| |
| From: | maiesi | 3/17/2008 10:46 pm |
| To: | ALL |
(1 of 6) | | | | 9.1 | |
| I have to say a few words about this article and some of the posts resulting from it. I read the post from Babnew and want to say a few things about that. First of all, Babnew joined the Guard after a full enlistment on active duty and multiple tours of duty in OIF and OEF as an Infantryman. I know him personally and know that he is one of the more experienced soldiers in the unit. I also know that the National Guard has treated him like a private since he showed up to this unit. Why? Because he did not deploy with Alpha. Therefore he is pushed aside by the "wisdom" of our higher ranking, less experienced, noncoms. I know this has to be frustrating. The same goes for a lot (most) of the prior active duty soldiers who did deploy with Alpha. There is a split between prior service guardsmen and non-prior service guardsmen. Rather than use the wealth of experience, knowledge, and leadership possessed by the prior service soldiers the National Guard (Alpha Company) chose to treat the prior service soldiers like privates straight out of basic training. We were continually told that our “prior experiences” and our ideas were “not valid or relevant to this deployment”; we never knew what we were talking about. The officers on our deployment felt jealous and threatened by anyone who had more experience than them. Unless, of course, they never proposed any original ideas or plans, then they were accepted as a "good" soldier. This mentality has been brought home and amplified because now they have the "experience" they didn't the first time around, so who can tell them they are wrong? As far as the stories about the deployment go I have done a fair share of double takes myself. I was there and some of the stories I hear about my own unit make me think I am hearing a movie being explained. There are people who got hit with RPG's every time they left the wire, people who were shot in the face, and of course those who were hit by an IED every time they were outside the wire. This is where the problems come up. A lot of these stories were not verified or checked. They were printed as gospel (prior to the article in the Inquirer) and now to say it didn't happen or to say it was exaggerated somehow makes you a bad person. Reality check. You know who you are. Yes, there were some horrible times on the deployment but do not allow your overactive imagination and desire for attention corrupt your honor as a soldier. Every time you say you were shot at, blown up, or attacked when you weren't you take away from the soldiers who have been hurt or killed. Many of the soldiers are young and just want attention so they say they were in the middle of the war at all times. The reality is we were not attacked and "hit" everyday. I never saw one RPG my whole time in Iraq. Did these things happen? At times, yes. That is why the loss of our friends and the injuries of our soldiers were so devastating. Because it did not happen that often. And if you storytellers were honest with yourselves you would be thankful that it didn't. Many of you who are the first to tell your tales and get free beers are the ones who needed time off from missions, or got early leave, or were left inside the wire because you were a liability to the lives of the men on your mission. As with anything you must take what you hear about this deployment (even this) with a grain of salt. As for the rest of you who are getting up in arms about what other people said, you know what was done and you can say it was messed up if it was and so can others. Going to Iraq should be in itself an honor. Just to serve. No need to be front and center in the limelight with super stories to be verified as a vet. And a final note to the chain of command of Alpha: Do not make the same mistake on the next deployment that the chain of command made the first time. You are isolating and jading the experienced soldiers that you need to get the job done over there. Utilize them properly and your deployment will be a lot easier. |
| |
|
| | | | | 9.2 in reply to 9.1 | |
