Proud Eagle

SecDef resently stated that the primary reason for the larger than expected insurgancy is that the 4th ID was unable to enter Iraq from the norht, through Turkey. Basically this meant that we were short one division and didn't have a credible second front. This allowed some of those that could have been taken out in the initial invasion to fade away into the northern areas and then reappear after the initial invasion. However, there really wasn't any way to fix this problem since no matter how many troops we had sent in it still would have taken them a considerable amount of time to reach northern areas. While a large scale airborn attack would have been possible, such a thing hasn't been done since what, Market Garden in WWII? There would have been considerable risk involved in that. As for how the war plan developed there are some really interesting details available on that now. Basically it came down to the original plan requiring a force larger than what was in any way practical. (perhaps as many as 500,000 in the ground force, plus an additional 250,000 in other roles) The Army had based this plan on worste case scenarios that included everything from insurgency to WMD attacks. The Army also knew if it asked for more than it actually needed it was likely to get what was required. After all, politics is all about compromise, and the Army plays politics (at the top levels) just like the rest of the government. The Army was also wanting a chance for a big show after it had more or less been left out of the Afgan invasion (a mission many in the Army thought could not be done, hence why the CIA's plan was used instead). So Rummy then overreacted to the Army's inflated numbers and started looking at alternative ideas being produced by some of the Army's more creative thinkers, and the ideas being put forward by the other services. In the end some maverick colonel made a proposal that suggested a much smaller force could do the job. Rummsfeld then worked with Franks at CentCom to turn that into an actual working plan. It was a plan to remove Saddam from power, it was not a plan to occupy and rebuild Iraq. Somehow DOD decided that its mission was to remove Saddam and the rest was someone elses problem. As for the general who stated it would take several hundred thousand troops, that was the Army Chief of Staff at a Congressional hearing. The Chief of Staff was not in fact directly involved in planning the actual operation, rather he based that on the old CentCom plan that suggested half a million plus. He later paired down the estimate to about 250,000. Interestingly this same Army Chief of Staff was responsible for a good deal of the Stryker Brigade concept, you know - the new light, easily deployed, wheel based units that are supposed to allow more to be done with a smaller force... or at least that is how the Army sold the idea... The Army Chief of Staff was already set to end his term in that post when he made those comments. Such positions are only given for a set period of time. The DOD took the further step of naming his replacement soon there after. He went on and served the remainder of his term and then retired, as understand it. He was not forced to resign or any such thing. So, the original off the shelf plan called for about 500,000 ground troops. Some colonel in some planning capicity proposed it could be done with about 100,000. The Army Chief of Staff was willing to concede it could probably be done with 250,000-300,000. The secretary of defense already thouth the Army was way to conservative and pessamistic after it basically said it would take hundreds of thousands of troops and years to win in Afganistan and the CIA came up with a plan that only used a few thousand troops and a couple of months to win the war. So we ended up sending something like 150,000. Politics. It all comes down to politics. And politics is all wrapped up in money. Everyone wanted to make certain their part of the budget was nice and safe. To do that they had to play politics to make certain things happened in a way favorable to their interests. Everyone, including the Army brass and the secretary of defense, were playing their little political games that they have been playing all along, and this time it finally blew up in someones face. It should also be noted the other services were also in on this game. The Air Force had one set of ideas, the Navy another. The rivalry between the services is not dead, it just sometimes gets put on hold while they go blow something up. Of coarse the problem wasn't limited to DOD. No, the CIA and the State Department got in on the action. Everyone wanted a piece of the action and wanted it done their way. After all, that is how you justify your budgets and such in Washington. Now, in most cases the Sate Department is so hopelessly lost it is sickening. However, it turns out they had some good information and ideas about Iraq. Of coarse no one at DOD trusts State to do anything right, and for good reason because Foggy Bottom has dropped the ball one too many times in the past. Yet this time state had a point but no one listened. Though the entire thing may have been avoidable if the department of state would actually produce some results, but if we look at its record over the past decade or more it is pretty bleak actually. (Note also that Powell and Cheney had some sort of running disagreement going all the way back before the first Gulf War [Powell was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and Cheney was Secretary of Defense]. The VP and SecDef seem to usually be on the same page, so I am sure this didn't help any.) In any case, the military mission of removing Saddam was quite easily accomplished with the force that was used. It just turned out that their were new missions to be done after that, and for those missions more troops may have been needed. I should also note that General Franks, the commander in chief of US Central Command, who was responsible for both Iraq and Afganistan, thought the plan was a good one and that it would work. Since it was his command that was responsible for planning the campaign and carrying it out, I think his opinion has some weight. Now after the fact he has come out and said that some of the information and intelligence was wrong, and that some of the assumptions made were wrong, but tha given what was thought before the war it was the right plan. Given what we know now, it was not the best plan. Who do I blame for the mistakes of Iraq? Congress. Both parties and both chambers. Congress has control over major policy decisions, it makes the laws, it levvies taxes, it appropriates money (decides who gets what pet project in the budget), and it holds the war powers in the USA. If it did its job most of the rest of these problems wouldn't have happened. But if they actually did their job someone might hold them accountable for mistakes that are made. So instead the pass the buck to the president, the courts, and departments, anyone who will take it. Since those other members of the goverment are just as power hungry as the Congress, they are more than happy to take the powered ceded to them. And if the Congress ever gives away too many powers and decides it needs more, well it can always take them from the states or the people, and the courts and the executive are only too happy to help them. So begins the decline and fall of the Republic. (Actually it began decades ago, but small detail.) Yet there is still hope. After all, we see what our men and women in uniform are willing to do, what they are willing to sacrifice all for this country. It is clear there is still much to be hopeful about. There is a bright dawn ahead, if only we are willing to have it.

