“Bad Idea, Sir. A Really Bad Idea.”
It didn’t take too long. Some [insert adjective of choice here] individuals in the 5-sided asylum have sent the Good Idea Fairy over to the new SECDEF’s office to whisper a batch of nonsense in his ear.
Personally, I wish someone would grab that little winged troublemaker and . . . “give them a firm handshake and a warm cup of soup.” Then clip their wings and send them on a one-way journey to the Aleutians. (smile)
Unfortunately, it looks as if the SECDEF apparently is seriously considering implementing some of the nonsense
Why do I say that? Well, the other day Fox News reported that the SECDEF is considering allowing the military to relax certain military entry standards to “attract more qualified manpower” (or some similar wording). Entry standards being considered for relaxation include current physical, pre-entry conduct, and age restrictions.
Frankly, I’ve got no problem with relaxing age restrictions; I’ve never really understood the rationale behind those. If a person is physically qualified and can do the job at age 40, in my book they can serve. If they won’t be able to serve long enough to qualify for retirement because of age restrictions on military service in Federal law, have them sign an acknowledgement of that fact on entry – but still let them serve. We found in World War II that older troops generally worked out OK.
It’s the other standards being considered for relaxation I find troubling.
Relaxing physical standards IMO is hugely problematic. People in uniform – regardless of their MOS – can end up in combat. That’s true of clerks, mechanics, supply specialists, truck drivers, HQ staff, you name it. The enemy gets a vote in what happens, and sometimes hits areas we don’t expect.
If new troops are not physically capable of performing to current standards due to a relaxation of same, then IMO they stand a much better chance of coming home in a body bag than someone who can. And while that’s bad enough, they’ll also quite possibly bring their battle buddy along with them for the ride. That’s even worse.
I don’t know about you, but the prospect of seeing that doesn’t thrill me at all. And I’m guessing it doesn’t thrill the people who might have to fight alongside those who are admitted under relaxed physical standards, either.
Bottom line: the military’s current physical standards have, by and large, worked. There’s no compelling reason to change them.
Lowering standards for pre-entry conduct is similarly problematic. We’ve done that multiple times in the past. Each time we’ve done that, we’ve ended up with a marked increase in “problem children”. So the argument in this area strikes me as specious as well. Seems to me that we’ll be buying more problems than it’s worth.
But that’s not what bothered me most about the SECDEF considering this. Rather, it was one particular career field singled out as an example where relaxed standards would help.
The career field specifically discussed as an example in the article linked above was the cyber career field. Lowering physical and pre-entry conduct entry standards for that field is IMO a monumentally bad idea.
Cyber workforce authorizations can be either civilian or military. So, if a cyber “slot” is military, presumably there is a good reason for it being so coded – e.g., that the individual has a reasonable probability of being deployed to combat, or that military knowledge and experience is essential to their performance of duty in a noncombat environment. Ergo, that means there’s a good reason for them to meet the military’s physical requirements. Period
If a qualified individual interested in such a position cannot (or doesn’t want to) meet military physical requirements, then perhaps they should be offered one of the civilian positions instead. Why? Well, for starters: because meeting those physical standards just might save their butt one day if and when the organic fertilizer impacts the rotating air circulation device.
Second: it’s my understanding that the vast majority of cyber slots tend to be at major HQs (which tend to be located in relatively safer rear area) and in CONUS. In today’s DoD, there is no shortage of civilian employees in either CONUS or major headquarters – including those HQs located in combat zones. Further, DoD can require prospective civilian employees to sign a mobility agreement acknowledging the fact that they may be sent anywhere in the world, to include hazardous locations, as a condition of employment.
This further undercuts the argument that military-side physical standards need to be “relaxed” for the cyber career field (or pretty much any other career field, for that matter). If push comes to shove, DoD can augment any military shortfall with civilian personnel. Lowering current military physical entry standards simply isn’t necessary.
But it’s that other standards area being considered for relaxation – pre-entry behavior – that really bothers the hell out of me when you’re talking cyber.
You see, DoD’s cyber workforce is typically highly cleared. That’s necessary given what they do and the knowledge required to do it.
