Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
redleger wrote: The reason for this story is anyone trying to blame a recruiter would also then have to blame his DS, his AIT instructor, and the commands that set the policies preventing really bad people from making it through. There is a tiered system and policies negate the ability to stop people on a whim. My old CSM called it a meat market. Do not mentor, do not make friends, just train them and get them out and sent to the line.
So the argument of trying to shift blame away from Berghdal and put it on a recruiter is intellectually dishonest. Its a logical fallacy and they had nothing to do with his decision.
Horrible story, but who then should be blamed? The Joint Chiefs of Staff, for wanting X amount of soldiers? Bergdahl, for being unsuited to life as a soldier despite passing?
I'm not asking that just to be contrary, and I have no stake in the case anyways. But when people say hindsight is useless when something has already happened, they fail to see that maybe it could be used to make sure such things don't happen again.
blame should always be placed on the one who made the decision. (bergdahl)
to understand why at that point in time he deserted, the search starts with the man to his right and the man to his left and their current work environment. Over time, people change, and some will struggle with what they imagined military life is, and the reality of it. No one has the ability to predict the future, you make decisions based on the facts at hand. it's an impossible task to try and figure out who will desert or hand over classified information at some point in the future and figure out how to screen for that behavior.
Or you could accept that the military has created a system where numbers are more important than the welfare and safety of the members of the military.
It’s a logical fallacy to pretend that because everybody screwed up, nobody screwed up. That if everybody is to blame, then nobody is to blame. If somebody dies because of the rock you graduated, then you will share part of the blame for that death.
Did you put your job on thie line to get him out? Were you willing to stand up to your leadership and tell them that they will have to get rid of you before he makes it past you? Did you decide that your career isn’t worth the risk he poses to your fellow soldiers? Or did you decide that you are just one more person that was forced to let him slide, and therefore you’re not going to be the one responsible for his eventual fethup that will get someone killed? Your career still went on, so you could have tried harder to get rid of him. You can blame culture, but you are still part of that culture and you also perpetuated it.
And I’m not gaking on you or the military here, it’s something we see every day. I have seen it at work in nursing, people die because of nurses going “that’s the way we do things”, “this comes from the top, we can’t change it”, and “if we fight this it will be a career ender”. I’ve had multiple targets on my back from senior leadership because I made that stand and decided that I will risk my career before I put one of my veterans in a dangerous situation. It was a rough two years of constantly watching my back before someone else passed ofnleadership and their target changed, but I put the lives of my patients above my career. I knew that I would most likely be fired for it, but I did it despite the risk it presented to me and my family. It was a hard decision, which paid off in the end so I was lucky, but I couldn’t sit back and pretend that I was just another small powerless piece and that I wouldn’t be the one to blame because everyone is at fault and therefore it’s an institutional problem and not a personal problem.
Not everyone that does something stupid will get caught in the safety nets, but if people compromise their own standards (leadership, recruiters, DIs, you, me) to meet goals, then they do share part of the blame. They don’t share it in a legal “gonna get charged with something” way, but everyone that had an opportunity to get rid of someone despite the wishes of meeting quotas needs to at least feel partially responsible and evaluate if they compromised their own values for their own job security. I’m not saying that you contributed to a tragedy down the line, but I am pointing out the danger of feeling at ease because you are part of a system that “forces” you to graduate people that shouldn’t graduate.
I’m not saying it’s an easy decision to sacrifice your career to make a stand, but just because it’s an incredible hard thing to do doesn’t absolve you from the responsibility when you and nobody else in the system did it.
I know this sounds like I’m gaking on you, which is not my intend. And maybe you did all the things I said you could have done. I’m posting this just to get thoughts and discussions going, and not to be “right” or prove anyone “wrong”. I’m not trying to prove that the system is gakky and that you are just another cog in a system of screwed up gears. I’m just thinking this might be an opportunity to evaluate the system and how we operate in it.
And that doesn’t just go for the military, but all of us working anywhere.
All good points, some bad assumptions but overall I can not disagree except one one point. Letting someone through who is pushing the boundary on substandard behavior usually leads to first line supervisors having to reign them in. Rarely if ever does it lead to desertion. In fact no one I know ever considered it an option no matter how miserable we are. There is a value we have called selfless service and we do believe we give up a lot to serve, which we really do.
As for me. My only response is there is a reason I retired as a Staff Sergeant despite my BSM, stellar physical fitness, and ability train Soldiers. I always tell people when they are wrong. I don't sugar coat or tell people what they want to hear. It ruined me in Afghanistan thanks to my Lieutenant and wasnt popular in a training environment either. But at the end of the day when told to do something directly you do it. That's the difference between a good Soldier and berghdal. (Disclaimer, illegal orders are different so don't use that as a rebuttal)
10k CSM
1.5k Thousand Sons
2k Death Guard
3k Tau
3k Daemons(Tzeentch and Nurgle)
So who to blame. 100% Bowe Berghdal. That's it. Its that simple.
The bad guys that shot the soldiers that were looking for Bergdahl, or the ones that planted IEDs, are they less than 100% to blame for the injuries they caused? If Bergdahl wouldn’t have run away, people wouldn’t have looked for him, and they wouldn’t have injured the people that looked for him. So is Bergdahl 100% responsible for every injury and the bad guys 0%, is it 50/50, or some other percentage?
