|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Nov 11, 2008 17:27:44 GMT -6
The historical norms give ample reason to suspect that a degree of complacency had taken hold in the Seventh Cavalry. An underestimation of the enemies capabilities, in part due to earlier achievements by the US Army over the Confederate Army combined (as very often happens) with a national attitude of racial superiority may have also given rise to an atmosphere of thinking that they (the 7th Cav.) were better than they were by simple virtue of who they were. If so, it was disaster looking for a place to happen, and it found the perfect place in June 1876. M
Michael, your replies #185, #196 and the above are outstanding in providing an unemotional summary of the reality of what the post CW U.S. Army, including the 7th Cavalry, had to face. I heartily agree that this view of the facts is not intended to denigrate the courage of the men of the 7th but is offered as a means to try and understand the mind sets of the politicians of that time, who did not have a finely tuned standing army high on its list of priorities, which led to the military leaders taking their eyes off the ball whilst they maneuvered to maintain their funding requirements from Congress. Thus a domino effect was created as the malaise went down the various stratas, from commanders to officers to NCO's to rank & file with no one having any motivation to improve matters. Those who argue in defense of the 7th on the basis that there is some kind of template which forms men into soldiers simply because they belong to a regular army misunderstand the meaning of the word 'professional'. It simply means 'Engaged in a specific activity as a source of livelihood' and has no connotations of competence in the carrying out of that livelihood. Now add the word 'hardened' before 'professional' and the picture transforms to someone who has become competent at his chosen profession via experience. The turnover of men in the 7th Cavalry between 1866 and 1876 ensured that very few of them had experience at anything and particularly not in that most important requirement for a soldier, the field of battle. I realise that in you Michael, I am preaching to the converted, but I hold out no great hope that those who want to believe that the 7th was a fighting fit regiment will ever stand back a little and take an objective view based on evidence rather than a pre-conceived notion. Hunk |
|
|
|
Post by conz on Nov 11, 2008 20:59:01 GMT -6
... is offered as a means to try and understand the mind sets of the politicians of that time, who did not have a finely tuned standing army high on its list of priorities, which led to the military leaders taking their eyes off the ball whilst they maneuvered to maintain their funding requirements from Congress. Thus a domino effect was created as the malaise went down the various stratas, from commanders to officers to NCO's to rank & file with no one having any motivation to improve matters. What rot..."taking their eyes off the ball..." "the malaise that went down the various stratas..." "no one having the motivation to improve matters." That is an INSULT to our profession of arms of any age. Disgraceful. You haven't a clue as to what is to be a professional Soldier, or what motivates them in service to their country. I can't believe you have such a low opinion of the men who volunteer to be NCO's and officers in our military, at any time in our history, but especially in the periods between the "romantic" wars the public swoons to fight. To think that these professionals in the 1870s weren't following their "calling" is to totally misunderstand what is going on in the military out there. The men who didn't want to be there resigned, deserted, or otherwise left. The men who made Soldiering their life's work and stayed out there in those miserable conditions certainly weren't there for the money...they were called to do it and to think that they have some kind of malaise or complacency about preparing for combat is incomprehensible. It must take a particular kind of view, or personal agenda, to hold to such a view of the military, I would think. I don't see any basis in evidence for such an opinion, but then, perhaps we need help evaluating the evidence you are looking at that formed this opinion. In doing that, I would be glad to assist. I can't imagine what kind of objectivity it would take to call professional Soldiers incompetent, full of malaise, destroying their own units because of it, etc. Professionals soldier on regardless of what Congress or the public thinks of them, or gives them to do their duty. They just do it anyway. Its about honor. <G> Clair |
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Nov 12, 2008 15:52:52 GMT -6
... is offered as a means to try and understand the mind sets of the politicians of that time, who did not have a finely tuned standing army high on its list of priorities, which led to the military leaders taking their eyes off the ball whilst they maneuvered to maintain their funding requirements from Congress. Thus a domino effect was created as the malaise went down the various stratas, from commanders to officers to NCO's to rank & file with no one having any motivation to improve matters. What rot..."taking their eyes off the ball..." "the malaise that went down the various stratas..." "no one having the motivation to improve matters." That is an INSULT to our profession of arms of any age. Disgraceful. You haven't a clue as to what is to be a professional Soldier, or what motivates them in service to their country. I can't believe you have such a low opinion of the men who volunteer to be NCO's and officers in our military, at any time in our history, but especially in the periods between the "romantic" wars the public swoons to fight. To think that these professionals in the 1870s weren't following their "calling" is to totally misunderstand what is going on in the military out there. The men who didn't want to be there resigned, deserted, or otherwise left. The men who made Soldiering their life's work and stayed out there in those miserable conditions certainly weren't there for the money...they were called to do it and to think that they have some kind of malaise or complacency about preparing for combat is incomprehensible. It must take a particular kind of view, or personal agenda, to hold to such a view of the military, I would think. I don't see any basis in evidence for such an opinion, but then, perhaps we need help evaluating the evidence you are looking at that formed this opinion. In doing that, I would be glad to assist. I can't imagine what kind of objectivity it would take to call professional Soldiers incompetent, full of malaise, destroying their own units because of it, etc. Professionals soldier on regardless of what Congress or the public thinks of them, or gives them to do their duty. They just do it anyway. Its about honor. <G> Clair
Dream on |
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Nov 13, 2008 8:53:13 GMT -6
Just a point of interest. Professional and amateur had much stricter meanings at one point, and it is difficult to ascertain when they lost the exclusiveness.