If you can’t get them cleared, then there’s no point in recruiting them in the first place. So it seems logical that relaxing pre-entry conduct standards when recruiting them also strongly implies relaxing the standards governing the process of granting those same individuals security clearances.
Doing the latter is IMO a monumentally bad idea. Why? Two words. The first is “Manning”. The second is “Snowden”.
The SECDEF IMO desperately needs someone to come talk to him about this subject. And that individual needs to read the title of this article to him.
We don’t need a bunch more body bags coming home because we’re recruiting people who are not physically able to perform routine military duties if push comes to shove. And we damn sure don’t need any more Mannings or Snowdens with access to the nation’s secrets, either.
Category: Military issues
They’re just opening the door for Manning and Snowden to come BACK and support the active duty, obvious.
/sarc
Glad I am out.
However, I would love to sit in on a promotion board.
I tell myself that every day. I can’t imagine having to deal with the social engineering bullshit. No, thanks.
And then there are certain government officials obama who are given a security clearance despite having a background that would raise every flag on an SF-86. Flags such as: drug use; associating with known felons; associating with groups/individuals advocating the violent overthrow of the US; multiple names/aliases; travel to foreign countries on the do not travel list; foreign contacts; citizenship; fraud (we’ve never seen his transcripts); etc. I am sure EPSQ would have burst into falmes before he finished…
Agreed on all points. The soldiers aged 35+ in my BCT company were universally shitbag-free; many of us ran Alpha on the ability group runs, we all passed marksmanship, PT, were solid in the field, in the schoolhouse, exhibited more natural leadership, and were more even-keeled under pressure. If you meet the medical standards at MEPS, you hold up physically during BCT/AIT, and you meet all the standards for your MOS, I don’t see a reason in the world to restrict based on age.
And I’d far rather have my 6 shop staffed with a motivated, inspired 44-year-old who meets all the standards, than a with a morally bankrupt or out-of-shape shmuck who can’t find a job and “settles” on the Army…
Compare/contrast this with the differnet standards we now see as far as remaining in service. “Back in the day” a DUI was not a barrier to continued service…nowadays it is a career killer. I once knew a guy who took leave to serve his initial 30 day sentence after conviction…and then did the rest of it on weekends and holidays. Domestic? No problem…now, one and done. Its a double edged sword methinks…there are many retired guys out there who were dirtbags before they donned the uniform, and found themselves once they had their heads shaved and felt good about something they were doing for the first time. And many who just became dirtbags as part of their service.
Where do you draw the line?
Great post, Hondo. Well said.
I was waiting for you guys to pick this story up. I agree 100% that if they want to throw experienced people in a particular field, then that’s a DA Civilian position. I can just envision the worst case scenario of a human being with cyber skills being designated an E-6 “just because”. That being said, I would not be against a separate career path that once you meet basic psychological and physical requirements, and complete basic training you move to non-leadership roles in the old Specialist rank structure. The military IS an exclusive organization. You have to meet the standards. Throw those standards out the window and we all know what that gives us. My retirement was effective today. The SECDEF is a blithering idiot.
The PT comment is wholly out of sync with SMA Daily’s message about PT. It send some very mixed signals to the troops in the field. It would seem like the SECDEF wants to relax the entrance standards then push off the responsibility to get these troopers up to standard at the units. Meanwhile the commands are getting crucified over APFT performance measures and failure rates which in turn causes us to have to process these jokers out. It’s a self licking ice cream cone of stupidity…
“I can just envision the worst case scenario of a human being with cyber skills being designated an E-6 “just because”.”
I saw that happen with officers, but never with enlisted. I remember when I was going through boot at Great “Mistakes” there was an E-3 in another company who had gold stripes and several hash marks. No kidding. He had gotten out before he got his years for retirement and decided to come back in and finish it off. They were nice to him and made him an E-3. He had been at least an E-7. In the Army I think.
Now, the “O-gangers” were another story. All those instant officers such as lawyers, doctors, and nurses cracked me up. When I was going through LDO “Knife and Fork School,” one afternoon I was coming out of the admin building and a full Commander was coming toward me. Of course, I’m a boot brown bar and as I prepared myself to salute, the O-5 shocked me as HE saluted and said “Good afternoon, sir!” I looked around and realized I was the only guy around.
