Best
84 Comments
Post
  • #49
    !
    The way the military works, most likely there will not be a new government agency.

    It will probably be handled by additional duties to senior enlisted and officers.

    Much like the requirements for training on Equal Opportunity or Urine Testing or classes on any of the other hundred things that the great OZ dictates.
  • #54
    !
    @CanisCanemEdit I agree. I don't see anything in the quoted information to suggest that a new government agency will be created or why it would be necessary..
  • #63
    !
    @stepped_in_it What is your point? I was referring to the information provided in the article. Next time you feel the need to issue a command, please state why.
  • #5
    !
    A Marine is NOT a Soldier. Soldiers ate in the Army, Marines are in the Marine Corps.
    Please Politix, do NOT confuse the two and do NOT refer to United States Marines as "Soldiers" again.
  • #19
    !
    so, what is the generic term to use for all peole who serve in the US military? I would hate to be politically incorrect...
  • #29
    !
    @DogLady_1
    U.S. Military personnel.
    There are Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors and Marines
    You could also throw in Coast Guardsmen, though the Coast Guard is not under the Department of Defense.
  • R Load more replies

  • #2
    !
    CLICKED THE WRONG BUTTON!!!! No, we do need more administrative staff on the government payroll. I can see adding a few people to keep track of the results etc. More than that is absurd. Worse they will probably hire some government contractor to help. There has to be a similar system in place that can be adapted. With looming military spending cuts, this is what we get???
  • #18
    !
    I read the linked memo and it seems adding a person in the units to keep track of it and forward the results to the Pentagon is the extent of it. I'm not sure that's "a whole new department" as this page suggests.
  • #20
    !
    @Zazziness In a quick search for Marine units, I found about 200 units. 200 unit level people + admins + supervisors +.... A few hundred people is hardly an agency, you are right. Then again, I know nothing about the structure of the Marines and could be way off.
  • #22
    !
    @UnCommonBoston I'm torn on the whole subject. I agree with folks that we don't need to make things needlessly heavy on administration but, OTOH, I don't like the idea of drunks on duty for a lot of different reasons. It's a dilemma.
  • #33
    !
    @Zazziness I think it is reasonable. People are randomly drug tested for their jobs, but the laws vary by state. Alcohol is not part of the "10-panel urine screen". It could be added.

    Drug testing is now part of work culture, like it or not. On the plus side, if we can find out who has problems with any of these substance, they can receive help sooner.
  • #6
    !
    i don't think that being drunk while you are working is tolerated anywhere, except for Congress. it should not be tolerated on duty.
  • #71
    !
    Why would we need a new "agency" to check the Military for being sober on duty? It would seem like with the virtually unlimited Pentagon funding that each branch of the service could do that themselves without additional expense or the creation of more bureaucracy.
  • #70
    !
    It's a legitimate concern. However, it would be better if the continuation of the program was linked to means-testing. We ought to use means-testing for most aspects of public policy. It could help us save money and make government programs more effective.

    If it turns out that "savings" from this program do not add up to the expense of running it the program should be discontinued. Otherwise they should keep it. I don't just mean in terms of money but also in terms of lives. There are some shades of gray here, but at one extreme if it's estimated that the program did not save a single life in addition to not saving money then it's clear we don't need the program.
  • #57
    !
    Yeah no kiddin. They need to quit putting up a story and then hyphenating it with a dumbass irrelevant question. Then again the Marine Corps isn't known for it's abundance of intelligence. Maybe they should stop recruiting knuckle draggers that they can brainwash. You can have Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen in a bar. You put two Marines in the mix and everything will go to hell. I know firsthand. They brainwash them with nonsense. That mixed with lower testing requirements does not mix well with alcohol. When is the last time you heard about an Airman going off the deep end and opening fire? Not to take away from the fact that Politix needs to start putting some half ass intelligent questions on their polls.
  • #66
    !
    "Maybe they should stop recruiting knuckle draggers that they can brainwash."
    That "brainwashing" is called boot camp, training. That "brainwashing" is what leads Marines to follow orders without question, to accomplish the mission, to literally charge the enemy without thinking, to make the ultimate sacrifice to save a buddy or an entire unit.
    It's called "discipline," it's called "courage." And like it or not, it's those "brainwashed knuckle draggers" who took Guadalcanal, Bougainville, Tarawa, Guam, Tinian, Cape Gloucester, Saipan, Peleliu, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa, some of the fiercest battles ever fought in our Nation's history. It's because of that "brainwashing," that United States Marines can stand ready anywhere in the world within 18 hours.
  • #53
    !
    "NEW GOVERNMENT AGENCY" What the hell is that all about? What kind of goofy question is that? Random testing is perfectly OK but, it doesn't require a new government agency to get it done.
  • #52
    !
    Yes, as someone said before, "Anyone on Federal money should be tested for drugs and alcohol".
    Exactly, so all the military, all Congress, the White House and the Supreme Court. ALL people that receive Federal money should be randomly tested.
  • #23
    !
    The Commandant just might test positive.....along with the Commander-in-Chief.
  • #43
    !
    @ctc my point was the Marine Corps has always had a way of dealing with screw ups and they've been pretty successful. I'm sure there's a time and place for counseling but it doesn't replace corporal punishment the Marine Corps way. you get a young guy who shows up to duty hungover you run the dog shit out of him and tell him it'll be twice is bad next time
  • #51
    !
    Capt USMC Ret Nam 68-69 Anyone stupid enough to how up drunk on duty let's just say the problem was dealt with squad level or platoon level dealt with the issue very effectively.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #8
    !
    for some reason they are acting like a service man getting drunk and puking all over himself and his buddies is a new thing. it's never been a problem before, why make it one now?
  • #7
    !
    I'm not shocked Marines get drunk, I am shocked at the lack of leadership being shown here. It is the job of supervisors, fellow Marines, and commanders to enforce the UCMJ and a code of conduct. A sep organization shows a huge problem exists in the Corps.

    A problem this big is an issue is of a lack of honor in following simple rules (in which case they shouldn't be a Marine), a medical issue (alcoholism), or an emotional/mental health issue (coping mechanism for traumatic stress).

    I guess I'm just surprised it has gotten this bad. I still don't think a sep org is required, but I'm not on scene so it's hard to say.
  • #4
    !
    Please, not another government agency to further confuse the issue. When Carter was
    President, our military was stoned. Reagan changed all of that and eradicated weed from
    the military. As a result the use of alcohol increased dramatically and here we are.
  • #10
    !
    when kennedy, johnson and then nixon were in office the military was both drunk and stoned... and still managed to lose the war in vietnam. nothing's changed appreciably since then, either.
  • #14
    !
    @dances-weebles Viet-Nam was not lost by the military - it was given away by the same SOBs now in office - by those that "didn't inhale." We should have shot the communists at home before we went to RVN.
  • #21
    !
    @vws Are the same SOBs still in office? That was 40 years ago, and I agree with you.
    Linden Johnson managed that war from the oval office, deciding which targets to hit, etc.
    His lack of military know-how put our troops at risk and finally blew us out of the water.
  • R Load more replies

Post