ALL AHEAD, FLANK SPEED!

I really don't know what you mean by your last two posts. However, let me ask you a question: What is it that you want to see happen?

I like the old canvas BSA flys. Of coarse I also like plywood collapsable picknick tables, patrol boxes, and dutch ovens... OK, so maybe I am not completely up to speed on the latest in equipment.

Would it be possible to stop beating a dead horse? This thread is starting to look like the western front at its most stagnant. I think both sides have dug their trenches, strung their barbed wire, and sighted in their machine guns. Now all you need to do is harden the lines of communications and pre-plan your artillery fire for the next time the other side desides to try going over the wire...

While in some cases the motive behind these things is profit, it should be noted that magnetic car ribons were created by some people hoping to give people a simple way of expressing support. Some have chosen to make money for themselves off of this idea, others to make money for worthy causes. However, the people displaying these generally have only one motive, and that is to show, in some small way, that they support our men and women in the armed forces. Now, perhaps they would be better off giving the dollar to USO, or the VFW, or something like that. I should note that lately I have seen at least as many of these magnets with unit names and numbers on them as the generic ones. Every time I see one of those I wounder if the person driving the vehicle has a friend, coworker, or family member serving.

Unless you counted the votes then you do not know what the vote count was. Even if you did count the votes you have no way of know who cast what vote. The boys talking about the election, who they voted for and why the didn't vote for someone else, are completely out of line. The instructions for the elections specificially mention there is to be no discussion about the Scouts being considered for election. If these Scouts can't figure out that talking about an election in such a way violates the spirit of a secret ballot someone should take the time to explain this to them. On the issue of the kid being called out who may or may not have been properly elected, there are possibly some options. First, if the Scout was not reported by the election team as being elected with the others, then he should not have been called out. If this is the case it needs to be brought to the attention of someone in the OA lodge. They can then determine what to do about it. If the Scout was reported as being elected, the lodge should probably still look into finding out if the proper election procedure was followed by whoever conducted the election. Now, as to the apparent SM/mother who may have pulled some kind of stunt to get her son called out, this needs to be looked into at the unit level. If it is substantiated, then corrective action of some form would need to be taken. Obviously this is something for the Committee Chairman and Charter Organization Representative to determine how to best handle. I would suggest that if this person really did rig the results in some way, there should be some thought given to how they are living the Scout Oath and Law. It may be that a leadership change is needed. It sounds like to me that this entire process was handled very poorly by everyone involved. It seems from the Scoutmaster on down to the Scouts this is more or less a train wreck. Don't let this mess go unnoticed. While all you have is hearsay and gossip, someone should look into what the facts actually are.

