mmarsh
Active member
I see a lot of these terms being thrown around by active service people and while I understand the definition of the words, I don't understand why FOBBITS and POGUES are so hated.
I understand that infantrymen and other front line units are more at personal risk than those that who never leave the base, but the fact remains is that all jobs, even the seeming most useless an unnecessary, contribute to the overall mission.
For example, A soldier on patrol might rely heavily on his GPS to do his job, but behind that GPS is a team of technicians making sure the satellite feed and its computer systems are working. If those technicians don't do their job, than the job of the soldiers/marines on patrol don't have a GPS and their job just got a whole lot more dangerous. Same for the armorers, the mechanics, the fry cooks and everyone else. There would be no military if there were not the support personnel.
My father was in Army counter-intelligence (aka a FOBBIT), but without people like him, enemy spies and sabateurs might reign chaos in the rear in a warzone. And yet people like him are now despised.
Nor is this anything new, In WWII, only a very few number of men actually served as fighting infantry (I believe it was 1 out of 10, but don't quote me on that). The rest were doing non-combat jobs.
As a civilian, I don't understand why there is such a lack of understanding of teamwork on this subject. Again, I understand that the guys on Patrol carry a greater risk. (And perhaps they should be extra compensated because their job is so hazardous). But the animosity to the others on the team (the military team) I don't understand. After all, a Quarterback cannot wins games all by himself, cant he?
The hard reality (which is why war is so tragic) is that like in chess, some pieces are simply more valuable than others. Now some of you probably are not going to like that analogy, but seriously do you expect the military to put hard to replace highly skilled specialists into jobs they may not survive in (such as going on patrol), when their are other people than can do the job?
That may seem like a very cold thing to say when it refers to human life, but it is in fact a reality. Nobody is going to put say...the Batallion medical staff on patrol. It takes far longer and more expensive to train a expert surgeon than an expert rifleman which is why the surgeons are kept safe in the rear.
This is meant as a honest question and NOT meant to be derogatory.
Anyway I was hoping someone might explain this...
I understand that infantrymen and other front line units are more at personal risk than those that who never leave the base, but the fact remains is that all jobs, even the seeming most useless an unnecessary, contribute to the overall mission.
For example, A soldier on patrol might rely heavily on his GPS to do his job, but behind that GPS is a team of technicians making sure the satellite feed and its computer systems are working. If those technicians don't do their job, than the job of the soldiers/marines on patrol don't have a GPS and their job just got a whole lot more dangerous. Same for the armorers, the mechanics, the fry cooks and everyone else. There would be no military if there were not the support personnel.
My father was in Army counter-intelligence (aka a FOBBIT), but without people like him, enemy spies and sabateurs might reign chaos in the rear in a warzone. And yet people like him are now despised.
Nor is this anything new, In WWII, only a very few number of men actually served as fighting infantry (I believe it was 1 out of 10, but don't quote me on that). The rest were doing non-combat jobs.
As a civilian, I don't understand why there is such a lack of understanding of teamwork on this subject. Again, I understand that the guys on Patrol carry a greater risk. (And perhaps they should be extra compensated because their job is so hazardous). But the animosity to the others on the team (the military team) I don't understand. After all, a Quarterback cannot wins games all by himself, cant he?
The hard reality (which is why war is so tragic) is that like in chess, some pieces are simply more valuable than others. Now some of you probably are not going to like that analogy, but seriously do you expect the military to put hard to replace highly skilled specialists into jobs they may not survive in (such as going on patrol), when their are other people than can do the job?
That may seem like a very cold thing to say when it refers to human life, but it is in fact a reality. Nobody is going to put say...the Batallion medical staff on patrol. It takes far longer and more expensive to train a expert surgeon than an expert rifleman which is why the surgeons are kept safe in the rear.
This is meant as a honest question and NOT meant to be derogatory.
Anyway I was hoping someone might explain this...
Last edited: