William S. Lind :collection (merged thread)

[wm]

After following the debate between Carl and American Pride, I wanted to offer this piece of anecdotal evidence about the composition of the US Army, posted on 4 April at War Council:

Your Soldiers will do amazing things – Far more often than your Soldiers doing stupid things, you will be blown away at how talented they are. I have the following Soldiers in my platoon: a former blacksmith and rodeo clown, a NASCAR pit crewman, two carpenters, a private who is a multi-millionaire and drives and (sic) Audi R8, a Sugar Bowl-winning, University of West Virginia offensive lineman and a SSG who graduated college at 17 years old and taught physics at Tulane before the age of 26.

For what it is worth, the composition of his platoon is not that dissimilar from the one I led back when the US Army was, arguably, at or very near its post-Viet Nam nadir.

A lot of graphs displaying quantitative data are all well and good. Equally nice is the appeal to emotion found in a You Tube extract from a Hollywood production.

1Lt Ginther has things to say about both these techniques too:

Since when did Microsoft Xcel become a leadership tool? – This is a huge pet peeve of mine. When I was a cadet, I saw way too many kids immediately go to computers, spreadsheets and power point to solve problems. Yes, these are skills you will use at nausea when you’re a lieutenant, but get outside of your own head and go work with your Soldiers.

Band of Brothers, Black Hawk Down, The Unforgiving Minute and other sources – Just because you read these books and saw these movies doesn’t make you an expert on warfare or the next Chris Kyle or Mike Murphy. Furthermore, these sources are not the benchmarks for which you should measure the fallibility of tactical or technical opinions and TTPs of others around you. These are personal accounts and reflections on leadership, personal challenges and demons, and should supplement your development as a leader, Soldier and as a person.

At then end of the day, perhaps the best take away from the LT is the following:

Your parents probably did a better job prepping you for leadership than anyone – If your parents taught you to get along with everybody as a kid, work in school, made you clean your room, be home by curfew and they trusted you, you’ll be alright. Being a good, honest person has gotten me much farther in my relationships in the Army than I ever expected.

I suspect that if Lind's critique has any real value, then it is as a criticism of American society as a whole, not just its military.

[TheCurmudgeon]

OK, so there has been a lot of chatter back and forth - how about a list of suggestions?

I will offer three:

1. Slow down junior officer promotions, speed up senior officer promotions. You learn a lot more about leadership with a platoon or a company than in a staff job. This, of course, will require legislative approval - a change in ROPMA.

2. Include more socio-cultural education in the system early on, say the Captain's Career Course. If you are going to take regional alignment seriously (which I doubt) then send your Captain's to work with/live with militaries in their aligned region. Keep them aligned with the same country so that they can build relationships. Relationships matter in the rest of the world.

3. At Major, start separating out command track officers. But once you do that don't just let everyone else fester. Find their niche and use them.

[AmericanPride]

I suspect that if Lind's critique has any real value, then it is as a criticism of American society as a whole, not just its military.

wm,

And that's one of the major problems as a result of the divergence thesis in military culture and the public. If the military is self-selecting (which it is) and the fastest growing demographics in the country are not a part of that self-selection (which they aren't), then several things can happen: the military can become socially (and eventually politically) isolated or its values can change. The military has proved to be a resilient institution of the years and it has adapted, if slowly, to many of society's evolving expectations - from integration, to women in the services, to the all-volunteer force. Are the values and norms of the military today the same as it was in 1776? Will it be the same in 20 years? The military is going to change and the leadership it needs to be proactive in directing that process rather than having it imposed on them.

EDIT: Also, I take issue with the "excel" et. al quote, only because sound decisions can only be deliberately made through a thorough understanding and rigorous examination of the facts to solve problems. Excel is great for this - obviously, excel or any other program is not a replacement for leadership, which is different. Too many times have I seen leaders make decisions on whim and bias rather than factual evidence or use the military equivalent of "It's true because I said so". Part of that is fueled by the nature of command (especially in a combat environment) but part of that is also cultural; there are many norms embedded in military culture that produce resistance to study, intellect, and examination (of the self and surroundings).

[AmericanPride]

TC,

After thinking about this issue some more, I don't think the problem is exclusively military. I agree that the military is facing a substantive problem in what Lind describes as "intellectual and moral courage", however the military as an institution cannot be separated from the social and political fabric in which it is embedded.

