Politics

[MD Driver]

Yeah, a good summary. One thing about military senior leadership that’s worth noting is that they are products of government and bureaucracy. They may think of themselves as conservative, or might at least try to portray an image of being above the political fray, more concerned with the noble cause of national defense. But they’ve groomed within a system that’s very, very big government oriented. That’s all they’ve ever known. Process is everything. Trump is disliked by both sides in Washington, and so was Reagan because they questioned process and stepped on toes. And it absolutely threatens huge government spending in this direction or that.

Milley is a poster child of that northeastern education, graduate education, and Army senior officer schools’ professional military education curriculum. In my Academy class many years ago, you could tell right away who were destined to immerse themselves into the above, compared to those who’d serve their active duty service commitments and then either separate completely, or finish up as an O-5 or O-6 in a Reseve component. This group leaving active duty generally did very well in the private sector, and almost 100% of our STEM academic majors fell into this group. But many of the others… history, poli sci, philosophy majors…. found a home in the same world as Milley and were weirdly compliant, unquestioning, myopic, and risk averse. In our example at least, they were NOT the best and brightest people, not by a long shot.

So, you get what you pay for in developing senior officers. With the rightward, iconoclastic, and questioning shift (Trump) in conservative politics, it surprises my zero that some of these very senior officers push back at those things that threatens all they’ve ever known.

 

[Brent in Az]

A possible third assassination attempt was thwarted by police who stopped a man armed with guns and fake passes outside of Trump's Coachella rally

 

[375 Ruger Fan]

Yeah, a good summary. One thing about military senior leadership that’s worth noting is that they are products of government and bureaucracy. They may think of themselves as conservative, or might at least try to portray an image of being above the political fray, more concerned with the noble cause of national defense. But they’ve groomed within a system that’s very, very big government oriented. That’s all they’ve ever known. Process is everything. Trump is disliked by both sides in Washington, and so was Reagan because they questioned process and stepped on toes. And it absolutely threatens huge government spending in this direction or that.

Milley is a poster child of that northeastern education, graduate education, and Army senior officer schools’ professional military education curriculum. In my Academy class many years ago, you could tell right away who were destined to immerse themselves into the above, compared to those who’d serve their active duty service commitments and then either separate completely, or finish up as an O-5 or O-6 in a Reseve component. This group leaving active duty generally did very well in the private sector, and almost 100% of our STEM academic majors fell into this group. But many of the others… history, poli sci, philosophy majors…. found a home in the same world as Milley and were weirdly compliant, unquestioning, myopic, and risk averse. In our example at least, they were NOT the best and brightest people, not by a long shot.

So, you get what you pay for in developing senior officers. With the rightward, iconoclastic, and questioning shift (Trump) in conservative politics, it surprises my zero that some of these very senior officers push back at those things that threatens all they’ve ever known.

@MD Driver You painteth with a broad brush.

 

[sgt_zim]

Yep. She's a meat puppet, just like creepy uncle joe is.

 

[Red Leg]

Yeah, a good summary. One thing about military senior leadership that’s worth noting is that they are products of government and bureaucracy. They may think of themselves as conservative, or might at least try to portray an image of being above the political fray, more concerned with the noble cause of national defense. But they’ve groomed within a system that’s very, very big government oriented. That’s all they’ve ever known. Process is everything. Trump is disliked by both sides in Washington, and so was Reagan because they questioned process and stepped on toes. And it absolutely threatens huge government spending in this direction or that.

Milley is a poster child of that northeastern education, graduate education, and Army senior officer schools’ professional military education curriculum. In my Academy class many years ago, you could tell right away who were destined to immerse themselves into the above, compared to those who’d serve their active duty service commitments and then either separate completely, or finish up as an O-5 or O-6 in a Reseve component. This group leaving active duty generally did very well in the private sector, and almost 100% of our STEM academic majors fell into this group. But many of the others… history, poli sci, philosophy majors…. found a home in the same world as Milley and were weirdly compliant, unquestioning, myopic, and risk averse. In our example at least, they were NOT the best and brightest people, not by a long shot.

So, you get what you pay for in developing senior officers. With the rightward, iconoclastic, and questioning shift (Trump) in conservative politics, it surprises my zero that some of these very senior officers push back at those things that threatens all they’ve ever known.

