![mad5 :mad5](./images/smilies/mad5.gif)
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/12/08/u ... -platform/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
Grillmark55 wrote:And people wonder why more and more people are jumping on the Texas secessionist bandwagon.
From that discussion, page 2:RoyGBiv wrote:Good discussion here: http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php? ... Lt-Colonel" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
New York.Preliminary feedback is that his commission is actually with the New York State Guard (nb. not the NY _National_ Guard), an organization that has the same relationship to the actual military that the Sheriff's Reelection Posse has to actual law enforcement.Originally Posted by SeriousStudent View Post
What is the guy's bio? I rooted around on Esquire's website, but could not find it. Can you provide a link, when you have an opportunity?
Thanks very much.
From what I've really, I believe it is the doofus in your second link.K.Mooneyham wrote:I'm not sure what to make of this one and here is why. There are TWO men with that name who have been connected with this thing.
One is this guy http://smallwarsjournal.com/author/robert-bateman
The other is this guy http://www.admallc.com/About_Us.html
I'm still not sure which one of these two wrote that article. I'd like to know the truth, and then get to the bottom of this mess. However, if the guy really is an active-duty LTC in the US Army, it would be wrong that he is able to use his official position to give legitimacy for this thing. That was a big no-go in the USAF, we received instruction regarding that, and I'd imagine that the Army does the same thing. I did see the little "disclaimer" at the bottom of the article, but it wouldn't seem to clear him of attempting to use his position to unduly influence folks' decisions about the article, IMHO.
He also is vague on his credentials but demands them from others. How cute.
And if "Bob" is good enough, why did he use his irrelevant title (likely in violation of the UCMJ) to promote his credibility? Why claim the Infantry status he admits isn't relevant, then switch to being a strategist? And what would being a strategist matter to the criminal use of small arms?
To clarify:
He's an FA59, which isn't really managing violence. From a 2007 Military Review article:
FA 59 officers execute key institutional and operational core processes, including formulation and implementation of strategy and strategic concepts and policies, and the generation, strategic projection, and operational employment of decisive joint and coalition land combat power.” In addition to the common leader competencies discussed in the chief of staff of the army’s “Pentathlete Vision,” FA 59 officers perform four unique functions: strategic appraisal; strategic and operational planning; joint, interagency, intergovernmental, and multinational (JIIM) integration; and strategic education.
He's a buzzword generator, and real warriors pay little attention to that bull. It's makework created by the lefticle desire to make war decent and kind and hearts and minds and such. Real warriors want beans, bullets, bandaids and batteries for the purpose of breaking people and killing things. Or vice versa.
"Managing violence" my ....
A thought that wagon rolled out of town a few years back.Grillmark55 wrote:And people wonder why more and more people are jumping on the Texas secessionist bandwagon.