Of course, I immediately replied, “Carry on, Commander!”
He must have looked at my rack of ribbons and figured, “This guy HAS to outrank me!”
Heh. When I was first stationed at my PCS, I went to my first dining in. I had just bought my first Dress Blues, and was trying to figure out where everything went. I couldn’t figure out how the ribbon was supposed to go on my hat. My superior office (who was Air Force — this was a purple institution) didn’t know. His superior office (who was Navy) wasn’t sure. His superior (who was civilian SES) had no idea. So, I went to see the military Director who, thank God, was also Army.
I went to him and said “Sir, I hate to admit this, but I just don’t know how this works. How do I put this thing on my hat, and how am I supposed to wear it?”
The Director looked at the hat for a minute, and said “Dr. Oliver, I have to tell you, I’m not sure. I just declare wherever I am to be a no-cover area.”
Mustang, I have heard there are Navy jobs (NSC?) that graduate their trainees as E6s…can you confirm/deny this? Crypto techs for one iirc…
I remember a Boatswains Mate at great mistakes with E-3 on gold. He had rode the promotion train as far as he wanted, and was being the best assets he could be.
This was circa 83-84 and he was respected by all he met with, but a lowly E-3 end of the day none the less.
Meh. When I look at the things — age and minor drug offenses — I don’t see the problem. I’m reminded of my experience. When I was in college, I was an Asian studies minor. I spoke Japanese, a smattering of Chinese, was active in some of the cultural groups on campus, etc. I wanted to be an intelligence analyst and I applied to Naval Intelligence with the idea of going to Japan. I took the little written test and all that stuff and apparently did well until I got to the final interview. The recruiter asked “Well, have you ever smoked marijuana?” I laughed and said “I’m a college student and it’s the 1970s. Of course I have. Not a lot, but, yeah, I’ve tried it.” He said “I don’t think you understand. If you say you have ever smoked marijuana, you can’t be an officer in the Navy. Look, nobody will ever check, but you just can’t say you’ve ever smoked it. So, I’ll ask you again. Have you ever smoked marijuana?” I said “Sorry, man. I’m not going to start a career out based on a lie. If you don’t want me, that’s OK. I can do something else. But I’m not going to lie.” And that was that. No military career for me. Then, fifteen years goes by and I do enter another career, and the Army wants me. I go through the same sort of thing, but now it’s different. “So, Dr. Oliver, have you ever smoked marijuana?” “Yes, I experimented with a lot of things when I was in college.” “All sorts of things?” “Yeah. I’ve probably tried everything once.” “Recently?” “Not for almost twenty years. Except vodka martinis.” “That’s good enough.” Now, what separated me from someone who just experimented with some things as a kid and someone who has a record of “minor drug offenses?” The discretion of a local cop or two. When I was in college, the policy of the local cops was not to arrest for minor possession. Nowadays, there is no rhyme or reason for when and who… Read more »
Addendum:
Don’t want to plaigarize. The Grant quote is taken verbatim from quoteinvestigator.com
I see where you’re coming from, but where will they draw the line? I wouldn’t have too much of an issue with having a kid who say, got arrested for “Minor in Possession of Alcohol” or a minor pot bust as a teen, but I’d have issues with say, an early twenty-something with that and a DUI in early adulthood, that would say “potential problem Troop” to me! One thing is for sure. As an NCO, I will be a leader, teacher and mentor among other things, BUT I WILL NOT BE a problem Troop’s Bail Bondsman!
One of the major areas of concern for me is the number of suicides committed by troops who never deployed. It’s an outlandish percentage and only bound to worsen as services, such as the USAF, think it a good idea to allow transgenders the opportunity to serve. Rare is the suicide who goes about his day as he or she always has and then, uninfluenced by alcohol or drugs, blows his brains out or slices her wrists. It’s a serious problem–but it’s not a military problem, unless you allow these folks to join in the first place.
Oh, sure. You are absolutely right. And, in fact, for the example you use there’s a decent literature that points out that people who manage to get themselves arrested for DUI represent a specific at-risk cohort. If you think about it, drinking enough to be observable as a drunk driver means that you’ve drank quite a bit, and the choice to drink and drive is a judgment call that is an order of magnitude or two different than simply deciding to drink.