Look, is it D-Day every day over there? Nope. I don't think anybody says it was. Are these the stories I would have picked to tell if I was writing this? Again, no. Did we have some close calls? Yeah, I think its fair to say we did. Here's the thing, all that doesn't matter. You obviously never lead a patrol, though. Not one. And if you did, which is doubtful, you had no business doing so with that attitude. You obviously never got a threat brief from S2 before leading a patrol outside the wire. Everything they tell you to watch out for in the threat brief, I thought about what I'd do if it happened to one of my guys. You have to think about what you're going to do, beforehand. Believe it or not, I really cared about my guys. Every one of them, even the ones I didn't particularly like. In my case, I wrote a bunch of e-mails home about sh*t that bothered me. Why? Because I thought it unseemly for an NCO to be a crybaby about petty stuff in front of the troops. A few NCO's had no such reservations, and still don't. You might even be one of them. Our company had its share of fist shaking malcontents, a couple of them f*cked up an entire platoon. I heard my share of b*tching about the chain of command. Fine. I'm sure I participated in it once or twice. But if I b*tched about something, it was about my guys not getting hot chow when they could have, or not getting enough ammo to train with, or not getting 1114's when they were being used as FOB runners down at FOB Speicher. What did you do to change the stuff you we're complaining about? If you were one of those malcontents, the answer is probably nothing. Here's where I really take issue with you. Say whatever you want, if you wanted to step up, you could have. If you need to be stroked to perform as a soldier, you ain't worth the effort. If you needed constant supervision as an NCO, you were and are equally useless. Its called initiative for a reason. It means I'm not supposed to have to pull teeth to get you to do something. Don't expect to be recognized before you prove yourself. You can't walk in to a new unit and expect people to defer to you when you're an unknown commodity. Whether you have active duty experience or not. (I had active duty experience before the guard, and I can't say my experience with being disregarded matches yours) And newsflash: if you were an E4 with a couple of years of active duty, you didn't know half of what you think you did anyway. Time to grow up, young man. |
| |
|
| |
| From: | maiesi | 3/25/2008 5:15 pm |
| To: | ALL |
(3 of 6) | | | | 9.3 in reply to 9.2 | |
Wow. I am not going to have an online argument with you. My post was not a viscous name calling rant like yours. Very professional. Do the curse words make your points more valid? Listen, my post was not a complaint list or a name calling letter like you made it out to be. What attitude are you talking about? Are you responding to the right post? Maybe you should read it again. However I will respond to some of the things you said. What did I say to make you think that I did not care about my guys as much as you did? What crybaby stuff are you referring to? I said in my post that people can say what they want about deployment but when someone steps out of line it is ok to call them on it. Is that "crying?" What did I do to change the things I complained about was another of your questions to me. (Extra points to you for taking the high road and only complaining about food, ammo, and trucks, trying to make me look like a whiner, by the way!) There were several, and I do mean more than five, instances during the deployment were I approached my platoon leader about issues (including racial and sexual misconduct) that troops in my platoon were having. I was told by my Lt. that there was nothing he could do unless the soldiers came forward. I said they were embarrassed and felt uneasy about it and that they came to me. As an NCO I was making him aware of the issues. Nothing was done. Does that count?
Then there is this, and I quote, "Here's where I really take issue with you. Say whatever you want, if you wanted to step up, you could have. If you need to be stroked to perform as a soldier, you ain't worth the effort. If you needed constant supervision as an NCO, you were and are equally useless." What does this mean? What is this in reference to? I assume you think I was not able to "step up" and am upset about that? Not at all. I was able to run my squad the way I wanted. No problems. I was referring to things such as not taking the same route at the same time every night. Those suggestions were never listened to.
I quote again "And newsflash: if you were an E4 with a couple of years of active duty, you didn't know half of what you think you did anyway." Are you insane or just that hard up to make a point? Do you actually believe your own propaganda? Of course active duty time makes you more experienced! So four years active duty in the infantry means nothing? You are mad! I guess the combined 800 hours of guard experience you get in one year stacks up to active duty the same. Wow. Thanks for the lesson. And I am by no means saying that a soldier with no active time is less of a soldier (I already know how you like to make things up and put words in people’s mouths) I am simply saying that it is more experience and it was not utilized. THAT IS ALL.
