Can a soldier be Objective?

Gary, see above.

Post 41

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 9:36pm

Can a soldier be objective?

Answer: At present no - not really at any point after enlisting.

Why? Because the technology required to provide each private with the information he needs to make an objective decision, in real time, during a battle situation doesn't yet exist.

The fact of the matter is that a soldier in the field knows only what is in front of him. Only his superior officers are in the best position to know (1) where the rest of his comrades are and in what state they are in, (2) what the enemy is doing to his comrades at the present moment in time and most importantly (3) how many bullets and rations are in the supply dumps and how quickly they can be brought forward.

There is no time in battle - especially a modern battle - to stop and wait until every private is fully updated with the latest information. Modern warfare is so fast that (for example) an enemy can detect and respond to incoming artillery fire before the first round has even hit. If you find yourself under fire - if you hesitate, you die. Crew-served weapons like artillery, machine-guns and aircraft kill are more lethal to a soldier than any individual weapon ever invented. I don't care how fantastic the AK47 or M16 is. A single 155 mm air-burst artillery-round can wipe out a platoon. A single modern field-gun can fire 12 such rounds per minute (and such guns are usually organised into batteries of 3-4) and by varying the trajectory, a gunner can fire these rounds so that they all land on target at the same time.

"So what?" I hear you ask.

So the safest place to be when caught in the open against such weapons is right next to the bastards that are directing their fire. If you run away - as any civilian would naturally do - all you are doing is helping the enemy to kill you:

(1) Run away and you give the enemy the ability to observe your movements and correct the fall of his artillery without fear of getting his head blown off. This is the primary reason GIs have a assault rifle that fires 600 rpm, to suppress the enemy until his own artillery can kick in or the officer/NCO can arrange for a flanking maneuver. In a perfect attack or defence the enemy is blown to pieces (or scared into surrendering) by Artillery long before he gets in range of your rifle. Why? Because hard-core close-combat slows down an offensive and gives your opponent's generals time to bring up reserves. Armies are defeated by surrounding them, cutting them off from their supplies and inducing their surrender - to quote Winston Churchill "Battles are won by slaughter and maneuver. The greater the general, the more he contributes in maneuver, the less he demands in slaughter."

(2) By opening the distance between the enemy and yourself, you allow your enemy to bring even bigger weapons to bear - ones that he would not normally use for fear of endangering his own life - e.g. Rocket Launchers and Close Air Support.

These are a concepts you don't have time to mull over in combat. In order to give yourself the best chance to survive in this situation you have to instantly overcome the natural desire to flee and turn on your tormentor. Part of the basic-training (BT) brain-washing drill is designed to get you to do just that. The other half is to get you to obey orders from people who know more about your overall situation than you do. Face it - if they have better information then they can make better decisions that cost fewer lives (including yours!) But in modern warfare (for reasons I've outlined) they don't have time to put their decisions to a committee.

Is this system infallible? By no means. But, when implimented properly (i.e. with volunteer soldiers) it works better than any other system yet tried. How long did it take Vietnamese "Guerilla forces" (i.e. NVA/VC) to evict the US military? And at what cost to the Vietnamese? Compare that with the time it took the modern US military to retake Kuwait from the 4th largest army in the world in 1991.

The stuff about team building? Ever walked around a nasty part of town in the dark, on your own, with only a vague idea about where you are and where you are headed? Know that feeling do you? I'll bet that you wished you had a couple of trustworthy mates with you!

What a pity that in the military you are going to be put into a unit along side a bunch of people you've never met before. People you might not like, people you might not normally trust in a bar-brawl with machine-guns and mortars because they aren't built like Arnie and have a face full of pimples. And you know, it really is a crying shame that most armies don't have the time to allow you to get to know the guys and girls in your unit, to develop deep and meaningful relationships with each and every member in that unit, before you go into combat.

That "do it for the unit" stuff is designed to give you confidence in the people you are going to go into combat with and to give them confidence in you. That "pointless", marching in circles, being sworn at, being made to look the same is all part of a carefully designed to take a whole bunch of strangers and give them a common cause to band together for (hate thy drill-sergeant), whilst improving their fitness, agility, and aggression. There is a reason that BT hasn't changed since before Napoleonic times. That reason is that it works - in 6-12 weeks an army can take the world's most self-centred, individualistic kids (ie Americans) and turn them (with more training on hi-tech weapons) into the army that kicked Saddam's arse - twice.