And the same thing is true with so-called “minor drug offenses.” It’s one thing to experiment with drugs. It’s another to use drugs on a regular basis or use them and make similar bad judgments.
But there *is* a line somewhere. And there’s nothing that says that line should not be reconsidered on a periodic basis.
Also, some of the MIPs and possession of pot cases are plea-bargained down from DUI and Possession W/I to deliver.
Also, what about the spouse abuse arrest that gets bargained down to assault & battery? Or, an arrest for A&B that stems from drinking 2 or 3 40 ouncers?
This a can of worms that really doesn’t need to be opened, and, in sane people, wouldn’t even be considered.
Well, I’ll address the spouse abuse thing directly, since I did some investigations of those while in the military. About 50% were fabrications. Not simply “I can’t prove it” but pure fabrications. I remember one case of a poor sailor who went on liberty at a port in the Middle East. He hooked up with a young enlisted woman from another ship who was also on liberty there. The next night, he went to the woman’s ship and asked the NCOIC (or NCO on deck or whatever the hell it is in the Navy), can she come out and play. The guy says “Hold on” and out come a bunch of SPs and take him into custody on the charge of rape. We start looking into things My part was medical, and the details are unimportant, but the bottom line is that the accuser’s story didn’t fit with the injuries and evidence and every time I tried to get clarification, she became more obstructive to the point that what she was saying just didn’t make any sense. Finally, she admitted that she had fabricated the charge. The problem was that the NCOIC or NCO on deck or whatever was her *fiancee* and when the young sailor came up and asked to see her again, she panicked. Of course, by the time all this came out, they guy had been on penal duty for 18 months. He had missed all of his deadlines for getting his tickets punched, he was out of the zone (or whatever the zone equivalent is for enlisted), and his career was shot. I had a colleague who was accused of child abuse as part of a contested divorce. The mother brought in their child all beat up and the guy, an Army physician, was arrested. He would have been in jail for the rest of his life had the mother not called him to brag about beating the child herself and blaming him for it. Turned out his phone was tapped. He got off, but his career, also, was pretty much ruined. In today’s world where… Read more »
Relevant stoy on the news now: the Alabama lad who was accused, arrested, and thrown out of the ‘Bama program last week due to his girlfriend alleging he beat and abused her? She recanted – admitted lying and is facing charges.
Even more complex now that states are starting to legitimize use/possession…
Our drug policies are seriously screwed. Here’s my take on it: Experimentation – to be expected. Use: depends on ability to control use. If it goes into abuse – it’s bad. Dependence: bad, and needs treatment.
Production, particularly major production: very bad. You want to screw yourself up – fine. Free country. You want to make your riches off other people’s misery, you need to be buried in the ground headfirst, like a turnip.
But 5 years in the klink for an ounce of Mary Jane? Nah. That’s a waste of time and effort.
The problem is that when you’re trying to decide if someone should be given a security clearance or not, there’s really remarkably little to go on. Is someone with bad credit really at risk of becoming the next Snowdon? Probably not, but the percentage of bad risks within the pool of “poor credit” folks is at least somewhat higher than it is within the “good credit” pool, and that’s the best they can do.
Same thing with drug use, criminal records, foreign contacts, etc., etc. They’ve only got so many data points, and have to do the best they can with what they have. The goal is to minimize false negatives, not to minimize false positives.
