Businessman

​Politically Active and Aware

Gregory C. Duerden

Military Support Stance .-   

​      Right from the top, I want to let you know that I AM A Veteran and I AM bias in favor of a strong military.  I was in the US Air Force as both an air-crew member (trained as a Tail-Gunner on B-52s, graduating top of my class) and as a unit historian (for a fighter wing - the lone junior enlisted member of the wing commander's staff) as well as briefly a clerk-typist in-between.  I have also been active in the Navy League, a volunteer pro-military support organization for the maritime services, working on morale and supportive events and activities.  That in mind,  .   .   .  


     The United States Military has a long and illustrious history dating back beyond the Revolutionary War.  The Army started, under Gen. George Washington, and the Navy followed close behind.  Over the years the services have expanded from the Army, Navy & Marines, to the Air Force, Coast Guard, and some include the Merchant Marine as another 'unofficial' service.


       From the earliest days, jealousy and protection of each service has depicted the petty side of the military 'power politics,' usually represented by the General Officer class attempting to build and keep their own personal fiefdoms.  Company grade officers and Senior Enlisted keep their jobs by doing what they are ordered to do and grooming themselves with and following one or more commanding officers.  The Bulk of the paperwork, supervision, planning and tactics are done by the officer corp, while the bulk of the everyday work is done by the enlisted men - Senior Enlisted supervise and report to the junior/company/general officers over them, junior enlisted NCOs are the direct supervisors of the junior enlisted men, who do the grunt work, are the cannon fodder and the expendables in military battles.


       Washington sought food and supplies for his troops from Congress, justifably so.  Every general and commanding officer always needs or wants more supplies, better weapons, more budget for this and that, more manpower, etc.  BUT more is not always the answer, neither is going back to the 'old ways' always the answer.  Sometimes looking ahead and preparation is better than jumping into the 'norm.'


        Perhaps the 21st Century is time to cut military spending while yet improving the military structure with more efficiencies.  This can be done by consolidation of the services into the United States Armed Forces.  We have already been experimenting with consolidated commands (Southern Command, etc.) using ground, naval and air forces under the mixed command structure - sometimes an Army General is in command over Navel and Air Force officers in command of various units.  Why not 'modernize' all the services under the Joint Chiefs, with branches of one armed force to take care of ground battles; another force concentrating on transporting material, supplies and manpower as well as battles on the waves, protecting the coastlines and all the 'coastlines' of rivers and lakes within the 'country'; still another dealing with air superiority for covering ground and navel forces, and anything 'flying' (e.g., missiles as weapons, helicopters, fixed wing jets - both bombers, fighters, interceptors, recon, etc.) off the surface or launched air-to-air, etc.


       Savings in manpower costs can be made by elimination of the duplicate service's headquarter units, enlarging the responsibility of such units but only adding one-third of the actual manning for quadripling the responsibilities (adding all Army, Navel, Air Force AND all civilian personnel under the single headquarters unit under a consolidated personnel manual . . . oh, and consolidating all the regs, policies, rules, manning slots [by Military Occupational Standards, or MOS] and less duplication of manning - you won't need four or five personnel specialists, one for each service, but just one for the one united and consolidated Armed Forces; etc.).


       The savings can then be diverted to RnD of new weapon systems, construction of needed ships/planes/equipment and increasing the pay so that ALL enlisted grades are making more than the Federal Poverty Level!! - which is a horribly LOW BAR!!


        BUT OTHER THAN THAT IDEA, supporting the military structure while maintaining a healthy skeptical attitude when it comes to the military - industrial complex (MIC) - a more active oversight and budgetary supervision of the MIC.  


       AND raising the pay for the junior enlisted, as mentioned above, getting better benefits for their families and continued improvement in the 'base/post' commissary and exchange systems - hopefully making them more 'civilian' and recognizable yet still with 'military benefit' pricing and better and better quality. Just making military life better for families, as well as the members of the services . . . because when a member of the family IS a member of the military service, the entire family is impacted!!


      Hard looks at the advanced weapon development systems, getting 'enough' bang for the bucks!! AND making military regulation by the civilian government a continued 'miracle' less rare  than common to the United States  Constitutional form of government.  


 If any of the above makes sense to you, if you see the same need we see, if you believe the current Congressional Delegation has not been transparent, honest, truthful or ethical when it comes to their support for the U.S. Military (all five branches of service, not just Hill AFB  -  remember, we use to have Dugway & Tooele Army Depot and more, but . . .) . . . we would urge you to go to the polls and Vote on Nov.6, 2018 for Greg Duerden on the Independent American Party ticket for Utah's Congressional Third District seat

                                                                          Thank you for your support

         









​    .