Kristen Griest is the first female infantry officer

[MemberLG]

Branch transfer approved.

This is the easy part. It will be very interesting to see how CPT Greist's Infantry career will unfold - light or mech unit? Will she be assigned to a unit scheduled for a deployment? When will she command a company? Will she apply to be the 75th Ranger Regiment? I applaud her for leading the way. At the same time, I hope she is ready to take on the challenges as a failure is not an option for her.

 

[AJC]

As the "standards" are applied I think we will see more males denied Infantry (officer and enlisted) with more aptitude based pre-testing like the new OPAT. I think the Army understands people have to be put in a position to succeed. If they never make it to a school they can not fail.

 

[hawk]

We may never know the true story of what concessions (if any) were extended to the female Ranger candidates. There are certainly a number of people who claim to be in the know who say there were. And others, of course, who say otherwise. Unless you were there (and not necessarily even then!), you can not claim to have knowledge either way. Claiming that they are "BS conspiracy theories" doesn't make them so.

Knowing multiple YG2014 & 2015 LT's who tabbed, failed to tab, or are still trying to tab... there definitely appear to have been anomalies. Not compromising the "standards" per se. But opportunities rarely (if ever) provided to male officers. Ex:

- Not being dropped for failing the same phase on the same issue. (In this case, Darby graded patrols) Across 4 class groups DS and buddies had direct visibility to, it was never allowed. To the point it's considered a given
- Day one recycles. Virtually never given to officers, and rarely to enlisted, primarily batt boys. And then usually only if the 2nd failure was due to a different issue.

Did they change the "standards"? Technically, no. Was preferential treatment given? Relative to the norm of the last couple of years, it appears so. And that's not even considering multiple attempts at RTAC, special coaching, relative immunity from timelines, etc

By all accounts, day one recycles after two failed attempts at Darby, for the same thing, is pretty much unheard of recently for Officers. I'm sure we can find an exception somewhere. But in the community in the middle of that particular exercise, no one was able to recall that occurring in the last couple of years. Much less name one.

This does not invalidate the fact the females toughed it out. They may be fantastic people and officers. Incredible athletes, etc.

But is it OK to allow different rules about repeating phases based on gender in other pipelines? That's what bothers me. If the Army feels the need to do this, at least call it the Affirmative Action program it is. We will do special things to achieve a mandated result. And it's OK. That's what I think triggers the vitriol. And counter-vitriol.

Do you know the standards to which female infantry officers are held? Or female Ranger students?

With all respect to your service and skills: This type of attack really sidesteps the issue. I won't ask the same question to you out of respect for your service. I know you've done very hard things, and presumably will continue to do so.

But if only tabbed IN officers can comment or hold a viewpoint, then the pool becomes very small. I'm just a parent of a LT who has been living in the world in question. I find the organizational dynamics interesting. And feel a bit for the ones who become collateral damage in this particular crusade. (Male and Female). I'm very thankful DS made it through the whirlpool and on to his unit smoothly and not impacted.

Having borne witness to a woman being the first of her kind in a unit that has never had women, I can tell you the road is anything but smooth. It's a slog.

I'm sure this is true. And by all accounts the three women who were awarded Ranger tabs are amazing officers. (Especially the Major!)

But this does not reduce the sting, or sense of inequity when some are given opportunities to repeat where others would be a drop, even when it's done with the best of intentions. How would pilots feel if washouts were handled differently for males vs females? (Maybe they already are, I don't know)

For what it's worth, DS and his RS buds (in all their cherry 2LT wisdom) think RTB played this masterfully. Three females have completed the course, and no formal standard was compromised. It clearly can be done. There is no reason to revisit the standards. This is life in the Infantry. (Which to a certain extent, it is). The IN training BN appears to have done so as well. For the last couple of years, the exit criteria for IBOLC is essentially a level of performance that should get you through RAP week and much of Darby. So no need to change the standard there either.

I'm not sure it will hold if pass rates continue to be abysmal. Then again, my read from the peanut gallery is that female pass rates should improve if they go through IBOLC and learn what they are trying to teach them. There is an academic side I'm sure they will learn. ("Army Training, Sir!") Hopefully they can also pick up on some of the leadership style stuff as well.

Likewise, most I know (young and old) are fairly supportive of the new MOS based aptitude test. Should make for a stronger Army. I've always been surprised there was not more of that before. There are defacto standards that exist, why not get a read early on if they will be able to meet them.

