FM 3-27.75 The Warrior Ethos and Soldier Combat Skills

[Jedburgh]

FM 3-27.75 The Warrior Ethos and Soldier Combat Skills (http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-21-75.pdf), 28 January 2008

(316 page 28 Mb pdf)

Earlier versions for comparison:

FM 21-75 Combat Skills of the Soldier (http://www.operationalmedicine.org/Army/Milmed/fm21_75.pdf), 3 August 1984

(249 page 13.4 Mb pdf)

FM 21-75 Combat Training of the Soldier and Patrolling, 10 July 1967

(No soft copy available)

[Ken White]

not bad. A personal dislike of mine is this 'warrior' BS but I suppose we're stuck with it. :wry:

Hopefully they'll issue one to every troopy -- I used to go wild trying to scuff one per man, made 'em read it and made leaders test on it. that, of course, was an somewhat earlier version... ;)

[Jedburgh]

-- I used to go wild trying to scuff one per man, made 'em read it and made leaders test on it. that, of course, was an somewhat earlier version... ;)
Ken - this may be the version you're referring to: Provisional Infantry Training Manual - August 1918 (http://www.archive.org/download/provisionalinfan00unitrich/provisionalinfan00unitrich.pdf)

:D

[Ken White]

remedy attached... ;)

[MattC86]

not bad. A personal dislike of mine is this 'warrior' BS but I suppose we're stuck with it. :wry:

Hopefully they'll issue one to every troopy -- I used to go wild trying to scuff one per man, made 'em read it and made leaders test on it. that, of course, was an somewhat earlier version... ;)

Ken,

Interested in to why you dislike the "warrior" moniker so much, though I agree we are stuck with it, for better or worse.

Although I'm not currently in the military (nor have been) and you were, I feel like using the term is a good way to foster the proper mentality among personnel. They're not just [fill-in-the-blank-with-MOS], they're the inheritors of a long and proud lineage in the profession of arms. Not that soldiers or Marines view it that way, but it seems at the very least to be a harmless way of reminding personnel of what their profession truly entails. . .

. . .from the perspective of a civilian student, anyway. . .

Matt

[Steve Blair]

I gotta go with Ken on this one. It's one of those words that's being bandied about so much that it's quickly losing any special meaning or worth (hero is another one...but that's a rant for a different time).

Not everyone in the service is a "warrior," nor should they be. I'd rather have a competent maintainer who doesn't starch his uniform than a pumped-up "hooah!" maintainer who spent so much time getting his run time into "warrior" shape that he doesn't know how to do his real job properly.

[Rifleman]

I still have my old FM 21-75. I thought it was the most useful FM I had.

FM 27-75 looks good overall but I noticed that the new 27-75 eliminated the combat tracking instruction that was in Appendix E of the old 21-75. That's too bad; although it was very basic instruction I thought it was a good introduction to the subject.

At the very least it served to make the reader track aware/track conscious, which most soldiers in my day were not.

[Ken White]

Ken,
Interested in to why you dislike the "warrior" moniker so much, though I agree we are stuck with it, for better or worse.
...
Matt

Warrior -- a man engaged or experienced in warfare; broadly : a person engaged in some struggle or conflict.

Soldier -- a: one engaged in military service and especially in the army b: an enlisted man or woman c: a skilled warrior.

Simply, a warrior is anyone who fights, a soldier (or Marine) is one who is trained, disciplined and, hopefully, skilled in fighting. Thus he's more than a warrior. Much more, IMO.

Basically, warriors aren't professional, soldiers are.

A good pro can whip a good amateur any day of the week. ;)

[Rifleman]

Warrior -- a man engaged or experienced in warfare; broadly : a person engaged in some struggle or conflict.

Soldier -- a: one engaged in military service and especially in the army b: an enlisted man or woman c: a skilled warrior.

Simply, a warrior is anyone who fights, a soldier (or Marine) is one who is trained, disciplined and, hopefully, skilled in fighting. Thus he's more than a warrior. Much more, IMO.

Basically, warriors aren't professional, soldiers are.

A good pro can whip a good amateur any day of the week. ;)

Good one, Ken. What you said reminds me of the opening scene in Gladiator. The Germanic tribes may have been "warriors" but at the end of the fight the field was in the hands of disciplined, skilled Roman soldiers.

[Gian P Gentile]

Ken:

You are spot-on with the "warrior" as title critique.

There was an oped in the Washington Post (I think) last year by a serving soldier who pointed out that the term "warrior" contributed to the divide in America between the civilian and the military in that it had an elitist almost intentionally separatist connotation.

Like you I am probably old fashioned and simple minded about such things. If i was at a dinner party at my sister's house in El Cerrito California (right next to Berkeley) I would be proud and comfortable to tell people I am a soldier; saying I am a "warrior" however would make me squeamish and uncomfortable.

So why then does our army continue to use such a misguided word? I don’t think the marines call themselves warriors, "just" marines. So why can’t we be just "soldiers?"

[marct]

Hi Gian,


So why then does our army continue to use such a misguided word? I don’t think the marines call themselves warriors, "just" marines. So why can’t we be just "soldiers?"

I suspect that it has to do with cultural valorization. For the past 30-40 years in the US, we have seen an upsurge in "wars" - the "war" on poverty, the "war" on drugs, etc. We have also seen a growing spread of what could be called neo-tribalization - think of the rise and spread of street gangs as an example.

There's another problem as well, and that is that here is another category of "fighter", outside of "warrior" and "soldier"; and I don't mean "mercenary" ;). Warriors are, historically, embedded in their tribes while "soldiers" as a group should be split into two separate terms; maybe "citizen-soldier" and "soldier". The difference is in a) motivations and b) attachment to the society. Citizen soldiers serve because it is their duty as citizens to do so - they are strongly attached to their society and, in general, the reverse is true - their identity is based around being citizens. The other category of "Soldiers" (and if anyone can come up with a better term please do!) tend not to be attached to their society and derive their identity much more from being part of a military organization rather than from their society as a whole.

Historically, democracies and republics have tended to start with citizen soldiers and gradually move towards the second form as citizens figure out that they can use their votes to escape from social responsibility (look at Rome as an excellent example of this). Obviously, it's not an absolute either-or situation - more of a frequency distribution. One other point; the final tipping point in a society is when the formal social organization of the society uses the second form of soldier to control the first, usually via an entrenched bureaucracy (e.g. Byzantium post-Basil II).

Back to "warriors" for a second - the term is often used as a recruiting device for the second type of "soldier" (e.g. Byzantium) since it relies on a "romantic" view held by neo-tribal organizations within the society that have little strong attachment to that society. Check out Michael Psellus' Fourteen Byzantine Rulers (http://books.google.ca/books?id=PmGH2WbRqCUC&dq=Michael+Psellus&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enCA228CA230&q=%22michael+psellus%22&btnG=Search&sa=X&oi=print&ct=result&cd=2&cad=author-navigational) (Chronographia) for an example of this dynamic.

[slapout9]

The other category of "Soldiers" (and if anyone can come up with a better term please do!)


Paratroopers!!!!:D:D

[Ken White]

"...The other category of "Soldiers" (and if anyone can come up with a better term please do!) tend not to be attached to their society and derive their identity much more from being part of a military organization rather than from their society as a whole."Because most of 'em consider the Army as a society and themselves as being different and in a military organization... :D

[marct]

Because most of 'em consider the Army as a society and themselves as being different and in a military organization... :D

Too true. My only worry is when the detachment becomes "normal". When citizenship no longer requires defense of the society and the defense of that society is in the hands of people who have no vested interest in that society...

[J Wolfsberger]

Too true. My only worry is when the detachment becomes "normal". When citizenship no longer requires defense of the society and the defense of that society is in the hands of people who have no vested interest in that society...

For example, if the Armed Forces of France consisted solely of the Foreign Legion. (Let's all refrain from the too obvious comments.;))

The problem of (Marc, I hope I phrase this properly) lack of aggregation of the military with society at large goes back to the earliest days of the United States. It has become an immense issue in recent years, I think largely because of the undue influence of academic "intelligencia," with it contempt for the mililtary (and the United States). For example, can anyone imagine an elite university in this country offering John Keegan any sort of position?

"Warriors fight, soldiers fight together." In either case, they are either products of the society they fight for, or that society is in trouble.

[marct]

Hi JW,


For example, if the Armed Forces of France consisted solely of the Foreign Legion. (Let's all refrain from the too obvious comments.;))

:D Actually, I was thinking of Byzantium post-Manzikert, but ...


The problem of (Marc, I hope I phrase this properly) lack of aggregation of the military with society at large goes back to the earliest days of the United States. It has become an immense issue in recent years, I think largely because of the undue influence of academic "intelligencia," with it contempt for the mililtary (and the United States). For example, can anyone imagine an elite university in this country offering John Keegan any sort of position?

I think the anti-war rhetoric certainly played a part in the current situation, but I don't think it is causal - more of a symptom that a source as it were. I think the problem is tied more closely into a shift in the military-economic system. Basically, if we look at the development of industrialization, we can actually track most of the social organization as coming out of the military revolution of Maurice of Nassau; i.e. standardization, assembly line production, time-motion efficiency, etc. This gets adopted (co-opted?) during the early industrial revolution as the basis for the factory production system and then worked back into the military post-F.W. Taylor.

