New NHQ Job Posting

[flyboy53]

Kind of ends the politics of the other process, doesn't it.

I guess I've been wondering when this would occur. It's certainly a new era for the CAP.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

How would this apply to a Wing Commander who, hypothetically speaking, was relieved by his Region Commander, reinstated by the MARB, relieved again by the Region Commander, and reinstated a second time by the MARB/MARP?

That hypothetical seems familiar. Can't remember where I heard or saw it. 

In the MARB notes in E-Services RIWG Commander fired twice, reinstated by MARB twice.

Take a look at the 2 devil icons.  Now look at my Unit assignment.

[PHall]

Kind of ends the politics of the other process, doesn't it.

I guess I've been wondering when this would occur. It's certainly a new era for the CAP.

I do believe you just figured out why the BOG went to this new procedure!

Have a cookie!!!

[Luis R. Ramos]

Phil,

Let me guess... Maybe, perchance, is your unit RI Wing HQ?



Which thing do I get as a prize?

Flyer

[RogueLeader]

Phil,

Let me guess... Maybe, perchance, is your unit RI Wing HQ?



Which thing do I get as a prize?

Flyer

A cookie, at your expense.

[a2capt]

A cookie, at your expense.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I'm a bit surprised that a requirement of prior military service isn't part of it.

[PHall]

I'm a bit surprised that a requirement of prior military service isn't part of it.

Why would that need to be a requirement?

[SarDragon]

Phil,

Let me guess... Maybe, perchance, is your unit RI Wing HQ?



Which thing do I get as a prize?

Flyer

Not even close. His unit is almost as far away from RI as you can get and still be in CONUS. There are about ten units farther away.

You get the blue booby prize.

[PHall]

Phil,

Let me guess... Maybe, perchance, is your unit RI Wing HQ?



Which thing do I get as a prize?

Flyer

Not even close. His unit is almost as far away from RI as you can get and still be in CONUS. There are about ten units farther away.

You get the blue booby prize.

Wrong Phil there Dave. He was referring to Hirons not me.

You get the Blue Booby prize!

[Fubar]

Is the current commander going to apply?

[PHall]

Is the current commander going to apply?

He can if he wants to.

[ColonelJack]

Is the current commander going to apply?

He can if he wants to.

Remember, the degree requirement doesn't apply to General Carr; he was "grandfathered" in as the sitting NatCC when the change was made.

Jack

[ColonelJack]

How would this apply to a Wing Commander who, hypothetically speaking, was relieved by his Region Commander, reinstated by the MARB, relieved again by the Region Commander, and reinstated a second time by the MARB/MARP?

That hypothetical seems familiar. Can't remember where I heard or saw it. 

In the MARB notes in E-Services RIWG Commander fired twice, reinstated by MARB twice.

You can't really blame him for being thoroughly disgusted with CAP after something like that, can you?  I wonder why the NER CC worked so hard to get rid of the RIWG CC ... twice ... only to have it overturned both times.

There's got to be a story there.  (It's the journalist in me doing the asking, honest.)

Jack

[a2capt]

I wonder why the NER CC worked so hard to get rid of the RIWG CC ... twice ... only to have it overturned both times.

Mean people suck. Not everyone gets along.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I'm a bit surprised that a requirement of prior military service isn't part of it.

Why would that need to be a requirement?

Our National Commander does a lot of interfacing with the Air Force, and probably the Coast Guard on SAR issues(?).

My thinking is that it would be a bit more familiar than someone who has just had a career in the business world with no contact with the military.

I wonder why the NER CC worked so hard to get rid of the RIWG CC ... twice ... only to have it overturned both times.

Mean people suck. Not everyone gets along.

I often say "I can get along with anyone who wants to get along with me, and I try to get along with everyone until/if/when they give me a reason to do otherwise."

[PHall]

I'm a bit surprised that a requirement of prior military service isn't part of it.

Why would that need to be a requirement?

Our National Commander does a lot of interfacing with the Air Force, and probably the Coast Guard on SAR issues(?).

My thinking is that it would be a bit more familiar than someone who has just had a career in the business world with no contact with the military.

I wonder why the NER CC worked so hard to get rid of the RIWG CC ... twice ... only to have it overturned both times.

Mean people suck. Not everyone gets along.

I often say "I can get along with anyone who wants to get along with me, and I try to get along with everyone until/if/when they give me a reason to do otherwise."

The President does a lot of interfacing with the military too, but there's no requirement for the President to be a veteran.

[JeffDG]

The President does a lot of interfacing with the military too, but there's no requirement for the President to be a veteran.

Even more so with the Secretary of Defense...the last few have served in the military, but I don't think Cohen (Clinton's final SecDef) did.

[LSThiker]

The President does a lot of interfacing with the military too, but there's no requirement for the President to be a veteran.

There is a line that can open an entirely new debate.  I am sure we can find some people that would think the President should be a veteran or at least the SECDEF.

[Eclipse]

The President does a lot of interfacing with the military too, but there's no requirement for the President to be a veteran.

Even more so with the Secretary of Defense...the last few have served in the military, but I don't think Cohen (Clinton's final SecDef) did.

Ditto with the service Secretaries, which are often political appointees with no military experience.  A quick check of biographies shows neither
the current Sec of the USAF or Army have military experience, though both appear to be well-respected and competent.

Our National Commanders need to be knowledgeable and experienced in CAP matters, not the military. Knowing the protocol and lingo
is always helpful, but being too far-afield and assuming prior military experience automatically equates to CAP success is a common and serious misconception.

The majority of CAP members are not prior or current service, and leading volunteers is a vastly more complex skill then leading people legally bound to follow orders.

I have no real issue with any of the requirements, other then I wish they would make them requirements and not waivable "guidelines".