It's nuts that you're still having to deal with this. At this point it seems that most employers are quietly walking back the mandates. No one, including officialdom, persists with the lie that the shots prevent transmission - it's just too obviously not true at this point.
A lot of the other commenters recommended taking out the Two Grants part. That was the best part, I laughed my ass off. That said - probably not the best rhetorical direction to take given the audience. Then again, given that the audience is utterly impervious to logical, empirically based argument, but proceed entirely by motivated reasoning towards predetermined political conclusions, it's not really clear to me what even constitutes effective rhetoric.
I'm just a civilian with no advice what-so-ever. However, thank you for sharing this. It gives me hope that there are people like yourself in the military. I read it as an interesting and well formulated thought experiment. As I read, I was wondering if you had some insight on the assistant secretary. Thank you for explaining "least restrictive means."
I appreciate that you chose the name Greta. I suspect you would be an abomination as a woman ;) No offense, I hope.
1: I generally agree with you here. You make some strong points about the miss named vaccines' abilities to prevent COVID illness, and overall effects of combat readiness. I also agree with your point about how being unvaccinated is much less damaging (if at all) to overall readiness than many other behaviors the DoD finds perfectly acceptable, or at least tolerates. Straining a gnat while swallowing a camel.
2: I don't see how giving this letter to someone in the Army, much less the Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army, is going to help. If you were sending it to some starry general you knew to be sympathetic you might get a good outcome (although I would probably cut out the Tale of Two Grants section... made a good point but in a very hard to swallow method.) Or if you were sending it to your state Senator, hopefully named Chesty Puller or Tom Highway, I could see a good reaction. The Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army, however, is a political position, and you can be sure she toes the party line. So you have to ask, what incentive does she have to stick her neck out for you, and by extension other unvaxxed soldiers? Will it please her bosses, the same ones who pushed vax mandates on the country until the courts threw it out, yet still try? Will it please her subordinates, the same chain of command that refused your previous request under dubious circumstances? Will it please whomever she is going to ask for a job after this one?
I think not on all counts, and so you would send this letter in the hopes that a politician's sense of fair play and dedication to her job would trump team affiliation and pandering. I might have an overly dim view of political appointees, but I don't feel optimistic about that last sentence.
Now, if your vision of victory is "Get run out of the Army or resign, then turn the scandal into a commentator position on Fox News" and you have the connections for it, ok, that works. Or if you have plans for the private sector that are otherwise very appealing and you don't mind starting early, perhaps without full military benefits left over, that could work too. Or maybe there is a strategy of getting a letter in return that you then can use in a court martial or other court to make a legal case against them with decent hopes of winning.
I gotta say though, other than the raw catharsis of telling these thin streaks of piss what unreasonable and scummy bastards they are, I don't see any good directly coming from sending this letter to anyone. I would be slightly worried about even posting it publicly under your own name, unless you have some supporters in higher places that could look out for you.
I hope I am wrong, but be careful in any case. I agree that things are getting untenable, but be sure the shot you take is the shot you want to take.
Intense situation. Two quick impressions. 1. The above is an exploratory draft, and is simply too long to be effective in the professional / institutional context, in my experience. 2. Even if there is an obvious personal bias towards you by the decision-maker here, you should be careful not to show animosity back in your letter. Avoid emotive language. You can state you perceive a bias, etc.
For whatever it is worth, I fully support and agree with your position and course of action. I wish you and your family the best outcome -- without assuming I know what that will be. It has been my perception that this administration is purging the military of principled people who would uphold their oaths to the Constitution and the nation. Sadly, your dilemma seems to confirm that.
Do we want a military to protect our nation? Or a politicized supra-police unit to support actions against perceived dissenting groups of the American population? Including the faith, family, and tradition communities? Who have typically made up the solid core if not the majority of the rank and file military.
This admin seems to regard as threats concerned parents, law-abiding 2A tax paying citizens, and those who take pride in and display knowledge and symbols of our nation's history and traditions. Although I do not see politics as the primary answer, the mid-term and then the Presidental election cannot come soon enough for me.
With the highest respect, and all best for you and you family.
It's nuts that you're still having to deal with this. At this point it seems that most employers are quietly walking back the mandates. No one, including officialdom, persists with the lie that the shots prevent transmission - it's just too obviously not true at this point.
