Why are you Leaving?

[webmaster]

Duffel Blog is on a roll today with another comedic article, this time the Joint Chiefs fictitious response: http://www.duffelblog.com/2015/04/jcs-dont-care-youre-resigning/

Though the second to last paragraph rang true.

"It has never been easier to publish a scholarly article on the profession of arms, whether in one of our many journals or on any one of numerous military blogs. All of you managed to find venues to publish your resignation letters talking about all the great ideas you couldn’t find ways to circulate. None of us can figure out why you couldn’t just publish your actual ideas instead."

I honestly applaud the young LT for composing and publishing their reasons for resignation. Each of us that have contemplated getting out of the service have probably done some sort of internal monologue weighing the pros and cons of staying in. As has already been said in this thread, it boils down to the individual reasons on what works best for you (and perhaps your family) and what your ultimate goals in life are. I just hope that many that do transition to the outside world and civilian sector do their research. It can be quite rough trying to find that job, and some other types of sacrifice may be involved with that job hunt (location, work hours, small/large company, benefits offered and of course pay). With my recent transition I felt for some of my peers that struggled to find work after the military. Some turned down paying jobs because they thought the pay wasn't what they were worth, or in other cases they did not want to relocate for a better paying job. I think whether it's Big Navy or the corporate world, luck and timing have a lot to do with your success in addition to how well you prepared and networked to get from point A to B. Unfortunately I think many don't prepare, and have their expectations dashed against the harsh realities that are present in the work place and career progressions.

I think if there was ever a time for some positive change to come about, right now is a perfect opportunity to voice IDEAS to make things better. You have the attention of some prominent Admiral that CAN make a difference within their ability to effect change. I am hopeful that some of you active duty JOs and Officers are successful with that.

Cheering from the sidelines,

John

 

[Recovering LSO]

Duffel Blog is on a roll today with another comedic article, this time the Joint Chiefs fictitious response: http://www.duffelblog.com/2015/04/jcs-dont-care-youre-resigning

That's not even satire. That could have actually been written; maybe it should've...

 

[LFCFan]

That's not even satire. That could have actually been written; maybe it should've...

You beat me to it. I opened it in a new tab, walked away, came back and started reading. Halfway through I realized that I had opened a Duffelblog article a few minutes prior.

 

[Ventilee]

Here's a response to Ms. Granville's article by a Naval Aviator that I haven't seen posted yet and I thought you guys(and girls) might be interested.

http://www.askskipper.com/2015/04/15/a-response-to-ms-anna-granville-guest-post/

I don't have much to offer as I still have about 9 years before I'm eligible to get out, but I'm loving the discussion in this thread.

 

[Gatordev]

Here's a response to Ms. Granville's article by a Naval Aviator that I haven't seen posted yet and I thought you guys(and girls) might be interested.

http://www.askskipper.com/2015/04/15/a-response-to-ms-anna-granville-guest-post/

Hey, I think I know that guy!

 

[Spekkio]

...stuff...

I'm not interested in arguing anecdotes. Military spouses have significantly higher under- and unemployment rates compared to their civilian counterparts. 30% of spouses with bachelor's degrees, master's degrees, and professional degrees are unemployed, the majority of spouses who do work have 0 or 1 child, and yet over 80% of military officer spouses have at least a bachelor's level of education.

We're not going to get society to conform to military standards and accept stay-at-home dads as status quo. Besides, isn't that a step backward from where we were in the 1950s-1960s anyway?

Is it a problem? Senior leadership and politicians think so, so I suppose that makes the answer 'yes.' When women perceive resigning as the only path to having children, then we get rockstars like this to command ships when the Navy tries to push one of the first females left standing into the limelight. That whole women in combat push we've been hearing? It's conceived primarily to make women more competitive for general officer billets.

Solution? One idea that could work in our community is allowing servicemembers with career spouses to stay in a certain homeport. I've seen officers make it through O-6 in our community by just staying around primarily one area. You won't get rid of the long hours or deployments (and you never will), but at least can alleviate some of the spousal career sacrifice.

 

[Spekkio]

I believe there is an argument which could be made for a cadre of permanent O-3/O-4 "professional aviators." The problem with the Army example is that they didn't keep the system moving so as to keep some influx of fresh blood. If we split the community up into a command track and a flying track, we will still need to fill JO spots as the command track people make DH or get out. We also will still need to fill professional aviator slots as those folks retire. Potentially, we also play with their PRDs and manning numbers so as to utilize them in a RAG/TRACOM role for their shore tours, thus generating a demand to put a few more JO butts in fleet seats as they rotate out. TRACOM manning and student demand would go way down, but I think it would just be a matter of crunching the numbers to ensure the system didn't choke the demand off for new studs completely.

