Are Our "Best" Officers Leaving?

Are Our "Best" Military Officers Leaving the Service Short of a 20 Year Career?

  • Yes

    Votes: 11 84.6%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 2 15.4%

  • Total voters
    13
  • Poll closed .
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/10/military_dod_contractors_071025w/
This question has been asked for a long time. This is a 2007 article but as far as I know nothing has changed. As long as it is not illegal to hire people with previous military service why would you want to know how many now work for contractors.
Bill

I agree with you that you can't block people going to a contracting company. It was more of a question about what is your biggest competition in retention and what are possible solution to make the military more competitive.

I wasn't so concerned about the ethical question which is a fair question especially from the procurement side. I was thinking more about financial and deployment type issue and losing combat leaders.

Thanks for the link.
 
It's not just defense contractors (who tend to have spots for program managers and acquisition officers, especially those of high rank) but all sectors of private industry. Leadership is valued everywhere. Good officers tend to leave because they want to go somewhere where they can lead.
 
DD the conversations I had with the ones I worked with agree 100% with your thoughts. Leading is making a difference in their eyes. Knowing that a program was theirs and they controlled the outcome was satisfying to them. There is a learning curve for military leaders once they cross over to the private sector. Things like overtime costs and people skills are sometimes hard to learn.
Scoth I agree with the ethical part and would like to see some restrictions put in place. DOD is full of retired 05 and 06 officers drawing their retirement and now drawing down GS-13 pay in some department and to be honest they are often the saving grace of that department.
Bill
 
This is an older thread, but with all that has been going on lately with more and more upper level echelons jumping on the PC bandwagon, and the fall out that has ensued because of it, I have to wonder if a shift in the white house come 2016 might have the same witch hunters changing their stripes they're now currently wearing.

Personally, it's makes me sick to my stomach.

Former Sec Gates and his recent revelations I believe paints a clear and accurate picture of an administration, that is nothing more than a hollow shell, appearing tough on terrorism on one hand, and how damaging it (Administration) has been to a lot of top officers with promising potential on the the other. Not to mention the effect it has had on the ROE and the current picture of morale on our war fighters.

An example I have recently been made aware of is LTC Dooley. Even though his case goes back to 2012, it is just another accurate portrayal of islamist appeasement gone viral. As part of this was his discussion on islam and the war on terrorism, (One part of the equation that got him in hot water) I believe this statement he made as part of his curriculum is what made him a down range target for Dempsey, Panetta and other mouth pieces for this administration, both of whom, slammed him for slandering islam and stifling freedom of religion.

Truer words have never been spoken by Col Dooley with regards to all of this:

“Political Correctness is killing us: How can we properly identify the enemy, analyze his weaknesses, and defeat him, if we are NEVER permitted to examine him from the most basic doctrinal level?”

Political correctness, its impact on national security and the toll its taking on the rolls of our best and finest, and is a travesty Americas adversaries delight in witnessing on a regular basis as we continue to be weakened within, by our own swords.

I don't blame any leadership for hanging it up as soon as they get their 20 in. Seems if you are anything worth your salt nowadays, and make it that far, you've cheated the hangman already.

In the words of Pogo, "I have seen the enemy, and they, is us." :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Have you read the article that Wired published about him? He said some really, really hateful stuff http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/05/total-war-islam/#slideid-121421

The U.S. military taught its future leaders that a “total war” against the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims would be necessary to protect America from Islamic terrorists, according to documents obtained by Danger Room. Among the options considered for that conflict: using the lessons of “Hiroshima” to wipe out whole cities at once, targeting the “civilian population wherever necessary.”

The course, first reported by Danger Room last month and held at the Defense Department’s Joint Forces Staff College, has since been canceled by the Pentagon brass. It’s only now, however, that the details of the class have come to light. Danger Room received hundreds of pages of course material and reference documents from a source familiar with the contents of the class.

International laws protecting civilians in wartime are “no longer relevant,” Dooley continues. And that opens the possibility of applying “the historical precedents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki” to Islam’s holiest cities, and bringing about “Mecca and Medina['s] destruction.”


Dooley’s ideological allies have repeatedly stated that “mainstream” Muslims are dangerous, because they’re “violent” by nature. Yet only a few of al-Qaida’s most twisted fanatics were ever caught musing about wiping out entire cities.

“Some of these actions offered for consideration here will not be seen as ‘political correct’ in the eyes of many,” Dooley adds. “Ultimately, we can do very little in the West to decide this matter, short of waging total war.”

Dooley, who has worked at the Joint Forces Staff College since August 2010, began his eight-week class with a straightforward, two-part history of Islam. It was delivered by David Fatua, a former West Point history professor. “Unfortunately, if we left it at that, you wouldn’t have the proper balance of points of view, nor would you have an accurate view of how Islam defines itself,” Dooley told his students. Over the next few weeks, he invited in a trio of guest lecturers famous for their incendiary views of Islam.

