![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
: By all means, it is to be enjoyed....
A rebuttal of an undeserving "Counseling" by my hero and comrade, Musician Second Class Paul Werner Palm, USN.
For the vast majority of the history of the seagoing military, there was a genuine distinction between officers, senior enlisted and junior enlisted. Officers were exclusively gentry, a privileged class with carefully guarded access to educational opportunities beyond anything available to the debase, "lower" class. The intended and resulting effect was to produce a social environment in which the commoner was ingrained from every facet of life with the overwhelming sense that officers (indeed, all upper-class) were truly "superior" people. From the perspective of a deckhand, entirely devoid of even the rudiments of education, whose primary concerns rarely extended beyond survival, sustenance and parasitic infestations, how else would one perceive an educated, affluent, antiseptic individual whose apparent nature embodied aristocracy's demonstrable characteristics other than as a wholly separate stratum? Indeed, at that time, for all intents and purposes, this differentiation was veracious.
Senior enlisted (albeit the historical equivalent thereof), though of the same ilk as the oft conscripted ship's crew, were also a distinct entity. Through experience and, unquestionably, cognitive development (via sheer longevity), this tier was able to distinguish itself from their likewise "ill-bred" juniors. Although unable to wield the Damoclean sword of class distinction, a Chief's authority was soundly based on a foundation of pertinent, intimate knowledge of the tasking of all his subordinates. Yea, this conversance-instituted overlordship was the archaic counterpart of the contemporaneous tutelage of a primary schoolchild by a secondary conferred sibling. Indisputably unworthy of the psychological genuflection demanded by officers of that day and short of inspiring servile obedience, nevertheless, this was tangible, sufficient justification to not only elevate senior enlisted to the acquired status of bourgeoisie, but also to secure their station in the chain of command (and, one might add, lay the groundwork for the crew's subjugation). In short, they had "paid their dues. "
The modern Navy (which can arguably be said to have barely reached its quartercentennial), has an added element for which there is no historical precedent and for which it is grossly ill-prepared. Although the long overdue inclusion of minorities and women within the U.S. Armed Forces has disrupted the status quo, neither constituent begins to scratch the proverbial surface of the iconoclastic introduction of the learned enlistee. Indeed, today's voluntary Services (due primarily to academic debt repayment and college tuition assistance programs) are experiencing an ever-increasing influx of a caliber of individual heretofore absent from the rank and file. This is not to say that slack-jawed ruffians and Wellsian troglodytes have ceased to be the cornerstone upon which forces are built. Nay, they are as deck plates are to vessels and as fodder to cannons. But, within those minions lurk (and, in other instances, parade) individuals whose intellectual aptitude and scholastic attainments shatter the "bluejacket" mold. Hence, the time-honored customs and myopic "one size fits all" management archetype that every level of the military hierarchy foists upon freshman enlisted members is, in a word, done.
Now, the bureaucratic hierarchy that is the military rank structure, being the formalized humanic derivative of the natural pecking order, has degenerated in many ways to exactly that. Rank and the chain of command exist in order to define and designate authority, responsibility and accountability. They were not begat as a convenient guideline by which members could determine whom they could tyrannize with impunity. This schoolyard badgering, effected by way of excessive use of one's authority over another, is (to say the least) inimical; nigh deplorable; at best, ignominious. Though an innate behavioral characteristic nearly universal in social species, it is a salient trait one would hope humanity had stigmatized into antiquity by now. Unfortunately, it is alive and well in the United States Navy and shows no signs of future abatement.
Worse yet, those sycophantic individuals who deem ostentatious subordination and affectation an affordable price for promotion, who follow any and all direction with spurious alacrity, ultimately are far more detrimental than the member who barely skirts insubordination and/or disobedience. These obsequious toadies, who increasingly master the art of prevarication and sophistry, eventually rise to a level of authority from which they may expertly serve their own self-interests while contributing little (if
anything) else. Be it not preferable the member who challenges complacency and questions directives? Is this not the route by which genuine contributions come?
