Navy Reserve COVID Vaccinations by October

[Hair Warrior]

In what way is it a complex problem? Seems like a relatively clear cut policy.

Policy does not always equal desirable outcomes. At some point a nation has to be pragmatic so that it can field a viable, capable, affordable military force. There are policies on lots of things - many of which are waiverable, and/or evolve with societal norms and needs-of-the-nation over time. Tattoos. Hairstyles. Education. Age. Height/weight/anthro. Honesty. COL David Hackworth lied about his age to join the USMM in WW2, then again lied to join the Army after the war. Did the Army kick him out for lying, which of course was a violation of age policy and honesty policy? Apparently not, as his decorated career would reflect. My point is that “policy” isn’t so cemented that it can’t be amended, bent, ignored, waivered, sunset, reversed, or whatever word you choose.

 

[Spekkio]

You're comparing a war where the draft was invoked to meet manpower needs to today's military. That's a bit of an apples and oranges comparison.

I don't think that there will be enough hold outs to move the needle. The force structure of the Army and Marines are significantly more elastic than the Navy (by design). The latter is projected to have at least a 98% vaccination rate by the end of October.

 

[UInavy]

Policy does not always equal desirable outcomes. At some point a nation has to be pragmatic so that it can field a viable, capable, affordable military force. There are policies on lots of things - many of which are waiverable, and/or evolve with societal norms and needs-of-the-nation over time. Tattoos. Hairstyles. Education. Age. Height/weight/anthro. Honesty. COL David Hackworth lied about his age to join the USMM in WW2, then again lied to join the Army after the war. Did the Army kick him out for lying, which of course was a violation of age policy and honesty policy? Apparently not, as his decorated career would reflect. My point is that “policy” isn’t so cemented that it can’t be amended, bent, ignored, waivered, sunset, reversed, or whatever word you choose.

This is not a good analogy. Violation of a direct order is an act of commission, not omission. There are plenty of capable folks in place to more than make up for those that willfully choose to defy an order. Consolidated Disposition Authority needs to act quickly though, iot maintain good order and discipline.

 

[Brett327]

Policy does not always equal desirable outcomes. At some point a nation has to be pragmatic so that it can field a viable, capable, affordable military force. There are policies on lots of things - many of which are waiverable, and/or evolve with societal norms and needs-of-the-nation over time. Tattoos. Hairstyles. Education. Age. Height/weight/anthro. Honesty. COL David Hackworth lied about his age to join the USMM in WW2, then again lied to join the Army after the war. Did the Army kick him out for lying, which of course was a violation of age policy and honesty policy? Apparently not, as his decorated career would reflect. My point is that “policy” isn’t so cemented that it can’t be amended, bent, ignored, waivered, sunset, reversed, or whatever word you choose.

Your argument seems to be that people should be able to choose which orders they follow, or pursue waivers to those orders they don't happen to like. Is that really the stance a Naval Officer should be promoting?

 

[Treetop Flyer]

First, he’s peddling debunked xenophobic conspiracies, now this?

oh and…

Let’s go Brandon!

 

[SlickAg]

First, he’s peddling debunked xenophobic conspiracies, now this?

oh and…

Let’s go Brandon!

They sure have memory-holed that one.

Not to mention some of the disparaging things that Naval Officers have said on this site about their former Commander-in-Chief.

When they’re doing things Naval Officers shouldn’t be, all is well and good because it’s in the name of Freedom, Democracy, and no more mean tweets. When someone else does it, much wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth ensues.

Hilarious.

 

[UInavy]

They sure have memory-holed that one.

Not to mention some of the disparaging things that Naval Officers have said on this site about their former Commander-in-Chief.

When they’re doing things Naval Officers shouldn’t be, all is well and good because it’s in the name of Freedom, Democracy, and no more mean tweets. When someone else does it, much wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth ensues.

Hilarious.

Huh? Did I miss something? Or are you guys just doing the angry old muppet thing?

 

[Spekkio]

Policy does not always equal desirable outcomes. At some point a nation has to be pragmatic so that it can field a viable, capable, affordable military force...My point is that “policy” isn’t so cemented that it can’t be amended, bent, ignored, waivered, sunset, reversed, or whatever word you choose.

