Two ways of looking at something
I read two articles today on the exact same subject. The first was in the LA Times, and the other was an update by Strategy Page. Its very interesting to see how they are different.
The LA Times sees the growing number of promotions of junior officers in the Army as a bad thing. They cite anonymous "experts" that think the quality of the officers is going down. They even found a retired general to quote "What we don't want to do is come out of [these wars] and lose what we lost after Vietnam." Reminds me of a quote i heard, that i can't recall who said, that said "The best thing a retired general can do it to shut up" The issue with this quote is that the majority opinion is that the officers that did stay in made the US Army so good. Stormin Norman was one of these and was the atypical example of those that stayed in to make the Army the one that showed up in Gulf War 1 and 2. So this is the LA Times view and how they choose to present it.
Next we have the other view. There view is that its not necessarily a new phenomanon since its been occuring for over a decade because of polices. They back up this idea with data by the way. Their point is that the people that stay in, the captains and LTs are going to have much more experience than most of the commanders right now. They are going to have more combat experience, which is essential. The marines have found this out that the best commanders are the ones that are near the front and know combat first hand. Cause they were the ones that were shot at 10 years ago directly. Their view is that the people that get out are the least qualified or least motivated to be in and the Army will be better for it.
It strikes me as odd to see how two different publications choose to present an issue.
The LA Times sees the growing number of promotions of junior officers in the Army as a bad thing. They cite anonymous "experts" that think the quality of the officers is going down. They even found a retired general to quote "What we don't want to do is come out of [these wars] and lose what we lost after Vietnam." Reminds me of a quote i heard, that i can't recall who said, that said "The best thing a retired general can do it to shut up" The issue with this quote is that the majority opinion is that the officers that did stay in made the US Army so good. Stormin Norman was one of these and was the atypical example of those that stayed in to make the Army the one that showed up in Gulf War 1 and 2. So this is the LA Times view and how they choose to present it.
Next we have the other view. There view is that its not necessarily a new phenomanon since its been occuring for over a decade because of polices. They back up this idea with data by the way. Their point is that the people that stay in, the captains and LTs are going to have much more experience than most of the commanders right now. They are going to have more combat experience, which is essential. The marines have found this out that the best commanders are the ones that are near the front and know combat first hand. Cause they were the ones that were shot at 10 years ago directly. Their view is that the people that get out are the least qualified or least motivated to be in and the Army will be better for it.
It strikes me as odd to see how two different publications choose to present an issue.
posted by Maddawg at 1/31/2006 11:18:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home