William S. Lind :collection (merged thread)

[Fuchs]

I doubt the way you guys use the word "values" is appropriate here.

A soldier should not consider obedience as a "value" of his/her.
You folks didn't have the whole Stauffenberg et al episode, but other countries with different experiences don't consider obedience as a value that makes sense at all.
It's a behaviour, and sometimes it's inappropriate.

[AmericanPride]

former,

I agree with Fuchs perspective on 'values'. Obedience, for example, is great when your unit is in contact. It's not so great when an institution worth over $1 trillion and a million+ service-members is on a path of decline or committed to a course of failure. Honesty, integrity, courage (moral, intellectual, physical) are values I'd place higher than willingness to obey.

For some reason, you seem to believe that military values should change with the times? In what way?

In a democratic society, the military needs to remain responsive to the expressed needs (through the political system) of the public. If that means females in combat arms or adapting regulations on facial or head hair for a multicultural force, then the military needs to change to implement those values. I have yet to see a substantive argument published anywhere that integration, homosexuals, or responsive regulations are detrimental to good order and discipline or the ability to fight and win wars.

[former_0302]

former,

I agree with Fuchs perspective on 'values'. Obedience, for example, is great when your unit is in contact. It's not so great when an institution worth over $1 trillion and a million+ service-members is on a path of decline or committed to a course of failure. Honesty, integrity, courage (moral, intellectual, physical) are values I'd place higher than willingness to obey.

While I don't disagree with your hierarchy of values, none of those are why people who could have joined the military tell me they didn't join the military. They talk to me about not wanting to be told what to do all the time, and that they don't want to get blown up in some far away land. Maybe you hear different things... The second part is certainly why the mothers of America discourage their sons and daughters from joining as well. I'm the first person from my family to voluntarily join the military in over 160 years of having been in this country. I couldn't adequately describe how badly my parents didn't want that to happen. And I'm from the demographic which is generally more willing to serve. What's your plan for overcoming that? Promising the mothers of America that you won't get their kids schwacked?

In a democratic society, the military needs to remain responsive to the expressed needs (through the political system) of the public. If that means females in combat arms or adapting regulations on facial or head hair for a multicultural force, then the military needs to change to implement those values. I have yet to see a substantive argument published anywhere that integration, homosexuals, or responsive regulations are detrimental to good order and discipline or the ability to fight and win wars.

I don't have any direct experience in serving with an open homosexual, so I'll pass on commenting about that. However, if you think that integrating females into combat units is a good idea... we'll just have to disagree.

I suppose, then, that you would agree that there is a substantive argument that, let's say, the average football/basketball/whatever team will be improved by replacing half of its members with women?

[AmericanPride]

While I don't disagree with your hierarchy of values, none of those are why people who could have joined the military tell me they didn't join the military. They talk to me about not wanting to be told what to do all the time, and that they don't want to get blown up in some far away land. Maybe you hear different things...

There's a whole range of reasons, some of which actually seem quite petty in the 'big picture'; i.e. "peer pressure". I've heard those reasons you've listed, as well as having better pay/benefits elsewhere, "my friends won't approve", etc. Incidentally, the military is regularly ranked as one of the highest regarded government institutions in public opinion polls. So there's a disconnect somewhere; people generally admire the military but don't want to do it themselves. I've heard the "I'll join when the military when it needs me" reason a number of times too.

The military already offers a diverse range of benefits and incentives - some of the services are more flexible than others. From the perspective of the Army, I think it would be more effective reforming itself as an institution (in regards to culture, advancement, etc) than increasing the amount of kind or benefits.

I suppose, then, that you would agree that there is a substantive argument that, let's say, the average football/basketball/whatever team will be improved by replacing half of its members with women?