Meanwhile, as Stan would say ;), "Sierra happens" and the military undergoes major shifts. Up to the present, and we have a system designed by engineers that is increasingly divergent from the society. Don't like your job? Leave and get another one. Don't like your family? The same. Increasingly, "community" is being divorced from physical location and identity is being divorced from citizenship (one of the effects of globalization amongst many) and I think that this is where a lot of the intelligentsia are playing a part. As I note, I really don't want to get started on that rant :D.


"Warriors fight, soldiers fight together." In either case, they are either products of the society they fight for, or that society is in trouble.

Yup.

[Tom Odom]

(Let's all refrain from the too obvious comments.)

Restraint? Moi? :D

[Ken White]

One of the few benefits of being old is that most things have been seen before and therefor one realizes that many worries are misplaced. In the 1930s when I was a kid, the people in the Armed Forces were virtual oddities to most Americans. The two societies were quite distinct and had little in common on the surface -- yet, those serving came from that greater civil society and reflected it quite well. WW II of course changed that -- not necessarily forever...

I think JW is correct in ascribing some of the current angst on that score to the ascendancy in Academia of the anti-everything crowd from the 60s; most of them do not understand the Beast and it therefor worries them; all they know is that they don't like what it is or does...

They have transmitted that worry to the ever larger population of tertiary students. It has always fascinated me that coterie is first to call for some form of citizen service -- explicitly including the military for some -- but themselves would (did?) go to great lengths to avoid such service. Most would go to equally great lengths to insure that if their children had to serve, it would not be in uniform. I think there's some incongruity there...

In any event, JW is correct when he notes that a civilian - military disconnect is the norm in the US. I served during a period when one could wear a uniform anywhere and also later when one was ill advised to wear that uniform away from the base or post. I've been insulted, had things thrown at me and been subjected to petty tirades by ill-informed people half way around the world and back. No big thing, one simply considers the source and moves on. Yet, in all that time and since, the Armed forces of the US were and are today nothing more or less than a broad reflection of the society from which they spring -- with the minor exception of the presumed elite other than in exceptional cases.

Thus I think that your statement
"...When citizenship no longer requires defense of the society and the defense of that society is in the hands of people who have no vested interest in that society...reverses the problem; it seems to me we should be worried when the defense of the society is in the hands of people who have a very strongly vested interest in that society -- because in any democracy it is after all their society, is from where they come and is the home of their friends and relatives and is the place to which most will return (and that is emphatically the case now) -- but that society has little or no real interest in they who would defend it.

[marct]

Hi Ken,


Thus I think that your statement reverses the problem; it seems to me we should be worried when the defense of the society is in the hands of people who have a very strongly vested interest in that society -- because in any democracy it is after all their society, is from where they come and is the home of their friends and relatives and is the place to which most will return (and that is emphatically the case now) -- but that society has little or no real interest in they who would defend it.

Hmm, could be. I keep thinking back to my family history when it was socially de rigeur for all gentlemen to hold commissions (at least in Colonial society). One of those little cultural differences between the US and Canada :wry:.

[Ken White]

...Hmm, could be. I keep thinking back to my family history when it was socially de rigeur for all gentlemen to hold commissions (at least in Colonial society). One of those little cultural differences between the US and Canada :wry:.the model a little earlier. I think the Civil War curtailed a lot of interest in things military... :eek:

In the case of the US, I will NOT call that earlier maturity... :D

In any event, WW II and the subsequent failure of that 'Greatest Generation' worldwide to raise their kids as they had been raised -- fairly well, in most cases -- due to the siren call of Dr. Spock destroyed way too many societal norms in the sixties. Never to return...

Some good and some bad in that. :wry:

[selil]

Hi Ken,
Hmm, could be. I keep thinking back to my family history when it was socially de rigeur for all gentlemen to hold commissions (at least in Colonial society). One of those little cultural differences between the US and Canada :wry:.

I've been thinking back on my family history. Dad was Army chasing around 1962 Vietnam. But, what has me thinking about family is my uncle (married to my dads older sister) who recently died. He was supposedly awarded the bronze star twice by Macarthur, and I wonder what he'd think about todays soldiers. My cousins are all in law enforcement of some variety. His OBIT is here (http://www.legacy.com/TDN/DeathNotices.asp?Page=LifeStory&PersonId=101298153).

I have no way to support the assertion, but I think that family history has much more to do with a person choosing the military in the future.

My other uncle (mom's brother) was at the Berlin airlift and after that was (the way he tells it) stationed in a French cat house for the rest of his enlistment.

My own history is less than stellar. My only claim to fame is that I went through Army basic training, and Marine Corps boot camp within 13 months of each other. I'm not to smart. Now at my ripe age I REALLY want to do OCS or Basic School at Quantico but the price is a bit steep to get in.

History can be infectious. I'm sure there has to be a vaccine.

[Ken White]

...
I have no way to support the assertion, but I think that family history has much more to do with a person choosing the military in the future.
. . .
...My only claim to fame is that I went through Army basic training, and Marine Corps boot camp within 13 months of each other...

History can be infectious. I'm sure there has to be a vaccine.

Heh, I reversed the order over a longer period -- and my order was the way to go. The Corps insists EVERYONE go to boot camp; when I went in the Army, I only got two weeks of 'Refresher Training' in lieu of Basic and AIT since I'd been in the Corps. That 'refresher' consisted of pulling details, going through the Gas Chamber (?) and signing a plethora of forms wherein I attested I had received this or that training. And pulling details -- did I mention that? ;)

I agree with you on the family history element. I've also become pretty well convinced there's a genetic impact. Some people object to violence, some can tolerate it. At one pole you have those who will never perform a violent act no matter the provocation; at the other there those that love violence for its own sake. Fortunately, there are very, very few of either.

Most of us are on a continuum between the two poles. I think about half are disposed toward non-violence and half can accept it without flinching and I'm convinced that's a genetic imprint. I do not deny for a second that there can be and are environmental impactors that skew that in all directions but watching a lot of societies around the world in and out of wars over a bunch of years has left me pretty well convinced that the genes are paramount and the environmental factor is secondary.

That would play with your family history theory, that is, some families would be more disposed to a military hitch or career than would others -- with the aforementioned environmental impacts thrown in for the many variations.

[slapout9]

Somebody say somehting about a Warrior? The Warrior by Scandal


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC-BWHAiYYA&feature=related

[wm]

I agree with you on the family history element. I've also become pretty well convinced there's a genetic impact. Some people object to violence, some can tolerate it. At one pole you have those who will never perform a violent act no matter the provocation; at the other there those that love violence for its own sake. Fortunately, there are very, very few of either.

Most of us are on a continuum between the two poles. I think about half are disposed toward non-violence and half can accept it without flinching and I'm convinced that's a genetic imprint. I do not deny for a second that there can be and are environmental impactors that skew that in all directions but watching a lot of societies around the world in and out of wars over a bunch of years has left me pretty well convinced that the genes are paramount and the environmental factor is secondary.

That would play with your family history theory, that is, some families would be more disposed to a military hitch or career than would others -- with the aforementioned environmental impacts thrown in for the many variations.

I suspect that much of the "family history" element is due to familiarity with the institution. In other words, if one's parent or other close relative of the parent's generation served for more than a single term, a kid is more likely to join up. Folks who have no experience with the military are probably much less likely to visit a recruiter. And, as a corollary, I suspect that the branch of service one selects is directly related to that in which you forebears served, in most cases. I think that the draft of the 50's and 60's was a leveler that caused folks, who would otherwise never have had any contact with things military, to become somewhat familar with the services. However, I also think that the ability to "duck the draft" was directly related to one's family's socio-economic status, which helps to explain why so many "upper class" Americans (who, btw. happen to be those who are the "academic thought leaders" as well)today havenb't a clue about miltary affairs.

[Steve Blair]

I suspect that much of the "family history" element is due to familiarity with the institution. In other words, if one's parent or other close relative of the parent's generation served for more than a single term, a kid is more likely to join up. Folks who have no experience with the military are probably much less likely to visit a recruiter. And, as a corollary, I suspect that the branch of service one selects is directly related to that in which you forebears served, in most cases. I think that the draft of the 50's and 60's was a leveler that caused folks, who would otherwise never have had any contact with things military, to become somewhat familar with the services. However, I also think that the ability to "duck the draft" was directly related to one's family's socio-economic status, which helps to explain why so many "upper class" Americans (who, btw. happen to be those who are the "academic thought leaders" as well)today havenb't a clue about miltary affairs.

Avoiding the draft was definitely related to socio-economic status, and I suspect that it contributed to both the ignorance of things military and to the urge to "over-credential" following generations.

[marct]

Avoiding the draft was definitely related to socio-economic status, and I suspect that it contributed to both the ignorance of things military and to the urge to "over-credential" following generations.

I'd agree with that, but why did you have to send so many of them up here :(!

Back to Ken's comment about genetics for a minute, I suspect that there is some genetic component(s?) that increases the potentiality of being involved in conflict. BTW, this is not a "gene for the military" or any such idiocy. What it probably is is a constellation of gene sequences that increase the likelihood that a person would be socially and/or culturally encouraged to join a military group.

All too often the concept of genetics is misunderstood when it is applied in a social setting. The why's and wherefores of that misunderstanding go back quite a ways and are rooted in philosophy, epistemology and politics rather than in a real understanding of genetics (which, BTW, I don't have; I know just enough about genetics to know that I don't really know anything :wry:).

