You never had a toxic commander before?

Edit: With questionable character and unethical leadership?

Aggie Therapist said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

Aggie Therapist said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

Woke or not Milley needed to put his fat ass on a damn diet. Watching fatty bust out of his uniform as he waddled about DC was pathetic.

---

Stfu you dirty leg.

Shove that M1 up your ass

---

M1A1…. get it correct.

---

Got to fire one once in Korea. Nice little death machine.

You do know they are on the SEPV4 now and it's M1A2?

---

Got on the M1A2 once….. impressive. Saw there they are now working on the Abrams X. Supposed to be a radical change. 3 man crew, auto loader, and crewless turret.

We'll see if it happens.

Wow that's impressive. I was a Infantry PL in a CAB. So you my vehicle...

The back and forth banter between Infantry and Armor is fun but I will respect those Tankers.

1. Scouts leading us through a mud patch to a quartering party at NTC. My brad got stuck. Tanker XO buddy pulled me out with his tank.

2. December in the box in germany, everyone fueling their vehicles and freezing conditions. All the infantrymen gathered behind the tanks for that warm clean air.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Your examples did not include back channel discussions

And there is a difference between governments talking to each other out of the public eye, and someone going against his commander

---

One did and one did not. That is the point of using those specific examples. With the use of back channel communications we walked back from the edge and never truly went that close. Without their use we were minutes from the destruction of life on earth as we know it.

edit to delete post, sorry my wifes account was logged in.

Well, it is CNBC

CAVGrunt97 said:

---

Two years? You understand that two years is a blink of an eye at the strategic level right? So, after year one's failure the 4 Star General responsible for recruiting (the TRADOC CG) would have recommended some changes, or maybe not because it was literally just one year. Then, after year two, TRADOC would then make those changes. Only after 3-4 years of poor numbers would the Army consider making substantive changes to a system that has generally been successful for 50 years. But sure, it's Milley's fault.

---

It's Milley's fault. Commanders get the blame for abysmal failures.

CT'97 said:

---

You have no knowledge of which you speak. Go back to the politics board where you will fit right in.

---

Recruiting has been a disaster; Milley was in charge and gets the blame. It is not political to blame the commanding officer for failures.

The U.S. Army officer corps may be pro-Milley; the NCO's are anti-Milley. Talk to the NCOs who have been leaving over the last few years who had 5 - 10 years of service and ask why they are leaving and what they think of Milley.

CT'97 said:

---

I know plenty of NCO's, many of whom are hitting retirement age. Most aren't talking about Milley at all. You know what they think about the recruiting troubles? Trump and his MAGA crowd spouting lies about the military being "woke" is doing more harm than anything right now.

---

I star most of your posts on this thread (including this one) and agree with you on almost all points. However, we have a GO corps that feeds into the hysteria about "wokeness" in the military, even if they don't intend to.

I find the "woke military" claim to be unfounded in my experience (17 years and counting now) working day to day with officers and enlisted alike. I haven't experienced "wokeness" in how we build teams, select people for assignments/promotions, or any of the big specters that get thrown out there. I've been a part of world-class units and recently (in the "woke era" if you will) commanded two squadrons where individual effort, contribution, and merit ruled the day.

However, the DoD has gone all-in on "anti-woke dog whistle" DEI (now DEIA) in areas that go far beyond building stronger, more talented teams. An example is DEI-related jargon injected in places where it is jarringly obvious. I just read the USARPAC theater estimate, which is a fantastic document for its purpose...then DEI language gets crammed into the end. Weird and unnecessary for its intent, unless you prescribe to a certain ideology.

Add to that, this guy is about to get a star, and he is not a unicorn: Dear white colonel … we must address our blind spots around race (airforcetimes.com) He took command of a wing just a few months after that article was written. Would you want to be a group or squadron commander under his leadership? How can that article be anything less than "anti-woke" ammunition...and it was published in the AF Times (no one cares about the "views don't reflect the Air Force" statement in the bottom or that the AF Times isn't a DoD publication).