I think part of the issue may be that people feel that by wanting to look to see where others may have failed to screen him out, we are trying to reassign blame elsewhere. That there is only a finite amount of blame to go around, and if anybody else it to blame, that takes blame away from Bergdahl.
I don’t think that’s the case. He will have 100% made that decision on his own, and he will 100% own the consequences. Even if someone else takes the blame of passing him instead of screening him out, that doesn’t affect the blame for walking away from his post. I am not trying to take any blame away from that.
The enemy was always trying to inflict casualties, berghdals actions did not create that motivation. They did however put certain individuals in that position which is why I say the blame lies on him. Can't blame the enemy for doing what they were always gonna try to do. Blame them for doing but its not a shared blame its a separate blame. I'm not sure if I am able to explain it in a way that makes sense but its two separate things in my mind.
I'm always ok with taking every situation and taking a step back to see how future iterations of a situation can be prevented but you can not use that as an excuse to shift blame, but instead look at it as an attempt to mitigate future instances of that situation.
10k CSM
1.5k Thousand Sons
2k Death Guard
3k Tau
3k Daemons(Tzeentch and Nurgle)
d-usa wrote: It makes sense, that’s the same way I feel about the issue of letting people through. It’s a separate blame and issue than his running away.
We disagree on an appropriate sentence but on this we agree.
10k CSM
1.5k Thousand Sons
2k Death Guard
3k Tau
3k Daemons(Tzeentch and Nurgle)
redleger wrote: All good points, some bad assumptions but overall I can not disagree except one one point. Letting someone through who is pushing the boundary on substandard behavior usually leads to first line supervisors having to reign them in. Rarely if ever does it lead to desertion. In fact no one I know ever considered it an option no matter how miserable we are. There is a value we have called selfless service and we do believe we give up a lot to serve, which we really do.
As for me. My only response is there is a reason I retired as a Staff Sergeant despite my BSM, stellar physical fitness, and ability train Soldiers. I always tell people when they are wrong. I don't sugar coat or tell people what they want to hear. It ruined me in Afghanistan thanks to my Lieutenant and wasnt popular in a training environment either. But at the end of the day when told to do something directly you do it. That's the difference between a good Soldier and berghdal. (Disclaimer, illegal orders are different so don't use that as a rebuttal)
Also even of not suitable for front line. Someone can be sent to supply or admin or wherever they need work doing.
Theres options between keeping em where they are and booting them out.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
redleger wrote: All good points, some bad assumptions but overall I can not disagree except one one point. Letting someone through who is pushing the boundary on substandard behavior usually leads to first line supervisors having to reign them in. Rarely if ever does it lead to desertion. In fact no one I know ever considered it an option no matter how miserable we are. There is a value we have called selfless service and we do believe we give up a lot to serve, which we really do.
As for me. My only response is there is a reason I retired as a Staff Sergeant despite my BSM, stellar physical fitness, and ability train Soldiers. I always tell people when they are wrong. I don't sugar coat or tell people what they want to hear. It ruined me in Afghanistan thanks to my Lieutenant and wasnt popular in a training environment either. But at the end of the day when told to do something directly you do it. That's the difference between a good Soldier and berghdal. (Disclaimer, illegal orders are different so don't use that as a rebuttal)
Also even of not suitable for front line. Someone can be sent to supply or admin or wherever they need work doing.
Theres options between keeping em where they are and booting them out.
That is not necessarily true. There is a hesitation to send say a cavalry scout to work in supply simply because he doesn't want to do that job anymore. It sets a precedent that opposes good order and discipline. No one really wants to walk into the suck, they simply do it because that's the road they chose to take and they do it. If every time someone didn't want to pick up their rifle and do their job we said, hey that's cool, you would start to see larger issues unfold.
10k CSM
1.5k Thousand Sons
2k Death Guard
3k Tau
3k Daemons(Tzeentch and Nurgle)
I saw on a military site a bunch of military guys calling the Judge a traitor and wanting him killed as well as anyone who pointed out how ridiculous that is.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Ahtman wrote: I saw on a military site a bunch of military guys calling the Judge a traitor and wanting him killed as well as anyone who pointed out how ridiculous that is.
Ahtman wrote: I saw on a military site a bunch of military guys calling the Judge a traitor and wanting him killed as well as anyone who pointed out how ridiculous that is.
While that behavior is extreme I think everyone has failed to understand the level of anger and hatred within the military*. The equivalent of them raging on a website, most of which are usually vetted to keep civilians out, can be justified in the context of not having an outlet and having a protest that turns into rioting. Only in this case the majority would never actually do that. Rioting is looked at unfavorably so they rage online, and then they get over it. Even I have had my faculties shaken over this subject. So yea they are stupid, I've seen the memes, but its outrage needing to flow somewhere.
