Transpo officer

[scoutpilot]

Weasel out of your quote all you want, but per the above, all the manly men from USMA are supposed to be about "closing and destroying the enemy" - hardly the job of the Corps of Engineers. Those guys help with the fluffy crap of nation building and aren't exactly tasked with "closing and destroying".

Weasel out? Please. Again, you quite clearly do not know what you're talking about with regard to the engineer branch. Allow me to help you. The engineer branch, while inextricably linked in name and structure to the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), is a warfighting branch of the US Army charged with the battlefield effect of using terrain as a weapon and denying its use to the enemy. The USACE is an Army Major Command (like FORSCOM or TRADOC) and is a public works entity which leverages the capabilities of the Army's engineers.

To be sure that you understand what that means, considering the following (from FM 3-34 Engineer Operations):

3-63. As discussed in chapter 2, all engineer units must be prepared to conduct their mission while in close combat. This is referred to as fighting as engineers and is inherent to the primary mission of engineer units. Engineer units, particularly combat engineer units, also have the secondary mission to be prepared to fight as infantry. This section discusses both cases of engineers in close combat.

Fact.

And if you read my quote carefully, you would recognize that degrees weren't required for all Engineering slots.

Degrees in engineering are not required to branch into engineers. Some advanced engineer positions later in an officer's career may involve engineering degrees.

And of course, you didn't say anything about the EOD guys in Ordnance (who must be responsible for goat vaccination as a member of a support branch). Yeah, they aren't "closing and destroying the enemy", they just keep the other guys from "closing and destroying our team" - hardly a coward's job.

Yes, the small, small group of them in EOD do great work. It's also not a job you can branch into. Beyond that, they are from what the branch "does" as a whole. Not even close. Transportation has boats. That doesn't make them a navy.

You love to disparage folks who signed up for branches that you think aren't manly enough - hardly the type of leadership that builds a team. Oh, yeah those transportation guys who are easy targets for the Taliban aren't part of your team.

Your words, not mine.

Point here is that cadets should sign up for branches that fit their talents and interests. If you have a talent towards computer/networks/etc., keeping Signal Corps off your branch list because of some misguided sense of what a "real officer" does is not doing your country any favors.

Again, those are your words. No one called anyone a "real officer" but you. Cadets should desire to lead from the front, into combat, because someone else's kid is depending on that leadership, and that kid didn't get all the free education and fun trips and perks of being at USMA. You took all the perks. You can't be afraid to face the fire.

If USMA didn't feel that way too, they wouldn't require 85% of males to branch combat arms.

 

[Aglahad]

I laughed out loud at that. Well done.

Scout, you need to come down to WF and tell these cadets wanting combat arms/MFE ( Yes I know the system changed) to become more "able-bodied" a lot of them just don't look up to par. Wouldn't want a support guy like me to out "able body" them...

Scout you also know well the engineer branch is very broad depending whether the element is horizontal, vertical, combat etc. Yeah we all know engineers is MFE but it's not like every unit is kicking in doors or clearing roads.

Regarding EOD: I don't know about USMA but ROTC has guaranteed Ordnance with EOD slots now.

As some here know I did combat arms for CTLT and wasn't whole heartedly shocked by the able-bodiedness but maybe I wasn't paying enough attention*shrug*

 

[scoutpilot]

Scout, you need to come down to WF and tell these cadets wanting combat arms/MFE ( Yes I know the system changed) to become more "able-bodied" a lot of them just don't look up to par. Wouldn't want a support guy like me to out "able body" them...

Scout you also know well the engineer branch is very broad depending whether the element is horizontal, vertical, combat etc. Yeah we all know engineers is MFE but it's not like every unit is kicking in doors or clearing roads.

Regarding EOD: I don't know about USMA but ROTC has guaranteed Ordnance with EOD slots now.

As some here know I did combat arms for CTLT and wasn't whole heartedly shocked by the able-bodiedness but maybe I wasn't paying enough attention*shrug*

You're focusing on the able-bodied part (which is a red herring, as anyone at USMA or in ROTC is already able-bodied and if they are not should be gone) when what you should be focusing on is the mentality.

