US military has too many white, male leaders - Commission

#22
As there is a black male holding the highest office in the country, there really is no excuse now for not climbing the ladder.
[pedant mode] Actually Obama is the Mullatto Messah as his mother was white but he considers himself black FWIW.[/pedant mode]

If the current occupant of the Oval Office can make it to the top tier on the skimpiest of resumes, then there's no reason why anyone in the military couldn't make it to a top job in The Company no matter their skin color too, unless they're just not trying hard enough.

 
#23
There is a fundamental difference in role models between Colin Powell and Obama. Only one of them got where he did through hard work and promotion on merit (Powell).

Race may be percieved to have been a significant (positive) factor in the other getting where he did. (It is only my opinion but I believe Obama had not only the usual Democrats voting for him but also a large number of people who would not normally bother to vote, or would have been fence sitters had there been two white candidates, voted for him specifically because he was black.)
 
#24
plus the other options were'nt that attractive the ball-breaker
the nice but old bloke with a lunatic as vice
 
#25
It's a thousand pities that GEN Colin Powell didn't throw himself into the mix as a candidate in 2008 as I have a lot of respect for him. I only called into question his ability to judge men once when he came out and endorsed The Empty Suit and Uncle Joe as president and vice-presidental candidates respectively on the Democratic ticket during the 2008 campaign in spite of his (Powell) being a Republican. He should have imitated Silent Cal and said nothing.
 
#26
Powell wasnt the be all end all of generals by any means. He was quite the political animal in his military career. Schwarzkopf was far better.

You want the most qualified people, demographics be damned. putting someone in command because they are White, Black Female as a qualification is asinine.

Example- Obama
 
#28
American Civil War Two please come. Let the gutters run red with liberal and leftist blood.
I've got my list and my shootin' arn. ;-) Bring it on. :p

 
#31
Saw this article today:




The Military Leadership Diversity Commission was created by the 2009 Defense Appropriations Act and has been meeting monthly since September of 2009.

The complete report is available at:
Final Report

Not sure how this will work out. I would prefer that our military leaders be selected for promotion based on things like intelligence, education and leadership ability. It appears some other factors may be coming into play.
Typical Political Correctness Cretins coming out of the woodwork!

I recall learning about another time - another war where Officer's, and especially Senior Officer's, were promoted on the basis of who their father was or their class - not whether they actually had any leadership ability or tactical knowledge. That was World War 1 and the results of their rank amateur leadership is listed below - the DEATH TOLL

British = 885,138
Aussies = 61,928
Canadians= 64,944
Indian Empire = 74,187
New Zealand = 18,050
Newfoundland = 1,204
South Africa = 9,463
TOTAL British Empire losses = 1,114,914.

Obviously other counties had deaths too, for example the USA lost 116,708, but many of the British deaths were due to incompetence and a complete inability to understand that if a frontal attack on well defended trenches didn't work the first time it was unlikely to work the second, third or hundredth time!

If someone deserves to be promoted to a position of command, then it should be BECAUSE they've earned it; regardless of the colour of their skin or what their gender is.
 
#32
"Promotion and job opportunities have favored those with battlefield leadership credentials."


Hoo '*******' Ray!! And the problem with that is what exactly??????????
Absolutely. The report says that like it's a bad thing FFS!

Reminiscent of the old joke about WW1;

"Glad when all this is over RSM?" says 23 year old Lt Col (Hostilities Only) with DSO MC etc.

"Yes sir, get back to some real soldiering..." replies pre-war regular RSM...
 
#33
Typical Political Correctness Cretins coming out of the woodwork!

I recall learning about another time - another war where Officer's, and especially Senior Officer's, were promoted on the basis of who their father was or their class - not whether they actually had any leadership ability or tactical knowledge. That was World War 1 and the results of their rank amateur leadership is listed below - the DEATH TOLL

British = 885,138
Aussies = 61,928
Canadians= 64,944
Indian Empire = 74,187
New Zealand = 18,050
Newfoundland = 1,204
South Africa = 9,463
TOTAL British Empire losses = 1,114,914.

Obviously other counties had deaths too, for example the USA lost 116,708, but many of the British deaths were due to incompetence and a complete inability to understand that if a frontal attack on well defended trenches didn't work the first time it was unlikely to work the second, third or hundredth time!

If someone deserves to be promoted to a position of command, then it should be BECAUSE they've earned it; regardless of the colour of their skin or what their gender is.
Don't tell me! Were they lions led by donkeys perhaps? Can't they issue Mud, blood and Poppycock at birth FFS!
 
#34
Don't tell me! Were they lions led by donkeys perhaps? Can't they issue Mud, blood and Poppycock at birth FFS!
Maybe I'm too tired or not drunk enough to get your meaning in the quote above? Please explain in words of one syllable...LOL

Certainly what I meant to show is that promoting someone to a position, where the lives of thousands of soldiers depend on your decisions, based on Politically Correct ideals is as big a folly as promoting someone to the rank of General because their Daddy is the Duke of Norfolk.

