>> Arguing whether that tool is still useful is completely valid... I suppose that too, can be debated, insofar as what constitutes "ready, prepared, capable"
Okay. I argue such and debate such. Very clearly. In my original post. What is the point of this reply?
> If you can't afford the servicemember, properly trained and properly insured, then don't "buy" them at all.
Okay. Clearly yes. Now find me a servicemember who would rather have medical retirement over avoiding permanent disability. That's the main reason we should not be risking life and limb unnecessarily. You know, like I said. In my original post. What is the post of the reply?
This knee-jerk need to defend the Army on full display in this thread is, if we're honest, is the primary difference between the military and most of the civilian government: not superior administrative competence, but mostly just better PR.