Maybe that is part of the difference - in at least the way that you and I look at thing then. I don't care what big DOD does. It never affected me anymore than the big pictures politics. I can't influence at that level and world security and world economics filter down and affect my daily lives in ways but I'm not focused and them. What affected me on a daily basis was how my immediate superiors and how my immediate subordinates were affected and I was tried hard to do the best for those I led and I felt at all times (even in my one terrible dysfunctional gun squadron) that I was being taken of on a personal level.

Big DOD (service chiefs since you used them as an example) don't generally care about the individual because they are removed from them. They in turn take care of their immediates and it is suppose to filter down. I want them to make sure that the mechanisms are in place for those problems to be taken care of - and for the problems you listed there are numerous facilities and programs in place to care for the service member.

I remember being in charge of determining the 'list' for deployment. I was also surprised for the million and one reasons people came up with NOT being able to deploy. It is always easy to question the decisions, especially if you are able to sit back without all of the information.

I sure hope that last statement is more about another poster than myself.
I certainly had my issues with the way things were run, but overall - I definitely think that I had a better experience on active duty than a few others posters on APC and it is NOT indicative of a majority of the people that I came across during my time.

Agreed. For the record, when I talk about service I'm talking about service to the nation, not "for the politicians".

I understand. And as I have stated (and this is one thing that can never, EVER be repeated enough), human words simply cannot convey the appreciation and gratitude I hold in my soul for men and women such as yourself and your wife...even when I am in disagreement/dislike with them.

I wish I could say the same thing. Unlike you, the few I have met could not differentiate between the nation and the politicians. And as for the politicians, there are a few who "served" who I would argue despise the flag enough to throw their fellow servicemen under the bus. Or perhaps it's more accurate to say they are so narcissistic as to only care about themselves such that they were/are readily willing to throw their fellow servicemen under the bus for their own gain, and have. Fortunately for all of us, they are the exception and not the rule. I worry that this is changing, though.

I deeply empathize!! This honor will not be mine to enjoy, loath as I am to admit it. One of the greatest regrets of my life, and always will be. I tired to join up on 3 separate occasions post-9/11...each time the age limit was raised (to my knowledge)...and was always turned down because I was deemed "too old" (the last time by just 4 months). In hindsight I think I should've sued the gov't over it. Imagine...someone suing the gov't in order to join the military voluntarily! Of course, then I would've been labeled "insane" and unfit to serve. And I am not alone. I have the very great honor and privilege to know a former VCSAF. He commented to me, personally, that it was a great shame that "folks like us" (ie. deemed to old to serve) could not join up to augment the services. Past his prime and retired, he would have willingly re-joined as a private to drive supply trucks in Iraq. He is as fine a gentleman and leader as I will ever meet in this lifetime. No doubt some of you served under him. Speaking of...

Yes. I share that same fear.

I do indeed realize and am aware of this. Were I you, I would've put "" marks around the word "leadership", because the kind you speak of is anything BUT authentic leadership. Some branches are worse than others in this regard, and this is getting worse and worse with the passage of time.

Yes. They are called "low information voters", and certain segments of our nation are doing their best to increase their numbers, even while telling them (and the rest of us) the exact opposite.

I am well aware of it. If I got to play dictator for a day, I would make it a law that the SecDef had to have served at one point in his career (and I would be tempted to make it a further requirement that that person had to have been both A) male (representing the majority) and B) a US Marine Corp officer). Speaking of...

Indeed they do. My personal and current favorite is Gen. James Mattis. I am deeply saddened that he will retire next month. This is a man who, with multiple stars on his shoulderboard, would go out at 2-3AM and get into foxholes with privates and corporals to get the real scoop of what was happening with the line soldiers. The man embodies authentic leadership at it's finest and highest level, and his enemies fear(ed) him like no other. His retirement will be a great loss to the Marines, the DoD, and our country.

That is a darn good point, and I read you loud and clear. I will do my best to remember that. I am in 100% agreement with those who believe that the members of our services have been short-changed by their leadership, both military and especially civilian. It is a very great blessing for those doing the short-changing that I am not and never will be a dictator, because I would not tolerate it for a millisecond and would make of them such an example that others would never dare follow.

Why will he be so bad?

I'll give two caveats (opinions) to my question

- There will be significant military cuts regardless of who is in charge

- Anyone who doesn't realize there is an amazing amount of waste in the military clearly has zero knowledge of, or experience with, the military.

I really am curious though, the GOP arguments I heard against him dealt with his previous statements about Iraq, Iran and Israel. None of which seemed that controversial [to me] and beside the point anyway--US Foreign policy isn't dictated by the SecDef.

Both valid points, some folks fail to realize that we WILL pull chocks from Afghanistan hence, the level of current manpower, projects, and spending will not be needed. While some say that this will leave us with a hollow force, which it may, the reality is when wars drawdown so does the military.

On your second point, the end of year spending fiasco's that I have seen make me sick to my stomach. There were times my unit didn't have enough funds to buy new flight boots (most of us bought our own anyway, but that's not the point) or gear, but the end of year funds had to be spent on flat screens for the OPS desk...truly sickening...

Mister, you aren't looking for answers. You're looking for an argument. In your own words, none of the GOP concerns in this nomination were controversial to you, and "beside the point anyway". So beyond this response, what is the point in answering a man(?) who already has his mind made up? A: None.

Please do read into this response the same dismissive attitude you brought along with you in your disingenuous post.

They pale in comparison to the outrageous domestic spending and outright illegal refusal to pass a budget by those in control of the Federal gov't.

And anyone who doesn't realize there is an amazing amount of waste outside of the military budget clearly has zero knowledge of, or experience with, the the current US gov't.

You stole the words right out of my mouth, the level of spending the ENTIRE government has been pursuing is UNSUSTAINABLE and must be curtailed for our survival as a nation.

Agreed wholeheartedly...However, know the audience you "speak" to :D and try not to make general assumptions, when you load a gunners gun for him, don't complain on what comes down range...;)

I wonder how many other individuals were offered the position and turned it down ?
Someone who's up to speed on what's going on ie Gen.Mattis or someone else of his caliber might have been better suited and then again they might have turned down the offer of SecDef.

Bit of a read and it speaks volumes in some aspects.
Some of you have read this and some have not so I'll post it again .

General Failure - Baseops Forums

Fred

Huh? I'm really failing to communicate. I have no feeling or or against Hagel as SecDef. I'm curious why you think he'll be so bad for the DoD.

I didn't think his comments were controversial--I'm not really seeing how that's "dismissive." Or for that matter "disingenuous." Is it his comments that make you think he'll be a bad SecDef?

Rumsfeld worse than McNamara?