[J Wolfsberger]

I'd agree with that, but why did you have to send so many of them up here :(!

And welcome to them you are.:D


Back to Ken's comment about genetics for a minute, I suspect that there is some genetic component(s?) that increases the potentiality of being involved in conflict. BTW, this is not a "gene for the military" or any such idiocy. What it probably is is a constellation of gene sequences that increase the likelihood that a person would be socially and/or culturally encouraged to join a military group.

All too often the concept of genetics is misunderstood when it is applied in a social setting. The why's and wherefores of that misunderstanding go back quite a ways and are rooted in philosophy, epistemology and politics rather than in a real understanding of genetics (which, BTW, I don't have; I know just enough about genetics to know that I don't really know anything :wry:).

I'm not sure that captures it. I believe it has to do with a sense of civic responsibility - a belief that membership in the group entails a responsibility to the group. That doesn't necessarily express itself through military service, it could also come out through the Peace Crops, volunteering for community service, foreign service, etc. However expressed, it derives from the acceptance of obligation to ones group.

Today, the "popular" attitude is that the group (the US) is fundamentally evil, but occasionally does good. And the natural consequence is a lack of any sense of civic responsibility.

[tequila]

Today, the "popular" attitude is that the group (the US) is fundamentally evil, but occasionally does good. And the natural consequence is a lack of any sense of civic responsibility.

Really. Where's the evidence of this?

[marct]

Hi JW,


I'm not sure that captures it. I believe it has to do with a sense of civic responsibility - a belief that membership in the group entails a responsibility to the group. That doesn't necessarily express itself through military service, it could also come out through the Peace Crops, volunteering for community service, foreign service, etc. However expressed, it derives from the acceptance of obligation to ones group.

I should have been clearer in my comments - I was only addressing the "genetics" side of the comment, not the cultural side. Really, this is just the old Nature-Nurture debate in a new form (I'm constantly amazed at how long this debate has been around :D).

On the cultural side, I don't disagree with you although your description could be more inclusive ;). For example, I doubt that it is a simple as pointing towards the State - it probably comes in a hierarchy of my family, my kin group, my organization, my community, my state, my country,... I think Heinlein got it right in Starship Troopers (book, not movie!).


Today, the "popular" attitude is that the group (the US) is fundamentally evil, but occasionally does good. And the natural consequence is a lack of any sense of civic responsibility.

There is some evidence to support it and some to contradict it - I suspect that the attitude is probably closer to the ideal is fine, the mechanism needs fixing and many of the people involved are _______ (fill in your own expletive to be deleted :D).

[wm]

I believe it has to do with a sense of civic responsibility - a belief that membership in the group entails a responsibility to the group. That doesn't necessarily express itself through military service, it could also come out through the Peace Crops, volunteering for community service, foreign service, etc. However expressed, it derives from the acceptance of obligation to ones group.

Today, the "popular" attitude is that the group (the US) is fundamentally evil, but occasionally does good. And the natural consequence is a lack of any sense of civic responsibility.

I suspect the group loyalty/sense of obligation issue has a lot to do with it. I know I joined the military out of a sense of "indebtedness" to the institution for the life it had afforded me (I am an Army brat).

I also think that many people who are baby boomers have a sense of entitlement, which I ascribe in part to the "social fixes" instituted as part of the New Deal. I know many folks, who did notserve in the military or any other service related organization like the Peace Corps or VISTA, feel that the government (and other institutions) "owe" them what they get. For example, I have had people tell me that driving is a right which cannot be taken from them--even though they drive drunk or have accrued too many points from driving too recklessly/dangerously--"No one's gonna tell me I have to wear a seatbelt/motorcycle helmet" captures this sentiment pretty well.

[Ken White]

...I also think that many people who are baby boomers have a sense of entitlement, which I ascribe in part to the "social fixes" instituted as part of the New Deal...

Being older than I have a right to be, I've watched it happen. In three generations we've gone from perhaps excessively independent and very self reliant to dependent. I even got to watch a short term abbreviated version when I moved to Florida. Shortly after we arrrived, so did a major hurricane, the first to hit this area in over 70 years. there was adequate warning, most folks were prepared and though damage was significant, people pitched in and helped each other and self help was the order of the day.

After most of the big work was done, FEMA finally arrived and started dispensing checks willy-nilly -- literally, they fouled up so badly they had to recall half of 'em (so much for how great FEMA was under the previous administration...).

Fast forward three years, another, not a bad one -- same scenario. Fast forward four more, yet another but this time, little was done until FEMA came in -- no self help to speak of. The next year yet another and then absolutlely nothing was done until FEMA appeared; people were screaming, "What's the government going to do about this?"

Sad.

[wm]

Being older than I have a right to be, I've watched it happen. In three generations we've gone from perhaps excessively independent and very self reliant to dependent. I even got to watch a short term abbreviated version when I moved to Florida. Shortly after we arrrived, so did a major hurricane, the first to hit this area in over 70 years. there was adequate warning, most folks were prepared and though damage was significant, people pitched in and helped each other and self help was the order of the day.

After most of the big work was done, FEMA finally arrived and started dispensing checks willy-nilly -- literally, they fouled up so badly they had to recall half of 'em (so much for how great FEMA was under the previous administration...).

Fast forward three years, another, not a bad one -- same scenario. Fast forward four more, yet another but this time, little was done until FEMA came in -- no self help to speak of. The next year yet another and then absolutlely nothing was done until FEMA appeared; people were screaming, "What's the government going to do about this?"

Sad.

You can also see its evolution in the Army recruiting campaigns from "Be all you can be" through "Am Army of One" to "Army Strong." From where I sit as an interpreters of their messages, each of these campaigns focuses more and more pointedly on the individual perspective of getting something from the institution rather than the need to work together to produce solutions/results on behalf of the institution.

[Ken White]

You can also see its evolution in the Army recruiting campaigns from "Be all you can be" through "Am Army of One" to "Army Strong." From where I sit as an interpreters of their messages, each of these campaigns focuses more and more pointedly on the individual perspective of getting something from the institution rather than the need to work together to produce solutions/results on behalf of the institution.very short sighted. You may get an extra bod or two with the 'learn a trade' route but most kids in the target age group want to be challenged (even if a lot of them don't realize it). I'd rather have 50 dedicated folks than 500 unmotivated skilled people. Most people leave the services because they're disappointed at the lack of challenge (as todays combat arms high reenlistment rates show)...

[Jones_RE]

Ken,

Would it help to raise standards of physical fitness, marksmanship, etc? How about rotating transport and maintenance personnel, etc through combat arms?

It seems like people don't join the army just to learn to turn a wrench or file paperwork. They could do that at home, after all. But what putting everybody in the front lines go too far?

[Ken White]

My ideal Army for the US today would be about 350-400K (while doubling the current size of the ARNG). Tooth : tail ratio would be 1:1 instead of the current 1:3 in favor of the tail and equipment would be designed to be rationalized to a minimum number of parts and pieces that can be assembled to make the requisite toy -- sort of like we ended WW II with three sizes of tracks and roadwheels, five hull types and four powerpacks for every tracked vehicle -- ultra reliable and low maintenance instead of to do everything for everybody. We can keep all the electronics, most of that uses LRU anyway.

Everyone would enlist for three or four years in the combat arms and after one hitch could reenlist for a CS/CSS job. Probationary hitch there and then they could reenlist for a career where ever they wished if there was a space. PCS's in CONUS would be cut by 2/3 saving big bucks. Homesteading would be tolerated. No 'up or out' but a definite out for non-performance. Most Training, MAAGs and ROTC Dets would use a Junior ROTC-like contract for Retired folks (language required for the MAAG jobs, all other Active duty standard met including height and weight) on five year contracts, renewable one time, periodic re-greening required.

Congress would never buy it -- neither would most of the Generals. :D

To realistically answer your question, some do join to learn a skill or trade. Most of the farm kids and suburban dwellers opt for the combat arms for fun and frolic and many plan on one tour and out. A few do go for the technical stuff but the majority who enlist for that do it to get a later leg up in civilian life. The reenlistment rates in those skills vary from time to time and MOS to MOS but are rarely as good as the Army would like -- those skills are in some cases, very expensively acquired. I don't think requiring some combat arms time of everyone is going too far (even though I know it would impact recruiting a bit) but I think most might disagree with me.

[Surferbeetle]

Some of the European countries require/required mandatory service from all male inhabitants as a way to provide for social/national cohesion and of course provide for the country's defense. I have also observed that field time often helps up the common sense quotient. Both have their advocates.

In terms of the wise use of resources I would agree that spending a few years in a position is more conducive to throughly understanding the requirements of a job (and incurs less in PCS costs) than spending 12-18 months before moving on to another job combined with spending only 36 months before moving on to a new geographical location.

This would however require a major paradigm shift and inertia is a...

[Norfolk]

Everyone would enlist for three or four years in the combat arms and after one hitch could reenlist for a CS/CSS job. Probationary hitch there and then they could reenlist for a career where ever they wished if there was a space. PCS's in CONUS would be cut by 2/3 saving big bucks. Homesteading would be tolerated. No 'up or out' but a definite out for non-performance. Most Training, MAAGs and ROTC Dets would use a Junior ROTC-like contract for Retired folks (language required for the MAAG jobs, all other Active duty standard met including height and weight) on five year contracts, renewable one time, periodic re-greening required.