How, exactly, does theft and vandalism help? I don't see how it can make this guy's "guilt" go away, rather it will just give him something else to feal guilty about. I also don't see how steeling magnets off of other people's cars will in any way help bring anyone home safely any sooner. The author of this article sounds like he is suffering from depression. I hope he seeks some professional help. I have seen what depression can do to people when it goes unchecked, it is not pretty. (This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)

Uncle, Not to get into a deep theology issue, but purgatory isn't the middle road between heaven and hell. There is no middle ground. You either go to one or the other. However, those going to heaven need to make a stop on their way to purge their impurities and prepare for the joys of heaven and such. So, it is really as much a process as it is a place. As to how long it takes to comlete that process, well, only God knows. Maybe a span of time too short to measure with the best clock, or too long to name with all the words and numbers of man. It is sort of like the practice in some cultures of taking off the old dirty shoes before you go into the nice clean house. So, just to clear things up the existance, or lack of pergatory, in no way changes the ability of Merlyn to be saved. It will either happen or it won't, because it must happen or not, there is no other choice.

I don't know anything about this except what is posted here. However, I do have some observations. It sounds like BSA didn't like the old UUA stuff because it openly disagreed with BSA policies. It would be nuts for a group to support distribution of materials that do not support its policies. If the new group is clearly stating positions contrary to those of the UUA, then it should be made clear that it does not speak for all UUs or the UUA. However, that has not yet been demonstrated to be the case. The UUA should not be encouraging the uniform wear its medal. I think it is great the UUA has continued its program in-house. However, it needs to acknowledge that while it has an award for UUs who are Scouts, that it is not a BSA sanctioned award. I don't know that the issue of this UUSO being approved by the UUA is really an issue for the BSA. After all, this UUSO could easily be considered to constitute a seperate faith group all on its own. It should be noted that this is not the UUA, and that the UUA doesn't have anything to do with it, if in fact that is the case. Finally, the false conflict between Catholicism and supporting our armed forces is entirely contrived. While the Pope did not support the invasions, and his opinion carries much weight, it should be noted that the catechism clearly states that authority for determining if a war is just is the role for legitimate governments. Also, the Pope has made clear that since we did invade, it is our responsibility to try to put things back together as best as possible.

Lynda J, I am sure you followed the correct procedure in certifying eligibility, but in case there is someone out there who is not familiar with the process, I thought I should clarify, expand, and correct what you stated about who is eligible for election. Eligibility to be elected by a Boy Scout Troop or Varsity Scout Team as a youth in the Order of the Arrow are based on the following things: Be a registered member of the Boy Scouts of America, under 21 years of age (an exemption exists for certain special needs units). Show Scout spirit by living the Oath and Law and being an active member of the unit. Have achieved at least the First Class rank. Have completed at least 15 days and nights of Scout camping within the last 2 years. This must include at least one, but no more than one, long term camp of 6 days and 5 nights at a BSA resident camp. The remaining days and nights must be short term camps. This isn't an exact quote, but that is more or less what the eligibility amounts to. The unit leader must certify the Scouts spirit and must confirm that they meet all other requirements in order to be eligible for the election. Unit leader approval must be given before the election.

