Pfizer advertises 95% relative risk reduction from their studies (now since unblinded, so we’ll never have the long term data) of the COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness. The absolute risk reduction was 0.85%. This means that absolute risk reduction from COVID-19 alone (this is an important point) is less than 1%. So the vaccines did almost nothing to protect the military population against COVID-19, a healthy population that has no more statistically significant risk from COVID-19 than from seasonal flu. I could also challenge your 10% number: active duty different from DOD wide totals different from deaths with/from COVID etc.
The problem is, no vaccine should ever be tested with risk reduction of a single viral infection as a clinical end point. The gold standard of clinical effectiveness is reduction in all cause mortality. If a vaccine saves you from COVID-19, but raises your risk of dying from blood clots or myocarditis, it should not be approved. This is just common sense; this is my ineloquent point on “single illness.” There is plenty of evidence that the adverse effect profile of these vaccines is not what was originally advertised. This information is plentifully available, and says a lot about why European nations are pulling back on mandates, especially for young men. What do you think the average demographic of the DOD is?
You are grossly simplifying the rationale for vaccination to the point of arguing against a straw-man. This is one specific form of fallacious argument: you create your version of what you want your opponent's case to be, then argue against that rather than reality. It's not even worth responding to in the sense that your argument rests on flawed premises, with means anything that is built on flawed premises is not worth listening to or arguing against.
Your opening numbers are also a twisted mess of misunderstood statistical reasoning. In simple terms, you are adding apples to kiln-fired bricks and calling it a steak. It makes that much sense.
One big number problem you have is that you are working with case-totals in a majority-vaccinated population, which means you are using the lowered numbers consistent with a successful vaccination program as if they were the unvaccinated numbers. That doesn't work at all.
Completely and utterly false. We’re not going to be able to have an actual conversation on this. It would be a massive waste of at least my valuable time. If you have nothing better to do than persist, there is always Twitter for you.
So, you don't have a reply when I point out how bad your argument is?
Did you actually make O5? That's a serious rank with serious responsibilities. You've demonstrated an utter ignorance of logical thought and rational argument. If you actually are an O5, you need to resign your commission because you are unable to fulfill the duties of your office.
Here is a quote from this "extended essay" that is most certainly not a scientific paper and should not be treated as one or substituted for actual science. When you can accurately describe how utterly flawed and fallacious this one single argument is, we can begin a rational discussion. This is a basic one. If you cannot point out or understand how fundamentally flawed this one stark example is, then I don't know how we can rationally discuss:
"The CDC states: ‘anyone with Omicron infection, regardless of vaccination status or whether or not they have symptoms, can spread the virus to others.’29 It is therefore inaccurate in 2022 to infer a sustained or long- term reduction in transmission from a short-term reduction in infection."
No, you didn't. You didn't even understand what you linked to.
The slight increase in heart problems associated with vaccinating young people is correlation without causation. This is a meaningless argument because the known causes of these types of heart problems in young people are viral infections like various corona viruses that are common causes of the "common cold". Those heart problems are caused by the body's reaction to certain viral infections and the desired immune response to the vaccine will automatically include this risk. No medicine is without risk - even low doses of aspirin can kill you. Know what circumstance that those heart problems would be much, much worse in? An unvaccinated population that is actually catching the virus. The slightly increased risk associated with vaccination is less than that expected from unvaccinated folks getting sick. This is also common to many vaccines, but it is always better than an unchecked pandemic.
Hey everyone ... appreciate the enthusiasm ... but this post isn't about pro or anti vax. Please take that discussion elsewhere if you don't mind. Thanks. - Your Host.
At the risk of sounding disrespectful, Sal, ADM Crowley wasn’t “Patient Zero”. I submit that all GOFOs are politicians to some degree because the relationship skills that get a person promoted to that pay grade are the same ones that are useful in getting elected. But some have served as “over the top” examples. And unfortunately, too many O-6s have viewed those as what we engineers refer to as “worked examples in the textbook”. I mention Douglas MacArthur and his Chief of Staff as my primary exhibits from WW2.
Indeed they are all political appointees. Their ability to get that star or getting that next star depends on saying and doing things to appease those that make/confirm the nomination. We have system that favors a GOFO's statecraft than his/her military competency. Most have a member of Congress as a mentor (or the members of congress have a GOFO as a pet).
They are politicians with uniforms not warriors. They have PR teams and publicists. This has long been the case, look at MacArthur. I believe that the best Colonels/O-6s are those who don't care about getting a star or know they are not going to get a star.
A politician with a uniform is not like Milley, who has essentially been rewarded for one of the greatest military failures of the last 50 years because he was a saboteur of the Trump administration and has since repeatedly and openly revealed himself to be a rabid partisan. The man should have been forced to resign along with Austin but apparently their work purging the military of the hoplite class for wrong think was too important to the administration.
WOW! This one of your all time best, Sir! While the decay has been there for decades, it has really taken off under the Clinton and Obama administrations, when warriors were cleared from the officer corps, and social justice warriors substituted. How non warriors advanced in rank to where they could be placed in high level posts is an excellent question in itself.
After all, our miliary's job is to bring death and destruction to our nation's enimies, not to participate in our own nation's destruction.
Sal, a couple of points where I disagree with you premise. Race and racism are not “political” (unless one makes them so). The military has dealt with racial issues under administrations of all parties, starting with Lincoln. Second, each administration selects military leaders (wasn’t Gilday appointed by President Trump, who was lauded for bypassing the old guard?) so are all “political” to some extent.
Again John, it is clear you have not read Kendi. If I am wrong and you did read it and still don't see how his work is nothing but political, then I suggest you read it again. As for Gilday, he is only CNO because Richardson decided to execute a back stabbing palace coup against Moran for reasons that have everything to do with Richardson. I don't recall any serious person who saw Gilday's selection as "bypassing the old guard" whoever the hell that was.
I couldn't sleep and seeing the title decided to read. Another biting commentary that rings true. I sometimes wonder how long it takes you to create these or if it is a refined stream of consciousness.
I agree with everything but the diagnosis of the cause. Politics now more than ever define who is at the top rungs from which those GOFO are selected. By one star they are in a camp, and when a red or blue president takes over they reach into their cadre. The whiplash back and forth causes confusion, posturing and turf wars that are much worse than when we came up. I don't see this being solved quickly but it does have to happen from the CINC level, and maybe law. Instead we see relatively willing participants in uniform on both sides becasuse that is the way it has become, with the blue side a bit more inventive and aggressive in using the military. Bill and his life partner really set the tone.
Mark, I wish I had more time to write. As you asked, like almost all my posts, this is a quasi refined stream of consciousness. I put these together in small blocks during the day when I have a minute or two in the paying gig or at night after chores. Usually I will jot down one word bulleted outlines, highlight on dead tree pull quotes from the article in question, and then just start typing - adding in links later where I think it might help give context.
The die was cast with the Goldwater-Nichols Act and the joint service requirement for selection to GOFO. This incentivized officers to take joint duty staff assignments over operational assignments, taking them away from warfighting billets at the "pointy end of the spear." Couple this with the requirement (in the Navy anyhow) for officers to have masters degrees to be promoted to O-6 and enlisted to have college degrees for promotion to E-7, and you end up with senior leaders who are indoctrinated in leftism and lacking in operational experience. To fix this, Congress needs to overhaul Goldwater-Nichols - but first, they need to recognize there's a problem.
Because education and staff assignments disqualify you? Man, that Admiral Spruance sure was a leftist pig with no business commanding a battle. He was sure to lose any wartime battle he was in command of.
The military is not perfect, but having educated people is not the problem.
Having a college degree is a problem? You just suggested that it is. Are you sure you want to go there? Furthermore (and I speak from an Army perspective), do you know how many soldiers are actually doing college distance learning while deployed and still being effective in their primary roles? The Fox Channel universe does not mention this, evidently, while they are busy brown-nosing flag officers.
