# Transforming the Infantry



## BloodStripe (Jul 6, 2019)

No Grunts Under 26, $250K Bonuses: DoD's Most Radical Ideas to Transform the Infantry

Seems like an interesting concept, but also seems like they are keeping the focus on CEVO. At some point we need to actually look at the NDS and realize that this won't actually be possible. We will need the 18 to whatever year olds to carry the weight of this nation in a complex global environment. With this strategy that won't be possible.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jul 6, 2019)

BloodStripe said:


> No Grunts Under 26, $250K Bonuses: DoD's Most Radical Ideas to Transform the Infantry
> 
> Seems like an interesting concept, but also seems like they are keeping the focus on CEVO. At some point we need to actually look at the NDS and realize that this won't actually be possible. We will need the 18 to whatever year olds to carry the weight of this nation in a complex global environment. With this strategy that won't be possible.



The article is more Scales nonsense.   As with the black beret decision made by a different General in a different era, too many people are looking at SOF and drawing the wrong lessons for the conventional force. 

The general purpose force is doing just fine with 18 to 25 year olds in the Infantry.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jul 6, 2019)

The good idea fairy strikes again! Not recent on how/if things have changed, but lighter comms, gear, and less big army fuck-fuck games might be better. Also not sure if this is relevant anymore, but toxic command staff, corruption, cronyism, and staff politics tend to fuck over the average grunt as much as any enemy. 

Throwing money at the problem and trying to turn the infantry into SOF isn't gonna solve anything. I'm probably out of my lane, but this reeks of Ossifers just trying to get another 'sparkly bullet point' for their OER.


----------



## Topkick (Jul 6, 2019)

R.Caerbannog said:


> I'm probably out of my lane, but this reeks of Ossifers just trying to get another 'sparkly bullet point' for their OER.





R.Caerbannog said:


> The good idea fairy strikes again!




Psst...the real good idea fairy is actually a CSM.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jul 6, 2019)

Topkick said:


> Psst...the real good idea fairy is actually a CSM.


Awww man... so it was the CSM that crafted the SHARP PP's that told us we were all rapers and wife beaters? I thought the CSM was one of us!


----------



## Topkick (Jul 6, 2019)

R.Caerbannog said:


> Awww man... so it was the CSM that crafted the SHARP PP's that told us we were all rapers and wife beaters? I thought the CSM was one of us!



I don't know too many Ossifers who really care if the rocks in front of HQ have a fresh coat of paint.


----------



## AWP (Jul 6, 2019)

Our military does a pretty good job at taking a bag of dicks and turning it into a box of hammers. Those 'teen/ early 20's "kids" have no problem being led or doing their jobs given the proper leaders. If anything, we should look at how we're creating officers and senior NCO's.

We have never lost a war because the 18-26 demographic couldn't do their jobs.



R.Caerbannog said:


> but lighter comms, gear,...



Find a way to take 10 lbs. off a soldier's load and the Army/ Marines will find a way to add 10 lbs. of ammo or whatever. Look at the weight saved from an M-16A2 to a stock M-4...and then how we made the M4 heavier with all of the attachments. We'll take the saved weight and add it back for lethality, which sounds great but does nothing for your knees, back, bones, skin....okay, your entire body. That beast will be there until the end of time.


----------



## BloodStripe (Jul 6, 2019)

SOF right now is just the flavor of the week (past two decades) because they are taking the lead on the GWOT. Once we go peer to peer, the 03/11 series MOS's will be king again solely because there won't be enough SOF warriors around to carry the brunt of the weight and this concept will quickly fade to black.


----------



## GOTWA (Jul 7, 2019)

Throwing money at a problem won't fix a problem.  I left AD Infantry because of toxic leadership_.  _I left the Guard Infantry because of the lack of leadership.  In the Guard I was threatened with an Article 15 for disobeying a direct order to NOT shoot from the standing while moving and clearing an objective during a blank fire run.  You know, doctrine type shit.  How you make it 18 years into GWOT and still can't train people to be effective and trustworthy in their craft is beyond me.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jul 7, 2019)

AWP said:


> If anything, we should look at how we're creating officers and senior NCO's.