* Towards Berghdal. Im not talking about the normal amounts of nicotine and anger that are normally present every day.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/06 13:13:55
10k CSM
1.5k Thousand Sons
2k Death Guard
3k Tau
3k Daemons(Tzeentch and Nurgle)
redleger wrote: All good points, some bad assumptions but overall I can not disagree except one one point. Letting someone through who is pushing the boundary on substandard behavior usually leads to first line supervisors having to reign them in. Rarely if ever does it lead to desertion. In fact no one I know ever considered it an option no matter how miserable we are. There is a value we have called selfless service and we do believe we give up a lot to serve, which we really do.
As for me. My only response is there is a reason I retired as a Staff Sergeant despite my BSM, stellar physical fitness, and ability train Soldiers. I always tell people when they are wrong. I don't sugar coat or tell people what they want to hear. It ruined me in Afghanistan thanks to my Lieutenant and wasnt popular in a training environment either. But at the end of the day when told to do something directly you do it. That's the difference between a good Soldier and berghdal. (Disclaimer, illegal orders are different so don't use that as a rebuttal)
Also even of not suitable for front line. Someone can be sent to supply or admin or wherever they need work doing.
Theres options between keeping em where they are and booting them out.
I don't think you understand the US Army to well.
Fort Campbell last year, there was a man who self reported himself into the hospital on base because he felt like he was about to snap, go into work, and kill people.
Self reported himself to seek medical help before he hurt people.
His command levied criminal charges on him.
If ever you will find an organization that will pick the wrong thing to do to its employees, for the better of that employee, it will be the US Army.
redleger wrote: All good points, some bad assumptions but overall I can not disagree except one one point. Letting someone through who is pushing the boundary on substandard behavior usually leads to first line supervisors having to reign them in. Rarely if ever does it lead to desertion. In fact no one I know ever considered it an option no matter how miserable we are. There is a value we have called selfless service and we do believe we give up a lot to serve, which we really do.
As for me. My only response is there is a reason I retired as a Staff Sergeant despite my BSM, stellar physical fitness, and ability train Soldiers. I always tell people when they are wrong. I don't sugar coat or tell people what they want to hear. It ruined me in Afghanistan thanks to my Lieutenant and wasnt popular in a training environment either. But at the end of the day when told to do something directly you do it. That's the difference between a good Soldier and berghdal. (Disclaimer, illegal orders are different so don't use that as a rebuttal)
Also even of not suitable for front line. Someone can be sent to supply or admin or wherever they need work doing.
Theres options between keeping em where they are and booting them out.
That is not necessarily true. There is a hesitation to send say a cavalry scout to work in supply simply because he doesn't want to do that job anymore. It sets a precedent that opposes good order and discipline. No one really wants to walk into the suck, they simply do it because that's the road they chose to take and they do it. If every time someone didn't want to pick up their rifle and do their job we said, hey that's cool, you would start to see larger issues unfold.
True but if someone truly does not fit then it's way to make good on the very expensive training and investment put into the person.
I'd imagine it's a fair few thousands of dollers just to pass someone in basic training.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
Honestly, he deserved to be punished for desertion. However, he was not actively avoiding the military and causing injury by slipping away. He really needed help over there. The man was captured and tortured by the enemy. Why are we downplaying the fact that he was being tortured by the enemy?
Could you go more in depth on what you meant in the bolded part?
When you are being tortured and help prisoner, are you able to run away freely and avoid people?
Our Code of Conduct does require us to make every effort possible to escape. There is the question of, how much did he try? I don't really know the answer to that.
I was really hoping someone would bring up the C. O. C., and also the Army Values, both of which Patty Hearst there disregarded when he skipped post. Not to mention the fact that he was also an NCO, so we can throw the Creed of the Non-Commissioned Officer as another list of values/tenets that this guy pissed all over.
For those not following along, the Code of Conduct dictates our behavior in combat, and if captured. You know that cool thing you see in the movies where the POW gives their name, rank, and serial/service number? That's actually a thing.
d-usa wrote:As far as the soldiers that got hurt and their families go, I think that being able to stand in front of Bergdahl to tell him and show him the price they had to pay (and will continue to pay) because of his actions will probably do more for them than any punishment inflicted to him by us or the enemy.
You assume that Patty Hearst gives any sort of gak about what misery he caused anyone. EVERY behavior he exhibited with this shows self-centered attitude, possibly even narcissism.
Dreadwinter wrote: The second part, I read what you posted wrong. Half asleep and just waking up and all that. Regardless, he wasn't going to just quit. He has a track record of going awol, which I posted. So you can still spell it out but here is the deal, it was never going to happen. The mans flight instinct is far FAR stronger than his fight instinct.
Cheers, buddy. My main point is still that the whole progression of events is weird and could have been handled with far less trouble for everyone.
For some reason the parenthesis is not part of the link, at least for me, so you have to put it in manually if you are going to follow it. Still not what happened here though.
The whole progression of events could have been avoided if the recruiters had taken in to account his past history. Fool me once and all that. Honestly, the man was unfit for duty. Instead of trying to throw the book at a guy who seems to have some serious issues. Maybe the recruiters need to be looked at. Are they doing their due diligence when recruiting people? Taking everything in to account when they sign people up?
Having seen fist hand the life recruiters have to live, the stress they go through, the destruction it does to their families, I'm going to advise leaving that alone.
