Notes of a Mustang

0 Kudo

Forum Jump

Author	Comment
7GREEN	Notes of a Mustang	Lead	[-]
Posts: 538 (02/03/09 01:47 AM) Veteran member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Tags : None I suppose traditionally that's a Navy term to denote an EM who becomes an officer, though it seems to have passed into general usage. A recent article in the Newark Star Ledger that profiled several ROTC cadets at Rutgers who have combat patches on their right shoulder got me to think about my experiences as someone who went through Army ROTC-at Rutgers-with a patch on the right shoulder and the CIB above my left pocket. I have always thought having originally been an EM made me a better officer, I could talk to EM and NCOs about BCT, BRMC, KP, CQ and all of the ups and downs of the enlisted experience and the knew I'd been there, done that, I knew what they had been through, I'd been there too. I wasn't stooping to their level or patronizing them, I was simply informing them. One thing I noted-and this is a sad comment on the Vietnam fiasco-was that my CIB and awards seemed to have more legitimacy because I had earned them as an EM, they knew I wasn't just a ticket puncher who was in the field just enough to get my "packet". When I was in the National Guard being an "older" officer came in handy because when we had Civil Disturbance Training I was one of the few who knew anything about bayonet drill, and the baton drill was based on bayonet drill. And in my platoon at ROTC Advanced Camp I noted many of the other cadets looked to me for guidance-that evoked some wry comments from our platoon evaluator. My trainer in IOBC tried to give me a hard time due to my health problems, but the CO CDR was also 1st Cav, I recall conversing with him one time, I later realized he had delibarately done it in earshot of my platoon trainer to let him know that I was part of a club that he could never join. Later the patch on the right sleeve let other NCOs and officers know that i was not just another "newbie" that they could overawe-or snow. Though one 1SG did rib me about being a "traitor". One thing i remember from my 2nd AD tour-as an officer-was that my "bachelor pad" became something of a haven for some of the other junior officers and occasionally for NCOs. I am an individual of sober and somewhat serious habits, something of a homebody, hence our conversations usually ran to weapons, military history and similar topics often over home cooked meals and baked goods, with tea and coffee-I don't drink and didn't allow it in my apartment. (Didn't allow smoking either-nobody ever complained.) Once I let one of the mechanics stay with me for a few days after a battle royale with his wife. He was a good lodger-usually asleep by 2000. He complained bitterly that between his wife's pestering and the kids' noise he couldn't get a decent night's sleep at home. The CO badgered me about that-something about "fraternizing", I considered it more comradeship and helping a fellow soldier, no different than the time I drove an EM to the airport so he could get home for emergency leave. Later that CO did admit that the man had problems that interfered with his duties and that the wife need some attitude adjustment, and letting him stay with me and relax was better than him belting the wife and kids. Obviously being a "mustang" is no guarantee that one will be a better officer-more honest, efficient, hardworking, whatever. I cite the case of the late-and unlamented Jeremy Boorda. As a Personnelman he should have known that if you are going to award yourself awards and decoration at least have the paperwork to back them up. I knew a few other "mustangs" who I would not have wanted as EMs in large part because they had no empathy for the EMs-they forgot their roots, so to speak. And the article noted that many of the cadets had enlisted for the Army College Fund-hey, I enlisted for the GI Bill, when they eliminated it is when the ranks started to fill up with the "3 hots and a cot" crowd. But if I had to do over again, I would pretty much do it the way I did it. Frank Sinatra sang "I did it my way." and I think it's a good way.
Budop		#1	[-]
Posts: 268 (02/04/09 12:47 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I went to school in 1965 thinking I would get a ROTC Commission. I got to having too much fun and lost my deferment after 3 semesters. The draft was on my heels and I dodged it by enlisting. I figured I would do OCS. I was a small town farm kid with no other place to go. A young man had few choices then with the "press gangs" afoot. I enlisted Airborne Infantry as my dad had toured Europe with the 506th. I got OKd for OCS in basic at Ft Polk. They came around and said there was a 6 month backlog and we would spend that as assistant drill Sgts. "F" that, sez I. I went on to Infantry AIT and got selected for SF. We were the 1st batch of "SF Babies." We caught a lot of flak from the older guys in group. Most were real pros who had done WW2, Korea and several tours in RVN. All hard combat time-no daisies. A lot of us babies did pretty good, though. Most of us did 2 or more RVN tours and many stayed in and did more stuff. Rank was never forgotten, but it was a lot more casual in a team environment. I really got to serve with some good people. A few real clowns, too. I did two tours and stayed in an extra year. I simply did not like the army life. Having seen it from both sides, I adamantly believe everybody should do a couple years service. Four was enough for me. I absolutely hate it when some shirker spews that "thank you for your service" BS. Like that gives them a pass for ducking. A lot of good officers had enlisted time. They were well respected as was anybody who was an effective team player. Atitudes were found mostly with the admin types. Some were legends in their own minds. Funny thoughts on a cold winter night.
dou 44		#2	[-]
Posts: 2373 (02/05/09 09:26 PM) Host Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	i allways did like an officer that worked his way up .
