William S. Lind :collection (merged thread)

[Steve Blair]

Challenge:

You guys claim soldiers are substantially different (or superior) to civilians in general. I write "in general" because you keep writing "soldiers" without much qualifiers (at war, in combat arms etc.) attached.

Show how this soldier is special:

An airman works in an air force depot, doing inventory and equipment checks on spare parts. The inventory starts again once it's done, week after week. He's working with a civilian there who does the exact same thing.

What's so substantially different about this soldier to justify any special attitude or expectations for rewards?

This is actually a very good challenge/question. I've worked with military folks for a great percentage of my life, and this fairly recent attitude of exceptionalism is disturbing. I do think it's worth looking at and discussing without references to exceptional situations like Bataan and the like.

Folks seem to forget that for a great many years the Army in the United States was seen as alternately unnecessary, a mercenary force composed mainly of foreigners, or an instrument of Government oppression. Most popular acclaim was saved for state-based Volunteer units. Much of the glorification of the military gained momentum after the First Gulf War (for a variety of reasons, including some delayed guilt on the part of elites when it came to memories of their denouncement of the troops during Vietnam), and it's only gained steam ever since.

The military is in many ways an institution like any other large organization. You're going to have good folks, bad folks, and those who just do their job and go home. But the system's also set up to reward those who can "work the system" and doesn't reward or advance the sort of people they like to laud in hindsight (a Patton or an Olds wouldn't make it very far these days). And certain segments of the culture are seriously broken. To give one example, anyone who was surprised by the recent problems the Air Force's ICBM force is experiencing simply hasn't been paying attention to the culture.

I'll dismount the soapbox now, but I still think the original challenge/question is a good one. Having worked on a post during the late '90s, I saw a fair number of soldiers find ways to avoid deployments or other unfavorable assignments. They may not have a "check the box" option, but there are certainly ways to do it without significant penalty.

[wm]

Fuchs,
US military members are authorized to use deadly force outside the battlefield as well. The restrictions are very explicit, but that, as well as being subject to a special penal code, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, in the US anyway, make military members a separate group from most folks in the country.

[Fuchs]

Fuchs,
US military members are authorized to use deadly force outside the battlefield as well. The restrictions are very explicit, but that, as well as being subject to a special penal code, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, in the US anyway, make military members a separate group from most folks in the country.

I noted how Floridian civilians "are authorized to use deadly force outside the battlefield" in general and in ways soldiers in New York State aren't. The restrictions in Florida infamously are not very explicit. I also heard about how bodyguards, guards, policemen, executioners and in many countries also hunters/park rangers are authorized to use deadly force outside the battlefield", and in often ways soldiers aren't.

Killing is no military monopoly - and certainly not so in peacetime. In fact, intentional kills by soldiers are in peacetime again extremely uncommon and rather the extreme exception compared to the many legal kills by civilians.
So no, the big difference regarding "killing" is also about war/no-war, not mil/civ.

Besides; even in wartime civilians are hardly going to be prosecuted by their own country for killing a hostile soldier.

-----

Did you know tenured civil administrations, policemen, seamen and plenty other civilian job groups are under a special penal code in many countries all over the world? In fact, the penal code of German policemen is by its nature a twin of the Bundeswehr's. As is in fact the penal code for all German tenured public servants. Teachers, for example. Yes - a first grade teacher who teaches children the alphabet is under a special penal code in some countries!

I made a quick google search, and it confirmed that in the United States there's a huge legal difference between a public servant in a utilities institution and a normal employee in the same job.
Did you ever hear about a conviction for "abuse of office" by a non-government employee?
Me neither.
Non-governmental jerks can be fired, but never charged with "abuse of office".

-----

Besides, even IF soldiers were different/special because of special penal code or killing authorization:
That would still not support all the attitude stuff about it. No support for higher morality, hardly support for requirement of higher morality such as no cheating on spouses, no 'deserving' much respect et cetera.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Since you all have lost any connection with the original intent of the thread, I will throw this out:

Let women fight on the front line: Defence Secretary tells Army to end macho image

Tory Cabinet Minister reveals plan for women to be given combat roles
Review was due in 2018 but will be brought forward to this year
Chief of the General Staff will report to Hammond by end of year
Hammond says current ban sends bad signal Army not 'open to women'
Says 'macho image' of the Army is wrong. Claims reality 'very different'

By Daniel Martin and Ian Drury

Published: 09:56 EST, 8 May 2014 | Updated: 19:01 EST, 8 May 2014

592 shares

678

View
comments

Women soldiers could be allowed into frontline combat roles, it was announced yesterday.