I am going to politely decline that advisement. Sure, it would be a hard job. But when you make a mistake, you have to hold the people who made it accountable for it. If d-usa, who has a very stressful job as a nurse, gives the wrong medication and it seriously injures or kills a person, we do not let him go on by saying "Man, he has a tough job, these things happen." No, that is unacceptable. You made a mistake, if you cannot handle the job, you need a new one.
That job destroyed my family, and literally nearly killed my father. The stressors they have on their lives already do not need to be compounded by trying to lay the blame of people like Bergdahl at their feet.
Sorry to hear about that. It would be a tough gig. I am not saying your father is responsible. But somebody is and it appears the recruiters missed a big red flag here. Why was he let in? Who okayed that? Why did they think he would be a good fit, despite his past history?
That nurse analogy is a pretty bad comparison. Try this one instead: you sell someone a car, they get drunk and plaster into a crowd of people, killing several and wounding more. Are you to blame for the death toll? It is FAR time the left lean away from blaming the instrument and start blaming the person BEHIND the instrument. Even if that instrument is something like the recruiting corps.
redleger wrote:There are lessons to be learned as far as who we let in, the standards we should care about and how we created that wall only the truly qualified can overcome. Problem is when you make it too tough to get in people start claiming serving is a right, which it is not. So there are so many things to be solved before that.
So who to blame. 100% Bowe Berghdal. That's it. Its that simple.
Not only that, but this guy made it to Sergeant. How did he hit THAT MANY quality gates and not get flagged? I don't normally swing for conspiracy theories, but I think the guy's intent was to side with the enemy, and the smartest thing the Army did with all of this was make sure this guy never went near ANYTHING of strategic value to the enemy ever again.
As far as the rage felt by the servicemembers: I think it's more rage at the precedent being set. Between this toolbag and Manning, you have two massive slaps on the wrist for a plethora of violations of regulations, AND pretty much the evisceration of every code/tenet we strive for. What motivation is there going to be for people to follow orders now, when all they have to do is get press to guarantee them leniency? In their mind at least, we'll have to see the practical applications to see how it plays out. But I wouldn't be surprised if there winds up a larger disciplie issue because of this.
redleger wrote: All good points, some bad assumptions but overall I can not disagree except one one point. Letting someone through who is pushing the boundary on substandard behavior usually leads to first line supervisors having to reign them in. Rarely if ever does it lead to desertion. In fact no one I know ever considered it an option no matter how miserable we are. There is a value we have called selfless service and we do believe we give up a lot to serve, which we really do.
As for me. My only response is there is a reason I retired as a Staff Sergeant despite my BSM, stellar physical fitness, and ability train Soldiers. I always tell people when they are wrong. I don't sugar coat or tell people what they want to hear. It ruined me in Afghanistan thanks to my Lieutenant and wasnt popular in a training environment either. But at the end of the day when told to do something directly you do it. That's the difference between a good Soldier and berghdal. (Disclaimer, illegal orders are different so don't use that as a rebuttal)
Also even of not suitable for front line. Someone can be sent to supply or admin or wherever they need work doing.
Theres options between keeping em where they are and booting them out.
That is not necessarily true. There is a hesitation to send say a cavalry scout to work in supply simply because he doesn't want to do that job anymore. It sets a precedent that opposes good order and discipline. No one really wants to walk into the suck, they simply do it because that's the road they chose to take and they do it. If every time someone didn't want to pick up their rifle and do their job we said, hey that's cool, you would start to see larger issues unfold.
True but if someone truly does not fit then it's way to make good on the very expensive training and investment put into the person.
I'd imagine it's a fair few thousands of dollers just to pass someone in basic training.
It is NOT a way to make 'good on the very expensive training'. Removing someone from the job they were trained and experienced in and putting them into a job they were not trained for tends to be a bad match. Add in there are man power caps and each slot has an assigned MOS and rank against it and you would be taking a troop out of a slot where his MOS/rank was needed, making a hole, and using him/her either in a position which is not an actual position needing to be filled or filling a position in a way ensuring the correct MOS/Rank troop can't get it (and who may have needed it for career progression).
Recruiters don't just recruit #s, they recruit those numbers against actual MOS requirements. You don't recruit and train infantrymen or radio repair folks to fill supply slots. You don't recruit and train supply troops to fill infantrymen slots.
Not only that, but this guy made it to Sergeant. How did he hit THAT MANY quality gates and not get flagged? I don't normally swing for conspiracy theories, but I think the guy's intent was to side with the enemy, and the smartest thing the Army did with all of this was make sure this guy never went near ANYTHING of strategic value to the enemy ever again.
He was promoted to SGT due to time in service while he was a guest of the Talibs. He did not progress in the ranks and go through the promotion boards the way his peers did. He was given the rank because 'he probably would have made it' in the five years he was a captive.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/06 11:13:03
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
d-usa wrote: For someone so in the know, Tony managed to get just about everything wrong and missed the actual point of every argument.