Alibi		#3	[-]
Posts: 454 (02/12/09 07:36 PM) Veteran member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	The term "mustang" was applied to officers that without any formal training commissioned from the ranks into the Regular Army. This was accomplished by an examination process that I believe was eliminated after World War II, however I cannot quote the applicable time frame that an enlisted soldier could be commissioned through this process. Since WWII all commissions in the Regular Army have been from graduates of USMA, OCS, and the university ROTC programs. Since most officers are commissioned in the reserves, even with prior enlisted service the term "mustang" in the traditional usage does not apply. They are simply former enlisted soldiers that then went through an officer training program and were commissioned. A small caveat to this is that cadets in officer training programs are considered as enlisted. An example of a "mustang" that I can recall is Benjamin O. Davis, Sr. He was enlisted and by application and an examination was commissioned RA in 1901. Davis had prior enlisted and commissioned service in the Volunteers in 1898, then enlisted in the RA. There are of course may others, for example that served in the volunteers during the Mexican-American War and Civil War that were later commissioned in the Regular Army without formal training, but based primarily on their war experience. I am even less informed on this process in the U.S. Navy, but I am aware that commissioned officers in the Navy were sometimes referred to as "mustangs" so there must have been a similar process. I too was enlisted although I didn't enlist, I was drafted, so even though I was "enlisted" I didn't sign-up or enlist voluntarily. (I know, this is a matter of semantics but I'm being technical here so bear with me.) I later commissioned through an OCS program and was never Regular Army so I don't consider myself as a "mustang" as I understand the term. Shortly after I assumed command of my last unit of assignment before retirement I overheard one of the enlisted soldiers commenting that he thought the unit had done well in the past commanded by officers with prior enlisted experience. It was obvious he was referring to me in this discussion and that he thought of my prior enlisted service as a point in my favor. Since I also had the experience of considerable supervisory service in my civilian career I brought quite a lot of skill to my command of the unit. The soldiers responded well to my command and I think we had some interesting and rewarding experiences. I have to say that I have experienced the negative side of officers with and without prior enlisted service, but it does seem that officers without enlisted service exhibit somewhat less understanding and more of what we might call super ego that gets in the way of a relationship with subordinates that is counterproductive to the efficiency of the organization. Officers with little skill in human relations in my experience were those commissioned during the Viet Nam unpleasantness. I suppose that many of these officers commissioned because the alternative of drafted enlisted service (or cannon fodder) was undesirable enough to drive them to become officers, with little regard to the responsibility that went with the job. I recall during OCS in 1973 that there was a class in which the instructor implied that enlisted soldiers won't do anything without guidance (orders) from an officer. The implication being that officers have to be in total control all the time. That is a philosophy of management that some people subscribe to. It is my opinion that anyone in a subordinate position that is constantly supervised soon losses any sense of responsibility for the task. There is a saying, that people do those tasks that are inspected rather than those tasks that are expected, that I do not subscribe to. In any case leadership and supervision should not be an "I'm in charge and you're not" kind of management proposition. A supervisor with this kind of philosophy of management may get the mission accomplished but the subordinates take a position that the sooner the SOB moves on the better. In my opinion officers with prior enlisted service take from that experience skills that officers commissioned from ROTC in particular simply don't have, which makes their task of developing practical leadership skills more challenging.
