Professional Reading Drop Box

[Brett327]

When I lived in San Diego, I dated a Marine Officer for a while who had recently done a tour in Iraq. We were at a Padres game and when the fireworks went off, she got pretty spooked. She had forewarned me, and had processed her experiences enough to intellectualize the whole thing. It was interesting to watch the simultaneous emotional and rational reaction to a stimulus. She didn't need a yard sign - the height of lame, IMO.

I wonder if the writers from the various satirical sites get together for an annual drink-ex. That's a party I want to be at.

 

[SynixMan]

One of the best things I read today. Has anyone here on AW seen one of these signs?

And then of course, Duffel Blog comes in for the win...

I'll say the author is, to me; an entitled prick. Nothing in the world allows him to judge other's pain or problems. His companions to the Civil War/WWII/Vietnam are inconsequential. There were generations of Vets who saw terrible things and buried those feelings in a bottle at the VFW post. That doesn't make you any more of a man than a guy who asks that you be minimally considerate of their trauma with a sign.

Do I get frustrated at people's "look at me I've suffered" attitude? Sure. We all do. But the "harden the fuck up" crowd is more dangerous. We could all throw a rock at work and hit someone who had it worse than us. So what?

The service is not a suffering competition. We're all people who raised their hand and sacrificed something. One's resiliency (or lack thereof) doesn't mean they're better or worse at their job. At best you're kicking the can down the road. At worse you're pushing away someone who's asking for help, which can have disastrous consequences.

 

[BigRed389]

Team of Teams.

(Related to that book, Speed of Trust.)

Seconded. Surprisingly good.

I'm normally suspicious of military officers writing "management" books, but this was good. And petty tribalism is definitely something that we could work to improve.

 

[wink]

...

Do I get frustrated at people's "look at me I've suffered" attitude? Sure. We all do. But the "harden the fuck up" crowd is more dangerous. We could all throw a rock at work and hit someone who had it worse than us. So what?

The service is not a suffering competition. We're all people who raised their hand and sacrificed something. One's resiliency (or lack thereof) doesn't mean they're better or worse at their job. At best you're kicking the can down the road. At worse you're pushing away someone who's asking for help, which can have disastrous consequences.

I don't know. I think the look at me victim group could be just as damaging. Just in a different way. While it is true people all cope differently and ultimately have different levels of resilience, fact is it certainly does effect how well they do their jobs. No one is saying don't ask for help. The question is how many of those signs represent people who need help, have sought help, and have been told that sign is a good way to cope? And does their personal use of the sign for whatever reason trump the harm it does to millions of other vets who the public are increasingly coming under the impression have to be treated with kid gloves. That sure helps vets employment prospects.

BTW. Just came in from one of the best fireworks displays I have ever seen. It was put on by two families on my son's street in Spring TX. The next door neighbor had 4 three inch mortar tubes launching no shit pro style aerial displays. He is a proud USMC vet. I had to laugh!

 

[Recovering LSO]

Wink sighting.....

 

[Recovering LSO]

Why Jointness Makes for Bad Strategy, and Other Thoughts - James Holmes, PhD, NWC, via War On The Rocks.

Good stuff, though I did have to use a dictionary a few times...

 

[Recovering LSO]

"You can't start a fight with someone because you punched yourself in the face...", or some decent thoughts on the OPM debacle.

 

[Recovering LSO]

CNO TedX talk at Pittsburgh State Prison

I'm not a huge fan of his, but this was a decent talk. Not sure who the audience was, presumably not all prisoners....?

The problem that has gone unaddressed for too long is the matter of re-establishing "unconditional trust" when your subordinates have lost it in you....



http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2014/07/loss-of-trust-and-confidence-goes-both.html

http://blog.usni.org/2014/03/20/keep-a-weather-eye-on-the-horizon-a-navy-officer-retention-study

http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/03/26...vys-leadership-of-heavy-personnel-seas-ahead/

 

[Recovering LSO]

Pollard in the news recently.

I tend to agree with Attorney General Lynch that nobody could have known nearly 30 years ago that the US would be in nuclear talks with Iran and would feel the need to somehow placate Israel. She offers this as reason enough to dismiss claims that the US is working to buy Israeli acceptance of the nuke deal. Yes, on the surface, she's absolutely correct, but... that also assumes nobody in the administration is astute enough to recognize a serendipitous stroke of "great timing" when it presents itself.

I think it's naive to accept that the nuke deal and Pollard's parole have nothing to do with one-another.


Foreign Policy

Politico

CS Monitor

 

[Brett327]

Curious as to what the mechanism would be for the executive branch to influence a parole board. Not saying a phone call couldn't be made, but that kind of thing has the potential to go south real quick if someone on the parole board gets squirrely and goes to the media.

 

[Flash]

I think it's naive to accept that the nuke deal and Pollard's parole have nothing to do with one-another.

Actually I don't think this decision was affected by any outside factors, according to the applicable law he has to be released at 30 years unless he is likely to commit the crime again (unlikely) or if he wasn't a good boy in prison (apparently he has been). Now if he is allowed to leave the country, which I am pretty sure he can't do, during his parole then that would be nonstandard.

Personally, I wish he would rot in jail for the rest of his life but the law says otherwise apparently.

 

[wink]

Actually I don't think this decision was affected by any outside factors,....

I dunno. The Administration floated the trial balloon about release not withstanding the parole hearing in Nov. Talk was it may come sooner than Nov. If nothing else, that sent a signal to the parole board that the Administration was not only OK with his release, but was considering doing something unilateral, ie clemency. All they had to do was get ahead of it and save the president the political back lash for setting him free with the stroke of HIS pen in what would look more like Israeli pandering then scheduled parole.

 

[squorch2]

Damned if you do, damned if you don't, eh?

 

[Flash]

I dunno. The Administration floated the trial balloon about release not withstanding the parole hearing in Nov. Talk was it may come sooner than Nov. If nothing else, that sent a signal to the parole board that the Administration was not only OK with his release, but was considering doing something unilateral, ie clemency. All they had to do was get ahead of it and save the president the political back lash for setting him free with the stroke of HIS pen in what would look more like Israeli pandering then scheduled parole.

I think you are reading too much into it all. I don't pretend to be an expert on how DC game is played but I am wary of some of the 'leaks' and 'trial balloons' that may or may not have been sent out, how exactly do we know their veracity or credibility? The administration has very little to nothing to gain with a release just a few months early, it would get us less than nothing with the Israelis and just annoy intelligence and security officials. The propaganda effort surrounding Pollard and his supporters is also very big and very good at getting their message across in spite of the facts, I would not be surprised if they had a hand in some of these 'rumors' to try and discredit the administration and boost Pollard's image.

Either way my main point is that the parole board was compelled to release Pollard according to the law at the time he was sentenced with few exceptions, whatever the administration wanted to do something or not.

 

[wink]

Damned if you do, damned if you don't, eh?

I don't follow you. If you mean the president gets criticized for a scheduled parole by an independent board but also if he offers clemency, I find it more nuanced. He may be criticized for the parole by partisans, but he has cover from the parole board, and you will hear that refrain in the coming months. It isn't his signature on the parole. Clemency would require making a hard decision contrary to a no vote from the parole board and the wishes of the intelligence community. That would mean publicly answering questions about an Israeli link. The White House does not want that during the Congressional debate over the Iran deal.