SwiftVets.com

[air_vet]

You need to understand General Franks comments in terms of something he would write on a fitness/performance report...

As a young Air Force Lt, I learned that if you had to write a performance report on a poor performer, you had to follow three rules: (1) Say nothing derogatory, (2) Say nothing negative, and (3) Be the master of understatement.

Rules 1 and 2 were necessary to avoid having a report thrown-out.

I once had to write such a report (thankfully just ONCE) on an E-7 who had been giving me problems. In it, I said (in accordance with Rule 3) that Msg. xxxxx had superb electronic system trouble-shooting abilities (and then when on to describe them). Everything I said was very positive. The "trick" was that a E-7 SHOULD have been an excellent MANAGER of people and material and no longer a repair technician. Believe me, the next E-8 promotion board knew how to read that report.

If you don't include a strong recommendation for promotion or more responsibility, it's like saying "don't promote".

Back to General Franks - although he didn't directly critize Kerry's military history, he DID say he was going to vote for Bush. "Read" into his statement what he really meant. He said "Don't promote!"

[Paul]

"I understand what Paul, and Gen. Franks, are doing. "

Again, not only do I not like words being put in my mouth, but I'd rather not be associated with General Franks since the General believes that Senator Kerry is fit to be Commander in Chief while I've stated clearly that I don't.

Senator Kerry's latest statement yesterday reveals that he would again vote in the Senate to give the Executive the power to send our people into Iraq (as he is personally responsible for helping to have done) knowing what we know today.

Yet, it was Senator Kerry who after voting to give the Executive that power later voted AGAINST funding our people once on the ground in Iraq. Even many of his fellow Democrats now point out why he was wrong to withhold support of our people in need and under assault.

Certainly it's a seemingly contradictory position to the public statements made at the Democratic Convention. It's not only an absurd and contradictory position, but it is a contemptible position.

And with almost 140,000 of our people on the ground in Iraq in the midst of growing insurgencies and the majority of Americans not in favor of increasing concrete support to them in men and materiel even when the majority claimed approval for Iraq last year, then personally I strongly believe that it's a contradictory and contemptible position held by far too many Americans.

In Kerry's case, all that I can see that his latest self-contradictory statement does is to reserve an 'argument' for John Kerry for later use in arguing to give him power should he be elected president.

Anyway, this is one more reason that I also disagree with General Franks statement that the General believes that this election is clarifying any issues whatsoever. I believe that he's dead wrong in this also.

Personally, I find no reason whatsoever to even consider voting for John Kerry and an overwhelming list, past and present, of reasons to never even consider voting for the man. It's a position that I could never justify.

For concrete and objective reasons, I strongly disagree with General Franks and strongly believe that John Kerry is unfit for the role of President of the United States or Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces.
_________________
Paul

[Paul]

"You need to understand General Franks comments in terms of something he would write on a fitness/performance report... "

If this is true, then I also disagree with the General's claim to be a "fiercely independent kind of guy." He strikes me as more self-contradictory and ambiguous.

I don't believe that we have to "understand" anything like this or any other "context" proposed by anyone. General Franks can speak for himself. I won't put words in his mouth but will take Franks' statements as what they say.

He's wrong. John Kerry is not fit to be President of the United States or Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces.

General Franks failed to make a sufficient argument in support of his opinion and only addressed distracting fluff.

PS. I never followed these rules when writing evaluations for my people. In fact this is the first that I've ever even heard of such "rules." These are not some absolute. In fact, these are garbage.
_________________
Paul

[air_vet]

[RStauch]

[Paul]

"Paul does exactly what he falsely accuses me of doing. I did not say that Paul is saying the same thing Gen. Franks is saying. What I implied by what I wrote is that they are doing the same thing, and they are. "

Hi Richard:

Truth to tell, I didn't intend to accuse you of anything on this. It was the phrasing of "I understand what Paul, and Gen. Franks, are doing." that I didn't care for. My phrasing may have been poor as well. I just don't care for my name associated with Franks' name in this context. Believe me, if I thought that you were trying to imply something, then I'd have addressed it directly and plainly.

I sent that article to a pal who wrote back with his comment that "It seems that General Franks has sure learned how to 'straddle a fence' during his first year of retirement."

I don't know if General Franks just learned it this first year or not, but I do agree with my friend that Franks' statements were no better than straddling the fence.

Like I said, I'll take General Franks' statements as what was stated and not read in anything. My position is quite different from General Franks' as noted.
_________________
Paul

[Paul]

"Not garbage... just guidance I received from senior NCOs and other officers. Over the couse of a thirty year career I wrote MANY performance reports (APRs for enlisted and OERs for officers) - there are many ways of promoting excellence and eliminating poor performers without writing anything bad about anyone."

Hi AV:

Let me be clear. I don't doubt in the least that you wrote many evaluations or even that you did so following these rules. It's the "rules" that I say are garbage and point out that they are NOT an "absolute."

