Perspective on Whinage
Grumpy old officers re whiny young ones:
Debating retention of junior officers is a perilous matter but there are just too many vital issues currently concerning the future of the officer corps that it is necessary to inject some realism within the debate. Junior officers are leaving the army at an alarming rate and not simply because of continuous deployments and the state of affairs in Iraq and Afghanistan. Lieutenants and Captains, although focused at the tactical level, still ponder what exactly senior officers and politicians have in mind in regards to the plan and endstate for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and how it will affect the Army as an institution. These important questions are debated by junior officers on a daily basis. Nonetheless, these questions at a personal level are subordinate to an even more vital question which junior officers contemplate, and that is whether to leave the military for the corporate sector.
I almost posted a comment on your blog regarding all the whining coming from the troops in Iraq. They are the best paid, best supported (including by the public at large), least uncomfortable; and at least statistically for combat arms folks, at the lowest risk of death of any wartime army in US history.
Well, it’s a different war. Imagine a captain in combat arms in WWII with that much time on his hands for deepthink.
Meanwhile, Castle Argghhh!!!’s man in Iraq with a ground view. Hussan’s Story. Also, another war documentary review, re Outside the Wire’s latest.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 8:25 am Comments (6) on Thursday, April 3, 2008
6 Responses to “Perspective on Whinage”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
April 3rd, 2008 at 11:46 am
If their leadership skills were understood and valued more by the private sector, then this would be less of a problem. As it is, they have to make a choice – get out early and start building their non-military resume, or stay in and end up retiring at a point where employers will be reluctant to consider them.
I saw this first hand with my father, who retired as a LTC in the Air Force. One of his jobs was as as Squadron Commander of the largest squadron on base, with several hundred personnel. They handled administrative functions for the base, including business-like stuff such as data entry. Yet, when he got out, even this experience was considered irrelevant. He was overqualified (ie., too old), and they assumed he wouldn’t be able to work with people he couldn’t give direct orders to.
I suppose this is no surprise, because the people at the top are (generally) people who gave no consideration to military service, and they really don’t understand the ones who do.
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:38 pm
“and at least statistically for combat arms folks, at the lowest risk of death of any wartime army in US history.”
Dear “the perspective,” also know as a f*ckstick. In case you didn’t know, while the death rate for combat veterans in OIF is below that of other wars, the wound rate is relatively high, indeed through 2006 it was THREE TIMES the rate incurred by Vietnam servicemen.
I point out this salient fact in lieu of discussing my year-long rehab from IED blast (TBI). I don’t want adding personal experiences from the infantry to be taken for “whining.” I should be sooooooo thankful that I didn’t die! Lucky me!
Also, last time I checked, WWII and other conflicts were notable for ending. One tends to “whine” when one finds oneself in long, nebulous conflicts that don’t appear to be wrapping up anytime soon, that have all the support of 30 percent of the population, and aren’t shared in any real sense by the vast majority of Americans, who don’t enlist.
This is a war fought not by “America,” but my the military and our familes. If some want to “whine” about this brutal reality, I guess we have to deride them for not being sufficiently gung-ho.
What an asshat.
April 4th, 2008 at 2:17 am
I don’t suppose you’re suggesting that everyone shuck their body armor so the killed to wounded ratios are back in line.
As for other conflicts ending… did they? Or did they sort of have a party and ticker-tape parade when the enemy surrendered and then keep operations going in the aftermath? Last I heard we never actually left Japan or Germany.
And *yes* it’s the god given right of enlisted service members to complain and grumble. The whining by junior officers is a bit… less… of a god given right.
April 4th, 2008 at 4:33 am
That ‘3 times’ the rate is wounded to kill not 3 times the wounded rate in VN. Important to note. Get a little sand in a sensitive body part Carl?
April 4th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Actually, that’ s not true, Bullshark. AMEDD did a study on the wound rate of OIF combatants from 2003-2006 and determined it was three times the cumulative wound rate for Vietnam servicemen and women.
It was part of two studies designed to see how well military medicine on the battlefield had responded to the need for timely and effective trauma care.
Of course, we’re dealing with different scales. There were far larger numbers of troops in Vietnam (more than three times as many troops, at times), and the mortality rate much higher due to many factors — lack of decent body and vehicular armor in Vietnam, difficulties in extracting casualties from the battlefield, et al — but the interesting fact remains that the wound rate in OIF is uniquely high.
Four decades ago, many of those casualties likely would have been deaths. But that doesn’t mean that getting wounded is all that wonderful, and in reality far more guys are wounded per capita than during Vietnam.
If we were being intellectually honest, and updated the AMEDD studies to the present, we likely would find that many of these wounded have been rewounded on subsequent tours because, unlike in Vietnam, it’s far more likely for a combatant to deploy more than once during his or her contract.
As for sand in my ____, I would suggest that you volunteer for OIF, roll through four IEDs, with the last one a tandem-charge killer w/ EFP kicker and tell me how much you enjoy the rehab. Instead of claiming the moniker of “Bullshark,” you might just opt for the most obvious Bullsh-t, because that seems to be your only input to this discussion.
April 4th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
That was totally uncalled for, Bullshark.
I’m not surprised at all to hear that the per-capita injury rate is higher in this war than Vietnam. You have a smaller force spread out over a larger area, and the military is responsible for constant patrols into heavily populated, and until recently, extremely hostile areas.