I don't know. He seems to have called out what many of the extreme left leaning personnel here have been doing on every thread in OT where someone does something bad. They try to blame something else. You yourself have done this. church shooting is guns fault, Berghdal should have been moved, (spoken by people who are absolutely not in the know, nor would they ever be wiling to be), They guy in New York wasn't a bad person who did something bad, its the ideologies fault, oh no wait its not, you cant blame Islam, its somehow someone elses fault.
I know you don't want to think people do this, but it happens. And that is the point you seem to miss is that we believe in personal accountability, not outward blame.
10k CSM
1.5k Thousand Sons
2k Death Guard
3k Tau
3k Daemons(Tzeentch and Nurgle)
He didn’t know why he was a Sergant, and makes multiple arguments that this behavior should have been caught during his promotions (that didn’t actually happen the way he thinks they happened) and that not catching this during those promotions should be followed up on. So he seems to make the argument that people promoting him might be to blame, while also arguing that it’s wrong to blame anybody else but him. So he doesn’t know why he was promoted, and he’s inconsistent in his own argument.
His counter argument to how testifying made the injured and their families feel is about how it didn’t make Bergdahl feel anything, which completely misses the point. It doesn’t matter one bit how it made Bergdahl feel or if it had any effect on him of any kind. It makes about how it made the people testifying feel.
Comparing stressful job analogies to drunk driving is just stupid and misses the point of the argument completely as well.
He might have made a point or two, but he didn’t actually address any of the actual arguments that are being made and he got more things wrong than right.
d-usa wrote: For someone so in the know, Tony managed to get just about everything wrong and missed the actual point of every argument.
I don't know. He seems to have called out what many of the extreme left leaning personnel here have been doing on every thread in OT where someone does something bad. They try to blame something else. You yourself have done this. church shooting is guns fault, Berghdal should have been moved, (spoken by people who are absolutely not in the know, nor would they ever be wiling to be), They guy in New York wasn't a bad person who did something bad, its the ideologies fault, oh no wait its not, you cant blame Islam, its somehow someone elses fault.
I know you don't want to think people do this, but it happens. And that is the point you seem to miss is that we believe in personal accountability, not outward blame.
That's dramatically misrepresenting what d-usa has said and what others have argued in regards to some of the horrific events that have happened recently.
Whenever a mass shooting occurs, nobody thinks it is "the gun's fault" that the shooting occurs. That's a strawman you created.
By that same vein, Bergdahl did a bad thing. Nobody is pretending he did not do so. What has been said is that due to extenuating circumstances(the whole "abducted and tortured by insurgents" thing probably wasn't a picnic, eh?), this relatively light punishment is probably the right judgement to have been passed down.
redleger wrote: There are 3 tiers, or major process you have to go through to become a full Soldier. I am knowledgeable of Army ways, but no so much the other services, even though I would venture to guess they are similar in nature.
1. Recruitment-Many have pointed out that recruiting goals were raised, and standards were lowered to meet the numbers needed for the surge. Berghdal I am sure simply made it in with a waiver based on current recruiting station mission numbers. They don't usually lie about standards, but they will stretch and fill out waivers and wait till certain windows open where standards are relaxed for a small bit.
2. Basic Combat Training-Those of you who went through 20+ years ago would not recognize much of what you see as far as interaction between recruits and DS's. Although there is still some difficutly the problem comes from BCT Brigade commanders will not accept anything over a very small percentage of failures. That results in writing in fake scores in physical fitness test paperwork. I have spoken to DS's about this and although they hate it, it comes from the top. It's unspoken and if they got caught they would get in trouble, but not doing so, and therefore allowing that percentage to be be broken also means trouble. Its a no win situation when a recruit does not put for the effort. Even the Army has fallen into the trap of not laying blame on the actual person responsible, its always the DSs fault.
3 Advanced Individual Training-This is the last step in the process and is also the last place to catch personnel who are not capable. It is usually less physical and more mental. However it is easy within the first week when they take the Physical Fitness Test to see if the DS fudged the paperwork or not. And so they get stuck in AIT for months. Every week they take a PFT and if they pass we send them on, if not its another step closer to kicking them out. But you see its not a fast process. The money spent to get a civilian that far into the process is not easily dismissed or wasted, so we keep trying to train them and motivate them. During a meeting just this last week the AIT Brigade commander asked the school chief how he could make the course more intellectually rigorous. He said he could not and would not unless the BDE commander was willing to accept a higher failure rate. The end result, zero change to rigor.
The Bottom Line Up Front is his deficiency from the CG could have been waivered. His fragility could have been identified in BCT. His stupidity could have been noticed in AIT. None of that would have been a reason at the top to remove him because of numbers and percentages. The ultimate in welfare IMO was given out by the US Army because of waivers between 2008-2015
I once had a Soldier in my AIT class. He failed all tests academically, but passed all physical tests. He was so ignorant that he required constantly someone standing over his shoulder telling him what to do. Never ascertained if it was an act or real, but as hard as I rode him, I am sure it was real.
I went across the tracks to talk to his DS. Apparently some training room person lost his chapter packet, he shouldn't have made it out of BCT but it happened.