These are "rules" for nothing but doublespeak. Yes. There are people who followed this kind of "guidance." Personally, something like this and I always found that the kind who followed this king of "guidance" were often the worst Officers, Chiefs and Petty Officers in that they were unable to speak or write plainly when having to deal with "problem children", including the unpleasant task of looking a man in the eye and state plainly to him that he was one and what the problem that needed to be corrected was. That was my experience of people who followed these kind of “rules.”

And not only that, but the kind who couldn't speak plainly on numerous other matters as well, often even simple ones. More "mid-level manager" than leader.

Hey, I had guys under me at times whose hygiene so bad that I had to tell them to take a shower. Any other Fleet Sailors here and it's a good bet they knew one like this and know what I'm talking about. It was awkward and I didn’t like the task, but I didn’t try to stupidly figure a way to say it “positively” without really saying clearly that “you need to take showers.”

Evaluations, then I can remember plenty of examples by plenty of men where these kind of doublespeak rules weren’t followed and would never have been dreamt of being followed.

You wrote a bad evaluation on an E-7? The last Weapons Boss I served under did too. And he was clear about what was unsatisfactory about that Chief’s performance. And it was written after a personal conversation following which the man’s performance improved, but barely and grudgingly. To give an idea, the fella had just made Chief, just arrived aboard and was behaving like an ass and doing a lousy job. In their conversation, the Weapons Boss began with “if you want to stay on this ship. . . “ at which point he was interrupted by the Chief and told “give me a transfer. His reply was, “let me rephrase that. If you want to remain a Chief. . . “. That shut him up and he listened. But he didn’t improve sufficiently afterward to merit positive marks in numerous categories. He received poor evaluations that were very specific about what his performance defects were. Actually what says the most about this Chief is that all of these details I learned from him and we weren't even in the same division or all that close. And I wasn't only the only the one told and am not divulging a confidence, although I'll leave his name out just the same.

Personally, I never drafted an evaluation on someone under me that included poor marks without looking him in the eye and letting him know. And it had been done prior to having to getting to the point of it formally entering his evaluations, and not only to “cover my butt.”

Hey, I went through it with one guy once who wanted to lower a man's marks I'd given him because by guy's personal "rules", he thought I hadn't given the man "room to grow." Absolutely stupid. The man was a 3rd class (E-4) who did a better job and was more valuable than any 2nd class (E-5) I had under me! For God's sake, he was being evaluated as a 3rd Class. And a 3rd Class damn near has nothing but "room to grow." EVERY high mark received specific justification. He EARNED every one of them. I fought for that eval to go through not only because it was my opinion of the man, but because the man deserved it and it was right. That evaluation went through. There was no need for me to look that man in the eye for anything, except to say thanks and get him a day off now and then. That's the nice side to having to justify the high marks.

I don't know about the Air Force, but navy evaluations used to require specific comments for certain marks, low or high. One had to specifically justify high or low marks. The only ones in the navy that I knew who didn't provide that were the weasels who avoided those marks only for the pitiful reason of avoiding having to personally write out the justifications.

Recommendations for advancement had to be stated clearly. Most certainly recommendations that a man not be advanced in rank REQUIRED justification.

Further, separation evaluations REQUIRED specific justification for giving a man other than RER1 or RE1 re-enlistment status -- ie. not recommended for retention.

I don’t care what “rules” that you personally followed. Personally, I don’t like doublespeak and men who can’t speak plainly, especially men who can’t speak plainly to those who rank below them and on something as important as a man’s evaluations.

That’s why I say that these “rules” for doublespeak are garbage. Because doublespeak is garbage. And these "rules" that you post are not an “absolute” for all of the armed forces for all time. Whether you followed them or not.

Personally, I believe that these various kinds of idiotic "rules" only cheapen evaluations.

After that, I was in the navy; generalizations probably weren't as relevent or as easy to make in the naval service as in the air force.
_________________
Paul

[Paul]

"Gen. Franks (who is still used to being restricted in what he says by the UCMJ)"

Hi Richard:

Reading this, then it looks like you haven't been reading or listening to some of the quotes from some of the soldiers and marines being interviewed these days. I'm often surprised at how open and plain spoken some of these enlisted guys on active duty are. Many of the officers in our new post-93 Clintonized politically correct social-engineering focused armed forces increasingly strike me as blow hards and political hacks. They probably follow a variation of AV’s fitness report "rules" too, especially in the new "diversity" category that didn't exist when I was in, thank God.

A better example in this case, regarding Generals making clear comments on policy and circumstances are those Generals who have commented on the lack of sufficient numbers of troops in Iraq or the lousy post-invasion organization last year. Some of them were clear enough.

At any rate, General Franks is retired. I don't know the man personally, so I have no reason to assume what you're presuming here about the man, and frankly neither does anyone else, including yourself. I’ll take his statements precisely as he's made them. If he meant something else, then he should have stated what he meant. Franks is a big boy now. He can speak for himself.

