That turns promotion into a popularity based system.
Promotions are already a popularity contest.
"Dick-Sucking for Rank" is also a term that should be noted.
Completely different situation to have someone above you or a peer who will not be serving under you promoting you based on anything than the people who will be working directly under you promoting you based on the same thing.
"I like Johnson, he seems to be a good leader, and he's a hard worker"
v
"Yo, that dude won't make us work if we put him in charge" or "Gee, that guy won't do anything, but he'll take my advice on anything, so I'll be really in charge, but he'll have all the responsibility" or "Brah has a keg, let's put him in charge"
So you're talking about a complete overhaul of our military system, so that we can prevent exactly what from happening? You claim that there are dozens of other obvious examples, but you don't name any. Please, what obvious examples are we missing? Or is it just coincidence that America remains one of the few countries on the planet with a powerful military whose government has not been taken over by the military at some point?
Also, the two books you linked. One was written in 1871 and I don't believe applies to our modern military. The other hasn't been released yet and seems to be a philosophical work on war and democracy.
Why do we need to fix what isn't broken? America has the strongest military in the world today and soldiers generally have it pretty good. We need to change the entire way our military operates so, what? A few soldiers can protest in uniform? The risk versus reward here just doesn't seem that great.
Dude 1: We are going to go out there and patrol hard, and we are going to find the enemy and engage him, and some of you will probably die.
Dude 2: Lets just stay inside the base, and when we have to patrol lets not go too far.
Gee wonder who will win that election.
and
was elected twice.
tinwhiskers on
0
Options
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
edited April 2010
I swear to god we should just ban military-related threads from D and D
Because it inevitably turns into an argument between the ignorants who don't know how the military works or functions attacking strawmen, the people who are, well, in the military explaining how their perception is wrong because of X, Y, and Z function in the military, and the ignorants turning around and being willfully dense about the whole thing and continuing to attack the strawman in one hilariously awful, completely circular train ride of lunacy
I swear to god we should just ban military-related threads from D and D
Because it inevitably turns into an argument between the ignorants who don't know how the military works or functions attacking strawmen, the people who are, well, in the military explaining how their perception is wrong because of X, Y, and Z function in the military, and the ignorants turning around and being willfully dense about the whole thing and continuing to attack the strawman in one hilariously awful, completely circular train ride of lunacy
Well we already banned arguments from authority. It's in the sticky you clearly didn't read.
Don't want to debate the military? You don't actually have to.
poshniallo on
I figure I could take a bear.
0
Options
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
edited April 2010
There's a clear difference between arguing from authority and knowing what you're talking about, bud
Edit: To be clear, no-one's posted "I'm right because I'm in the military, therefore I'm right" they've posted "I'm right because of X, Y, and Z that the military has instituted that addresses your complaint"
If military leadership was elected by the military I would imagine the grunts wouldn't be treated like shit.
They aren't treated like shit. The only part that sucks is they're the ones doing the boring, dirty job 95% of the time because someone has to do those jobs. But I guarantee you an E-1 who spends his days mopping floors and scrubbing bathrooms is getting better pay, benefits, and respect from their supervisors than most janitors.
I like this thread though Rent. I've learned its the military's fault that things aren't handled in a way that they can't control, considering it takes an act of Congress to change the UCMJ. Plus that the military should be able to say no to going to war when told to go by the President/Congress, because polling says the American people don't want them to.
On a non sarcastic note I would leave the country if some of these suggestions took effect, considering a military coup doesn't sound enjoyable.
E.g. Squads vote for their leader. The leader then gives orders. Disobeying orders during combat is punished as it would be now.
The most popular is not the most capable. Leaders aren't there to be liked. The best leaders aren't necessarily liked. Everybody loves the leader who doesn't make sure they PT.
I see a lot of posts suggesting that the military would elect individuals that would be lenient on them. I have been in situations where these leaders have been actually chosen.
These individuals were either ejected from higher leaderships for performing poorly, or were twisted and hardened by constantly failing to meet expectations. They became less and less like enjoyable leaders, and more like the "tools" we particularly hate in our work-lives.
To summarize, the military, democratic or not, would evolve a leader that suits its purpose, or it will eject them for failing to perform. I believe a pure democratic choice would ultimately be wasteful, since leadership would be continuously cycled through until someone harsh and bold was elected.
Everybody loves the leader who doesn't make sure they PT.