There’s a big downside to that philosophy of not caring out the false positives. You throw out a lot of good people. For instance, as a personal issue, I refuse to take polygraphs. Why? Because it’s voodoo. It’s junk science. And, I don’t have to — I can afford to take the hit on certain contracts, and if someone wants me to work on a project badly enough, there’s always a way. *I* have certain personal standards, too. One of the reasons I chose the DoD for what I did is that unlike some other agencies, the DoD didn’t require a polygraph for a TS clearance. And, when I left the military, I maintained that. I told folk that if they wanted me, they could have me, but I would not do an entry polygraph. Some closed the door. Others didn’t. I remember one guy saying “Bill, why do you refuse to take our poly? Do you think it will show deception?” I said “Damn straight I do. And I don’t want to be labeled because of your voodoo magical thinking.” He had no answer. Polygraphy is particularly damaging to folk in careers that require security clearance because in some agencies, such as the FBI, it’s the last part of the employment procedure (or was 20 years ago). And if you are one of those “false positives” who get booted because of voodoo, your career is ruined. From then on, you have to check the mark that says “Have you ever been denied a security clearance?” You are toast. Not because of anything you did, but because of organizational stupidity. Back in the day, I had a colleague who was denied a security clearance because the polygrapher declared that he was deceptive when answering “no” to the question “are you a homosexual?” This was before being gay was a diversity selling point rather than a clearance problem. The guy wasn’t gay, but from that point on his career was ruined. Just another “false positive” that everybody thinks is fine. But the bottom line is this. Let’s say you are, say,… Read more »
False positives are, as far as I know, hard to get nowadays. A preliminarily positive sample is retested. If negativem, it’s reported that way. If positive, it has been twice tested. Additionally, a donor can elect to have the positive specimen tested by an outside lab, no? Of course none of this helps if you have consumed one-too-many poppy seed buns or bagels. as for the polygraph, I have manintained for decades that I would never, under any circumstance, agree to sit for one. Pathological liars pass them easily and honest people who think about the wrong things when being tested too often fail them.
Well, it’s cost me, refusing to sit for a polygraph. I know of a few jobs that were out of reach for me. When I left the military, it was clear that I would have no home in some agencies, and was told outright not to bother to apply if I wasn’t willing to do it.
But, as with all things, other opportunities came up. It all worked out well. As I near retirement, I have to say I don’t regret it, though I had no I idea I’d end up where I am. And, as outspoken as I am, it’s probably a good thing I don’t have to submit everything I write to someone else for review.
Remember to look up to the right every time you are going to answer, ask for a glass of water and if possible take a valium or 3 200mg ibuprofen …
A friend had one, we used to make it fail on demand as a gag. To this day I’m amazed nobody has switched to micro expressions … hard to lie on that.
I had a part time once a long time ago that required polygraphs as a condition to employment. We used to go in and as a matter of policy tell the examiner that we didn’t believe in the overall science behind them. I knew of no one who ever “failed” a test using that tactic.
I’m sorry, my terminology was confusing – I wasn’t referring to false positives as in a drug test. I meant, when they’re evaluating a person for a security clearance, they can decide one of two things: (A) give them a clearance, or (B) deny the clearance.
If it’s a bad person and you choose (A), I called that a false negative. The risk of damage to national security is real and immediate – these are the Snowdons and Mannings.
If it’s a good person and you choose (B), that’s what I called a false positive. And while that may damage national security in that you’re losing out on someone like billo’s skills, it’s not immediate and present damage.
Unfortunately, billo, your career prospects isn’t the primary concern of CCF – their concern is not getting our foreign assets killed or our diplomatic cables released. I agree with you, and I’d rather have the use of the talents of good folks with a few scrapes, but the only way to do that is to improve the vetting process, not loosen the standards.
I wasn’t confused — you’ll note that I didn’t talk about drug tests. I know what you meant.
I understand that my career prospects aren’t anybody’s primary concern. Not even mine, actually. I have a number of things higher on my list.
But throwing away good talent is a problem. Even in the intelligence community. It’s unfortunate that the community doesn’t seem to recognize it.
I’ve seen this a lot. People never seem to believe in unintended consequences. Thus, there’s no downside to wasting good assets, because the *good* those assets do is never appreciated.
I know you don’t mean it this way, but frankly, to me your argument boils down to “Hey, we have capricious and arbitrary standards that don’t work, but rather than examine them, what we really need to do is adhere to them even more thoughtlessly!” It’s a bit unfair, I know, but you have to admit that the vetting system we have isn’t all that stellar.
A system that actually doesn’t work all that well at keeping out leakers and such, but does keep out good people shouldn’t be above a little re-examination now and again. The “This sucks, so let’s do it even more” argument certainly reminds me of my Army days, but I didn’t like it much then, either.
1) My statement about “my language was confusing” was meant for 2/17 Air Cav – I should have specified that. I tried to reply on the right thread, but I guess I have to apologize AGAIN for confusing things!