From the beginning of the War on Terrorism, the generals viewed the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq (especially Iraq) as 'short-term'. 11 years is only 11 cells across the horseblanket chart in the operations shop. When the lives of weapon systems are mapped out as far as 2050 and beyond, it's easy to dismiss the structural changes necessary to address the problems faced in the present, especially if they're expected to last only a few years.

I don't think tweaking the officer management system will effect the change needed to address the problems identified by Lind. It has to be both cultural and structural - in fact, Lind states this as well. Officers need to be more effectively educated (before and during service) and there needs to be substantive changes in the country's defense political economy. Education overcomes institutional self-selection, which breeds institutional decay and intellectual stagnation. That said, many of the prescriptions here and in the comments quoted by JMA only address the tactical or surface symptoms of the fundamental problems, which are inherently cultural and structural (and perhaps primarily structural since culture is often a reflect of structure).

[TheCurmudgeon]

TC,

After thinking about this issue some more, I don't think the problem is exclusively military. I agree that the military is facing a substantive problem in what Lind describes as "intellectual and moral courage", however the military as an institution cannot be separated from the social and political fabric in which it is embedded.

From the beginning of the War on Terrorism, the generals viewed the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq (especially Iraq) as 'short-term'. 11 years is only 11 cells across the horseblanket chart in the operations shop. When the lives of weapon systems are mapped out as far as 2050 and beyond, it's easy to dismiss the structural changes necessary to address the problems faced in the present, especially if they're expected to last only a few years.

I don't think tweaking the officer management system will effect the change needed to address the problems identified by Lind. It has to be both cultural and structural - in fact, Lind states this as well. Officers need to be more effectively educated (before and during service) and there needs to be substantive changes in the country's defense political economy. Education overcomes institutional self-selection, which breeds institutional decay and intellectual stagnation. That said, many of the prescriptions here and in the comments quoted by JMA only address the tactical or surface symptoms of the fundamental problems, which are inherently cultural and structural (and perhaps primarily structural since culture is often a reflect of structure).

First, I would agree that the problem is not isolated to the military. For starters, any institution of its size is going to suffer from bureaucratic malaise. So it you think you are going to solve that with a change in the personnel system you are kidding yourself. Also, the military is a reflection of the society. There is currently a significant "me first" attitude of the Ayn Rand "virtue of selfishness" variety. Combined with the "everyone deserves a prize" crowd you get the drive for "disruptive thinkers", people with little or no actual experience who believe they know what is best for everyone else but don't really want to work their way up the ladder and earn that position, they want it given to them. The military is a argot society that is dependent on the idea of "duties", not "rights." You get people suing the Army over policy because they have the "right" to be part of a unit. That is hard for many people who have grown up in the "me first" generation to assimilate to.

As for moral courage, I say that is a question of civil-military relations. No one wants to stick there neck out if it is going to get chopped off. The tone for that was set by Rumsfeld and GEN Shinseki. It has not changed since. In 2008 I was in CGSC and we have a civilian from the Bush Administration come down to talk to us all about civil-military relations. The "revolt of the Generals" was still a hot topic. We were told never to talk out of turn and if we did not like something our options was to resign. I stood up and asked directly, if the President gives me an unconstitutional order my only option is to resign? Yes was the answer. We are never, ever supposed to question our civilian masters. That tone was set by Rumsfeld and it has not changed. It won't change until those people who lived through that era pass out of existence.

Since much of the military personnel system is legislated by people with absolutely no military experience - I am talking about Congress, not the President, read your Constitution on who has the power to regulate the military - then none of this is likely to change. We need to concentrate on what we can fix. The officer education system and the officer assignment system. And we need to dump the "zero-defect" mentality. Those we can fix on our own. Everything else is just idle talk.

EDIT: One point on the "zero-defect" mentality, it will be around for the next few years. Why? Because we are in a draw-down. The easiest way to find out who to dump is to look in their records for issues. That is reality. No amount of high minded talk is going to change that reality. Some of that is good. Too fat, can't pass a PT test, ... so long. Some of it is OK. Like to send dirty texts to your LTs because you think you are Gods gift to women, ... ... so long. Some of it is not so great. Screw up an exercise or allow a piece of equipment to get lost or damaged on your watch, or just covering for your soldiers so they don't get whacked, ... so long. Any large system is going to chew-up and spit-out some good with all the bad.