Signalling the historic change, Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said it was time for the Armed Forces to abandon the ‘macho’ image and show they were open to everyone who was fit enough.

He said the US, Canadian and Australian armies allowed women to serve in combat roles – and so should Britain.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz31GHLvQXF
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[wm]

I noted how Floridian civilians "are authorized to use deadly force outside the battlefield" in general and in ways soldiers in New York State aren't. The restrictions in Florida infamously are not very explicit. I also heard about how bodyguards, guards, policemen, executioners and in many countries also hunters/park rangers are authorized to use deadly force outside the battlefield", and in often ways soldiers aren't.

Killing is no military monopoly - and certainly not so in peacetime. In fact, intentional kills by soldiers are in peacetime again extremely uncommon and rather the extreme exception compared to the many legal kills by civilians.
So no, the big difference regarding "killing" is also about war/no-war, not mil/civ.

Besides; even in wartime civilians are hardly going to be prosecuted by their own country for killing a hostile soldier.

Too bad you have chosen to use mockery and equivocation to try to make points.

On a serious note, the US has a history of fear of standing armies, choosing instead to rely on the call up of militia forces in time of need. I submit that European nations have a fear of militias (but I cannot substantiate this other than by appeal to the rest of Europe's reaction to Napoleon's armies of the people and the results of the Congress of Vienna). Does Germany having anything like the US National Guard, which is a military force in each state under the control of the governor of that state? In some states, a state militia also exists alongside the National Guard. The National Guard primarily provides support to local (state) law enforcement and disaster relief agencies when it has not been called into Federal service.

I also suspect that most European nations are federal unions with little to no states rights (although I seem to remember that the Bavarian Free State is or was somewhat unique in its relationship to the rest of Germany and Switzerland is a confederation.) The US started as a confederation, not a federal union, which may explain some of the differences between the US military and that of European nations or the former colonies of European nations.

Did you know tenured civil administrations, policemen, seamen and plenty other civilian job groups are under a special penal code in many countries all over the world? In fact, the penal code of German policemen is by its nature a twin of the Bundeswehr's. As is in fact the penal code for all German tenured public servants. Teachers, for example. Yes - a first grade teacher who teaches children the alphabet is under a special penal code in some countries!

I made a quick google search, and it confirmed that in the United States there's a huge legal difference between a public servant in a utilities institution and a normal employee in the same job.
Did you ever hear about a conviction for "abuse of office" by a non-government employee?
Me neither.
Non-governmental jerks can be fired, but never charged with "abuse of office."

Besides, even IF soldiers were different/special because of special penal code or killing authorization:
That would still not support all the attitude stuff about it. No support for higher morality, hardly support for requirement of higher morality such as no cheating on spouses, no 'deserving' much respect et cetera.

American business executives can be tried for abuse of office, although it is not called that. Still things like insider trading are exactly such abuses of office in the private sector.. (Check out Bernie Madoff or Jeff Skilling for examples.)

In American English at least, "special" can just mean different, it does not always have a connotation of "better." The attitude you are describing is, I think, an outgrowth of the attitude about the great cause described in the JMA quotation from Buchan to which I expressed concern in a later post in response to Carl

(Aside to The Curmudgeon--I'm trying to get back to the critique by Lind.) The last few lines above may be of use as an explanation for some of the officer failings Lind asserts. I believe that much of the US military does not have this overinflated sense of self-worth. Rather, my experience with them is that they are a humble and self-effacing group of folks. In fact, I think that were the US to follow the proposals made by JMA for selection and training, the expression by military members of their superiority and entitlement to special privilege would be even worse, in the American military at least.

[JMA]

This is actually a very good challenge/question. I've worked with military folks for a great percentage of my life, and this fairly recent attitude of exceptionalism is disturbing.

Please help me understand where you are coming from here.

This work you have done with 'military folks' has it always been stateside or also in combat?

There is an essential issue here and that is the 'grunts' or GIs can't be faulted for their efforts in both Iraq and Afghanistan. On the other hand the performance of the senior officers - home and away - has been questionable and that of the politicians has been disgraceful.

[wm]

wm... I am waiting for a response to this.

Your cheap shot should not go unchallenged as you are not setting the example of the 'morality' of officers which you espouse.

In the original post I noted the quotations were from Wikipedia. Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bu...ron_Tweedsmuir. Perhaps you would like to refute the claims made therein and thereby prove my post was a "cheap shot.". (BTW, it has quite a bit more content to chew on than what is found at the Wikipedia link you provided for Lord Moran.) I also note that the source indicates Buchan was one of Alfred Milner's proteges in South Africa during Buchan's early career. Wasn't Milner responsible for management of the concentration camps where thousand of women and children died during the 2nd Boer War?