Congress would never buy it -- neither would most of the Generals. :D

To realistically answer your question, some do join to learn a skill or trade. Most of the farm kids and suburban dwellers opt for the combat arms for fun and frolic and many plan on one tour and out. A few do go for the technical stuff but the majority who enlist for that do it to get a later leg up in civilian life. The reenlistment rates in those skills vary from time to time and MOS to MOS but are rarely as good as the Army would like -- those skills are in some cases, very expensively acquired. I don't think requiring some combat arms time of everyone is going too far (even though I know it would impact recruiting a bit) but I think most might disagree with me.

Huh, now there's something that I had never considered. I've strongly tended to perceive an almost impassable barrier between the combat arms and the administration and logistics types, especially in so far as the latter didn't have time on a three or four-year contract to do both a full-length, half-year infantry syllabus, plus their own specialized training, which in some cases can be very specialized. Not to mention that the CSS sort would not have the time to maintain even basic levels of proficiency in infantry skills.

So it comes as a bit of a (pleasant) surprise to see Ken proposing that everyone spend their initial three or four year contract in the combat arms, and then go on to CSS assignements after that. Great idea :D, and a lot less time arguing with some supply "tech" over trying to get basic clothing and equipment replaced when it really does need it, because he's already been there himself and knows how it goes.

Jones_RE makes a strong point about not only the need for superior physical fitness and weapons handling skills, but also how that in and of itself provides the motivation for people to really stay in the military; if they find it challenging and rewarding (in a moral, not monetary, sense), they will tend to stay. The Canadian Army used to maintain very high individual standards in the Infantry - and they could afford 2/3 rds attrition rates just on the Infantry Course itself, because people wanted to join, and if they were among the 1/3 rd or less who passed the Infantry Course (on a few courses, every single candidate failed), they wanted to stay, because they had found what they were looking for.

Right into the 1990's, infantry battalions enforced the 2x10, which was a 10 mile battle march in full kit performed within 2 hours on the first day, and then repeated on the following day (in order to test stamina and recovery); after each of the two 10-mile battle marches, the troops would immediately, without rest, undergo a 300-400 metre assault course on one day, and a live shoot starting at not less than 300 metres on the next day, and having to achieve not less than marksman doing so. Non-hackers were gotten rid of administratively.

That changed during the 1990's as a result of PC political pressures and especially the Human Rights Commission, which simply decreed that the military had to allow practically anyone who didn't need a wheelchair or strong eyeglasses to go into the infantry. Until then, the infantry had been male-only, and no one over the age of 26 could attend the infantry course. In the 90's that changed, the 2x10 and markmanship standards (amongst others) were scrapped and replaced by a lame shooting standard and a lame "forced march" of 8 miles with full kit in 2 hours, 26 minutes - the British Army, by contrast, still enforces an 8 mile battle march with full kit within 1 hour, 50 minutes, and an 8.7 mile battle march in full kit within 2 hours, followed immediately by a live shoot starting from 300 metres.

Needless to say, while Canadian infantry battalions were suffering up to 50% annual attrition rates of new infantry recruits after the collapse of the standards, the Brits held on rather better until the Iraq and Afghan Wars mud-sucked the vitality out of the British Army. In any case, both the Canadians and the Brits have had to lower recruiting standards to get fresh bodies, and in the Canadian case, that has meant that the standards have in effect, almost collapsed entirely - there is, for example, no longer any physical fitness requirement upon enlistement. Infantry battalions have "unofficially" had to resort to enforcing Cooper's Test in order to mitigate the worst PT problems, and I was told by a friend of mine who was still in last year that a version of the 10-miler (in just FFO - boots, webbing,helmet, rifle, but no ruck) has been brought back.

Jones_RE is right: no high soldier standards set and maintained, no reason for the squaddies to stay.:(

[Ken White]

The lowering of standards here has been mostly in response to Congressional pressure, (perceived) public clamor for 'equality' or due to stupidity (low graduation rates cost $$ and harm reputations). The facts that all people are not equal and that the combat arms demand * great physical conditioning and superior cognitive skill are diligently ignored.

Back in my misspent youth, when the 101st was a real Airborne Division, the 101st MP company would not accept anyone who had not served at least a year in a Rifle Company and who was not 5'11" or taller. Given some thought, both requirements make a great deal of sense. That was brought to an abrupt halt in 1958 when two short graduates of the MP School reported in and were told to go serve in a Rifle Company and gain a few inches of height. Congress got involved. A great MP Company became another mediocre MP Company...

Round pegs fit in all holes -- just not well.

In the past, that slack training was a peacetime norm because the Mothers of America did not like their children getting hurt or killed in training. In WW II, we threw that concern out the window and trained harder -- in our wars since then we have not done so. We have improved training, no question but we've also made it easier. It no longer weeds out the inept.

* Like many demands, that one can be ignored -- and is -- but, as always, there's a cost. In this case missions not well performed and higher own casualties than necessary.

[Jones_RE]

Dean Langdell of the Harvard Law School converted legal education from a bachelor's degree (the LL.B.) to a three year graduate degree (the J.D.) in the 19th century in order to raise the level of legal education in the United States. By making it very difficult to get a degree, the value of the degree and the holder increased tremendously. Other top schools rapidly followed suit. Modern lawyers, even the lousy ones, are very well educated and command high pay and a variety of perks in almost every market.

I also think it's noteworthy that virtually all police departments start their new hires in patrol work. You don't go straight to detective work or into forensic work, you start out dealing with traffic tickets, domestic calls and whatever else is out there. Their specialized jobs call for a lot of technical training, so they only give that training to people who've already demonstrated their commitment to the work. It would be interesting to compare and contrast the attrition rates in large police departments with those of the military.

The Army's current recruiting slogan says in effect "Join the Army and we'll make you strong." That'll get a lot of warm bodies to sign up. A better one might be "Join the Army - if you're strong enough." That'll get the *right* people to sign up. The Marines have a poster with a tagline that says "We don't accept applications, only commitments." That's definitely moving in the right direction.

In order to get high caliber recruits and retain them the armed forces has to become an elite profession. Military experience should be a coveted asset.

[Ratzel]

Warrior -- a man engaged or experienced in warfare; broadly : a person engaged in some struggle or conflict.

Soldier -- a: one engaged in military service and especially in the army b: an enlisted man or woman c: a skilled warrior.

Simply, a warrior is anyone who fights, a soldier (or Marine) is one who is trained, disciplined and, hopefully, skilled in fighting. Thus he's more than a warrior. Much more, IMO.

Basically, warriors aren't professional, soldiers are.

A good pro can whip a good amateur any day of the week. ;)

We discussed this point in an "Anthropology of Warfare" class that I took. Warriors also fight for personal glory and tend to view themselves as individuals, as opposed to soldiers, who see themselves as a member of a unit. Warfare is a way of life for the warrior, for which he is socialized to value. Within the warrior society, prestige is found in acts of warlike behavior and ones' social standing can depend heavily on how brave someone is perceived to be. Warriors usually supply their own weapons.

So when we think of the warrior in this way, we can see that being a soldier is much different. At no time while serving in the Army did I fight for personal glory. From the minute you get to basic training, you're socialized to have a "buddy" and the idea of doing something as an individual was frowned upon greatly. Warfare really wasn't a "way of life" either. After training was over, I didn't carry my M16A4 around and decorate it. Besides playing with toy guns and watching Red Dawn, I can't really say that I was socialized to be a warrior either. I guess there can be some debate whether social prestige comes with being a soldier but certainly not in Berkley California. My social standing hasn't really improved as a result of being a soldier but, the values I learned in the military have made me a more successful person. Obviously this isn't the same thing as say, being made the town supervisor due to my military service, so I think this is different too. Last despite wanting to bring my own sidearm to Iraq, I never supplied my own weapons.

So being a soldier is much different than being a warrior. About the only thing they have in common is that they both fight in armed combat. But so do Mercenaries, guerrilla's and insurgents, and we could define these differently as well. It would seem that different people go to war for different reasons and in different fighting roles. I don't think I'd even want to go to war with a "warrior." There was one Indian tribe (Forgot which one) in which the warrior would ride his horse and try to get close enough to the enemy to touch his horse. The purpose was not to kill, but to impress the tribe with the warriors bravery. Maybe today's equivalent would be driving a HUMVEE just close enough to slap a VBIED and then drive away? Anyway, I would rather go to war with soldiers any day.

So instead of the "Everyone a Warrior" concept that came about due the Jessica Lynch ordeal, why not "Everyone a Soldier?" The Marines say "Everyone a Marine" first, so why not the Army too? What "Everyone a Warrior" implies to me is that we had soldiers who thought of themselves as non-combatants.

[Billy Ruffian]

We discussed this point in an "Anthropology of Warfare" class that I took. Warriors also fight for personal glory and tend to view themselves as individuals, as opposed to soldiers, who see themselves as a member of a unit. Warfare is a way of life for the warrior, for which he is socialized to value. Within the warrior society, prestige is found in acts of warlike behavior and ones' social standing can depend heavily on how brave someone is perceived to be. Warriors usually supply their own weapons.



