GMAN
Dedicated LVC Member
I don't know what he was thinking, see it for yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WopAHvbg9LU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WopAHvbg9LU
Navy CO Trashed his Career
- Thread starter GMAN
- Start date
At what point do we stop emasculating our military?
Why do we subject their culture to the hypocritical standards manufactured by politically correct urban liberals?
That looks like it was a lot of fun, a big moral boost, and an INSIDE JOKE.
I'm pissed off that they would seek to destroy this man's career over this.
I know.. I know.. the officers are politicians now.
The issue isn't that he should or shouldn't have made this series of videos to increase the moral and spirit of his crew stuck on a friggin' ship in the middle of the ocean. The issue is that the civilians and uptighter media types who HATE the military shouldn't be making an issue of it.
The guy's career was ended over this. That's an outrage.
Why do we subject their culture to the hypocritical standards manufactured by politically correct urban liberals?
That looks like it was a lot of fun, a big moral boost, and an INSIDE JOKE.
I'm pissed off that they would seek to destroy this man's career over this.
I know.. I know.. the officers are politicians now.
The issue isn't that he should or shouldn't have made this series of videos to increase the moral and spirit of his crew stuck on a friggin' ship in the middle of the ocean. The issue is that the civilians and uptighter media types who HATE the military shouldn't be making an issue of it.
The guy's career was ended over this. That's an outrage.
cammerfe
Dedicated LVC Member
This current situation is wholly manufactured by the liberal-progressive politically correct a s s holes at th 'Virginian Pilot'. The whole series of videos was produced and shown several years ago and had been no secret. That this brouha occurs now is because these libtards decided to do a hatchet job on the officer. But what else can we expect in a country run by the likes of bho.
KS
KS
I didn’t find the video that offensive, or for that manner that funny. That really isn’t the point.
My concern is less about the content of the videos than the lack of judgment shown by the XO. Honors seems to be a throw back to the days the navy was a bastion of male bravado - no longer.
I think what you need to ask - if it isn't appropriate for boosting morale at Hewlett Packard - why would it be appropriate for the US Navy? If this had been shown at a 'pep rally' for any business the XO would have been fired before it was finished.
This isn't about 'inside jokes' or 'long at sea' issues - it is really about judgment, and Honors' lack thereof.
My concern is less about the content of the videos than the lack of judgment shown by the XO. Honors seems to be a throw back to the days the navy was a bastion of male bravado - no longer.
I think what you need to ask - if it isn't appropriate for boosting morale at Hewlett Packard - why would it be appropriate for the US Navy? If this had been shown at a 'pep rally' for any business the XO would have been fired before it was finished.
This isn't about 'inside jokes' or 'long at sea' issues - it is really about judgment, and Honors' lack thereof.
When the CEO of HP is going to be sending young men and women out to die for the company, then that might be an appropriate question to ask. Until then, you simply cannot compare what might happen at a private company with what they do in the armed services.
taylor414ce2003
Dedicated LVC Member
Would it be an issue if an E-1 sailor made the tapes?
GMAN
Dedicated LVC Member
If it would've been an E1 sailor, he would've been subject to an NJP. The problem is the video leaked out. Brass hold all their officers to a higher standard. They hold the entire crew to a higher standard. Gone are the days of rowdy sailers coming to port. They have to walk a thin line these days. Not that they can't have fun, but now they have to think before they do anything now. I am glad I am retired.
Yes, you can compare what a private company would do, and what they do in the Armed Forces. I actually expect much better conduct from the men and women who are officers in the Navy - then I do from managers at a corporation.
An XO - thought this was appropriate conduct?
Would it be an issue if a sailor made these tapes and showed them to his buddies - no. However, that isn't the case here. Honors was 2nd in command, and it was shown to the general population of the ship.
Once again - the judgment on the behalf of an executive (now commanding) officer is what should be questioned.
We're going to have to agree to disagree on that. IMNSHO, "this person working for me might go home without a job" is a HELL of a lot different than "this person working for me might not be going home," and you have to make allowances for that in the differences in cultures between corporate America and the military.
FWIW, it would appear that quite a few of those who served under Honors think he's being treated unfairly:
http://timesnews.net/article.php?id=9028755
Perception is everything and now that these videos have been on tv(ie if it wasn't on tv it didn't happen) the navy doesn't want to deal with the pr of a raunchy clown running an aircraft carrier like a blue SNL skit.
Let's do the Time Warp Again!
It's just a jump to the left...
Let's do the Time Warp Again!
It's just a jump to the left...