Competent NCO's and Officers are worth their weight in gold.


AWP said:


> Find a way to take 10 lbs. off a soldier's load and the Army/ Marines will find a way to add 10 lbs. of ammo or whatever. Look at the weight saved from an M-16A2 to a stock M-4...and then how we made the M4 heavier with all of the attachments. We'll take the saved weight and add it back for lethality, which sounds great but does nothing for your knees, back, bones, skin....okay, your entire body. That beast will be there until the end of time.


I get what you're saying, the riddle of the beast of burden.

Honestly don't think that the DoD and Defense Contractors, making all the fancy gear/integrated systems, are paying attention to how overloaded the common grunt is. We can make improvements to training, nutrition, and leadership, but when Joe is struggling or is gonna be broke by lugging the essentials something's wrong. It's kinda like the brass and their congressional sponsors are putting all the eggs into the multi-billion defense project behemoths, while saying fuck you to the little guy, in the name of doctrine.

When it comes to acquisitions, supply, and physical rehabilitation/medical care, there is straight up corruption, graft, and cronyism at the highest/lowest levels. If the DoD wants to 'improve' the infantry, they need to take a good hard look at themselves and figure out why their fingertips are rotting off and their wallet is constantly empty.

Add on: Not trying to sound snarky at you or anything, just expressing my distaste for how the DoD treats the Infantry.


----------



## BloodStripe (Jul 7, 2019)

R.Caerbannog said:


> Honestly don't think that the DoD and Defense Contractors, making all the fancy gear/integrated systems, are paying attention to how overloaded the common grunt is. We can make improvements to training, nutrition, and leadership, but when Joe is struggling or is gonna be broke by lugging the essentials something's wrong. It's kinda like the brass and their congressional sponsors are putting all the eggs into the multi-billion defense project behemoths, while saying fuck you to the little guy, in the name of doctrine.
> 
> When it comes to acquisitions, supply, and physical rehabilitation/medical care, there is straight up corruption, graft, and cronyism at the highest/lowest levels. If the DoD wants to 'improve' the infantry, they need to take a good hard look at themselves and figure out why their fingertips are rotting off and their wallet is constantly empty.



Not sure that contractors should have to care how over or under loaded up Joe is. We the Government tell them what we want and they deliver what we ask for.

As far as corruption in the acquisition process, it's probably way lower than you think. Yes there are some high profile gaffes, such as Fat Leonard, but DoD is the largest buyer of goods and services in the US and probably the world.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jul 7, 2019)

BloodStripe said:


> Not sure that contractors should have to care how over or under loaded up Joe is. We the Government tell them what we want and they deliver what we ask for.
> 
> As far as corruption in the acquisition process, it's probably way lower than you think. Yes there are some high profile gaffes, such as Fat Leonard, but DoD is the largest buyer of goods and services in the US and probably the world.


That's the thing though, the government and it's employees don't always know what to ask for; when they do get it right sometimes it's: 'too little, too late' or 'here's 50!'. As for contractors caring about weight, we all know that capitalism rocks, but crony capitalism seems to be the way the DoD rolls. If there is no competition, why should contractors care about weight and energy requirements for a piece of gear as long as it's within specs? They ain't gonna hump it or the batteries.

Again not trying to shit on anyone.


----------



## BloodStripe (Jul 7, 2019)

R.Caerbannog said:


> That's the thing though, the government and it's employees don't always know what to ask for; when they do get it right sometimes it's: 'too little, too late' or 'here's 50!'. As for contractors caring about weight, we all know that capitalism rocks, but crony capitalism seems to be the way the DoD rolls. If there is no competition, why should contractors care about weight and energy requirements for a piece of gear as long as it's within specs? They ain't gonna hump it or the batteries.
> 
> Again not trying to shit on anyone.



