Honor to those who came forward

Cecil Turner wrote in message ...
Kevin Brooks wrote:

Cecil Turner wrote in message ...
Kevin Brooks wrote:
It's "for he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother" . .
. not "he who feeds the horses but stays behind."

So you join Art in scorning the service of all of those who have
faithfully served in other roles, or theaters? I would have thought
better of you, Cecil.

Mr Brooks, I may be overly sensitive, but as a (retired) military officer I expect a
certain amount of civility and courtesy, especially from fellow servicemen. Since you
refuse to discuss issues without gratuitous personal comments, I decline to correspond
with you further.

I would expect more than that "he who feeds the horses" bit from a
good officer, retired or otherwise.

Well, let's talk about your expectations for a moment. Most references on the subject
claim it's a very personal phenomenon (and even more so for small groups). For example:
"The book highlights the importance of peer pressure in reinforcing courage. For the
ship?s company and a bomber crew, the shared risk is perhaps even more personal than it
is for a company of infantry." (Air Marshal Sir Timothy Garden, reviewing _The Mystery
of Courage_ By William Ian Miller)

And various communities do not extend the same risk appreciation to others. Examples
include sailors deriding merchant mariners, or infantrymen and airmen (even though the
risks to the latter are statistically greater in most conflicts). Further, I find it
hard to believe even someone who hasn't been there hasn't noticed these things, and
believe you're being intentionally obtuse.

Not obtuse, I just find it hard to believe that a professional would
buy into the "those that feed the horses" bit as a manner of
denigrating others' honorable service (and that is what this was
about--Art having a decided tendency to ridicule the efforts of any
who did not see direct combat, regardless of their duty, orders, or
even other critical contribution, etc.). How far would *your* units
have gotten without maintainers, mess personnel, the logistics chain
that kept you in beans/bullets, the medical types who handled your
wounded from the battlefield all the way back to CONUS, etc.? And you
still can scoff at those "who feed the horses"? Even when some of
"them" are the ones who have been shown to be most at risk in terms of
catastrophic loss during both ODS and OIF?


While we're on the personal comment stuff . . . IME the individual has considerable
control over his orders in today's volunteer military. And lately, those who wish to be
in combat don't have much trouble doing so. And there are those who are in each
conflict . . . and those who manage to miss them all. Among those who regularly don't
participate, they seem to just miss being assigned to a unit that goes. Often there are
sets of orders to second echelon commands just after the war ends, or similar excuses.

Back up the bus, Gus. I commanded a company during the time of ODS,
and yet I still volunteered to go overseas with my parent BN HQ (a
composite unit) when they got their orders--I was told thanks, but
your unit is on the deployment list as well (a fact born out by the
fact that we all of a sudden received things like that new M916 with
lowboy trailer that had been on backorder stsus for a couple of
*years*, with "Operation Desert Storm" listed as a justification for
fill, not to mention the near-daily updates I received by phone from
our RG personnel as to our deployment status). But in the end there
was less need for fixed bridge companies than originally projected. If
you are insinuating any of this adds up to "excuses", then you can
kiss me where the sun don't shine. And that IS intended to be quite
personal, so you can take it that way.

How much of a buildup would there have had to be before your unit would have been sent
to ODS?

We were bumped from phase to phase of the TPFDL (which was apprently
being generated on the fly, according to our RG rep, who said they
were actually to the point of moving units on post-it notes around on
a wall). ISTR we were in something like phase 7B or something like
that when the ground war kicked into gear and all things quickly
stopped in terms of shipping more combat power overseas. Uhmmm...you
do remember what a TPFDL is, right?

And if you're still in, you had the last couple of opportunities as
well.

Not anymore. But I did my share of years in service, both active and
reserve. All as a volunteer. I don't feel any burning need to drop my
current life in order to try to go back and prove anything to anyone;
I'll leave that kind of behavior to guys like you and Art, the folks
who have some strange need to reinforce their tender egos by tearing
down the contributions of the millions of others who did their duty
because you feel that is the route to making your own contributions
more worthwhile.


Perhaps in a training or similar non-deploying billet now? It all just seems a bit . .
. convenient. (And might help to explain your apparent sensitivity on the subject.)

Hey, this ad-hominem game is fun! Let's play another round, shall we?

Sure. Based upon what you have indicated so far, did *all* of your
fellow servicemembers think you were a complete asshole who had little
regard for anyone's service other than his own, or did you keep your
mouth shut in this vein at the time? Ever tell a "horse feeder" he was
lacking in the old duty and service area, and have him tell you where
you could shove that feed? No, I imagine you didn't...you probably
would not have been willing to make such a facile statement to
anyone's face. Do you feel that the Marines who were occupied by
duties in the FSSG were "less of a man" because of their "REMF"
duties? How about those water purification troops from the USAR who
got pasted by that Scud during ODS--were they not up to your
standards? Or the folks killed at the center of all REMF-dom, the
Pentagon? Can you tell us how they were lacking?

Brooks


rgds,
KTF