Hi Ratzel. I'm drawing many of my observations here from Western European warrior cultures that I am familiar with, both from my own heritage and also from Beowulf (the saga, not that pitiful excuse for a 'movie'). My study of such cultures indicates that warriors tend to gravitate around headmen, thanes or warchiefs, warriors of renown who have earned a prestigious place in society from a mix of combat, boasting, drinking prowess, feats of strength and (sometimes) non-violent competition with other warriors as you describe. A loss of a leader's prestige in front of his warband or group may convince his followers that he is no longer worthy of allegiance and lead them to forsake him. Soldiers don't get to pick and choose their leaders (unless you're Xenophon or in the State Militia c. 1812), and they certainly don't get the right to up and quit whenever they've had enough or things seem to be getting too hard (unless you're in the State Militia c. 1812). While a warrior is committed to a chief or conflict for reasons of personal honour or enrichment, you and others have hit the nail right on the head when you say that soldiers should be about commitment, not only to their organization but also the ideals it embodies and the society that it is intended to protect. Soldiers commit to sacrifice because if they don't no one else will, whereas Warriors do battle for glory and booty because if they don't someone else will.

Warchiefs rule their bands or groups by swordright, so unless he is killed by a usurper, anytime a chief dies, new internal conflict will likely result either in duels to the death or a division into new, smaller bands. One of the benefits of a military hierarchy is that there are clear chains of command and succession should a commander being killed or otherwise incapacitated. While a disciplined fighting force of soldiers can survive the loss of a leader, even a charismatic and rallying one, if you can find out who the warchiefs in a particular society are you stand a greater chance of splintering or neutralizing his fighting force if you can kill, convert or otherwise neutralize him than you would with a force of soldiers.

Furthermore, while warriors do provide their own arms, in exchange for allegiance and adding one's glory to a warchief's, they tend to expect a proportionate reward appropriate to the level of fighting that they undertake. This can take the form of wargear, special distinction or honour bestowed by their chief or a larger share of any booty. While there are rewards such as promotion in a military hierarchy they also come with an increase in responsibility that extends upwards to those who command and downwards to those who follow and have no material benefit except a rise in pay that reflects new responsibility. Special distinctions and commendations are also non-material and usually contribute to advancement and respect within the ranks as opposed to leading to first dibs on booty and having your name added into the saga.

Needless to say, I'd take 1 soldier over 5 warriors any day of the week.

[CR6]

While a disciplined fighting force of soldiers can survive the loss of a leader, even a charismatic and rallying one, if you can find out who the warchiefs in a particular society are you stand a greater chance of splintering or neutralizing his fighting force if you can kill, convert or otherwise neutralize him

A point powerfully illustrated by Korben Dallas in Luc Besson's 1997 masterwork, "The Fifth Element".

[Ratzel]

A point powerfully illustrated by Korben Dallas in Luc Besson's 1997 masterwork, "The Fifth Element".

CR6, If you don't mind me asking, who's the guy on the left side of that picture? He looks exactly like my old Company Commander. If you want to PM me please do.

[Rifleman]

- Warriors also fight for personal glory and tend to view themselves as individuals, as opposed to soldiers, who see themselves as a member of a unit.

- Warfare is a way of life for the warrior, for which he is socialized to value.

- Within the warrior society, prestige is found in acts of warlike behavior and ones' social standing can depend heavily on how brave someone is perceived to be.

-Warriors usually supply their own weapons.


So, by the definitions given here were colonial era hunters like Boone warriors or soldiers?

They seem to have had all the characteristics of warriors in most of their hunting activity. Read the list substituting hunter for warrior and hunting for warfare and it all fits.

But hunters like Boone sometimes formed militias for punitive expeditions or banded together to defend forts and settlements against attack. When they did this they were not fighting as individuals or for personal glory.

[Ratzel]

So, by the definitions given here were colonial era hunters like Boone warriors or soldiers?

They seem to have had all the characteristics of warriors in most of their hunting activity. Read the list substituting hunter for warrior and hunting for warfare and it all fits.

But hunters like Boone sometimes formed militias for punitive expeditions or banded together to defend forts and settlements against attack. When they did this they were not fighting as individuals or for personal glory.

I see men like Boone as "adventurers." People like this probably can't exist today. Warriors fight for prestage, social standing, even spiritual reasons, and are socialized to do so. Men like Boone were like the European adventures in the time of colonization. They mainly did it for economic reasons or just for excitement. They liked adventure, but usually had big dreams of riches too. I would be hard pressed to say that Boone's actions were for love of country or for sense of duty. So I say Boone was a Frontier adventure.

[Rifleman]

Ratzel,

Thanks, It really doesn't matter, I suppose, but I just thougtht it was an interesting question. Frontier hunters don't seem to have been warriors or soldiers by the definitions used by most people here, yet most did at least some fighting and a few had numerous battles.

[120mm]

I doubt "warriors" would use buzz-words, much less a crappy one like "ethos". It pisses me off at a very basic level to hear some deployment-avoiding, smooth-talking and polished staff officer or NCO using words like "warrior." A real warrior would shoot them in the face, just on principle.

The real "warriors" that I know crave conflict on the same level as most crave sex. Perhaps even more so.

Does being a "warrior" mean you get to decapitate that 40 hours a week shamming PAC clerk who just screwed up your pay, because they were too lazy to do it right?

If so, I might reconsider adopting a Warrior "ethos", Army-wide.

[Germ]

I doubt "warriors" would use buzz-words, much less a crappy one like "ethos". It pisses me off at a very basic level to hear some deployment-avoiding, smooth-talking and polished staff officer or NCO using words like "warrior." A real warrior would shoot them in the face, just on principle.

The real "warriors" that I know crave conflict on the same level as most crave sex. Perhaps even more so.

Does being a "warrior" mean you get to decapitate that 40 hours a week shamming PAC clerk who just screwed up your pay, because they were too lazy to do it right?

If so, I might reconsider adopting a Warrior "ethos", Army-wide.
Those who regard "warrior ethos" as a buzzword should pull the thread on it, back to the 90's. The Marines adopted it right about the time Sarah Lister proudly claimed that soldiers were better normed with society than Marines. The Marine reply was "she's right and we're glad." They turned her slight into a brag, going even further by claiming a 24/7 characteristic and attitude held by all Marines, a (you guessed it) warrior ethos. The effort not only rebutted Lister's comments, it furthered an internal effort to get Marines back on the track away from forgetting everything at the end of the day and doing stupid things with cars, alcohol and drugs. Finally, it contributed to a time proven ability for Marine units to prevent disaster by employing non-infantry MOS Marines as provisional line companies in pinches. The technique worked well for them in November of 1950, and lent to the motto, "Every Marine a rifleman," which may lack total fidelity, but served Marine truck drivers better at An Nasaryah than Jessica Lynch's unit was served by their lack of preparation for small unit action.
So it's too late for a short answer, but I think you're missing the point. At the same time you complain that support MOS's don't have a clear vision of what you do and how to support you, you decry Army efforts to unify the force. Which do you want -- a better complaint or a better Army?

[120mm]

Those who regard "warrior ethos" as a buzzword should pull the thread on it, back to the 90's. The Marines adopted it right about the time Sarah Lister proudly claimed that soldiers were better normed with society than Marines. The Marine reply was "she's right and we're glad." They turned her slight into a brag, going even further by claiming a 24/7 characteristic and attitude held by all Marines, a (you guessed it) warrior ethos. The effort not only rebutted Lister's comments, it furthered an internal effort to get Marines back on the track away from forgetting everything at the end of the day and doing stupid things with cars, alcohol and drugs. Finally, it contributed to a time proven ability for Marine units to prevent disaster by employing non-infantry MOS Marines as provisional line companies in pinches. The technique worked well for them in November of 1950, and lent to the motto, "Every Marine a rifleman," which may lack total fidelity, but served Marine truck drivers better at An Nasaryah than Jessica Lynch's unit was served by their lack of preparation for small unit action.
So it's too late for a short answer, but I think you're missing the point. At the same time you complain that support MOS's don't have a clear vision of what you do and how to support you, you decry Army efforts to unify the force. Which do you want -- a better complaint or a better Army?

The problem is that the "buzz-word" has replaced developing soldiers, with discipline. You cannot turn a soldier who is naturally a born-victim into a warrior, and frankly, you don't want to. But you CAN make born victims into soldiers, and you CAN enforce discipline. Having lived through OIF 0/1/2, (as a TC Officer, obtw) we (transporters) invaded with an indisciplined mob of born victims, (but we left all our ring mounts and crew-serveds in Germany/The US, sir!!!) and progressed through to an indisciplined mob of born victims who sprayed gunfire willy-nilly at everything that moved. (God dammit, when you get an ambush, I want you to SHOOT somebody! - BG Fletcher 3d COSCOM Commander, July 2003) We have hopefully achieved a disciplined force who will fight through ambushes when necessary.

Enforcing discipline, throughout the Army, has nothing to do with renaming everything "Warrior". The "Warrior Ethos" is nothing less than a slick internal marketing ploy by the "Brylcreem Boys" who value career over leadership. The Army isn't "better" because I eat at a "Warrior Cafe" instead of a "Mess Hall". And the Army Reserve is no more "battle ready" because we burn 48 UTAs a year doing B.S. mandatory sex harassment/EO classes in a "Battle Assembly" instead of a "drill."

What is most frustrating, is that there are a bunch of people who are not mentally equipped to notice the difference between the so-called building of "Warriors" and actually developing and enforcing "Disciplined Soldiers".

I guess my poor attitude means I haven't "transformed" enough to truly generate "synergistic" effects through "bootstrapping new paradigms."