Great commentary and as it has been linked by RealClearDefense, I hope its read by the above-mentioned audience. In that vain....a friend of mine has 4 sons. He is a 101st Combat vet of two tours, a sniper instructor with SOF and now a small business owner that supports a myriad of vet causes. His oldest already serves in the NG and has for some time. His next went Coast Guard and the other two will as well. They were slated for the Army and Marines in the next 24 months. Our circle of friends, including a highly decorated Faluja Marine, a career Tanker (me) and others all have pushed them elsewhere. This conversation is happening around vet tables everywhere. It would appear that both vet households with kids and Red America in general will be sitting out the next war. We didn't leave you...you left us. Good luck
+1. A guy I know whose son served in 10th Mtn in the last tour of Afghanistan and observed first hand being treated as a POW by Covid policy, tells me the bitter sense of dishonor by leadership is number one.
The take away on recruitment and retention dropping off the cliff is the loss of trust in multi-generational families of Service.
Someone relays an experience supporting the essay's conclusion and all you can do is take a cut from an anonymous handle. Nice. Anyone serving can relay similar stories.
Anecdote is not evidence. The plural of anecdote is not data. Someone comparing health measures in a deadly global pandemic to being a POW, a wartime status of being captured and imprisoned by enemy forces, is hyperbole any way you cut it. Either he was whinging about lockdown, or whinging about vaccines, or whinging thinking he knew better, a normal soldier, than doctors and researchers who have studied virus pathology for decades. Does that soldier have undergraduate, graduate, post doc, and research in virology on his resume?
Soldiers complain all the time, usually about stupid stuff. That is as old as armies. The job is hard, steam must be vented. But guess what happens when you join the military? You have to follow orders. Pentagon put in place measures during a deadly global pandemic that are legal and binding. If you don't like following legal and binding orders, I have no use for you in our military.
I don't know who you are. You don't know me. We've never met. I don't care what you think of my credibility because that isn't the point. Quality of evidence and logic of argument are what matters. You didn't put out an actual quote, name, or news article to back up your source. You just put out anecdote from a source that even on your own claim has zero credibility to discern what is and isn't necessary during a global pandemic, and further would rather bad mouth those in charge than do his job. When called on a hyperbolic anecdote, you go to a second fallacy, ad hominem against me.
Your credibility? You just flushed it down the toilet.
See the headset icon? If you click that you can get the audio of the post while you drive etc. Yes, my voice becomes female, but we live in fluid times, so maybe that is best.
The very last thing I want to do is defend GOFO conduct, but in the cases you cited, these are all GOFOs trying to get something done in DC, and to function in DC, you must be *of* DC. And today, being *of* DC means in part embracing without question the principles of identity politics. What you rightly label as political, or controversial is entirely non-controversial inside the Beltway and instead taken as holy writ, or at least beyond question. What you describe is actually a symptom of the larger political/ideological monoculture that has developed in DC - those cultural matters that people in the provinces find to be controversial are entirely embraced inside the Beltway, and to be seen as not embracing them, much less opposing them, signals being outside of DC, and thus entirely incapable of exerting influence. I'll leave it up to others to determine if figures such as ADM Gilday really believe in the cultural marxism stuff, or simply are cynically signaling fealty in order to remain relevant in DC, but the results remain the same and both conditions require accepting that these political beliefs enjoy near unanimous support in the commanding heights of our society.
If the King doesn't want to be told about his clothes, no amount of talking will change that. Saying things that gets you kicked out the royal court completely removes your ability to influence the king. There's no reforming an inherently corrupt monarch.
Perhaps here's a (slightly) less controversial example that might better illustrate my point. I think climate change is utter nonsense, and I think I can make a reasoned argument why that's the case. And none of that matters, because at my DC think-tank job climate change is just accepted as real. Same with my wife's job: it's an idea that at least in that workplace is now taken for granted. In her job, every project must address "climate concerns" which means that to reject that assumption would render her (or me in my job) entirely irrelevant. I don't like this condition, but I don't pretend that if I'm honest politically that I have any chance of exerting influence in DC, and as a result my plan is to flee as soon as I can afford to retire. I imagine this "take my toy and go home" reaction is in large part responsible for recent military recruiting challenges.