Yep, we will have to disagree - I believe that an officer in the United States Navy should have better judgment than to create these videos.
Once again, I expect exemplary behavior from the 2nd in command of the USS Enterprise.
You expect this behavior from enlisted - not from officers - and especially not from an officer of the line.
Bob Hubbard
Dedicated LVC Member
Someone stated above that the video had been done a few years back.
That being the case, I fine it a bit coincendintal that just after DADT is repealed, this video surfaces.
Tell me this isn't politically motivated.
Bob.
That being the case, I fine it a bit coincendintal that just after DADT is repealed, this video surfaces.
Tell me this isn't politically motivated.
Bob.
Is that bad behavior?
What about it is bad behavior?
Because I take issue with the standards.
I think the video lacks a certain amount of dignity but it's not offensive, nor should it have been career ending. Nor was it, until it was leaked to the press.
By who? I wonder. Do we know the channels it was leaked so long after the fact?
If I were to guess, it would have probably been by another back stabbing officer, another politician in a uniform, who got the video into the complicate media's hands.
How many admirals are in the Navy now?
How many ships do they actually have?
I can't remember the numbers off hand, but it's extremely top heavy.
What about it is bad behavior?
Because I take issue with the standards.
I think the video lacks a certain amount of dignity but it's not offensive, nor should it have been career ending. Nor was it, until it was leaked to the press.
By who? I wonder. Do we know the channels it was leaked so long after the fact?
If I were to guess, it would have probably been by another back stabbing officer, another politician in a uniform, who got the video into the complicate media's hands.
How many admirals are in the Navy now?
How many ships do they actually have?
I can't remember the numbers off hand, but it's extremely top heavy.
It is bad judgment Cal - from an enlisted man it might be considered bad behavior (however, not really - it looks like some 19 year-old did it for his buddies), from the 2nd in command of an aircraft carrier it shows very poor judgment.
I went to dinner with my ex last night (USN Captain - retired) and asked him what he thought - He felt that not only did it show poor judgment, it also showed lack of understanding of what it means to be a commanding officer. He thought the video looked like an attempt to get the sailors to 'like' Honors - so he could be 'one of the boys'. An officer needs to be respected and obeyed, those are the really important things, 'being one of the boys' isn't. Would you respect the man who made that video my ex wondered - he certainly didn't.
My ex felt that not only should an officer be respected, he also should set an example of behavior to the men and women who serve with him. He wondered what sort of 'example' this video conveyed. That this type of behavior is acceptable? That this is leadership? That this is what an officer of the line should be doing with his time?
My ex said that the officer blogs were all over this - and that the overwhelming consensus was that it was extremely poor judgment on Honors' part. Should he be relieved of duty - that was all over the place he said - no officer likes to see another brought down.
Oh- active flag officers - 216 - the number is set by law, and has been for decades.
Federali Aundy
Active LVC Member
foxpaws said:
Agreed.
foxpaws said:
I certainly would not.
foxpaws said:
Thanks for the info!
I don't necessarily disagree with that, but... why is it bad judgment?
Because when I hear the news, I'm told that the true outrage was that the videos were homophobic and vile. I don't think cursing or telling dirty jokes is "bad judgment."
Was it bad judgment because it's arguably a poor method of leadership?
Was it bad judgment because we all know how intensely political and PC you must be to be an officer of his rank? And are some of those political and social standards even reasonable?
I also don't necessarily disagree with that, I too said that it lacks dignity. Different branch, but I can't imagine Patton doing silly movies to improve morale.
..unless they are competing for his job.
Again, should this be a career ender?
No. After the first of his introductory moves ventured into the goofy, someone should have taken him aside and told him to cut it out. You can't keep things like that "private" anymore. Every officer knows that everything you do is public.
But if it was such a horrible mistake, why was this "open secret" a non-issue within the military until the media ran with it?
As for the top-heavy military issue:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/12/AR2010081206232.html
Essentially, the Navy has nearly one ship for each admiral, almost 1:1.
At the end of WW2 the ratio was about 130:1
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/08/navy_flag_numbers_081010w/
Defending America
David H. Hackworth
February 9, 1999
THE THINNEST RED LINE IN HISTORY
The year is 2020 and you are a fly on the wall at a Pentagon briefing for the commander in chief.
"Mr. President, the Army chief of staff just confirmed his rifle squad of 11 generals is good to go," says the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "The chief of Naval Operations is ready to support, skippering our one ship with a hand-picked all-admiral crew. Our Air Force chief of staff is above the area of operations with his all-general crew in our one Stealth-Platinum bomber, ready to provide air support. The Marine commandant stands ready in reserve with a small amphibious fire team of his best generals. And not only are all 700 of our headquarters online, I'm proud to say their Internet reports are timely and flawless."
