More training, less parading urged.

[SGTMILLS]

I know that every time I hear the phrase "warrior ethos" I want to puke and claw out my eyes.

I'm the kind of guy who is going to die early of being a "type A" personality. I mean, I really, really love fighting. I have since I was a little kid. It has hamstrung both my military and my civilian career(s). So when a guy with a $40 haircut and manicured nails starts talking about "warrior ethos" my blood pressure starts to spike. (I'm not talking about anyone in particular, just generalizing.)

But... having said that, we have some really, really smart killers out there wearing O-3 through O-10 rank whom I respect and am in awe of. Does the Army promotion system have some issues? Yes. But the things we call "bull####" (and are more the exception than the rule) in the military are multiplied 1000-fold in the civilian "leadership" world.

Ok, so "warrior ethos" seems to be a buzz word used by, "a guy with a $40 haircut and manicured nails" it also is being pushed by drill sgts in basic and AIT. the newbies coming fresh out of school are being trained to live by this. The unit that replaced us in Tikrit had a 35-40% population of E-1 - E-3's. They were gung-ho, without any real-world experience. Still, they had the mission in their hearts, and good leadership. THAT above all else, is what matters. Those kids will grow to understand the real meaning of "warrior ethos"
I have met some really good officers, aaand some NOT SO good ones. just like with any work force, good leaders are made, not born.

[120mm]

Ok, so "warrior ethos" seems to be a buzz word used by, "a guy with a $40 haircut and manicured nails" it also is being pushed by drill sgts in basic and AIT. the newbies coming fresh out of school are being trained to live by this. The unit that replaced us in Tikrit had a 35-40% population of E-1 - E-3's. They were gung-ho, without any real-world experience. Still, they had the mission in their hearts, and good leadership. THAT above all else, is what matters. Those kids will grow to understand the real meaning of "warrior ethos"
I have met some really good officers, aaand some NOT SO good ones. just like with any work force, good leaders are made, not born.

I have a quote in the back of my head that is, I think, from Vegetius:

"'Warriors' are meat on the table for 'Soldiers' with discipline."

I would also submit that one builds "Strategic Corporals" and wins "Small Wars" with the head, not the heart. I've been in the Army long enough and have studied enough history to distrust buzz-words and the people who use them. What I want in a soldier is someone who will tell me "Sir, are you sure you want me to do this?" when appropriate, yet do the "hard things" when necessary, and to have the intelligence and presence of mind to know the difference. "Warriors" have a certain utility, but in the pre-buzz-word sense of the word, a "warrior" has limited utility when the center of gravity is Humanitarian Aid, for instance.

[Stan]

I have a quote in the back of my head that is, I think, from Vegetius:

Yes, he was good at quoting in the 4th Century, but would he make it in today's reality ?

http://en.allexperts.com/e/v/ve/vegetius.htm

Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus was a celebrated military writer of the 4th century. Nothing is known of his life, station and military experience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetius

In particular he stresses the high standard of the recruits and the excellence of the training and the officer corps. In reality, Vegetius probably describes an ideal rather than the reality. The Army of the early Empire was a formidable fighting force but it probably was not in its entirety quite as good as Vegetius describes.

Being that I have worked Humanitarian Aid both as active duty and civilian for now 17 years, I'm not sure Vegetius could have handled it. A tad too linear for today.

[Bill Moore]

Concur wholeheartedly we need to make an effort to purge the military of foolish, empty buzz words and sayings that have been forced upon the masses like Maoist or Stalinist propaganda. Yes the masses will utter them, but not from the heart. While we may disagree on the ability to do so, I think we all agree we need to strive to develop strategic corporals, and this approach doesn't work. You see the political czars (the officers) and their henchmen (the SGMs) stand in front of the formations echoing their empty slogans with false grins on their faces, when everyone knows they have more productive things to do. This falls under the category of parading, all show, but no go. You measure motivation not with uh-ahs (which no one in Special Forces ever wants to hear, it is like being exposed to a Muster agent), but with physcial training tests, skill tests, number of AWOLs, etc. This type of motivation mean anything, yet we mindlessly pursue it just because we always have.

[jonSlack]

"Concur wholeheartedly we need to make an effort to purge the military of foolish, empty buzz words and sayings that have been forced upon the masses like Maoist or Stalinist propaganda."