This is the easy part. It will be very interesting to see how CPT Greist's Infantry career will unfold - light or mech unit? Will she be assigned to a unit scheduled for a deployment? When will she command a company? Will she apply to be the 75th Ranger Regiment? I applaud her for leading the way. At the same time, I hope she is ready to take on the challenges as a failure is not an option for her.

I was curious if she would be at disadvantage trying to lead an IN company without having done PL time. But I've been told that while uncommon, branch transfers after MCCC are not new. They have already been giving Armor and other officers an IN company without having done IN PL time for years. So that should not be an issue.

The other aspect is that: good, bad or indifferent, she tabbed. I predict it will be a high vis light unit, probably stateside, probably Airborne if she has already been to BAC. (Or gets rushed through it) But that might be a disadvantage with no Jumpmaster/PF, so maybe not. But that would set her up well to put in a packet for the Regiment once she gets her KD time in as CPT.

If I were her Dad, I'd be hoping she does not become a show pony, and will be allowed to leave the circus behind and just do her job well! That will get her the most respect from her peers. And I'd be proud of her for all that she did to get there as well.

 

[scoutpilot]

This type of attack really sidesteps the issue.

Not an attack, but two very pertinent questions to ask of someone who thinks the road is paved and gilded.

I won't ask the same question to you out of respect for your service. I know you've done very hard things, and presumably will continue to do so.

Ask whatever you want. To those questions, I would answer in the affirmative as far as those standards currently exist. The only unknown is how she'll be treated in a battalion as far as standards. As for what has occurred up until now, that is known to some of us.

But if only tabbed IN officers can comment or hold a viewpoint, then the pool becomes very small.

Agree. Good thing that isn't what I said, nor what I asked of Sledge.

I'm just a parent of a LT who has been living in the world in question. I find the organizational dynamics interesting. And feel a bit for the ones who become collateral damage in this particular crusade. (Male and Female). I'm very thankful DS made it through the whirlpool and on to his unit smoothly and not impacted.

Consider the source. Every LT in Ranger thinks some other clown got over and some good dude got hosed. That is true of Ranger, SFAS, and virtually every similar course where subjective grading occurs. That includes flight school, branch selection, and who wins the best costume at the brigade Halloween party. That a bunch of young male LTs (in all their, as you put it, LT wisdom) think this woman was given special treatment and they had it harder is neither surprising nor of interest. It's boilerplate criticism at this point, and an adult game of telephone.

Cheers.

 

[hawk]

Not an attack, but two very pertinent questions to ask of someone who thinks the road is paved and gilded.

I actually agree with your core point you ended up with, but your "And what position are you in to question it?" comment speaks for itself.

Consider the source. Every LT in Ranger thinks some other clown got over and some good dude got hosed. That is true of Ranger, SFAS, and virtually every similar course where subjective grading occurs.

Fair enough, it does appear to be common. But primarily from those that did not make it. "I was 48'ed", etc.

But it was interesting to me that DS, when asked, felt the RI's were "fair", in the sense that they were equally "unfair". It sucked, they made it suck more, but it was supposed to suck. But there were very few surprises, they knew what was expected, were told how to do it. And his experience was that they were fairly consistent, as much as you can be with a subjective grading. You just had to do the exercise, despite the suck. And very strict standards on certain things. Squad member with a Canteen not full at the beginning of a graded patrol, no go. That simple. But it was objective, by his accounts. Peers could certainly be gamed against 1 or maybe 2. But he did not see even that occur. Even the infamous pushup counts, etc, he saw no evidence of "48'ing", though there was an RI behind his group counting "47, 47, 47" over and over again. Probably to psych them out. The consensus seems to be that there is more variance between individual RI's than recent grads saw subjective treatment of individuals by a single RI.

That a bunch of young male LTs (in all their, as you put it, LT wisdom) think this woman was given special treatment and they had it harder is neither surprising nor of interest. It's boilerplate criticism at this point, and an adult game of telephone.

Some of your point is valid and likely occurs. But it is not at all what the recent RS grads I know are saying. They do not think they had it harder. DS and a close friend were lucky enough to go straight through. Another close friend, arguably in better shape from the same IBOLC class, recycled every phase. But none were "double No-Go's". There is a difference between preferential grading, compromised standards, etc versus being given additional opportunities rarely if ever given to male officers. And it was not one woman, it was three, which certainly raises questions about the anomalies.