The reality is this. I posted using my real name and said just what I felt. I didn’t make up a fake screen name and indiscriminately complain about the unit or the deployment. You took the immature route and tried to make me look foolish. Your whole post is just you trying to look like a great leader and name calling. For whatever reason you decided to make me look like some crybaby and wrote an extremely unprofessional, juvenile response. I say it is you who needs to grow up. Next time get your facts straight and don't just make empty posts in an effort to bolster your ego. Nothing you said in your post to me makes any sense and can not be inferred from my post at all! Where are you getting this stuff? You are a SSG and I want to thank you for your post because it showcases the points I made about the leadership better than anything I could have said. If you have any particular issues with what I said and you can coherently express those issues I will be glad to respond to you and answer any questions. If you decide to put together a response full of curse words, name calling, and ego boosting like you did last time I will not respond. The choice is yours.
|
| |
|
| | | | | 9.4 in reply to 9.3 | |
Mike, I didn't mean to flame you in the post, but I guess I did. Sorry about that. My read on the above, in part, was that you were calling me out, so I broke out the Evil Lawyering Skills on you. The Evil Lawyer's Job is to make you look bad, sorry. Seriously, I think the points I made are valid in a general sense, but for the record as they apply to you; I do not think you are a fist shaking malcontent. (you know we had them, though), I apologize. The point I am trying to make is that there are a lot of things going on behind the scenes, you can't always tell the guys. Leaders care about their guys. A lot of the complaining is based on a premise that they don't. They did then and they do now. Sometimes, you wish you could complain, too, but you can't. Or at least you shouldn't. I think you know what I mean. As for experience, am I saying that I think you bring nothing to the table after active duty? No, that's not what I'm saying. But think about how much you learned from then to now. Big difference. Also, think of the chip you had on your shoulder when you were early 20-whatever and got out. (everybody had that) When you're young, you typically think you're smarter than everybody else. That ought to fade as you get older. If it doesn't, either you're sh*t hot, or mistaken. The older you get, the more this you see this. You mentioned Babnew by name, and I think you're right, I think he's a stud. He's got great experience and he's a solid soldier who's a credit to the Army (sorry marine, you're in the Army now). But there will be a time when he has to prove himself as a leader, too, even with his previous experience. Then he's a known commodity. You still have to do that, too, in order to translate your experience into leadership ability. If he was a team leader, he'll have to prove himself when he's a squad leader, or squad leader, a platoon sergeant. You get the idea. All that being said, let's quit kicking each other in the balls in public. Give me a call if you still have my number. Tony |
| |
|
| |
| From: | maiesi | 3/25/2008 8:49 pm |
| To: | SSGK unread |
(5 of 6) | | | | 9.5 in reply to 9.4 | |
| I agree we should not be kicking each other in the balls on the site. I don't know how you thought I was calling you out but that was not at all my intent. I agree that a lot of what you said makes sense but, frankly, not about me. Not to be cocky but it just didn't fit. You know me, what I did over there, and what I am capable of. All I wanted to do was simply get the idea that some people are making their stories a little more extravagant than they really are out there. Also that calling them on it doesn't make you a bad soldier. Nothing else. As far as the other issues you brought up, or the issues others are discussing, they were not meant to be a part of my post. I guess I can't pick the worm I want to come out when I open the can though. Just wanted to clear that up for you and anyone else reading. I am not the "complaining" soldier nor did I mean to be. That being said, I think we can quit the "kicking." |
| |
|
| | | | | 9.6 in reply to 9.5 | |
Good job. You handled that rather well Mike. But the Chicken Raid really happened. |
| |
|
Back To Discussion List
Philly.com discussions are intended to be civil, friendly conversations. Please treat other participants with respect and in a way that you would want to be treated. You are responsible for what you say. And please, stay on topic.
These boards are monitored by Philly.com staff. We reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable to us in our sole discretion and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy the law, regulation, or government request. Personal attacks, especially on other board participants, are not permitted. We reserve the right to permanently block any user who violates these terms and conditions.
If you see an objectionable post, please report it to us using the "Report Violation" button.
© Copyright
Philadelphia Media Holdings, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Any copying, redistribution or retransmission of any of the contents of this service without the expressed, written consent of Philadelphia Media Holdings, LLC, is prohibited.
Welcome:
Guest