RTFU

Should We Fire All the Generals?

By
Updated: August 16, 2013

 

By Mr. Twisted

A couple of recent articles have addressed a problem that many have spoken of—that general officers in the military are possibly just politicians in uniform and that we may be better off scrapping everyone with a star and starting over. Are they really that bad and, more to the point, would the military as a whole benefit from a purging of high ranks?

The arguments presented in places like The Danger Room at Wired.com, Armed Forces Journal, and The Atlantic are not without valid points, to be sure. LTC Davis highlights in his article the complete lack of accountability in the higher ranks and how it is nearly impossible to be considered a failure at the general officer level. The more detailed analysis in The Atlantic notes how privates who lose their weapons receive stiffer punishments for their failure than do generals who lose their portion of the war.

While certainly there is substance to these claims, I’m not sure the authors of any of these pieces are approaching this from the correct angle. Though the politics of big brass has created a bureaucracy of redundant uselessness more times than we can mention here, I think there is more to this than simply “firing” people of a certain rank and replacing them.

Ours is a military that lives and operates under civilian control. Like it or not, the founders of this country and the framers of the Constitution intended the armed forces to always have elected leadership.

As such, the United States Armed Forces does not exist in a vacuum. A lot of what transpires in the military—and, perhaps more importantly, who makes up their ranks—is a reflection of our society as a whole. The Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard may very well be the best and brightest our nation has to offer, but it is still a conglomerate of who we are as a country.

The military is not a rogue entity that autonomously conducts kinetic action wholly separate from America as both a social and political construct.

This is both good and bad, of course, and the merits and detriments of this concept can be—and have been—debated until we are all blue in the face. But relevant to this discussion, it is important to recognize what is—and not just how we want it to be at any given time.

The point being that if we were to fire all the general officers—a daunting task in and of itself—we would have to replace them with people who come from the same system and, more to the point, from the same society. Those occupying the second tier of leadership, whether they like to admit it or not, came to be who they are through similar backgrounds and out of the same culture.

Criticism of general officers who prefer stalemate to victory due to risk aversion ignores the fact that this attitude is not held solely by high ranking military personnel—it is one latched on to by an entire country who would rather injury-proof our playgrounds than let our kids get a few bumps and bruises.

Desiring to fire leadership who would rather play it safe than risk their career disregards the reality that we as a society suffer from a malaise of indifference that only seems affected if our cable stops working or gas prices get a little high. The workplace in America celebrates mediocrity on a daily basis—why on earth would our military’s officer corps be any different?

Yes, there are some monumentally stupid decisions made in the upper echelons of the Pentagon by people with stars on their uniform (reflective belts in combat zones, sensitivity training, and black berets for everyone certainly all come to mind). And yes, many of these decisions are clearly a result of a leadership system that rewards the wrong thing and disciplines only for the very worst of crimes.

But sacking those leaders does not address the real problem. As one of our newest writers said in a discussion on this very subject, “an apathetic and brain-dead nation is going to produce apathetic and brain-dead leaders. It’s only statistically probable.” I wish he weren’t so spot on, but we all know that he is—the issue does not start at the top, but rather at the core of our society.

Don’t misunderstand me; I believe there is a large amount of the system that can be changed. I personally have three fairly detailed plans that could change the Army for the better while simultaneously making it more efficient and saving tens of millions of dollars out of their annual budget. And I’m quite sure there are others out there with similar ideas which, if implemented, would address a great number of these issues.

The point still remains, however, that these problems don’t exist in the military alone, so fixing only what comes out of the Department of Defense will not cure the disease. Axing a few risk-averse officers does not magically transform a society into one that produces risk takers and creative thinkers who are then rewarded for their non-conformity. Work

At no point should this be taken as an excuse to throw up our hands and blame society for producing this mess—that’s not how we roll. Society is not a faceless thing that aimlessly ruins the world we live in. It is a social construct made up of you, me, and a ton of individuals who do care and can affect the situation. It may be slow and incremental, but that change can be very real, indeed.

So before we go hacking apart the officer corps of the United States Armed Forces, let us take a minute to remember who they are, where they came from, and why the system is the way it is to begin with. The problem goes much deeper than who wears a certain rank and what they do with it.

Comments

comments

26 Comments

  1. leftoftheboom

    August 16, 2013 at 9:01 am

    Generals, you cannot fight a war with them and you cannot live in peace without them.