It's Bull####, in other words.

[marct]

Hi Guys,


Those who regard "warrior ethos" as a buzzword should pull the thread on it, back to the 90's. The Marines adopted it right about the time Sarah Lister proudly claimed that soldiers were better normed with society than Marines. The Marine reply was "she's right and we're glad." They turned her slight into a brag, going even further by claiming a 24/7 characteristic and attitude held by all Marines, a (you guessed it) warrior ethos.


The problem is that the "buzz-word" has replaced developing soldiers, with discipline. You cannot turn a soldier who is naturally a born-victim into a warrior, and frankly, you don't want to. But you CAN make born victims into soldiers, and you CAN enforce discipline.

Hmmm. 120, have you noticed that the Marines have what amounts to a "regimental consciousness" (Corps wide)? Adopting a "warrior" label, while certainly incorrect terminology, does fit in with group symbolic protection - i.e. the symbolic "walls" a group builds around itself to define us-them boundaries. The real problem is the secondary loops set up - the semantic associations.


Enforcing discipline, throughout the Army, has nothing to do with renaming everything "Warrior". The "Warrior Ethos" is nothing less than a slick internal marketing ploy by the "Brylcreem Boys" who value career over leadership. The Army isn't "better" because I eat at a "Warrior Cafe" instead of a "Mess Hall". And the Army Reserve is no more "battle ready" because we burn 48 UTAs a year doing B.S. mandatory sex harassment/EO classes in a "Battle Assembly" instead of a "drill."

Honestly, "Warrior Cafe"?!? I'm getting images of Vercingetorix ordering a half goat, half sheep mocha latte!

Anyway, it's all part of the semantic drift when you associate a new label with a core component of identity. One of the things I've noticed about marketing, and I'll be intrigued to see what RA thinks, is that while there is a tremendous amount of expertise at manipulating symbols, there is a very short time horizon on the effects of such a manipulation.

As an example, "warrior" is, at the deep cultural symbol level, a class or caste in western cultures. Furthermore, it is extremely individualistic and/or blood line oriented. It is a group that is set apart by inherent differences. This is totally different from the concept of "soldier" and, especially, of "citizen-soldier" which carries with it the concept of combat as a civic duty and a function of citizenship (not blood line). Entry is via training processes that are available to all citizens and involves the imposition/acceptance of discipline, as compared to the concept of a warriors inherent "ability".


What is most frustrating, is that there are a bunch of people who are not mentally equipped to notice the difference between the so-called building of "Warriors" and actually developing and enforcing "Disciplined Soldiers".

I guess my poor attitude means I haven't "transformed" enough to truly generate "synergistic" effects through "bootstrapping new paradigms."

It's Bull####, in other words.

LOLOL - Yup, but it is high quality Bravo Sierra :D. Possibly more importantly, it actually fits in with the current models of games played by many kids as they are growing up - complete with the disregard for any civic duties. This means that it is attractive to a lot of the kids ("Hot Damn! Wi II wants to play!").

Marc

[Steve Blair]

It goes hand in hand with the AF claiming that "every Airman is a warrior" but at the same time requiring six pages of waivers and memos before cadets can use an indoor climbing wall. And forget about any sort of obstacle course....someone might get HURT on it. (and no, I'm not kidding with either example)

[Tom Odom]

OK enough generic "warrior" stuff...

I always liked the Viking model...

You get to eat with your hands and neatness is frowned on...

Drunkeness is career enhancing...

You are expected to create mayhem and break things...

There is no "square bashing", only people bashing...

Uniforms are pretty much to individual taste...

I mean what's not to like? :wry:

Tom

[selil]

OK enough generic "warrior" stuff...
I always liked the Viking model...
You get to eat with your hands and neatness is frowned on...
Drunkeness is career enhancing...
You are expected to create mayhem and break things...
There is no "square bashing", only people bashing...
Uniforms are pretty much to individual taste...
I mean what's not to like? :wry:
Tom

And if'n you ended up with a square fight you get in your boats and go get more vikings. No whiners allowed. Skills with battle axe and broad sword suggested.

[Germ]

All valid points (I think I served with some Vikings once -- great guys, questionable hygiene!) I don't doubt the ill effects of the effort; I've seen more than a few myself.

So the Army gets a "D" or an "F" on Warrior Ethos in many people's estimate. That's a reasonable critique of the Army answer to a problem. The problem (I paraphrase 120mm) is an Army whose soldiers are not all as oriented towards the mission as they should be.

Imagine being at the head of an organization of 1,000,000 people. By virtue of its size, it is change resistant, like a big ship with a little rudder and lots of inertia. With the countless echelons of command, you will be hard pressed to say "discipline" and have it take effect at the company level soon, if at all. Instead, you will probably resort to a few carefully-chosen metaphors that you'll use to take people from a current way of thinking to your desired way of thinking.

Acknowledging the difficulty of changing 1,000,000 attitudes in a somewhat compartmented multi-echelon organization, I say the FM looks like a reasonable attempt to spread a valid orienting idea. What it requires, however, is a body of officers and NCO's who read doctrine, understand the intent, and do their best to lead soldiers towards the desired end state of a 24/7 force whose soldiers behave as though they're all there to fight and win wars.

[JHR]

Making Marines, circa 1780's

“The first thing to be taken care of in the disciplining of men, is to dress them, to teach them the air of a soldier, and to drive out the clown”
Lt. J. MacIntire, HMRM 1784
Military Treatise on the Discipline of the Marine Forces When at Sea

Been there. Done that. Both sides.

JHR

[William F. Owen]

OK enough generic "warrior" stuff...

I always liked the Viking model...

You get to eat with your hands and neatness is frowned on...

Drunkeness is career enhancing...

You are expected to create mayhem and break things...

There is no "square bashing", only people bashing...

Uniforms are pretty much to individual taste...

I mean what's not to like? :wry:

Tom

...well you would have liked being in A Company, 1st Battalion Royal Green Jackets!

[120mm]

All valid points (I think I served with some Vikings once -- great guys, questionable hygiene!) I don't doubt the ill effects of the effort; I've seen more than a few myself.

So the Army gets a "D" or an "F" on Warrior Ethos in many people's estimate. That's a reasonable critique of the Army answer to a problem. The problem (I paraphrase 120mm) is an Army whose soldiers are not all as oriented towards the mission as they should be.

Imagine being at the head of an organization of 1,000,000 people. By virtue of its size, it is change resistant, like a big ship with a little rudder and lots of inertia. With the countless echelons of command, you will be hard pressed to say "discipline" and have it take effect at the company level soon, if at all. Instead, you will probably resort to a few carefully-chosen metaphors that you'll use to take people from a current way of thinking to your desired way of thinking.

Acknowledging the difficulty of changing 1,000,000 attitudes in a somewhat compartmented multi-echelon organization, I say the FM looks like a reasonable attempt to spread a valid orienting idea. What it requires, however, is a body of officers and NCO's who read doctrine, understand the intent, and do their best to lead soldiers towards the desired end state of a 24/7 force whose soldiers behave as though they're all there to fight and win wars.

Well, one way to start is by brutally and publicly firing some very high ranking people, ensuring that you accompany their firing with UCMJ charges and lots of humiliation. Prison time for some 3 or 4 star Generals would probably make a few people take notice.

But, instead, the Army has chosen to promote them. And then pay big bucks for a PR campaign to paper over the fact that you aren't enforcing "discipline".

Discipline isn't something you "sell". It's something you "do". And too many of the people running things are concentrating on "selling" and have no idea what "doing" means.

I have a proposal, should someone choose to do the research. Find a "Warrior culture" that has not been stomped into the dirt of history by a rationalization of effort, "soldier" culture.

[120mm]

Making Marines, circa 1780's

“The first thing to be taken care of in the disciplining of men, is to dress them, to teach them the air of a soldier, and to drive out the clown”
Lt. J. MacIntire, HMRM 1784
Military Treatise on the Discipline of the Marine Forces When at Sea

Been there. Done that. Both sides.

JHR

That, sir, is going on my wall.

[120mm]

I guess part of the source of my frustration with the "Warrior Ethos" is how they have hijacked a perfectly good term that used to mean something.

"Warrior" for me, used to be a term that applied AFTER you did something to deserve the monicker. It also used to mean "someone for whom War is there reason for existance."

Kind of like when the food language Nazis hijacked the term "Organic". Like there was ever any food that was "Inorganic." Jerks.

[marct]

Hi 120,


Discipline isn't something you "sell". It's something you "do". And too many of the people running things are concentrating on "selling" and have no idea what "doing" means.

LOLOL I have a suspicion that a large amount of this stems from an over-emphasis in civic cultures that are skewed towards a rhetoric of "Rights" without a corresponding set of "Duties". Partly, this has come about as a result of the over-commercialization of life, e.g. "I can buy X, so I have the Right to X and all it costs me is money". Partly, it has come about as a result of what I consider to be fairly inevitable problems with democracies, i.e. he fairly well know and documented fact that they collapse once the electorate discovers it can vote itself Bread and Circuses :wry:. Rome, Athens, post WW II Britain, and France are all examples of democracies that have shifted form to become more authoritarian.


I have a proposal, should someone choose to do the research. Find a "Warrior culture" that has not been stomped into the dirt of history by a rationalization of effort, "soldier" culture.

Iceland :p.