I would offer to you that you watch his testimony on this topic in Congress. All the video are to be found in my posts. He speaks for himself on the topic quite clearly. I would also add here, that the only thing that matters in DC for Gilday outside his civilian CoC should be Congress. In Congress, the view on racial essentialism is not "monoculture" at all. It is +/- 50/50.
I thought that same thing. If anything, growing the Army by 100K combat soldiers and the Navy by 50 ships would just be a good start on what we actually need.
Your article details what I believe is the effect, NOT the cause. As a young Marine Lt in the early '70s I was told that all promotions to GOFO ranks are political. They must be approved by Congress and the President. Especially since WWII politicians have refused to promote officers who do not agree with them. As a means of self-preservation, officers go along to get along. I am saddened by 2 aspects of this. First is the pressure and influence by politicians to weed out officers who don't comply. Second is gutless officers more concerned with their careers than their branch of service. I expect this kind of activity from politicians, but am shamed by the officers.
In what way did Gen Miley put politics over Oath? In every instance he made news save one, he put Oath over politics. Guess what? A corrupt President can hurt the military if flag officers are not willing to call BS. Miley was unwilling to allow President Trump to harm the nation through rash, irrational, or illegal orders. Gen Miley did his job. His job was not to obey every order. His job is to fulfill his Oath. While that includes following orders, it does not mean every order, or to follow them without asking questions, not at the CJCS level.
The one instance Miley was acting badly he admits, when he allowed himself to be used as a prop for President Trump to violently clear peaceful protestors then awkwardly hold up a Bible in front of an historic church. Gen Miley admitted he should have not gone with the President on that walk, that his presence in uniform there harmed the military.
Well said. Generals are inherently political creatures. I spent a decade in the Army/NG working SIGINT and commo. Got a political science degree, set out to change the world, spent a decade in "netroots." So guess what, this feels very familiar:
>> I have active duty officers and enlisted reach out to little ‘ole me almost daily on what some now call “woke-ism.” A plurality of each emphasized how closed the discussion space is. You are told and you nod and comply. There is no conversation. There are no alternative perspectives. There is diktat. <<
Change the active duty officers and enlisteds to Democrats and progressive organizers. I cannot tell you how many radical feminist friends have been unpersoned, how many liberal voices silenced, how many blue dogs have backed away, because the orthodoxy must be respected, but also changes constantly. Wokeness is a cancer. It eats everything it touches, like the Blob.
Great article, Sal and thanks for stepping up, Shipmate. Lets hope there are more GOFOs with a spine reading you. The current generation in the Puzzle Palace is largely Obama era flags, so I expect we will need another serious war, for the peacetime paper warriors to be flushed out, and Warriors to step in in they havent been DIE'd out in the Stalinista Purge underway.
History repeats. Lets just hope its not 4th Century Rome.
Pfizer advertises 95% relative risk reduction from their studies (now since unblinded, so we’ll never have the long term data) of the COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness. The absolute risk reduction was 0.85%. This means that absolute risk reduction from COVID-19 alone (this is an important point) is less than 1%. So the vaccines did almost nothing to protect the military population against COVID-19, a healthy population that has no more statistically significant risk from COVID-19 than from seasonal flu. I could also challenge your 10% number: active duty different from DOD wide totals different from deaths with/from COVID etc.
The problem is, no vaccine should ever be tested with risk reduction of a single viral infection as a clinical end point. The gold standard of clinical effectiveness is reduction in all cause mortality. If a vaccine saves you from COVID-19, but raises your risk of dying from blood clots or myocarditis, it should not be approved. This is just common sense; this is my ineloquent point on “single illness.” There is plenty of evidence that the adverse effect profile of these vaccines is not what was originally advertised. This information is plentifully available, and says a lot about why European nations are pulling back on mandates, especially for young men. What do you think the average demographic of the DOD is?