He graduated AIT because I was forced to work with him every night until 2100 (9pm), get up, meet him at 0500 (5am) make sure he was up, room clean, etc. I was not allowed to grade his last two tests which is why he finally passed. He was a rock. He could have gotten a job as a paperweight but his drool would ruin the papers. He went on to be someones problem in the 101, despite my best efforts to create a packet to get him removed. He literally broke every barracks policy and pass policy over his 7 weeks and still couldn't get him chaptered.
The reason for this story is anyone trying to blame a recruiter would also then have to blame his DS, his AIT instructor, and the commands that set the policies preventing really bad people from making it through. There is a tiered system and policies negate the ability to stop people on a whim. My old CSM called it a meat market. Do not mentor, do not make friends, just train them and get them out and sent to the line.
So the argument of trying to shift blame away from Berghdal and put it on a recruiter is intellectually dishonest. Its a logical fallacy and they had nothing to do with his decision.
You literally wrote an entire post pointing out in great detail how the system allows incompetent people to make it through because they need bodies (up to and including basically fraud), and then settled at the end of your post on blaming solely the person who made it through and basically hand-waving away all the systemic failures you painstakingly noted because, I guess, it disagreed with your desired conclusion. This is one of the more remarkable posts I've read here in a while, to be frank.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
There just seems to be a basic inability to consider that there may be other factors that had an influence, while still keeping the actual person 100% responsible.
The Taliban are 100% responsible for the injuries they caused to people looking for Bergdahl, and even people who argue that it’s his fault they were looking for him are going to absolve the Taliban of their responsibility there.
Bergdahl is 100% responsible for running away, even if he ended up on that post due to a fethed up system.
Church guy is 100% responsible for killing people, even if a tool makes it easier to kill people and makes it easier to take him out as well.
Nobody is looking at these factors to excuse Bergdahl, they are looking at hose factors to prevent another Bergdahl. Because for all this talk about personal responsibility in this thread. The military doesn’t seem to be eager to take the responsibility there.
d-usa wrote: The military is probably the one area of government most likely to withstand political posturing, and I would expect Mattis to slap down any attempt by Trump to do so.
Perhaps, but correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think berghdal is exactly popular in most military circles. I wouldn't expect much support for him from that direction.
Hell, I don't pretend to understand the nuances of exactly how much power and influence the president can wield, and maybe I've seen too much house of cards. But I'm going to be really, REALLY surprised if bergdahl gets off with a minimum sentence.
Well, I was super wrong.
"Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment." Words to live by.
This honestly looks like a case of a man who snapped and went mad, mad enough to go walking in hostile territory. And instead of getting the help he needs, he was discharged and wiped clean of being the military's problem.
I fully expect him to turn up dead at some point. Hopefully without taking anyone else with him.
DS:90-S+G+++M++B-IPw40k03+D+A++/fWD-R++T(T)DM+ Warmachine MKIII record 39W/0D/6L
This honestly looks like a case of a man who snapped and went mad, mad enough to go walking in hostile territory. And instead of getting the help he needs, he was discharged and wiped clean of being the military's problem.
I fully expect him to turn up dead at some point. Hopefully without taking anyone else with him.
Help. Well he kinda burned his VA support, Dishonrable discharge. No VA rights. No benefits. No pension etc.
He also not sure if he fully discharged yet?
Fined 1000 dollers a month salary for 10 months?
If he being paid, even if he discharged is he still enlisted or not? May even not quite wiped clean yet?
UK mental health provisions are hardly to be proud of though.
Hardlt a role model.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
Honestly, he deserved to be punished for desertion. However, he was not actively avoiding the military and causing injury by slipping away. He really needed help over there. The man was captured and tortured by the enemy. Why are we downplaying the fact that he was being tortured by the enemy?
Could you go more in depth on what you meant in the bolded part?
When you are being tortured and help prisoner, are you able to run away freely and avoid people?
Our Code of Conduct does require us to make every effort possible to escape. There is the question of, how much did he try? I don't really know the answer to that.
I was really hoping someone would bring up the C. O. C., and also the Army Values, both of which Patty Hearst there disregarded when he skipped post. Not to mention the fact that he was also an NCO, so we can throw the Creed of the Non-Commissioned Officer as another list of values/tenets that this guy pissed all over.
For those not following along, the Code of Conduct dictates our behavior in combat, and if captured. You know that cool thing you see in the movies where the POW gives their name, rank, and serial/service number? That's actually a thing.
d-usa wrote:As far as the soldiers that got hurt and their families go, I think that being able to stand in front of Bergdahl to tell him and show him the price they had to pay (and will continue to pay) because of his actions will probably do more for them than any punishment inflicted to him by us or the enemy.
You assume that Patty Hearst gives any sort of gak about what misery he caused anyone. EVERY behavior he exhibited with this shows self-centered attitude, possibly even narcissism.
Dreadwinter wrote: The second part, I read what you posted wrong. Half asleep and just waking up and all that. Regardless, he wasn't going to just quit. He has a track record of going awol, which I posted. So you can still spell it out but here is the deal, it was never going to happen. The mans flight instinct is far FAR stronger than his fight instinct.
Cheers, buddy. My main point is still that the whole progression of events is weird and could have been handled with far less trouble for everyone.
