PDA

View Full Version : The Unpublicized Generation Gap



thedrifter
01-30-08, 05:17 AM
The Unpublicized Generation Gap
Strategy Page

January 30, 2008: The large number of soldiers and marines who have seen combat, or at least been close, comprise a group of military leaders that will be changing the U.S. Army and Marine Force for the next two decades. The large number of combat experienced NCOs and officers creates a different leadership climate, and a different attitude towards combat, and getting ready for it.

Many people in the military now perceive a "generation gap" that is marked by a specific date; September 11, 2001. Those who joined after that day, were more likely to have done so for patriotic reasons and were in to fight. The pre-911 troops had served in a peacetime military. The 1991 Gulf War lasted only four days. The Balkans peacekeeping operations of the 1990s involved very little combat. In other words, the pre-2001 troops had seen very little action. A lot of the pre-2001 officers and NCOs had a hard time adapting to wartime. This is nothing new, and happens every time there is a war. As a result, there were a lot of transfers (to other jobs) and retirements. Yes, the army was offering re-enlistment bonuses of $150,000 to some senior combat NCOs. What the army did not publicize was the large number of officers and NCOs that were encouraged to leave, or get out of their combat job, to make way for people who wanted to fight and were willing to learn how. This is something the military would prefer to keep quiet, despite the fact that it happens every time there's a war. Journalists tend to miss it as well, although historians often catch the scent and dig a bit. But, by and large, the changing-of-the-guard in the leadership ranks is something that goes unnoticed outside the military.

Ellie

rheinmark187
02-05-08, 08:13 PM
I believe this to be true. I noticed the young guys coming in after 9/11 (I came in september 2000) were of a slightly higher caliber than my own group. I'm sure the Marine Corps has noticed this, and wouldn't want to see the talent level drop. I'll wonder what they will think of to get that high caliber individual they became acustomed to post 9/11.

gwladgarwr
02-06-08, 12:22 AM
I'm only beginning to wonder about the haters and the armchair generals who apparently know so much about the military and the military mind and define the military mindset only by the events of September 11, 2001.

Peacetime, they say? Only four days in January 1991? No combat in Bosnia? Somali? Grenada? Haiti? If there was "nothing" going on, if everyone who joined when there was no "war" and it was "peacetime", what the f*** was anyone wearing the uniform doing for the past f***ing 60 years? Whenever has there been PEACE since the end of WWII?

I joined in March 2001 - yes, in "peacetime". Does that make me of "lesser caliber"? Does the idiot who wrote that article think I joined for the f***ing GI Bill benefits? I HAD MY F***ING BACHELOR'S DEGREE WITHOUT A GI BILL AND AM STILL PAYING FOR IT! Did I think "nothing" was going to happen when I joined? Did I expect that I would never deploy? It was going to happen sooner or later, and I'm GLAD I signed up when I did. All I can say is: there was no draft, and I went willingly when it was "peacetime". If the sh** ever hit the fan (which is what happened), I was there - prepared and my head on straight - to head on out.

If anyone was paying attention for the ten years prior to 9/11, AT LEAST the previous ten years - how could that fool who wrote the article look down his nose at anyone who was in the military or joined during that period and did an across-the-board dismissal as to their quality, training, or determination?

Why is this article even ON this website?

Sounds like something those cowards Obama or Edwards would say.

I can't speak for the other branches, but why is it that retention is high in the Marine Corps while a war is going on but the other branches have to resort to bribing folks to stay with re-enlistment bonuses (which still isn't enough to make them stick around longer?)

I'm not sure what the point of this article is, but it completely discredits the integrity and determination of both those who have served for so long and those who are just coming in.

It is easy, to paraphrase Jack Nicholson's character in "A Few Good Men" (who was justifying murder, btw), for those who sleep under the blanket of freedom and question the manner in which it was given.

If the author of that article has so much of a problem with the degree of commitment of those who serve in uniform, I would highly suggest that he/she strap one on and head off to Al Anbar where he/she can show how it's done.

Sgt gw:flag:

lovdog
02-06-08, 12:33 PM
I can see that this article almost severed an artery! Can't say as I agree with its content either. Although I served many a moon ago, the military, and especially the Marine Corps had all sorts of men serving as I recall. Some would fight at a drop of a hat, others were alot more timid and took some prodding while others maybe just covered their head & hid in a corner when the sh#t hit the fan! I don't think its fair to make a blanket statement saying that their is a certain generation that fights better than others though. All Marines have been associated with veterans of the past that have given us their wisdom for combat - and its kept many a man alive gaining their insight of how to fight a war and to more importantly, stay alive. Granted, the training in the MC is quite a bit more extensive than that of the standard Army Soldier, so perhaps the "Army" looks at gaining an overall advantage in putting "qualified combat NCO's" as their front line leaders.
If you look at the military as a business (and its government budget) - if you invest $150,000 in a bonus plan to attract combat veterans it seems that is a lot of money to bring back veterans into its combat readiness ranks. The job of a leader is to not only complete a specific mission but to keep your men alive to fight another day. So, for every life that is kept in tact, the military saves #250K (insurance benefit). If they prevent a severed limb or serious wound, that could be another million or so on top of lifetime wages being included in a disabled compensation status (something to consider).
Personally, I would rather follow someone that had some combat experience going into any engagement - especially when your life depended on it.
If you look at the article, it can be taken many ways - its just what you want to get out of it - and like alot of articles, just weed out all of the miscellaneous bull sh*t that doesn't apply to you or you don't want to believe anyway because most are written by journalists that were probably never in the military and just write articles like this to spread hate & discontent & sell newspapers. I think all of us who have served know what most of you guys go thru every day and appreciate your being "on the wall" for us. Just the opinion of an old salt.
SF