Mindsets

[quincannon]

Two things come to mind, both of them indicating that while he may be intelligent, he is not so smart.

When he signed that application, and gave no credence to the paragraph that says he is signing it as being truthful and under penalty of perjury, to me that ain't so smart.

When he did sign it, assuming he read the aforementioned warning, did he in his deluded state, not realize they are going to do a background check on him. My daughter was a substitute teacher and soccer coach in San Antonio, and she had an extensive background check before she was ever allowed in a classroom or on a soccer field. That type of hubris on Rini's part is just double dumb.

I did not know, or I did not think is no excuse before the bar of justice.

[Beth]

People misunderstand the difference between having a high intelligence and doing smart things. Sometimes highly intelligent people can do some the stupidest things in the world. They might be able to figure out some complicated math formula that would leave those of us who are arithmetic challenged scratching our heads, but then put a frozen pizza into a hot oven--still in the box.

I admit I love 'judge shows' and there are always cases of people (across the board in social and economic background) who say about either guilty or Alford pleas, "I didn't think I was pleading guilty," "I didn't think that it meant this," or "I only signed it to a)spar someone from the trial but I am innocent ,  b) my lawyer told me to but I am innocent or c) I got tired of going to court all the time so I just signed but I am innocent."   I don't think courts are at all sympathetic to anyone who signs a plea and then claims ignorance, especially when I believe there is a place of any plea is a line to the extent of ' this deal has been explained to me and I fully understand it and am signing of my own free will."

[dave]

Regarding mindsets, keogh has come up with a couple of suggestions/ideas that the US Army should adopt and then adapt.
1)   Screen applicants for West Point to determine which are more suited for Armor than other branches
2)   Assign Cavalry officers in charge of mounted SF and Marine units in the field to compensate for the lack of mounted experience in mounted maneuvers 
3)   Advocates having 2 commanders in the field, cavalry officer would step down for SF officer when team moves off on foot
4)   Reintroduce mounted units as a part of the service not as an improvised situation.

I would be interested in any responses to these suggestions of keogh.
Regards
Dave

[Beth]

Nov 7, 2015 20:25:31 GMT dave said:

Regarding mindsets, keogh has come up with a couple of suggestions/ideas that the US Army should adopt and then adapt.
1)   Screen applicants for West Point to determine which are more suited for Armor than other branches
2)   Assign Cavalry officers in charge of mounted SF and Marine units in the field to compensate for the lack of mounted experience in mounted maneuvers 
3)   Advocates having 2 commanders in the field, cavalry officer would step down for SF officer when team moves off on foot
4)   Reintroduce mounted units as a part of the service not as an improvised situation.

I would be interested in any responses to these suggestions of keogh.
Regards
Dave

I keep reading that and I am totally and utterly confused.

1st either he or I (and probably both) have no idea what today's West Point's purpose is.  If it's to identify and teach leadership in the military--the ability to lead isn't going to be limited to the ability to lead on an armor unit or only an infantry unit.

 A person with leadership ability shows it over their entire life, in sports, in school projects, you name it and is an ability they will continue to show in whatever career path they chose to follow.  And people have to chose their own career paths if you want to see long term success.

When he talks cavalry--considering we are talking Reno, is he talking those who ride on a horse?  Or today's mechanized cavalry?  With Rini I think he believes in some place, in a world denied to him early in his history of ROTC-- there exists a crack mounted cavalry division, that we don't hear about because it is overshadowed by news of other special forces.  That we could use this crack cavalry division on such missions and slipping a covert team into a warzone.

Now I know that horses/mules/donkeys are being used in the middle east currently as transport--and probably elsewhere in the world because there are places in this world to this day that can only be reached by foot and supplies brought in on the backs of pack animals..  But there would be a huge difference between someone who had to ride a horse while leading a mule over a mountain pass and needing specially trained cavalry officer.   I would be willing to bet most of the farm kids I grew up who were also active in 4H had the skill set needed to lead a horse and mule along a trail.

Point 3  What the heck does he view the cavalry officer should do once he is no longer in lead. Tend the horses?   I've played D&D since I a kid (I use it as an example because it has just as firm base in reality as these points)  tending the horses is the task you give the new guy along for experience points.  You wouldn't  waste a highly trained player that way.

Anyway I am probably confusing everyone by slipping into D&D references.  I would like to say though if I was playing D&D with a person of such Mr Mindset, Mr Mindset would destined to be cannon fodder because they don't have clue about using their resources in a way that would be  an asset to the mission. At some point during the game other player would realize that he is an idiot and someone more capable would either stage a coupe or people would just vote to leave Mr. Mindset behind to tend the horses while the more capable leader finished the quest.