You are grossly simplifying the rationale for vaccination to the point of arguing against a straw-man. This is one specific form of fallacious argument: you create your version of what you want your opponent's case to be, then argue against that rather than reality. It's not even worth responding to in the sense that your argument rests on flawed premises, with means anything that is built on flawed premises is not worth listening to or arguing against.
Your opening numbers are also a twisted mess of misunderstood statistical reasoning. In simple terms, you are adding apples to kiln-fired bricks and calling it a steak. It makes that much sense.
One big number problem you have is that you are working with case-totals in a majority-vaccinated population, which means you are using the lowered numbers consistent with a successful vaccination program as if they were the unvaccinated numbers. That doesn't work at all.
Completely and utterly false. We’re not going to be able to have an actual conversation on this. It would be a massive waste of at least my valuable time. If you have nothing better to do than persist, there is always Twitter for you.
So, you don't have a reply when I point out how bad your argument is?
Did you actually make O5? That's a serious rank with serious responsibilities. You've demonstrated an utter ignorance of logical thought and rational argument. If you actually are an O5, you need to resign your commission because you are unable to fulfill the duties of your office.
https://canadahealthalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/jme-2022-108449.full_.pdf
Here is a quote from this "extended essay" that is most certainly not a scientific paper and should not be treated as one or substituted for actual science. When you can accurately describe how utterly flawed and fallacious this one single argument is, we can begin a rational discussion. This is a basic one. If you cannot point out or understand how fundamentally flawed this one stark example is, then I don't know how we can rationally discuss:
"The CDC states: ‘anyone with Omicron infection, regardless of vaccination status or whether or not they have symptoms, can spread the virus to others.’29 It is therefore inaccurate in 2022 to infer a sustained or long- term reduction in transmission from a short-term reduction in infection."
You have no reply to this, do you?
Start with "quote mining" or "cherry picking quotes", go with bearing false witness or straw man, then go to unsubstantiated conclusion.
I read ALL the things. Especially before I go accusing folks of being ignorant.
No, you didn't. You didn't even understand what you linked to.
The slight increase in heart problems associated with vaccinating young people is correlation without causation. This is a meaningless argument because the known causes of these types of heart problems in young people are viral infections like various corona viruses that are common causes of the "common cold". Those heart problems are caused by the body's reaction to certain viral infections and the desired immune response to the vaccine will automatically include this risk. No medicine is without risk - even low doses of aspirin can kill you. Know what circumstance that those heart problems would be much, much worse in? An unvaccinated population that is actually catching the virus. The slightly increased risk associated with vaccination is less than that expected from unvaccinated folks getting sick. This is also common to many vaccines, but it is always better than an unchecked pandemic.
Hey everyone ... appreciate the enthusiasm ... but this post isn't about pro or anti vax. Please take that discussion elsewhere if you don't mind. Thanks. - Your Host.
At the risk of sounding disrespectful, Sal, ADM Crowley wasn’t “Patient Zero”. I submit that all GOFOs are politicians to some degree because the relationship skills that get a person promoted to that pay grade are the same ones that are useful in getting elected. But some have served as “over the top” examples. And unfortunately, too many O-6s have viewed those as what we engineers refer to as “worked examples in the textbook”. I mention Douglas MacArthur and his Chief of Staff as my primary exhibits from WW2.
You're fine.
Indeed they are all political appointees. Their ability to get that star or getting that next star depends on saying and doing things to appease those that make/confirm the nomination. We have system that favors a GOFO's statecraft than his/her military competency. Most have a member of Congress as a mentor (or the members of congress have a GOFO as a pet).
They are politicians with uniforms not warriors. They have PR teams and publicists. This has long been the case, look at MacArthur. I believe that the best Colonels/O-6s are those who don't care about getting a star or know they are not going to get a star.
A politician with a uniform is not like Milley, who has essentially been rewarded for one of the greatest military failures of the last 50 years because he was a saboteur of the Trump administration and has since repeatedly and openly revealed himself to be a rabid partisan. The man should have been forced to resign along with Austin but apparently their work purging the military of the hoplite class for wrong think was too important to the administration.