As to the LT's, the ones I know are just glad to be done and out to their unit, some to be out of that particular spotlight which they did not chose, etc. In DS's case, the females in his company did not make it out of RAP week and none inserted later. So he feels fortunate to have missed that particular complexity.

But I noticed you chose not to address those items that are fairly clear anomalies. They are not rumor, BS conspiracy theories, "he man woman hater rhetoric". It is apparently very rare, to the point of being almost unheard of in recent memory, for officers to fail Darby twice and be allowed to day 1 recycle. It does apparently occur some with Batt-boys. There are some specific reasons it's very unlikely to occur, and it would involve boards. Especially when the press releases were that the females peered well, which implies they failed graded patrols twice, which is normally a drop. (Which was also alluded to by RTB spokesman, and it's pretty clear the females were not recycled for spots.)

Yes, they did not have IN background besides the rushed RTAC training. But other branches (even Aviation, gasp) manage to occasionally make it through patrols with similar rushed training. Certainly do with a recycle.

So I agree with your core point that the females certainly did not take an easy path, and that some aspects of whining will always occur.

But it also appears that while the formal standards were technically upheld, the board process was utilized to override a defacto standard. Which may technically be allowed by policy, but did the graduates no favors. And will be unlikely to repeat much without drawing attention.

Some of the stuff is clearly just noise... like the shredding of green cards, etc. That apparently is the norm, and done for some specific reasons, largely to benefit the graduates. And RS has it's own flavor of "The Corps has..." which is fully in play as well.

None of this should be interpreted as a slight to the women involved. They clearly did a very hard thing, that no other females had done before. People seem to view any discussion on the process as an attack on the individual.

 

[scoutpilot]

I actually agree with your core point you ended up with, but your "And what position are you in to question it?" comment speaks for itself.

Yep. It's called a question, and they tend to be pretty clear and straightforward. Me like simple sentences. Me want cookie.

But I noticed you chose not to address those items that are fairly clear anomalies. They are not rumor, BS conspiracy theories, "he man woman hater rhetoric". It is apparently very rare, to the point of being almost unheard of in recent memory, for officers to fail Darby twice and be allowed to day 1 recycle. It does apparently occur some with Batt-boys. There are some specific reasons it's very unlikely to occur, and it would involve boards. Especially when the press releases were that the females peered well, which implies they failed graded patrols twice, which is normally a drop. (Which was also alluded to by RTB spokesman, and it's pretty clear the females were not recycled for spots.)

Yes, they did not have IN background besides the rushed RTAC training. But other branches (even Aviation, gasp) manage to occasionally make it through patrols with similar rushed training. Certainly do with a recycle.

Gasp indeed! Wow, it's hard to believe that even we aviators can do it. Golly gee whiz, mister. Who'd have thunk it?

You're right, I won't address that. To do so fully would require that I openly share privileged information this public forum. I can't do that, obviously. The easy way to address to that supposition is simply this: it's a fool's errand to believe what LTs have heard about what happens in other Ranger classes, or to other students, or to apply a "this is unheard of" standard to personnel management across all iterations of Ranger School.

You can know every lieutenant in the infantry branch. Unless they are an RI or were part of the RS leadership, it's all rumor and conjecture. And the rumors are stepping off before the truth has received the backbrief.

I leave you all to your conjecturing. Cheers.

 

[hawk]

Gasp indeed! Wow, it's hard to believe that even we aviators can do it. Golly gee whiz, mister. Who'd have thunk it?

Point being, while the odds are lower, a substantial number of non IN, or even non maneuver types manage well enough at patrols to graduate. So the "they were not used to doing Infantry Patrolling" public comments did not help.

You're right, I won't address that, as I will not openly share privileged information this public forum.

Fair enough... Except... it was information that was very publicly shared. By RTB leadership and PAO.

The easy address to that supposition is simply this: it's a fool's errand to believe what LTs have heard about what happens in other Ranger classes, or to other students, or to apply a "this is unheard of" standard to personnel management across all iterations of Ranger School.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. With average class size of 350-400, what, about 10 classes a year? And roughly half the class 2LT or 1LT's? Year after year. There is a very substantial pool of knowledge about how RS works, what to expect, what will get your dropped, when they may allow a day one recycle. What your recourse is in the boards. Much of which is communicated via IBOLC, and subsequently during RS by RI's. Likewise, I'm surprised to hear you've moved to RTB now. For some reason I was thinking you flew 206's.

