Troops cite experience, Iraq timetable, DADT:
When asked how they feel about President-elect Barack Obama as commander in chief, six out of 10 active-duty service members say they are uncertain or pessimistic, according to a Military Times survey.
In follow-up interviews, respondents expressed concerns about Obama’s lack of military service and experience leading men and women in uniform.
More optimism is expressed about his advisers:
On Dec. 1, the day the survey was released, Obama announced his national security team, including Jones as national security adviser and Robert Gates, a holdover from the Bush administration, as defense secretary.
“There is an understanding that the president doesn’t do all his own paperwork,” Segal said. “The quality of any president is going to depend on the quality of the people he has around him.”
“They respect the office of the commander in chief… As long as he wields that office responsibly, then these numbers need not morph into a problem.”
Frankly, I have serious doubts that said office will be wielded responsibly. Given some of the people appointed, and the general lack of respect they have for the military, I’m not at all sanguine about the future of the military.
Jimmy Carter Redux??????????????
I remember in 1976 when Carter was elected that a large number of Old Salts onboard Independence were not to thrilled with that choice. I was a young AMH2, all of 22 years of age.
But we still served. An old Chief informed me that “We serve the Office, not the man.”
No surprise with that information.
I recall the horrors of the Carter regime- we sat in our trackparks in Europe for six months in FY79 because we didn’t have the money to buy fuel or repair parts. The only thing we could order were deadline repair parts. Everything else had to wait until after 15 September. When we finally could roll out to our LDA half our stuff broke because it hadn’t been driven. If Brezhnev had wanted to, he could have rolled over us in the US sector, that is, if we didn’t go nuke. But then, the tactical nuke option was the only thing that kept them at bay in the first place.
My youngest brother came home from Germany on leave during the Carter maladministration. He was a 13-E (Tanker) stationed at the Kaserne Elvis had been. We called him in to Watch “Patton” on TV and the scene was one where they are moving towards Bastogne. He looked at the tube and said, “I guess they were able to get spare parts then.”
The stories he told about the machines they took to Graf would curl your hair. Carter, nor his Georgia mafia never understood the Military, and I don’t think had any hope of doing so. I think we’ll see the same with Obama and the Chicago gang.
While the TacNukes were the ostensible reason Ivan didn’t come, I think the real reason is they would not have been able to absorb Western Europe at the time. From what I can make out, in hindsight, their military was in sorry shape as well.
Q,
I was in the 3rd Armored Division about the same time your brother was . He had to have been at Friedberg (1-32 Armor was Elvis’ unit)and I was just up the road at Ayers Kaserne a.k.a. “The Rock”- ‘78 to ‘81. I recall they had those really hosed up M60A2 tanks at the time. It was the Gamma Goat of armored combat vehicles.
geo6
GEO6,
I remember well the Carter years. I remember my squadron having to qual all 12 crews on torpedo attacks, but only having two torpedoes to do it with. We literally drew lots out of a ball cap at quarters to see which two crews each got a warshot to qual with. One. Frikkin. Warshot. Imagine giving a soldier one magazine to qual with his weapon on the range. One magazine. No more. The other 10 crews had to qual on the 14B44 trainer. Life sucked in many respects under the micro-management of that man Carter.
To this day I cannot imagine how he ever qualified as a submarine officer on a nuke boat. He should’ve been lost at sea through a torpedo tube. I lost two close friends due to accidents that could easily be traced back to the inability to procure proper spares and the demands of increasing mission tempo at all costs.
If I ever got the chance to take a swing at him, the resulting jail time would be a pleasure to serve.
I also remember the Carter years (with the misery index). Last year the wife and I went to the Reagan Library in Simi Valley CA not really knowing what to expect. I thought I’d simply check out that beautiful VC-137 that Boeing lovingly restored for display and be on my way.
On stepping into the place it was like being vaulted back to the day the Gipper took office and “Peanuts” Carter went back to Georgia. Spent three hours in a place of optimism and faith in American excellence, which included restoring the US military to appropriate funding and respect.
On approaching Reagan’s remarkably simple grave there stood a lone man who appeared to be in great reflection. He kindly asked if we could take a photo of him by the grave, and after we had done so I remarked about his accent. “I am from Germany”, he replied, “I was at a conference in Monterey and simply had to come down here to pay my respects”.