On the other hand, orders (the hallmark of the military) and their execution are indispensable; that goes without saying. The chaos that would otherwise ensue is, literally, in no one's best interest. From the oath of enlistment through a seemingly endless number of additional regulations, the ubiquitous directive to "obey direct and lawful orders" stands paramount. Not that an oath or the written word has ever been sufficient to direct the course of man. Therein lies the necessity for the Uniform Code of Military Justice [UCMJ].
The UCMJ (amongst other legal matters) outlines offenses and their course of correction. Articles 89-92 deal specifically with disrespect, disobedience, insubordination, et cetera. {It is amazing that Article 90 defines willfully disobeying and assaulting a superior commissioned officer (three essential qualifiers) as equivalent offenses.} It is safe to surmise that these four articles receive a disproportionate amount of prosecution relative to the 57 other punitive articles. Article 93 - Cruelty and maltreatment...
Any person subject to this chapter who is guilty of cruelty toward, or oppression or maltreatment of, any person subject to his orders shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
...in all likelihood, is virtually untouched.
So, our new Navy's officers and senior enlisted have the unenviable task of managing a next generation that is eminently well aware of the parity of all peoples (nobility is obsolete) and that is feasibly better educated in the task at hand than the rater. (Beware the occasional polymath.) Just as some prior establishment had to begrudgingly relinquish the cat-o'-nine-tails and keelhauling, so too must this upper-echelon undergo a paradigm shift. Gone are the days of abject servility. Usher in an age of social propinquity in which individuals are regarded for their abilities and contributions, not as a blanket function of a paygrade. Surly everyone has it within their capacity to make that natural differentiation. Or perhaps not.
Therefore, until the old guard reifies this concept or is supplanted by extra-naval erudite successors, the UCMJ and the threat of its employment will play an ever-broadening role in the inducement of discipline. Hopefully, the epitaph of these above delineated untenable mindsets has already begun to be written.
Pro tempore, quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
P. W. Palm
A rebuttal of an undeserving "Counseling" by my hero and comrade, Musician Second Class Paul Werner Palm, USN.
For the vast majority of the history of the seagoing military, there was a genuine distinction between officers, senior enlisted and junior enlisted. Officers were exclusively gentry, a privileged class with carefully guarded access to educational opportunities beyond anything available to the debase, "lower" class. The intended and resulting effect was to produce a social environment in which the commoner was ingrained from every facet of life with the overwhelming sense that officers (indeed, all upper-class) were truly "superior" people. From the perspective of a deckhand, entirely devoid of even the rudiments of education, whose primary concerns rarely extended beyond survival, sustenance and parasitic infestations, how else would one perceive an educated, affluent, antiseptic individual whose apparent nature embodied aristocracy's demonstrable characteristics other than as a wholly separate stratum? Indeed, at that time, for all intents and purposes, this differentiation was veracious.
Senior enlisted (albeit the historical equivalent thereof), though of the same ilk as the oft conscripted ship's crew, were also a distinct entity. Through experience and, unquestionably, cognitive development (via sheer longevity), this tier was able to distinguish itself from their likewise "ill-bred" juniors. Although unable to wield the Damoclean sword of class distinction, a Chief's authority was soundly based on a foundation of pertinent, intimate knowledge of the tasking of all his subordinates. Yea, this conversance-instituted overlordship was the archaic counterpart of the contemporaneous tutelage of a primary schoolchild by a secondary conferred sibling. Indisputably unworthy of the psychological genuflection demanded by officers of that day and short of inspiring servile obedience, nevertheless, this was tangible, sufficient justification to not only elevate senior enlisted to the acquired status of bourgeoisie, but also to secure their station in the chain of command (and, one might add, lay the groundwork for the crew's subjugation). In short, they had "paid their dues. "
The modern Navy (which can arguably be said to have barely reached its quartercentennial), has an added element for which there is no historical precedent and for which it is grossly ill-prepared. Although the long overdue inclusion of minorities and women within the U.S. Armed Forces has disrupted the status quo, neither constituent begins to scratch the proverbial surface of the iconoclastic introduction of the learned enlistee. Indeed, today's voluntary Services (due primarily to academic debt repayment and college tuition assistance programs) are experiencing an ever-increasing influx of a caliber of individual heretofore absent from the rank and file. This is not to say that slack-jawed ruffians and Wellsian troglodytes have ceased to be the cornerstone upon which forces are built. Nay, they are as deck plates are to vessels and as fodder to cannons. But, within those minions lurk (and, in other instances, parade) individuals whose intellectual aptitude and scholastic attainments shatter the "bluejacket" mold. Hence, the time-honored customs and myopic "one size fits all" management archetype that every level of the military hierarchy foists upon freshman enlisted members is, in a word, done.
