It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

This man, is going to decide your fate.

page: 3
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 



As a junior officer, he served in various leadership positions aboard USS Collett (DD-730), USS Blandy (DD-943), USS Fox (CG-33) and USS Sterrett (CG-31). He has commanded three ships: the gasoline tanker USS Noxubee (AOG-56), the guided missile destroyer USS Goldsborough (DDG-20), and the guided missile cruiser USS Yorktown (CG-48); and has also commanded Cruiser-Destroyer Group Two and the George Washington Battle Group. Mullen’s last command at sea was as Commander, U.S. Second Fleet/Commander, NATO Striking Fleet Atlantic (COMSTRIKFLTLANT).

He's floated a lot, that doesn't mean he's seen combat in any way, shape or form.




posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by rcwj75
 


The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has never taken part in missions. I think you have this position confused with Mac Bolan, or Doc Savage. Or possibly the Rogue Warrior Richard Marcinko.

This position NEVER GOES TO A GROUND GRUNT. It always goes to somebody who has proven command experience.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by groingrinder
 


If you understand the position in its true form, this man will decide who is in charge of such ground units, how ground units are allocated, etc...I understand he is not directly making combat decisions BUT he is resposible for the men who DO make those choices...Why do you think MOST true combat generals and commanders never want to send their ideas up the chain...its because men like this DO have the ability to chime in and resist what RIGHT on the ground along with move around the chess peices who DON'T want to follow the retarded orders coming from the offices on the hill. I think you guys are confusing his position, and having been deployed 3 times I can PERSONALLY tell you...this section of the chain is ALWAYS the weakest and NEVER has an understanding about what actually happens during combat or even deployment movements.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:16 AM
link   
My husband's been deployed 3 times during this war, I'm not confusing anything.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by rcwj75
 


You forgot to add that he and his fellow officers get there laundry cleaned and pressed by the lowlife scum( to them) Enlisted folks down below.


[edit on 2-3-2009 by 38181]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by 38181
 

No they don't, their laundry is done by their wives and their uniforms are taken to the dry cleaners. Unless they're on float. My husband is a Warrant Officer, he did his time as an enlisted man so I can speak from both sides of the fence.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by claireaudient
 


Sorry to offend you but your Hubby is not a Commisioned officer, hence Warrant Officer, Yes I did mean afloat on a ship, I also forgot to mention the Officers get Way better meals too, "cooked to order". I guess thats one more reason a college dergree will help in life...LOL



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   
In the United States military, a Warrant Officer (grade W-1 to W-5) is ranked as an officer above the senior-most enlisted ranks, as well as officer cadets and candidates, but below the officer grade of O-1. Warrant officers are highly skilled, single-track specialty officers, and while the ranks are authorized by Congress, each branch of the Uniformed Services selects, manages, and utilizes warrant officers in slightly different ways. For appointment to Warrant Officer One (W-1), a warrant is approved by the secretary of the service. Chief Warrant Officers (W-2 to W-5) are commissioned by the President of the United States, and take the same oath as regular commissioned officers.
Warrant officers can and do command detachments, units, activities, vessels, aircraft, and armored vehicles as well as lead, coach, train, and counsel subordinates. However, the Warrant Officer's primary task as a leader is to serve as a technical expert, providing valuable skills, guidance, and expertise to commanders and organizations in their particular field.

I have 2 degrees myself, thanks. He also has a degree which he earned while serving as enlisted but opted to go the WO route rather than be lumped in with mommas boys who went right from living with mommy and daddy to depending on them for room/board, meals, tuition and transportation to supposedly being able to lead and command when they can't even take command of their own lives. Oh, and he commanded his unit out of MCBH during all deployments to Iraq. If he were to decide it was time to retire then he would *gasp* RESIGN HIS COMMISSION.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
I'm no expert on the position and what entails or Admiral Mullen, but it seems to me like the Chairman of the JCS position is a big idea type of role. In some ways somebody that worked their way up through the ranks as a grunt could be dangerous vs a text book academic academy guy. I could just see the guy with a grunt background getting all wrapped up in little minutia vs thinking strategically about the big picture which is what I would think you'd want the "Chairman" doing. I could also see someone with the grunt background maybe holding back or not taking the necessary steps when needed because they know exactly what it's going to take and are fearful to give the order because of what the grunts will have to do. Now I understand the other side is some text book egghead commanding from his ivory tower with no regard for his men and you don't want that either. Like another person pointed out above about the civil war generals and experience vs making mistakes and there isn't necessarily a big correlation there.

I'm just not so sure that being some former grunt with combat experience is the most important factor for a top level commander/leader


[edit on 2-3-2009 by warpboost]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by warpboost


I'm just not so sure that being some former grunt with combat experience is the most important factor for a top level commander/leader


[edit on 2-3-2009 by warpboost]


It may be a somewhat unrealistic expectation but we need someone in there who understands what the troops in the thick of it all are experiencing and going through, who can maintain a level head and think rationally less than emotionally. There's nothing wrong with experience but there's a lot to loose with someone who is inexperienced. Experience, the ability to lead well, a dignitary who can remain poised in the most difficult situations and trying times. We need Stormin' Norman.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


i see that he commanded a lot of boats....big ones....ones that weren't able to fit in rivers.... so what type of combat did he see in Vietnam? where the majority of combat was in a jungle/swamp/river....? don't take this reply personal....just really wondering what commanding destroyers or tankers has to do with combat? i mean if it was WW2 where you had massive fleet engagements then i'd understand.... or if he was a riverine? aka brown water sailors, then i could see where he actually SAW combat.... but commanding a ship....hmm not so much. please feel free to retort



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:26 PM
link   
sounds like he knows how to be in the rear with the gear.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by 38181
 


You do realize of course that the enlisted men's laundry is also done by those same enlisted men who are washing the officer's uniforms?

You seem to have some very deep seated resentments against military officers and seem to be of the opinion that the enlisted do the fighting while the officers sit back on their butts.

Need I say it? In the Navy, the officers are standing on the same ship that the enlisted are standing on. If that ship becomes a target, the officers and the enlisted men get killed.

Also, the officers in the Navy play a much bigger role in the fighting than the officers in most positions in any other service. The officers are the ones who are in the control room, monitoring the battle, directing the positioning of the ships, giving the orders to fire, and in many cases (like nuclear subs) they are the ones pulling the trigger or pushing the button. In the case of air operations, it is the officers who do the flying and the fighting. So, I really don't see what your objection is.

I have been watching this thread with some interest but I have to say that your personal biases come through more and more.

Now before you ask, yes I did six years in the Air Force Reserves as an enlisted man. I worked on F-15s as a crew chief but our units actual MOS was battle damage repair and I was a battle damage repair tech. I would have loved to have been an officer and I would really have loved to fly the F-15, but I didn't resent those who did.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join