We left the Reagan Library feeling that it would have been a great mistake to have missed it.
Not to be too contrarian, but neither Lincoln nor FDR had any military experience either.
Ok, to pick nits, FDR served as Undersecretary for the Navy for a few years and Lincoln served a couple months militia duty. But the latter only served as fodder for humorous speeches wherein the man from Illinois made fun of his own inexpertise.
Reagan never served under combat, nor did Dubya, but they seemed to have done reasonably well.
I can’t say how Barry will turn out, although I don’t think he’s as dogmatic as Carter. It could be worse; Obama could turn out to be another Wilson.
The thing that impressed me about Dubya was that he flew Lawn Darts. Those early delta wing fighters had a high accident rate, and could kill an inattentive pilot pretty quickly. Add to that that Bush would’ve had to pass the “Personal Reliability Program” tests just to be allowed NEAR them, as they were armed with nuclear-tipped air to air missiles.
What I’m getting it is that, despite not seeing combat, it was an impressive bit of skill as only the very best got into those programs. Cowboys, drunks and ne’er-do-wells didn’t hack it. No amount of Daddy’s arm-twisting could have gotten him that job.
the Lawn Darts also tried hard to get overseas to Vietnam. There were a few who made it to see how the airframe would work in that environment, but it made a lousy attack aircraft, and wasn’t meant for the down-low dog fighting that took place, so back stateside they came.
Respects,
Reagan did serve in the military in WW2. Dubya also served as a pilot in the Texas Air NG, where his risk was actually greater than if he had served in ‘nam (look up the accident rates in the old Century series fighters some time). Consequently, both had some idea what the military has to endure to do its job.
FDR was able to learn something about military service as Undersec, and it colored his time in WW2. On the whole it was successful because of it. Lincoln tried micro-managing and learned he could not and forced himself to allow Grant free rein. Lincoln learned while the north paid a very high price for his training.
Geo,
It’s been awhile, but I think 1/32 Armor is right, but Friedberg is certainly right (I remember that very clearly).
From what I remember, the A2 was an abortion anyway. Vietnam hurt the Army badly, and the US Army Europe was hurt in the spares area. My brother said it was a consistent headache. The A3 solved many of the hardware problems, but the spares problem wasn’t solved until he was out and Reagan was Prez.
Funny, but the Tenn ANG Armor unit I was in (3/109 Armor) had really old tanks that were in very good repair. We had M-60s, and even several M-48s at the MATES unit at Ft. Campbell. The worst one was the one I drove several times (the Co. Co’s tank. no less) that would do about 15 mph wide open, and blew blue smoke to boot. We had an FTX with the Puking Buzzards (the 101st Airborne for those who don’t get the reference – it has to do with the Division patch with a screaming Eagle) and I was able to have some fun even with a bushed turkey.
We came up on a a drop zone, and the CO. Co told me to back up, then floor it to run across the DZ. Speaking my language! I backed up about 50 feet and floored it. We came out of the tree line with the turkey screaming and going down hill. I jumped a small ditch (about 4′ in the air), and ran with the Capt. cussing in the TC’s cupola, and ducked behind some brush on the DZ and continued across. I ducked into some pines on the other side, with the Capt. yelling in the intercom, Nooooo! I didn,’t realize it, but I had wiped that Loblolly Pine across him.
He climbed down from the turret, and slid halfway down the front glacis when he turned to me, looked me in the eye and told me I was insane. My smart retort was, “you knew I had been in the Navy before I came here.” He smiled and chuckled, then left for the meeting he had been called to.
After the CO was gone, the Gunner told me, the Capt. really was quite annoyed with me. The CO later said they had a talk with a TOW crew that had been at the west end of the DZ and spotted us. They weren’t able to get a clear shot because of the speed combined with the way I used the brush to fowl their range (TOW is wire guided for you Navy types
). The CO seemed pleased. But the gunner later told me the CO was still annoyed with me.
Actually, I was lucky not to break a torsion bar, or two, or three…. You get the point. It was still a riot. Most fun I’ve had in military hardware. The CO didn’t agree, and he told me later as we were also friends in Boy Scouts in the local council.