I'd vote for that guy.
Actually, I lied. The best officer, and only officer I ever respected forced us to have a heightened PT program when we had none. Yes, it sucked, but this was before the military started restructuring it's PT program. We didn't see it coming, but he did, and in the end, he kind of saved a lot of our asses for being such a hardass himself.
Maverikk on
0
Options
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
edited April 2010
Also again I really don't understand how difficult of a concept it is to understand that what is popular is not necessarily what is right
I mean seriously
Also you do understand that just...I don't even...I can't... okay look, seriously suggesting squads elect their leaders is opening the floodgates for nepotism and cronyism of a level never before seen
I just don't
That idea is so mindnumbingly dumb that anyone who suggests this with a straight face has literally no idea what they are talking about
To put it on a personal note: I went suicidal in Iraq. At the suggestion/voluntelling of my section chief (the equivalent of squad leader), I went to mental health to work out those issues. If I hadn't I probably wouldn't be here right now posting. Now if my section elected him, and I didn't vote for him, he would be disinclined to have given me the crucial help I needed when I needed it. So you know I'd kinda be dead
Rent on
0
Options
DynagripBreak me a million heartsHoustonRegistered User, ClubPAregular
You know, seeing as America is ripping itself apart because one set of ass-hats with a unrelenting set of principles versus another set of ass-hats with equally adamant principles, we are starting to see one of the worse parts of democracy. Nothing gets done.
I think the problem is that one side is utterly amoral and cynical and could give a fuck about the issues so long as they're able to claw and scrape their way back into power, to the benefit of their wealthy patrons.
I see a lot of posts suggesting that the military would elect individuals that would be lenient on them. I have been in situations where these leaders have been actually chosen.
These individuals were either ejected from higher leaderships for performing poorly, or were twisted and hardened by constantly failing to meet expectations. They became less and less like enjoyable leaders, and more like the "tools" we particularly hate in our work-lives.
To summarize, the military, democratic or not, would evolve a leader that suits its purpose, or it will eject them for failing to perform. I believe a pure democratic choice would ultimately be wasteful, since leadership would be continuously cycled through until someone harsh and bold was elected.
Everybody loves the leader who doesn't make sure they PT.
I'd vote for that guy.
Actually, I lied. The best officer, and only officer I ever served under forced us to have a heightened PT program when we had none. Yes, it sucked, but this was before the military started restructuring it's PT program. We didn't see it coming, but he did, and in the end, he kind of saved a lot of our asses for being such a hardass himself.
war, being a life and death affair, does not lend a lot of free time to 'adjust' to a leadership role.
I guess you guys are going to ignore the entire field of political studies and go with 'Democracy is bad because popularity is bad. Like high school. This one time at band camp....'
Then I can't make you stop pretending that any educated adult knows there's more to politics than this.
Just as I can't make you stop pretending that there's more than one definition of 'works'. The military works. So did slave-owning societies. They could have worked better.
So the question I have is I why do you think playing dumb is worth doing, given life is short?
poshniallo on
I figure I could take a bear.
0
Options
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
edited April 2010
Oh boy! The "people in the military are ignorant fucksticks" arguement!
I am greatly looking forward to this doozy of a zinger!
I guess you guys are going to ignore the entire field of political studies and go with 'Democracy is bad because popularity is bad. Like high school. This one time at band camp....'
No, I have not. I've actually given pretty reasonable level headed responses as to why that wouldn't work. Popular =/= best for the group. Especially should the group consist solely of teenagers deciding who it is that should lead them through a hostile area.
Could you maybe explain why, despite the obvious draw backs, popular would be better? You know, other than some people would get a guy they like in charge for a while?
Oh boy! The "people in the military are ignorant fucksticks" arguement!
I am greatly looking forward to this doozy of a zinger!
That's a strawman again.
You're playing dumb for rhetorical purposes.
You're not dumb at all.
Neither are you. So again, please explain why it's in the military's best interest for people to vote for the person that would make things easiest for them in the short term.
Oh boy! The "people in the military are ignorant fucksticks" arguement!
I am greatly looking forward to this doozy of a zinger!
That's a strawman again.
You're playing dumb for rhetorical purposes.
You're not dumb at all.
Neither are you. So again, please explain why it's in the military's best interest for people to vote for the person that would make things easiest for them in the short term.
The same reasons that it ever makes sense to vote for anyone, whether in civilian life or military.