Personally, as I noted elsewhere, looking at Franks' fence straddling in this article and his blow-hard nonsense about what a ‘fiercely independent’ kinda guy he is, then General Franks is certainly no Admiral Tom Moorer, who just passed away earlier this year, God rest him. General Franks it would seem is not even in the same League.

Active or retired, Admiral Moorer spoke clearly and plainly, whatever the matter, popular or unpopular.

In fact, mention of Tom Moorer came up in the string where mention of Operation Linebacker and Linebacker II in Vietnam were mentioned.

Not typical, but when the Secretary of Defense whined that he and his recommendation had been “bypassed” after Admiral Moorer’s plan had been accepted, Admiral Moorer corrected him pointing out that "no you weren't bypassed. You were overruled." Maybe it was a cheap shot, but it was an accurate correction and after all those years of pathetic decisions and overrulings of the Joint Chiefs, then who can blame him?

Anyone who's even vaguely familiar with the late Admiral Moorer knows well that he was a clear and plain spoken man throughout all his years of Retirement just as he had been while on active duty. Personally, given the defense issues he advocated and personal integrity and expertise, then I believe that his passing is a real loss for our nation.
_________________
Paul

[Paul]

"Fitness is another matter altogether"

Hi Richard:

First. I found your "DUH" damn insulting. Especially when linked to nothing more substantial than the pathetic spin on "qualified" versus "fit" that followed it.

General Franks said absolutely NOTHING about only constitutional qualifications, never mind implying anywhere that he was engaging in anything so grandiose as making a commentary on constitutional qualifications, even as simplistic a one as this.

Frankly, we all KNOW that Senator Kerry meets the constitutional qualifications or his name would not be on the ballets and he would not be eligible for the nomination he received last week. No One needs General Franks to tell us.

Frankly, I believe that General Franks would be either an arrogant SOB or a moron if he believed that he needed to inform over 260 million Americans that Senator Kerry meets constitutional qualifications.

Your interpretation here is nonsensical. If you were commenting on statements I made then I would be outraged that you would be so presumptuous and arrogant to presume the right to twist a clear statement and put such words in my mouth.

Qualified:
1. having met conditions or requirements set.
2. having the necessary or desirable qualities; fit; competent.
3. limited; modified [to give qualified approval]
Syn. See ABLE
Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language, Second College Edtion.

I read the article just as closely as I assume that you did.
I just didn't read anything INTO it or take anything out of it or try to make any spin about any portions of it.

I did comment on it.
I commented here regarding the first meaning and why the context makes no sense in terms of General Franks’ meaning, particularly in the context of his comments on “hyperbole.” I didn't agree with the linking of the Swift Boat Vets in the article that context either.

I don't need a pathetic personal spin trying to make a hair-splitting interpretation on the meaning of "qualified" versus “fit” based on one man’s personal standards.

It was casual when I typed “fit”, but obviously my familiarity with American English is sound enough. The same is true of most Americans. We don't need you to "interpret" for us. Which is good. You won’t be there to do so for the thousands to potentially millions when they read this.
_________________
Paul

[MikeWinn]

Air-vet said:

[MikeWinn]

Paul said:

[Paul]

"Methinks that either Paul did not wear the uniform of the US military, "

Rubbish.
_________________
Paul

[Paul]

"or he never really understood the undocumented 'understood' rules."

Also rubbish. My replies addressing it above are more than sufficient.
_________________
Paul

[Paul]

"you have effectively ended that persons' military career, especially in the O ranks or senior NCO ranks"

Hi Mike:

Ok. "rubbish" alone was a poor reply.

People's careers did come to an end, including at times those of Officer's, Chiefs and senior Petty Officers (NCOs in the navy and coast guard).

In 1981 a lot of them came to an end, in the navy anyway, in one particular 90-day program that substandard performance was an acceptable justification for. The green light was given to clear out the "dead wood" through Administrative Discharges. That was so as to get rid of the unfit and trouble makers (good riddance to them, we didn't need them, even with the low recruiting at the time and the burden placed on the navy due to keeping station in the Persian Gulf that began during the Iranian Revolution), while giving those individuals a chance outside the navy to make or fail on their own. Of course, their DD-214 showed clearly that they were not recommended for retention due to their Administrative Discharge. No RE1 or RER1 recommendation, obviously.

It's absurd to state that I didn't understand something that I demonstrate an understanding of but personally reject due to understanding it.

As to your first statements, then I was being generous. You first state your doubt that I was in the navy and then you contradict yourself by saying you have no reason to. . .
_________________
Paul

[Paul]

Now, if you will, since I've given my reasons, you all explain to me:

Why all of the efforts in this string to put a spin on General Franks' statements that Senator Kerry is qualified in this article (which I plainly disagree with) especially when the statements are made in the context of the General's statements about "hyperbole" and a negative tie to the Swift Boat Veterans in the article?

I'm not the one supporting John Kerry as fit or the one supporting the smear on the Swift Boats Veterans as that article does.

I've disagreed plainly with the smear against them in that article.

What in the world are you all trying to do and why?
_________________
Paul