    I have worked on staff that reported to generals, I know, from a distance, several from when they were mere light birds. You cannot take the system apart and fire everyone. At best you will get them replaced with people just like them. At worst you will get them replaced with people just like them but without any clue what they are doing. Or does anyone think that Jerry Jones of the Cowboys is doing a great job as coach?

    Before you fix something you need to understand where it got broken. And that as the story states is a bit more complicated than an individual character flaw can be blamed for. If you want to start at the point of selection then you have to realize that CONGRESS and the SENATE review and approve General officer level promotions. So with a group that cannot get along on the issues facing this nation, what type of individual is making the selection process? People just like them. Who don’t get in trouble and who don’t make a lot of waves.

    I have met and worked for fine individuals and complete egomaniacs. The main difference I found between a good officer and one who was so out of touch with reality that they could not find their ass with a GPS fix? The good ones always had at least ONE person and more often more than one, who was damn near required to disagree with them. I don’t mean argue or make them look stupid. I mean they had one honest opinion that was deliberately intended to be contrary to their own. It is legend that the Generals of Rome had a slave ride in their chariots as they were greeted like gods to whisper in their ear and remind them “you too are human”.

    Generals who surround themselves with sycophants and yes men are the ones who will rapidly get out of control because they have deliberately placed themselves in a position where no one will tell them they are wrong. I always heard that “Regulations are for the Guidance of the Commander”. That is not true but it works in practical application. The higher the rank you have, the smaller the number of people who can tell you that you are wrong. And Generals can be just as wrong and as often as a private on a daily basis. The problem is a private has about a hundred people just in their unit who will correct them. There have been those wondering why it is taking so long to convene a court for BG Sinclair. Because the jury has to be made up of their peers who have not commanded them, it makes it tough to set up a jury.

    Do we fire them all? We can’t. It would not fix anything. And setting up a separate “Political Officer” system would not fix it either. The best we could do is put someone, preferably a stout enlisted individual with the integrity and moral courage to remind the General, “You too are human”.

    But I would need to have a Presidential Pardon in hand before I reported for duty.

    • RU Rob

      August 16, 2013 at 4:12 pm

      LeftoftheBoom, Momento Mori…you will see it again soon.

  2. GI Joe

    August 16, 2013 at 11:44 pm

    This is an incredibly complacent and sheep-like article.

    Dear Author,

    You seem Dumb.

    Best,
    GI Joe

    • GI Joe

      August 16, 2013 at 11:45 pm

      *dumb

      • leftoftheboom

        August 17, 2013 at 2:27 am

        Well that is some insightful commentary. Did you spend all day thinking that up?

    • Joseph

      August 17, 2013 at 12:15 am

      Ah, every well-written article must have its unoriginal and inarticulate comment posted by someone who decided that since he’s intellectually out-matched, he must resort to the height of his intellectual ability: baseless slanders and horrid grammar.

      Dear GI Joe,

      “Dumb” is not capitalized.

      Best,
      Joseph

      PS. “incredibly complacent” isn’t a coherent thought.
      PPS. When are you going to be published in a magazine so we can look at your solutions to this problem? Looking forward to the millennia.

      • Mr. Twisted

        August 17, 2013 at 1:16 pm

        This was possibly one of the best rebuttals ever…Ha!

        I was going to offer up a response to GI Joe, but since 1) there was nothing to respond to, and 2) the responses already given by Joseph and LotB were pretty awesome, there is really no need.

  3. Fred

    August 17, 2013 at 12:03 am

    I would want to know what your new writers ideas are for fixing the army? Maybe if you put them out there you might convince a new LT. to make some changes when he is in charge.

    • CPTWolf

      August 17, 2013 at 2:27 pm

      New LT? He might convince a senior CPT. I’d be interested in reading his thoughts and plans as well.

    • Mr. Twisted

      August 17, 2013 at 4:20 pm

      Fred,

      My changes would start at the beginnings of Basic Training, revamping the model to train warriors and not just giving teenagers an introduction to Army life. Getting back to fundamental skills like combatives and weapon proficiency and placing a much higher emphasis on both (as well as physical fitness) would reduce cost as well as make more effective war fighters.

      Step two would be a complete retooling of the NCO school system which is beyond broken. I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone worth their salt who thought “oh yeah, PLDC/WLC are GREAT the way they are…” It’s one of those problems that everyone knows exists but doesn’t want to change.

      Step three is a more job-specific change which would only make sense to those in certain fields (in my case, the relationship of PSYOP to Infantry–both jobs that I had–and how it could be greatly simplified and made stronger). Problems that I’m sure exist in most fields.