Alexei	Mustangs	#4	[-]
Posts: 39 (06/22/09 11:18 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I'm pretty sure the term goes back to the Civil War Cavalry, hence the allusion to a wild horse that has been "broken to the bit". Over the years it has morphed from battlefield commissons of EM's to include EM's sent to a Service Academy or OCS.
eb in oregon		#5	[-]
Posts: 933 (07/03/09 09:18 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Unfortunately I have found that of those who have worked their way up from EM to "O" status, most HAVE forgotten their roots, so to speak. The number of officers who really remember their enlisted service and allow it to be part of their core values is very small in my experience. A shame. The small number of officers that I have served under and have remembered, and built upon their enlisted service, have been far superior in performance than those who have served only as an officer, IMHO. Eric "We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." Benjamin Franklin, July 4 1776
glock40man		#6	[-]
Posts: 222 (07/04/09 09:46 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I can only relate to my experience,the best officers in the whole US ARMY are warrant officers.Never met one that was'nt there to back you up on anything. They know how to lead from the front { something that a regular US Army officer is not noted for },mentor you on job skills,and stand up for the enlisted man when he is in the right,against a regular officer. They tend to have a better grasp of what is really going going on. Straight shooters,so to speak.
7GREEN		#7	[-]
Posts: 629 (07/09/09 06:31 PM) Veteran member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I knew very few warrant officers, the only ones I had any regular dealings with were the Motor Service Technicians when I was in Germany, talked to a Food Serice technician once or twice on my second tour.
Jackbull49	Warrant Officers	#8	[-]
Posts: 226 (07/11/09 05:48 PM) active member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Army Aviation is the place to run into Warrant Officers, they do the bulk of the flying and are the Maintenance Test Pilots, Instructor Pilots and Maintenance Techs as well. In 26 years 95% were as good as you could get. There is 5% of almost any group that lacks something. Almost all Army Warrant Officers had some time as EM. There is usually not a lot of love between Warrants and RLOs, especially if the officer is an Academy grad. My last commander was a former enlisted Ranger, and a hell of a pilot. He was pretty much all business, but if you did your job and were squared away he had your six. He made LTC while we were in Bosnia and it changed him not 1 iota.
eagle7		#9	[-]
Posts: 3991 (07/13/09 12:40 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	This is an interesting topic. Like Eb I have known a number of OCS officers that definitely forgot their roots. One contributing factor may have been that the majority of those guys were in service and support MOSs as EMs, and they found themselves shanghaied into combat arms as officers. For example, I have had the unpleasant opportunity to serve with three Armor branch officers (two LTs and one CPT) that were formerly NCOs in the Medical Corps, and their perception of EMs was not compatible to what I would consider good leadership. IMHO the best officers overall were the ROTC folks (after some seasoning). I hate to say it but the most focused and motivated young officers I've known were almost always West Pointers. One thing I noticed in my career was the changing attitudes within the officer corps. From the early 1980s to the Gulf War officers acted much more "aristocratic". I hate to use that word, but that's the perception the EMs had. There was very little interaction at any level between the platoon leader and the enlisted guys other than leading the platoon in the field. Officers did not do PT with their platoons, they did physical training with their fellow officers. They did not go to the motorpool on command maintenance day, they stayed in the plt office doing paperwork. I remember my squadron commander chewing on our brand new LT because he was helping us wash the tracked vehicles at the end of a field problem. Officers did not do physical labor of any kind. The division between commissioned officers and the EMs was re-enforced by the NCOs. Junior enlisted were instructed to be "seen and not heard" when the officers were around. When I was a junior enlisted I was assigned to the LT's M113. I can't remember one time that I made small talk the Lt....if it didn't have to do with the mission there was no conversation. The first Gulf War changed this environment. Officers at the company level were forced to live among the EMs. They ate with their troops, used the same field showers and latrines, etc, etc.... There seemed to also be a philosphical change. Frankly, before the war it seemed that the officers had almost a contempt for the NCOs, as if the sergeants' knowledge and judgment was not to be trusted. The war made the officers respect the NCO corps. After the war the relationship between officers and the EMs, especially the NCOs was much better. One benefit was that the platoon leader was actually expected to know the guys in his platoon. However, the Army drawdown and shrinking budgets during the Clinton years did have a negative effect. The Desert Storm Army became the "Zero Defects Army". In the zero defects Army any problem, error, or shortcoming was blown all out of proportion, especially if the officer involved was not in politically connected. This political environment became very painful for officers, especially at the company level. Most NCOs were initially shielded from the recriminations and blame games that became common, but in time the screws were tightened on them too.. Officers again were forced to suck up, whitewash deficiencies, and organize dog and pony shows. After 9-11 this environment came to an end. People in command actually became interested in getting their units ready for war and all the peacetime Army stuff slowly ceased (some habits are hard to break).. Keep in mind that these are my personal observations made in a number of regimental cav and divisional cav units both stateside and in Germany and Korea.
