Posted on 10/17/2003 2:10:36 PM PDT by tomball
No, those conditions are only at the National Guard Training Center. The rest of the post has modern facilities.
I don't think this would have happened in the AF to be honest (to this extent at least). One reason being the AF seemed to do a better job of retention when it came to medical staff, while, IMO, it seemed like many in the medical profession in the Army were there doing their time so the Army would pay for their training/college, and they had no desire to make a career out of the military.
Unlike the Army, a higher percentage of those exposed to combat/extreme conditions are going to be officers and middle-senior NCOs, and you can take it to the bank that this would never have happened to a group of them. Yes, it shouldn't matter if it's an E-2 or an E-6 or an O-1 that is wounded. Of course you wouldn't have large groups, because outside of a base coming under attack, the majority of those in the AF that would be injured would be few since usually you either completed your mission in one piece or you didn't come back.
It's sad, it sucks, and it shouldn't matter, but because the AF was always top-heavy with officers due to the nature of our mission and the fact that most bases were operating around the clock (things never felt like "peacetime" to me), we always seemed to have better facilities.
Not to turn this into an AF vs Army argument, but I've often believed that the AF valued its people much higher than the Army (especially its enlisted).
Part of it maybe that we required longer commitments upon enlistment or commission, and part of it maybe that we have a larger ration of very technical/skilled people (hence the longer enlistments).
A lot of enlisted jobs in the AF, they could require a lot of education, hence a large investment and not as easy to replace as quickly, while (according to relatives) the Army saw a lot of more of its people as being, for lack of a better phrase, easily replaced.
You can't just replace somebody that works on and with nuclear weapons, and when you have weapons systems that are around 50 years old (B-52s, etc.) you sure as hell do not want to lose the institutional knowledge that senior NCOs accumulate.
Tell it, brother. Why don't the leadership schools emphasize just that?
Desert the army, repudiate your citizenship, and sneak over the border as an illegal immigrant. Then you can get first-class medical care. I'm sorry, the country really is that screwed up. Oh, and it doesn't help to vote, because judges can rule every word in the Constitutional unconstitutional.
Billions to protect Iraq, not one penny for protecting the US border!
I've slept in the snow in Norway...had to get out of the pup tent to take a leak.
1st Combat Comm Gp. Wiesbaden W. Germany '79-'82
Conditions bad or conditions normal, the quarters are not the issue.
It may be normal to wait weeks for medical care, but it isn't right, and it doesn't make it good policy.
I wouldn't be upset if they were housed in tents and told to dig their own latrines, but they damned well should recieve prompt medical care. At least as prompt as a General Officer stationed at the Pentagon would recieve. After all, they are the real soldiers.
So9
IOW you didn't engage your brain before putting your fingers in gear. Common problem, but at least you fessed up to it.
That's fine if the activation is for training, but when it's for real, they become active duty soliders and should be treated as such. Do you think all the Guard Divisions called up for "the duration" in WW-II were treated as second class soldiers? I very much doubt it, and if they had been, there'd have been hell to pay.
It may not be normal to wait weeks for medical care but it does happen. As an example I had a shipmate who hurt his back, we were on mainland Japan, the closest specialist was stationed on Okinawa. Unfortunately he was on 30 days leave. Now the military could have sent the guy with the bad back to Hawaii but it was more costly to fly him there. So guess what? He waited over a month to see the doctor, it happens, may not make sense but that's the way it is. And if you think junior personnel are going to get the same prompt treatment as a General Officer your living in la la land!!! It ain't going to happen.
But reservists and other "non lifer" types are different, they vote and they don't forgive and forget very well either.
. In the Air Force, we didn't wear unit insignia on our uniforms, with some exceptions such as a ball cap to be worn with fatigues (pre-BDU days) and command level patches on those fatigues as well. But on our blues, no unit insignia. So most of the time, if you didn't already know, you couldn't tell the reservists from the active duty guys, except the reservists tended to be a bit older, and a bit more competant for their rank or grade. One former reserve CO of mine was not particularly amused when, when acting for the head of Intell at PacAF at a PacCom meeting of some sort, during a stint of active duty "for training", to have some active duty puke (non-AF I think) making some smart ass remark about reservists, especially since he outranked the puke. On top of being an O-6, he is an Aggie. Definitely was not amused, neither was the puke after the Colonel straightend him out. :)
Yeh, but they don't really belong to him, and could give a F-word. Meanwhile they do belong to someone, someone who should be raising bloody hell. That's one difference with Guard and Reserve folks, they have a long time attachement to their units, which is good and bad, but mostly good and something the Regular forces could emulate a bit. During the early Afghanistan business, some Air Guard units sent their First Shirt, even though they were only sending a "slice" of their unit. The Command Senior NCO then reported back to the CO about how "his" people were being treated, and hell was raised as appropriate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.