[Fuchs]

Some more about "failure of generals" thin:
http://eb-misfit.blogspot.de/2014/05...asured-in.html

[TheCurmudgeon]

As noted in the article, corruption is a problem we create. When you have only two types of diplomacy, the carrot - we give you tons of money to do our bidding; or the stick - we will use our military to destroy you, and then pay your successor to tons of money to do our bidding; then corruption is a necessary evil. If we could learn to understand others instead of assuming we know what they need, then this might change. But sadly, as we move towards a new Cold War because Russia is the enemy of NATO, we have learned ... wait for it ... NOTHING!

Happily, that is another thread entirely.

[former_0302]

wm,

And that's one of the major problems as a result of the divergence thesis in military culture and the public. If the military is self-selecting (which it is) and the fastest growing demographics in the country are not a part of that self-selection (which they aren't), then several things can happen: the military can become socially (and eventually politically) isolated or its values can change. The military has proved to be a resilient institution of the years and it has adapted, if slowly, to many of society's evolving expectations - from integration, to women in the services, to the all-volunteer force. Are the values and norms of the military today the same as it was in 1776? Will it be the same in 20 years? The military is going to change and the leadership it needs to be proactive in directing that process rather than having it imposed on them.

When you make the decision to put on a uniform and serve this country in its military, whatever set of values you previously had needs to be checked at the door. Some people enter the service with the same set of values the services have, or an even more stringent set, but I'd guess that for most people it requires a more stringent set of values than they previously lived under.

The self-selecting portion of society to which you refer is the segment of society which is most willing to live their lives under those circumstances. Frankly, the military has no use for people who are not willing to live in those circumstances.

For some reason, you seem to believe that military values should change with the times? In what way? In its most basic form, agreement to serve requires a willingness to do what other people tell you to do, in many situations unquestioningly, with the potential consequences of doing so up to and including your life/severe debilitating injury. For not all that much money.

Doing that requires a certain set of values which, IMO, is not going to change with time. I see little evidence to suggest that you're going to get a demographic of people who are not historically drawn to this to get into it.

[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?

[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?

[wm]

wm,

And that's one of the major problems as a result of the divergence thesis in military culture and the public. If the military is self-selecting (which it is) and the fastest growing demographics in the country are not a part of that self-selection (which they aren't), then several things can happen: the military can become socially (and eventually politically) isolated or its values can change. The military has proved to be a resilient institution of the years and it has adapted, if slowly, to many of society's evolving expectations - from integration, to women in the services, to the all-volunteer force. Are the values and norms of the military today the same as it was in 1776? Will it be the same in 20 years? The military is going to change and the leadership it needs to be proactive in directing that process rather than having it imposed on them.

EDIT: Also, I take issue with the "excel" et. al quote, only because sound decisions can only be deliberately made through a thorough understanding and rigorous examination of the facts to solve problems. Excel is great for this - obviously, excel or any other program is not a replacement for leadership, which is different. Too many times have I seen leaders make decisions on whim and bias rather than factual evidence or use the military equivalent of "It's true because I said so". Part of that is fueled by the nature of command (especially in a combat environment) but part of that is also cultural; there are many norms embedded in military culture that produce resistance to study, intellect, and examination (of the self and surroundings).

My critique has nothing to do with social divergence or distance (I think the latter is the term Charlie Moskos used back in the 70s when he wrote on the impacts of the all volunteer Army--probably worth a literature review by others on this thread). Instead it has to do with how Americans today raise their sons and daughters. I suspect that the kinds of things the LT suggested that parents make their kids do are not being accomplished. I will not elaborate further because my information is only anecdotal.

To AP's edit point, I am reminded of the quotation attributed to Mark Twain:"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Statistical analysis has value as long as the assumptions underlying the statistics are made clear. And, as we should all be aware from the nice scatter plots AP shared earlier, in what are the most interesting cases for decision makers (my assumption/bias), outliers are usually present. As another representation of my bias, I tend to plan for the worst case outlier, not the best case or the average case, unless I have reasons to do otherwise. BTW, calling them reasons is actually somewhat of a misnomer because reason usually plays little part in it. It is instead more often the qualitative/emotional kind of gut feeling that Hollywood can portray so well.