Preach 👏🏻
Amen! Preach on!
WOW! This one of your all time best, Sir! While the decay has been there for decades, it has really taken off under the Clinton and Obama administrations, when warriors were cleared from the officer corps, and social justice warriors substituted. How non warriors advanced in rank to where they could be placed in high level posts is an excellent question in itself.
After all, our miliary's job is to bring death and destruction to our nation's enimies, not to participate in our own nation's destruction.
Sal, a couple of points where I disagree with you premise. Race and racism are not “political” (unless one makes them so). The military has dealt with racial issues under administrations of all parties, starting with Lincoln. Second, each administration selects military leaders (wasn’t Gilday appointed by President Trump, who was lauded for bypassing the old guard?) so are all “political” to some extent.
Again John, it is clear you have not read Kendi. If I am wrong and you did read it and still don't see how his work is nothing but political, then I suggest you read it again. As for Gilday, he is only CNO because Richardson decided to execute a back stabbing palace coup against Moran for reasons that have everything to do with Richardson. I don't recall any serious person who saw Gilday's selection as "bypassing the old guard" whoever the hell that was.
Sal, I have read it and even reviewed it for USNI. You can Google it. We will just have to continue to agree to disagree! By “old guard” I simply meant more senior Admirals. https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/08/06/inside-the-historic-decision-to-deep-select-the-navys-top-officer/
Del Toro and Gilday are classmates, shipmates and friends whom I know well and admire very much. Happy holidays!
It's not just the politics.
The Navy top "leadership" is and has been, grossly incompetent for a long time.
Ship collisions (training?), ridiculously over-budget ships that can't sail. aircraft that can't fly because of no parts.
Wading into "woke" politics is just more evidence of intellectually challenged politicians dressed up like doormen.
I couldn't sleep and seeing the title decided to read. Another biting commentary that rings true. I sometimes wonder how long it takes you to create these or if it is a refined stream of consciousness.
I agree with everything but the diagnosis of the cause. Politics now more than ever define who is at the top rungs from which those GOFO are selected. By one star they are in a camp, and when a red or blue president takes over they reach into their cadre. The whiplash back and forth causes confusion, posturing and turf wars that are much worse than when we came up. I don't see this being solved quickly but it does have to happen from the CINC level, and maybe law. Instead we see relatively willing participants in uniform on both sides becasuse that is the way it has become, with the blue side a bit more inventive and aggressive in using the military. Bill and his life partner really set the tone.
Mark, I wish I had more time to write. As you asked, like almost all my posts, this is a quasi refined stream of consciousness. I put these together in small blocks during the day when I have a minute or two in the paying gig or at night after chores. Usually I will jot down one word bulleted outlines, highlight on dead tree pull quotes from the article in question, and then just start typing - adding in links later where I think it might help give context.
The die was cast with the Goldwater-Nichols Act and the joint service requirement for selection to GOFO. This incentivized officers to take joint duty staff assignments over operational assignments, taking them away from warfighting billets at the "pointy end of the spear." Couple this with the requirement (in the Navy anyhow) for officers to have masters degrees to be promoted to O-6 and enlisted to have college degrees for promotion to E-7, and you end up with senior leaders who are indoctrinated in leftism and lacking in operational experience. To fix this, Congress needs to overhaul Goldwater-Nichols - but first, they need to recognize there's a problem.
Because education and staff assignments disqualify you? Man, that Admiral Spruance sure was a leftist pig with no business commanding a battle. He was sure to lose any wartime battle he was in command of.
The military is not perfect, but having educated people is not the problem.
Having a college degree is a problem? You just suggested that it is. Are you sure you want to go there? Furthermore (and I speak from an Army perspective), do you know how many soldiers are actually doing college distance learning while deployed and still being effective in their primary roles? The Fox Channel universe does not mention this, evidently, while they are busy brown-nosing flag officers.
Well done sir.