The convention is to cite the source of what you post. Just so I understand you, is this your personal opinion or where did you get this from?

This is my opinion. I "got" it from many years of reading, thinking, and talking with others in a wide variety of venues about the morality of war. I was going to start listing the sources, but came to the conclusion that compiling such a list covering about 50 years of such activity would be subject to error by exclusion and well outside the scope of this thread.

I submit you have missed the essential point.

The characteristics mentioned in my quotes from Buchan and Moran should be used during the selection process prior to officer training starting.

You talk of teaching virtues . Now the bad news is - using your example - is that you can't teach the 4 Cs.

I do not believe I missed the point. When I mentioned the 4C's, I tried to express (apparently not well) that the US Army taught that the 4C's were virtues, not that the Army taught others to be virtuous. (I hope I know my Aristotle well enough not to make that mistake.) Back in the day, the US Army's Leadership Field Manual FM22-100 portrayed examples of leaders demonstrating the 4Cs as part of its "Be, Know, Do" process, which, by the way, focuses on training not teaching, two very different things.

Please explain exactly how you would assess candidates for officer training prior to starting it. In the US Army, candidates are assessed during their training as officer candidates and cadets for such qualities. They may be terminated from commissioning programs for lack of aptitude--mental, physical, and/or leadership. They may also leave the programs voluntarily. A USMA graduate has been assessed for 4 years prior to receiving a commission, a ROTC candidate is assessed for at least a year, more usually 2-4 years. The shortest assessment time frame is for Officer Candidate School (OCS) graduates at 12 weeks, but they have also had prior active service time as an enlisted member, which was used as part of the assessment for selection into OCS in the first place. Candidates for ROTC and USMA are also subject to assessment prior to being accepted into those programs.

A more important concern is who assesses the assessors? What qualities should they display?
USMA cadets are required to learn what they know as Worth's Battalion Orders:

But an officer on duty knows no one -- to be partial is to dishonor both himself and the object of his ill-advised favor. What will be thought of him who exacts of his friends that which disgraces him? Look at him who winks at and overlooks offenses in one, which he causes to be punished in another, and contrast him with the inflexible soldier who does his duty faithfully, notwithstanding it occasionally wars with his private feelings. The conduct of one will be venerated and emulated, the other detested as a satire upon soldiership and honor.

Brevet Major William Jenkins Worth

One trusts that the cadets "internalize" the sentiments expressed by Major Worth. But as President Reagan said, "Trust but verify." In the course of their education and training, cadets are also evaluated by the tactical and academic faculty on their character development and expression. A significant portion of their academic instructors and all their tactical instructors are military members for just this reason.

[carl]

Please explain exactly how you would assess candidates for officer training prior to starting it. In the US Army, candidates are assessed during their training as officer candidates and cadets for such qualities. They may be terminated from commissioning programs for lack of aptitude--mental, physical, and/or leadership. They may also leave the programs voluntarily. A USMA graduate has been assessed for 4 years prior to receiving a commission, a ROTC candidate is assessed for at least a year, more usually 2-4 years. The shortest assessment time frame is for Officer Candidate School (OCS) graduates at 12 weeks, but they have also had prior active service time as an enlisted member, which was used as part of the assessment for selection into OCS in the first place. Candidates for ROTC and USMA are also subject to assessment prior to being accepted into those programs.

A more important concern is who assesses the assessors? What qualities should they display?
USMA cadets are required to learn what they know as Worth's Battalion Orders:

One trusts that the cadets "internalize" the sentiments expressed by Major Worth. But as President Reagan said, "Trust but verify." In the course of their education and training, cadets are also evaluated by the tactical and academic faculty on their character development and expression. A significant portion of their academic instructors and all their tactical instructors are military members for just this reason.

This is good in theory but how many are actually removed because of lack of character? I don't know but I ask because of something I read in Rick's Best Defense a few years ago.

A guy wrote a story about how an upperclassman broke his arm during some kind of training evolution. It was an avoidable thing, the upperclassman was just a meathead who got real enthusiastic when given the chance to thump people with no possibility of getting hit back. People here probably all know the type. The point was, aside from some sour looks, nothing happened to the upperclassman. He was not removed despite what seems an obvious character flaw and went on to be commissioned.

That is only one story but the guy wrote it to illustrate the point that the system doesn't seem well equipped to remove the meatheads and perhaps the game players too.

[wm]

This is good in theory but how many are actually removed because of lack of character? I don't know but I ask because of something I read in Rick's Best Defense a few years ago.