The country that you live in has a strong rhetoric of the benefits of democracy, so you are already aware of these reasons.
poshniallo on
I figure I could take a bear.
0
Options
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
I guess you guys are going to ignore the entire field of political studies and go with 'Democracy is bad because popularity is bad. Like high school. This one time at band camp....'
No, I have not. I've actually given pretty reasonable level headed responses as to why that wouldn't work. Popular =/= best for the group. Especially should the group consist solely of teenagers deciding who it is that should lead them through a hostile area.
Could you maybe explain why, despite the obvious draw backs, popular would be better? You know, other than some people would get a guy they like in charge for a while?
Stop playing dumb Quid
And on that note I'm going drinking now. I didn't do 10 1/2 months in Iraq and severely negatively affect my mental health so my profession would be mocked by a bunch of selfish ingrates over the internet
As a plus, perhaps being drunk will help the opposition's arguements make more sense
I guess you guys are going to ignore the entire field of political studies and go with 'Democracy is bad because popularity is bad. Like high school. This one time at band camp....'
Then I can't make you stop pretending that any educated adult knows there's more to politics than this.
Just as I can't make you stop pretending that there's more than one definition of 'works'. The military works. So did slave-owning societies. They could have worked better.
So the question I have is I why do you think playing dumb is worth doing, given life is short?
Please explain to me how the "entire field of political studies" is applicable with all of its subtleties in a small group of people choosing their direct boss.
While you guys are arguing about about strawmen, the wizard of Oz, and worrying about who is right and wrong, I'm going to go work on my car. You know, get stuff done. Objectively, efficiently, and expeditiously.
This is not something that can be done if I get too worried about who comes out of this circular logic as the winner. Or, in other words, the leader of this argument.
Oh boy! The "people in the military are ignorant fucksticks" arguement!
I am greatly looking forward to this doozy of a zinger!
That's a strawman again.
You're playing dumb for rhetorical purposes.
You're not dumb at all.
Neither are you. So again, please explain why it's in the military's best interest for people to vote for the person that would make things easiest for them in the short term.
The same reasons that it ever makes sense to vote for anyone, whether in civilian life or military.
The country that you live in has a strong rhetoric of the benefits of democracy, so you are already aware of these reasons.
That's not an argument.
How do the benefits of Democracy to the political process translate into benefits to the military?
How does the military electing it's leaders make it function better?
The same reasons that it ever makes sense to vote for anyone, whether in civilian life or military.
You haven't shown how it makes sense in the military. The military has to maintain minimal levels of fitness and readiness. It has to do this despite the fact that it's a pain in the ass for the lower enlisted and they don't want to drill. In order to do this it needs leaders actually capable of leading people, not ones that can convince a bunch to teenagers that they are up until it's actually time to do so.
Edit: Also, I said besides some people would get a guy in charge they like for a while.
I guess you guys are going to ignore the entire field of political studies and go with 'Democracy is bad because popularity is bad. Like high school. This one time at band camp....'
Then I can't make you stop pretending that any educated adult knows there's more to politics than this.
Just as I can't make you stop pretending that there's more than one definition of 'works'. The military works. So did slave-owning societies. They could have worked better.
So the question I have is I why do you think playing dumb is worth doing, given life is short?
I am genuinely curious as to why you think the United States military is currently, or ever has been, a political entity.
Also, stop mischaracterizing our argument. We aren't saying democracy is bad. We're saying democracy in the context of the military would be inherently unworkable the way we have it set up. Even if we could work out ways to implement such a system, it would be a DRASTIC overhaul of the way our military operates.
Now, WHY should we do this? You have given us no coherent argument explaining the HUGELY important problems that must exist in this current system. It would just be silly to restructure our military over minor quibbles, right? Right?
Also, stop mischaracterizing our argument. We aren't saying democracy is bad. We're saying democracy in the context of the military would be inherently unworkable the way we have it set up. Even if we could work out ways to implement such a system, it would be a DRASTIC overhaul of the way our military operates.
Drastic overhaul? I'm not aware of any successful military that regularly decided leaders by vote.
As someone in the military the lack of freedom's we have are essential. It's not as easy to see it when I am working a desk job in the states but when I am operational its very clear. The downfall of it is if you have a bad leader then shits fucked up. the alternative would be a lot more messy though.