For some reason the parenthesis is not part of the link, at least for me, so you have to put it in manually if you are going to follow it. Still not what happened here though.
The whole progression of events could have been avoided if the recruiters had taken in to account his past history. Fool me once and all that. Honestly, the man was unfit for duty. Instead of trying to throw the book at a guy who seems to have some serious issues. Maybe the recruiters need to be looked at. Are they doing their due diligence when recruiting people? Taking everything in to account when they sign people up?
Having seen fist hand the life recruiters have to live, the stress they go through, the destruction it does to their families, I'm going to advise leaving that alone.
I am going to politely decline that advisement. Sure, it would be a hard job. But when you make a mistake, you have to hold the people who made it accountable for it. If d-usa, who has a very stressful job as a nurse, gives the wrong medication and it seriously injures or kills a person, we do not let him go on by saying "Man, he has a tough job, these things happen." No, that is unacceptable. You made a mistake, if you cannot handle the job, you need a new one.
That job destroyed my family, and literally nearly killed my father. The stressors they have on their lives already do not need to be compounded by trying to lay the blame of people like Bergdahl at their feet.
Sorry to hear about that. It would be a tough gig. I am not saying your father is responsible. But somebody is and it appears the recruiters missed a big red flag here. Why was he let in? Who okayed that? Why did they think he would be a good fit, despite his past history?
That nurse analogy is a pretty bad comparison. Try this one instead: you sell someone a car, they get drunk and plaster into a crowd of people, killing several and wounding more. Are you to blame for the death toll? It is FAR time the left lean away from blaming the instrument and start blaming the person BEHIND the instrument. Even if that instrument is something like the recruiting corps.
redleger wrote:There are lessons to be learned as far as who we let in, the standards we should care about and how we created that wall only the truly qualified can overcome. Problem is when you make it too tough to get in people start claiming serving is a right, which it is not. So there are so many things to be solved before that.
So who to blame. 100% Bowe Berghdal. That's it. Its that simple.
Not only that, but this guy made it to Sergeant. How did he hit THAT MANY quality gates and not get flagged? I don't normally swing for conspiracy theories, but I think the guy's intent was to side with the enemy, and the smartest thing the Army did with all of this was make sure this guy never went near ANYTHING of strategic value to the enemy ever again.
As far as the rage felt by the servicemembers: I think it's more rage at the precedent being set. Between this toolbag and Manning, you have two massive slaps on the wrist for a plethora of violations of regulations, AND pretty much the evisceration of every code/tenet we strive for. What motivation is there going to be for people to follow orders now, when all they have to do is get press to guarantee them leniency? In their mind at least, we'll have to see the practical applications to see how it plays out. But I wouldn't be surprised if there winds up a larger disciplie issue because of this.
Who is Party Hearst? Why are you referring to me as that? Why did you miss the entire point of what I was saying?
I was comparing stressful jobs. Why is a car crash a valid comparison here? Did you read/understand what I said or did you see it and start foaming at the mouth while screaming "libtard" in to the void?
I am sorry for asking how we can avoid future issues like this. I guess finding problems and fixing them is not really top priority for you. It could save a lot of soldiers though, which is what I am interested in.
Dreadwinter wrote: Who is Party Hearst? Why are you referring to me as that? Why did you miss the entire point of what I was saying?
I was comparing stressful jobs. Why is a car crash a valid comparison here? Did you read/understand what I said or did you see it and start foaming at the mouth while screaming "libtard" in to the void?
I am sorry for asking how we can avoid future issues like this. I guess finding problems and fixing them is not really top priority for you. It could save a lot of soldiers though, which is what I am interested in.
I don't think he was referring to you as Patty Hearst. Patty Heart is a rather famous heiress who was kidnapped by a group called the Symbionese Liberation Army. After some time as a captive, she then robbed a bank with them. It's still unclear whether or not she did so willingly, or had Stockholm Syndrome (in which case still not really willingly), or if she actually bought into their cause. She claimed to have been brainwashed IIRC.
The analogy here is that Berhdahl is Patty Hearst, I imagine, because the cool thing du jour is to come up with snappy little nicknames as a form of branding - "crooked", "pocahontas", etc - in circles that frankly are not worth debating with.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
I think he was implying that in some way Bergdahl "flipped" and joined the terrorists as opposed to being caught by them and tortured? I dunno. It's a dumb nickname and an even worse analogy.
d-usa wrote:For someone so in the know, Tony managed to get just about everything wrong and missed the actual point of every argument.
... every argument? I don't think so.
d-usa wrote:He didn’t know why he was a Sergant, and makes multiple arguments that this behavior should have been caught during his promotions (that didn’t actually happen the way he thinks they happened) and that not catching this during those promotions should be followed up on. So he seems to make the argument that people promoting him might be to blame, while also arguing that it’s wrong to blame anybody else but him. So he doesn’t know why he was promoted, and he’s inconsistent in his own argument.
This one I definitely got wrong, solely because there is SUPPOSED to be a process to becoming an NCO. However...
[quot=CptJakee]He was promoted to SGT due to time in service while he was a guest of the Talibs. He did not progress in the ranks and go through the promotion boards the way his peers did. He was given the rank because 'he probably would have made it' in the five years he was a captive.