Great commentary and as it has been linked by RealClearDefense, I hope its read by the above-mentioned audience. In that vain....a friend of mine has 4 sons. He is a 101st Combat vet of two tours, a sniper instructor with SOF and now a small business owner that supports a myriad of vet causes. His oldest already serves in the NG and has for some time. His next went Coast Guard and the other two will as well. They were slated for the Army and Marines in the next 24 months. Our circle of friends, including a highly decorated Faluja Marine, a career Tanker (me) and others all have pushed them elsewhere. This conversation is happening around vet tables everywhere. It would appear that both vet households with kids and Red America in general will be sitting out the next war. We didn't leave you...you left us. Good luck
+1. A guy I know whose son served in 10th Mtn in the last tour of Afghanistan and observed first hand being treated as a POW by Covid policy, tells me the bitter sense of dishonor by leadership is number one.
The take away on recruitment and retention dropping off the cliff is the loss of trust in multi-generational families of Service.
That wont be fixed by jaw jaw.
Someone relays an experience supporting the essay's conclusion and all you can do is take a cut from an anonymous handle. Nice. Anyone serving can relay similar stories.
The "random quote" that you casually dismiss was from an actual soldier, well known to me, who served honorably.
This story is repeated by many, as a casual search of news articles will show.
You demand identity, from your noble perch of anonymous avatar?
You claim to be Active Duty? Post your DD-214 and we can talk credibility, then.
We all know how the Left hounds those who dare to disagree.
Simple, indeed.
More likely, Stolen Valor?
Anecdote is not evidence. The plural of anecdote is not data. Someone comparing health measures in a deadly global pandemic to being a POW, a wartime status of being captured and imprisoned by enemy forces, is hyperbole any way you cut it. Either he was whinging about lockdown, or whinging about vaccines, or whinging thinking he knew better, a normal soldier, than doctors and researchers who have studied virus pathology for decades. Does that soldier have undergraduate, graduate, post doc, and research in virology on his resume?
Soldiers complain all the time, usually about stupid stuff. That is as old as armies. The job is hard, steam must be vented. But guess what happens when you join the military? You have to follow orders. Pentagon put in place measures during a deadly global pandemic that are legal and binding. If you don't like following legal and binding orders, I have no use for you in our military.
I don't know who you are. You don't know me. We've never met. I don't care what you think of my credibility because that isn't the point. Quality of evidence and logic of argument are what matters. You didn't put out an actual quote, name, or news article to back up your source. You just put out anecdote from a source that even on your own claim has zero credibility to discern what is and isn't necessary during a global pandemic, and further would rather bad mouth those in charge than do his job. When called on a hyperbolic anecdote, you go to a second fallacy, ad hominem against me.
Your credibility? You just flushed it down the toilet.
Damnation! too much to read at one sitting.
See the headset icon? If you click that you can get the audio of the post while you drive etc. Yes, my voice becomes female, but we live in fluid times, so maybe that is best.
That's in the substack mobile app, btw.
The very last thing I want to do is defend GOFO conduct, but in the cases you cited, these are all GOFOs trying to get something done in DC, and to function in DC, you must be *of* DC. And today, being *of* DC means in part embracing without question the principles of identity politics. What you rightly label as political, or controversial is entirely non-controversial inside the Beltway and instead taken as holy writ, or at least beyond question. What you describe is actually a symptom of the larger political/ideological monoculture that has developed in DC - those cultural matters that people in the provinces find to be controversial are entirely embraced inside the Beltway, and to be seen as not embracing them, much less opposing them, signals being outside of DC, and thus entirely incapable of exerting influence. I'll leave it up to others to determine if figures such as ADM Gilday really believe in the cultural marxism stuff, or simply are cynically signaling fealty in order to remain relevant in DC, but the results remain the same and both conditions require accepting that these political beliefs enjoy near unanimous support in the commanding heights of our society.
Are you recommending we don’t tell the King he’s not wearing any clothes?
If the King doesn't want to be told about his clothes, no amount of talking will change that. Saying things that gets you kicked out the royal court completely removes your ability to influence the king. There's no reforming an inherently corrupt monarch.