Seriously, though, this can be turned on its head as well. Can anyone come up with a "soldier culture" that hasn't been stomped into the dust of history by a warrior culture one the civic virtue (in the Roman sense) that built it died? Cases: Rome, Byzantium, Egypt, the Hittites, Minoan Crete, China (many dynasties), Athens, Sparta, the French ancien regime, etc.

[Eden]

Recently, while we were discussing how to avoid deployments and having our nails done, a group of us staff officers talked smoothly about the subject of this thread. The rest of them being afraid to go public, I was nominated to defend the "Warrior ethos".

I was involved with basic training just after 9/11 and during the first part of OEF. It stunned me the number of recruits we had who had never:

1. Been in a fight.
2. Touched a weapon.
3. Exerted themselves physically.
4. Experienced muscle soreness.
5. Played organized sports after the 6th grade.

Now, these were in the minority, but it was a sizeable minority. There were a lot of Klingon-speaking, Doom-playing, Rambo-wannabes who had watched the entire Star Wars cycle but had never been challenged physically, mentally, or spiritually. Moreover, they had been raised to think that effort was just as admirable as success, and winning isn't everything. Well, in war, as Al Davis said, "It is whether you win or lose."

Basic training did challenge these folks - in some ways - but there was a lot of restraint imposed. Drill sergeants were warned about placing undue stress on the 'soldiers' - you couldn't call them recruits; I remember one who tried to motivate his charges by offering to have sex with their craniums should they fail; he disappeared overnight. The obstacle course was nicknamed Disneyland, because it offered the illusion of peril while being so padded, prtoected, and otherwise watered-down that it was pretty much impossible to hurt yourself.

The amazing thing is that a lot of these kids felt cheated when they graduated. They'd seen and keyed themselves up for Full Metal Jacket and found Gomer Pyle instead. They wanted to feel as if they'd come through a crucible, not just had the officially-approved 'Crucible Experience'.

Anyway, that was probably the end of the pendulum swing, and we tried to make basic better by reintroducing hand-to-hand combat, spending more time in the field, making the O-course a little more threatening, etc. It wasn't much, but we were fighting a deeply entrenched 'safety' and 'respect' culture. I hope even more progress has been made since I departed.

So cut the Courtney Massengales of the world some slack. Sure, its a little corny, and we don't really want to produce ravening Huns, and true warriors make crappy soldiers, by and large. But I for one am glad to see the institutional army turning (even if only tentatively) toward reinstilling the idea that being a soldier means something more than learning a trade and big bonuses

[slapout9]

Eden, did you see any Mall Nijas?:D

[120mm]

So cut the Courtney Massengales of the world some slack. Sure, its a little corny, and we don't really want to produce ravening Huns, and true warriors make crappy soldiers, by and large. But I for one am glad to see the institutional army turning (even if only tentatively) toward reinstilling the idea that being a soldier means something more than learning a trade and big bonuses

I'm glad the Army is making the effort. I work at a CTC, and I can tell you that everyone I know is making leaps and bounds toward at least making an effort to change how we do things. But the non-combat arms types are waaaay behind the curve, when it gets down to rationalizing processes in what they do. When I talk to a combat arms-type, I get specifics and metrics. When I talk to a CSS type, I get Jedi-hand waves, generalizations and waffling.

Just to redirect, I don't think we, as an Army should put any effort at all into producing "ravening huns". What we should be focusing on, is getting rid of "sloppy" and producing "conscientious." And instilling a "Warrior Ethos" actually is going in the wrong direction!!!

BTW, Eden, that was a brilliant post. It's not often I get a belly-laugh like that from an actual informative-type post.

[Eden]

Eden, did you see any Mall Nijas?:D

No. I believe the Navy has dibs on Mall Ninjas

[marct]

Hi Eden,


The amazing thing is that a lot of these kids felt cheated when they graduated. They'd seen and keyed themselves up for Full Metal Jacket and found Gomer Pyle instead. They wanted to feel as if they'd come through a crucible, not just had the officially-approved 'Crucible Experience'.

Absolutely fantastic post! It puts me in mind of one of my favorite short stories (http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/18949). Honestly, I don't find it surprising that the kids felt cheated at the watered down, PC version of their training; I've seen and heard the same thing from students in many undergrad programs.

[Steve Blair]

We see this in AFROTC frequently as well. The kids come here expecting (or hoping) to be challenged and instead get canned versions of how the AF won every war since flight began. We lose people to the Army because the Army goes out in the woods and shoots at each other with paintballs. To them, that's military activity. I suspect if we had Navy ROTC closer to us, we'd lose even more to them (the amount of activities they have for cadets is unreal...you can't dangle a possible ride in a tanker in front of a kid who has a chance to do a summer exchange cruise with the Japanese navy or go to the USMC Mountain Warfare School). Yet getting anyone to add anything even remotely challenging (to include simple things like a map exercise) is worse than extracting a tooth from a polar bear with a pair of tweezers.:eek:

[Tom Odom]

What you guys are talking about are rights of passage and we have tried to stamp out any hint that such things take place. Unfortunately we have ignored two trendss:

a. They are inevitable in the bonding process

b. They do weed out the wannabes

[marct]

Hi Tom,


What you guys are talking about are rights of passage and we have tried to stamp out any hint that such things take place. Unfortunately we have ignored two trends:

a. They are inevitable in the bonding process

b. They do weed out the wannabes

Well, I wasn't going to mention that term but, yes, that's it exactly. BTW, a couple of other points about rights of passage:

They are "elitist" in the sense that they serve as a method of showing that people are not equal.
They are universal in human cultures and, when they have been suppressed or disappeared, they will spontaneously arise to fulfill specific new needs (large parts of my dissertation was about this).
Properly constructed rights of passage reconfigure brain neurology, setting a pattern for current and future learning and perception.
They, or something like them, appear to be hard-wired into our neural systems; something the PC social science crowd with its generic hatred of biology just cannot accept.Marc

[Tom Odom]

Hi Tom,



Well, I wasn't going to mention that term but, yes, that's it exactly. BTW, a couple of other points about rights of passage:

They are "elitist" in the sense that they serve as a method of showing that people are not equal.
They are universal in human cultures and, when they have been suppressed or disappeared, they will spontaneously arise to fulfill specific new needs (large parts of my dissertation was about this).
Properly constructed rights of passage reconfigure brain neurology, setting a pattern for current and future learning and perception.
They, or something like them, appear to be hard-wired into our neural systems; something the PC social science crowd with its generic hatred of biology just cannot accept.Marc

Anthro minor at work--plus earlier life as a cadet at Texas A&M

[selil]

My only military claim to fame is that I've been through both Army basic training, and Marine Corps boot camp. Older, slower, fatter, and balder I will always know that I've succeeded at those two worthy challenges.

Whether triumphing or simply enduring at a challenge it shapes a persons character for a life time. To water down or remove the challenge from those experiences at which many people have failed is to denigrate the history and traditions of military service.

Perhaps it is a politically incorrect right of passage, and perhaps it is a barrier to success not all will pass. More important than either of those criticisms is that it is a taste of truly earned success for the participant. No nannyism, no political correctness, simplistic in it's form the challenge is endured and earned.

To take on the mantle of warrior or soldier is to adopt a profession that will exist in highly restrictive rules of engagement, moral and technical challenges, and physical and psychologically abusive environments. It is a disservice to young men and women to pass them through a system unprepared and without the knowledge they too can endure that which would crush the unprepared.

We can not allow a slovenly few to ruin an institution where the silent majority would still succeed. Petty stories of unprepared youth showing up for the tribulations of basic training does not absolve us from our duty to pass or fail them on a set of standards. The job of the training commands is to prepare them and if that is difficult, if the youth do not have the skills, if there is no background for the skills to be attained, if their physical fitness is a challenge to training, we should look at the training commands and inquire why they exist with those barriers to entry.

It is the job of the training commands to create the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the recruits not to criticize the level of knowledge or physical prowess the recruits have upon entry. If it is difficult or changes the scope or length of training required don't let false expectations of "time to train" water down the expected learning outcomes.

A military anywhere in the world has past soldiers, current soldiers, and future soldiers and is evaluated upon the measures of the individuals as they interact within society and in society's best interests. The soldiers of today should have training that is more exacting, more intense, and requiring more knowledge not less. Progress is about advancement and we owe it to the future members of the military to inject the values of previous generations of soldiers into the soldiers of the future.

[Germ]

I'm glad the Army is making the effort. I work at a CTC, and I can tell you that everyone I know is making leaps and bounds toward at least making an effort to change how we do things. But the non-combat arms types are waaaay behind the curve, when it gets down to rationalizing processes in what they do. When I talk to a combat arms-type, I get specifics and metrics. When I talk to a CSS type, I get Jedi-hand waves, generalizations and waffling.
.

I'm with the many above in applauding Eden's post. I heard General Shinseki speak several years ago. He commented that he loved being Chief of Staff but would rather be Commandant of the Marine Corps. He further explained that he envied the Commandant, who did not have to contend with several corps, each with its own subculture and rice bowl. He found it exceedingly difficult to steer the institution known as the Army, where his counterpart in the Corps had no such trouble.

The crux of the problem lies in part in 120mm's observation above, but also in the very fact that soldiers look over a corps fence at each other in the first place. That identity piece, the wholeness of the army as a single culture, that is one heck of a difficult thing to wrestle.

Given the many influences towards different points of view in the army's diverse corps and MOSs, how does the Army best maintain and strengthen what it has of a single culture?

