal with piracy on the high seas? The US Navy. (A premise that Bradley had that the USN was not necesary).

How do you deal a 3rd world country doing something aggressive, Drop a Nuke, No, conventional bombing and conventional forces can handle it.

No need to escalate.

 

The position of using a NUKE to deal with all war situations is unrealistic.

That is an escalation well beyond need.

Sort of like executing civilians for J-walking.

 

(My caps are bad)

I was pointing out the at the dawn of the nuclear age many people thought that the next war would be fought with atomic bombs. That was the mindset. Of course it was wrong. But it seemed reasonable to them.....at the time. They thought that the days of long campaigns and ocean wars were done.

Beseiged embassy? Who ever heard of such a thing then? Terrorism? Not on the horizon. Rogue state? Nope. What's that?

The focus was on the Bear.

Turns out the the threat of nuclear war was so terrible that conventional warfare continued for the next 6 decades.

 

But none of this really has anything to do with the mandatory retirement of officers at age 50.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was pointing out the at the dawn of the nuclear age many people thought that the next war would be fought with atomic bombs. That was the mindset. Of course it was wrong. But it seemed reasonable to them.....at the time. They thought that the days of long campaigns and ocean wars were done.

Beseiged embassy? Who ever heard of such a thing then? Terrorism? Not on the horizon. Rogue state? Nope. What's that?

The focus was on the Bear.

Turns out the the threat of nuclear war was so terrible that conventional warfare continued for the next 6 decades.

 

But none of this really has anything to do with the mandatory retirement of officers at age 50.

 

All of the above really are indications of those that are not of young enough minds to be nimble enough to see possible events unfolding around them.

And of that youth of mind is the core problem in this thread.

The older officers don't have that nimble mind and should retire.

Is a mandatory retirement at 50 enough to fix it.... Not really.

50 may not be the right time for all.

BUT they need to retire those that are not mentally nimble enough.

 

BUT the real problem is to clear out the upper levels of military leadership to make room for those that are able to analyze what happened in the last war and what should happen next. Older leaders are TOO vested in the way the last war was fought to able to think clearly about what went wrong and understand or determine what SHOULD happen next.

 

All these point really do have to do with the concept of retirement of older officers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we are all in agreement that persons who are stagnant and unable to adapt to changing times, situations, and techniques need to move on. But we are talking about a Mandatory Retirement age of 50.

I am still of the opinion that is as arbitrary as the silly zero tolerance policies that have become inherent in so many areas of our society today. Senior officers need to be evaluated stringently and objectively without regard to old school ties, debts, and friendships. Will this completely solve the problem? no. Wuill a mandatory retirement solve it?

As you said:

Is a mandatory retirement at 50 enough to fix it.... Not really.

50 may not be the right time for all.

 

 

Assuming that a 50 year old does not have a nimble mind is a dangerouds generalization. I know a number of over 50 types who are innovative and with nimble minds that are enhanced by years of experience not dulled by it. And I know some stagnant 35 year olds who are dead set against any new ideas.

I think 50 is an arbitrary number not backed by any credible research.

Booting officers out who have barely put 25 years into their profession seems a waste of talent and experience.

 

At the end of the day, I'm really not sure that this is a serious problem in the American military today. There will always be dullards both in the officer and senior enlisted ranks. But if it's reached the level that mandatory retirement is a necessity, I have not heard it from any of my active duty friends.

But they're all Army so maybe it's a big problem in the other branches. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll support that when they make the same retirement age for politicians... and give them the same retirement benefits that the military gets.

Got that right!

Link to post
Share on other sites

40 I'm going to disagree with you on the last won war. We won the war against Saddam Hussein, defeated his Iraqi armed forces, removed him and his Bath party from power, occupied the country and established a new government and Army. Much as we did against Adolf Hitler's Germany. What we did in Iraq was throw away the Victory.

Joe, until we render an enemy incapable of rising to fight again, and unwilling to try out of fear or good sense, we haven't truly won.

 

Not saying our troops haven't fought hard and very, very well, they are the best this planet has ever seen. It's just that we don't fight an enemy to his total defeat and destruction. At the end of WWII Italy, Germany, and Japan were incapable of continuing, sick of war, and totally demoralized.

 

Look at our record since:

 

Korea, no end yet.

 

Vietnam, tucked or tail and ran away.

 

Dominican Republic, a quick in-and-out fight and we walked away.

 

Kuwait, a short brutal fight that we 'won' and the turned in the Iraqi debacle.

 

Afghanistan, still going on after several hundreds (or thousands) of years.

 

We negotiate 'an end' to the hostilities and walk away.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We will have to disagree on Bradley's leadership abilities.

But he was hardly alone in the military then in believing that future wars would be nuclear. That seemed reasonable right?

 

Fighting a conflict using last years tactics and equipment? Not many military organizations can refit equipment and change tactics that quickly regardless of whether or not over 50 officers are involved.

I say that mandatory retirement based on age is stupid. Retirement based on poor performance makes sense.

Bob, your last two sentences sum up the best of the argument. Thanks for the clarity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What if you have NO TACTICS and NO LEADERSHIP?

 

Just bomb the he77 out of 'em and hope for the best?

Not exactly bombing the hell out of them. I think they did maybe 8-9 strikes yesterday. Not going to knock anybody back to the Stone age like that. And of course once we announced exactly what we weregoing to do, they stoppedmoving in the open with massive convoys. Looks like they're killing about a squad at a time. Sheesh.
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you haven't read David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits and the Art of Battling Giants , by Malcomb Gladwell, yet then I urge that you do.

 

"Three thousand years ago on a battlefield in ancient Palestine, a shepherd boy felled a mighty warrior with nothing more than a stone and a sling, and ever since then the names of David and Goliath have stood for battles between underdogs and giants. David's victory was improbable and miraculous. He shouldn't have won.

Or should he have?

In David and Goliath, Malcolm Gladwell challenges how we think about obstacles and disadvantages, offering a new interpretation of what it means to be discriminated against, or cope with a disability, or lose a parent, or attend a mediocre school, or suffer from any number of other apparent setbacks.

Gladwell begins with the real story of what happened between the giant and the shepherd boy those many years ago. From there, David and Goliath examines Northern Ireland's Troubles, the minds of cancer researchers and civil rights leaders, murder and the high costs of revenge, and the dynamics of successful and unsuccessful classrooms---all to demonstrate how much of what is beautiful and important in the world arises from what looks like suffering and adversity."

 

It turns out that betting against the JV team can be a very, very costly wager.

Link to post
Share on other sites

David had two real advantages. Or so the story goes.

 

1.0 God was on his side.

 

2.0 He had superior fire power.

 

 

The first issue I will leave you to interpret however you please.

 

The second issue was that he knew how to use the

sling and as a shepard he was probably well versed in it's killing power.

Given close combat, he would have been dog meat. But his ability to

stand away and inflict damage on his adversary was a winning deal.

As I understand things, slings were quite common in that era and they

were not toys. David's real advantage was his skill with the sling. He

probably had some range time in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

David had two real advantages. Or so the story goes.

 

1.0 God was on his side.

 

2.0 He had superior fire power.

 

 

The first issue I will leave you to interpret however you please.

 

The second issue was that he knew how to use the

sling and as a shepard he was probably well versed in it's killing power.

Given close combat, he would have been dog meat. But his ability to

stand away and inflict damage on his adversary was a winning deal.

As I understand things, slings were quite common in that era and they

were not toys. David's real advantage was his skill with the sling. He

probably had some range time in.

And, David picked up five (5) stones. In later verses we find out that Goliath had four (4) brothers. David didn't count on missing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.