7GREEN		#10	[-]
Posts: 635 (07/13/09 09:48 PM) Veteran member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	It seems the Army needs a conflict every 10 years or so to remind it of what its function is and also to remember the distinctions between good and bad leaders. I read a guide for young officers published in the 1880s that said enlisted men were not to be trusted and I recall a statement by a volunteer officer in the Spanish War complaining that West Pointers had introduced a "caste" system into the US Army. I encountered some of the "aristocratic"-i.e. snobbish and condescending and just this side of rude and contemptous attitude when I enlisted in 1966, though I am reminded of the comment made by Floyd W. Radike in his book "Across the Dark Islands" where he says one particular officer avoided talking with EM to hide the fact that he couldn't carry on an interesting conversation-cf. Churchill's comment that "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.". And as an RA from the Draft Army I will repeat what I have said elsewhere, that the Draft ensured the Army's ranks were filled with quality enlisted men who were too often better than their superiors. Vietnam weeded a lot of those people out of course. One veteran of the 101st described the officers in his battalion as a pretty stuck up and self satisfied lot, his brigade was one of the first units deployed, he said very few of them made it through the first month or two. I have heard that from other veterans of the first units deployed. We have all heard the term "An Officer and a Gentleman" though I wonder how many have ever given much thought to what that phrase actually means, especially the 2nd part. I do recall one of my platoon leaders in the 12th Engineer Battalion complaining that he was always being detailed for escort duties and the like so he never got to know "his" platoon, I was made platoon sergeant and I met him for the 1st time about 6 weeks after being appointed, and then he was off again for another month or so, only back in time for the IG. I note the one West Pointer I remember the best was an EM for a year or 2, took a competive exam, went to USMA. Several veterans have told me the Army-and the other services-became very "chick---" in the 1990s, between the downsizing and the PCness,vthe absence of a clearly visible threat and the idiotic "up or out" promotion policies, too many people-too many officers-to quote the words of BG Douglas Kinnard, USA, Ret'd "made a career out of their own careers instead of a career out of leading their own units.". I note that in the Spring of 2001 before the current crisis started then CSA GEN Shinseki became alarmed that the retention rate for junior officers nosedived, below replacement rates, he wanted to know why, told people to be candid. A typical response was from the one CPT who was leaving after 10 years, he said a lot of your superiors would throw you under a bus if they thought it could advance their careers and all the other junior officers who said they were subject to just as much bullying and harassment and intimidation as the EM. It's often good to remember that your superiors often have someone with career ambitions breathing down their necks. Last Edited By: 7GREEN 07/13/09 11:26 PM. Edited 1 times.
eagle7		#11	[-]
Posts: 3992 (07/14/09 11:18 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	The situation in the 1992-2001 Army that you describe is what I call "The Zero Defects Army". The officer corps became obsessed about advancement and getting plum assignments. The most ugly aspect of this hyper-careerism was, as you say, the tendency to throw a sacrifical lamb under the bus whenever there was a failure of leadership. Of course the guy thrown under the bus never came from an illustrious military family with uncles and grandfathers that were generals. There was another more destructive factor in the zero defects army; it fostered a situation in which integrity was sacrificed in order to "look good". I served in a cavalry regiment in which the commander fostered a zero defects environment. One result was that most of the officers in his command swept any unit shortcomings under the carpet. Unit qualification scores, APFT unit averages, Army weight control program stats, vehicle readiness rates, equipment deadline reports. etc, were routinely falsified in order to make the troop/squadron/regiment look good. The net result was a unit with soldiers that couldn't shoot, pass a PT test, meet height/weight standards, or any of the other things a soldier is supposed to be able to do. There was a lot of rancor among the NCOs that watched this dishonesty degrade the unit. That is, the ones that weren't enablers. This corruption went deeper. Soldiers that were serious disciplinary repeat offenders were not prosecuted and ejected from the Army as they should have been in accordance with the regulations. For example, I knew of soldiers that had been busted "hot" on urnalysis tests numerous times that were still around. Furthermore, many company sized units had not conducted a 100% urnalysis test in over a year to prevent catching any drug abusers. The rationale was that a large number of Chapter 10, 13 and 14 disciplinary administrative discharges would reflect badly on the regiment. In 2000 we got a new regimental commander, who I think was initially overawed by the task of rebuilding the regt. By this time the regiment had become so notorious on post that it was nicknamed "The 2d All Criminal Regiment". After 9-11 the gloves came off and there was a significant housecleaning of all the remaining riffraff. The irony is the old regt. commander is now a general with a high-falutin' job that enables him to visit the White House frequently. Last Edited By: eagle7 07/14/09 11:22 AM. Edited 1 times.