[quincannon]

Since you ask Dave, I will attempt to answer to show just how out of touch with reality Keogh is.

1) The purpose of West Point is both to educate, and to screen students to see if they are fit for a commission in any branch. No West Point cadet gets any branch specific training in any branch until graduation. Norwich has over the years produced more officers for cavalry and Armor units than WP ever dreamed about, and the same goes for ROTC. Keogh is of the mind that a West Point education qualifies you in a branch. It does not. You are not qualified in a branch until you successfully meet the requirements for graduation from the branch basic course. At that point you are qualified as a platoon leader. Officers whose first assignment will be in a ground reconnaissance unit stay at the branch school and go to further training at the recon leaders course.

2&3) None of the Armor and cavalry officers that I know, and I know quite a few, can ride a horse with the proficiency required, so, so much for two and three. They are one of the pipe dreams he has in one of his more delusional states.

4) I kinda wondered about number 4. At one point he says he wants to reintroduce mounted (meaning horse mounted) units, and at another he says the Army has mounted (again meaning horse mounted) units 

Ask yourself this. What more than anything drove horses from the battlefield? I would say if asked that it was the machine gun. Are machine guns still around? Last time I looked, and they are now included at lower echelons of organization than when the horse was first put out to pasture.

Does the Army still have horse mounted units? Only one, organized by table of distribution and allowances, as an add on to normal structure. It is the mounted platoon of the First Cavalry Division, that does parades, flower shows, and public events all over the southwest, and occasionally other areas as a way to sell the Army to some pimply faced teenager, and for good publicity and presence for the Army in communities that may not have any exposure. This unit is strictly for publicity, in much the same manner the Marines do Toys For Tots at Christmas Time, a way to connect with the public. At least one division has a mounted color guard, five or six people, and the one I know of is here at Fort Carson as a play on the division's unofficial nickname - "Ironhorse". I think the 3rd Cavalry Regiment also has a mounted color guard. They did when they were here, but they have moved and I am not sure they maintained it. Another TDA unit the Army has that is partially mounted is the Caisson Platoon, of the 1st Battalion, 3rd Infantry (The Old Guard) which do funerals at Arlington Cemetery. There may be one or two that I missed, but regardless, none of them are horse mounted tactical units.

I think it might be appropriate to review how the army looks at cavalry, and I will list the various types in today's structure

A. Maneuver battalions of the 1st Cavalry Division carry a cavalry designation. This is strictly for historical purposes. They are organized as combined arms battalions, having two tank companies, and two mechanized infantry companies and are identical in organizations to other such heavy units in divisions, other than the 1st CD, and are designated either armor or Infantry (i.e. 1st Battalion, 68th Armor and 1st Battalion, 8th Infantry both here at Carson belonging to the 4th ID, are identical in organization to 2nd Battalion, 7th Cavalry belonging to 1st CD) The CAB's are commanded and officered by both the Infantry and armor branch, and most of them are currently run by Infantry officers, Armor being the smaller branch. 

B. There are two Stryker Brigades, that were reorganized from the 2nd and 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiments. They were allowed to keep their historical names, but in reality they are Stryker (meaning they are motorized) Infantry Brigades.

C. The 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, is the opposing forces unit at the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, California. It can, and has performed tactical missions in recent years, but it is primarily the live opponent that we send our heavy forces to maneuver against.

D. The 316th Cavalry Brigade, is a name given to school support troops at the Armor School at Fort Benning. In reality it is the home unit for instructors and school support personnel and has no tactical function.

E. 5th Squadron, 15th Cavalry - a One Station Unit Training organization at Fort Benning that trains newly enlisted soldiers for the Military Occupational Specialty of Recon/Scout.

F. Ground reconnaissance units. Each maneuver brigade of which there are currently 33 has as part of its structure a reconnaissance battalion which again for historical purposes the army chooses to designate as cavalry. They are jointly manned, officered and commanded by both Armor and Infantry Officers, with both armor and Infantry trained personnel filling their ranks on an interchangeable basis.

G. Air Cavalry. This is strictly an aviation branch organization, and consist of AH64 Apache attack/recon helicopters and RQ7 drones. Because they are used for reconnaissance, the Army has chosen to designate them as Cavalry, and currently they are all designated as squadrons of the 6th and 17th Cavalry Regiments (their historical/not tactical parent unit) Each division will have one of these squadrons, others will be found at corps level, and in a fairly new type organization called the battlefield surveillance brigade.

