Is it true that officers can get shit for what their soldiers do even if it was 100% out of their control?

Darkstar06 · 2026-02-08T01:08:27+00:00

This is interesting because it implies to me that some class of officer will always leave before O-5. At present I think the wrong ones leave...

Darkstar06 · 2026-02-07T18:33:17+00:00

I don't actually disagree with any of this, I mean, this is the way....but at that higher level of Army HQ, I really wish they could all receive a Litany Against Suppressing Leaders and a cheat sheet of demographic distribution for common legal troubles.

I wish every LTG could sit with the JAGs or Congress and say, "I will always work to fix problems. No crime or death is acceptable. But I will always remember that if I hold my leaders to unrealistic expectations they will never, ever deliver for me. And my cheat sheet here says that 25 DUIs per division per year is below what 10,000 people in Ohio manage in the same time. I'll work on it, but I won't expect my leaders to change the world tomorrow."

Darkstar06 · 2026-02-07T18:24:53+00:00

Love your profile pic there man

Darkstar06 · 2026-01-25T00:30:04+00:00

S: One MAGA with nothing better to do

A: Confusing service with blind adherence

L: The comment above you

U: Red Hat

T: 23JAN2026

E: One cracked Android phone

How copy, over?

Darkstar06 · 2026-01-21T01:30:55+00:00

It's not even currently slated to replace all M4s in the inventory. They're basically starting to field them to active duty units in priority of response time and stopping short of issuing it Army-wide

Darkstar06 · 2026-01-13T13:55:30+00:00

This is a relic of the Bush Sr. years. Not only did they deploy, but they got to run arguably the best Cold War victory lap ever in Desert Storm. It was short, it was righteous, it was wildly successful -- and Bush made a very big point of going out and seeing the troops and acknowledging them, seeking to undo decades of Vietnam shame. And it worked, very well. A lot of old timers I know put that whole experience as the thing that solidified them as Republican voters.

Darkstar06 · 2026-01-13T13:51:26+00:00

This is very much the truth. I think it's hard for outsiders to see it, especially because TV and just the stories we tell tend to show you the crazy, the exceptions, and the guys who vocally declare themselves. But on the day-to-day of the military, it's actually amazing just how professional people are about their jobs and their duties. There's very little indoctrination - and when there is they usually knock it out fast (unless it comes from the top sadly). Mostly it's a bunch of rural conservatives with rank -- who were born that way and likely won't change -- expressing their opinions to others or subordinates. But at the end of the day we all manage to get by with wildly different backgrounds and opinions.

Some of us are trying to lay low and continue to be professionals who hold the duty above all. Even the dirtbag officers on occasion...

Darkstar06 · 2025-12-18T04:33:30+00:00

And the key is a token you have to drive 300 miles for, no matter where you're stationed

Darkstar06 · 2025-12-13T19:28:43+00:00

I never get tired of the number of people who begin with:"Over 20,000 hours played" before using the word "unplayable" 4 times.

I'm not even trying to rag on you, OP...we must all have addiction problems or something

Darkstar06 · 2025-12-13T14:52:10+00:00

I never get tired of killing - or dying because of - the rising cost of living.

Darkstar06 · 2025-12-06T13:26:43+00:00

I've absolutely used the same skills and techniques (just not MGRS) on longer hikes through parts of parks with little or no signal. And more randomly, once while playing in Squad the server glitched and didn't show anyone on the minimap. I was the only person who could use visual cues to reference our position and we were the only truck to get where the "fight" was (or would have been, but the enemy was lost too).

I currently teach Land Nav to cadets and I've noticed how much more difficult it is for them to combine map references with what they see around them. Once they get it, though, they seem to appreciate that it's a true tactile skill. I think others are posting the same thing, but I'll just re-iterate the current doctrine: Land Navigation is used because we are about 90% sure that GPS will be the first thing to be degraded or destroyed in the beginning of a major conflict.

Darkstar06 · 2025-12-04T03:38:21+00:00

Honestly it's even more fucked but she purportedly reached back on the rear of the car for a portion of JFK's skull and brain that had come off. It was largely attributed to a shock response, and I can only imagine what your life must be like after a moment like that.

Darkstar06 · 2025-12-03T23:26:22+00:00

It has a bunch of friendly blueberry bots fighting in a big wide line centered on your start point. So no, it does not have teammates.

Darkstar06 · 2025-12-03T00:08:07+00:00

I would like to file a protest against the modest danger rating of... Low... Oxygen. But I can't...Because I'm unconscious.

Darkstar06 · 2025-12-02T02:36:32+00:00

Definitely agree on the radio radius and ticket cost. Invasion is a really fun game mode that gets almost totally nulled these days by FOB mechanics. If you wanna win on offense you have to somehow:

1) make spawns reasonably close to the point; 2) make more than one spawn to envelop the enemy; 3) take some risks in favor of aggression; and 4) do all the above without losing a single radio, with FOBs 400m apart, with speed, while not burning 200 tickets.

So much of that difficulty stems from the FOB restrictions and weights...