We the Government have the right to reject anything that we receive if it doesn't meet our requirements, to include weight. We put out what we are looking for and vendors come back with pricing. I've never seen an unsolicited proposal awarded (doesn't mean it doesn't happen though as there is a paragraph in the FAR about it). And yes, sole source environments suck. We can only get certified cost or pricing when TINA is applicable. 

I think you might be surprised at what the average profit percentage is on a DOD contract vs what it is in the private sector where there is no where near the rules for acquisition.


----------



## Gunz (Jul 7, 2019)

Most of those 18-year-olds are 19 by the time they finish training or deploy. You need young grunts. Their backs are strong, they recover faster and they're high on their own imperishability. 

I had a 27-year-old guy in my weapons platoon squad. We called him "Pappy."


----------



## AWP (Jul 7, 2019)

I think when it comes to the development of new weapons accessories, the lights, optics, grips, lasers, etc., we overlook the influence carried by the nation's SMU's and other SOF units, and their relationships with various manufacturers. I think the same goes for the tactical nylon out there. Higher end stuff? No idea how that works, but at the "rifleman" level? Big Infantry isn't leading that charge...


----------



## MikeDelta (Jul 7, 2019)

Targeting 26+ year old men and backing that up with more money than 80% of them will see in civilian life (at least at that point in their life) is an interesting strategy. People who have an undergraduate degree, a mountain of debt and are in their first real job, they they hate...That very well may end up being the target market segment for recruiters. But, we’re talkin infantry. If they never aspired to be a soldier, that desk job is going to start looking real good either right after they get off the bus, or sometime at Ft. Benning and that brings me to morale and esprit de corp...How will this be affected by a bunch of people who joined primarily for the money? How many infantry joined for money on this forum? My guess would be zero.

I think the Army translation of “more experienced” means people who can’t hack civilian life at 26, which is clearly not the mentality that one needs in the infantry. Despite the fact that quite a few people came from the ‘go to war or go to jail’ type situation during my time, and the Army was a way to escape.  But that is something you do when you’re 18, not 26.

It’s certainly a lead generator for recruiters, but it just doesn’t seem to be the right answer.


----------



## Centermass (Jul 7, 2019)

Leave the current demographic as it stands.

With that said, take a lot of the red tape, out of the process for those vets (Who fall into the "Older" category) looking to come back in and on board into the combat arms side of the house.


----------



## Viper1 (Jul 7, 2019)

BloodStripe said:


> No Grunts Under 26, $250K Bonuses: DoD's Most Radical Ideas to Transform the Infantry
> 
> Seems like an interesting concept, but also seems like they are keeping the focus on CEVO. At some point we need to actually look at the NDS and realize that this won't actually be possible. We will need the 18 to whatever year olds to carry the weight of this nation in a complex global environment. With this strategy that won't be possible.



War is, and always will be, a young man's endeavor.


----------



## BlackSmokeRisinG (Jul 7, 2019)

A $250,000 bonus sounds awfully good right now! We _all _know that part would never happen...


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jul 8, 2019)

BloodStripe said:


> We the Government have the right to reject anything that we receive if it doesn't meet our requirements, to include weight. We put out what we are looking for and vendors come back with pricing. I've never seen an unsolicited proposal awarded (doesn't mean it doesn't happen though as there is a paragraph in the FAR about it). And yes, sole source environments suck. We can only get certified cost or pricing when TINA is applicable.
> 
> I think you might be surprised at what the average profit percentage is on a DOD contract vs what it is in the private sector where there is no where near the rules for acquisition.


Honestly, I'm way out of my knowledge base when it comes to how the DoD and Big Army solicit contracts. What I have seen is a buttload of waste on big ticket items, while basic kit and armament is cobbled together from spare parts or is non/barely-functional. After seeing so much waste and mismanagement, I think the DoD and Big Army can be better at leading and equipping the Infantry.