Now for personal freedoms (protesting wage and what not) we have a lot of lobbying groups (VFW, MOA, ect.) that represent us rather well. Also, most POTUSs as of late (including Obama) have taken care of us as well.
Protein, I am convinced that you are either an ALT (you registered yesterday...) or just a troll.
Greg USN on
FFXIV Petra Ironheart Infinity Mog 21 and over Free Company Sargatanas Server. Recruitment currently closed.
E.g. Squads vote for their leader. The leader then gives orders. Disobeying orders during combat is punished as it would be now.
How would privates (or any junior enlisted) decide which candidate would be competent and fit for leadership? Privates have very little experience in the military and an extremely limited grasp of military doctrine, they would be incapable of determining whether or not a candidate for promotion would be sufficiently knowledgeable. They would vote for the candidate that was the most charismatic, and treated them the best.
There are times when a private may feel mistreated because of the amount of corrective training he receives. Corrective training is necessary in order to instill discipline and respect in new privates and it is the corner stone of the resocialization process that new recruits in basic training endure. Corrective training would disappear with the advent of a democratic selection process, and it would be impossible to maintain discipline.
Not to mention that every freedom a military member volunteers to give up during their service, they get benefits and privileges in compensation that the civilians they protect do not receive. It's a sacrifice and always will be, but it's not as if there's no compensation for it.
The military pays for your education (i.e. go to college/take classes FOR FUCKING FREE / at no personal cost to the service member) while in active duty and pays for it for four years worth outside of it (that you can also transfer to your dependents). It gives you allowances for housing and food or provides them for you. (For members of a great number of states) It gives you State Tax breaks or exemptions. And I'm not even going to mention the countless minor ones.
Not to mention that those brave souls that dedicate 20 years get military benefits and a check from the government for life. That's the earliest retirement of any career field (not counting professional sports).
What would be the tangible benefits of an elected squad leader vs. an appointed one? It seems like that would just create a big hassle every time the leadership changes. Do we really want people 'running' for shit like leader of a platoon or something?
Also, are people forgetting that the reason that officers are appointed from above in the first place is because, you know, in a war situation there's a good possibility the previous guy got killed and they need someone to fill his shoes immediately so the war can continue? I'm imagining a combat situation where you're losing people on a regular basis and every single time someone dies or gets transferred or whatever, there has to be an 'election'. This isn't just impractical, it's ridiculous.
We elect our government officials so they represent our interests for us (ideally, anyway). That doesn't translate to a military environment, where your 'interests' are handed down from you from on high in the form of objectives and duties. What is an elected military leader going to have as their platform? "Vote for me and we'll take that building/hill my way?" Are we going to hold elections for high-ranking officers like generals?
This is a completely absurd proposal. I'm not even in the military and it's exceedingly obvious even to me.
Duffel on
0
Options
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
edited April 2010
Wow, no, being drunk does NOT make their arguements make any more sense
As an aside, hey Scalfin! Why don't you just out-and-out say you hate the military and everything it embodies?It's far better then your passive=aggressive sniping at everything anyone ever says that's positive about it and your constant need to bring up. literally, 200 year old stuff in every military thread ever
Oh hey, I just got back from going to Midnight Chow at our DFAC. The new improvements started today.
Improvements by military members protesting through the official channels: filing complaint/request forms, dorm council meetings, bringing up gathered complaints to the 1st Sergeants, etc. Oh and hey, it worked! And changes requested were done!
Posts
Promotions are already a popularity contest.
"Dick-Sucking for Rank" is also a term that should be noted.
True enough, but that system would make it considerably worse.
Completely different situation to have someone above you or a peer who will not be serving under you promoting you based on anything than the people who will be working directly under you promoting you based on the same thing.
"I like Johnson, he seems to be a good leader, and he's a hard worker"
v
"Yo, that dude won't make us work if we put him in charge" or "Gee, that guy won't do anything, but he'll take my advice on anything, so I'll be really in charge, but he'll have all the responsibility" or "Brah has a keg, let's put him in charge"
Popularity with who? With the people under you or the people above you?
You know all the old adages about 'You can judge someone by the way they treat someone under them'.
If military leadership was elected by the military I would imagine the grunts wouldn't be treated like shit.
Also, the two books you linked. One was written in 1871 and I don't believe applies to our modern military. The other hasn't been released yet and seems to be a philosophical work on war and democracy.
