Basically Krav Maga is also a no frills martial art from Israel that focuses on maiming/killing your opponent in the shortest time possible.
It's not a martial art you can enter into a competition with because every move would be considered illegal. Almost every move anyway. And you'd need a line of ambulances waiting outside. And I mean like as many ambulances as competitors.
I seen Tukgong Moosool and it didn't look that practical to me. Plus, you can't do half of those moves with a helmet and rifle on. You can do Krav Maga with combat boots, helmet, your tac test and rifle. You can spar in a controlled situation but anything else would lack the brutality that's required.

In a way I can see the officers' complaints. My first wife and I were divorced because she just couldn't raise 2 kids by herself while I was running around playing soldier. I asked her why she wanted to split, of course, what she expected marrying a soldier. Her reply was that she expected to marry a husband that was a professional soldier, not a professional soldier that couldn't be a husband. It's hard on dependents. It's darn near impossible on them in combat arms.

Whether the service wants to admit it or not, familial support is part of what keeps a soldier motivated to drive on. No matter how much we train, part of being a human being stays with us. When a man is faced with losing his family or switching careers, I can't fault him for making the family his priority.

On the other hand, no one signs up without knowing what the job is - or, if they did, they're likely idiots who enlisted with dreams of endless rows of chest cabbage. That's not a suitable outlook for what we do. God, country, family.

I try and explain to my civilian friends that a soldier's sacrifice is WAY more than the chance of death or injury. Family issues, mental health issues (separation anxiety, PTSD, substance abuse) and manifested physical issues take more of a toll on our service men and women than service related injury and mortality, but I always get that "huh?" blank stare. They can't understand it because they didn't serve.

The balance is always going to be a constant fight. But 1 for 3? That's ridiculous. I'd say 1 for 1.5 would be good (hey, works for the Navy).

What these officers are forgetting is that removing themselves for personal desire doesn't just affect them - what about the guys that rely on their experiences in leadership? That's just selfish and, to be perfectly honest, we're probably better without them.

One asked, "when is enough 'enough' ?" The answer to that is "when the job is done. And not one minute before." If you can't commit to that sacrifice, you seriously need to question your motivation for joining.

Basically what I would say.
Well said.
This isn't a tough job for no reason. It's hard, requires lots of sacrifice and civilians will never understand it or appreciate it. It's best the two worlds don't talk to each other as much as possible because they will always take it out of context, bring it to a damn court room and we'll have our hands tied even more than now.

I committed to my job.


As long as I decide to do what I now do I will never be able to balance it with a marriage.
Simple as that.

Originally Posted by KJ

I committed to my job.


As long as I decide to do what I now do I will never be able to balance it with a marriage.
Simple as that.

Agreed - it is just a part of the sacrifice we face as service members. HOWEVER, and I do not mean this to challenge your position at all (I couldn't salvage my marriage and keep my commitment to the Army, so this is NOT a challenge, merely a point to open a discussion) ...

Can we really continue to demand so much from our service members while denying them so much more?

Put another way, just because I will not allow this to turn confrontational through a medium of misunderstanding:

You're a soldier (Airman, Marine, etc) - shouldn't you have the right to the happiness you fight for civilians to have? Yes, our job demands we give up more than we'll ever receive, but to just dismiss the cause as "part of the job" isn't helping our troops. How can a society, be that a social circle of volunteers or their oversight, demand that a position in defending this country and her principals and ideals mold our soldiers into a frame of mind that includes that they will never be happy doing anything other than making others free and happy?

You and I and so many others here on this board... We are hard men. But that shouldn't deny us any semblance of happiness such as a wife, a family, a nice home, etc. The sacrifice must have a line drawn where the military simply admits that there is such a thing as asking too much. The refusal to accept this is why we're losing good, quality volunteers.

I've been a civilian (barf) for 15 years now. I was divorced 15 months ago. My ex (she's my second) still tells me that I am "military before all else" and it got me to thinking big time: Why are we destined to not have any true happiness? A couple months ago I met this lovely young lady, and spending time with her has been so incredibly awesome that I can't even imagine the hurt that would accompany losing her. I still adore the military, I still want back in, but at the cost of a Saturday cuddled up on the couch with Sabrina? Is that really fair?

I'm not in love with her, but I certainly hesitate when I consider that I may never not be. That is, I cannot imagine losing her over a sense of duty. I should be allowed both! We have ALL earned that right, my brother. All of us, combat vets or not, USA or not, deserve to have some part of our life reflected in a lifelong mate and family - our support system.