Notice the part here about his peers. Bergdahl was given a participation promotion, instead of a merit based promotion. I did not know that because quite frankly I don't care enough about the man to research his entire career. I know what is typical in the Army as far as progression in rank, and that there ARE outliers. My fault in here was the assumption that he was SGT before he bailed. And sure, two seconds using google could have saved me some embarrassment, but when you're talking about a fairly uncommon outlier, it's understandable to operate on assumption.
So one thing I got wrong, but solely because of extenuating circumstances.
d-usa wrote:His counter argument to how testifying made the injured and their families feel is about how it didn’t make Bergdahl feel anything, which completely misses the point. It doesn’t matter one bit how it made Bergdahl feel or if it had any effect on him of any kind. It makes about how it made the people testifying feel.
The point I responded to was essentially that somehow seeing the family members of fallen soldiers who died as a direct or semi-direct result of his actions would cause some sort of emotional distress to him, and that would be punishment enough. My argument was that someone who casts off oaths with SERIOUS weight behind them, as well as hefty punishments, wouldn't have that sort of ethical or moral compass that would result in him feeling anything for anyone else involved. This cat was acting solely for his own benefit, it simply blew up in his face.
So yeah, didn't get THAT one wrong.
d-usa wrote:Comparing stressful job analogies to drunk driving is just stupid and misses the point of the argument completely as well.
No, the original point was to lay blame on the Recruiter for putting through a recruit who was apparently OBVIOUSLY a liability (In hindsight, definitely. At the time? Who knows what shows up in the initial screening.) was culpable for Bergdahl's actions in some way. Someone tried to mitigate that by bringing up the stress of the job, and the nursing thing was thrown in. A better argument would have been, I guess, to say that whomever gave that nurse their nursing degree, or the registrar who let that person attend that college, should have been held culpable. Regardless, two degrees of separating isn't a precedent in any way, shape or form. It isn't from a legal standpoint, and isn't from a moral standpoint.
So yeah, didn't get THAT one wrong, either.
d-usa wrote:He might have made a point or two, but he didn’t actually address any of the actual arguments that are being made and he got more things wrong than right.
So three arguments I DID get right (Including the "blame the tool" argument which redleger already pointed out) versus one that I got wrong solely because an outlier policy practice. I'd say you got YOUR argument wrong.
Also, part and parcel with my viewpoint is the fact that I've lived these tenets for over 20 years. Every soldier I've ever served with has at least TRIED to live those tenets. Do some fail? Of course, but the number I've seen fail at them as catastrophically as Bergdahl, or on PURPOSE, like Bergdahl, I could list on one hand. That is why I, and several other soldiers, think so lowly of the man. That is also why we don't think that his sentencing was all that just, despite his captivity. And it isn't about "who punishes him", it's about the precedent set, and how the infractions were punished prior. And definitely how it will affect punishments for those infractions in others in the years to come.
Ouze wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote: Who is Party Hearst? Why are you referring to me as that? Why did you miss the entire point of what I was saying?
I was comparing stressful jobs. Why is a car crash a valid comparison here? Did you read/understand what I said or did you see it and start foaming at the mouth while screaming "libtard" in to the void?
I am sorry for asking how we can avoid future issues like this. I guess finding problems and fixing them is not really top priority for you. It could save a lot of soldiers though, which is what I am interested in.
I don't think he was referring to you as Patty Hearst. Patty Heart is a rather famous heiress who was kidnapped by a group called the Symbionese Liberation Army. After some time as a captive, she then robbed a bank with them. It's still unclear whether or not she did so willingly, or had Stockholm Syndrome (in which case still not really willingly), or if she actually bought into their cause. She claimed to have been brainwashed IIRC.
The analogy here is that Berhdahl is Patty Hearst, I imagine, because the cool thing du jour is to come up with snappy little nicknames as a form of branding - "crooked", "pocahontas", etc - in circles that frankly are not worth debating with.
I prefer Liawatha myself, but that's beside the point.
It's definitely correct that comments like that happen in those "circles", and stuff like Drumph and even more colorful comments don't come from your camp.
Dreadwinter wrote:I guess I am still a little confused. How is she similar to Bowe Bergdhal in any way? Did he start robbing banks with them or something?
Looking back at what I've responded to so far, I should bring up that I am not the only person who doesn't google stuff apparently.
Okay, so you saw the comment on who Patty Hearst was. The correlation here (Besides me not wanting to misspell Bergdahl, and having EXTREMELY finite time to respond on break at work) comes from one of the theories about his disappearance, one that I think makes the most sense. The theory is that his dissatisfaction with his military service was coupled with a bit of sympathy for the enemy, so he bailed on his post to be with them. It's assumed that he thought his welcome would have been more... friendly from the other side. I don't feel like researching it, but I'm curious what kind of FOB he was on, as the perimeters on MOST of the FOBS are crossable at Entry Control Points, and with his ease of getting off post solo without being seen seems fairly difficult at the least. It's possible, but it'd take a LOT of effort. I'm also curious where his Battle Buddy was during this. Wait, sorry: Warrior Companion.