Why do we need to fix what isn't broken? America has the strongest military in the world today and soldiers generally have it pretty good. We need to change the entire way our military operates so, what? A few soldiers can protest in uniform? The risk versus reward here just doesn't seem that great.
Dude 2: Lets just stay inside the base, and when we have to patrol lets not go too far.
Gee wonder who will win that election.
and
was elected twice.
Because it inevitably turns into an argument between the ignorants who don't know how the military works or functions attacking strawmen, the people who are, well, in the military explaining how their perception is wrong because of X, Y, and Z function in the military, and the ignorants turning around and being willfully dense about the whole thing and continuing to attack the strawman in one hilariously awful, completely circular train ride of lunacy
Well we already banned arguments from authority. It's in the sticky you clearly didn't read.
Don't want to debate the military? You don't actually have to.
Edit: To be clear, no-one's posted "I'm right because I'm in the military, therefore I'm right" they've posted "I'm right because of X, Y, and Z that the military has instituted that addresses your complaint"
They aren't treated like shit. The only part that sucks is they're the ones doing the boring, dirty job 95% of the time because someone has to do those jobs. But I guarantee you an E-1 who spends his days mopping floors and scrubbing bathrooms is getting better pay, benefits, and respect from their supervisors than most janitors.
Clearly the system where the military decides whether or not they want to follow orders is much better.
On a non sarcastic note I would leave the country if some of these suggestions took effect, considering a military coup doesn't sound enjoyable.
The most popular is not the most capable. Leaders aren't there to be liked. The best leaders aren't necessarily liked. Everybody loves the leader who doesn't make sure they PT.
These individuals were either ejected from higher leaderships for performing poorly, or were twisted and hardened by constantly failing to meet expectations. They became less and less like enjoyable leaders, and more like the "tools" we particularly hate in our work-lives.
To summarize, the military, democratic or not, would evolve a leader that suits its purpose, or it will eject them for failing to perform. I believe a pure democratic choice would ultimately be wasteful, since leadership would be continuously cycled through until someone harsh and bold was elected.
I'd vote for that guy.
Actually, I lied. The best officer, and only officer I ever respected forced us to have a heightened PT program when we had none. Yes, it sucked, but this was before the military started restructuring it's PT program. We didn't see it coming, but he did, and in the end, he kind of saved a lot of our asses for being such a hardass himself.
I mean seriously
Also you do understand that just...I don't even...I can't... okay look, seriously suggesting squads elect their leaders is opening the floodgates for nepotism and cronyism of a level never before seen
I just don't
That idea is so mindnumbingly dumb that anyone who suggests this with a straight face has literally no idea what they are talking about
To put it on a personal note: I went suicidal in Iraq. At the suggestion/voluntelling of my section chief (the equivalent of squad leader), I went to mental health to work out those issues. If I hadn't I probably wouldn't be here right now posting. Now if my section elected him, and I didn't vote for him, he would be disinclined to have given me the crucial help I needed when I needed it. So you know I'd kinda be dead
war, being a life and death affair, does not lend a lot of free time to 'adjust' to a leadership role.
especially when failure means someone dies.
Then I can't make you stop pretending that any educated adult knows there's more to politics than this.
Just as I can't make you stop pretending that there's more than one definition of 'works'. The military works. So did slave-owning societies. They could have worked better.
So the question I have is I why do you think playing dumb is worth doing, given life is short?
I am greatly looking forward to this doozy of a zinger!
That's a strawman again.
You're playing dumb for rhetorical purposes.
You're not dumb at all.
No, I have not. I've actually given pretty reasonable level headed responses as to why that wouldn't work. Popular =/= best for the group. Especially should the group consist solely of teenagers deciding who it is that should lead them through a hostile area.
Could you maybe explain why, despite the obvious draw backs, popular would be better? You know, other than some people would get a guy they like in charge for a while?
Neither are you. So again, please explain why it's in the military's best interest for people to vote for the person that would make things easiest for them in the short term.
The same reasons that it ever makes sense to vote for anyone, whether in civilian life or military.
The country that you live in has a strong rhetoric of the benefits of democracy, so you are already aware of these reasons.
Stop playing dumb Quid
And on that note I'm going drinking now. I didn't do 10 1/2 months in Iraq and severely negatively affect my mental health so my profession would be mocked by a bunch of selfish ingrates over the internet
As a plus, perhaps being drunk will help the opposition's arguements make more sense
Please explain to me how the "entire field of political studies" is applicable with all of its subtleties in a small group of people choosing their direct boss.