A lot of the other commenters recommended taking out the Two Grants part. That was the best part, I laughed my ass off. That said - probably not the best rhetorical direction to take given the audience. Then again, given that the audience is utterly impervious to logical, empirically based argument, but proceed entirely by motivated reasoning towards predetermined political conclusions, it's not really clear to me what even constitutes effective rhetoric.
I'm just a civilian with no advice what-so-ever. However, thank you for sharing this. It gives me hope that there are people like yourself in the military. I read it as an interesting and well formulated thought experiment. As I read, I was wondering if you had some insight on the assistant secretary. Thank you for explaining "least restrictive means."
I appreciate that you chose the name Greta. I suspect you would be an abomination as a woman ;) No offense, I hope.
Hi Grant, just want to put in my thoughts.
1: I generally agree with you here. You make some strong points about the miss named vaccines' abilities to prevent COVID illness, and overall effects of combat readiness. I also agree with your point about how being unvaccinated is much less damaging (if at all) to overall readiness than many other behaviors the DoD finds perfectly acceptable, or at least tolerates. Straining a gnat while swallowing a camel.
2: I don't see how giving this letter to someone in the Army, much less the Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army, is going to help. If you were sending it to some starry general you knew to be sympathetic you might get a good outcome (although I would probably cut out the Tale of Two Grants section... made a good point but in a very hard to swallow method.) Or if you were sending it to your state Senator, hopefully named Chesty Puller or Tom Highway, I could see a good reaction. The Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army, however, is a political position, and you can be sure she toes the party line. So you have to ask, what incentive does she have to stick her neck out for you, and by extension other unvaxxed soldiers? Will it please her bosses, the same ones who pushed vax mandates on the country until the courts threw it out, yet still try? Will it please her subordinates, the same chain of command that refused your previous request under dubious circumstances? Will it please whomever she is going to ask for a job after this one?
I think not on all counts, and so you would send this letter in the hopes that a politician's sense of fair play and dedication to her job would trump team affiliation and pandering. I might have an overly dim view of political appointees, but I don't feel optimistic about that last sentence.
Now, if your vision of victory is "Get run out of the Army or resign, then turn the scandal into a commentator position on Fox News" and you have the connections for it, ok, that works. Or if you have plans for the private sector that are otherwise very appealing and you don't mind starting early, perhaps without full military benefits left over, that could work too. Or maybe there is a strategy of getting a letter in return that you then can use in a court martial or other court to make a legal case against them with decent hopes of winning.
I gotta say though, other than the raw catharsis of telling these thin streaks of piss what unreasonable and scummy bastards they are, I don't see any good directly coming from sending this letter to anyone. I would be slightly worried about even posting it publicly under your own name, unless you have some supporters in higher places that could look out for you.
I hope I am wrong, but be careful in any case. I agree that things are getting untenable, but be sure the shot you take is the shot you want to take.
Great letter but bad idea to send it. Hopefully a more crisp one worked better. What was the final outcome?
I sent you a message on LinkedIn. I'm hoping if you get a moment you can respond.
Intense situation. Two quick impressions. 1. The above is an exploratory draft, and is simply too long to be effective in the professional / institutional context, in my experience. 2. Even if there is an obvious personal bias towards you by the decision-maker here, you should be careful not to show animosity back in your letter. Avoid emotive language. You can state you perceive a bias, etc.
For whatever it is worth, I fully support and agree with your position and course of action. I wish you and your family the best outcome -- without assuming I know what that will be. It has been my perception that this administration is purging the military of principled people who would uphold their oaths to the Constitution and the nation. Sadly, your dilemma seems to confirm that.
Do we want a military to protect our nation? Or a politicized supra-police unit to support actions against perceived dissenting groups of the American population? Including the faith, family, and tradition communities? Who have typically made up the solid core if not the majority of the rank and file military.
This admin seems to regard as threats concerned parents, law-abiding 2A tax paying citizens, and those who take pride in and display knowledge and symbols of our nation's history and traditions. Although I do not see politics as the primary answer, the mid-term and then the Presidental election cannot come soon enough for me.
With the highest respect, and all best for you and you family.
I love it, though I defer to Jay Rollins. I hope the final draft turned out well.