Some knowledge management folks today now describe two categories of knowledge: explicit and tacit. Knowing when to go with your gut is part of tacit knowledge--something that comes with experience and mentoring or working with other expert practitioners. Explicit knowledge is the kind of stuff we get from textbooks and classrooms. Creating a useful spreadsheet includes both explicit knowledge (how to use Excel for example) and tacit knowledge (what data to select and how to display it).

Given this distinction between explicit and tacit knowledge, I think the Curmudgeon is on to something with slowing down promotions. I would, however, not wait until the field grades to start identifying and utilizing officer specialists--explicit knowledge acquisition should start as part of the early officer development classes as well--including BOLC and MCCC. Of course to do this will mean the bean counters will have to accept end strength trade offs because of the number of officers in the school account. Such is life when resources are scarce and the competition for them is fierce.

[AmericanPride]

My critique has nothing to do with social divergence or distance (I think the latter is the term Charlie Moskos used back in the 70s when he wrote on the impacts of the all volunteer Army--probably worth a literature review by others on this thread). Instead it has to do with how Americans today raise their sons and daughters. I suspect that the kinds of things the LT suggested that parents make their kids do are not being accomplished.

How is the first sentence unrelated to your second and third? I think we're talking about the same subject but understanding the words differently.

Given this distinction between explicit and tacit knowledge, I think the Curmudgeon is on to something with slowing down promotions. I would, however, not wait until the field grades to start identifying and utilizing officer specialists--explicit knowledge acquisition should start as part of the early officer development classes as well--including BOLC and MCCC. Of course to do this will mean the bean counters will have to accept end strength trade offs because of the number of officers in the school account. Such is life when resources are scarce and the competition for them is fierce.

I agree in principle. And the military already does this with some specialists, like nurses, doctors, and lawyers. Functional Areas (in the Army) and skill identifiers are available - but they're not open until (senior) captain. Slowing promotions doesn't address the problem of making everyone a generalist and assuming they're on a command track. Eventually it's still up or out...

[carl]

Equally nice is the appeal to emotion found in a You Tube extract from a Hollywood production.

I sense a bit of sniffing disapproval there.

Emotion is a rather important thing when dealing with human motivation, especially motivation of people fighting in wars since the war will get a lot of those doing the fighting killed. The people know that and yet very often they kept on going up that hill, running toward the Japanese battleships or land at Kham Duc anyway. The reasons they do that are many and I think, remember I'm an always a civilian, the most important ones are emotional when the steel can be seen or it is flying through the air so fast as to be invisible. So I very much see a place for referencing emotion in back and forths like this.

Now back to the general fray.

To this civilian defending excel spreadsheets as a military decision making tool is...silly. The great leaders of the past didn't need them and there were a lot of great leaders in the past. If they had them they still would be who they were and if McClellan had excel that wouldn't have made him Grant. The problem is for the military to find those Grants and I fear that if proficiency with excel is valued the next incarnation of Bill Slim (sorry British, we're taking your man) who happened to be a computer klutz will be lost to us. That is not a good thing.

As far as women in combat goes, I figure way back when before the dawn of email and before even writing the humans did try mixed sex groups in combat. I think people tried everything way back when. It wasn't tried too much after that because the ones who thought that was a good idea lost their fights and they all got killed. The reason I figure that is because humans are very pragmatic and if mixed sex groups had worked in battle, people would have kept on doing it because winning is a good thing. Even people who couldn't read could figure that out. So the idea died and lay dead for so long that people forgot why it was so, it just seemed the natural thing. Then PC came along and it looks as of we may have to learn that lesson all over again.

And we will. Most people don't think of it like this but to my knowledge all the ships of the USN have mixed sex crews and when the next big sea fight comes we will be conducting an experiment that has never before been conducted in the history of the humans, mixed sex crews in fighting ships in combat (and I mean real fighting the IJN in the Slot at night type combat, not firing a cruise missile at a third world nation). We'll see if this experiment works. I hope so because the price foe defeat will be very high.

[AmericanPride]

To this civilian defending excel spreadsheets as a military decision making tool is...silly. The great leaders of the past didn't need them and there were a lot of great leaders in the past. If they had them they still would be who they were and if McClellan had excel that wouldn't have made him Grant. The problem is for the military to find those Grants and I fear that if proficiency with excel is valued the next incarnation of Bill Slim (sorry British, we're taking your man) who happened to be a computer klutz will be lost to us. That is not a good thing.