And as for the Army not being suitable for intellectuals - go out and organise the supplies for 1 days worth of combat (bullets, shells, boots, bandages and 3 meals a day) for 150,000 troops in Iraq and see how you go with it smart-arse! Go and plot a artillery fire-plan designed to drop indirect artillery into defiladed positions along a divisional-sized defensive front. And repeat the job every time the division moves... And while you are at it - fly a stealth fighter jet through multi-layered, 3-dimensional, enemy air-defences to hit a target the size of a postage stamp and get away clean. Or how about joining the Engineer Corps and building a bridge, or joining the Medical Corps and saving the life. Or how about joining the Staff and try and outwit someone like Erwin Rommel or Erich von Manstein. The moral of this mini-rant is this: the only dumb soldiers are dead ones. It really pisses me off when academic twats look down their noses at soldiers, sailors and airmen because they work outside in the filth, wet and cold.

In summary: The day may come when an individual infantryman may be more informed than a general, be faster than a jet-fighter, tougher than a tank and pack a punch like an artillery regiment - but that day ain't today.

And until that day comes - BT and all that "BS" is here to stay. It will stay not because of some dark-collectivist-conspiracy, but because (in the current technological context) BT builds fighting soldiers with the highest chance of survival.

True, it also builds a legion of warriors who may blindly follow orders that are contrary to the constitution. But as I recall, the price of Liberty is eternal vigilance. As a citizen of the USA, your job - if you want freedom to reign - is to hold the government and the military responsible when they go off the constitutional rails.

And no I'm not in the military. I just read a lot of military history - probably too much on reflection.

(Edited by Robert Winefield on 9/28, 10:35pm)

Post 42

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 10:26pm

Robert,

I see where you are coming from, but I get stuck on the meaning of "objective," meaning using reason to the best of your ability.

My answer to the question:

Can a soldier be objective?

Yup.

Most every soldier I have met is objective (American and Brazilian - top to bottom) - much more so than civilians. Principally, they understand their context and know that what is expected of them in that military context (like stepping in harm's way against an armed enemy, for instance) is not required in a civilian one. Many things they do in the military they would never do as civilians. They use their reason within the confines of their context.

In a war, they better, too.

Can you imagine something like surgical bombing based solely on emotions?

Michael

Post 43

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 10:52pm

Joe, and all,

Joe wrote

"I will say this, the people who are joining the army don't need to be brainwashed. They are already sheep."

For many, if they obediant as sheep, its only to hunt down and kill the enemy like lions.

"I'm thinking of those who get upset because they signed on in peacetime to pay for college, or joined the reserves 1 weekend a month, and shit when they find out THEY HAVE TO KILL PEOPLE! And then write a book complaining about war."

Perhaps that would describe me, if I killed up-close and personal. I would hope not. It describes men like Charles Sheehan-Miles http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/index.cfm?Page=Article&ID=1810 whom you may have seen on several Iraq-war 1 documentaries, that became disgusted over routing and massacring the enemy. An enemy which subsequently murdered civilians.

At any rate, in my cousins book, he says he enjoyed killing VC and NVA. He virtually single-handedly took out an NVA mortar platoon, overcoming risk-averse bureaucratic hindrances and at great personal risk. American artillery took an hour to attack targets he designated. He was able to work with the RSVA to put metal on target in under 3 minutes, before NVA 120mm hit his position.

Yet he says anyone that would want to be in combat is insane, and describes some pretty gory events. He ridicules the risks that got others killed, while describing how he didn't shirk the same risks, so his men would be encouraged by his example.

And he says, he couldn't believe his own officers would sacrifice their countrymen for their careers. He stayed in the military another 10 years after Vietnam.

One thing I would like to ask him, if I could (its probably well for my health I can't) is how he could fight, kill other human beings, for officers and a nation that violated the principles he was fighting for. He makes repeated reference to being professional soldier, and discusses how men show their true character when away from their friends and church. And when their lives are in danger, social class, rank and authority are no longer strong motivator. Only a man's courage, self-esteem and character motivate him to fulfill his duty and accomplish a mission, rather than hiding or passing the buck.