Shireen Burki declared during the 2008 election that “Obama is bin Laden’s dream candidate.” In her Joint Forces Staff College lecture, she told students that “Islam is an Imperialist/Conquering Religion.” (.pdf)

dooley_presentation_slide1.jpg
It sounds to me like he's straight-up advocating war crimes.
 
Last edited:
It sounds to me like he's straight-up advocating war crimes.

Have you heard of the Total/Absolute (there is a lot of argument on the definitions) war?

For example if you were a Soldier in the Mongol horde in the 1300s you wouldn't even know what a war crime was, everyone was a legitimate target. It's a fantasy concept because political and (the majority of) modern society values are at odds with it and it would never be achievable without that support.

You guys will still have a plan kicking around somewhere for a massive nuclear first strike against the Soviets, Chinese and the North Koreans. Doesn't mean it's going to happen but the plan will still be there. What he's putting forth is really no different to that.
 
"Total war" is something that should only be considered in conventional force-on-force wars. It's absolutely not an option in counterterrorism.
 
Have you read the article that Wired published about him? He said some really, really hateful stuff http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/05/total-war-islam/#slideid-121421
It sounds to me like he's straight-up advocating war crimes.

That wired writer is a liberal idiot.
Lt. Col. Matthew A. Dooley's Joint Staff Forces College presentation on ... calls for violent measures in a war against Islam
. Violent measures, in a war! OMG!! :rolleyes:
I didn't see anything hateful in that article. It maybe a bit shocking to hear about proposals to nuke cities but it's not hateful, it's a strategy.
I could read the shock and horror of the writer when he wrote
He even justified the Crusades, writing that they “were initiated after hundreds of years of Muslim incursion into Western lands.”
Well no shit Sherlock, that is what happened. Like it or not it's history, it happened.

Like it or not, whether it's policy to mention it or not, Islam is a violent religion, one that advocates murder and child rape. Convert or kill, that's Islam for you.

This seems to be conveniently glossed over...
Dooley added the caveats that his views are “not the Official Policy of the United States Government” and are intended “to generate dynamic discussion and thought.”
 
Last edited:
"Total war" is something that should only be considered in conventional force-on-force wars. It's absolutely not an option in counterterrorism.

History would not agree with you. But in the modern age in our current mindset, you are correct.
 
"Total war" is something that should only be considered in conventional force-on-force wars. It's absolutely not an option in counterterrorism.

I don't even see it being used in this age in those circumstances. Can you imagine CNN etc glossing over a Dresden bombing part 2?

As to total war being considered for counterterrorism, well it's an option but it doesn't mean it's the right option. It also depends on the context you look at it in, when its a West vs AQ group then no, you still have some hope that the indigenous population that said group is operating amongst is not fully supporting them or is redeemable. But if you look at it from a West vs Islam thing then your options start to become pretty slim.
 
Have you read the article that Wired published about him? He said some really, really hateful stuff http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/05/total-war-islam/#slideid-121421
It sounds to me like he's straight-up advocating war crimes.

You jumped on this as quick as a june bug on a duck. If you had done any kind of digging behind the Wired article, you would have discovered those slides and presentation were not his. He never advocated "total war" against Islam. The discussion about all out war, was conducted by a guest speaker which involved theoretical "out of the box" thinking on what happens if Islamic extremists get a hold of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and begin destroying U.S. cities. In other words, how does the U.S. or anyone else respond?

I would say the same about wired, however, like Dempsey and the rest, they were quick to rush to judgement, jump to conclusions and with one knee jerk reaction, assassinate the character of a stellar Army officer with an impeccable record and destroying his career before knowing all the facts. Like McChrystal, essentially he got Rolling Stoned.
 
You jumped on this as quick as a june bug on a duck. If you had done any kind of digging behind the Wired article, you would have discovered those slides and presentation were not his.
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2012/05/dooley_counter_jihad_op_design_v11.pdf
His name is on it.

He never advocated "total war" against Islam. The discussion about all out war, was conducted by a guest speaker which involved theoretical "out of the box" thinking on what happens if Islamic extremists get a hold of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and begin destroying U.S. cities. In other words, how does the U.S. or anyone else respond?
What's your source for this? I've looked through the other presentations and none of them mention "total war". I am left to assume that the words are his. Granted, I wasn't there for the presentation itself and all I've got to go on is the presentation slides and the context surrounding it presented by Wired (and others). I also saw no mention of a Pakistan situation, just references to DP III (which I would presume is the aftermath).

EDIT: Did you get that Pakistan quote from the Washington Times article? http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/14/colonels-class-on-radical-islam-leaves-career-in-l/?page=all
That bit came from his lawyer and there's seemingly nothing in the presentation to substantiate it. It is strange that in his branching decision points (page 13) it skips right to Phase II. But if this is the case, I'll take back all my comments.
Second edit: In retrospect, he really should not have been fired, considering the NDU's policy on academic freedom. Like his lawyer suggested, he should've been counseled.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top