Those are two different issues. And the first part is not "defending excel"; excel is a tool. It's about the lack of rigorous intellect applied to military problems. This is not strongly cultivated in the officer corps until senior leadership - and only narrowly. Another poster referenced this problem implicitly with the failure of the senior leadership to understand sociology, et.al and how it fits with military science. Embarking on military campaigns in the complexity of the modern security environment without appreciating the nuances of practical understanding is both ignorant and deadly. Modern general officers are no longer galloping on horseback to break the enemy's center - they're managers of a complex multi-layered bureaucracy embedded in an tightly-woven political-economic-social fabric and engaged in a highly disruptive enterprise with long-term multi-ordered effects. There is no excuse for ignorance, especially for officers.

I think people tried everything way back when. It wasn't tried too much after that because the ones who thought that was a good idea lost their fights and they all got killed. The reason I figure that is because humans are very pragmatic and if mixed sex groups had worked in battle, people would have kept on doing it because winning is a good thing.

That's a highly superficial reading of history. Care to provide any examples? Humans are pragmatic - to an extent. They're also rationalizing, which means they're better at excusing their condition than rationally improving or understanding their condition. Fuchs is right about the historical condition of women, which indicates that exclusion of women from combat is a socio-political construction rather than one based strictly on military proficiency. The destruction of mythologized forms of femininity is the greatest problem facing the integration of women in the hyper-masculine culture of the military. And this social construct is enforced through very deeply-held norms that are practiced through structurally discriminatory practices - and not just in the military, but from the moment of birth. Success in combat, like sports, is not exclusively a question of maximizing physical strength. It also requires technical skill, intellect, and moral and physical courage. Is the 'worst' male soldier more effective in combat than the 'best' female soldier?

Also, the military is a reflection of the society. There is currently a significant "me first" attitude of the Ayn Rand "virtue of selfishness" variety. Combined with the "everyone deserves a prize" crowd you get the drive for "disruptive thinkers", people with little or no actual experience who believe they know what is best for everyone else but don't really want to work their way up the ladder and earn that position, they want it given to them. The military is a argot society that is dependent on the idea of "duties", not "rights." You get people suing the Army over policy because they have the "right" to be part of a unit. That is hard for many people who have grown up in the "me first" generation to assimilate to.

If the "military is a reflection of society" and society is changing, shouldn't the military also change? Similarly, if the conduct or character of war is changing, doesn't that also necessitate a change in military culture? Is a 19th century military culture optimal for 21st century conflict?

[TheCurmudgeon]

If the "military is a reflection of society" and society is changing, shouldn't the military also change? Similarly, if the conduct or character of war is changing, doesn't that also necessitate a change in military culture? Is a 19th century military culture optimal for 21st century conflict?

My answer to the first question is "No", the military should not change, at least not in the same way. My reasoning here is far to complicated to put forth here. I can send you something privately if you want to understand it.

The answer to the second question is that those are two separate issues. The character of war has not really changed. Conduct has changed enormously in the last 100 years.

[former_0302]

That's a highly superficial reading of history. Care to provide any examples? Humans are pragmatic - to an extent. They're also rationalizing, which means they're better at excusing their condition than rationally improving or understanding their condition. Fuchs is right about the historical condition of women, which indicates that exclusion of women from combat is a socio-political construction rather than one based strictly on military proficiency. The destruction of mythologized forms of femininity is the greatest problem facing the integration of women in the hyper-masculine culture of the military. And this social construct is enforced through very deeply-held norms that are practiced through structurally discriminatory practices - and not just in the military, but from the moment of birth. Success in combat, like sports, is not exclusively a question of maximizing physical strength. It also requires technical skill, intellect, and moral and physical courage. Is the 'worst' male soldier more effective in combat than the 'best' female soldier?

"Superficial" != "wrong." Apologies if I came across as harsh yesterday, but the reason your point is not relevant is because you aren't going to fix it in your lifetime, and probably not in your grandkid's. What you are speaking of is the result of thousands of years of natural selection. You're not going to change the cumulative effect of that in a generation, unless you start playing God with people's DNA.

There are examples of mammalian species where the female is larger/stronger than the male, but they evolved that way due to factors that necessitated it. It didn't happen with us, and the impetus to get it to change hasn't happened yet. I'd argue that the military's role and purpose in society is too important to make it that impetus.

