Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

6285RE: [PRQuorum] RE: [prbytes] Re: [PRMindshare] Tattoos and the military - a PR-driven move ...

Expand Messages
  • Ned Barnett
    Jul 14, 2014
    • 0 Attachment
      Stephen – you continue to miss my point. All of the non-officer SEALS who
      actually fought in the Afghan battle on which the movie Lone Survivor was
      based actually (the real guys) had bold and obvious tattoos – yet they are
      the antithesis of herd-followers or cannon-fodder – they are among the most
      intelligent, motivated and skilled warriors on the planet. Yet under the
      new PR-driven Army rules, they couldn’t even enlist.



      While many kids and young adults (and not so young adults) get tattoos and
      seem to be following a herd mentality, that doesn’t apply in all cases …
      which is another part of my point.



      A final point (from the basis of my background as a military historian) is
      that the US military has no need for “cannon fodder” – we haven’t since
      Vietnam, and I doubt we ever will again. More to the point, in the aftermath
      of Vietnam, our country is no longer prepared to accept that level of
      casualties that occur whenever “cannon fodder” is used.



      In a modern sense, our military “invented” firepower. Even in WW-II, we had
      the lowest per-capita rate of men and women enlisted into our services. We
      damned near ran out of 2nd Lieutenants at the Battle of the Bulge, for
      instance. So we have always made up for manpower with firepower – artillery
      (we are second to none in the advanced use of tube and rocket artillery) and
      air power to control the battlefield. We do this because our public won’t
      sustain casualties at a level that other countries (our enemies) were
      prepared to accept.


      For instance, Germany lost more men at Stalingrad (a defeat, but far from
      their biggest one – it was just their first big one) than he US did in all
      theaters of combat in nearly four years of warfare. The Soviets/Russians
      (in what were called cauldron battles) lost several multiples of our entire
      4-year loss in single battles, not once, but many times. In the Pacific,
      Japan routinely lost 10x as many men, per battle, as we did, and their
      upward limit on losses they were willing to sustain were based not on
      willpower, but on available troops. If they’d had twice as many soldiers on
      Saipan, Iwo Jima or Okinawa, they would have lost 15-to-1 or even 20-to-1 …
      but they just didn’t have enough troops on hand to lose that many.



      The only battle in which America was prepared to accept heavy losses for
      massive gains was in the air war over Northwestern Europe, and that was
      because that “battle” consisted of just shy of three years worth of almost
      daily aerial battles that had significant casualties (based on the size of
      the force committed), but not big numbers all at once. Few realize that
      the 8th Air Force (our B-17/B-24 heavy bomber force that blasted Germany
      from the sky) lost more men in combat than the US Marines lost in the entire
      war – including Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Iwo Jima and Okinawa. But the loss was
      so widely spread out that nobody really noticed, so the American people
      accepted the losses.


      Today, there’s no way we’d accept losses like that – in all of Afghanistan
      and Iraq put together (including Desert Storm), we lost fewer troops than we
      lost at either Iwo Jima or Okinawa (and when you look at Afghanistan, we’ve
      been there nearly 13 years now.



      Fighting the wars of the 21st century, we (as a military) focus on small
      units of people loaded up with technology and smart enough (and well-trained
      enough) to use it effectively. Should we ever need “cannon fodder” (and we
      don’t, but if we did), I’m sure we’d find it – and plenty of it – in local
      indigenous militias and people who’d sign up to bear arms just to be able to
      support their families.



      Yes, I’ve seen all three of the Matt Damon Bourne films, plus the reboot
      done a year or two ago. Not sure how that ties into the topic, but yes, I
      saw them – yes, I own them and yes, I like watching them at least once a
      year. Great film-making, but pure fiction.


      Now, to the SEALS and your “Rogue Warrior” buddy.



      For what it’s worth, his willingness to slaughter women and children in
      pursuit of his mission (based on my understanding of rules of engagement
      even our SEALS operate under) make him either a war criminal or a bullshit
      artist.



      The movie I just saw (Lone Survivor) had a conflict scene between team
      members – one wanted to do just that, but the others said they knew the ROE
      and would not become war criminals, nor did they want it all over CNN that
      “SEALS kill women and children.” It was a key pivot point in the movie, and
      both sides presented cases that made sense under the circumstances, but what
      the real SEALS did was avoid slaughtering innocents and take their chances
      (and three of four of them paid the ultimate price, but they didn’t regret
      doing the right thing – they regretted that it didn’t work as they’d hoped,
      but they were still proud to the end to have played by the rules).



      Sure, it’s Hollywood, but it’s also very closely based on the real story,
      and the survivor was part of the film’s advisory group – and it was based on
      his autobiographical book about the mission.


      So I think the novelist who’s capitalized on his “Rogue Warrior” status for
      decades now is caught up in his own bullshit hype – otherwise, he’s no
      better than My Lai’s Lieutenant Calley, our best known war criminal from
      Vietnam.



      All My Best


      Ned



      Ned Barnett, APR

      Marketing & PR Fellow, American Hospital Association

      Barnett Marketing Communications

      420 N. Nellis Blvd., A3-276 - Las Vegas NV 89110

      702-561-1167 - cell/text

      www.barnettmarcom.com <http://www.barnettmarcom.com/> - twitter @nedbarnett

      http://pr-marketing2point0.blogspot.com/



      05-6-16 BMC Logo



      From: prquorum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:prquorum@yahoogroups.com]
      Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 3:23 PM
      To: prquorum@yahoogroups.com; prbytes@yahoogroups.com;
      PRMindshare@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [PRQuorum] RE: [prbytes] Re: [PRMindshare] Tattoos and the
      military - a PR-driven move ...