[Norfolk]

Unless, just as the USMC does, every Army in the English-speaking world compells all recruits and officer cadets to endure and pass Infantry training immediately after basic training (and holding them to solid standards all the while), then a "Warrior Ethos" drive will only last for a few or several years before it peters out and fades away - and leaving little real significant change in its wake. In the early 1990's, after PC considerations compelled the Canadian Army to ditch standards in the Infantry such as the 2x10 (two ten-mile approach marches on back-to-back days, each performed with full kit within two hours) and achieving a Marksman's rating, "Warrior Training", alleging derived from the Marine example, was instituted, and on Unit training time.

Basically, it tried to bring all the non-Infantry and especially non-CA types up to roughly the same standards as what were officially now set for the Infantry, such as an 8 mile march with full kit within 2 hours, 26 minutes, and adding to that a 2-mile "forced" march within 22 minutes with boots, helmet, webbing and rifle, followed by a 100 m casualty carry. Other former standards, such as Marksman for the Infantry, had been replaced by substantially lower common standards for all, and with most infantry light weapons - rifle (carbine for some Armour), LMG, GPMG in the Light Role, 60 mm mortar in the hand-held role, LAW, Carl G, Claymore, Elsie landmine (now banned of course), etc., and some basic fieldcraft tests. The standards were so mediocre that "Warrior Training" was given up, and the old 10 week Recruit course followed by Basic Trade Training (the Infantry Course, for example, was 17 weeks extra) was given up. Now, the Recruit course is 13 weeks, and everyone has to attend the 10-week Soldier course immediately afterwards, where some basic infantry skills are actually taught to all arms, for a total of 23 weeks of initial entry training. Not great, but better than "Warrior Training". Infantry attend an additrional 10 weeks of basic infantry training, for a total of 33 weeks intial entry training (a little overdone when we used to get it done in 27 weeks to rather higher standards years ago).

"Warrior Ethos", as others have explained rather better, is at least a recognition that there is a significant problem amongst non-CA types with regards to their fighting abilities. But as the Marines' example best demonstrates, unless you go whole hog and put all recruits and officer candidates through full-fledged infantry training prior to sending them on to their basic trade/MOS speciality training, that common core of both identity and basic fighting skills will be wanting. An identity and an ethos of everyone being a Rifleman - however much that varies in reality), has served the USMC well. Armies might do well to follow the Marine example, and having passed a solid Infantry syllabus gives a soldier a sense of common identity with others who have passed the same ordeal, and a sense of self-confidence to go with it, that forms the basis of a true and enduring Soldier Ethos.

Eden: The U.S. Army has done the Canadian Army a good turn or two by allowing one of our Generals to hold one of the two DCG slots at III Corps; any chance you could take DCO slot in a Canadian Brigade or at least a Battalion Command?:D

[JHR]

Properly done, the USMC is not just right of passage but also resocialization, at least for most. Count the bumper stickers and window decals for further proof.

JHR

[marct]

Hi JHR,


Properly done, the USMC is not just right of passage but also resocialization, at least for most. Count the bumper stickers and window decals for further proof.

Tom and I were using Anthropology short hand - "rights of passage" are "resocialization", in the Anthro model, as well as a complete psychological reconfiguration ;). It's actually a very well thought out and tested model that, unfortunately, has entered into general use without all of the details :wry:.

Marc

[Eden]

Quote Originally posted by Norfolk

Eden: The U.S. Army has done the Canadian Army a good turn or two by allowing one of our Generals to hold one of the two DCG slots at III Corps; any chance you could take DCO slot in a Canadian Brigade or at least a Battalion Command?

Sorry, I turned in my uniform about six months ago. Though I am a Canadian-American! My mother was Canadian and one paternal grandfather also. We dress the kids up in national costume (wooly cap with ear flaps, plaid felt shirts, snow pants with braces) every Victoria Day, but they have largely rejected their ethnic heritage.

One anal retentive note. Um...I'm not a professional anthropologist, but aren't they 'rites' of passage?

Norfolk: I had the privelege of working with some Canadian officers during the 2006 battles around Kandahar, which for short bursts were high intensity by any measure. How has the Canadian Army evaluated its 'warriorhood' in light of that performance?

[Norfolk]

Hi Eden,

Well, I too am out of uniform, and have been for a very long time now. But from what I gather, the main lessons learned were to bring back MBTs and tracked APCs, supported by organic Artillery, operating as a Combined-Arms Battle Group. LAVs out, heavy armour back in; but UAVs and helicopter lift were identified also as being desperately needed - they're going to lease UAVs, from the Germans apparently, and they're hoping to piggy-back their helo requirements on the backs of the MEU that's arriving, as their own won't arrive for a couple more years.

In short, it all seems to be about heavier equipment and a return to full-fledged Combined-Arms ops. Second Panjwai, where the LAVs got stuck when a Rifle Company of 1RCR was lured into and ambushed in a village, was the tipping point, when it became clear that the SBCT-style configuration wasn't going to cut it in a stand-up toe-to-toe more or less conventional pitched battle. I don't think that there has been a dramatic change in the training syllabus; I think that preceded OP MEDUSA by a couple years. But Battle Innoculation (http://cid-20167beb77da6d98.skydrive.live.com/self.aspx/Public/BattleInoculation.ppt) was reintroduced for Afghanistan in just the past few years; can't say whether it preceded or resulted from the events of Second Panjwai.

[Rifleman]

On a separate but related note: even the cops are "warriors" now; you see, I just got back from a Dave Grossman seminar and it was "warrior" this and "warrior" that.

I did come away from the seminar with a few good things; yet, I didn't buy it all and I wasn't deeply moved the way some cops seem to be after hearing him speak.

Overall impression about Grossman: favorable, although he tries to be a little too melodramatic in his presentation style.

[CR6]

Overall impression about Grossman: favorable, although he tries to be a little too melodramatic in his presentation style.

I got a lot out of reading "On Combat" in terms of mental preparation for being in combat zone, however I can see how Grossman might come across as overly dramatic. His writing style is sincere and enthusiastic. It may not translate as such in person.

[Ken White]

He does do a good job of writing but I can believe the over dramatic; applying warrior to a working cop isn't all that smart, IMO.

[Tom Odom]

He does do a good job of writing but I can believe the over dramatic; applying warrior to a working cop isn't all that smart, IMO.


Ken,

I just had visions of a classic Viking with a blue tunic and a battle axe...

I would agree it would definitely send mixed signals :eek:

best

Tom

[120mm]

He does do a good job of writing but I can believe the over dramatic; applying warrior to a working cop isn't all that smart, IMO.

It is my opinion that the "professionalization, militarization and specialization" of police forces is at least correlated to the decline of democracy.

Once we hire someone else to take our turn, "standing the watch" we give up on participatory government. But that's another topic altogether.

[raymondh3201]

i doubt "warriors" would use buzz-words, much less a crappy one like "ethos". It pisses me off at a very basic level to hear some deployment-avoiding, smooth-talking and polished staff officer or nco using words like "warrior." a real warrior would shoot them in the face, just on principle.

The real "warriors" that i know crave conflict on the same level as most crave sex. Perhaps even more so.

Does being a "warrior" mean you get to decapitate that 40 hours a week shamming pac clerk who just screwed up your pay, because they were too lazy to do it right?

If so, i might reconsider adopting a warrior "ethos", army-wide.

+1

[raymondh3201]

I'm with the many above in applauding Eden's post. I heard General Shinseki speak several years ago. He commented that he loved being Chief of Staff but would rather be Commandant of the Marine Corps. He further explained that he envied the Commandant, who did not have to contend with several corps, each with its own subculture and rice bowl. He found it exceedingly difficult to steer the institution known as the Army, where his counterpart in the Corps had no such trouble.

The crux of the problem lies in part in 120mm's observation above, but also in the very fact that soldiers look over a corps fence at each other in the first place. That identity piece, the wholeness of the army as a single culture, that is one heck of a difficult thing to wrestle.

Given the many influences towards different points of view in the army's diverse corps and MOSs, how does the Army best maintain and strengthen what it has of a single culture?

I heard General Shinseki speak several years ago.

I could care less about this boob. This thread is on the improper use of the word "warrior" yet this man tries to instill esprit de corp by issuing "new" head gear to the Army, The Black Beret which also use to stand for something. The Marines would not have such.

The other problem is the Political Correctness that has gripped this country. God help us.

[Noble Industries]

They have transmitted that worry to the ever larger population of tertiary students. It has always fascinated me that coterie is first to call for some form of citizen service -- explicitly including the military for some -- but themselves would (did?) go to great lengths to avoid such service. Most would go to equally great lengths to insure that if their children had to serve, it would not be in uniform. I think there's some incongruity there...



As someone currently engaged in university study (security, terrorism and counter terrorism studies), albeit online, I do come across a lot of ‘why don’t we have national service, if only they knew how bad it was they’d all join up’ etc. But rarely do I see those people follow through.

Perhaps this is simply just a case of it being easier to cry from the sidelines that the team should be winning, without actually donning pads and running out to assist.

[goesh]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0yVaHKcs9E

-quite a tune by the Kid but I agree that "warrior" causes young men to ignore the reality of all the discipline and sacrifice and hard work leading up to that first fire fight that ends all notions of glory.

[Steve Blair]

/waves to goesh/

Yeah...can't forget the Kid.