It is not just the risk posed by this effect upon the individual, but that posed to the institution of the military. Our military, in that sense, is stronger than ever before, but this danger exists, and is nibbling away at the edges. At the small unit level, with leadership failure under stress, it has already occurred on several occasions, with significant negative impact. Effective follow-up to such failures has been minimal to non-existent - with a very few high-profile exceptions.
Previously quoted in a slightly different context, but certainly applicable here, is a quote from Bernard Fall in
an interview in '63:
One of the by-products of revolutionary war - to come back to the question the gentleman asked me about the French officers - is that after awhile not only the front lines get fuzzy (because there aren't any front lines), but your higher front lines, of what is morally acceptable and what is not, also get fuzzy. This is really the permanent danger to anyone who has to fight that kind of war. This is what led those French colonels to practice the same tactics which they practiced on the Algerians and Vietnamese, on their own government and people in France. This is a real danger factor. An army which has to fight a revolutionary war changes in character--it changes very seriously in character. This has not yet been studied, but it must be clearly recognized and is certainly worth the study.
Originally Posted by Jedburgh
It is not just the risk posed by this effect upon the individual, but that posed to the institution of the military. Our military, in that sense, is stronger than ever before, but this danger exists, and is nibbling away at the edges. At the small unit level, with leadership failure under stress, it has already occurred on several occasions, with significant negative impact. Effective follow-up to such failures has been minimal to non-existent - with a very few high-profile exceptions.
Bookmarks