  4. skwirrl

    August 17, 2013 at 8:33 am

    Fire all but 4 generals. For the Army, Stan the Man at the top and let him pick the other three survivors. Then purge all but the absolute top performers from every other officer rank. Promote the surviving officers to fill the holes. Strip the NCO corps for its top performing E-8s and down and field commission them. E-8s and E-7s as 1st Lts 6s & 5s as 2nd. Then reward the best by ultra fast tracking them up until the rank of Lt. Colonel. It would be a start for replacing all the politicians and the bureaucracy that is entrenched in the ranks.

  5. RangerDiverDude

    August 17, 2013 at 8:36 am

    I believe this misses a critical point – the evolution of the art of war-fighting that has occurred in the past 3-4 decades, particularly with regard to the professionalism of the American NCO corps.No longer are mass formations of uneducated men being led by a few daring leaders with a working knowledge of logistics and operational tactics. Our senior non-commissioned officers (as a group) are scholarly with regard to the war-fighting craft, experienced and capable of leading units in the same professional fashion of our commissioned frontier roots. But the command structure has not evolved along with this development which has created an quagmire of bureaucracy that doesn’t realize the potential of this change. Enlisted commanders at the company level does. Enlisted commanders does not risk our supremacy on the battlefield at all – we have invested decades in developing a competent corps capable of that mission. And it doesn’t remove the credit for our amazing history of success on the frontier and battlefield that commissioned officers have provided our nation. On the contrary – they built the NCO Corps and now it is time to use it more effectively.

    I believe the commissioned officer corps should re-examine their role in our bloated system and do what the NCOs can’t – empower enlisted war-fighters to succeed on the frontier and battlefield. A couple of enabling tasks (IMO)…

    1. The creation of a legal system that adjudicates serious and non-tactical offenses separate from the command structure and in accordance with American judicial principles.

    2. A review of existing legal authorities and the inclusion of language ensuring senior NCOs are charged with unit command functions when assigned.

    3. A review of the force structure and the integration of civilians into staff functions at battalion level and above. This would allow for unique skills and talent to be brought to bear in a fight without the cost of creating and deploying a Soldier for every one. I get the risk but force protection missions are executed at the battalion level and below already.

    I am not anti-Officer or anti-General. The conduct of our current Generals is really a separate issue and should be addressed by them as they have earned the respect it requires to let them figure it out. My experience with Officers has been very positive – competent, hard-working, passionate Americans is how I would describe the ones I have served with. I hope they would say the same of me.

    Cheers and RLTW!

    • Mr. Twisted

      August 17, 2013 at 1:29 pm

      RangerDiverDude,

      Great comment. I would, however, like to address a couple of your beginning points.

      You wrote: “I believe this misses a critical point – the evolution of the art of war-fighting that has occurred in the past 3-4 decades, particularly with regard to the professionalism of the American NCO corps.”

      I don’t believe the art of war-fighting has changed nearly as much as the public perception of it has. While technology has certainly enabled new techniques (it always has and always will), war-fighting, at its core, operates on the same fundamentals that it has for centuries. However, with the modern information systems being what they are, the public opinion (and subsequent outcry) has changed and wanted things much “cleaner” than they were (or how they have been perceived to be). Here again we see that the military is just a reflection of what society wants.

      “No longer are mass formations of uneducated men being led by a few daring leaders with a working knowledge of logistics and operational tactics.”

      The Western way of war-fighting has been successful for a very long time exactly because we haven’t fought with only “a few daring leaders”; our ability to train and employ junior leadership is a concept that is still largely unused by the East (Middle East and Asia, specifically). See “Carnage and Culture” by Victor Davis Hanson for a fantastic and scholarly look at this very subject.

      Understand that I completely agree–our NCO’s are educated and wise enough to lead in a highly effective fashion. Where I may slightly differ is in the idea that they weren’t this way 40, 50, or even 100 years ago.

      Thank you for the comment. Good stuff.

  6. Almighty Dag

    August 17, 2013 at 9:26 am

    You clean house from the top. Start with the Commander in Chief. Don’t like the results we’re getting in this country? Stop doing the same fucking thing, over and over again, and expecting something better. Everyone in Washington needs a 4-year max term, and all lobbying should be illegal. We go to other countries to ensure they have “fair” elections, meanwhile legalized bribery is commonplace in ours. Shameful.