Example -
DoD/supply/etc : Heya grunts! Here are 100 MRAPS. Oh... but we can't do much about the cobbled together 240's, SAW's with warped receivers, non-functional lasers, worn out gloves/pants, etc. If you're hungry we have steaks, lobster, and artisanal coffee at the nearest FOB though.

Grunt: Uh...

DoD/supply/ect : Also, please stop cavorting off with our supply of sundries and snacks during your visits. We know we've been feeding you Pop-Tarts and expired Pancake Heater Meals, but nevertheless please behave like civilized human beings and respect our property.


----------



## BloodStripe (Jul 8, 2019)

R.Caerbannog said:


> Honestly, I'm way out of my knowledge base when it comes to how the DoD and Big Army solicit contracts. What I have seen is a buttload of waste on big ticket items, while basic kit and armament is cobbled together from spare parts or is non/barely-functional. After seeing so much waste and mismanagement, I think the DoD and Big Army can be better at leading and equipping the Infantry.
> 
> Example -
> DoD/supply/etc : Heya grunts! Here are 100 MRAPS. Oh... but we can't do much about the cobbled together 240's, SAW's with warped receivers, non-functional lasers, worn out gloves/pants, etc. If you're hungry we have steaks, lobster, and artisanal coffee at the nearest FOB though.
> ...




Here's how the acquisition process works (just a real high level overveiw).


Each year on Oct 1, they receive their annual budget. That budget includes everything they need for the year, to include payroll, beans, bullets, and bandaids. That money comes in five different "colors"; Operations and Maintenance (O&M), MILCON, procurement (proc), R&D, or MILPERS. 

To your example, MRAPS are most likely bought via PROC funding (no idea off the top of my head what one costs but they are probably higher than $200k). SAW's, lasers, sights, etc are O&M. It's against the FMR to use one color of funding for something other than what it was intended for. So if your command requested new MRAPS, they'll be given money for those. You also only have finite funds available as a commander and you are trying to ensure your commanders guidance is met through the funds you are told you have. Some of the higher grade officers around here can attest more to that. In my current position as a Contracting Officer I just make sure the funds are available when releasing an award. I have no input on why I'm buying something or how much money is left available. Unfortunately for most of us at the lower levels who are grunts living and working in the barracks and rarely around the head shed, we never know how the supply side works as we aren't exposed to it.


----------



## Brill (Jul 8, 2019)

@BloodStripe , don’t forget about using OCO funds to satisfy UFRs!!!!


----------



## BloodStripe (Jul 8, 2019)

lindy said:


> @BloodStripe , don’t forget about using OCO funds to satisfy UFRs!!!!



Don't even get me started. 🤪


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jul 8, 2019)

BloodStripe said:


> Here's how the acquisition process works (just a real high level overveiw).
> 
> 
> Each year on Oct 1, they receive their annual budget. That budget includes everything they need for the year, to include payroll, beans, bullets, and bandaids. That money comes in five different "colors"; Operations and Maintenance (O&M), MILCON, procurement (proc), R&D, or MILPERS.
> ...


Yikes! That sounds like a giant pain in the butt. Makes sense as to why there was so much 'wheeling & dealing' going on behind closed doors. Flippity flip flop, I've got nothing other than 'Run Away!'.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jul 9, 2019)

Random thought: I'm thinking if the DoD really wants to make the Infantry more lethal, they need to fix their acquisitions process. It's mental that the Infantry's personnel, gear, food, training, etc, have to go through some color coded funding monstrosity. Feast and famine (regarding fund disbursal) seems like a dumb way to manage grunts.

Better leadership, training, and lighter gear/comms/batteries, may as well be a pipe dream until leadership at the DoD and acquisitions fix themselves. We have the most advanced military in the history of the world and yet grunts are supplementing gear and rations out of their own pockets.  

Hello Rome!