I'm sure you find yourself to be in phenomenal shape. Is that the point?

 

[Aglahad]

You're focusing on the able-bodied part (which is a red herring, as anyone at USMA or in ROTC is already able-bodied and if they are not should be gone) when what you should be focusing on is the mentality.

I'm sure you find yourself to be in phenomenal shape. Is that the point?

I'm in decent enough shape for support I guess....my repeated motif of able bodiedness was more trolling if anything. Your use of the word seemed ambiguous to me in regards to why someone should choose MFE instead of support.

What I'm getting at is your focus on combat leadership as the only form of leadership worth anythjng for a junior officer and support is something of the second class variety.

 

[scoutpilot]

I'm in decent enough shape for support I guess....my repeated motif of able bodiedness was more trolling if anything. Your use of the word seemed ambiguous to me in regards to why someone should choose MFE instead of support.

What I'm getting at is your focus on combat leadership as the only form of leadership worth anythjng for a junior officer and support is something of the second class variety.

I don't think combat leadership is the only form of leadership. Far from it. In fact, there are many more challenging forms. That being said, I think the DESIRE to lead in combat is important. I understand this young man's natural concern over his own abilities. But at the end of the day, a young man at USMA (in my rarely humble opinion) owes it to his country and its soldiers to seek leadership roles in the combat arms, because the combat arms are why the Army exists at all and they are the reason the Army gets up in the morning to do what we do.

 

[LineInTheSand]

I do wonder if there are positions in combat arms that aren't "leadership heavy."

Scout, what kind of leadership in combat are you able to achieve from a helo? Is it more of the leadership on the ground or are you able to lead from the air? Most people think infantry when you say "combat".

I've had Marine friends say infantry is the only real Marine, everything else is just support (including Cobra and 46 pilots). Not too sure I agree with that, and I can't confirm if it's widely held.

 

[scoutpilot]

The saying used to be "Either you are a Grunt or a POG (person other than Grunt )." Does that answer your question?

Oh it's very much a prevalent culture in the Army, too. It's something you deal with. Every Grunt is a hardass and every pilot is a lazy sack until the Grunts are knee deep in it and then a helicopter pilot is their best friend. It's just one of those things.

As far as leading from the air, as the air mission commander you have a lot of leadership to exercise. Where, when, and how to employ your assets to achieve the maximum effect, and how to tie in with other assets to provide the best capability to your commander (JAAT, HAR, etc.).

That doesn't even touch on all the things you have to do when things go wrong.

 

[LineInTheSand]

Real West Point grads go combat.... as in, join the Baltimore Ravens.

 

[scoutpilot]

Real West Point grads go combat.... as in, join the Baltimore Ravens.

Ugh. Tell me about it.

 

[BigBear]

Real West Point grads go combat.... as in, join the Baltimore Ravens.

I don't know of any West Point grads joining the ravens.

If you're talking about Steelman, he hasn't graduated yet.

 

[LineInTheSand]

I don't know of any West Point grads joining the ravens.

If you're talking about Steelman, he hasn't graduated yet.

Ohhhh.... so he's going to be a pro cadet! I see. I thought he was going to graduate and then pay off his time from the Army doing puppet shows in alley ways when he isn't playing football.

 

[scoutpilot]

Ohhhh.... so he's going to be a pro cadet! I see. I thought he was going to graduate and then pay off his time from the Army doing puppet shows in alley ways when he isn't playing football.

He's saying something interesting. Tent Steelman hasn't graduated yet?! Graduation was weeks ago. Methinks something is afoot.

 

[buff81]

He's saying something interesting. Tent Steelman hasn't graduated yet?! Graduation was weeks ago. Methinks something is afoot.

Ex-Army QB Steelman Mulls Olympic Bobsled Run

Times Herald-Record
Published: 2:00 AM - 06/11/13

....... Steelman will graduate West Point in August. Injuries and surgeries prevented Steelman from fulfilling his summer military requirements in the past. Steelman will spend three to four weeks as a commanding officer at Camp Buckner starting in July.