  7. Sean

    August 17, 2013 at 10:33 am

    we’re forgetting that there has been a schism since Vietnam in understanding between the civilian and military populace. When it started, there was outright hostility between the two. nowadays, it has evolved to indifference and ignorance by a vast population. Look at tattoo regulations now and in the eighties and the popularity/acceptance of tattooing by the vast civilian populace then and now. The generals we have now are the ones who could present themselves to the politicians as the most acceptable.

  8. Badonkagronk

    August 17, 2013 at 10:43 am

    The problem we face as an institution is not necessarily a deep seeded societal issue. To really understand why Generals act the way they do, you have to realize that the military is the action arm of the political arena. In saying that, there are 3 services that each demand the lion’s share of the defense budget (sorry Coast Guard, you don’t matter as much).
    Now, if you are the decision maker in Congress and have the ability to grant certain monetary advantages, what do you want to hear? Do you want the General that tells you repeatedly that you are an idiot and do not know the first thing about what it takes to lead? Or, do you want the general that gives you facts in a manner that does not create conflict in the immediate setting? What you overlook is this dichotomy of what is better for me and what is better for my service.
    Understanding why people act how they do in our profession can be explained (at least one way) through an examination of motivation theory. Specifically I will use the theory of motivation that is called Expectancy Theory. This theory suggests that people have a valence with respect for rewards or outcomes, which really means that people place a different value on the type and volume of rewards. Because of this we tailor our behavior to achieve those goals that is tempered by our expectancy, or level of confidence about performing the task. This leads to first order outcomes like higher performance or creativity. The final factor in this theory is instrumentality, which refers to the perception of the employee about whether or not the will actually receive the reward they desire. “These 3 factors interact together to create a motivational force for an employee to work towards pleasure and avoid pain.” (Retrieved from https://sites.google.com/site/motivationataglanceischool/vroom-s-expectancy-theory on 17 August, 2013)
    So, back to the question at hand: do we fire the Generals? I suggest that we fire the middle management, i.e. Majors and Lieutenant Colonels that make up the General’s staff. Now, don’t assume that I am some jaded former officer, I am clearly in the middle of the middle management as an active duty Major. What concerns me is that as we draw down, the rewards that we strive to achieve are going to become more and more attributional to our careers. Because of this, our valence will change our overall performance insofar as we will begin to act and think how the boss wants us to think so we get the best grade on our OER, which leads to the best jobs; i.e. command. This creates a cyclical decision making process that gets mired in false assumptions and gross fallacies. These kind of decisions are the ones that we routinely pick apart as terrible, which they are.
    If we keep growing our officer corps in this manner, we will not learn from our mistakes and this idea that our Generals cannot think beyond their own biases will continue. What we need are courageous middle managers that provide the critical and creative thinking on their staffs that challenge the status quo in a constructive manner. Leaders need more than a few people to give them the different perspective and illuminate their deep seeded biases (biases are not all bad, but can be huge roadblocks to thinking).
    In order for this to work, we need current leaders to be receptive to this behavior and reward the most productive of such behavior. The problem is that we have few of these types running around currently. It is that reason why it is vitally important to have the courageous Majors out there than can tactfully and eloquently accomplish this feat. As they “grow up” on our profession, they will take the mantle of higher leadership and continue the cycle by developing their junior leaders/staff officers into this “no-man” that we desperately need. If we cannot groom this type of officer now, then we are in a world of hurt.

    • That guy

      August 20, 2013 at 9:40 am

      Well said

  9. Honorably discharged officer

    August 17, 2013 at 11:28 am

    The more interesting thing to examine is the differences between the corporate (civilian) sector and the military in terms of ages and backgrounds of decision makers.

    In large part, many of the innovative, creative and fruitful ideas and decisions in the corporate world are made by those under age 40 – oftentimes even folks just a few years out of college.

    In the military, all major decisions are left to those in their late 50s and 60s. It’s no wonder they can’t adequately address issues like sexual misconduct, etc., because they are from a completely different era – completely insulated from real life due to all the deference paid to them as they reach Colonel and above.

    I left the service because the company grade officer opinion is not valued in the Marine Corps. Whereas in the corporate world, input from 30-somethings is actually respected.

  10. RangerBaldo

    August 18, 2013 at 1:52 pm

    First there are many problems with the Officer Corps in the Army; to fix the Officer Corps means fixing LTs/CPTs. Mr. Twisted I agree with the comment you said about beginning changes at the Basic Training level. But that still leaves an Officer problem. I as an Officer, I can personally attest that most Officers I know cannot lead from the front. They are not approachable and their men are afraid of what command if any would come out of their mouth under fire.