Let us not confuse traditional card games with these other games. Games like Magic, etc, are sometimes referred to as collectible card games. This is because a good deal of the abilities of each player is based on how well they were able to go out and buy or trade for newer, rarer, and better cards. Many of the players of these games do get a bit obsessed. Also, many place a very high value on their cards. It is virtually impossible for a new player to become immediately competitive at these games (unlike many other card games that can easily be learned in a night). For starters each player must have their own deck (or be loaned one). The player also needs to be very familiar with the deck they are playing with (making the use of a borrowed deck a serious handicap, unless everyone swaps decks or something). Now, are these reasons to ban collectible card games? I don't really know. I don't think I would ban them, though I personally don't like them. There are certain things many younger people are into these days that I strongly dislike, YuGiOh and Pokemon are on that list. I say let them use them, just let it be known that you expect them to be responsible for their own cards and be willing to try to explain the game to others that are interested in learning. (I once tried to explain Axis and Allies to some people at summer camp, that was an interesting experience.)

Sounds like a rather bad situation out there. However, even if the membership issue is true, that does not prove this guys case. These days it is extremely dangerous to say anything at all about a former employee for fear of being sued if they have difficulty finding employement. Employers should only verify dates of employment and basic facts of that sort if they want to stay lawsuit free. I think we have all identified that the problem is related to the numbers based retention, raises, and promotion of the professional staff. There must be a better way and it must be found soon, or this will only keep happening, just as it has for many years.

I have no problem with card games. I like to play them. I frequently play all sorts of card games during scout activities. I see nothing wrong with it. Now if people decide they want to stay in camp and play cards instead of participating in the planned activity, I could perhaps see a problem with that. Also, chips are a bit of a grey arrea. I don't see anything really wrong with it, but on the other hand it does look a bit odd to see a group of Scouts or Scouters playing a game with chips. Now if they decide to play a game with money or other items of value, I don't think that would be any good. Can't have any gambling. As for the kids knowing the difference, I think they do understand the difference. I understood the difference when I joined my troop. In my troop card playing was common, chips were rare, and gambling was not tolerated. All of us understood the difference between playing poker or blackjack for fun and playing for money. Maybe we were just an unusually bright bunch, or perhaps kids are stupid now. I don't personally think so, but I guess it is possible. Let them have fun. Don't let them play for money or any other form of playing for keeps. Don't let the side activities (be it cards, or book reading) take away from the activities the boys planned for and agreed to. They may grumble and complain a bit when you make them put the cards up to go on the nature hike the planned at last week's meeting, but they will be glad they did, someday.

HOLD ON JUST A DARN MINUTE. While we all probably agree that students' time is best spent on education, many schools spend huge amounts of time on all sorts of other things. If other groups are having in school recruiting assemblies and the like, then it is perfectly understandable that the local Scouting leaders would want to get in on the action. After all, most Scout leaders believe that Scouting is a very good program that teaches some very important lessons to Scouts. So if other groups are having special access to recruit, then the BSA should make use of the same access. I know in my own experience I was forced to sit through recruiting and promotion pitches, speeches, and all sorts of junk from outside groups. We heard from everyone from the school's Cub Scout Pack (Catholic School for K-8 for me), to 4-H, to the YMCA, to the state department of Fish and Wildlife's Conservation Camp. We even had about half a day wasted with someone called Cowboy Louie who thought of himself as a magician. Then there was all the time wasted on pep rallies, sports recruiting, and all that sort of stuff. When I got to junior high in 9th grade it only got worse, and stayed worse through high school. (public shools) The public shools waste more time than my previous school did. (Not counting all the wasted time in class, but that is a completely seperate issue.) Time was spent on everything from making us listen to the band practice its next competition peice to talks from convicted felons about the horrors of prison (a program mandated by the terms of their probation, fun). There were recruiting drives for all sort of organizations. I can't even remember them all. However, the only Scouting related recruiting was by a local volunteer fire department that was trying to gauge interest in starting an emergency services related Venturing crew. They got to set up a table in the lobby during lunch, while other groups got to show videos, have assemblies, or all sort of other ridiculous things. Now the point here is that BSA should be recruiting just as aggresively as any other organization. If the time of kids is going to be wasted, it may as well be wasted hearing a BSA recruiting presentation as a promotion for the state's Conservation Camp. Now as for the aethiests, I don't really know what to say. I guess I think that isn't much difference than the band doing recruiting with people who are deaf. Personally, I don't think any group (in school or out) should be forcing the kids to sit through an assembly. However, if that is the way the school has chosen to make its students available, then I can't really blame all the groups for doing it that way. It would be better if they just sent home something written to everyone. Then it would be the choice of the student and parent to determine if they were going to bother to read the information, or just ignore it. Maybe have optional assemblies for those interested during lunch time or after school or something like that. Anyhow, that is just my take on things.