You can know every lieutenant in the infantry branch. Unless they are an RI or were part of the RS leadership, it's all rumor and conjecture.

Easy to be dismissive. It's more than LT's, for sure. Beyond that I'm not going to say, this type of thing can be a career killer. And by the way, not even RI's are objective or in agreement on this subject. One I talked with on this subject was very supportive of the concept, and dismissive of subjective concerns. That said, the two passes at Darby, then a Day one recycle for the three female officers raised many eyebrows, young and old. Rumor? Do you deny that was the sequence of events? Or that it is very uncommon for officers? (Two males also received day one recycles from Darby that class, but minimal public info on them, luckily for them)

We've probably gone as far as is appropriate in this discussion, it's clear we will not agree on this point. It's OK, I don't have a dog in this hunt... my guy managed to miss the maelstrom. I think most wish CPT Griest well, and by all accounts she will do well.

The unfortunate thing is this type of anomaly creates a perception that will live on, and yet could have been avoidable. Instead of a day one recycle, go back to RTAC for a tune up which is fairly common. I know of multiple officers who were drops for various reasons (other than LOM), got a tune up, occasionally healed up, got their head straight, then attempted a 2nd time. So it could have been "No Harm, No foul, RS is just hard, but you got through it finally". It's happening quite a bit with the relatively new "Early Ranger" process USMA has been doing the last couple years. There are even the occasional c/o 2014 USMA grads recently leaving the Benning IN pipeline.

If I had a daughter attempting RS that's what I would have hoped for, anyway. There will always be those who question the subjective aspect, that's unavoidable. Even for males. But at least leave no room for conjecture on the publicly visible aspects.

From an organizational dynamics perspective, the real test will be the wave that will have the benefit of IBOLC. From the peanut gallery, I predict some will do well, sail through RS. Others will struggle. There have already been some quiet non-IBOLC washouts in the last few months. Minimal press, probably to their benefit. I don't think the press spotlight benefits anyone.

And I hope for their sake they are treated as just another wet nosed IN 2LT. I know that's all my guy wanted, and was thankful he was able to get that. And for what it's worth, he has no patience or desire to spend any time discussing or pondering this issue. It's happening, it may or may not be fair, does not matter, it's their concern not mine. Like males, some will be good and deserving, others not. Just want to run a platoon for a while.

 

[scoutpilot]

As I said, enjoy your conjecture. The information to which I am fortunate to have access is nothing you've heard from a PAO. Nor should it be.

Yes, I fly 206s. And your son polishes the barracks hallway.

 

[AJC]

As a veteran hallway (we called them passageways) polisher, I take no offense. They also serve who stoop and scrub. But talk about conjecture.

Perhaps information that is not public should be kept that way.

Just sayin'

 

[hawk]

As I said, enjoy your conjecture. The information to which I am fortunate to have access is nothing you've heard from a PAO. Nor should it be.

Fair enough. Though you'd think you'd think public statements by RTB leadership and PAO would not be out of alignment with your privy info.

Yes, I fly 206s. And your son polishes the barracks hallway.

Really. Attack my son now??? He sure did his share of trash details while waiting for class. Its what the non-privy folks had to do while waiting for RS, and he was in pretty good company doing so. Who knows, maybe he'll have to do it again.

I think you may have misunderstood my 206 comment, I'd have loved to flown JetRangers for uncle Sam, I had to become a pilot on my own. That was not intended as a slight, I'm envious.

But its very telling that you'd stoop to insulting young men who are following the same commissioning path you took, just to shut down discussion. I hope for all of us that attempted retribution is not next. Sins of the Father and all that. Likewise, it's a very big assumption that this discussion is somehow just LT tall tales.

It's clear the subject matter is toxic for officers young and old. You've made that very clear. I'm worn out on this subject, but I see now why the conjecture and innuendo flies. And the sad thing is that helps no one. Out.

 

[scoutpilot]

Fair enough. Though you'd think you'd think public statements by RTB leadership and PAO would not be out of alignment with your privy info.

The tip of the iceberg is in alignment with the rest of the iceberg. But you only get to see the tip.