Professional originally referred, obviously, as a noun, to a member of a profession. A profession was a trade or guild approved by government or ruling authority standards. Architects, lawyers, doctors were members of a profession, and professinal once they passed a test. Amateurs were not members, and not professional. But they could have been better at it than the pro's, just hadn't passed the test to get their name of the roles.
Eventually, professional came to mean good enough to make money at it, or simply good. Amateur means inferior or bad, now, but most scientific advance to the last century was all amateur, given the church ruled universities in Europe for centuries.
In the United States, because of our law and Constitution, there technically can be no professinal journalists, because that would mean government censor over who could practice it, a violation of the First Amendment. Of course, the definition just means "employed as" today and has for a while.
And, as has been pointed out, Professional Soldiers aren't necessarily the best at anything they do, just paid for it. They are, though, members of a profession by oath and training to government standards.
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on Nov 13, 2008 8:54:05 GMT -6
The amount of respect you have for professional Soldiers is noted. That's okay...to each his own, and everybody has their own reasons for viewing military men the way that they do. I won't fight with you...I'll just offer a different viewpoint that you may reflect upon...my "dreams" just might be more accurate than yours... If you care about accuracy, of course. In the end, this is all just entertainment for civilians anyway, eh? So enjoy! For military men, getting these issues right are critical. Again, professionals are people too, and make mistakes. They aren't perfect. But they aren't incompetent imbeciles, either. They try hard to do their duty regardless of limited resources or lack of respect. Clair |
|
|
|
Post by conz on Nov 13, 2008 9:07:55 GMT -6
Good comments, dc...at USMA they actually had (have?) an entire course devoted to the topic of "professionalism," which engendered many arguments about its definition, advantages and dangers, etc. You would have really enjoyed it... And, as has been pointed out, Professional Soldiers aren't necessarily the best at anything they do, just paid for it. They are, though, members of a profession by oath and training to government standards. Our definition of professional had nothing to do with government...it had more to do with group identity around a skill where the members could control access to their ranks. So doctors, lawyers, Soldiers, unionized workers, etc., fall under that definition. And I agree that while belonging to a profession generally infers some level of competency, it doesn't mean every individual has a positive influence on their work, or that non-members can't be better at it than the bulk of the professionals. But USUALLY you can count on the professionals being best. Professionals also have a vested stake in improving their talents and the condition of their activity...that's part of the definition. So social clubs, etc., don't qualify. You have to be making the world better for medicine, plumbing, killing (er, defending society), etc. to qualify as a group of professionals. Again, government of any society may, or may not, be much involved in the process. Another note, that when government is your employer, they may set some requirements for service, but they don't define the requirements for the profession. Only the leaders of the professional group define what the standards of their own profession is, and that includes our own military services. Clair |
|
|
|
Post by clansman on Nov 13, 2008 9:58:15 GMT -6
"They try hard to do their duty regardless of limited resources or lack of respect"
So true. When British troops first went into N Ireland they were treated like liberators. However, that soon changed to disrespect and often outright hostility from both sides of the religious divide, so much so that we were forced to distrust everyone. But it didn't stop us from doing our duty.
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on Nov 13, 2008 10:56:24 GMT -6
I ask people to put on the hat (your choice, presumably) of the professional Soldier in any cavalry regiment out west in the 1870s/80s...
These are the senior Soldiers, NCOs, and most of the officers that have decided to make Soldiering their life's work. They enjoy being Soldiers, and have a vested interest in both surviving and escaping boredom, and have pride in what they do.
They WANT to be the best Soldiers that they can be, no matter what the public or the government thinks of them. They are out there on those plains, they have a self-accepted mission to eliminate the threats to Americans, and they know they don't have enough to do it with.
They don't give up. They don't crawl into a hole and drink themselves to death as a rule...but some do finally buckle under the pressure and do just that. We attempt to "retire" these jaded Soldiers as gracefully as possible out of respect for their service, but sometimes more drastic measures are required, as in Reno's and Benteen's case late in their careers.
But most don't succumb to that...they keep tight discipline in their troops, they take care of their Soldiers as best they can, and they do all they can imagine to prepare to be successful in their missions.
They also try to have some fun, revel in their "brotherhood of arms," take pride in their regiments, and look forward, with some trepidation of course, to their next mortal combat.
This is the professional Army out west. It is the professional Army today, too.
Clair
btw, dc, as a caveat, our USMA definition of "professional" did not include the rank and file of any such profession. You only become a professional when you have passed the initial years' worth of test to become qualified, in skill and desire, to make that your life's work.