Camp Crooked Creek is pretty nice. However, McKee now has a nicer dining hall. Also, I am afraid Roy C. Manchester has almost everyone beat when it comes to a lake...

I am just waiting for the conservation people to start jumping up and down about the little disposable propane cylinders. They are totally one time use items. This greatly increases costs, weight, and waste from using propane for portable applications. Also, refilling the small cylinders is unsafe and in some cases illegal. Recycling of the things is also a no go in most cases. The only dangerous situation I have ever been in involving flammable materials was a Coleman lantern on a hoze connected to a 20 lb tank. The seal was loose and the next thing we knew the hoze was on fire, and the lantern was inside a small fire ball. Made life a bit interesting for a minute or two. Butane there are some similar problems. Also, butane doesn't offer bulk options. White gas is a good choice for cases when you need something portable. If you can lug a 20 lb. tank there is no need, but if you need something smaller or lighter, white gas is a good choice. If you do much packing and can only get one type of stove, I would go with white gas. Unleaded fuel is really not a very good choice, at least in my opinion. The only people I have ever known that got hurt with a stove it involved unleaded gas. The stuff is very volatile and it produces funny fumes. Kerosene I have only used in old wick type lanterns, so I really can't say much about it. My personal stove is a Coleman white gas stove. I took it to Philmont, I use it on troop camping trips, and I use it sometimes when we need to heat something in a pan while cooking on the gas grill out back. The thing works nicely. Sure a bit of fuel is spilled now and then, but I have never had a problem with either safety or sanitation. You just have to think a bit (jee, this stove is covered in fuel, I wonder if I should light it?). My troop also owns a couple of the white gas backpacking stoves. The normal troop stoves and lanterns are propane, but they are only used for car camping.

Of coarse the military industrial complex of WW II and its aftermath made the present system look tiny be comparison. As for China, I would say we should be more worried about them deciding to become the hegemon in the Asia/Pacific area. After all, once you rely on someone else for even a part of your defences it becomes hard to confront them. Also, don't forget China has a considerable stock of nuclear weapons and has proven they work. They also have ballistic missiles and such, including some more accurate new ones that incorporate guidance technology that we gave them back in the mid 90s to supposedly help their satalite launch program (why we thought they wouldn't turn that around on us, I don't know, and why we thought China launching its own satelites is a good thing, again, I don't know). The use of contractors and the like to provide vital national security services is unavoidable. To think that any other circumstance is even possible is niave and ignores history. On the other hand, there is a question of how much contracting is the right amount? I personally think in some cases we have gone too far, and in others not far enough.

I fear dark days of development, traffic noise, and smog may be ahead. I also fear not-so-dark nights filled with dusk-to-dawn lights and such are in store for us. It may not be long before only the largest wilderness areas allow us to truelly get away from it all. Heck, even at Philmont you can use a cell phone in certain places. (ok, ok, that is a bit of stretch since Mt. Baldy is at 12,441 ft and has an unobstructed line of sight that goes on forever, but still it is true)