----------



## BloodStripe (Jul 9, 2019)

R.Caerbannog said:


> Random thought: I'm thinking if the DoD really wants to make the Infantry more lethal, they need to fix their acquisitions process. It's mental that the Infantry's personnel, gear, food, training, etc, have to go through some color coded funding monstrosity. Feast and famine (regarding fund disbursal) seems like a dumb way to manage grunts.
> 
> Better leadership, training, and lighter gear/comms/batteries, may as well be a pipe dream until leadership at the DoD and acquisitions fix themselves. We have the most advanced military in the history of the world and yet grunts are supplementing gear and rations out of their own pockets.
> 
> Hello Rome!



Commanders make the decision on how to spend their money. While I admit the acquisition process is dated, you are picking the wrong approach to this problem. Go pick the fight with your CO that he/she isn't requesting the shit you actually need. 

You are focusing at the unit level, but a lot of money is being coded and set aside at the Pentagon level for new major weapin systems,  trying to get them updated, because we have been focusing on dudes in mud huts for the past 20 years; meanwhile our near peer adversaries have been focusing in catching up to our existing capabilities.


----------



## Gunz (Jul 9, 2019)

R.Caerbannog said:


> Random thought: I'm thinking if the DoD really wants to make the Infantry more lethal, they need to fix their acquisitions process. It's mental that the Infantry's personnel, gear, food, training, etc, have to go through some color coded funding monstrosity. Feast and famine (regarding fund disbursal) seems like a dumb way to manage grunts.
> 
> Better leadership, training, and lighter gear/comms/batteries, may as well be a pipe dream until leadership at the DoD and acquisitions fix themselves. We have the most advanced military in the history of the world and *yet grunts are supplementing gear and rations out of their own pockets. *
> 
> Hello Rome!




If you're talking field rations and gear in the field, there is a time-honored grunt-modification process that constantly evolves. Making all that issue shit actually work, improving capabilities through improvisation. Same goes for field rations. 

If you're talking garrison and mess hall, then there's no excuse.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jul 9, 2019)

BloodStripe said:


> Commanders make the decision on how to spend their money. While I admit the acquisition process is dated, you are picking the wrong approach to this problem. Go pick the fight with your CO that he/she isn't requesting the shit you actually need.
> 
> You are focusing at the unit level, but a lot of money is being coded and set aside at the Pentagon level for new major weapin systems,  trying to get them updated, because we have been focusing on dudes in mud huts for the past 20 years; meanwhile our near peer adversaries have been focusing in catching up to our existing capabilities.


That's the rub. While the O's can plan and request supplies for projected theater operations, situations and circumstances change. It's also not just about logistics at the company, battalion, brigade, or even division level. It's about the facility in which the appropriate technology and supplies trickle down to the guys on the ground. If the O's are hamstrung by a complex supply system and the senior enlisted have to start horse-trading, something is wrong.

Going back to the article posted, the whole premise of fixing the infantry is bringing in older recruits and throwing money at them. That's akin to putting a pedigreed horse on a broken cart. A broken cart is gonna have problems moving regardless of the pedigree and price of the horse pulling. My argument is that the DoD is better served putting it's money into leading, training, and equipping it's grunts in a more efficient way (fixing their cart). With how acquisitions and funding seems to roll though, I dunno if that's gonna happen.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jul 9, 2019)

Ocoka said:


> If you're talking field rations and gear in the field, there is a time-honored grunt-modification process that constantly evolves. Making all that issue shit actually work, improving capabilities through improvisation. Same goes for field rations.
> 
> If you're talking garrison and mess hall, then there's no excuse.


Honestly, I think that improvisation is one of the defining aspects of the Infantry. Creativity and good old fashioned ingenuity always does the trick when you're surrounded by people who hate you.

For a while though, the DoD was burning through piles of money overseas and there was a lot of visible waste. Hence, being miffed at all the excess.


