The Colorado National Guard this past weekend held a Change of Command ceremony with a historic twist- it appointed COL Dana Capozella as its first female commander of Army troops; she will soon be promoted to Brigadier General. What is far more interesting is possibly WHY the Guard appointed her as the commander of its troops. First off, I must say that I have no problem whatsoever with the appointment of a female in this position. There have been, and are, many excellent female leaders in the Army. The problems I see with this particular appointment are twofold: One- she has ZERO experience in either Afghanistan or Iraq, or any other combat deployment, despite being a medical officer where there is a known shortage of help in either theater. She has had deployments to Panama, Honduras and Nicaragua, but most people of a particular slant don't have problems going there helping on these MedReps. Appointing someone who will oversee deployments of combat troops and combat support troops without any experience leaves that leader devoid of a huge amount of knowledge. Going on 10 years of activity, NOT having a deployment tells me that this person likely worked harder at AVOIDING it than in joining it. Second- she wrote this paper as part of her War College education- ''The Time Is Now To Remove The Ban''. In this paper, she advocates the complete removal of DADT and a swift and direct command repercussion to those who violate any changes in DADT by employing top-down disciplinary action ''swiftly and directly''. She does not advocate 'acceptance' but education and tolerance. She does mention that most Judeo-Christian teachings put that acceptance in conflict with their core beliefs. She does not address just how the Chaplains, who have enough to do with helping morale, will adjust core doctrine within their faiths. The Colonel writes- ''The Long War is costly in terms of both the need for retaining qualified service members and the overall cost of sustaining this mission" yet does not mention that she herself has not joined in helping reduce these costs by going. Why not? Does she not believe this is a 'just war'?? It appears, from the outside, that the Colonel was appointed because of her stance on DADT, and the upcoming removal of this policy by DoD on direction of the President. There are FAR too many officers and senior enlisted in the NG that have NO, zero, deployments under their belt. AND getting promoted into senior positions above others WITH the experience. In many cases, those with the experience suffered by not being able to complete required schooling and training with their peers due to their deployment tempo. On active duty, there are accommodations made for this; in the NG, it can be quite different. Those that stick around, make the 'connections' and do all the schools AHEAD of those that are leaving family and other obligation behind to serve their country overseas and in conflicts are the ones that end up getting selected. Which is a crock of crap, if you get my meaning. Were I the Adjutant General of any state, here is what would be my first order of business- if you are in my HQ, and you are above the rank of E-6 or O-3, and you do NOT have a deployment, you have 30 days to find one, or find another position or retire. PERIOD. End of statement. Commence whining. THIS sets the expectation that those deploying will not be hurt by it, and will set the expectation that EVERYONE serves- no one 'hides' in a command staff in the extreme rear. There may be some exceptions (pending death in family, court proceedings in progress to include divorce, etc) but those can DELAY going, not REPLACE it. Wolf
Read the complete post at http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Blackfive/~3/FH7zpIkMdto/get-ready-to-remove-the-ban.html
Posted
Oct 21 2009, 12:30 AM
by
BLACKFIVE