My council owns 2 camps. One of those is used for weekend activities, but no major council activity can be held there. It was used as a summer camp, but closed as a summer camp in the late 1960s. It is too small to ever develope into a major camp. However, it is maintained mostly through the labor and money of the small number of units that use the place. There is no ranger, just a volunteer caretaker. Still, things do have to be fixed. Yet the place does have some income come from it do to district day camps, and periodic logging. The other camp is huge and has great potential. It could easily house several seperate camping facilities. It is used for most council camporrees, JLT/NYLT, woodbadge, OA events, and cub resident camp. It is poorly developed since it has had no new development since it was closed as a summer camp in the mid 1990s. Several maintanence issues are becoming critical. Fortunately, it will bring in a bit of income from some upcoming logging. Our council summer camp is a very nice place. It is located on a major lake. We don't own it, we lease it. It is better developed and maintained due to its continued use as a summer camp. However, it would be better if the lease money had been able to be put into improvements or program. Also, while the camp is a good size and has some room to grow, it isn't big enough to accomodate completely new developments (like a full Cub World type facility). There is still potential for using the large lake for more programs, and also using it as a base for a nearby national recreation area. Now we could sell off our other properties and pour everything into the leased property, but that doesn't sound very prodent. We could dump the leased properties and move summer camp to the location closed in the 1990s. However program would suffer horibly and our only major older scout programs would be lost. Also, the BSA as an organization would lose, for all time, its only chance at one of the nations largest lakes. I remember reading something put out by BSA's engineering service suggesting that councils should be working to find there permanent camps because it will only be a short number of years before suitable sites for a Scout camp are gone forever. In fact the same thing mentioned that in some areas it was already almost impossible to find new camping property. Getting rid of property is, more often than not, selling out the future to pay for what you actually can't afford to use today. It is like morgaging your house to pay for a vacation you can't afford. Are there times it makes since to sell property? Sure there are. However, this should only be done after the most careful consideration of all the possible benefits of selling as well as all of the future draw backs. We have to think long term, not short term. We also have to think outside the box. Could that giant camp in Eamonn's council be turned into a money maker without robbing the future? Maybe. They could always try to lease the land, or sell timber, or any number of other things. Perhaps it should be closed and kept for future use. I will tell one story of a council selling a camp that worked out. In Louisville they had an old camp that found itself in a major, fast developing area. This caused the value of the land to rise very quickly, and it also ment the camp was no longer out in a prestine wilderness. So they decided to look into new options. They were able to sell the old camp for enough money that they could buy a new camp, and pay for a good portion of the cost of developing the new facilities on the new camp. So they still had the same number of camps, they just moved to a new shinny one. (There is a bit more to that story, but that is the simple version). If you are going to sell land, don't ever put the money in the operating fund. Either put the money into your capitol fund or your endowment fund. That way future generations can benefit from the sale.

Actually, we already do contract out national security, to Wackenhut, among others. In fact, we have been contracting out our national security since at least the Revolution. After all, most of our military equipment is made on contract. Many services such as construction of ships, dockyards, forts, etc have been historically handled by contractors. Also, now we have companies being hired to provide security guards, assist in background checks, and even develope software to sift through data for evidence of terrorism. Even a good deal of the cryptology programming of the NSA or the image analysis programming of the NRO are done under contract. Now what is really scarry is we are even contracting out some stuff overseas. I can't remember what part it is, but there is some part on the JADAM bomb guidance kit that the last factory that could make it closed and moved to China during the Clinton adminstration. Now there isn't a sinlge factory in the US with the equipment to make the thing. (it is some sort of sub-component that is only a small part of the entire package, but yet is critical)

This is a good idea. Just make certain it doesn't take away from your other duties. The make your own club golf is a fun thing that I have seen done at several camps. On the other hand another camp actually had a golf outing to a local country club. Scoutmaster cook-off could be particularly interesting. They key would be getting info on that out ahead of camp so everyone brings the stuff needed. (Or you could require it be done with no utensils and with only given ingredients.... hum...) You could tie this in with a cooks night off, or with the Scoutmaster dinner. I would say a Scoutmaster dinner or something of that nature is almost a must. Try to make certain the dinner is attended by the other members of the camp leadership. Use it as a time to get some feedback, have some discussions, and role out new ideas for next year. Some councils bring members of the district key 3, or even the council key 3 down for these. At one camp I attended the Scout Executive even came out and cooked the steaks for the SMs and used it as a chance to talk with the SMs. SM activities are a great idea, just make certain they don't take away from opportunities for the youth and don't take the SMs away at critical times. Some other ideas could include SM shotgun, rifle, or archery competitions. Strange competitions such as a greased watermelon wrestling competition in the non-swimmers area of the lake could also be interesting. (winning SM's troop gets the water-mellon) This can be a lot of fun for the entire camp to come down and chear on. I have also seen SM v. staff competitions and things like this. The most original idea I have seen is on Monday morning the daily paper, a thermos of coffee, and free mugs were delivered to each campsite. I wouldn't really reccommend this, but it was original. Finally, don't neglect the possibilities of doing roundtable and training activities at camp. Make certain all the leaders go home better able to put on a quality program.