I'll still go back because that is what I want to do and I'll never be happy if I am TOO worried about her and not at all worried about what I want to do. But I also have the right--WE have the right--to love and be loved and not spend 2 years in a row knocking sand from our socks (Olive Drab, Army issue, 1 pr EA) and TA-50 in a manner that makes us lose everything we love so much we'd fight to the end for it.

What's the point in serving if we're not even allowed the love we fight for?

That's what these officers are saying - while I don't agree with everything they say, they do have a point, and we do have a right to at least have a family while we do our jobs.

My very humble and unrequested .02 as ex-Infantry and wondering if it is ever possible to balance both.

Be safe, my brother. I am praying for you.

Interesting to see the problems other nations are dealing with in regards to these issues.

Obviously service needs come first.... but there should always be consideration of family requirements and the wishes of the person being posted. As I say the needs of the Army come first, but within this, as much as possible, accomodations for family should be considered.

That is how it is done is Australia, at least it is according to policy. Sure not everyone gets what they want, but SCMA (Soldier Career Management Agency) and DOCM (Department Of Officer Carrer Management) try and post in order to retain. Plus there are always compassionate postings as a possible alternative.

Retention will always be an issue, and in Australia it is more important than recruiting. Hence the large efforts with posting cycles, locations, cash bonuses and other incentives. Maybe the US could benefit from an examination of our system... and also maybe these officers should harden the **** up.

Originally Posted by AZ_Infantry

Agreed - it is just a part of the sacrifice we face as service members. HOWEVER, and I do not mean this to challenge your position at all (I couldn't salvage my marriage and keep my commitment to the Army, so this is NOT a challenge, merely a point to open a discussion) ...

Can we really continue to demand so much from our service members while denying them so much more?

Put another way, just because I will not allow this to turn confrontational through a medium of misunderstanding:

You're a soldier (Airman, Marine, etc) - shouldn't you have the right to the happiness you fight for civilians to have? Yes, our job demands we give up more than we'll ever receive, but to just dismiss the cause as "part of the job" isn't helping our troops. How can a society, be that a social circle of volunteers or their oversight, demand that a position in defending this country and her principals and ideals mold our soldiers into a frame of mind that includes that they will never be happy doing anything other than making others free and happy?

You and I and so many others here on this board... We are hard men. But that shouldn't deny us any semblance of happiness such as a wife, a family, a nice home, etc. The sacrifice must have a line drawn where the military simply admits that there is such a thing as asking too much. The refusal to accept this is why we're losing good, quality volunteers.

I've been a civilian (barf) for 15 years now. I was divorced 15 months ago. My ex (she's my second) still tells me that I am "military before all else" and it got me to thinking big time: Why are we destined to not have any true happiness? A couple months ago I met this lovely young lady, and spending time with her has been so incredibly awesome that I can't even imagine the hurt that would accompany losing her. I still adore the military, I still want back in, but at the cost of a Saturday cuddled up on the couch with Sabrina? Is that really fair?

I'm not in love with her, but I certainly hesitate when I consider that I may never not be. That is, I cannot imagine losing her over a sense of duty. I should be allowed both! We have ALL earned that right, my brother. All of us, combat vets or not, USA or not, deserve to have some part of our life reflected in a lifelong mate and family - our support system.

I'll still go back because that is what I want to do and I'll never be happy if I am TOO worried about her and not at all worried about what I want to do. But I also have the right--WE have the right--to love and be loved and not spend 2 years in a row knocking sand from our socks (Olive Drab, Army issue, 1 pr EA) and TA-50 in a manner that makes us lose everything we love so much we'd fight to the end for it.

What's the point in serving if we're not even allowed the love we fight for?

That's what these officers are saying - while I don't agree with everything they say, they do have a point, and we do have a right to at least have a family while we do our jobs.

My very humble and unrequested .02 as ex-Infantry and wondering if it is ever possible to balance both.

Be safe, my brother. I am praying for you.

To continue the discussion.
You make a few valid points about trying to improve dependents living situations.

I can throw a few numbers out there though, not all will want to see them.
In my current unit there is an 80% divorce rate the first (deployable year) of marriage.
And that is among those who even bother to get married.
A big part of the remaining 20% ( I have no accurate number on this part) are in service marriages where the spouse have at least some sort of idea of what her husband does, and why he might be away for two years (shorter/longer) at a stretch.

While I understand some of the officers concerns about fielding a combat ready unit with standards being lowered I also have this to say.
And everyone with any leadership training will tell you the same.
(Again I will reserve judgement about drug dealers since I have not come across any in my units (thus far/that I know about)
Troops reflect leadership.
I have had my share of hardarses and some proved to be the very best soldiers when it came time to let rip.
Again, troops will reflect their leadership.