I think this is a cultural (and subsequently structural) question, not a sex or gender one. History is replete with examples of fierce and capable female warriors and/or soldiers. But women have for the better part of history been regulated to specific roles in society, usually far from any battlefield. I doubt that very much has to do with women being less capable of fighting - I think it's more true that if women are less capable of fighting than men, it's because women in general have been regulated into that position by social structure. I haven't read the literature in depth, but I'd be interested in a discussion of the role of women in the Soviet armed forces during world war II as soldiers, snipers, partisans, etc. Someone on this board may have extensive knowledge on it.

[former_0302]

From the perspective of the Army, I think it would be more effective reforming itself as an institution (in regards to culture, advancement, etc)

How?

I think this is a cultural (and subsequently structural) question, not a sex or gender one. History is replete with examples of fierce and capable female warriors and/or soldiers. But women have for the better part of history been regulated to specific roles in society, usually far from any battlefield. I doubt that very much has to do with women being less capable of fighting - I think it's more true that if women are less capable of fighting than men, it's because women in general have been regulated into that position by social structure. I haven't read the literature in depth, but I'd be interested in a discussion of the role of women in the Soviet armed forces during world war II as soldiers, snipers, partisans, etc. Someone on this board may have extensive knowledge on it.

It is replete with them? Really? Name me some, excluding Joan D'Arc, which is the only one I can come up with without using the power of Google. Whoever they were, I'd argue that it probably wasn't in their job description that, before they could even start fighting, they had to wear 60%+ of their body weight in various armor/other gear.

I suppose the fact that a WNBA team would get crushed by a good high school boy's basketball team, and virtually any men's collegiate team, is a result of social structure? As Keyshawn Johnson says, "C'mon, man!"

[AmericanPride]

I suppose the fact that a WNBA team would get crushed by a good high school boy's basketball team, and virtually any men's collegiate team, is a result of social structure? As Keyshawn Johnson says, "C'mon, man!"

I'm on my way out but I want to take the time to address this point (I'll get to the others later). From birth, women are segregated from men in nearly all forms of physical competition - and the boys receive the better part of the investment in time, training, resources, etc. So it's not surprising whatsoever. This same consequence is actually true to within men competition as children are segregated by age. I'll get the citations to you later. Malcolm Gladwell has a good basic coverage of this effect in one of his books (I forget which).

[former_0302]

I'm on my way out but I want to take the time to address this point (I'll get to the others later). From birth, women are segregated from men in nearly all forms of physical competition - and the boys receive the better part of the investment in time, training, resources, etc. So it's not surprising whatsoever. This same consequence is actually true to within men competition as children are segregated by age. I'll get the citations to you later. Malcolm Gladwell has a good basic coverage of this effect in one of his books (I forget which).

Your point is absolutely irrelevant. DNA says that women will be, on average, smaller, slower and weaker than men. No amount of de-segregation in competitive terms will change that. Unless you think you can legislate biology... which we actually may be able to do soon. Whether that's a good idea or not is another thing...

@ Fuchs--forum conversations tend to take on a life of their own. Since I'm new here, if the consensus is that I'm dragging the thread too far in a wrong direction, I'll stop.

[Fuchs]

Historically about 1/3 of the women in the best age group for combat were pregnant or recovering from pregnancy (almost 10 births/women average for almost all of mankind's history) and tribes were much more capable to overcome the loss of males than the loss of females (in the long term).

Pre-20th century history is thus not authoritative on the 'females in the military' topic.
Besides, Lind didn't mention "females" or "women" in the article.

[former_0302]

I doubt the way you guys use the word "values" is appropriate here.

A soldier should not consider obedience as a "value" of his/her.
You folks didn't have the whole Stauffenberg et al episode, but other countries with different experiences don't consider obedience as a value that makes sense at all.
It's a behaviour, and sometimes it's inappropriate.

I'm not considering obedience to be a value. Obedience is a response to a stimulus, one of several which are possible (you could walk away, scream obscenities, flat-out refuse to do what you were ordered to do, etc.). An individual's response to a given stimulus is in part, at least, a result of their moral/ethical makeup. In other words, their values.

If you value your position in the hierarchy, value the ideals under which you chose to serve in the first place, you will obey. If not, you'll follow whatever else you value. Follow?