Enemies of Liberty are ruthless. To own your Liberty, you'd better come harder than your enemies..

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

.mil guys: What about these draw-downs?

The US Navy is going to draw-down as many as 8,000 senior NCOs.

This is on top of the Major and Captain draw-downs announced recently for the Army.

We know the Flag Staff has been purged of a significant number of people, most of whom seem to be anti-Administration.

What will be the effects of losing so many Majors, Captains, and Navy NCOs?

Is it what it looks like - the deliberate gutting of the services ability to properly fight?

Here's the Navy story.



  1. You want to know what the effect is? Ask the Russian army of 1941.


    1. That's the answer I feared. The institutional knowledge and memory these guys will be taking with them will be devastating, I fear.

  2. I gotta disagree with you guys. The part of the article to focus on is:

    "The Navy has held such boards — every year but one since fiscal 2010, the last in February of 2013. To date, 30,850 records have been reviewed, with a total of 1,381 chiefs being told to retire — an overall 4.48 percent chance of being sent home." Them are good odds.

    I spent 24 years in the Navy (78-02), and retired as a Senior Chief. What they're doing now isn't anything new. Those who will get the boot are Chiefs, Senior Chiefs, Master Chiefs (E-7/8/9) with "issues" in their past; or, they're non-performing now in the rank they hold (and likely have performance evaluations reporting such). All military types have heard the "ROAD - retired on active duty" saying. By culling out a few SNCOs who are non-performing or have a disciplinary issue, you open up the potential of advancement for those hard-charging junior ranks who can't get promoted because the senior ranks are chock-full.

    There's a limited number (mandated by Congress) of E7/8/9 slots available in each branch of the military. I think this is a good thing, thinning the herd and making room for the more techno-savvy and "hard-charging and hungry" types to get promoted.

    1. Understood, Anon, but what is the current admin's definition of "issues" and "non-performance"? They could be using those terms to get rid of "undesirables" (read: patriots; loyalists to the Constitution). But hey, like Curt said, "Great for our side". It would just be nice to have a few on THEIR side working for us. Just sayin'...

    2. it's "good" only IF they get replaced by the up and coming hard-chargers and their slots are filled with new recruits... nevermind the argument re: the use/need/Constitutionality of a standing military whose main purpose for some time has been forced political policy projection not national defense...

  3. The army and guard are having boards to get rid of NCOs also but like the guy said earlier it's senior guy with bad reviews or refuse to go to schools.


Please post anonymously. III Society members, please use your Call Sign.