GWB's piloting fun....

Bill,

Thanks for the very interesting history of contactors serving the US
military. When I wrote this, I was thinking primarily of those contractors
whose "job descriptions" specifically send them into harm's way. Indian
scouts certainly qualify here, while yardbirds don't.

My point still remains, that we as a nation have never had a clear debate on
this question.

One danger that I see is of our slipping into a "Légion Étrangère"
mentality [rest snipped for brevity]

I think this is a rather broad statement and not supported by the facts.

The ability for the French government to sacrifice non-French citizens in
the pursuit of national policy is precisely why France has maintained the
Légion Étrangère. If you think the US Left is passionate about not sending
our troops into war, you haven't seen the passion of the French on this
point. France (as well as Britain) was bled white by the excesses of WWI
and that horrific memory continues very sharp in the French mind, almost 90
years later.

IIRC, the Legion's officer corps are its only French nationals. Every other
Legionnaire is a non-citizen volunteer who may later obtain French
citizenship upon successful completion of his enlistment.

By contrast, the regular French Army is (or at least used to be) primarily
conscript.

In short, do we really want to become like the French?

Probably not. But that presumes that we are in any way, shape, or form
headed in that direction. I don't see that happening.

I hope not.

--
Mike Kanze

"Democratic strategists feel John Kerry's war record means he can beat Bush.
They say when it comes down to it voters will always vote for a war hero
over someone who tried to get out of the war. I'll be sure to mention that
to Bob Dole when I see him."

- Jay Leno


"Bill Kambic" wrote in message
...
"Mike Kanze" wrote in message
[rest snipped]

"Mike Kanze" wrote in message

Thanks for the very interesting history of contactors serving the US
military. When I wrote this, I was thinking primarily of those
contractors
whose "job descriptions" specifically send them into harm's way. Indian
scouts certainly qualify here, while yardbirds don't.

I don't think I would apply the term "yarbirds" to frontier era teamsters or
wagonmasters.

Plenty of supply trains in every conflict were hit by hostiles. The Wagon
Box Fight was mostly hay cutters with a very few troopers and scouts holding
off a large party of braves. If you are part of a combat organization, even
as a contractor, you are in harm's way.

My point still remains, that we as a nation have never had a clear debate
on
this question.

I am not sure one is necessary.

One danger that I see is of our slipping into a "Légion Étrangère"
mentality [rest snipped for brevity]

I think this is a rather broad statement and not supported by the facts.

The ability for the French government to sacrifice non-French citizens in
the pursuit of national policy is precisely why France has maintained the
Légion Étrangère. If you think the US Left is passionate about not
sending
our troops into war, you haven't seen the passion of the French on this
point. France (as well as Britain) was bled white by the excesses of WWI
and that horrific memory continues very sharp in the French mind, almost
90
years later.

IIRC, the Legion's officer corps are its only French nationals. Every
other
Legionnaire is a non-citizen volunteer who may later obtain French
citizenship upon successful completion of his enlistment.

By contrast, the regular French Army is (or at least used to be) primarily
conscript.

I think you correct on the French policy. But that does not even bear a
superficial resemblance to the modern, American all-volunteer force.

Back in the mid to late '60s George Reedy wrote a small book entitled, "Who
Will Do Our Fighting For Us?" It addressed many of the issues of the
volunteer vs. conscript force. It was worthwhile reading then, and it is
now.

In short, do we really want to become like the French?

Probably not. But that presumes that we are in any way, shape, or form
headed in that direction. I don't see that happening.

I hope not.

Me, too. And so far I see no evidence that it is.

Bill Kambic

Mangalarga Marchador: Uma raça, uma paixão

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote:

George Z. Bush wrote:

Just for the sake of accuracy, let's just concede that he WAS a
qualif............etc. instead of is. Spoken from experience, I guarantee
that you can get pretty damned rusty after 30+ years out of the saddle.

I seem to recall a flight down to the Bahamas where I let an old USAF type


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Anybody we know?



handle the controls for the first time in 20 years or more. Within just a
couple of minutes he was holding heading within 5 degrees and altitude within 50
feet. I will admit the resulting landing required getting the landing gear
serviced.

But straight and level flying? Must be like riding the proverbial bike...

--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

Bob McKellar

Bob McKellar wrote:
I seem to recall a flight down to the Bahamas where I let an old USAF type


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Anybody we know?


'Twould be ungentlemanly of me to elaborate.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

Ed- If you receive a military
pilot rating, you can go down to the local FAA office and complete a
short exam on FARs. They give you a commercial rating single and
multi-engine (C/L thrust) and instrument rating. BRBR

I had to wait until I got NATOPS qualed in a multi engine A/C before I could
get the 'multi' part. I knew some guys that were A-4 and A-7 pilots that got a
single engine commercial only.

I got my multiengine non centerline thrust part when I flew the Turkey...had a
multi/C/L thrust from the F-4...
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

delphi- 2. He's a qualified and trained USAF pilot, so its not like he
doesn't know
anything about aircraft.
BRBR

He 'was' 'certified', he is not 'qualified' now..in spite of him 'owning' all
the military.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

sam- By the standard your setting down in your first paragraph I guess the
SAC pilots sitting on their wheels around the world weren't serving
either. BRBR


C'mon..there is 'serving' and there is 'serving'...Getting into the AirGuard
with yer Daddy's help to avoid a comflict ain't quite the same as being in the
USAF on alert in case of the 'big heat'....
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

foodog- 5 in a piggie... BRBR


Another ejection seat??

Hope so...interesting to see all the other seats go...and sit there with yer
___ inyer hand...
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

Bill,

I don't think I would apply the term "yarbirds" to frontier era teamsters
or wagonmasters.

"Yardbirds" (my spelling, not yours) - as in shipyard workers. Teamsters
and wagonmasters would certainly be closer to any action.

I think you correct on the French policy. But that does not even bear a
superficial resemblance to the modern, American all-volunteer force.

True today, but US population demographics may change this, as well as
whatever force level needs may evolve - especially if we become further
engaged elsewhere in the world. We don't ask today's 18-year old males to
send that postcard to the Uncle just for grins. (Disclosu In the recent
past I have served as a member of a Selective Service System draft board.
They exist in a "reserve" status: get called up once or twice a year for a
Saturday of training, etc.)

--
Mike Kanze

"Democratic strategists feel John Kerry's war record means he can beat Bush.
They say when it comes down to it voters will always vote for a war hero
over someone who tried to get out of the war. I'll be sure to mention that
to Bob Dole when I see him."

- Jay Leno


"Bill Kambic" wrote in message
...
"Mike Kanze" wrote in message
[rest snipped]