Now, the bureaucratic hierarchy that is the military rank structure, being the formalized humanic derivative of the natural pecking order, has degenerated in many ways to exactly that. Rank and the chain of command exist in order to define and designate authority, responsibility and accountability. They were not begat as a convenient guideline by which members could determine whom they could tyrannize with impunity. This schoolyard badgering, effected by way of excessive use of one's authority over another, is (to say the least) inimical; nigh deplorable; at best, ignominious. Though an innate behavioral characteristic nearly universal in social species, it is a salient trait one would hope humanity had stigmatized into antiquity by now. Unfortunately, it is alive and well in the United States Navy and shows no signs of future abatement.
Worse yet, those sycophantic individuals who deem ostentatious subordination and affectation an affordable price for promotion, who follow any and all direction with spurious alacrity, ultimately are far more detrimental than the member who barely skirts insubordination and/or disobedience. These obsequious toadies, who increasingly master the art of prevarication and sophistry, eventually rise to a level of authority from which they may expertly serve their own self-interests while contributing little (if
anything) else. Be it not preferable the member who challenges complacency and questions directives? Is this not the route by which genuine contributions come?
On the other hand, orders (the hallmark of the military) and their execution are indispensable; that goes without saying. The chaos that would otherwise ensue is, literally, in no one's best interest. From the oath of enlistment through a seemingly endless number of additional regulations, the ubiquitous directive to "obey direct and lawful orders" stands paramount. Not that an oath or the written word has ever been sufficient to direct the course of man. Therein lies the necessity for the Uniform Code of Military Justice [UCMJ].
The UCMJ (amongst other legal matters) outlines offenses and their course of correction. Articles 89-92 deal specifically with disrespect, disobedience, insubordination, et cetera. {It is amazing that Article 90 defines willfully disobeying and assaulting a superior commissioned officer (three essential qualifiers) as equivalent offenses.} It is safe to surmise that these four articles receive a disproportionate amount of prosecution relative to the 57 other punitive articles. Article 93 - Cruelty and maltreatment...
Any person subject to this chapter who is guilty of cruelty toward, or oppression or maltreatment of, any person subject to his orders shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
...in all likelihood, is virtually untouched.
So, our new Navy's officers and senior enlisted have the unenviable task of managing a next generation that is eminently well aware of the parity of all peoples (nobility is obsolete) and that is feasibly better educated in the task at hand than the rater. (Beware the occasional polymath.) Just as some prior establishment had to begrudgingly relinquish the cat-o'-nine-tails and keelhauling, so too must this upper-echelon undergo a paradigm shift. Gone are the days of abject servility. Usher in an age of social propinquity in which individuals are regarded for their abilities and contributions, not as a blanket function of a paygrade. Surly everyone has it within their capacity to make that natural differentiation. Or perhaps not.
Therefore, until the old guard reifies this concept or is supplanted by extra-naval erudite successors, the UCMJ and the threat of its employment will play an ever-broadening role in the inducement of discipline. Hopefully, the epitaph of these above delineated untenable mindsets has already begun to be written.
Pro tempore, quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
P. W. Palm
Current Mood: 
pleased
pleased
mellow
amused
annoyed
cynical
blank
bored
pessimistic
drained