----------



## MikeDelta (Jul 9, 2019)

R.Caerbannog said:


> Random thought: I'm thinking if the DoD really wants to make the Infantry more lethal, they need to fix their acquisitions process. It's mental that the Infantry's personnel, gear, food, training, etc, have to go through some color coded funding monstrosity. Feast and famine (regarding fund disbursal) seems like a dumb way to manage grunts.
> 
> Better leadership, training, and lighter gear/comms/batteries, may as well be a pipe dream until leadership at the DoD and acquisitions fix themselves. We have the most advanced military in the history of the world and yet grunts are supplementing gear and rations out of their own pockets.
> 
> Hello Rome!



Hello Rome is right! Citizen soldiers buying their own gear.


----------



## MikeDelta (Jul 9, 2019)

R.Caerbannog said:


> Honestly, I think that improvisation is one of the defining aspects of the Infantry. Creativity and good old fashioned ingenuity always does the trick when you're surrounded by people who hate you.
> 
> For a while though, the DoD was burning through piles of money overseas and there was a lot of visible waste. Hence, being miffed at all the excess.



YES. Field expedience!

I recently read that Russian officers during WW2 thought we had no doctrine because of our GIs ingenuity. The kind of stuff you don’t find in the FMs but can achieve through great training and wisdom passed down by senior NCOs.


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 9, 2019)

You know nothing's going to change. Sure the technology changes, but the problem will never change. I'm sure I can find some microfiche of a newspaper article from the 1860's describing the plight of the soldier and how much weight he has to carry and why the live maggots and grubs in his food may not be a good thing.


----------



## Board and Seize (Jul 9, 2019)

Off the top of my head, though not _that_ old: _The Soldier's Load and the Mobility of a Nation_


----------



## MikeDelta (Jul 9, 2019)

Board and Seize said:


> Off the top of my head, though not _that_ old: _The Soldier's Load and the Mobility of a Nation_



Man, I just read a bit of this and it’s great. Thanks! Looking forward to plowing through this


----------



## Board and Seize (Aug 6, 2019)

The Warlord said:


> If you get that territory, They should make the governor the infantry man 99% of the time. They deserve it for giving so much. But not always.



I...

I just dont -

Dear sweet baby heysews.

@The Warlord I'll go ahead and guess that you're a bored highschooler with nothing better to do over your summer than to get some sweet trolling over on those stuck-up dudes (and dudettes) on ShadowSpear (SS) that think they're _soooo_ much better than awesome airsofters.  That said, I'm going to go overboard on the philosophical charity with you here, and offer some good faith advice.

Though we have a good time, the folks on SS are actually a fairly serious lot who come here to meaningfully engage with one another on all sorts of issues and questions.  Resident amongst us is the #3 internationally ranked Memelord  (@Teufel ), but that sort of good clean fun stays pretty strictly in a couple of threads/subfora.  

Seriously, guy, you won't get much of an entertaining rise before getting the hammer if that's what you're here for.  If you are here to actually participate/engage, check out the link in your intro post and read up on our community guidelines - you won't be taken seriously otherwise.


----------



## Board and Seize (Aug 6, 2019)

I'm actually glad for the thread bump.  

I'm working on an article I intend to submit for publication squarely on the thread's topic.  If there's anyone who'd be interested in reading draft(s) and providing early feedback, I'd really appreciate it.  I'm through outlining the general structure of the argument, and should have something readable by the start of next week if not sooner.

If you're able and willing, shoot me a message and we'll take it offline.  Happy to talk about the broad thrust in the open, but don't want to wreck my chances at publication.


----------



## Board and Seize (Aug 6, 2019)

The Warlord said:


> Well it's just a typo. there was no edit button on my browser. Maybe it's out dated. I knew I was going to get hammered for doing that after I noticed it did not have the word "new" posted in my intro title. And Yes, I read the guidelines before posting, which made me slap my forehead after I posted it. It's not a work of art, but what ever.
> 
> I proffer to look at this career like this. If that action, doesn't benefit the greater good of this country, then I don't have time for that. Let's focus on what a man does, instead of what he , it's too easy to manipulate. That's what real men do is it not?
> 
> ...