Its ironic. After reading a chapter in Peikoff's OMPAR, where he describes how Eichmann, when on trial for Nazi atrocities years after the war in Israel, stated he regretted showing mercy to Jews on two occasion. The Nazi culture had so conditioned him to doing his altruistic duty to his race, and repressing his individual heartfelt sentiments and reason, he repeatedly suppressed an urge to be merciful.

It seemed unjust to condemn dutiful professional soldiers, when the society and philosophy were responsible for making them.

But that is the standard of Nuremberg - you are expected to know better, know good from evil. Americans aren't suppose to be so self-less the violate our constitution. Yet half of a recent class said they would obey orders to confiscate weapons.

I suppose some people are called to fight the enemy, and others their own sick system.

Scott

Post 44

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 11:00pm

Scott, whether one enjoys or not the killing, the fact remains that a soldier is required to kill. Anyone who joins the military expecting a dance-off is living in a Sondheim universe (no, wait, they kill in that one, too.)

I believe Charles Sheehan-Miles is the soldier in question, yes.

Post 45

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 11:02pm

Michael,

In essence I agree.

But to me being objective means perceiving the entire (or most of the) context of your actions - so that you can judge when it is most profitable for you to risk your life. And in many jobs in the military (generally the lower ranked ones) that just isn't possible - mainly because you risk your life every minute of every patrol, every sentry-duty you stand, every assault you participate in, every door-way or street you travel through. To the extent that you continue to function you have to believe that you life is being put at risk because that is the best way to attain the ultimate goal. And without knowledge your belief is going to be based on faith in the ability and intentions of your leaders - both civilian and military.

"They use their reason within the confines of their context."

I'd disagree a little there.

In the case of the average soldier most talk about having their training & soldierly instincts kick in - rather than reasoning things out. Many a soldier will stick around in a battle simply because their mates are there and are fighting and they can't bear the thought of letting their friends down - another benefit of the "don't let the team down" mantra.

"Can you imagine something like surgical bombing based solely on emotions"

No but airmen are slightly more removed from the violence than a soldier - they don't see, hear and smell the people they kill. A sailor - depending on his job, may not even fire a weapon while helping his ship to fight. That degree of separation can allow you a little more time to think clearly, as can distance from the battle that is afforded to Colonels and Generals.

Many soldiers who win medals do what they did in out of sudden anger or fear.

When Charles Upham first went into combat - to win his first VC he did so in a blind rage because the German Paratroopers he was attacking were killing his friends. He won a second VC when in a similar mood (as far as I could tell) - he single-handedly charged a tank and a lorry full of infantry and destroying them both with hand grenades and a revolver.

You can't tell me that taking on twenty armed men, and a tank armed with two machine-guns and a 75mm artillery piece while you yourself are armed only with a dozen hand-grenades and a six-shot Webbly revolver is the result of crystal clear thinking...

(Edited by Robert Winefield on 9/28, 11:25pm)

Post 46

Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 12:09am

Robert,

The context I mentioned is belonging to an organization where immediate performance of an order according to a strictly defined hierarchy is a requirement, even if it means risking your own life.

When a person joins the armed forces, he/she knows that this is the context. Independent thinking outside the goals and objectives set by superiors weakens the effectiveness of the organization qua military unit.

Within the confines of that context, most all soldiers I have met are extremely objective, going so far as to consciously acknowledge their special context. Closeness to actual blood has very little to do with their objectivity. They also change their behavior drastically when they are not longer in that context.

If you mean by "objective" a private making a call that is the responsibility of a general, then no, soldiers cannot be objective. Anyway, philosopher soldiers get themselves and others killed fairly easily.

One last point. Exceptional acts of highly-charged bravery (or lunacy from another perspective) do not invalidate the general "objective soldier" observation. Exceptions are precisely that. Exceptions.

Michael

Post 47

Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 12:18am

Robert,

You said:

"Many a soldier will stick around in a battle simply because their mates are there and are fighting and they can't bear the thought of letting their friends down - another benefit of the "don't let the team down" mantra."