2) I agree that the system is HIGHLY imperfect, and I would love to have it work better. But I just don’t know how to do that. As it is, it takes months and months to adjudicate a clearance, between background checks and interviews and everything else that goes into the report; when you layer in anything that requires additional hand-holding and manual decision-making, it by necessity increases that time. And the only way I can think of to do a better job of mining today’s rejects for those diamonds in the rough is to add another layer of manual review.
What are your thoughts for how to do it better? If it’s just adding more manual underwriting, as it were, I think you’ll see processing times balloon. Maybe there are other indicators we can use?
My only thought for how to do a better job is to stop giving soldiers a clearance right out of the gate – make them get through initial entry training and some time at their units to qualify to apply, and then take their performance and COC’s recommendation very seriously in the evaluation process.
There’s definite problems with that approach, but it’s a thought…then if someone had some scuff marks in his past, but was a good Joe, he could advance; and if he was a jergoff, but had managed to avoid the law, you might catch him before he went all Manning…
I’m not an expert on the workings of the intel community. I just worked on some stuff now and then where I had to have a clearance to do my investigations. So I’m not really in a place to make great recommendations to fix the system. I can say, however, that one of the problems with backlogs is that too many things require security clearance and too many things are classified. One of the things I noticed between the time I started and the time I left was that stuff that only required the standard Army officer “secret” clearance when I started ended up requiring TS clearance by the time I left. It was absurd. I remember getting a catalogue of photographs from the CIA for briefings. The photographs were actually declassified — but the *catalogue* required not just TS clearance but *compartmentalized* clearance. So, the CIA told me I could have any of the images I wanted, but I couldn’t look at the catalogue to see what ones to ask for. Happily I had a Senior Chief who had a clearance higher than mine, so I had him leaf through the catalogue and describe the images to me. I’m *still* trying to get trivial crap declassified so I can publish it in the medical literature, and there’s always some numbnuts who is afraid of some political blowback. So, the first thing to take care of the backlog is to recognize the classifying *everything* isn’t the answer. Save classification for stuff that really needs it, and you’ll find that 90% of the billets that require TS or above won’t really require it. Second, do what works, don’t do what doesn’t work just because you’ve been doing it for years. That reminds me of the old joke about the guy standing underneath the streetlight. Another guy walks by and says “What you doing?” He says “I’m looking for my keys.” and points to a dark spot near a wall. “I dropped them somewhere over there”. The second guy says “Well, why are you looking where you are?” The first guy says… Read more »
1982 was the last year group to fall under the “I have never, ever used drugs” rule. After that, the experimentation clause applied.
Christ, I’m getting old.
Billo, I had almost the identical experience: when I was letting a coupla retired Chiefs talk me into going Navy, I hit that “have you ever used (meaning used, sampled, eaten, or been in the same room with someone smoking pot and you didn’t report it) question. Geez, my school had ben on national TV for all the home-grown pot! (“The Kaw-Valley Hemp-Pickers”, circa 1970). I answered yes, the Navy wanted me to jump through hoops, get testimonials, etc. – a pain. Then I talked to the Army – who frankly didn’t give much of a shit as long as I was not hiding anything. Did 10 years both as military and DoD civilian with TS-SI. Funny part was that Naval Investigative ran the background checks for both services.
During my interview they asked something like, “Do you have a relatives from behind the Iron Curtain?” I said, “Yup. My aunt is from East Germany.” They get up from the table, much discussion. Come back, “Tell us about that”. I did. Then I suggested that they look up my uncle’s (her husband) security clearance. After that, no mo’ problem. At that time he worked in Tooele Utah. When he got fed up dealing with the people who were planning to USE what they worked on, he moved to China Lake.
Grant drank Old Crow, I believe.
I wonder what the “relaxed standards” will cost the US Military when it comes to legal issues when they’re jailed downrange, drug & alcohol rehab, anger management training,… I still remember hearing my Dad, a retired Judge, talk about the difference between what he saw during the Jimmeh Kahtuh years versus the Reagan Era I grew up near a Military installation). During the Kahtuh years, a liaison from said installation would ask how said Personnel’s careers could be salvaged, advice for their rehabilitation, etc while during the Reagan Era, they would ask “Were they convicted?” and upon a “Yes” answer, their response was “Okay, then his/her career is over with!”. Apparently B. Hussein 0bama & Company want CoC’s and NCO Support Chains to be tasked with keeping up to date on troublemakers’ and dirtbags’ downrange criminal records as well as the social engineering heartburn they’ve already inflicted!