H. Each Marine Division has a reconnaissance battalion mounted in LAV25's a wheeled armored vehicle. In structure it greatly resembles an Army Stryker battalion. The Stryker and LAV 25 are similar vehicles. They also have reconnaissance battalions, that are designed more along Montrose's side of the street, and frankly I don't know much about them.

Animal transportation is still useful in some very limited circumstances, but having units organized as major horse mounted units in the force structure is about as useful as having a battalion of King's Musketeers.

[dave]

I tend to think that keogh's fascination with anything to do with West Point is simple hero worship of Claire. He trots Claire out anytime he wants to support his "cavalry mindset" with a professional's stature. I wonder if he is simply delusional about life? 

1)   Thinking that a school administration would not do a background check on any and all applicants
2)   Believing that horse mounted troops are needed and should be reestablished as a branch of the army
3)   Believing SF and Marines would allow a cavalry trained officer to command a mission with mounted troops
4)   Believeing that Calvary officers experience with horse use in combat is greater than other branch officers

Honestly this stuff is way out there beyond the Kuiper belt and demonstrates a loss of touch with reality.  

[Beth]

Nov 7, 2015 10:48:09 GMT -6 quincannon said:





Ask yourself this. What more than anything drove horses from the battlefield? I would say if asked that it was the machine gun. Are machine guns still around? Last time I looked, and they are now included at lower echelons of organization than when the horse was first put out to pasture.

I think it goes further than machine guns--correct me if I am wrong but we now have the ability to destroy the stable before the horses even leave.  And since they are horses, they can't be rebuilt like a machine or be replaced instantly with another machine you have gestational and training period before you can even think about putting them back into the stables.  I also suspect unlike machines which are automatically ready for it's duty, there is a huge difference between horses born in a breeding program and those who would be fit for war duty.  Horses may be a noble beast but not all are blessed with the right brains or temperament for the jobs they are bred for--if they were,  just think about all the Kentucky breeders who would have stables packed with horses capable of winning the Kentucky Derby would be born each year. 

[quincannon]

Dave: You have pointed out just how silly, in fact how comical the things he says are. To him though they are very real, which to me is a sign of some mental deficiency that keeps him stuck in one Sunday afternoon in June of 1876.

He once told me that Marshall (that's George Catlett Marshall) was an idiot for dismounting the cavalry completely in 1943-44. His solution was to keep the 4th and 7th mounted (it may still be up over there somewhere). It made no difference to his that the 4th was already mechanized, and pulling the 7th out of its division assignment would set back that division's readiness by months and perhaps a year. He just likes the 4th and 7th. Of course that says nothing about the specialized transportation required to ship these horses overseas, the transportation required to keep them fed, and the burden of keeping cavalry specific classes of supply in the pipeline. To him it was a simple matter of just saying it, so it becomes real.

If his words alone do not mark him as a lunatic, then I don't know what will.

Clair and Keogh share one thing in common. Both of them are stuck in the past, where the hussar was king. Napoleon and his way of life died two centuries ago, and neither of them can come to grips with that fact.

Let me pause a moment to put on my toga, the grape peelers will be here shortly and tonight is orgy night. It is Saturday isn't it.

Beth: The automatic weapon, primarily the machine gun was the death knell of cavalry and the reason for the armored vehicle. Within twenty years the armored vehicle, not just the tank took over most of the missions that cavalry once performed, all except ground reconnaissance. We did not have a suitable vehicle for ground reconnaissance unit the jeep and a reliable armored car came along about 1940. By then the horse mounted cavalry we retained was a branch without a mission. Many regiments including the 1st, 2nd, 3rd,11th, 13th and 14th had already been converted to tank battalions. Armored divisions had a recon battalion designated a recon battalion, not cavalry. The Army as a sop to history told the cavalry branch reorganize into something we need or go out of business. They were reluctant to give up the horse, but they were less inclined to go out of business.

So we have this jack leg historical fiction to placate a bunch of senior branch officer crybabies.

We should have let them go out of business and today we would be not burdened with this historical nut roll that I attempted to describe above, which no one, people one hell of a lot brighter and more in tune with reality than Keogh, do not understand.

If you recall what I said about division slices the other day, do you really think that a force that is topped out at just under 500k can afford a slice of 20,000 to support a horse mounted cavalry brigade of 4000. Only in Keogh's dreams.  Are you as a tax payer willing to fund such fantasy? Would it add one iota of increased capability to the United States Army, that cannot be better performed by something or someone else, and better? 