In the context of war, comrades are the only thing lovable in a malevolent universe. Most often there isn't anything more worthy to fight or die for. That is the main reason I hear that soldiers fight, their buddies on the battle-field. Not king, nor country, nor creed.

"In the case of the average soldier most talk about having their training & soldierly instincts kick in - rather than reasoning things out."

Indeed! Muscle-memory (2000 repititions) and focus rather than panic saves your ass, whether you're a grunt getting a drop on the enemy in a gun-fight, or a radar-operator calculating the coordinates of a shell headed for your bunker to transmit to a counter-battery artillery, or a pilot guiding an aircraft through flack to deliver ordinance.

Reflex trumps Reflection (thought)! The "fog of battle" is terror, ambiguity and chaos. But that goes to show ya, integrate good information into reflexes!

My cousin, a radar technician, needed and used his mental faculties to survive and vanquish the NVA during his tour in Vietnam. He wasn't a mindless, marching spinal-cord. I doubt this countries politicians, professors and journalist that dishonored him deserved his sacrifice!

Here's an excerpt, and a review of my cousins book, an account of rationality in a context of corrupt insanity:

http://www.swanassoc.com/1stradiobn/stories_fsb_fuller.htm#ragsdale
http://www.bookreviewcafe.com/ben-hai.php

Post 48

Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 1:00am

When I was young, around 12, I can remember shooting birds in the back-yard of my uncles house. He was a WW2 veteran, with a metal-plate in his skull from shrapnel taken in Italy. I liked to shoot birds with my BB-gun. They were moving (potentialy moving), not stagnant targets. He, in so many words, discouraged me. Didn't quite understand then, but I do now, and don't kill insects that don't merit killing.

When I said my cousin enjoyed killing, understand he saw what the VC and the NVA did to terrorize the South Vietnamese. He talks of RSVA soldiers who's families mere massacred in Hue, & Tet. There was damn good cause to hate communist, and cult terrorism.

Yes, its one thing to enjoy the thrill of hunting, being hunted and killing. Its another to know what you're fighting for is worth your life, since your going to die anyways, its an honor to give (more or less) what you can't keep for what could in no other way be achieved. Freedom!

The importance of initiative and integrity in combat:

"I could not believe that after the Fuller LZ had taken at least three direct hits with the 120-mm. mortars and was totally zeroed in by the enemy that some �higher� would execute or direct any helicopter to even approach the LZ. It was insane, and I still wonder if the �highers� had knowledge of the fact that the next bird to land would surely be lost. As I looked over at this sergeant and made my statement about the pending loss of the CH-47 I had no sooner turned my head towards the bunker door then I heard a loud thud then a high pitched whining. The CH-47 had been hit in the air while hovering over the LZ and immediately crashed onto the landing zone and started to burn.

This was to be the first of two CH-47s that I was to see go down on or around FSB Fuller, but this was totally preventable and to this day I do not understand how we could have allowed this to happen. I understand that the �highers� had given their orders, but was there any input by the people on the LZ? Were the leaders on the ground just following orders to protect their careers? Was �Loyalty� such an overriding aspect of our leadership model that we were simply too conditioned to think for ourselves? I�ll never know and will never understand how we could have been so narrow and displayed a total lack of initiative during this action and so many others to follow.