There are a few cultural differences that stick out like donkeyballs when I read the original article.
The request for 3 to 1 years is...well unheard of to put it mildly.
Captains sitting around talking in this manner with a general officer is well..not common practice.
Even our ISAF troops are getting a worse deal then some of the gents speaking up in that article.
And they are the "spoiled brats" of our family.

That being said..

Once I get RTU´d or discharged perhaps I´ll get my shot at happiness the civilian way.
Until that day though my commitment to my job stands.
I knew the deal when I signed the papers.
As a former leg I´d like to think you knew it too.

Respectfully.
KJ.

Originally Posted by AussieNick

Interesting to see the problems other nations are dealing with in regards to these issues.

Obviously service needs come first.... but there should always be consideration of family requirements and the wishes of the person being posted. As I say the needs of the Army come first, but within this, as much as possible, accomodations for family should be considered.

That is how it is done is Australia, at least it is according to policy. Sure not everyone gets what they want, but SCMA (Soldier Career Management Agency) and DOCM (Department Of Officer Carrer Management) try and post in order to retain. Plus there are always compassionate postings as a possible alternative.

Retention will always be an issue, and in Australia it is more important than recruiting. Hence the large efforts with posting cycles, locations, cash bonuses and other incentives. Maybe the US could benefit from an examination of our system... and also maybe these officers should harden the **** up.

Retention problem here boils down to one thing and one thing only.
The pay.
Contracts can be very lucrative and there is no realistic way for the government to match them.
There are trials from what I gather with giving soldiers an education that will put them on the fast track to jobs in the arms manufacturing/testing sector after their service is over.

Everyone worked hard to be where they are and most do not leave on their own, they are RTU´d.

KJ.

If she isn't going to wait, she wasn't worth it in the first place.
If my bid to return to uniform is successful this will also be a problem I will have to deal with. I have a wife and I will have a kid early next year. She knows what this means and because of this I will probably have to choose a service other than my first choice and probably at some point an MOS that I would have never considered before to improve chances of being with family. That way I can still serve and do my part (though not the part that I neccessarily want) while attending to the needs of my family as well.
If you're in combat arms and you're complaining about balancing it with family, you're just a doofus. Don't choose combat arms as a career if you cannot put the time into it. You will be doing NO ONE a favor.

Originally Posted by KJ

To continue the discussion.
You make a few valid points about trying to improve dependents living situations.

I can throw a few numbers out there though, not all will want to see them.
In my current unit there is an 80% divorce rate the first (deployable year) of marriage.
And that is among those who even bother to get married.
A big part of the remaining 20% ( I have no accurate number on this part) are in service marriages where the spouse have at least some sort of idea of what her husband does, and why he might be away for two years (shorter/longer) at a stretch.

While I understand some of the officers concerns about fielding a combat ready unit with standards being lowered I also have this to say.
And everyone with any leadership training will tell you the same.
(Again I will reserve judgement about drug dealers since I have not come across any in my units (thus far/that I know about)
Troops reflect leadership.
I have had my share of hardarses and some proved to be the very best soldiers when it came time to let rip.
Again, troops will reflect their leadership.

There are a few cultural differences that stick out like donkeyballs when I read the original article.
The request for 3 to 1 years is...well unheard of to put it mildly.
Captains sitting around talking in this manner with a general officer is well..not common practice.
Even our ISAF troops are getting a worse deal then some of the gents speaking up in that article.
And they are the "spoiled brats" of our family.

That being said..

Once I get RTU´d or discharged perhaps I´ll get my shot at happiness the civilian way.
Until that day though my commitment to my job stands.
I knew the deal when I signed the papers.
As a former leg I´d like to think you knew it too.

Respectfully.
KJ.

You are quite right, my friend. Quite right.

As I stated earlier, a hard job requires a hard man. Hard men cannot be married to soft women. It's like a Christian marrying an Atheist: There's just no bond there, and soon one or the other will find an issue with the other's chosen lifestyle and leave for better.

But if troops reflect leadership (which they do), shouldn't we be focusing at least some of our energies into retaining leadership? "Hey, buddy, come let us train you so you can serve your country... Oh, but you'll probably wind up divorced with no chance at custody for your kids..."

Is that really the message we want to send?

A man's family is everything to him. A man's sense of service is equally as important to him. We need to integrate the two, to reach a platform of acceptable compromise. They are simply NOT mutually exclusive terms. When they become exclusive, we lose leaders and the troops suffer.

The 3/1 is just too much. But 13 months deployed, 6 months back, 13 months deployed isn't acceptable, either.