There will come a day, and it will not be long in coming where ground cavalry too will be a thing of the past. It will be a victim of technology in the same way that the horse cavalry was a victim of the machine gun. We have far too many ways to obtain useful battlefield information today then ever before. The future of cavalry is in the air. The tell for me is how we have utilized our cavalry squadrons in the brigade combat teams, that being as just another maneuver battalion, having little or no real need for what specialty the mounted ground reconnaissance units bring to the table.

If our friend Keogh was smart he would look to the air as a fulfillment of his pipe dreams, because today's hussar wears a crash helmet and flight suit.

[dave]

QC
All of what you have posted is true and I agree totally. The one's who dream of the reincarnation of the horse mounted army are simply delusional and out of touch with reality. I have no military experience but I fail to see how horses would survive in the modern battlefield. As you mentioned about the machine gun putting the horse mounted unit out of service and I would add the drones would be able to attack horse units easily.
The last armed mounted unit I saw was in 1989 when duck hunting a fellow used a mule to get to our blind. He did not want to wallow through the gumbo like the rest of us. This was when we could not afford a three wheeler. The mule was trained to not bolt when shooting. Amazing.
Regards
Dave

[dave]

Unleashing my inner HR.
Regards
Dave

mvpimages.net/willys/mauldin01.htm

[Beth]

I look at it this way--when someone talks about cavalry units being used today like Rini does, they are in love with the romance of the idea, not reality.

They are seeing themselves as a perfectly researched and well dressed officer complete with a brilliant sword at their side and proper sidearms. Instead he has a faux uniform and has deal to with a bored or fidgety horse because the horse was only rented for the weekend and knows the drill 100 times better than the rider. The horse knows the rider is a poser and he just wants to get 'on with it' and get back to his stable.

[Beth]

Nov 8, 2015 0:46:06 GMT dave said:

Unleashing my inner HR.
Regards
Dave

mvpimages.net/willys/mauldin01.htm

I have always loved that print.

[quincannon]

It is simply delusional fantasy Dave.

I would just love to be the fly on the wall when the next chief of staff goes before Congress and says, Guys we need horse cavalry. They would laugh him out of the hearing room and out of the Army -- That afternoon.

I am not an aviator, but I tell you true cavalry of the future will be found exclusively in the air. What we (meaning the Army) have done though is keep up this historical fiction to the point where no one knows the way out of the designation quagmire they themselves have created.

The Air Force God Bless them, designates their unit by real function. When you go to a unit designated a fighter squadron you expect to find fighters, not Piper Cubs or drones. Yet they keep their history intact

We have an AF unit here at Schriever AFB just outside of town. It runs all of the Space activities of the AF along with a sister unit up near Denver. It is designated the 50th Space Wing. In WWII it was the 50th Fighter Group. They maintain the history and honors of that old unit, in fact are very proud of the unit's past as evidenced by their historical displays around the base, but they have been retitled to indicate function. Same goes for the 21st Space Wing at Petersen, right down the road from me. They have great reverence for the past while keeping the present and future foremost in their minds, and that damn it is what you and the rest of the tax payers in this country both expect and fund.

The unit just across the field from Tom's old unit goes back to the 104th Aero Squadron of just after WWI. It has been through many reorganizations and changes of mission, but it is still the 104th and the history from the day of formation until this afternoon is constant and unbroken.

[Beth]

perhaps the Army is a bit too like a college alumni association--they welcome change as long as you don't change that part which is their favorite memory.

[quincannon]

Exactly. They are so tradition bound with the we always did it that way attitude, that they cannot figure a way out of the mess they have made for themselves.

There are ways to continue history and still be true to what the real and present function is, but don't for a moment think that the Army is not full of historically delusional Keogh types who will not budge, and resent and destroy the careers of those who try.

The Air Force started with an clean sheet of paper as far as organization and management goes when they became a separate service. They concluded they would keep what was worth keeping from the past but not let it impede growth in the future.

The Marine Corps has adapted their structure in the same way since WWI, if not before.

The Navy has gotten rid of what they do not need, and adapted their operational structure to the 21st Century and are in no way beholden to Nelsons time operationally.

With the Army, well it's the Army where they must change but try to fight it every step of the way or Benny Havens will have to shut down his bawdy house, and Fiddler's Green will institute prohibition. Those are insider references Beth and best left that way.