    I think Ranger School has its place, all Officers no matter what branch need to go through serious physical and mental hardship. Maybe not as hard as RS, but something seriously challenging. Officers should be standard bearers scoring 270 and above on the APFT, they should know their tradecraft and have at least a good idea of how to tactically hold/defend a position.

    I have five suggestions to add to some of what you said Mr. Twisted: 1) Require Combatives Level Two for ALL Officers and Enlisted 2) Force all Officers to qualify annually on all weapon systems so they know how to employ them against an enemy 3) Incorporate Pull Up and a Sprint/Dash to the APFT (like the 1943 Army APFT)4) Make all Officers pass a swim test (basic survival skill) 5) Give Officers annually a tactical knowledge test while crouching in a fox hole filled with pig guts, firing live machine guns over their heads and blowing up small charges around them. (seriously)

    ***SORRY FOR THE LONG POST***

    • Badonkagronk

      August 18, 2013 at 9:26 pm

      There is nothing wrong with the entire Officer Corps. Just because you have had a few, very obvious, issues with superior officers is not enough to condemn the whole lot.

      1) As a Level 3 certified MACP Instructor, and an Officer, I can tell you that your suggestion would just create an assembly line approach to teaching a skill that requires not only a certain disposition, but a desire as well.

      2) This is already required just like it is twice a year for all Soldiers.

      3) This one I actually see some usefulness in.

      4) They already have to as a part of their commissioning requirements.

      5) This is absurd. Vomiting out doctrine does no good for anyone. Doctrine is the baseline and should be treated as much, not as the gospel. Oh, and they do this a part of Officer PME – i.e. Career Course, ILE, SSC, etc….

      With all of this digested and added up, and knowing these facts since I was a 2LT makes me think that your are either very misinformed as an Officer, or not one at all……

  11. 3Tango

    August 19, 2013 at 9:37 am

    I could only imagine the quality of polished turds that would float to the top if there all the top brass weren’t in their way. Hell even at the lowest level you begin to see the early years of politics. I think they have the right idea with the 360 degree assessment. However, implementing a plan of action to rid ourselves of these so called toxic leaders.

  12. Boiler Maker

    August 19, 2013 at 10:16 am

    Insightful article like the others presented here. Good to get some perspective and details on hat is going on in Washington.

  13. leftoftheboom

    August 19, 2013 at 1:29 pm

    Okay I have one idea that might start solving the problem.

    Allow the Unit Members the ability to submit anonymous Peer evaluations on their Officers and NCO’s annually.

    Basically if the peer review says your soldiers will not follow you, then you are not leadership material. The key would be to ensure that the system was properly set up and established to show its importance and set up the criteria that makes sense.

    1. An individual with a marginal score might be more diligently mentored by a fellow peer or senior in order to correct the deficiency. They will continue the peer process and if they do not improve, re-class or separate.

    2. Sufficiently abysmal scoring would result in immediate action by removal and re assignment to another unit, retraining, or separation.

    3. The system will be structured to remove the “popularity” contest and stick with competence. An individual might be performing well above expectation on other measurable areas but could be peered low because they are not “nice”. On the other hand an individual might be well below expectation on measurable areas but are peered high because everyone likes them.
    4. More testing needs to be done. ARTEP evaluations and individual and squad level training need to be performed more often and to a more exacting standard. If I may use the word or invent it, there needs to be less grabassery and more realistic training. We just left years of war and while I will not negate anyone’s experience in war, we did not focus on the overall skill set. We focused on the tools that would get the mission done and keep Soldiers alive. That is a good thing. But now, since we have no idea what the next war might look like, we need to get back to the basics and start implementing what was learned against new challenges. Remember the new 2LT that just showed up most likely has not seen combat. And he is in charge.

    That is my basic Idea and it apples all across the board and all the way up the chain. The requirement for it to work would be a true application of the system with no excuses and no favorites getting away with thing.

  14. leftoftheboom

    August 19, 2013 at 1:48 pm

    Additional,
    5. Individuals do not get to attend any leadership school unless their peer evals show that they are ready to take on that level of responsibility.

    6. Re-introduce the Technical Ranks again. Individuals in specific technical skills are not all leaders nor are they good at it. Give them the technical rank to show that they have experience at their job and are thus deserving of higher pay, but they are outside the chain of command and are not in a leadership position. This will remove a lot of dead wood and put respect back in the system.