Your argument seems to be that people should be able to choose which orders they follow, or pursue waivers to those orders they don't happen to like. Is that really the stance a Naval Officer should be promoting?

I don't know how you got that stance at all from Hair Warrior's post, nor why you decided to attack him personally and professionally for his opinions.

I think his overall point is that there will be a critical mass of people who don't take the vaccine that will force leadership to revisit the policy in order to avoid negative consequences to military readiness.

 

[Brett327]

decided to attack him personally and professionally for his opinions.

Please point out where I attacked him in any way.

 

[SlickAg]

Huh? Did I miss something? Or are you guys just doing the angry old muppet thing?
View attachment 32884

Several months ago, @nittany03 chastised him and said he couldn’t believe a professional Naval Intelligence Officer was trafficking in “debunked xenophobic conspiracy theories” when he posited that the novel coronavirus did not in fact come from the wet markets of Wuhan. Nittany apparently must not remember, and I doubt he’ll respond to this post either. But who knows, stranger things have happened.

The second part was about the old Political Thunderdome thread where disparaging President Trump happened quite frequently and despite being called out on it, a certain Captain (O-6) always insisted that he was always exercising his Constitutional rights and JAGs had told him he was free to say what he was saying as it wasn’t against Article 88.

So yeah, I find it ironic that he’s the one calling someone out for saying things that a Naval Officer “shouldn’t”.

Based on his post history about these topics, I’m going to guess @Treetop Flyer feels the same way. If, in your mind, that makes us Muppet characters, so be it. I’d rather be that than a hypocrite.

 

[UInavy]

So literally nothing to so with this thread. Got it.

 

[wink]

Several months ago, @nittany03 chastised him, a professional Naval Intelligence Officer for trafficking in “debunked xenophobic conspiracy theories” when he posited that the novel coronavirus did not in fact come from the wet markets of Wuhan. Nittany apparently must not remember, and I doubt he’ll respond to this post either. But who knows, stranger things have happened.

The second part was about the old Political Thunderdome thread where disparaging President Trump happened quite frequently and despite being called out on it, a certain Captain (O-6) always insisted that he was always exercising his Constitutional rights and JAGs had told him he was free to say what he was saying as it wasn’t against Article 88.

So yeah, I find it ironic that he’s the one calling someone out for saying things that a Naval Officer “shouldn’t”.

Based on his post history about these topics, I’m going to guess @Treetop Flyer feels the same way. If, in your mind, that makes us Muppet characters, so be it. I’d rather be that than a hypocrite.

If this isn't proof you are not interested on the debate at hand, and would rather stir up conflict, I don't know what is. At the very least let @Hair Warrior defend himself. Maybe, after "several months" he has move on from an internet slight and doesn't give a crap.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

So literally nothing to so with this thread. Got it.

Implying someone isn’t a good naval officer for suggesting a policy should be changed seems relevant to the other time the same was suggested when he went against the lie about covid s origin.

Wasn’t the mandate sold as helping readiness? Does punishing/separating thousands or tens of thousands help or hurt readiness?

 

[SlickAg]

If this isn't proof you are not interested on the debate at hand, and would rather stir up conflict, I don't know what is. At the very least let @Hair Warrior defend himself. Maybe, after "several months" he has move on from an internet slight and doesn't give a crap.

I answered the man’s question. If you want people to fight their own fights you certainly didn’t need to pitch in either.

And please go back and reread this thread carefully before you accuse me of not contributing to the topic at hand. Seems that your fellow mods may be guilty of that one as well, no?

 

[UInavy]

Wasn’t the mandate sold as helping readiness? Does punishing/separating thousands or tens of thousands help or hurt readiness?

Not following a direct order hurts readiness. If those folks get sick, it hurts readiness. There aren’t going to be tens of thousands of separations, at least in the Navy. Look at private sector mandates where timelines are to the left of DoD’s as leading indicators. UAL is a good one. The math works out very well on who you may lose versus the costs of allowing an order to be violated.