Insignia Guide 2003-2005 On page 30-Venturing Insignia "Boy Scout advancement, earned Boy Scout rank recognition, may be worn on the Venturing uniform. See the Boy Scout section for guidelines." So, Venturers may wear their Boy Scout ranks in the same way that a Boy Scout would do. The only part that is at all tricky is the Ealge, since adults wear the knot while youth wear the badge, and as we all know Venturing and Scouting identify youth and adult by slighlty different ages. I would assume that the Boy Scout system would still apply so a youth Venturer 18 or over would wear the Eagle knot.

Live, breathe, eat, sleep, and think Scouting. Go to trainings, they are great. Take SM training, New Leader Essentials, Youth Protection, etc. Get committee training too. Even if you want to be an SA, it would still be good to know the committee info. There is no such thing as too much training (though it is possible to take the wrong training for your needs, for example taking Cub Scout training to learn how to fix a Boy Scout Troop is going backwards). Read books. Read lots of books, manuals, guides, anything and everything you can find written by or about the BSA. (Start with basic stuff like the Handbook, SM Handbook, Committee Guidebook, Guide to Safe Scouting, and then move on from there.) Read, read, and read some more. Don't forget to think and plan and dream while you are reading. Try to think about the things you are reading from another angle than what it is presented in. Go to your district's Boy Scout Roundtables. These may be a good opportunity to learn best practices from leaders who are actually using the 8 methods to achieve the aims, complete a part of the mission, and bring us all closer to the vision. (Sorry, couldn't help myself.) I would suggest that if you are planning a crusade, keep your son out of it if possible. Let him go on enjoying the troop. (Know this: If the troop is not using the methods, he may one day look back and realise his Eagle doesn't mean as much as it could have. The system doesn't deliver full benefits unless it is being used properly.) Be diplomatic. Don't go into a committee meeting and announce everything is going to pot. Instead, talk with some possibly sypathetic members of the committee before the meeting. This will help avoid a confrontation. After all, it is easier to talk someone into something one on one than it is to convince them they are wrong in public. I know a bit about trying to guide a troop toward change. I am trying to nudge my own unit in the right direction. It requires a good deal of patience, and hope. You have to understand that in a given meeting you may only convince someone to take one baby step. Then the next they may take another. Keep in mind those are victories, even if small ones. I would suggest you try to pose this as an issue of the troop needing to take a long hard look at itself, and at Scouting, and that it should be about making best use of the system BSA offers. That way it isn't the BSA v. the Troop, it is instead a more friendly approach. This will also offer a chance for everyone to explore the current model and the troops shortcomings on their own rather than one person coming in and declaring that what others think is great stinks. (I have not used all of may own suggestions in my own experiences. Some of them are based on things I should have done differently or better. Others are just ideas that are completely untested. Use at your own risk.)

I had been planning on doing Philmont Trail Crew and OA Wilderness Voyage until I was asked to help out at camp last summer. When I was asked to help them out after someone else quit I decided to answer the call of service rather than going out and having a good time the wilderness. It turned out I had a lot of fun at camp instead. I would highly recommend these programs. I have been to Philmont for a regular trek and it was great. I imagine going with your brother Arrowmen and doing it for cheep would also be exceptional. I have talked with a few people that have done these programs and they rated them very highly. I say go for it if you have the chance. After all, those sorts of opportunities only come around once or twice in a life time.