Let's talk about Secretary Rumsfeld
 

The following comments made me think this might be a good topic.

So, is Secretary Rumsfeld doing a good job or not? What are his strengths and weaknesses as SecDef in your view?

My mother always told me that if I couldn't say anything nice, I shouldn't say anything at all.

I'm sure GEN Franks, GEN Shinseki and all those other 4-stars who didn't want to be Chief of Staff have an opinion, though - and are more free to express it.

There's something about him that rubs me the wrong way. I can't put my finger on what it is, though.

I like him. But what do I know?

I like him too. Shinseki gave the legs a beret, I don't care what he thinks. General Schoomaker and General Boykin are willing to work for him, that's enough for me.

Do they really have a choice? Sure, they can retire, but I would think that when you get that far along, the brass ring is pretty tough to give up. I know it is in my world.

:munchin

GEN Schoomaker was already retired and came back onto AD to work for him.

LTG Boykin could have retired easily from his previous job, had he not wanted to work for him.

Do not assume that they could not have been very successful upon retirement from the military.

TR

I'm not making that assumption. My only point is that there has to be some very significant attraction to getting a job at the very apex of the military.

I've got a theory about that.

Basically, if you have served honorably as a General, particularly if you have commanded at the four star level, what do you have to lose by speaking straight, telling the truth, and taking care of the troops?

Frankly, I think the two officers you mentioned are of like minds.

Probably explains why I will never reach that rank. :D

TR

I would think the opportunity to advance, unfortunately. :(

Sounds like the military is not that different from other organizations in that respect. I prefer your suggested course, personally.

From my perspective, and only my perspective, you are making an invalid assumption if you are clumping those who are in SF with the rest of the "military". You see, for those of us that were in this business before SF became a branch, we were treated as leppers by the rest of the Army and career progression was never in any of our minds. We just believed in each other, what we did, what we were called upon to do, and looked out for each other. I would also think that your catagorization of the military as an organization might be correct for some branches that look upon the military as a job, but SF is a profession and as a profession requires a commitment made by professionals to the core values required for the execution of its missions. That is why I find the name of this site so appropriate. Quiet Professionals is not just a catch phrase but a gathering of warriors that share a common commitment to something that is larger than self bound together by experience, respect, patriotism, and profession. If we progressed up the ladder, it was not because we did not stand up and fight for what we believed in. It was because those for whom we fought produced results so astounding that we received undue credit for their efforts.

Jack Moroney-need to stop drinking coffee earlier:D

Again, I say that a man who is wearing four stars and has commanded up to and including USSOCOM has no advancement by returning to AD, even as the CSA.

The only reason to do that is to serve, help your nation, your Army, and your brother warriors.

Duty, Honor, Country.

Not just words, Counsel, get it?

TR

I like Rumsfeld.

1. He had enough faith in Special Ops to let the Afghanistan plan be executed despite the objections of the conventional Army.

2. He brought General Schoomaker out of retirement.

3. He got the Air Force to switch mission priorities so that Close Air Support is now their number one priority.

4. He is ramrodding the reorganization of our military in order to create more flexible organizations with a better tooth to tail ratio. Something that I think was long overdue.

5. He is actually taking on the conventional cold war mentalities head on.

6. He is paying attention to realities that have existed for a long-time, but which no one has been willing to admit (like the fact that if North Korea comes south, the only way we can defend South Korea is with nukes).

Yes, thank you.

Is the answer different below the 4-star level?

In your experience, are all officers motivated strictly by "duty, honor, country," and not by ego? That would surprise me a great deal.

Now this is getting personal. I don't think anyone here can answer that question about anyone but themselves and the pleasant or not so pleasant experiences that they have had with others. I must admit, however, that your inference that those of us that might just be motivated by "duty, honor, and country" really do not exist and have separate agendas surprises me and would like to know what shaped your perception. Not so much because you might think I am offended about what you think about me, you see I really don't give a damn. Never gave a rats ass about what anyone thought about me. So would you like me to draw inferences of what I think motivates members of the legal profession? As the likely hood of my strolling along the halls of justice in your wing tips are just about equal to the likely hood of your slogging through the hinterlands in my combat boots neither of us would be qualified to make judgements about what makes the members of the other profession tick. We both have lowlifes in our professions and not only cream rises to the top-turds also float. While I cannot talk to your contemporaries I can talk to mine and I can assure you that in my case those folks that worked for me that consistently failed to meet the exceptionally low standards that they set for themselves are now doing something else. Can I say that is true about everyone, no I can't and I have been overruled in some cases because I stepped in someones toes, but then I never could dance and really wasn't interested in learning.

Jack Moroney