This is not something that can be done if I get too worried about who comes out of this circular logic as the winner. Or, in other words, the leader of this argument.
Did you vote for your boss?
Did you vote for your companies CEO?
Did you vote for any part of your profession?
That's not an argument.
How do the benefits of Democracy to the political process translate into benefits to the military?
How does the military electing it's leaders make it function better?
You haven't shown how it makes sense in the military. The military has to maintain minimal levels of fitness and readiness. It has to do this despite the fact that it's a pain in the ass for the lower enlisted and they don't want to drill. In order to do this it needs leaders actually capable of leading people, not ones that can convince a bunch to teenagers that they are up until it's actually time to do so.
Edit: Also, I said besides some people would get a guy in charge they like for a while.
Well, they did.
Does "no non-Christians allowed in the air force academy" count as a standard?
I am genuinely curious as to why you think the United States military is currently, or ever has been, a political entity.
Also, stop mischaracterizing our argument. We aren't saying democracy is bad. We're saying democracy in the context of the military would be inherently unworkable the way we have it set up. Even if we could work out ways to implement such a system, it would be a DRASTIC overhaul of the way our military operates.
Now, WHY should we do this? You have given us no coherent argument explaining the HUGELY important problems that must exist in this current system. It would just be silly to restructure our military over minor quibbles, right? Right?
That would actually be an example of people doing the popular thing instead of actually following standards.
Drastic overhaul? I'm not aware of any successful military that regularly decided leaders by vote.
Now for personal freedoms (protesting wage and what not) we have a lot of lobbying groups (VFW, MOA, ect.) that represent us rather well. Also, most POTUSs as of late (including Obama) have taken care of us as well.
Protein, I am convinced that you are either an ALT (you registered yesterday...) or just a troll.
Infinity Mog 21 and over Free Company Sargatanas Server. Recruitment currently closed.
How would privates (or any junior enlisted) decide which candidate would be competent and fit for leadership? Privates have very little experience in the military and an extremely limited grasp of military doctrine, they would be incapable of determining whether or not a candidate for promotion would be sufficiently knowledgeable. They would vote for the candidate that was the most charismatic, and treated them the best.
There are times when a private may feel mistreated because of the amount of corrective training he receives. Corrective training is necessary in order to instill discipline and respect in new privates and it is the corner stone of the resocialization process that new recruits in basic training endure. Corrective training would disappear with the advent of a democratic selection process, and it would be impossible to maintain discipline.
The military pays for your education (i.e. go to college/take classes FOR FUCKING FREE / at no personal cost to the service member) while in active duty and pays for it for four years worth outside of it (that you can also transfer to your dependents). It gives you allowances for housing and food or provides them for you. (For members of a great number of states) It gives you State Tax breaks or exemptions. And I'm not even going to mention the countless minor ones.
Not to mention that those brave souls that dedicate 20 years get military benefits and a check from the government for life. That's the earliest retirement of any career field (not counting professional sports).
// Switch: SW-5306-0651-6424 //
Also, are people forgetting that the reason that officers are appointed from above in the first place is because, you know, in a war situation there's a good possibility the previous guy got killed and they need someone to fill his shoes immediately so the war can continue? I'm imagining a combat situation where you're losing people on a regular basis and every single time someone dies or gets transferred or whatever, there has to be an 'election'. This isn't just impractical, it's ridiculous.
We elect our government officials so they represent our interests for us (ideally, anyway). That doesn't translate to a military environment, where your 'interests' are handed down from you from on high in the form of objectives and duties. What is an elected military leader going to have as their platform? "Vote for me and we'll take that building/hill my way?" Are we going to hold elections for high-ranking officers like generals?
This is a completely absurd proposal. I'm not even in the military and it's exceedingly obvious even to me.
As an aside, hey Scalfin! Why don't you just out-and-out say you hate the military and everything it embodies?It's far better then your passive=aggressive sniping at everything anyone ever says that's positive about it and your constant need to bring up. literally, 200 year old stuff in every military thread ever
Improvements by military members protesting through the official channels: filing complaint/request forms, dorm council meetings, bringing up gathered complaints to the 1st Sergeants, etc. Oh and hey, it worked! And changes requested were done!
// Switch: SW-5306-0651-6424 //