When I was a CO, I put out the word that, if a Sailor had a DUI that was substantiated I would crucify them.
One of my Sailors decided to test me.
I crucified him.
No more DUIs.
To me, a lot of leadership is telling people your standards, telling them what you will do if they violate those standards and then following through. If the last step is eliminated, God help you.
I hear what you’re saying, and I agree wholeheartedly. But I wonder if they’re going to suddenly tie the hands of Officers and NCO’s that want to keep and enforce standards that weed out the dirtbags and problem types? I once had a bleeding-heart liberal Officer above me that made doing so a real case of heartburn.
“But as the wars dragged on and suicides, sexual assaults and other bad behavior by service members spiked, military leaders began to question whether there was a link to the decline in enlistment standards during the wartime peak.” So they looked at each suicide, each sexual assault, and other unspecified bad behavior and posited it against the enlistee’s profile, right? Um, who knows? It’s just thrown out there as if a given truth. If anything, it sounds as if that’s a helluva good argument for tightening standards, not relaxing them. But, then, it’s an AP story, and fact and editorializing are often intermingled and confused.
Wow, something I can actually comment with knowledge! 😛 anyway the biggest problem they have is .. well thay have a lot but this are the main ones:
1. They need good technical people, that can react, do a hard run and can be flexible, that costs money, in today’s market a guy like that makes 100k a year in the private sector … at least
2. You need either to buy exploits or research them, and most buying fences are not from the US and while LANL and other labs do the research the “coolness” factor has gone down on it, thus has no pull (yes most security guys/whitehat hackers are not really too much into money, as they know they can get it anyway but the flashiness of it)
3. Divas, let’s be honest, most high level security guys/girls are kinda divas, is normal they are used to the treatment, so no you won’t find John Doe doing PT at 0500 but he will find the bug that will be inserted like FLAMES or so …
4. Most good guys are not even from the US
If they want to compete for those slots, for those ppl they will have to hit the wow factor (the NSA had it before Snowden) is a nice try but yet again, I did walk 4 months ago and still got denied entry so yeah maybe they should tell the recruiters that too 😛 LoL!
And the guy you are talking about in item one not only makes that money but has most of the shop kissing his ass all day long…he’s not worried about some inter office politics and he’s not worried about “fitting” in because those guys tend to be so good at what they do those around them have to accept their superstar’s odd little desires..
I know someone who just made the move from Apple to another company that does the work you mention….they make the obscene salary and pretty much make their own hours and work schedule…that work schedule includes a summer filled with 3 day weekends all 8 weeks of summer in New York City. It also includes daily free catered lunches and travel to and from work paid for by the company whether on the subway or private car service.
Living with lots of money on the Upper East Side and traveling the world is a tough act to follow with a government cubicle in a dreary office.
Lost is correct when he says those guys are not only divas, they are not motivated to take shit from anybody because they don’t have to. If the military wants those kind of guys, not only had they be prepared to make it a civilian position, but a position unlike most with respect to the rules normally inherent in a government job or they can understand there is nothing the military has to offer that those guys want or need for the most part…not a lot of stories these days coming out about military service or government employment that show any real respect or reward for that service or employment.
In my personal business I find I no longer waste time with government work, takes too long to get paid and too many asshats along the way. My fortune 100 clients pay in less than 30 and some pay half up front and half on completion which means I am not required to finance their projects.