First Loss and �Arc Light�

After five days of the worst hell you can imagine, I was able to get the radar operational.
...
When I got the radar operational I had selected two possible scan areas. The Q-4 radar had a 445 mil scan area out of a possible 6,400 mills, so you needed some indication of where the enemy weapon might be
...
you had about a 1-in-15 chance of selecting the right area to scan, experience, good map work, and knowing something about enemy weapons could quickly eliminate your guess work
...
I should mention that prior to my assignment to FSB Fuller I had taken a couple of steps that proved invaluable in the coming battle.
...
Dong Ha, and being a rather large base they had a library. As I had not learned anything about my enemy or his weapons from my training at the Field Artillery School at Fort Sill, Oklahoma prior to going to Vietnam, I looked up information on enemy rockets and mortars. I made a list and shared it with the other counterbattery warrants of F Battery, and used it to develop my rocket counterbattery plans
...
We thought of the now while our enemy thought of the end results. I do not think American leadership even understands that today, so we are probably doomed to repeat these mistakes in any future conflict.
...
When the enemy fired I did not see the rounds coming nor was I aware that they had fired until their first rounds impacted FSB Fuller. Once the engagement started and I saw no mortar rounds enter the radar screen, I did not loose my composure although this was a major cause of counterbattery failure due to the fact that most people �loose it� once they come under this type fire. I calmly slew the radar to my secondary azimuth and instantly located the mortar tube. Although this was my first mortar location it was frankly easier than dealing with the rockets as the echo on the radar console screen was a single dot, not an elongated blob as were the rocket radar returns. Instantly I made the location. According to my research after the war the weapon was location at YD 985632 or YD 980627 depending on which after-action report your read; however, the weapon was located in that vicinity and the date of my first 120-mm. mortar kill was 18 April 1970.
...
It took the enemy mortar rounds exactly thirteen (13) seconds from the time they appeared on the lower radar beam until they impacted our position; it took me only six (6) seconds to call in the fire mission. Therefore, I had the opportunity to kill the mortar crew that was about to kill me. So � even before their round hit the ground if we could get fire on their position they were dead, the way it should be.

It was not to happen this day. Once I called in the fire mission, I was told after some delay, ��that the �highers� would take care of this�� or words to that effect. What? I have this guy cold, set for the kill, and the 108th Group (call sign �1-2�), would not fire a mission. I went crazy with rage. I just could not believe it! After all this hell and with our lives on the line, the �highers� would not fire this mission. Unbelievable!

I do not remember how long afterwards this happened, but it appeared that what the �highers� did was redirect an �Arc Light� (B-52 strike) to the mortar location. These massive air strikes consisted of three B-52s each carrying about one hundred (100) five hundred-pound bombs. Their area targets were about one kilometer wide and three kilometers long. Although very impressive the bombs could fall some distance apart and on this day they were tragically totally ineffective. As the 500 pound bombs started to impact the ground, clouds of dust formed that seemed to reach to the top of the sky. One would look at these strikes and think that nothing could possibility live through this; however, reality is something different. I could see the bombs impacting the ground on the radar screen and as they approached and passed over the mortar location the NVA mortar crew recovered, even as the bombs were still falling, and fired two rounds at us. I could see nothing. The dust and debris from the �Arc Light� had effectively rendered the radar completely ineffective. It had in fact produced the best radar counter-measure possible, dust particles in the air, which reflected the radar beam and appeared on the radar screen as ground clutter.
I guess that was the day I lost all respect for our leadership. Although some of the finest men I have ever met were officers in the U. S. Army, such as the senior advisor of the Ben Hai ARVN, today I give up hope of winning this battle or surviving with their help. For the first time I fully understood that I was completely alone and it was up to me to see myself through this and in order to survive I had to work around the operational bullshit of our leaders. To me they were worthless and generally incompetent as hell.

It was to be another five days until I could get the radar and generator repaired. I needed data cables, power cables and a fuel line for the generator. So � on went the nightmare! Of course once I had the radar repaired, the same day I received the repair parts, I was able to provide protection for FSB Fuller and after this mortar was destroyed the immediate danger had passed. However, having made the initial mortar location and after the �Arc Light�, we were able to bring enough firepower into the initial weapons location that I felt assured this mortar and crew were destroyed. There was to be no more incoming or casualties until after I had rotated from FSB Fuller. Although I am not sure of the exact date, I think about the 29th April 1970, soon after I rotated off Fuller the NVA had another 120-mm. mortar in place and the 5th Mech (D 1/11) was soon to leave FSB Fuller while under 120-mm. mortar fire. The NVA were back in business again.

[The Horror, the horror!]

Scott

Post 49

Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 4:05am

In response to the 'duck and cover' portion of this thread, maybe I should mention that military training 'teaches' you a method for surviving a nuclear blast. This involves curling into a ball with your back facing the blast, preferably against a solid object.

I always thought that they told you this so that you couldn't actually see the blast coming if you had actual foreknoweldge of the event. But then again, when your body turns to ash, I suppose it doesn't make much difference if you panicked or not.

Post 50

Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 4:13am

Joe Maurone,

The head shaving, as was later explained by my drill sergeant, is just one of the many practices used by the Training and Doctrine Command, or TRADOC, to break you down psychologically. In essence, it does 'make' you all equal, just as wearing the same uniform, making your bed the same way, marching in step, etc.