I'll simply say my experiences with leadership in both in the military and government were quite different than what you portray. I knew some senior officers who had no business wearing stars. But the vast majority were exceptional at their trade and cared deeply for their country and the men and women who wore the uniform and swore the oath. There was no question why they wore the rank.

The observations in your second paragraph, again in my personal experience, are simply not so. Though it follows a pattern one often hears among officers who decide not to make a career of active service. It essentially follows the line that they left because they were too smart, independent, competent, you pick the adjective, to make a career of the military. Conversely, anyone who does is "weirdly compliant, unquestioning, myopic, and risk averse." You have familiarity with a totally different cast of senior military officers than I have known.

You also seem to have a strange aversion to senior leaders having a broad liberal arts education. I find that humorous, though I admit I am one. Again, and purely from my perspective, what would be better for a "generalist" than to have studied Gibbon, truly understand economics, have a clear appreciation for the historical and current application of power - military and political, and perhaps speak a language or two other than Murican as a very valuable foundation for senior command - particularly if he or she has a proven track record of success in their branch. If I may offer a untempered general observation of my own, some specialist professions represent some of the least educated people I have ever known.

When in the private sector, I hired any number of majors and lieutenant colonels who had left active service earlier or later. The primary positive attributes they exhibited were self-discipline, usually though not always some leadership success, and enough runway to make the corporation's investment in them worth the effort. They certainly were not any smarter or more capable than the men and women who were selected to command battalions, brigades. squadrons and wings instead of them.

 

[MD Driver]

@MD Driver You painteth with a broad brush.

Yeah, maybe. But I never found them to particularly impressive people. Mileages, I’m sure.

 

[MD Driver]

I'll simply say my experiences with leadership in both in the military and government were quite different than what you portray. I knew some senior officers who had no business wearing stars. But the vast majority were exceptional at their trade and cared deeply for their country and the men and women who wore the uniform and swore the oath. There was no question why they wore the rank.

The observations in your second paragraph, again in my personal experience, are simply not so. Though it follows a pattern one often hears among officers who decide not to make a career of active service. It essentially follows the line that they left because they were too smart, independent, competent, you pick the adjective, to make a career of the military. Conversely, anyone who does is "weirdly compliant, unquestioning, myopic, and risk averse." You have familiarity with a totally different cast of senior military officers than I have known.

You also seem to have a strange aversion to senior leaders having a broad liberal arts education. I find that humorous, though I admit I am one. Again, and purely from my perspective, what would be better for a "generalist" than to have studied Gibbon, truly understand economics, have a clear appreciation for the historical and current application of power - military and political, and perhaps speak a language or two other than Murican as a very valuable foundation for senior command - particularly if he or she has a proven track record of success in their branch. If I may offer a untempered general observation of my own, some specialist professions represent some of the least truly educated people I have ever known.

When in the private sector, I hired any number of majors and lieutenant colonels who had left active service earlier or later. The primary positive attributes they exhibited were self-discipline, usually though not always some leadership success, and enough runway to make the corporation's investment in them worth the effort. They certainly were not any smarter or more capable than the men and women who were selected to command battalions, brigades. squadrons and wings instead of them.

I’m sorry, as friends we’ll just have to completely disagree. And it’s to my original point that where you stand is where you sit, and in this case…how you got there. Maybe it was just in my DoD branch, but they were brazenly political animals.

Cheers.

 

[Red Leg]

As I have said for several days, no doubt to Nate Silver's chagrin, I think this election is doing the typical late inning turn for one of the candidates. Even NBC, is starting to prepare that groundwork.

 

[LivingTheDream]

As I have said for several days, no doubt to Nate Silver's chagrin, I think this election is doing the typical late inning turn for one of the candidates. Even NBC, is starting to prepare that groundwork.

My concern is it seems like he might be peaking too soon.

 

[Hogpatrol]

Day of the 2016 election, NYT poll said Hillary had an 85% chance of winning versus 15% Trump.
Polls are just fabricated bullshit propaganda for one side or the other. Take them and three bucks or so down to Starbucks for a cup o' joe.

 

[ActionBob]

Day of the 2016 election, NYT poll said Hillary had an 85% chance of winning versus 15% Trump.
Polls are just fabricated bullshit propaganda for one side or the other. Take them and three bucks or so down to Starbucks for a cup o' joe.

You are obviously NOT ordering the same coffee as @Just Gina