AW1Tim
They didn’t ALL come back to Conus. We had a det. of 102’s at DaNang sitting 24/7 strip alert for AD purposes because we were within theoretical range of the IL-28 Beagle (not flown by the “Beagle Boys” AFAIK-heh) light bombers Hanoi had. They had their own enclosure way down at the west end of our (the AF-we had twin runways with the other used by the 1st MAW and the Army) runway and would occasionally roar off on practice intercepts just to keep skills up/defeat boredom. I might say they were also sitting in the most exposed part of the field just inside the perimeter fence near the edge where the rice paddy’s began to merge with the jungle. It was from that direction the VC used to infiltrate the city during Tet.
They were pretty much a permanent fixture until we pulled out. The Vermont ANG had the duty as I remember, could be wrong.
Your right about the accident rate . The 102 had both the highest accident and death rate/hrs flown of any active duty fighter–and also the highest number in absolute terms by far. I think the tot. to date is close to 278.
The F-102 is what Dubya flew in Texas. As I recall, the F-102 ejection seat fired down, not up. Imagine some dolt firing that one in a hanger sometime. I heard it happened, but it was only a rumor for me as I couldn’t get any confirmation. I do know ejection seats have been fired in hangers, however. I’ve met more than one maintenance officer who had to do the investigation after some meat head did it.
The F-104 made pilots a bit nervous as well. When the Luftwaffe started operating them, the record was so poor they called it the flying coffin.
When JFK became Prez he wanted a ride in a 104. LeMay almost went ape over that one. Personally, I wouldn’t have wanted anything so wussy. If I were Prez I would want to join the Tailhook club. Imagine the face on the CNO when he got the order to get me a T-45 and an IP.
AW1Tim- Roger that. Carter was a True Believer and those people are slaves to their ideology. And want to make everyone else slaves to it too.
QM, Remedial Driver’s Training for you! Probably your CO’s rib cage was black and blue so no wonder he had the a$$ at you. But you are right, it is a real hoot going downrange in a tank.
VX, I know a couple of those VTANG guys who went to S.VN. flying the ‘102. One retired as a BG some years back. Owns a great Gun Shop.
Tim, how many F-102s carried the AIM-26?
Recall the original thesis related to POTUS not possessing “military” (i.e. combat) experience upon gaining office. Certainly Dubya never engaged in combat.
QM: Reagan served, true, but he never (as I said in my original post) served in combat.
And I’ll be only too glad to hear an explanation on how the technical demands of flying a supersonic interceptor is the equivalent of “combat” experience.
QM acknowledges Roosevelt’s bureaucratic experience, yet attempts to equate an early 20th-century “Pentagon”-style desk job with “military service.” Sorry, I don’t consider bureaucrats the same as soldiers, even if the protocol officers do. {wry grin}
FDR’s greater strength was, rather, his knowledge of history.
I must repeat: neither Lincoln, FDR, Reagan, nor Dubya had any military (i.e. combat) experience. The whole “tip of the spear” thing.
On the contrary, Benito Mussolini served with distinction, including wounds in battle during WW1. Adolph Hitler received two Iron Crosses, 2nd and 1st class. Herman Goering was a famously decorated ace pilot.
George McGovern is a decorated bomber pilot, and John “do you know who I am!?” e’Fnn Kerry saw more real “bullets shot at me” combat time than Bush ‘43 ever has, and ever will.
Jimmy Carter was a noted Annapolis alumnus, as well as a graduate of Rickover’s notorious “nuclear Navy” program.
I might also add here the name of General Grant, who -while demonstrating tremendous personal virtue- turned out to be a terrible President.
In other words, the historical record demonstrates there is little correspondence between personal combat experience and national leadership in the United States of America.
Casey, while you are technically correct, which I suppose is sort of redundant, the question to be asked is if any of the lessons learned were relevant to the job of President. I’d like to think they were, but the President is so far removed from the front-line troops that the decisions he can make can affect their lives but they can’t miracle up dry socks or warm uniforms or a camp stove that doesn’t cast a light, which is pretty much what a front-line soldier is wishing for.
George Washington himself led men in battle, was an inspiration, yet I doubt he had much knowledge of life in their tents with their feet wrapped in rags leaving that long, blood-marked trail back to Valley Forge to spend the winter of 1777.
Not that all didn’t suffer privations, you understand, just saying not all suffered the same.