I should point out that those who train soldiers are far from altruistic. They do their work for very selfish reasons, like promotion and not wanting to get killed because the private next to them is cowering behind a tree.

Post 51

Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 5:52am

Jody and Gary,

On behalf of my father and brother, thanks.

Joe and Scott re head-shaving,

It's not all that mysterious. First of all, it's a buzz cut. Second, a buzz cut is the quickest way to give a large group of recruits a haircut that is military regulation. Before most guys are out of basic training their hair has already grown out and have to go back for regular haircuts once or twice. By the end of basic, everybody's gotten a different head of hair again if my brother's boot camp group photo is anything to go by. No indoctrination involved. Just practical considerations in prepping a recruit for the service.

Joe re sheep,

You cannot honestly believe only a weak-willed person joins the military. All you need is an acquaintance with a few people who have served to know that's not true. I'm a little puzzled by your comment, because you've struck me as a fair-minded person.

John,

I agree that those here who question whether service in the military, especially as it is presently constituted, is consistent with Objectivism would be prudent to restrain their disdain for servicemen if they have no military experience themselves. However, the facts of military culture are readily available to anyone, so I disagree that military experience is necessary to have an informed opinion on the subject.

Landon and Scott,

You've made interesting comments in response to me that deserve more attention. I will do so later.

Andy

Post 52

Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 6:04am

Robert Winefield:

You can't tell me that taking on twenty armed men, and a tank armed with two machine-guns and a 75mm artillery piece while you yourself are armed only with a dozen hand-grenades and a six-shot Webbly revolver is the result of crystal clear thinking...

Clear thinking? Probably not, but I'll tell you that Charles Upham had balls.

Post 53

Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 6:18am

Andy, you wrote :"You cannot honestly believe only a weak-willed person joins the military."

I don't, and I've clarified my sentence to fit the next sentence ("I'm thinking of those..."). Sorry for the confusion. It was sloppily written.

Post 54

Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 6:23am

Robert W:

You can't tell me that taking on twenty armed men, and a tank armed with two machine-guns and a 75mm artillery piece while you yourself are armed only with a dozen hand-grenades and a six-shot Webbly revolver is the result of crystal clear thinking...

Matthew:

Clear thinking? Probably not, but I'll tell you that Charles Upham had balls.

Gentlemen,

Some acts of courage are reckless and with only luck does the hero survive. But I believe if you read carefully accounts of battlefield heroism, you cannot get around the fact that the hero usually has made a deadly accurate tactical assessment of the situation and then translated that into action often in coordination with others. And all of this is done with lightning speed. This is the epitome of clear thinking under adverse conditions.

Andy

P.S. Robert, your post was interesting. While technology is slowing lifting the fog of war for the individual soldier, I don't see how the current restraints preclude him from acting rationally upon the limited information available to him. He may make mistakes because of ignorance, but those mistakes are not necessarily irrational.

Post 55

Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 7:03am

I was in the Army from 1970-1973. Things may be different now, but I doubt it. I won't address the question as to whether the purpose of the military is consistent with Objectivist principles. I think this question has been answered. But I will say a few things about the military lifestyle and its compatibility with Objectivism.

Andy says about head shaving:

It's not all that mysterious. First of all, it's a buzz cut. Second, a buzz cut is the quickest way to give a large group of recruits a haircut that is military regulation.

If that were true, then anyone showing up for basic training with a regulation haircut wouldn't need one. But, it doesn't work that way. Everyone gets one. Joe Idoni had it partly right when he said that part of the purpose is "to break you down psychologically". Another reason is hygiene.

Almost everything done in basic training ( and after, for that matter) is designed to take away your individuality. You wear what everyone else wears (that's why it's called a uniform), you eat when everyone else eats, you get up when everyone else does, etc. No part of your external life is your own. Even the marching is collective activity. What aspect of combat requires the ability to march in step on a parade ground with everyone else? It has about as much value as synchronized swimming.