Really. Attack my son now??? He sure did his share of trash details while waiting for class. Its what the non-privy folks had to do while waiting for RS, and he was in pretty good company doing so. Who knows, maybe he'll have to do it again.

I think you may have misunderstood my 206 comment, I'd have loved to flown JetRangers for uncle Sam, I had to become a pilot on my own. That was not intended as a slight, I'm envious.

But its very telling that you'd stoop to insulting young men who are following the same commissioning path you took, just to shut down discussion. I hope for all of us that attempted retribution is not next. Sins of the Father and all that. Likewise, it's a very big assumption that this discussion is somehow just LT tall tales.

Attack? Hardly. Merely highlighting the foolishness of a glib and uninformed statement that you now wish me to believe was, in context, some form of compliment.

Attempted retribution? Perhaps that's the sort of thing you might attempt and thus it enters your mind. Of all the things I spend my day doing, hunting down some new boot LT because his dad says helicopter dad stuff on the internet doesn't make the cut.

Don't lean to far forward while tilting at all these windmills. You'll topple right off the horse!

 

[hawk]

The tip of the iceberg is in alignment with the rest of the iceberg. But you only get to see the tip.

Toxic subject, I'm done

Attack? Hardly. Merely highlighting the foolishness of a glib and uninformed statement that you now wish me to believe was, in context, some form of compliment.

Just was surprised to hear someone from what I assumed was still aviation speaking on behalf of RTB. I'd love to have done your job, I had to pay for my flight time.

Attempted retribution? Perhaps that's the sort of thing you might attempt and thus it enters your mind. Of all the things I spend my day doing, hunting down some new boot LT because his dad says helicopter dad stuff on the internet doesn't make the cut.

Glad to hear. I would never have been concerned until you showed the level of venom in a comment clearly intended to disparage junior serving officers.

As mentioned a couple of posts prior, I will give benefit of doubt to serving officers. And specifically mentioned respect for your service and experience. So was very surprised to read such an unprofessional comment. And made me wonder how far you would carry this. Glad to hear that should not be a concern.

As to being a helicopter dad hopefully when you become a parent you'll be able to find the balance between being a parent who is involved with their kids lives and proud of their accomplishments, versus the stereotypical "Helo Parent". There is a difference.

If you think this was helo parent stuff, then you've never really met one. Come talk when you've launched two or three kids into adulthood successfully. I know it appears very easy.

I learned early on that tampering with my kids experience ultimately cheats them out of learning. So managed to curb those desires very early. That does not mean not being involved or understanding their world. There is a balance you have to achieve. But especially for mil kid, that means erring on the hands off, bite your tongue side.

That said, your are right in some aspects with the "Helicopter Dad" slur. I spent time in JetRangers and was a licensed civil pilot before you were born. Along with many other platforms. Does not make me cool, never served in the military. Low speed, High Drag.

 

[NavyHoops]

Ok let's end the personal stuff. It is really coming across poorly on all sides. If I was a young female candidate curious about pursuing a combat arms profession and looking up to the good Capt who is pursuing this path, I would confused as heck at what to believe. Heck if I read the comments on the article I would think people want to cause harm in so many ways for wanting to do that.

The bottom line is women are and will be in combat arms regardless of our personal opinions. The fact is none of us were in RTB personally as students or staff and know the finer details. It's all conjecture on our part. No male Ranger has had the scrutiny of their tab as these women have. It's the job of their leaders to set them up for success like any other young officer joining the command. I couldn't imagine being in the Capt's shoes. I wish her the best of luck and hope she knocks it out of the park just like any young Lt or Capt taking over a platoon or company.

 

[scoutpilot]

Ok let's end the personal stuff. It is really coming across poorly on all sides. If I was a young female candidate curious about pursuing a combat arms profession and looking up to the good Capt who is pursuing this path, I would confused as heck at what to believe. Heck if I read the comments on the article I would think people want to cause harm in so many ways for wanting to do that.

The bottom line is women are and will be in combat arms regardless of our personal opinions. The fact is none of us were in RTB personally as students or staff and know the finer details. It's all conjecture on our part. No male Ranger has had the scrutiny of their tab as these women have. It's the job of their leaders to set them up for success like any other young officer joining the command. I couldn't imagine being in the Capt's shoes. I wish her the best of luck and hope she knocks it out of the park just like any young Lt or Capt taking over a platoon or company.

