X. Benedict Posted November 30, 2005 Posted November 30, 2005 I listened to my President today: He has a new fact sheet: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...1/20051130.html My question is: How do you get to the point where Iraq has an officer corps? Or can you have an army without an officer corps? Are they trying to train officers from scratch? (I have never been in the military, so forgive me if this is obvious to everybody but me)
Alaska Darin Posted November 30, 2005 Posted November 30, 2005 Or can you have an army without an officer corps? 516826[/snapback] The US Air Force has been trying to prove the concept for years.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 30, 2005 Posted November 30, 2005 I listened to my President today: He has a new fact sheet: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...1/20051130.html My question is: How do you get to the point where Iraq has an officer corps? Or can you have an army without an officer corps? Are they trying to train officers from scratch? (I have never been in the military, so forgive me if this is obvious to everybody but me) 516826[/snapback] Lots of officers in the US system today get MBA training; it's considered a valuable asset in high rank, apparently. Ergo, not all of the skills required of an officer are necessarily specialized to the military. And failing that, there's always the "Burygone's Revenge" of creating officers: find a bloodthirsty rich guy and sell him a commission. I'd be more worried about NCO's anyway. NCO's are the real backbone of any military...and you don't just create them out of thin air.
X. Benedict Posted November 30, 2005 Author Posted November 30, 2005 Lots of officers in the US system today get MBA training; it's considered a valuable asset in high rank, apparently. Ergo, not all of the skills required of an officer are necessarily specialized to the military. And failing that, there's always the "Burygone's Revenge" of creating officers: find a bloodthirsty rich guy and sell him a commission. I'd be more worried about NCO's anyway. NCO's are the real backbone of any military...and you don't just create them out of thin air. 516830[/snapback] I never thought of it that way, the specialization that is. How long do you think it takes to train an NCO for minimum competency? Do you know if the NATO Staff College is for officers, or maybe it is junior officers they need the most?
Alaska Darin Posted December 1, 2005 Posted December 1, 2005 I never thought of it that way, the specialization that is. How long do you think it takes to train an NCO for minimum competency? Do you know if the NATO Staff College is for officers, or maybe it is junior officers they need the most? 516834[/snapback] It takes years to train an NCO.
X. Benedict Posted December 1, 2005 Author Posted December 1, 2005 It takes years to train an NCO. 516881[/snapback] That doesn't make a quick exit likely, does it?
Alaska Darin Posted December 1, 2005 Posted December 1, 2005 That doesn't make a quick exit likely, does it? 516883[/snapback] That should be obvious but because of our society's "Hot Pockets" mentality of this country reality is amazingly different. The additional problem is the expectation, both by the politicians and the idiots who vote for them, that you can "un-fuk" a very fugged up place by throwing mountains of cash at it. Apparently we haven't learned from the "successes" of our own education "system". Of course, human beings are also the only species on the planet that practices necrophilia, so I'm not sure why I have any expectation that things can change.
UConn James Posted December 1, 2005 Posted December 1, 2005 The US Air Force has been trying to prove the concept for years. 516829[/snapback] Don't you mean the Chair Force? Laughed my ass off when my brother's gf showed me that. And I beg to differ, but she often says that theirs is the opposite problem; advancement that's probably too fast. Case in point, my brother made E-7 in 6 years. But he is involved in some more high-profile (tho their objective is low-profile) stuff.
X. Benedict Posted December 1, 2005 Author Posted December 1, 2005 Of course, human beings are also the only species on the planet that practices necrophilia, so I'm not sure why I have any expectation that things can change. 516893[/snapback] That really drives the point home.