Thanks for the effortful answer, and I'll respond in similar good faith.



The Warlord said:


> typo, etc.


You'll quickly find that in this community, attention to the details matter.  That attention is valued because it is indicative of the attention one will have to details in other situations (like combat, where many of the SS members have significant experience).  Many young SOF and military hopefuls come here for advice, and many of the members are  active in those very communities right now. So the attention you display towards silly little details like what you publicly broadcast to people whose exclusive club you're supposedly trying to join is seen as predictive of how you will behave if you make it there.

You'll find that there's plenty of disagreement here on any given topic and many viewpoints are represented.  We enjoy thoughtful and thought-provoking debate, but there's little appetite for uninformed speculation or argumentation for its own sake.

So, pretend you're communicating with real, live people who might remember what you say and be in positions to affect your future, and you'll be fine.



The Warlord said:


> the rest


I'm not sure if you're trying to convince people of your particular viewpoint, or ask about it.  Just remember that while you might _imagine_ something about the reality of military life, or motivations, or combat, that most of the folks here _know_ from personal experience.

Measure twice : cut once :: Think twice : submit once

*edit*: I'm not sure what exactly it is you're trying to say about combat/command.


----------



## AWP (Aug 7, 2019)

The Warlord said:


> This your commander & chief. Don't forget that, I am going to be your boss one day when you talk to me.



What do you mean by this?


----------



## Gunz (Aug 7, 2019)

The Warlord said:


> *The real government is found on the front lines*.




Actually, it's not. Not since Napoleon. Make no mistake, actions at the sharp edge are affected very much by the politics and decisions of our civilian leadership and sometimes by military commanders who's only connection to the battlefield is through video teleconferencing.

The directives of that civilian leadership are transmitted down the chain to young men and women warriors who attempt--often at the cost of their lives--to interpret and execute those policies.

If your statement were true, the Vietnam War and some other conflicts might have ended much differently.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 7, 2019)

The Warlord said:


> Well no matter which type of government you choose the warriors stay put. Only the writers change around. So you can always move them. Because they are just influences. The real power is found in these warriors. So I proposed we just put them all into one branch so you can see it. Then center it. Who knows, the next governor could be you.
> 
> This is how I won the world over.


Your Shtick has already grown old.
Come back in 3 days and try again...or not.  

Either way, consider this a formal warning.

Back on topic.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 7, 2019)

The Warlord said:


> Maybe one day i'll make a thread to answer questions about how I actually became the first king of America without the title for about 2 weeks. What happened was, I needed a moral character waiver. So I did not get in right way. Thus I did not give up and message congress, with an idea to contribute to this regime in exchange for a waiver if I go active duty full time. Needless to say I did not get it, because that's not even the government I found out. But I did get in to the air force because they changed there policy in new york on the waiver requirements.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think we're gonna need more cowbell.


----------



## Devildoc (Aug 7, 2019)

Ocoka said:


> Did you actually post a video of yourself? After watching the first minute, I should've known better than to try and engage you with a rational response. I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.



He's all over the place.  Trying to follow his thoughts is like trying to herd cats.  And what he can get out, is illogical.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 7, 2019)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Back on topic.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 7, 2019)

.


Board and Seize said:


> I'm actually glad for the thread bump.
> 
> I'm working on an article I intend to submit for publication squarely on the thread's topic.  If there's anyone who'd be interested in reading draft(s) and providing early feedback, I'd really appreciate it.  I'm through outlining the general structure of the argument, and should have something readable by the start of next week if not sooner.
> 
> If you're able and willing, shoot me a message and we'll take it offline.  Happy to talk about the broad thrust in the open, but don't want to wreck my chances at publication.




Happy to. PM inbound.


----------