Sadly, if our military continues to build new major headquarters, promote more generals and expand the officer corps, and the price of hardware keeps skyrocketing, the above scenario may well become the real deal. In 1945, a fighter aircraft cost about 100,000 bucks, about the price of a WW II M-4 tank. Today, the sticker price on an F-22 fighter is around $70 million a copy while M-1-1A3 tanks run $2.5 million a pop. Today, with an active duty force of 1.4 million, there are more senior headquarters than in 1945, when we had 13 million folks wearing boots.
The U.S. Army presently has 30 Generals for each of its fighting divisions. In WW II, it had only 14 Generals per division and the divisions were 20 percent larger. The Navy has almost more Admirals than ships. During WW II, the Navy had 470 admirals and 61,000 warships - one admiral for every 130 ships. In 1999, the Navy's got 222 admirals for 354 ships. Do the math. The Air Force, the most officer heavy of all the services, actually has more Generals than bombers. In WW II, it had one General for every 244 aircraft. In 1999, it's got one General for every 23 airplanes. Even the once-lean Marine Corps has the inflation disease. With only three active infantry divisions, it has 12 more generals than it had during World War II- when it had six fighting divisions. Since 1945, the teeth that bite into the enemy have gotten smaller while the officer corps and the logistical and command tail have grown faster than kudzu weed. If this trend doesn't stop, our forces will have Generals galore - blubberous battalions of staff weenies and supporters - and few warriors. The Pentagon defends the rank inflation and the bloated tail and the lack of combat troop muscle with the argument that it's in the management business - that its logisticians and managers handle a $300 billion budget and keep together the largest infrastructure in the world.
Spare us this drivel! Since the tail replaced the tooth and managers took over from Patton and Halsey-like leaders, we stopped winning wars. Well-led troops are what put holes in enemy soldiers, fix airplanes, run ships and make things happen.
In WW II, there was one officer to 11 riflemen. Today, the ratio is one officer to six grunts. Take our forces in Germany. Our fighting units there have been cut by two thirds since the Berlin Wall fell, but not so the palaces for the top brass. There are three times more Generals than infantry battalion skippers. All stay busy conducting inspections, micromanaging the troops and writing papers which become more hoops for the troops to jump through. And our four NATO combat brigades have four headquarters with fat staffs above them, breathing down their flak jackets, whipping up irrelevant to-do lists.
It's the same in South Korea, where we have two combat brigades supervised by a four-star general and multi-star studded echelons of higher headquarters above them. But staffers and critical rear echelon supporters, however well supervised by a galaxy of stars and bars, don't take objectives. Matter of fact, I've never seen a general and his staff in an attack. During my last 53 years of fighting in or covering the profession of arms, I've learned this truth: only well-trained, well-led and well-armed warriors win battles.
David H. Hackworth
February 9, 1999
THE THINNEST RED LINE IN HISTORY
The year is 2020 and you are a fly on the wall at a Pentagon briefing for the commander in chief.
"Mr. President, the Army chief of staff just confirmed his rifle squad of 11 generals is good to go," says the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "The chief of Naval Operations is ready to support, skippering our one ship with a hand-picked all-admiral crew. Our Air Force chief of staff is above the area of operations with his all-general crew in our one Stealth-Platinum bomber, ready to provide air support. The Marine commandant stands ready in reserve with a small amphibious fire team of his best generals. And not only are all 700 of our headquarters online, I'm proud to say their Internet reports are timely and flawless."
Sadly, if our military continues to build new major headquarters, promote more generals and expand the officer corps, and the price of hardware keeps skyrocketing, the above scenario may well become the real deal. In 1945, a fighter aircraft cost about 100,000 bucks, about the price of a WW II M-4 tank. Today, the sticker price on an F-22 fighter is around $70 million a copy while M-1-1A3 tanks run $2.5 million a pop. Today, with an active duty force of 1.4 million, there are more senior headquarters than in 1945, when we had 13 million folks wearing boots.
