Posted on Aug 3, 2022
The 29th Infantry Division gets to keep its Confederacy-themed patch
6.21K
10
4
4
4
0
I understand that history can sometimes be horrific, and that the 29th INF DIV gets to keep its patch, but at what point does it stop? We already have US Bases likely being renamed, Army is getting more touchy feely, and while caring about what Soldiers think in some aspects is important, it can become dangerous if it is not curbed. For example, none of the United State's enemies are becoming more inclusive, or stripping their history away to appeal to the masses. After all, I'm willing to bet that 99.99% of the Army's training doctrine, hierarchy, etc., was at one point or another considered racist. I'm not saying that we should be celebrating the Confederacy, but "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” For years none of these base names were an issue, until the woke cancel culture became a thing. Additionally, while they are still by definition Soldiers in the Army, it seems that woke generals are now nothing more than politicians pushing for more wokeness, which in my opinion is going to catastrophically fail when the Army needs to be at its best. What are your thoughts? PFC (Join to see) SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL LTC Stephen F. CPL Dave Hoover SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth SSG (Join to see) SGT (Join to see) Lt Col Charlie Brown LTC (Join to see)
The 29th Infantry Division gets to keep its Confederacy-themed patch
Posted from armytimes.com
Military History
Culture
Confederate Flag
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 4
2
2
0
There is a not so fine line between remembering and teaching the past and glorifying it. We don't need to name things after Benedict Arnold to remember what he did.
The military has been going through a gradual transformation since its inception to match wider societal beliefs. From creating black combat regiments, to more inclusive use of minorities, to integrating units, to allowing woman, to allowing women in combat positions, to allowing gay people to serve, etc, etc, etc. Each time such a change happened the doom sayers would claim it is going to be the death of the military. Each time they have been proven wrong.
The military has been going through a gradual transformation since its inception to match wider societal beliefs. From creating black combat regiments, to more inclusive use of minorities, to integrating units, to allowing woman, to allowing women in combat positions, to allowing gay people to serve, etc, etc, etc. Each time such a change happened the doom sayers would claim it is going to be the death of the military. Each time they have been proven wrong.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
The Past is the Past, we need to learn from it, not romanticize it, in many instances it is quite ugly. But it makes us a better people, and even better when we strive to improve.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
Below is the ENTIRE flowchart that should be used for ANY DoD Policy proposal, to include any and all subcomponents. Yes, all the way down to company Policies. 6 simple tests. Yes, it is really all you need.
If DoD were to start using this flowchart and ONLY this flowchart when considering policies, the military would be better off. And yes, I will admit that tests #3 and 4 are a bit fuzzy, and there is a lot of room for discussion in them. They are simple in nature, but not necessarily simple in application.
Test #1: Does this Policy increase overall combat effectiveness?
A) Yes: Move to test 4
B) No: Move to test 2
Test #2: Does this Policy reduce overall combat effectiveness?
A) Yes: Scrap it.
B) No: Move to test 3
Test #3: Does this Policy enhance overall Soldier (Marine/Guardian/Sailor/Airman) morale, lifestyle, retention, or recruiting?
A) No: Why the hell are we talking about it? Scrap it.
B) Yes: Move to test 4
Test #4: Is the bang of this Policy worth the buck?
A) Yes: Implement.
B) No: Move to test 5.
Test #5: Can we modify the Policy to make the bang worth the buck, while still keeping the benefits?
A) Yes: Modify, then restart at test 1
B) No: Move to test 6
Test #6: Is there a situation that *could* make the bang of this Policy worth the buck (such as a draft in the event of WWIII)?
A): Yes: Mothball it.
B) No: Scrap it entirely.
And to prove my point, I am throwing down the gauntlet. I challenge anyone to show me a worthwhile Policy at ANY level that would be scrapped according to this flowchart. Or a crap Policy that would be greenlit.
If DoD were to start using this flowchart and ONLY this flowchart when considering policies, the military would be better off. And yes, I will admit that tests #3 and 4 are a bit fuzzy, and there is a lot of room for discussion in them. They are simple in nature, but not necessarily simple in application.
Test #1: Does this Policy increase overall combat effectiveness?
A) Yes: Move to test 4
B) No: Move to test 2
Test #2: Does this Policy reduce overall combat effectiveness?
A) Yes: Scrap it.
B) No: Move to test 3
Test #3: Does this Policy enhance overall Soldier (Marine/Guardian/Sailor/Airman) morale, lifestyle, retention, or recruiting?
A) No: Why the hell are we talking about it? Scrap it.
B) Yes: Move to test 4
Test #4: Is the bang of this Policy worth the buck?
A) Yes: Implement.
B) No: Move to test 5.
Test #5: Can we modify the Policy to make the bang worth the buck, while still keeping the benefits?
A) Yes: Modify, then restart at test 1
B) No: Move to test 6
Test #6: Is there a situation that *could* make the bang of this Policy worth the buck (such as a draft in the event of WWIII)?
A): Yes: Mothball it.
B) No: Scrap it entirely.
And to prove my point, I am throwing down the gauntlet. I challenge anyone to show me a worthwhile Policy at ANY level that would be scrapped according to this flowchart. Or a crap Policy that would be greenlit.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google