I think the bigger issue is that there are many instances in WWII that demonstrate that you really need someone familiar with carrier aviation to be in the operational command loop of the CSG when ordinance starts flying. I'm not so sure if that's the case when it comes to Army operations.

 

[wink]

I am sorry. Why do we care so much about how long women stay? It is what it is. Great strides have been made and, in my view, probably a couple too many accommodations, just to get greater numbers of women qualified and to join. Once in they can find a way to accommodate the career or not. Some will find a way. Many won't. They have been given the same opportunity as anyone else who joins. Women make those career/family/motherhood choices every day in America. Why does the military have to fundamentally change the way they operate just to accommodate a female's family planning. I made career choices that cost me close to $1 million over my career to accommodate my children and wife's career. I didn't ask the airline to make changes to the way it operates or promotes because of my personal choices.

 

[nittany03]

I think the bigger issue is that there are many instances in WWII that demonstrate that you really need someone familiar with carrier aviation to be in the operational command loop of the CSG when ordinance starts flying. I'm not so sure if that's the case when it comes to Army operations.

We already have that, and I fail to see how the example I gave would change it. You have, at a minimum, every CVW CO, CAG, CAG's staff, the CVN CO, the CVN XO, and significant portions of the CSG staff manned by experienced carrier aviators.

Saying that the viable choices are either the status quo or a full-up CWO-dominated Army-style air wing is a false dichotomy.

 

[Recovering LSO]

Solution? One idea that could work in our community is allowing servicemembers with career spouses to stay in a certain homeport

It happens now at Whidbey. It's not unheard of to see people do three, sometimes four, back to back tours there. And yet, the VAQ community has the same issues keeping women beyond initial commitment and has yet to have a VAQ borne and bred operational commanding officer.

 

[smoke_screen]

I honestly applaud the young LT for composing and publishing their reasons for resignation.

Totally agree - except that it becomes more of a buddy's brutally painful "here is why I got divorced" monologue to justify his huge life decision. For me the "4 reasons" approach seems so emotive and personal that it blows past substantive/constructive. It seems to reek of selling clicks. Thus, it is because I so, so love good ole fashioned criticism of the navy, that I don't like this nouveau Outbrain.com criticism of the navy.

 

[Spekkio]

I am sorry. Why do we care so much about how long women stay? It is what it is.

Because at some point, someone who has never served a day in the military with nothing better to do claims that there is rampant sexism in the military and all hell breaks lose. That's why.

 

[Spekkio]

Saying that the viable choices are either the status quo or a full-up CWO-dominated Army-style air wing is a false dichotomy.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to imply that there had to be a dichotomy. I was implying that because it is valuable to have senior leadership who is well-versed in carrier based aviation operations, that it might be more trouble than it's worth to try to figure out how to divide a community among LDOs/CWOs and URL officers and not fall into the trap you said existed in the Army.

We've had this same discussion on the sub end wrt following a British model where LDOs or Warrants would be responsible for the reactor and the URL officers focus on learning to drive the sub and execute the mission. By having do do both, it becomes one of those things where you do a job just long enough to get good at it before moving onto the next career milestone. Ultimately, people who get paid much more than me think it's beneficial that the CO knows in-depth about the reactor plant and how things operate back there and it's worth the tradeoff in additional honing of warfighting skills.

Unless another country can demonstrably kicks us around in the skilled aviator/submariner/whatever department, it's probably unlikely that the model for Naval officer career growth changes substantially. Which begs the question: if we're still better than everyone else, isn't this all a case of 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it?'

 

[nittany03]

Unless another country can demonstrably kicks us around in the skilled aviator/submariner/whatever department, it's probably unlikely that the model for Naval officer career growth changes substantially. Which begs the question: if we're still better than everyone else, isn't this all a case of 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it?'

Please tell me that I'm misreading your quote, and that you didn't just actually argue that us getting our collective and metaphorical balls kicked in is a prerequisite for questioning the status quo. Because the idea that American Sailors and Marines have to die to grant my point credibility is a fucking disgusting argument to make.

 

[Spekkio]

Please tell me that I'm misreading your quote, and that you didn't just actually argue that us getting our collective and metaphorical balls kicked in is a prerequisite for questioning the status quo. Because the idea that American Sailors and Marines have to die to grant my point credibility is a fucking disgusting argument to make.

I was saying that I don't think there is a credible threat in the near or mid term of anyone training their military to be better than us.

As far as the requirement to change the status quo...yea, that's kind of morbid... but as the saying goes 'we always fight the last war.' And then there's the axiom of "don't ever make a decision that you don't have to make." I just don't think that anyone in the position to make sweeping changes to how officers grow and gain their experience is going to do so without a really compelling reason. And even if they thought about wanting to, there is a whole legal aspect that would require an act of Congress to change, and we know that ain't happening. I don't think it's right, I just think it is what it is.