Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by LineInTheSand, Dec 4, 2010.
The video attached to the article is a little more telling than the article.
Hahaha damn. The USCG guys who were there definitely got jipped, even after they tried to remind him of it. I still don't agree with making the President the commander-in-chief...I mean yeah, I'm all for civilian control of the military too but lately, that part of the constitution doesn't seem to have much meaning anymore.
That's only because you're viewing it from a particular perspective. The reason our constitution has endured and has been envied by some many citizens outside of our country, is because it isn't changed every 2 years when we have turnover in the congress. Our founding fathers were smart. They wanted a constitution that was a PITA to change. THANK GOODNESS!!! If you look back at many of our commander's in chiefs, they took their responsibilities seriously and performed well. Especially in time of war. Matter of fact, I can't really think of anything in the constitution that should be changed. It's just that many American Citizens have no idea the meaning of the constitution, the power THAT WE and our states have ALLOWED the federal government to have; and instead, many believe that the federal government is suppose to be "In charge".
Just because you get a president once in a while that isn't as competent, and doesn't perform all his duties as well, doesn't mean the constitution is wrong. There isn't one thing that is wrong with having the president as the commander in chief. Not one. Now, whether or not a particular sitting president performs their duties as commander in chief effectively as a good leader.... Well that's another subject all together.
Just my personal opinion but I think our current president forgets all the armed services, or would like to do so.
Well, that's out there now!
A QUICK NOTE:
Please remember that this is a Service Academy oriented site. Although you may or may not agree with particular members of the military or civilian leadership we ask that you refrain from potentially disparaging remarks.
Agreed and understood KP. And Chockstock; in case the post was directed at me, let me personally say that I wasn't trying to be disparaging towards you in any way. Many/Most of my posts, especially when a question/answer is involved, are usually written in the 3rd person and is intended for the broader audience. Not only the person who wrote the original question. My point was that there is a very good reason the president is the Commander in Chief. There's also a very good reason why the constitution can't easily be changed. "Especially in times when we see something that doesn't appear to be efficient, even though it may be constitutional". There are those that think the electoral college isn't a good idea; that with modern technology, we could simply have a popular vote for president. Some even think we should be a true democracy instead of a "Representative Republic". There are reasons our government was set up a particular way. And honestly, our founders were genius' in their foresight.
So please don't take my response in this thread, or ANY thread personally. I usually tend to respond to the "Topic" and not the person writing the post. In the hopes that people will look beyond this one specific topic and look at the bigger picture. Anyway; if by chance, you thought my response was personal, it was not intended to be. Simply that we all should look outside of a particular subject, and towards the bigger picture. Especially in this subject thread. And my comments were not meant to be disparaging to Mr. Obama either. Each leader has their own styles. Some are more involved with the military than others. Some may be more involved in domestic affairs. My point was; just because this president may not appear to be as involved in his role as CIC, doesn't mean that the responsibilities and duties of the president being CIC should be removed. The military needs that 1 person to be responsible for military decisions, that could and most likely will affect others aspects of our country and citizens. That needs to be an elected office and an individual. Not an entire congress, not secretary of defense, etc.. The elected office and 1 individual who must be responsible, is the president. Just looking at the bigger picture.mike.....
I'm sure we can all agree that if the Commander in Chief is speaking at a base, any base, he should know who is stationed there. Granted the Coast Guard's only been around for 220 years, it's easy to overlook them...
Just out of curiosity how many Coast Guardsmen are deployed to Afghanistan and what are they doing there? It doesn't seem like there is anything there that would be remotely related to any USCG mission?
Except shipping things in an out.... the Army/Navy/Marine Corps/Air Force aren't experts on inspections. Coast Guard sends service members on RAID teams aka "Redeployment and Inspection Detachments."
I'm guessing the President of the United States of America has access to that information....
I don't know the exact numbers, but some are stationed at the air base. It probably comes as a surprise, as there is no coastline in Afghanistan....of course, with the exception of SEALs and Corpmen, I would love to know how much Navy is in Afghanistan too.
I believe it was a Chief Petty Officer who yelled it out. Props to him. I want to confirm that, and send him a package. They have 1 year tours in Afghanistan.
Meh, not a big deal. This is a mountain out of a molehill. Personally, I think it's rude to call out the President of the United States - regardless of perceived slight. It was obviously done to attempt to embarrass. I hope he was reprimanded.
BTW - Plenty Navy are in Afghanistan. Many are in a program called IA (Individual Augmentation) some volunteer and some not. Navy medical personnel are also in Afghanistan, including Corpsmen who accompany Marines on missions since the Marines do not have their own Corpsmen.
Are they assigned as a unit or are they individual augmentees? I am just curious about the mission as it clearly is an atypical Coast Guard mission.
As far as how many Navy - I don't know the numbers but above and beyond the Seals, there are a fair number of Navy guys who were essentially pulled from their primary specialties and and retrained into shortage areas. I know that there are submariners who are or were assigned to and even commanding Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) (which must have been quite a shock to his system when he got that command) and I know Navy Intel and targeting analysts who have spent a tour at Bagram . It's a long way from the water to Afghanistan anyway you look at it.
Apparently you missed where I mentioned "Corpsmen" or HMs. He should be embarrassed. I praise him for not allowing his service to be over looked. Embarrassment is warranted. The actual video is far less attractive. His reaction didn't help him out at all. That chief has many more fans now. Being overlooked is not a slight, it's ignorance.
They are not IAs, they are assigned to the teams. Inspections is the opposite of "atypical". I had a friend on a RAID team. I gave him the props he deserved. Apparently working with the Army isn't the easiest thing to do, especially when "inspections" aren't their "specialty....
I do know from my 101st friend that soldiers weren't the biggest fans of the RAID teams either.
It's not rude to call out "Don't forget the coast guard". And it is NOT OBVIOUS that is was done in an attempt to embarrass Mr. Obama. It is MORE OBVIOUS that it was an attempt at a little humor, at an oversight, that hopefully Obama would have recognized and picked up on and corrected himself on. There is nothing to reprimand anyone for. "TALK ABOUT MAKING A MOUNTAIN OUT OF A MOLEHILL".
I'm still trying to figure out where the mountain is that JAM refers to.....
Was it the fact that a single thread was started on a random website, that hundreds, and likely thousands of Coasties were understandably offended, or that Politico picked up on it?
On the same day Obama forgot about the Coast Guard, it's Commandant was testifying in Congress.
I'm sure that Christcorp has this right- I'm sure that it was an unfortunate but inadvertent oversight, and that whoever yelled out Coast Guard wasn't being rude either. After all 15 seconds earlier every other group was sounding off so I think that him calling it out fit into the spirit of the things just fine. It would have been nice if the President had been a little faster on his feet to correct himself maybe with a little humor at his own expense, but I don't think that he was trying to be insulting to the Coasties who he overlooked there at Bagram. Let's not let this descend into a free for all between posters here ok?
At CVW both the Parent forum and Cadet Q&A mentioned this aspect. Apparently it is very common now to head straight to the sandbox (they even had a nickname for it, something like "dirt cruise", etc).
While I'm sure there are exceptions, it sounded like if you are in certain technical/specialist fields (medical, etc) you are headed that way. And clearly non-technical types as well.
Of the parents on the forum board, two or three had graduates on land in Iraq/Afghanistan right now.
A friend's son is doing the same for USAF (he's in the medical field). Been in 'stan twice for tours.
Separate names with a comma.