The U.S. Army presently has 30 Generals for each of its fighting divisions. In WW II, it had only 14 Generals per division and the divisions were 20 percent larger. The Navy has almost more Admirals than ships. During WW II, the Navy had 470 admirals and 61,000 warships - one admiral for every 130 ships. In 1999, the Navy's got 222 admirals for 354 ships. Do the math. The Air Force, the most officer heavy of all the services, actually has more Generals than bombers. In WW II, it had one General for every 244 aircraft. In 1999, it's got one General for every 23 airplanes. Even the once-lean Marine Corps has the inflation disease. With only three active infantry divisions, it has 12 more generals than it had during World War II- when it had six fighting divisions. Since 1945, the teeth that bite into the enemy have gotten smaller while the officer corps and the logistical and command tail have grown faster than kudzu weed. If this trend doesn't stop, our forces will have Generals galore - blubberous battalions of staff weenies and supporters - and few warriors. The Pentagon defends the rank inflation and the bloated tail and the lack of combat troop muscle with the argument that it's in the management business - that its logisticians and managers handle a $300 billion budget and keep together the largest infrastructure in the world.
Spare us this drivel! Since the tail replaced the tooth and managers took over from Patton and Halsey-like leaders, we stopped winning wars. Well-led troops are what put holes in enemy soldiers, fix airplanes, run ships and make things happen.
In WW II, there was one officer to 11 riflemen. Today, the ratio is one officer to six grunts. Take our forces in Germany. Our fighting units there have been cut by two thirds since the Berlin Wall fell, but not so the palaces for the top brass. There are three times more Generals than infantry battalion skippers. All stay busy conducting inspections, micromanaging the troops and writing papers which become more hoops for the troops to jump through. And our four NATO combat brigades have four headquarters with fat staffs above them, breathing down their flak jackets, whipping up irrelevant to-do lists.
It's the same in South Korea, where we have two combat brigades supervised by a four-star general and multi-star studded echelons of higher headquarters above them. But staffers and critical rear echelon supporters, however well supervised by a galaxy of stars and bars, don't take objectives. Matter of fact, I've never seen a general and his staff in an attack. During my last 53 years of fighting in or covering the profession of arms, I've learned this truth: only well-trained, well-led and well-armed warriors win battles.
This is where we could cut the cost of defence by the 20% required based on our economic status.
A more lean mean machine than this padded coddled right wing welfare bums version we have now.
Federali Aundy
Active LVC Member
shagdrum said:
Well said, indeed.
We all need to try to abandon the "left wing, right wing" labels.
"Right wing" is a term that really has absolutely no meaning.
There's nothing "conservative" or libertarian about having a top heavy military. For example, there are no tea party members saying we need more admirals than ships. Supporting the military doesn't mean supporting a wasteful, self-sustaining, government bureaucracy.
And if you noticed I didn't think that these were particularly offensive - just rather stupid.
It was bad judgment because an XO of an aircraft carrier shouldn't be doing this sort of sophomoric crap. For all the reasons I listed before - that is why it is bad judgment.
Do you think that this video reflects well on our Navy Cal? It doesn't, and the officer, an XO Cal, not some enlisted guy, should be held responsible for his lack of judgment.
As XO of an aircraft carrier you are suppose to be a professional - you get paid extremely well, you are basically a deputy 'mayor' of a town of 5,000 people - you better believe political correctness comes into play.
Once again Cal - this officer is suppose to be an example to the people he serves with, he is suppose to be held to a higher standard. The videos Honor created are hardly the shining example I would like the world to view as our high ranking naval officers. Those standards are reasonable - there are 11 US aircraft carriers, so he is one of 22 Commanding/Executive officers that represent those amazing ships, he should have been beyond college hi-jinks.
So, are you going after Rice - i believe he was in command of the Enterprise when this happened?
So, if every officer knows that everything you do is public, why are you giving Honor slack? He should have known better - he should have used better judgment. He didn't.
I have no idea. It should have been an issue since 2007 when Honor made the videos. The really appalling part is that it wasn't.
I actually think it was about 6:1 at the end of WWII, if you go by anything from a destroyer escort up... and if you take out the escorts it would be about 4:1
However you are correct, the entire military is top heavy - but people will consider you un-American if you want to cut the military Cal. Well, they won't think you are un-American, only I would be considered un-American for stating
the exact same thing...
Last edited by a moderator:
Do you think the Israeli army, which has allowed gay men and women to serve openly since 1993, is lacking in discipline shag? They usually are considered as one of the best fighting forces in the world.
Foxy, you do know that Israel is not America, right?
It is a VERY different culture with very different political and social concerns. It is irrational to assume that anything that may work organizationally in their military (which includes mandatory military service) would work in our military or, more broadly, our culture.
It is a VERY different culture with very different political and social concerns. It is irrational to assume that anything that may work organizationally in their military (which includes mandatory military service) would work in our military or, more broadly, our culture.