You'll have to excuse me for respectfully not agreeing with this version of events. My stance from the first post in this thread is that her accomplishments are laudable in every respect. That is what a young female should take away.

As for the "conjecture" part, the reporting and tracking of their path through Ranger went far above and beyond RTB. There are many staffs that were deeply and thoroughly involved in what was a careful process of female integration across the SOF and broader combat arms enterprise, to include the first females and the follow on Reserve female, MAJ Jaster.

As for this supposed "venom" and "unprofessional comment" Hawk is clutching his figurative pearls over, I must admit I have no idea where to find it. I'm sure if such a comment exists, you will advise me and I'll adjust my course and glideslope.

There's plenty of value in this thread, but also plenty of needless hand-wringing over supposed special treatment that actually wasn't special.

Women are here to stay, as our equals. We should be proud of that.

 

[sean007]

As for this supposed "venom" and "unprofessional comment" Hawk is clutching his figurative pearls over, I must admit I have no idea where to find it. I'm sure if such a comment exists, you will advise me and I'll adjust my course and glideslope.

“And you have maintained my perpetually dim view of government employees”

“Yes, I fly 206s. And your son polishes the barracks hallway”




Truly these arguments are worthy of the great philosophers of ancient Greece. I believe it was Zeno of Elea who first put forth this line of argumentation in his Commentary on Plato's Parmenides when he proclaimed “ego teneo vos es , tamen quis sum ego” roughly translated this means; “I know you are, but what am I ?”

 

[scoutpilot]

“And you have maintained my perpetually dim view of government employees”

“Yes, I fly 206s. And your son polishes the barracks hallway”




Truly these arguments are worthy of the great philosophers of ancient Greece. I believe it was Zeno of Elea who first put forth this line of argumentation in his Commentary on Plato's Parmenides when he proclaimed “ego teneo vos es , tamen quis sum ego” roughly translated this means; “I know you are, but what am I ?”

Yes, that brand of sarcasm would truly make me fear retribution. Tantamount to an Article 15, I'd say. <--- *This is sarcasm.*

Surely the gentleman who impugned the whole of Army senior leadership wouldn't have any feathers ruffled by such obviously in-kind rejoinders.

I believe that Latin precedent was invoked in the landmark federal ruling Rubber v. Glue.

I think NavyHoops was correct. We're done here. I'm bowing out before this gets even sillier. Good day to all.

 

[hawk]

The debate definitions Ad Hominem and Genetic Fallacy come to mind.

And by the way, I look good in my Pearls!

Not worth wasting further time over this discussion. It's really just a philosophical corallary of Godwin's law...
the longer a discussion goes on the more likely shift personal. And the first to do so automatically loses, even if they had a valid point

We all have more important off topic subjects to debate, like "Can the F-35 really replace the A-10", "what's the deal with the Navy tattoo policy?", and my personal favorite: "is it OK to use a sharpie to mark out logo's on socks for R-day?".

Though I'm disappointed the USCG regulars did not weigh in for color commentary!

 

[hawk]

Surely the gentleman who impugned the whole of Army senior leadership wouldn't have any feathers ruffled by such obviously in-kind rejoinders.

If that was the take away, then I was not clear. Certainly not my intent nor point.

And maybe explains some of the defensiveness.

This is not that hard. Several potential answers that would make the whole question go away:
1) It's not that unusual to do day one recycles for officers after repeating a phase twice. In fact, it occurred X times in 2015.
or:
2) While it's not common, RTB felt it was worth doing a day one recycle because ABC
or even:
3) RTB reserves the right to award day one recycles to any candidate it deems fit, without explanation.
Or the ultimate:
4) Army stuff, we make the call, you don't need to know.

But if it's not addressed, or "you are wrong, you don't have the big picture", or "why are you opposed to these women", then it's not surprising there are questions.

I think NavyHoops was correct. We're done here. I'm bowing out before this gets even sillier. Good day to all.

Probably a good close for us all

 

[hawk]

the gentleman who impugned the whole of Army senior leadership

Also, if someone will point out where I "Impugned the whole of Army senior leadership" I will happily retract it...

 

[Sledge]

Also, if someone will point out where I "Impugned the whole of Army senior leadership" I will happily retract it...

He meant me, and it was an appropriately savage retort.