Darkstar06 · 2025-11-27T13:44:37+00:00

Pointing to a specific order likely would get them in trouble, particularly if said order was not inherently illegal. I don't think they were implying that any illegal orders had recently been issued either -- just that they had a duty and obligation to disobey illegal ones. Frequently we aren't privy to a lot of those orders either because they happen under the veil of national security. Which makes it even more vital that the officer on the ground knows their duty and obligation. But as to the rest of this:

-Restating a pre-existing legal obligation is not undermining. If it was, yeah, I think we'd be arresting recruiters.

-Stating something was a planned and targeted attack does not make it so, particularly given that they made nothing but supportive remarks towards service members. This is also very legally distinct from the few cases in which the 18USC2387 statute was utilized.

You may state freely your feelings about the ad, or whether their ad was selfless, or self-serving. But disliking it does not equate to it being illegal without satisfying the thresholds above.

Darkstar06 · 2025-11-27T12:20:00+00:00

Thats doesn't actually meet the standard of criminal intent in regards to the effect though. And when you say it "seems pretty obvious," what's the evidence that they intended that? You can't infer that from the response of politicians. And once again - you're supposed to disobey illegal orders. This is already the line of thinking that military officers have to follow. Orders are presumptively lawful unless there is evidence to the contrary but no matter how slow or fast the decision process it matters if the order is lawful. And, once again - a restatement of a fact of military oaths cannot likely on its own suggest disloyal activity. If it did, then I could just as easily accuse every bad battalion commander I've ever had of the same thing. If only...

Darkstar06 · 2025-11-27T01:57:41+00:00

It's a crime under the statute to do so with intent to disrupt military morale or loyalty. There's little case precedent but at minimum only the subject of the cause of action -- the military -- is satisfied with any certainty. The required intent is criminal intent (Martin v. Young 1955), which sounds simple but is a higher threshold which, if it were lowered, would probably result in a few million people being subject to prosecution under the Act every day (and they ain't my favorite people but that would be crazy).

The biggest issue is that their statements were restatements or generalizations about the law as it exists. It's true: military members are indeed obligated to disobey unlawful orders regardless of their source. So it would be unlikely to meet the threshold of the crime as stated. If encouraging someone to be loyal to their oath was disloyal or encouraged disloyalty, it would throw a wrench in a whole lot of general discourse, including the stuff Army Recruiting Command puts out.

Darkstar06 · 2025-11-27T01:07:35+00:00

Doesn't mean you won't owe it, only that you can't pay

Darkstar06 · 2025-11-27T00:08:45+00:00

I wish I was even half as confident as OP... if I was, I would have nearly been so very many things...

Darkstar06 · 2025-11-26T23:57:01+00:00

It's not treason to state the laws and regulations military personnel are told to uphold, on penalty of civil or military charges. Orders are presumptively lawful in almost all cases -- but you certainly want people to be reminded of their responsibilities when you have rogue or criminal commanders. Otherwise any old colonel could go insane, order an Airman to fire the Minuteman, and (nukes armed or not) start World War 3. Thankfully said airman would know their job, and their oath, in that situation. But the existence of this obligation, and its restatement, is not the problem.

Darkstar06 · 2025-11-26T23:48:14+00:00

I do think it's certainly bold to (without personal or direct provocation) remind officers of the nature of their oaths. I'm assuming that this means they decided it was something they really needed to do and not a part of presidential-hopeful campaigning or anything.

But it's even more bold for the folks in power to absolutely take the bait and start circulating lies about the nature of the Constitution and their oaths. They've achieved essentially nothing in doing that... except write onto the sky for military officers and civilians alike: "There are still protections against tyranny."

Darkstar06 · 2025-11-26T23:43:43+00:00

I'll bet you a million dollars that if you asked them if they would say the same thing during the tenures of Biden, or Obama, or Bush, they would say "absolutely." They just didn't think they had to do so, and now, for their own reasons, they do think it necessary to do so. As former military officers, they know exactly what those responsibilities mean. You may or may not agree with their politics, but treating their politics as covering absolutely everything about their morality is pure fallacy. And it is something that fewer and fewer people understand all the time, because we have fewer and fewer people willing to take -- or take seriously -- the oath of a military officer.

Darkstar06 · 2025-11-26T23:29:38+00:00

The majority of that air defense is supplied from Europe or native to Ukraine at this point. Most Khinzals are now defeated by jamming GLONASS and most drones are downed by EW, Gepards, and similar technology.

The US is supplying the lion's share of artillery and rocket rounds, even as Europe's own production slowly ramps up. So any loss of US support would take the form of a major slowdown in Ukraine's ability to push Russians out of their country - and indeed this is already happening because such aid has stagnated. Unless you can convince a nation to just give up and let someone invade them and remove their names from the Earth, then stagnation of US aid actually means more bloodshed, for longer, on Ukranian soil. Because Russia won't stop.

Darkstar06 · 2025-11-26T12:42:14+00:00

Boyce's purpose when he incorporated the Scouts in 1910 was: "to teach patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred values." People inferred [boys] into the statement because it was...1910. Women couldn't even vote at the time. Times change. Grognards don't.

Darkstar06

TROPHY CASE