But, you know, you don’t really want those guys in the military. I’ve known some top-notch computer forensics and security folk and there are plenty around who aren’t divas, who buy into military values and who are very, very good. After all I’ve written above about changing where the line is, the fact is that being in the military means something. Even (or even, surprisingly, more) to folk like me who were not line officers. Being in the military radically changed my life. It was amazing to belong to an organization that actually had real values and meant it. It was something to be at a place where personal responsibility, honor, and valor were valued as much as technical skill. Was there a lot of bullshit? Oh, yeah. Did people not live up to those values a lot? Sure. But the values were there, nonetheless. I’m all in favor of examining standards. But you have to have *some* minimal standards, and *nobody* is so good they are worth harming the institution by ignoring them. I’m all for examining where the line on recruiment should be. But I’m not for changing what service *is* or what it *means.* It’s one thing to say “Hey, OK, you’ve made a mistake, but we’ll give you a chance.” It’s another to say “Hey, you reject our values, but that’s OK, they aren’t important and you are above all that.” Screw that. I wasn’t the best soldier in the world, but I was a soldier, and I was proud of it. I was proud of it because of what it meant, and because on those very rare occasions when I did have to do something or go somewhere outside of my little sub-sub-basement at Walter Reed, I knew that I was putting something much bigger and better than myself above my personal needs in a major way. These divas and these people who think that the Army should adjust to them rather than them adjust to the Army can kiss my ass. There’s plenty of talent around, and these special snowflakes aren’t quite as special… Read more »
Wait. . . .what!!!??
“that the SECDEF is considering allowing the military to relax certain military entry standards to “attract more qualified manpower” ”
RELAXING standards to attract MORE QUALIFIED manpower??!! Now, if THAT’S not the very definition of a gubbment oxymoron (like military intelligence), I don’t know what is.
Time to put out an APB on The Good Idea Fairy, “armed and dangerous, shoot to kill on sight”.
This could be what we get.
http://static.wixstatic.com/media/b0bc8d_a8bb86aba31c4f7390ea36e7fb638def.jpg?dn=Passed.jpg
One last (of too many comments from me already): why are they relaxing standards to get more people in at the same time they are forcing good, qualified, already military-adapted people OUT?
David…WAY too much logic in your question. You’ll have to rephrase it into simpler terms and one syllable words for the Pentagon.
Where is the “like” button?
Heh. Well, yes. There is that. Personally I think there’s a purge going on. But I’m on the outside looking in nowadays, so what do I know.
“Further, DoD can require prospective civilian employees to sign a mobility agreement acknowledging the fact that they may be sent anywhere in the world, to include hazardous locations, as a condition of employment.”
Okay fair enough. I signed one at the combat support agency I work at as a civilian. But you know what else comes with putting civilians in those types of jobs? The need to accommodate for disabilities and equal employment opportunities and such in those hazardous locations. Because a deployment to a combat zone is fiscally and career advantageous for a civilian (lots of incentive money to deploy in some jobs) the DoD must provide equal opportunities for all its employees. Even if the COCOM surgeon general says no way, it’s not safe.
I’ve watched my CSA go to court and lose on this, and have to pay out their nose to compensate, and have to provide alternate opportunities of equal value (career and cash) or allow the deployment to go forward.
I’m a Signal officer, so these cycber guys are part of my field. They want to lower the standards because the guys that they want, the guys that are experts in this type of work, are the guys that tend to live in moms basement and eat twinkees and pizza while washing it down with jolt cola, or energy drinks.
I dont want these gius in “my Army” either, but that is the reason for wanting to lower our already lowered standards.
One day we”ll have whole companies of Soldiers that get winded lacing their boots.
By “these guys” I mean out- of-shape, not subject matter experts concerning cyber warfare.
So, make them civilians. There are lots of places for them, and if these are the “find zero day attack” people, then they will likely be noncombatants. Make the CIA or NSA or whatever the hell NIMA is called nowadays. They don’t have to wear a uniform — even to work with soldiers.
Agreed.
Without doubt there are cases for inclusion to serve. You can be a transgender, homosexual, a lesbian, have a sex change or just a plain old pervert, But by God, don’t have a tattoo.
But what burns my ass is that this is proposed right after all the Branches were forced to reduce knowledgeable and combat experienced Senior NCOs and Officer ranks.
Another obama tool furthering the decay of our military ability.
Cato, Well said and agreed.
I recall the Pentagon relaxing the pre-entry conduct standards under W, and that move was chastised all to hell. And rightfully so. Doing it again is going to lead to the same problems many were concerned about last time. I’m curious as to how nobody remembered to say, “wait a minute, this has been done before, and with bad results. You probably shouldn’t adopt that move sir.”
Let anyone in that is willing to serve, if you cannot do the job then get out.