      Tattoo craze: Strong desire to fit in with the herd? Therefore useful as
      cannon fodder in wars no one can win?



      I happen to know a highly decorated Navy Seal -- Dick Marcinko, co-author or
      "Rogue Warrior" and other books. In a presentation before hundreds that was
      hosted by the Winchester, VA, Police Department earlier this year he said he
      would kill without hesitation anyone who got in the way of his mission --
      including innocent women and children.



      Has anyone seen the Bourne motion-picture series?



      Stephen

      STEPHEN RAFE



      ----- Original Message -----

      From: 'Ned Barnett' ned@... [prquorum]
      <mailto:ned@...%20[prquorum]>

      To: prbytes@yahoogroups.com ; PRMindshare@yahoogroups.com ;
      prquorum@yahoogroups.com

      Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 3:14 PM

      Subject: [PRQuorum] RE: [prbytes] Re: [PRMindshare] Tattoos and the military
      - a PR-driven move ...





      Stephen

      I share your general views about tattoos – I don’t get them, and as you
      note, so many people who have tattoos have a mélange of different tats
      overlapping and confusing any given message.

      But these people aren’t all mindless, and they aren’t inherently cowardly or
      anti-patriotic – which brings the issue of the military blocking those who
      have them. Perhaps it’s important for the military to present a certain
      image, but … look at the Navy SEALS who fought and died so heroically in
      Afghanistan (clearly, those men were not mindless – just look at the
      training they went through, and the mental focus needed to survive it) … now
      tell me that they should NOT be welcome in the military, merely because of
      their tats.

      Is this a good PR move by the Army? I’m finding it harder and harder to
      believe. We need the best men and women in the service, “best” based on
      their commitment, patriotism and raw ability, not based on their lack of
      tattoos.

      All My Best

      Ned

      Ned Barnett, APR

      Marketing & PR Fellow, American Hospital Association

      Barnett Marketing Communications

      420 N. Nellis Blvd., A3-276 - Las Vegas NV 89110

      702-561-1167 - cell/text

      www.barnettmarcom.com <http://www.barnettmarcom.com/> - twitter @nedbarnett

      http://pr-marketing2point0.blogspot.com/

      05-6-16 BMC Logo

      From: prbytes@yahoogroups.com [mailto:prbytes@yahoogroups.com]
      Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 9:31 AM
      To: PRMindshare@yahoogroups.com; prbytes@yahoogroups.com;
      prquorum@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [prbytes] Re: [PRMindshare] Tattoos and the military - a PR-driven
      move ...

      IMO -- It's a fad that has turned into a trend that borders on the senseless
      and bizarre. Tatoos are expensive, painful, nearly permanent, the colors
      fade, and most are illegible at a glance (and who wants to stare?). When
      more than one is placed in close proximity with others on the same body
      part, the clutter only obfuscates whatever message the bearer (barer? =) )
      intended. The outcome, again IMO, is merely a distasteful morass of ink that
      serves no useful purpose other than to convey a not-so-subtle message that
      those who wear them lack a mind of their own.

      If the military services elect to establish regulations governing the number
      and locations of tattoos on the "employees" they hire, perhaps they are onto
      something. It may have to do with mindless egos that follow the equally
      mindless crowd, spend money unwisely, and lack sensibility. Hmmm. Now that I
      think of it, perhaps the military forces are wrong: These may be the kinds
      of robots that will best follow orders to get those same body parts blown
      off in the name of "peace."

      Let the sanity begin.

      Stephen
      STEPHEN RAFE

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: 'Ned Barnett' ned@... [PRMindshare]
      To: PRMindshare@yahoogroups.com ; prbytes@yahoogroups.com ;
      prquorum@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 7:16 AM
      Subject: [PRMindshare] Tattoos and the military - a PR-driven move ...

      Now, as someone past 60, I don't "get" the current rage in lavish and often
      grotesque body ink that seems to attract so many Americans in their 20s, 30s
      and even 40s. I don't find it attractive, and I'd be hard-pressed to want to
      hire someone (at least for a responsible, meet-the-public corporate
      position) who had visible-when-dressed-for-work tattoos. But that's really
      beside the point - the issue isn't tattoos, but a PR move (for good or ill)
      made by the US military.

      I mention this because I just saw the incredibly powerful movie, Lone
      Survivor. For those interested in military heroism, this true story is at
      least as powerful as the invasion scene in "Private Ryan" and every bit as
      impactful as "Black Hawk Down," and I can't recommend it highly enough,
      especially since it is based very closely on the book written by that "Lone
      Survivor," Marcus Luttrell. I mention this because, at the end of the movie,
      it showed photos of the real men who'd fought and died on that Afghan
      mountain (or, in one case, survived). These remarkably well-trained Navy
      SEALS are among the world's best warriors, and one of America's true
      national assets. Yet in the photos of the casualties - and the survivor
      (singular) - it was clear that at least all of these remarkably brave
      enlisted men and non-coms - men who risked or gave their lives - had tattoos
      that would disqualify them from enlisting today, at least in the Army.

      And I wondered.

      What price "PR?"

      All My Best

      Ned

      Ned Barnett, APR

      Marketing & PR Fellow, American Hospital Association

      Barnett Marketing Communications

      420 N. Nellis Blvd., A3-276 - Las Vegas NV 89110

      702-561-1167 - cell/text

      www.barnettmarcom.com - twitter @nedbarnett

      http://pr-marketing2point0.blogspot.com/

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 10 messages in this topic