We can't have our head in the sand that there are narratives out there that hurt our recruiting and retention efforts (as you point out) AND that the services are feeding in to, even if they don't intend to. The military is creating its own bogeyman in that regard and a certain subset of voices are using those examples to paint with a broad brush.

I'll add that of the many NCOs and SNCOs I know that are leaving service, I haven't had a single one tell me it was for political or ideological concerns. Usually it is either retirement or taking their GI bill to pursue their bigger plans in life. So, I second CT97's take, for the most part.

Thank you Noblemen06, I agree with you that we need to get out of our own way.
The military is a microcosm of society. Everything present in society is present I our fighting force.
Overall it's a meritocracy that's focused on being an effective fighting force.
I have no doubt that if we were in a shooting war recruiting wouldn't be an issue.

WolfCall said:

---

CAVGrunt97 said:

---

Two years? You understand that two years is a blink of an eye at the strategic level right? So, after year one's failure the 4 Star General responsible for recruiting (the TRADOC CG) would have recommended some changes, or maybe not because it was literally just one year. Then, after year two, TRADOC would then make those changes. Only after 3-4 years of poor numbers would the Army consider making substantive changes to a system that has generally been successful for 50 years. But sure, it's Milley's fault.

---

It's Milley's fault. Commanders get the blame for abysmal failures.

---

Neither the Chief of Staff of the Army, nor the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is a commander….

Funny. I had the extreme privilege to work with some marines that were there, at the time when the bomber clacked off and killed those marines.

These marine were disgusted with all 360 degrees of the whole deal. Any honorable flag officer would have done the honorable thing and resigned.

Miley is a traitor.

I personally didn't work with him or even meet him. Your son's comments match what I have heard from those who have as well as those on this board who have worked with or know him. But none of my defense on him has to do with him as a person, really it was all about his role as CJCS and what is appropriate for that person to do.

FCBlitz said:

---

Funny. I had the extreme privilege to work with some marines that were there, at the time when the bomber clacked off and killed those marines.

These marine were disgusted with all 360 degrees of the whole deal. Any honorable flag officer would have done the honorable thing and resigned.

Miley is a traitor.

---

What event are you talking about? Also, what ranks were these Marines?

Strong Men Armed said:

---

And another forum ruined by the flat-earthers' rumor, innuendo, and character defamation. Not surprising… the first question they asked about General Eric Smith '87 when he was nominated to be the Commandant of the Marine Corps was,"Is he woke?"

I wonder how many of these conspiracy theorists actually served and have a DD-214 with an honorable discharge, and how many never served but come here because they spent some time in the Corps of Cadets and actually thought it counts as military service?

I have total confidence that General Miley served honorably and with distinction, from the day he was commissioned until the day he retired. The Afghanistan withdrawal happened on his watch, but JCS recommended a different plan. Having been given a lawful order otherwise, they carried it out to the best of their ability. That what professionals do.

Our military is the best example we have of a national meritocracy. Perfect? No. Name something better.

---

There were other plans on the table to bring that military hardware home. Not sure why I am considered a flat earther just because my judgement holds Miley accountable. I work in the IC community and have been embedded in support of different missions. These marines were boots there when our security partners, the Taliban lost control and allowed a suicide bomber through. They heard the explosive, had to manage that situation and were extremely unhappy to have young soldiers needlessly die. Remember the US Military had total control of the base……but we left all of our stuff and gifted it to the Taliban for reconciliation. You keep saying he was under orders. Miley had the opportunity to resign and let some other doof bag be stupid. Miley wanted to be the guy…..

Let's say it was all approved and was the actual recommendation of central command…..individuals should have been severely reprimanded for how the withdrawal was executed.

1.) there was no rush to leave
2.) had situational control and gave it up
3.) the plan centered around a new partnership and cooperation with the Taliban.
4.) 10 service folks died
5.) Had no plan to evacuate Afghanistan military, translators and their families and many were killed and tortured.
6.) presented a gold mine of material exploitation for the Chinese.

…….again I can go on and on. Let's say Miley is a stand up guy. All of this occurred under his watch and no one he or his staff were reprimanded.