Likewise, Hitler had combat experience but as a corporal he evidently didn’t quite understand the whole logistics part of a war, which Generals tend to fixate on. Germany lost World War 2 precisely because a corporal was in charge.
Lincoln and McGovern and Reagan and Bush and others each served their task, did their duty, I seem to recall an Eisenhower in there among them. I do not recall their military service being particularly relevant to the job, but I do seem to remember they knew and respected the tasks they were asking.
Carter? Nixon? Not so much.
Obama will be an interesting one to watch, in this regard. He may have the knowledge, he may be a leader, he may be a very good CINC. Experience in front-line combat doesn’t seem to be much of a factor in a job that is so far removed from the front lines.
I disagree that one need actual combat experience to make an effective POTUS. While Reagan served and McGovern was a decorated bomber pilot, Audie Murphy has them beat in spades and Joe Foss not only earned more honors he also ran the American Football League, which is more executive experience than anybody running the country today or in the next four years can claim. Shall we bring up folks like Gregory Boyington, certainly a man you want on your wing but probably not the guy you want running the country.
We’re arguing the same point, I merely contend that as CIC experience would temper the impulses of command, whereas some simply can’t make the jump from excellent soldier to CIC.
History is full of failures no matter the experience.
– Max
Casey,
Please re-read : “FDR was able to learn something about military service as Undersec, and it colored his time in WW2. On the whole it was successful because of it. Lincoln tried micro-managing and learned he could not and forced himself to allow Grant free rein. Lincoln learned while the north paid a very high price for his training.”
I did not say that FDR had “military” experience. He was an administrator who gained some knowledge about military service. It does say he served IN the military. Please don’t put words in my fingers.
Same goes for Reagan.
While Kerry was in combat, he really learned very little about the military. He was simply at the tail end of the time that having a military background was a good thing for a politician. McGovern, although being a decorated 8th AF pilot, we know he served because he was a communist sympathizer who wanted to support the Soviets by fighting Germans. While that takes nothing from his valor, it taints it dreadfully. He demonstrated that taint over and over again by giving aid and comfort to our enemies while our troops were under fire. You can read the dreadful details about the man in an Article on TakiMag by Paul Gottfried.
The point about experience is well taken, however, anyone that has the experiences like Reagan and FDR know what they don’t know. FDR was more referee than CIC, and Reagan knew who he could trust and give them their head. As a result, both succeeded. Carter failed because he was too arrogant and thought he could do things as well as those who had trained and studied all their lives. His ignorance, combined with that arrogance, is what made him the dismal he was, and still is.
Obama can succeed, but only if he knows what he doesn’t know, and conducts himself in accordance with that. He’s a blank slate at this point, and there seems to be some hope. However, the deceitful manner of his campaign has knowledgeable people nervous, and for good reason.
Geo-
Remedial driver’s training. Come on now. You know for a Tanker there are only two speeds, wide open or dead stop. In combat anyway. But, you’re right, it was a hoot. If I were young again, I’d probably do it again too.
According the the Air Force Safety Center, the F-102A had a cumulative Class A accident rate of (“only”) 13.69/100,000 flight hours. Most all of the other fighters of that same period had higher accident rates, with some, much higher. And combat losses – although not included in these numbers – were far greater too.
F-84: 52.86
F-86: 44.18
F-89: 24.54
F-100: 21.22
F-101: 14.65
F-104: 30.63
F-105: 17.83
Does anyone know the accident rate per 1,000 hours of driving in a major city?
That depends, Flit. Are you talking SoCal or some more civilized location?
All seriousness aside, I would hate to see what the rate expressed in those terms would be. Accident rates are usually expressed per 100K miles since that’s about all that we can reasonably estimate. Time is a much different thing. AC have time meters so we can reasonably estimate time. To go 20 miles in Sandy Eggo, vs the same thing where I live in WNC, are two utterly different times (my commute to work is 33 miles, and I do it in 40 minutes. Try that in Dago, or LA.
The rate for the 104 is what I expected, in relative terms. The 100 was first line Tac fighter and saw hard use. I would expect the newer Ac to have lower accident rates, and that occurs up thru the 101. The 104 was an attempt to get the highest climb rate possible, and it beat all the others at the time. It paid a very high price for the ability.
I’m a bit curious if the rates are available on the internet. The comparison with the F-106 (an upgrade of the 102), and the newer AC, would be enlightening.