Along with the dog tag accessories that go with them.

[120mm]

Ok, so "warrior ethos" seems to be a buzz word used by, "a guy with a $40 haircut and manicured nails" it also is being pushed by drill sgts in basic and AIT. the newbies coming fresh out of school are being trained to live by this. The unit that replaced us in Tikrit had a 35-40% population of E-1 - E-3's. They were gung-ho, without any real-world experience. Still, they had the mission in their hearts, and good leadership. THAT above all else, is what matters. Those kids will grow to understand the real meaning of "warrior ethos"
I have met some really good officers, aaand some NOT SO good ones. just like with any work force, good leaders are made, not born.

I know it's a necro-post, but one thing has bothered me about this, but I let it drop. Until now.

The problem with teaching "everyone" about the "warrior ethos" and using it as a buzz-words, is that there are damned few people out there who are really warriors. The rest are just Joes doing a Job.

You cannot teach someone to be a warrior; they either are or they are not.

Trust me. I'm a warrior. I know other warriors when I see them. Not being a "warrior" is not a handicap. In fact, being a warrior is an incredible handicap in life. You are constantly riding to the sound of the guns, and fighting the good fight, even when it is not the smart fight. Then, when you are inevitably discarded because you don't "fit in" with all the normal human beings, you get to grow older and bitter. And you feel useless to society.

Frankly, I take the "warrior ethos" push by the Army as an insult. And alternatively, incredibly funny. The Army is no place for "warriors". They are much too regimented and closed-minded for "real" warriors to truly thrive.

[FascistLibertarian]

You cannot teach someone to be a warrior; they either are or they are not.

The Spartans and the Japanese did a pretty good job.
Of course they started early.

[Charlie 14]

I know it's a necro-post, but one thing has bothered me about this, but I let it drop. Until now.

The problem with teaching "everyone" about the "warrior ethos" and using it as a buzz-words, is that there are damned few people out there who are really warriors. The rest are just Joes doing a Job.

You cannot teach someone to be a warrior; they either are or they are not.

Trust me. I'm a warrior. I know other warriors when I see them. Not being a "warrior" is not a handicap. In fact, being a warrior is an incredible handicap in life. You are constantly riding to the sound of the guns, and fighting the good fight, even when it is not the smart fight. Then, when you are inevitably discarded because you don't "fit in" with all the normal human beings, you get to grow older and bitter. And you feel useless to society.

Frankly, I take the "warrior ethos" push by the Army as an insult. And alternatively, incredibly funny. The Army is no place for "warriors". They are much too regimented and closed-minded for "real" warriors to truly thrive.

I was hoping 120mm might expand on that last statement a little bit.

[nichols]

Newest buzz word is battlefield ethics.

That generated a lot of time during last week's meeting at Pendleton.

TRADOC's saying the same thing.

[nichols]

I was hoping 120mm might expand on that last statement a little bit.

My guess would be along these lines:

tact kills the warrior...
concerns about promotion kills the warrior......
traditional command and control kills the warrior......
centralized command and control kills the warrior......

[Charlie 14]

My guess would be along these lines:

tact kills the warrior...
concerns about promotion kills the warrior......
traditional command and control kills the warrior......
centralized command and control kills the warrior......

Well, there have been distictions made between garrison troops and field troopers since long before any of us trod this Earth, but I'm left wondering if the Army isn't the place for "warriors", where is?

I mean is this setting up the traditional pissing match between the Army and the Corps? That's a pretty blanket statement...So where is warrior Valhalla? Blackwater?

[nichols]

Charlie,

I think you may be taking this incorrectly.

I don't think there are any pissing contests in this forum between Army and Marines.

120mm is Army.

The guess that I took about tact, promotion, and C2 isn't service specific.

[Charlie 14]

Charlie,

I think you may be taking this incorrectly.

I don't think there are any pissing contests in this forum between Army and Marines.

120mm is Army.

The guess that I took about tact, promotion, and C2 isn't service specific.

Oh, and let me be clear, I'm not trying to start anything...I can completely understand frustration with nonsensical orders and edicts from on high that seem to defy field reality, but to say, "The Army is no place for "warriors". They are much too regimented and closed-minded for "real" warriors to truly thrive," kind of begs the question...

I'm just trying to get smarter here, that statement covers a lot of ground...