To make this indoctrination easier, they randomly wake you in the night to assemble outside in uniform. They say that this is to prepare you for what it will be like if you go into combat. In fact, this is the justification for much of what they do. But, this is disingenuous. They can't prepare you for that in 8 weeks of basic training and 8 weeks of infantry training. We were told that the Army psychologists had determined that the average soldier only needed 3 hours of sleep a night, and that they didn't have to be consecutive hours. The only good I got out of basic training was losing 25 pounds in 8 weeks. So, if you're looking for an effective diet, I suggest a lot of physical exercise, little sleep, and lousy food in small quantities.

When you join the Army, you give up some of your constitutionally guaranteed rights. You are told this up front, before you are sworn in. For example, any soldier caught participating in a peace demonstration was subject to court marshall. Once in the Army, you are government property in the literal sense. A fellow soldier got sunburned while on leave and was unable to perform his duties. He was court marshalled for "damage to government property".

Finally, I have to comment on Joe Idoni's remark:

In response to the 'duck and cover' portion of this thread, maybe I should mention that military training 'teaches' you a method for surviving a nuclear blast. This involves curling into a ball with your back facing the blast, preferably against a solid object.

You forgot the most important part, Joe. After curling into a ball, you put your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye.
Thanks,
Glenn
P.S. Joe Maurone asked about Byron Garcia. His unit was deployed to Iraq in May.

(Edited by Glenn Fletcher on 9/29, 7:18am)

Post 56

Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 7:38am

Andy

"But I believe if you read carefully accounts of battlefield heroism, you cannot get around the fact that the hero usually�has made a deadly accurate tactical assessment of the situation and then translated that into action often in coordination with others.� And all of this is done with lightning speed.� This is the epitome of clear thinking under adverse conditions."

Perhaps - but then we only hear about the blokes who succeeded don't we?

II was trying to point out was that as technology improves not only is combat more deadly, but the impetus on the individual soldier showing his initiative has also increased - and armies, especially the US and UK armies are trying to give each soldier as much information as possible to help that along.

To that end I�agree and accept�Micheal's and Andy's points that - within the context of their little part of the war - you can be and act rationally or objectively or however you want to put it.

However on the grander scale, the soldier and his comrades is forced by the structure of the organisation he is in to obey his orders and trust - essentially on faith - that his superiors will do everything they can to attack with maximum effect and minimum casualties. Yes, a soldier is permitted to disobey an�immoral order - but those don't include the�orders that initiate actions which are obviously futile and suicidal or both. The integrity of the command structure of the military is fiercely defended; mutiny and you face execution.

There are many instances where soldiers knew that�an attack was futile and attacked anyway (Somme 2 & 3, Ypres 2 & 3, Cassino, Hurtgen Forest etc.) Before Grant ordered the assault on the Confederate positions around Cold Habor, many of Grant's men went so far as to sew name tags onto the backs of their uniforms so that they might be buried in marked graves. And yet when the order came they went over the top and 7,000 of them never returned.

Going ahead with something you know is will fail and lead to your death and that your sacrifice will be worthless is not rational IMHO.

Fortunately, the current British and American armies have excellent officers and generals and I doubt that todays soldiers will be treated as shabbily as they were in WWI etc. Nevertheless, the integrity of the command structure will still be fiercely defended.
(Edited by Robert Winefield
on 9/29, 10:52am)

Post 57

Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 8:28am

Denigration of duck-and-cover is based on ignorance of how a nuclear blast kills. Typically, you hear someone say: What�s the point of curling up into a ball if you�ll be vaporized?

Very few of the deaths from a nuclear blast are from the fireball. The vast majority of the death and destruction is caused far away from the fireball, by the blast. There is nothing �nuclear� about this blast; it�s just a high-pressure wave, indistinguishable from a pressure wave caused by a conventional bomb. There is no radioactivity in this wave.

If you are far away from the explosion it will do no more than blow out the windows and take the chandelier and some ceiling down. You will have ample time from seeing the flash (the whole sky, and the inside of your house, will go sun-bright) until the wave arrives, to get away from the windows and next to something sturdy. Doing so really can save your life. Next, go outside and observe the direction the wind is carrying the cloud. Walk 90 degrees away from that vector.

Jon

Post 58

Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 8:42am

Ahh - so you have a copy of Bruce Clayton's book too...

Post 59

Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 9:40am