    7. Stop with the UP or OUT mentality. If someone wants to be a private for 20 and they are good at being one, let them stay. Some people are not cut out to lead but they are awesome followers. If they cannot make the other standards then get rid of them but if the sole criteria for separation is lack of promotion they should be evaluated to be allowed to be retained. I knew a few, not many, but they were just not cut out to be NCO’s. However they were excellent worker bees with high motivation.

    8. Accept the fact that some guys are going to be stupid. We can leaders because one guy goes out and gets hammered and then compounds the screw up by driving and killing themselves or someone else. Soldiers are self-guided instruments of doom in their own hands and blaming the entire chain of command over someone else’s fuckup is stupid. “If that soldier had just sat through one more PowerPoint they would be alive today” is not only a bullshit idea, but the moron that thought it was a valid suggestion would be the first idiot peered. Stop the knee jerk reaction to every idiotic situation and call stupid when you find it.

    9. DEMAND that every congressman that wants to check on a constituent has to have Presidential Approval, in writing, before they step foot on a military base. Accept no letter, calls, or emails from congressional representatives that have not been forwarded by the appropriate chain of command. Congressmen stir up shit just for news so that they can look like they are involved and the military is constantly trying to appease or please the illiterate fucks.

    10. The military in general needs to quit worrying about things that do no matter. All that matters is how well someone does their job, not who they sleep with, who they worship, or where they come from.

  15. leftoftheboom

    August 19, 2013 at 1:57 pm

    11. You must be able to speak ENGLISH and be understood by everyone around you. NO ONE, NO ONE, will advance to any position of authority that cannot be clearly understood.

  16. JoeC

    August 19, 2013 at 4:57 pm

    I am always surprised at the intelect shown by the comments on this website. There are lots of good ideas and discussions just in the comments section of many articles.

    Mr. Twisted said these two things:

    My changes would start at the beginnings of Basic Training, revamping the model to train warriors and not just giving teenagers an introduction to Army life.

    I don’t believe the art of war-fighting has changed nearly as much as the public perception of it has. While technology has certainly enabled new techniques (it always has and always will), war-fighting, at its core, operates on the same fundamentals that it has for centuries. However, with the modern information systems being what they are, the public opinion (and subsequent outcry) has changed and wanted things much “cleaner” than they were (or how they have been perceived to be). Here again we see that the military is just a reflection of what society wants.

    I agree with both of the above, but don’t feel we can get there from here in time for any of us to care because what basic training is today is a reflection of what society has become as well as what society wants. In 2009 I was attending a training session at Maxwell AFB and one of the presenters was an Army Colonel. I don’t remember his name, and wouldn’t list it if I did due to the non-attribution policy of the school, but he was in charge of basic training. (Sorry, I’m not familiar enough with the Army to know what his official title was.) At the end of his presentation he opened the floor for questions and the very first question was “What is the hardest thing about training a new recruit?” His answer was teaching them the basic aggresiveness necessary to go into combat and succeed. His instructors had to spend so much time on simple things like how to throw someone to the ground without hesitation (something that you learned by 3rd grade 30 years ago) that the rest of the training suffered. His proposed solution to the problems associated with basic training would have nearly doubled the length and cost, so were subsequently shot down by those above him. I don’t remember anything else he said, but I remember that question and his answer to it.

    Until our society accepts the fact that the world is a mean place and me must be ready to fight for our way of life at all times, we will continue to slide down the slope of sissy-dom and it will take a harder and harder hold on our military. In life and war, not everyone gets a trophy. That isn’t the case in modern society. In order to build a warrior from the zero point to capable we are now starting at -4 instead of zero because that is how society is. There simply aren’t enough hours in the day or dollars in the budget to do what needs to be done with many modern recruits. Until the average American accepts that there will always be violence and that it must be accepted to be defeated we are going to struggle.

    Regarding firing all the generals, I think that’s a bit drastic. There are still solid generals out there, but I agree that the line between warrior and politician is getting very cloudy.

Get notified of new Rhino Den articles and videos as they come out, Also, find out before anyone else about new product launches and huge discounts from RangerUp.com, the proud parent of the Rhino Den.

  • Videos (The Damn Few and more!)
  • Military-inspired articles
  • MMA (and Tim Kennedy) coverage
Close this window

Join the Rhino Den / Ranger Up Nation

Read previous post:
WTF is a Supple Leopard?!?!

  By Nick Barringer MS, RD, CSSD, CSCS (EIEIO) Anybody got back pain?  What about your shoulders?  If so, I...

Close