What can prospective Officers learn from this discourse?
That sarcasm, snark and implied superiority are virtues?
What leadership qualities are embodied thus?
What instruction is being given that future generations looking back on this thread will gain?
I truly understand that some of you/us have superior knowledge on subjects. I appreciate the willingness to share that insight.
We all have different personal communication styles - blunt, tactful, comical, etc.
As an active or retired Officer, or Military Insider of any sort, I see little gain in making someone feel small because they are "new" or "not in the know"
To my mind - It does not serve the greater community; It does not help the 'newbie'; It does not further the conversation; Nor does it instruct future generations looking through the archives here.
Hey - I am not without sin. But my shortened life from Parkinson's has heightened my awareness and desire to leave others better off for interacting with me as best I can with the time I have left.
So, may we please stay on point? Not belittle others? And even if the odds are (no pun intended) astronomical not squash youngsters dreams?
Thank you.
Oh for the freakin' love. Both you and Zero need to seriously re-read this thread.
No one has told the kid he can't be an astronaut. Many have said it's an astoundingly narrow chance to become one. Both of these statements are true and have merit for a young man considering a sea change in his potential military career based on a narrow goal.
When we, the "party poopers," tell someone not to plan to become an astronaut, the message is very specific.
Do not choose a branch simply to improve your odds.
Do not choose a job within a branch simply to improve your odds.
Do join the military at all if the only aspect that will fulfill you is the end goal of going to space (enjoying ROTC does not equal liking the military).
Zero will discover as he progresses through his aviation career that we do not plan for things that are so far off, are so unlikely to happen, and that are overly specific outcomes. The OP cannot plan on being an astronaut. It's too far away (15 to 20 years, give or take) and involves far too many variables in the interim.
He can PLAN on the following...
1. The need to excel in ROTC.
2. The need to choose a service he will enjoy and be fully personally invested in.
3. The need to become a rated aviator (pilots drive barges).
4. The need to excel in his initial assignment so as to be afforded the opportunity to excel in the next assignment.
Beyond that, he cannot plan. He can hope and keep his eye on the distant, specific prize. But he cannot plan on it. He can only plan on those things that are more likely than not to happen, and at this point those scenarios have been laid out quite clearly.
Quite simply, he cannot plan on being an astronaut. He can plan to pursue a path that increases his chances of becoming an astronaut, but he cannot plan to be an astronaut. Choosing to becoming an Army Aviator or an Air Force pilot is not "planning to be an astronaut someday." It's planning to pursue a path that comes with the awesome responsibility of leading young men and women, of safeguarding the profession of arms, and of doing the dangerous business of the nation. It's also a plan to one's best under the auspices of an unfair and uncooperative personnel system. He wants to be an astronaut. Perhaps the Air Force wants him to be an RPA pilot or to fly C-5s. Or maybe to not be rated at all. That is something he needs to
plan on, because it's significantly likely that the service may require something of him that derails his plan. If that's the case, he needs to be happy with the service and his role in it.
BLUF: if being an astronaut is all that will satisfy him, he had best stay away. If being in the service and having a great career
regardless of whether he becomes an astronaut will satisfy him, then he should drive on with the ROTC program which will offer him the jobs he wants to have in 5 years, not 25 years. That 5 years may lead to another 5 which will lead to 10 and suddenly he's an astronaut. Or not. But it all starts with doing those first five years well. You're not going to find any astronaut whose early evals say "really crappy LT."
If a young man came to my formation and the first thing he told me was "I am going to be an astronaut someday," I'd send him back to battalion and tell them to send me someone else or I'd do without. If he comes to my formation and says "I'm going to be the best damn platoon leader I can be, and then I'll be the best damn commander I can be, and the best damn staff officer I can be, because one day I want to be competitive to go be an astronaut," then we can do business. If he holds up his end of the bargain I'll make sure "astronaut" appears on his OER (officer eval).
As amusing as it is to hear the self-righteous indignation of the few, the proud, the internet dream foundation, the fact remains that this is a forum for the asking and answering of questions. We answer them with candor and realism. Anything less is a disservice to the youngster thinking about spending 5, 10, or more years in uniform.
Pima said:
~ JMPO Zero, scout has walked the ADA life for years, I am not sure if it is 8 or 10, maybe 6, but he has a unique view, and the reality is in the rated world that type of attitude is the real world.
Pima, You inadvertently illustrated the point about acronyms. It took me awhile to figure out that you meant "active duty Army." In the Army, ADA means Air Defense Artillery, a branch you couldn't pay me enough money to be in.