This certainly happened in the British Army during the 17th, 18th, 19th and early 20th century's, when it was supposed that if you were born to the Upper classes then you must be born with some innate ability to be a leader. Thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands, of soldiers died because of this misconception.
 
#35
Well, since you brought it up, this book by C.S. Forester is often mentioned as an excellent study of the mindset of the British officer corps during World War I. I've read it and a cracking good yarn it is too.





 
#36
Maybe I'm too tired or not drunk enough to get your meaning in the quote above? Please explain in words of one syllable...LOL

Certainly what I meant to show is that promoting someone to a position, where the lives of thousands of soldiers depend on your decisions, based on Politically Correct ideals is as big a folly as promoting someone to the rank of General because their Daddy is the Duke of Norfolk.

This certainly happened in the British Army during the 17th, 18th, 19th and early 20th century's, when it was supposed that if you were born to the Upper classes then you must be born with some innate ability to be a leader. Thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands, of soldiers died because of this misconception.
Then how do you explain the Duke of Wellington??

No I'm sorry, nothing personal leprecon but I cannot stand idly by and hear that old pony about battalions of promising young poets being squandered against 40' walls by Old Etonian cavalry officers who having issued orders went off to dine in Paris. It's a lazy classist analysis of what was a far more complicated mix (Do you know who "Wullie" Robertson was for example?). This mythical representation of the first world war is the result of teaching history via the medium of one or two officers memoirs. What might be the case for Graves and Sassoon and their battalion was not the case overall!

Oh and Alan Clark was a ****.
 
#37
Well, since you brought it up, this book by C.S. Forester is often mentioned as an excellent study of the mindset of the British officer corps during World War I. I've read it and a cracking good yarn it is too.





The General does actually not depict a stuck in the chateau type general and indeed he ends up as literally a "bloody red tab" losing his leg to a shell - one of nearly 250 Generals killed or wounded in the Great War - 78 were killed including the 5th Earl of Longford.
 
#38
Then how do you explain the Duke of Wellington??

No I'm sorry, nothing personal leprecon but I cannot stand idly by and hear that old pony about battalions of promising young poets being squandered against 40' walls by Old Etonian cavalry officers who having issued orders went off to dine in Paris. It's a lazy classist analysis of what was a far more complicated mix (Do you know who "Wullie" Robertson was for example?). This mythical representation of the first world war is the result of teaching history via the medium of one or two officers memoirs. What might be the case for Graves and Sassoon and their battalion was not the case overall!

Oh and Alan Clark was a ****.
I know there were many good officers from the Upper classes, and I apologise for my generalisation, but far too many bad officers were in a position of authority in World War 1. Perhaps they failed to understand tactics sufficiently and were completely inflexible in their thinking, using tactics of years gone by. The Germans could have quoted Wellington as yet another attack went over 'the top' - "They came on in the same old way, and we defeated them in the same old way."

Or what about this by Siegfried Sassoon

The General
'Good-morning; good-morning!' the General said
When we met him last week on our way to the line.
Now the soldiers he smiled at are most of 'em dead,
And we're cursing his staff for incompetent swine.
He's a cheery old card', grunted Harry to Jack
As they slogged up to Arras with rifle and pack.
But he did for them both by his plan of attack.

Again the point I was trying to make is that good leaders should be allowed to get on with the job of leading and people should not be promoted to positions of great authority and responsibility just to make some politicians statistics look good.
 
#39
I know there were many good officers from the Upper classes, and I apologise for my generalisation, but far too many bad officers were in a position of authority in World War 1. Perhaps they failed to understand tactics sufficiently and were completely inflexible in their thinking, using tactics of years gone by. The Germans could have quoted Wellington as yet another attack went over 'the top' - "They came on in the same old way, and we defeated them in the same old way."

Or what about this by Siegfried Sassoon

The General
'Good-morning; good-morning!' the General said
When we met him last week on our way to the line.
Now the soldiers he smiled at are most of 'em dead,
And we're cursing his staff for incompetent swine.
He's a cheery old card', grunted Harry to Jack
As they slogged up to Arras with rifle and pack.
But he did for them both by his plan of attack.

Again the point I was trying to make is that good leaders should be allowed to get on with the job of leading and people should not be promoted to positions of great authority and responsibility just to make some politicians statistics look good.
Buy this
Mud, Blood and Poppycock: Britain and the Great War Cassell Military Paperbacks: Amazon.co.uk: Gordon Corrigan: Books

Read it.

Then comment on WW1 leadership and tactics.
 
#40
Positive discrimination is the Government's way of telling someone that they just aren't good enough on their own.
Gosh, I have to agree with you on that point, it should always be the best person for the job irrespective of race, creed or sex!!
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top