Perhaps here's a (slightly) less controversial example that might better illustrate my point. I think climate change is utter nonsense, and I think I can make a reasoned argument why that's the case. And none of that matters, because at my DC think-tank job climate change is just accepted as real. Same with my wife's job: it's an idea that at least in that workplace is now taken for granted. In her job, every project must address "climate concerns" which means that to reject that assumption would render her (or me in my job) entirely irrelevant. I don't like this condition, but I don't pretend that if I'm honest politically that I have any chance of exerting influence in DC, and as a result my plan is to flee as soon as I can afford to retire. I imagine this "take my toy and go home" reaction is in large part responsible for recent military recruiting challenges.
I would offer to you that you watch his testimony on this topic in Congress. All the video are to be found in my posts. He speaks for himself on the topic quite clearly. I would also add here, that the only thing that matters in DC for Gilday outside his civilian CoC should be Congress. In Congress, the view on racial essentialism is not "monoculture" at all. It is +/- 50/50.
I’d love to hear the arguments on why our Army is too large.
He's Navy, for them the Army is always too large.
I thought that same thing. If anything, growing the Army by 100K combat soldiers and the Navy by 50 ships would just be a good start on what we actually need.
Your article details what I believe is the effect, NOT the cause. As a young Marine Lt in the early '70s I was told that all promotions to GOFO ranks are political. They must be approved by Congress and the President. Especially since WWII politicians have refused to promote officers who do not agree with them. As a means of self-preservation, officers go along to get along. I am saddened by 2 aspects of this. First is the pressure and influence by politicians to weed out officers who don't comply. Second is gutless officers more concerned with their careers than their branch of service. I expect this kind of activity from politicians, but am shamed by the officers.
In what way did Gen Miley put politics over Oath? In every instance he made news save one, he put Oath over politics. Guess what? A corrupt President can hurt the military if flag officers are not willing to call BS. Miley was unwilling to allow President Trump to harm the nation through rash, irrational, or illegal orders. Gen Miley did his job. His job was not to obey every order. His job is to fulfill his Oath. While that includes following orders, it does not mean every order, or to follow them without asking questions, not at the CJCS level.
The one instance Miley was acting badly he admits, when he allowed himself to be used as a prop for President Trump to violently clear peaceful protestors then awkwardly hold up a Bible in front of an historic church. Gen Miley admitted he should have not gone with the President on that walk, that his presence in uniform there harmed the military.
Your nom de plume fits.
You are a walking example of leftist infiltration of the military.
Because I point out that the Oath is to the nation and the Constitution and not an individual person, you think I'm leftist?
Supporting the Constitution and requiring the military to serve elected leaders without regard to political affiliation is now leftist?
You are far, far down the rabbit hole if you think that is where we are at.
Well said. Generals are inherently political creatures. I spent a decade in the Army/NG working SIGINT and commo. Got a political science degree, set out to change the world, spent a decade in "netroots." So guess what, this feels very familiar:
>> I have active duty officers and enlisted reach out to little ‘ole me almost daily on what some now call “woke-ism.” A plurality of each emphasized how closed the discussion space is. You are told and you nod and comply. There is no conversation. There are no alternative perspectives. There is diktat. <<
Change the active duty officers and enlisteds to Democrats and progressive organizers. I cannot tell you how many radical feminist friends have been unpersoned, how many liberal voices silenced, how many blue dogs have backed away, because the orthodoxy must be respected, but also changes constantly. Wokeness is a cancer. It eats everything it touches, like the Blob.
Great article, Sal and thanks for stepping up, Shipmate. Lets hope there are more GOFOs with a spine reading you. The current generation in the Puzzle Palace is largely Obama era flags, so I expect we will need another serious war, for the peacetime paper warriors to be flushed out, and Warriors to step in in they havent been DIE'd out in the Stalinista Purge underway.
History repeats. Lets just hope its not 4th Century Rome.
O6 ret, Canoe U.