So while the 7th Cavalry, for example, is a Regular Army and "professional" organization, only about a third to half of its member are actually professional Soldiers. Most of the rest are working on that...to become true professionals. Some aren't interested at all in becoming professional Soldiers, and just want the pay/experience and get out, but they do their duties for the most part under professional supervision. A few dastards join with the intent to desert out west...good riddance was the attitude of most commanders. What they really lamented was the theft of guns and horses!
|
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Nov 15, 2008 7:08:25 GMT -6
Professional should also include a demonstration of the skills trained for and practiced. If you can't produce actual positive results you are not a professional are you? Are you a professional football player if you never get in the game?
Of the enlisted men do we have a percentage of how many remained for 20 years.
I would think a true professional would use his real name when he enlisted.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Nov 15, 2008 7:39:47 GMT -6
First Sgt. Ryan
The regular army was composed mostly of green recruits and so unreliable that even Custer did not dare to fight them mounted, on some occasions, and had to turn his men into mounted infantry. The inferior troops were disciplined and had they as good weapons they could have beaten the Indians as they used to before 1861.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Nov 15, 2008 8:43:18 GMT -6
I actually get along fine with actual professional soldiers and sailors, even actual combat veterans, in my immediate family, extended family, and not; in my home town and not. But then, none of those I know are composed of delicate fabrications and affectations (Aye! They are not so composed!), having small need to impress themselves or others. Of course, I don't try to imply I wanted to be a soldier (not since age 8, I think) nor woulda/coulda/if only been one of them. They range from grunts to grads of the three service academies, include WW II Warrant Officers and sub officers immediately subordinant to Rickover in the early nuclear navy, UDT vets, Rangers, SEaLs, and pilots. So my regard for professional servicemen depends on the professional serviceman. That okay with you clansman? Good. That I find some laughable in their pretensions and desperations for attention and disgusting in their demand for regard as combat vets whether they are or not is far from blanket disdain. Meanwhile, regarding "professional" which is not something that can be self-declared, here is a thread about elite forces written by a member. lbha.proboards12.com/index.cgi?board=basics&action=display&thread=1066&page=1 |
|
|
|
Post by conz on Nov 15, 2008 9:26:39 GMT -6
Professional should also include a demonstration of the skills trained for and practiced. If you can't produce actual positive results you are not a professional are you? Are you a professional football player if you never get in the game? Of course you are a professional, even if you never got into a pro game. You have passed all the gates to entry established by that profession to become a pro player...lots of high school and college trials. You are the cream of the crop, and you are ready to go. Whether they actually use you or not is irrelevant to the definition. I'm not sure that is very relevant...the real figure you want is how many reenlisted after their first tour. That would make them a professional Soldier...your first reenlistment is your "ceremony of passage" into the profession of arms. I wouldn't know why...seems completely irrelevant. They want to be Soldiers, even if they had circumstances that causes them to cover up their past. Being "bad" doesn't preclude you from being a professional, if the profession embraces you anyway. The key is that you meet the requirements of your profession, not some moral standard of society at large. I wonder if this is another difference between the police and the military perspective. Policemen are all about the laws, and legal standards. Soldiers do not exist to enforce laws, per se...that is not our interest or focus. We just want to kill enemies as efficiently as possible, and keep the peace for non-enemies. Clair |
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Nov 15, 2008 10:07:58 GMT -6
Quote:I would think a true professional would use his real name when he enlisted.
I wouldn't know why...seems completely irrelevant. They want to be Soldiers, even if they had circumstances that causes them to cover up their past. Being "bad" doesn't preclude you from being a professional, if the profession embraces you anyway. The key is that you meet the requirements of your profession, not some moral standard of society at large.
I wonder if this is another difference between the police and the military perspective. Policemen are all about the laws, and legal standards. Soldiers do not exist to enforce laws, per se...that is not our interest or focus. We just want to kill enemies as efficiently as possible, and keep the peace for non-enemies.
Clair
Was it against the law for a state to withdraw from the United States? Who enforced it and who did the policing after such a war?
I think it goes to the intent of the individual who signs an enlistment. Certainly giving a false name made it harder to find deserter.
What were the advantages of giving a false name to a true professional?
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
|
Post by clansman on Nov 15, 2008 10:15:48 GMT -6
"regard for professional servicemen depends on the professional serviceman"
I have no quarrel with that statement. Respect has to be earned. However, professional is not something that can be self-declared? A strange perspective. I initially enlisted for three years and served a further nine and certainly considered myself a professional soldier.
|
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Nov 15, 2008 10:19:24 GMT -6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today at 6:08am, AZ Ranger wrote:Professional should also include a demonstration of the skills trained for and practiced. If you can't produce actual positive results you are not a professional are you? Are you a professional football player if you never get in the game?
Of course you are a professional, even if you never got into a pro game. You have passed all the gates to entry established by that profession to become a pro player...lots of high school and college trials. You are the cream of the crop, and you are ready to go. Whether they actually use you or not is irrelevant to the definition.
Why do you consider reenlisting a better criteria than combat for a professional soldier? You may be correct but being a professional soldier has little to do with combat readiness then since an admin clerk can reenlist.
AZ Ranger
|
|