Alaska Darin Posted December 1, 2005 Posted December 1, 2005 Don't you mean the Chair Force? Laughed my ass off when my brother's gf showed me that. And I beg to differ, but she often says that theirs is the opposite problem; advancement that's probably too fast. Case in point, my brother made E-7 in 6 years. But he is involved in some more high-profile (tho their objective is low-profile) stuff. 516900[/snapback] I'm not calling you a liar (you didn't specify which service he was in) but it's not possible to make E-7 in six years in the Air Force. The minimum is eight years in the Air Force to make it and you'd need an AWFUL lot of stars to line up for that to happen. Most quality Air Force people make E-6 around 10 years and E-7 three or four years later. It may be slightly different now because retainability has suffered some. It is possible in the Marines and Army to make E-7 in six years, though the Navy's minimum for the "stripe" is ELEVEN years (which is also the DOD's "desired" time frame). There are reasons for the Marines and Army to require less time. Also, it's ALOT easier in those two services to lose your rank for minor infractions.
UConn James Posted December 1, 2005 Posted December 1, 2005 I'm not calling you a liar (you didn't specify which service he was in) but it's not possible to make E-7 in six years in the Air Force. The minimum is eight years in the Air Force to make it and you'd need an AWFUL lot of stars to line up for that to happen. Most quality Air Force people make E-6 around 10 years and E-7 three or four years later. It may be slightly different now because retainability has suffered some. It is possible in the Marines and Army to make E-7 in six years, though the Navy's minimum for the "stripe" is ELEVEN years (which is also the DOD's "desired" time frame). There are reasons for the Marines and Army to require less time. Also, it's ALOT easier in those two services to lose your rank for minor infractions. 516905[/snapback] You're not calling me a liar, but you're calling me a liar. But a lot of people he talks to also furrow their brows and say No way. The other guys (and gals) at the base all said that his was the fastest track they'd heard of (we brought them some home cooking after 9/11 when they were there 24/7). Joined in '96, was E-7 in 2002. Air Force SF & Phoenix Raven group. The AF has a different charge than the other branches tho, as far as the officer-to-enlisted Joe ratio. Most of it is highly specialized in a way that is conducive(? maybe not the right word) to fast advancement. To be sure, the Iraqi army isn't going to be running on this model; it's going to take some time before they're prepared to stand up so we can stand down. That's just how it is.
Alaska Darin Posted December 1, 2005 Posted December 1, 2005 You're not calling me a liar, but you're calling me a liar. But a lot of people he talks to also furrow their brows and say No way. The other guys (and gals) at the base all said that his was the fastest track they'd heard of (we brought them some home cooking after 9/11 when they were there 24/7). Joined in '96, was E-7 in 2002. Air Force SF & Phoenix Raven group. 516908[/snapback] According to AFI 36-2502 it isn't possible but I'm sure there are ways around it (like wartime promotions to keep AF specialty grades filled). Air Force Enlisted Promotion TIG/TIS Requirements Regardless, it's not even close to the norm. The average selectee to E-7 in 2005 had over 17 YEARS in the service and over three years time in grade. Your brother's girlfriend has NO CLUE what she's talking about.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted December 1, 2005 Posted December 1, 2005 Of course, human beings are also the only species on the planet that practices necrophilia, so I'm not sure why I have any expectation that things can change. 516893[/snapback] Actually, no... http://www.nmr.nl/deins815.htm
VABills Posted December 1, 2005 Posted December 1, 2005 I'm not calling you a liar (you didn't specify which service he was in) but it's not possible to make E-7 in six years in the Air Force. The minimum is eight years in the Air Force to make it and you'd need an AWFUL lot of stars to line up for that to happen. Most quality Air Force people make E-6 around 10 years and E-7 three or four years later. It may be slightly different now because retainability has suffered some. It is possible in the Marines and Army to make E-7 in six years, though the Navy's minimum for the "stripe" is ELEVEN years (which is also the DOD's "desired" time frame). There are reasons for the Marines and Army to require less time. Also, it's ALOT easier in those two services to lose your rank for minor infractions. 516905[/snapback] Not sure it's possible in the Marine Corps without battlefield promotions. Requirements make it possible to get E3 out of boot (4 months). You can get meritoriously promoted to E4 and E5 at any point, but I believe they pretty much still need 6 months in grade each, so that puts you at 16 months to E5 as realistically the fastest there. Then you need 2 years time in grade to even make a promotion board to E6 and E7. Plus with the delay in actually wearing the strips it is 3 years to each grade right now. So the minimum in the Corps is 7 years and 4 months to E7, and that is a lot of meritourious and selection from the underzone list twice. Very highly unlikely. Again battlefield promos have had guys see E7 in the Corps in less then 4 years in the past.