 

[mbitr]

Why, as an able-bodied young man, are you considering a support branch as your first choice?

Haha, I swear half the reason I check these forums as much as I do is because I get a kick out of some of the stuff that just gets tossed out there. Young man wants details about a branch choice and suddenly it's a race to see who can chug the most infantry-blue colored Kool-Aid. Besides, having served in an aviation brigade I don't quite understand where you're coming from. I'm sure the training pipeline is demanding for pilots but it was hands down the most relaxed environment I've ever experienced in the Army.

Trans is my first choice as well, but I have no particular sense of branch loyalty. This would be the third branch affiliation I've held since I've been in. Years of radiation from being a radioman may have fried my brain, Chockstock, but I'm certain that if someone insinuates you're less of a man (because none of those females that died in combat count, I guess) because of your branch choice they're blowing smoke at you. Running convoys probably isn't what you'd call a healthy life decision to begin with. al Qaeda doesn't care what you branch and Ranger tabs don't deflect IEDs.

It doesn't matter what you decide to put on your lapel. Any service is honorable and good and worthy of praise. It wasn't too long ago that Uncle Sam was shoving fist-fulls of dollars at kids like me to fill his ever-thinning ranks. The fact that you raised your right hand and agreed to go when so few of our generation were willing to do so is enough. Just remember that the uniform and all its badges and flair come off at some point. Oh, and thank you for being considerate enough to give yourself an honest assessment at where you're best suited to serve. I wish more of the officers I served with had the strength to do the same.

 

[MabryPsyD]

I've been appalled by some of the comments made in this thread. Apparently, if someone chooses a branch other than combat arms, they are less of an officer. I guess encountering secondary IEDs to assist the wounded isn't considered honorable. I could have remained silent, but this thread was eating away at me. "Some" of you need to be more respectful of your fellow officers. Despicable gentlemen, despicable...

 

[scoutpilot]

I've been appalled by some of the comments made in this thread. Apparently, if someone chooses a branch other than combat arms, they are less of an officer. I guess encountering secondary IEDs to assist the wounded isn't considered honorable. I could have remained silent, but this thread was eating away at me. "Some" of you need to be more respectful of your fellow officers. Despicable gentlemen, despicable...

Blah, blah, blah. Read the content of the thread. Think about what's being said. Does being a Doc who specializes in video game addiction make you less of an officer? Depends who you ask. Does it make you less of a warfighter? Absolutely. And warfighting is why we have an Army. Otherwise, we'd just let USAID do it.

That doesn't mean what you do isn't excellent and important. But that isn't the point officership. My car keeps me warm as hell, but I don't own a car because I needed to stay warm. Its purpose is to get me from A to B. I realize that's a heretical viewpoint, though the combat arms officers (Army and Marine) in this thread seem to get it.

FYI, the vast majority of soldiers killed by IEDs are (wait for it)...combat arms. The old "there are no front lines" schtik rings hollow.

The point is that if you want all the pay, benefit, and respect that comes with being an officer in this Army, you'd best be willing to take the fight to the enemy, not looking for an easier path (and if he doesn't think Transpo is easier, then what does he think makes his leadership style a "better fit"?). If he thinks he wouldn't be a good combat arms officer, but would be an effective leader in Transpo, he's telling us exactly what he thinks about Transpo, and it ain't praise.

 

[Full Metal Bulldog]

Scout, what I personally am most confused about is what looks to be a recent change of heart on this subject on your part. Some if your old posts, such as "The Burning Man" and "So you want to be in combat?", which were very deep and introspection-provoking, and very well received on this forum, seemed to take a polar view on the subject: that combat arms at it's core meant getting shot at and sleeping in the mud, and it encouraged it's audience to to put a little more thought into branch choice. Now you seem to take a different perspective, that everyone should try to branch MFE and other branches should all be backup, regardless of interest or ability. Correct me if I'm wrong, but do you have a new perspective now?

My experience is limited, but if you want to be an Army Officer and love trains, trucks, boats, etc., and think warfighting logistics is something you'd enjoy, then branching Transportation makes perfect sense, regardless of grades, pt score, or how well you can lead. I'm around way too many friends peer-pressured into wanting infantry it's really disappointing.

