.Ramblings.

Juz thought I'll ramble this b4 it gets off my mind and b4 I get to work. Most likely will forget this when I get to doing my stuff, so yea.

I seriously am against the Army way of choosing ppl for scholarships, preferring ppl who have strong academic qualifications and having gone thru barely 5 mths of army to be given the prestigious scholarships, yet not recognising those NSF officers who perform and ultimately gain the recognition of SoH, SoM etc. These would include my friends, who are each excellent in their own field, and have proven in. Yet, the Army STILL prefers the untested, unproven, and scholarly types. Why?!

Is there something with the system which seems to favour them? Look at the long list of SAFOS, SMS, ATA holders, and tell me who in them was fully tested b4 given the scholarship? I dare say it's less than 20%.

More so, if the organisation is so damned big and rewards only the ppl they can see with their limited view, i.e. the scholars. The rest and condemned and left to staff positions deemed unworthy of the better personnel. Added to the fact is that the organisation DOES NOT reward those who perform good on the ground, so it leaves one to wonder whether the organisation truely believes in maintaining the morale of its officer corps, which is splitting into 2 camps.

Seriously, I give neither a thought nor a heck to the organisation. Serve and f*** off. They dun owe me anything, and neither do I. If they crumble and fail due to the limited scope that is available to them, so be it. Let them burn...

Current Mood: Grumpy