Mattis Orders Full Review Of Any Military Training That Has Nothing To Do With Warfighting

[livingston]

Mattis Orders Full Review Of Any Military Training That Has Nothing To Do With Warfighting
Secretary of Defense James Mattis has ordered a full review of any military training not directly relevant to warfighting.

Mattis told the services to conduct a review of the “requirements for mandatory force training that does not directly support core tasks,” according to a Friday memo obtained by Military Times.

In other words, Mattis wants a full examination of all the hours of burdensome, irrelevant training service members have to undergo before deployment.

“I want to verify that our military policies also support and enhance warfighting readiness and force lethality,” Mattis said.


Mattis also asked for a review into what should be done about permanently non-deployable service members.

Mattis Orders Full Review Of Any Military Training That Has Nothing To Do With Warfighting

 

[1911guy]

Hooray. Get rid of all the BS!

 

[Catskillkid]

Makes sense. A buddy of mine was in the Army for several years recently and he told me that about 20% of the trainings he had to attend actually had something to do with their mission (in the immortal words of Mike Huckabee: kill people and blow stuff up). The other 80% mostly had to do with being "culturally" sensitive and not raping people. Not to make light of rape but I highly doubt that a training on it is going to make a potential rapist reconsider. As far as being "culturally" sensitive goes...yeah...I think we can throw most of those completely out the window.

 

[Defilade]

Geez! There goes the Army.

 

[Deplorable Me]

There goes sensitivity training for the Air Force.

 

[Phauxtoe]

like the Tranny training class called "walk like you mean it!"

 

[Deplorable Me]

In my younger days, trannies were things attached to the engines on the tanks.

 

[Podmonkey]

I became permanently non deployable in the last year of my enlistment. I asked for a medical discharge and received one. If not deployable what's the point?

 

[Jsmegs77]

If you're non-deployable, why are you not automatically discharged? The point is to be able to go when the word comes down, yes? Unless there are stateside staffing positions that do not ever deploy by the nature of their job, I can't see the point to keeping someone on who can't do the job wherever whenever.

It's not like the Americans with Disabilities act applies to the military. My wife was honorably discharged when she become disabled with a shattered ankle.