 

[DHinNH]

Does being a Doc who specializes in video game addiction make you less of an officer?

The correct answer to this question is no.

 

[mbitr]

Blah, blah, blah. Read the content of the thread. Think about what's being said. Does being a Doc who specializes in video game addiction make you less of an officer? Depends who you ask. Does it make you less of a warfighter? Absolutely. And warfighting is why we have an Army. Otherwise, we'd just let USAID do it.

That doesn't mean what you do isn't excellent and important. But that isn't the point officership. My car keeps me warm as hell, but I don't own a car because I needed to stay warm. Its purpose is to get me from A to B. I realize that's a heretical viewpoint, though the combat arms officers (Army and Marine) in this thread seem to get it.

FYI, the vast majority of soldiers killed by IEDs are (wait for it)...combat arms. The old "there are no front lines" schtik rings hollow.

The point is that if you want all the pay, benefit, and respect that comes with being an officer in this Army, you'd best be willing to take the fight to the enemy, not looking for an easier path (and if he doesn't think Transpo is easier, then what does he think makes his leadership style a "better fit"?). If he thinks he wouldn't be a good combat arms officer, but would be an effective leader in Transpo, he's telling us exactly what he thinks about Transpo, and it ain't praise.

The way this reads made me look into your post history and holy cow, do you come off as a toxic leader. You're ambivalent at best towards CS/CSS branches and those who serve in them as well as women in combat. You're a pilot, dude. Why are you pretending to be a subject matter expert on the front line? How did you earn your CAB (if Army), if at all? Leading soldiers on the ground in combat? I don't mean to demean whatever is you did, but I'd like to know what your foundation is to make these sweeping declarations.

I was really thinking you'd back off and come to the light. But for you to call my dead friends part of as schtick to promote CS/CSS value against combat arms is so rancidly offensive. The pointy end of the stick rules all and everybody else can hang mentality--your mentality--got good people killed in Iraq. It's downright unprofessional to advise young Cadets in such a manner. Transpo is a different job than infantry or armor. Someone who might be happy and excel a doing one might be a miserable, poor fit for the other.,

 

[scoutpilot]

You're a pilot, dude. Why are you pretending to be a subject matter expert on the front line?

A question like that makes me think you probably don't know much about what's been going the past ten years.

How did you earn your CAB (if Army), if at all?

By killing the enemy. And being engaged by the enemy ( though the citation only reads that we engaged and destroyed them). The CAB is a joke feel-good medal anyway, because somebody got butthurt that the infantry has the CIB, but its de rigeur in a DA Photo now. If the CAB is your measure of who's done what, you're way off the mark.

I don't mean to demean whatever is you did...

Sure you do, but I won't lose sleep.

...but I'd like to know what your foundation is to make these sweeping declarations.

Almost 10 years of doing this crap in two different theaters. I notice you've yet to divulge where your expert analysis is derived from. What's good for the goose...

If you think my remark was intended to insult your friends, you're way off. I apologize that it might've been taken that way. Nonetheless my point is that the schtik about how so many QM/TC/OD guys are being chewed up by IEDs is a persistent trope that just isn't true. Many certainly have. I know several pilots with debilitating IED injuries from their time on MiTTs. But I won't pretend pilots are out there facing IEDs to the same degree the infantry/engineer/armor guys are. To say that would be no less offensive to them and their sacrifice. The reality is that the preponderance of those facing the IED threat are the land-owning combat units.

I'll say this as a final point: to say that you wouldn't be a good leader in combat arms but that you'd do well in CSS is an insult to CSS, because it assumes that they should be satisfied with a lesser degree of fitness, drive, tenacity, and competence. Instead of shying away from combat arms, I would submit that he should be pushing himself to increase his abilities. Or, as many have mentioned, not sell himself so short from the get-go.

As to DHinNH's response: The counter-argument would be that medical providers fall under protected Geneva status and thus cannot be the SRO in many situations where that applies (POW, etc.). I should've said that more clearly.