Alaska Darin Posted December 1, 2005 Posted December 1, 2005 Not sure it's possible in the Marine Corps without battlefield promotions. Requirements make it possible to get E3 out of boot (4 months). You can get meritoriously promoted to E4 and E5 at any point, but I believe they pretty much still need 6 months in grade each, so that puts you at 16 months to E5 as realistically the fastest there. Then you need 2 years time in grade to even make a promotion board to E6 and E7. Plus with the delay in actually wearing the strips it is 3 years to each grade right now. So the minimum in the Corps is 7 years and 4 months to E7, and that is a lot of meritourious and selection from the underzone list twice. Very highly unlikely. Again battlefield promos have had guys see E7 in the Corps in less then 4 years in the past. I made E5 in 3 years 5 months, which was real quick and selected for E6 at 5 years 10 months. I didn't stay to actually pin on the SSGT stripe. Of course I was selected for WO and would have never seen the stripe. 516952[/snapback] I'm just telling you what the regulations say. 6 years is the minimum in both the Army and the Marines. That doesn't mean anyone actually makes it in that time frame. Shoot, the AF's very own regulation says 8 years but James says his brother made it in six so what's the difference?
Mickey Posted December 1, 2005 Posted December 1, 2005 That should be obvious but because of our society's "Hot Pockets" mentality of this country reality is amazingly different. The additional problem is the expectation, both by the politicians and the idiots who vote for them, that you can "un-fuk" a very fugged up place by throwing mountains of cash at it. Apparently we haven't learned from the "successes" of our own education "system". Of course, human beings are also the only species on the planet that practices necrophilia, so I'm not sure why I have any expectation that things can change. 516893[/snapback] Finally, someone else gets it. I have long made the argument, in vain, that the real problem in Iraq is necrophilia.
Mickey Posted December 1, 2005 Posted December 1, 2005 Actually, no... http://www.nmr.nl/deins815.htm 516933[/snapback] When it comes to homosexual necrophilia data, you da man.
UConn James Posted December 1, 2005 Posted December 1, 2005 I'm just telling you what the regulations say. 6 years is the minimum in both the Army and the Marines. That doesn't mean anyone actually makes it in that time frame. Shoot, the AF's very own regulation says 8 years but James says his brother made it in six so what's the difference? 517001[/snapback] Confirmed it last night when I talked to him after "LOST." If you don't believe it, that's up to you. Note that the E-7 bump was shortly after they scheduled him to have dinner with a sergeant major so that he might be, ahem, convinced to re-up. Loophole somewhere. Despite what weapons-system Republicans might tell you, the servicemen and -women are the backbone of the military. They invested a lot of money in his training, and you don't piss that away over a few thousand $ pay increase.
Ghost of BiB Posted December 1, 2005 Posted December 1, 2005 I listened to my President today: He has a new fact sheet: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...1/20051130.html My question is: How do you get to the point where Iraq has an officer corps? Or can you have an army without an officer corps? Are they trying to train officers from scratch? (I have never been in the military, so forgive me if this is obvious to everybody but me) 516826[/snapback] Maybe they shouldn't have fired all the ones they had two years ago.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted December 1, 2005 Posted December 1, 2005 Despite what weapons-system Republicans might tell you, the servicemen and -women are the backbone of the military. They invested a lot of money in his training, and you don't piss that away over a few thousand $ pay increase. 517042[/snapback] Actually, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone here who believes the high-profile weapons programs are more important than the people.
Recommended Posts