Being a graduate of IOC, I've followed the attempts to get a woman through it with interest. To date, only one has completed the initial event, and she managed to break herself in the course of doing it. The initial event at IOC isn't even in the top five of events at IOC in terms of level of difficulty. I imagine that there are some women out there who can do it... but I doubt they meet USMC height/weight standards for females. I think the build necessitated by those standards is too slight to be able to make it.

Lost in all of this is the simple fact that not a single female Marine I know would choose to go into a combat arms field if given the choice. Admittedly, I don't know all of them, but the fact that the ones I do aren't clamoring for this change to be made leads me to believe that the drive behind doing this isn't coming from what I'd consider a "pure" source.

If the "military is a reflection of society" and society is changing, shouldn't the military also change? Similarly, if the conduct or character of war is changing, doesn't that also necessitate a change in military culture? Is a 19th century military culture optimal for 21st century conflict?

Why should the military reflect society? Do you want a military that reflects a fascination with Justin Bieber, Lady Gaga, or any of the rest of the inanities that our society loves? The military requires its members to live a standards-based existence, and IMO a lot of those standards are not as stringent as they should be. What standards there are in civilian American society pale in comparison.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Why should the military reflect society? Do you want a military that reflects a fascination with Justin Bieber, Lady Gaga, or any of the rest of the inanities that our society loves? The military requires its members to live a standards-based existence, and IMO a lot of those standards are not as stringent as they should be. What standards there are in civilian American society pale in comparison.

I am going to disagree with you a little on this. Young enlisted and officers have a fascination with popular culture. Civilians have a fascination with combat video games. That is just entertainment.

What I am referring to are the social standards of duty and loyalty that are part of the military. I care much less about other standards like uniform or haircut standards, or even PT and height/weight to a point (No soldier ever stayed back home because they were too fat or could not pass a PT test, we took them with us anyway.) Standards are only important in as far as they reflect a necessity on the part of the mission and, secondary to that, a dedication to accomplishing that mission. When the standards become more important than the mission than we have lost focus.

In garrison before the war we were strict on enforcing uniform and decorum standards because they kept the Soldier sharp and situationaly aware. When some senior NCOs and Officers tried to enforce the same standards on the FOB the standards made less sense and the NCO's and Officers lost respect. They did not understand the purpose of the standard. Standards became a self-licking ice cream cone.

[former_0302]

I am going to disagree with you a little on this. Young enlisted and officers have a fascination with popular culture. Civilians have a fascination with combat video games. That is just entertainment.

What I am referring to are the social standards of duty and loyalty that are part of the military. I care much less about other standards like uniform or haircut standards, or even PT and height/weight to a point (No soldier ever stayed back home because they were too fat or could not pass a PT test, we took them with us anyway.) Standards are only important in as far as they reflect a necessity on the part of the mission and, secondary to that, a dedication to accomplishing that mission. When the standards become more important than the mission than we have lost focus.

In garrison before the war we were strict on enforcing uniform and decorum standards because they kept the Soldier sharp and situationaly aware. When some senior NCOs and Officers tried to enforce the same standards on the FOB the standards made less sense and the NCO's and Officers lost respect. They did not understand the purpose of the standard. Standards became a self-licking ice cream cone.

I agree that, in reality, some standards are more important than others. I also agree that the standards for a deployed unit should be somewhat different from those for a unit in garrison, and even ones in the field during exercises (I had a platoon sergeant once who wouldn't let Marines ever be outdoors without something on their head, which I thought was a bit extreme).

Having said that, moral and performance standards in particular matter. I don't care so much for PT standards, like you, mainly because our PT standards are not a metric of anything that is all that important to job performance (how fast you can run three miles in shorts and sneakers is not at all indicative of how mission-ready you'll be after you've walked 10 miles carrying 50 lbs, in my experience). If you can't hit a target under specific conditions, I don't want you on that gun/mortar/whatever. If you can't navigate, I don't want you in any job where your GPS batteries die and you have to use a map and compass to get somewhere.

The moral standards are a similar thing. If you don't have the discipline to not drink and drive, or use drugs, or even cheat on your spouse, I don't think you should wear a uniform. None of those things will necessarily get you fired from civilian employment, but they'll get you booted out of the service pretty quickly.

Those are the main things I'm referring to when I speak about standards.