“... we have a common experience with the Weinstein family. ... I knew his sister Halee before she was thrown out of the Army for homosexual conduct. ... all services considered that conduct abnormal (though I’m sure you’d disagree) and not conducive to an effective fighting force. ... worked quite well under Reagan’s ‘we ask, don’t join’ ... we did a fairly good job at filling the ranks. ... even with much reduced standards, quotas and affirmative action we’re not making recruitment goals. I wonder why that is? ... policies ... of Dalton, Danzig, Widnall & Ash Carter have made the services less attractive places to join, especially for the types of people typically attracted to combat billets?”
Going to defer to MSF BU’s experience with the Weinstein family. I barely knew Mike back in the day and never met anyone from his family. He isn’t doing what he has been doing for the reasons MFS BU apparently assumes. Not entirely.
MSF BU ought to think more carefully before posting this or that about what he assumes. Not that I care from a personal standpoint, but assuming can lead one into fields filled with philosophical landmines, without providing any results worth the effort.
It’s sill looking like MSF BU is equating morality with effectiveness. I used to worry about the impact on unit cohesion from people with varying sexual proclivities, but have quit fussing ... the population cohort in the enlistment-eligible zone starts out 75 percent disqualified thanks to poor physical condition, criminal record, drug use, etc, indicating we have larger problems.
There is no “type” of person attracted to combat-coded billets. Everybody does things for their own reasons. Yes, even military personnel. Who will succeed, and who will not, is still subject to guesswork, and anyone still believing MSF BU’s final question means anything has cast doubt on their own suitability for that sort of work.
Those enamored of the “certain personalities succeed” school of thinking have confused macho overbearing bluff-mongering with effectiveness. I am not certain how extensively they overlap with the “morality equals effectiveness” contingent, but I have noted that both groups are cement-headed.
Oddly enough Shurmann, you still haven’t referenced any of your own combat leadership positions. I’m looking to men like Carl Mundy, Jeremiah Denton, Duncan Hunter, Sam Johnson, etc. all of whom had some experience with combat and all of whom led men in combat. What did you lead?
“confused macho overbearing bluff-mongering with effectiveness”
I was a WSO in F-4s, F-111s and an EWO in the EF-111. While not all “confused macho overbearing bluff-mongering” types make good fighter pilots, good fighter pilots DO need to be pretty macho, come across as overbearing, and are almost always dominant type A personalities.
I was an exceptionally talented WSO & EWO, but I was not the right personality to be a good fighter pilot. That may be part of why I was a very good WSO - I didn’t WANT to be a fighter pilot, but meshed well with good, aggressive fighter pilots.
I doubt the modern military would LIKE good fighter pilots. By the time I retired, the “kinder, gentler USAF” was taking over. I would not fit into today’s USAF. Not at all.