A guy wrote a story about how an upperclassman broke his arm during some kind of training evolution. It was an avoidable thing, the upperclassman was just a meathead who got real enthusiastic when given the chance to thump people with no possibility of getting hit back. People here probably all know the type. The point was, aside from some sour looks, nothing happened to the upperclassman. He was not removed despite what seems an obvious character flaw and went on to be commissioned.

That is only one story but the guy wrote it to illustrate the point that the system doesn't seem well equipped to remove the meatheads and perhaps the game players too.

I cannot tell you how many get removed for the various reasons, nor can I tell you how many choose to leave voluntarily or somewhat involuntarily. However, you might recall that in America we live with the assumption that people are innocent until proven guilty and that it is better to let a thousand criminals go free than to punish an innocent person. I submit that the system is set up to work within those assumptions.

For example , cadets who are members of the Cadet Honor Committee investigate and try other cadets for honor code violations. However the dismissal authority for an honor violation is the Secretary of the Army, a political appointee. Make your own judgment.

Here is a counter anecdote to your story: At his 40th USMA class reunion, a retired colonel asked whether he would have time to get to the cadet bookstore to buy a copy of a certain book. The reason he wanted this book was because he had borrowed a copy of it from one of his classmates while they were still cadets and had failed to return it. Since he knew this classmate would be at the reunion, he wanted to be sure he could return the book. I find that to be a rather strong expression of duty and honor--the first two words in the USMA motto. YMMV

[carl]

I cannot tell you how many get removed for the various reasons, nor can I tell you how many choose to leave voluntarily or somewhat involuntarily. However, you might recall that in America we live with the assumption that people are innocent until proven guilty and that it is better to let a thousand criminals go free than to punish an innocent person. I submit that the system is set up to work within those assumptions.

That works well enough in the criminal justice system. I don't think it works so well in officer selection. It is in my view far worse to let a thousand bad apples become second lieutenants than get rid of one who might not deserve to go.

Here is a counter anecdote to your story: At his 40th USMA class reunion, a retired colonel asked whether he would have time to get to the cadet bookstore to buy a copy of a certain book. The reason he wanted this book was because he had borrowed a copy of it from one of his classmates while they were still cadets and had failed to return it. Since he knew this classmate would be at the reunion, he wanted to be sure he could return the book. I find that to be a rather strong expression of duty and honor--the first two words in the USMA motto. YMMV

Well and good, but as a civilian that is what I expect to be the norm. That is what I pay for and that is what the services advertise they produce and imply is the norm. Judging by what we see so very often, it isn't.

[JMA]

I cannot tell you how many get removed for the various reasons, nor can I tell you how many choose to leave voluntarily or somewhat involuntarily. However, you might recall that in America we live with the assumption that people are innocent until proven guilty and that it is better to let a thousand criminals go free than to punish an innocent person. I submit that the system is set up to work within those assumptions.

Wow... I guess this is what you would call inflation.

[I sought some advice from someone who used to post here]

William Blackstone said in the 1760s: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"

Then your Benjamin Franklin got ahead of himself:



Now with you it gets to 1,000!

I guess we need to get our feet back firmly on the ground with this:

The story is told of a Chinese law professor, who was listening to a British lawyer explain that Britons were so enlightened, they believed it was better that ninety-nine guilty men go free than that one innocent man be executed. The Chinese professor thought for a second and asked, "Better for whom?"

[JMA]

In the original post I noted the quotations were from Wikipedia. Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bu...ron_Tweedsmuir. Perhaps you would like to refute the claims made therein and thereby prove my post was a "cheap shot.". (BTW, it has quite a bit more content to chew on than what is found at the Wikipedia link you provided for Lord Moran.) I also note that the source indicates Buchan was one of Alfred Milner's proteges in South Africa during Buchan's early career. Wasn't Milner responsible for management of the concentration camps where thousand of women and children died during the 2nd Boer War?

Your cheap shot was:

Talk about your moral courage or fortitude . . .Seems like a "do as I say, not as I do" kind of guy.

I asked you to explain how you reached that conclusion. Clearly you would rather duck-and-dive and worm your way out of that.

[wm]

Your cheap shot was:

Talk about your moral courage or fortitude . . .Seems like a "do as I say, not as I do" kind of guy.

I asked you to explain how you reached that conclusion. Clearly you would rather duck-and-dive and worm your way out of that.

Your original request was rather different. viz.:

And all that from a quick Google search... I wonder if you are able to substantiate your indictment of the man?

Buchan's experiences during the First World War made him averse to conflict, 1.he tried to help prevent another war in coordination with United States president Franklin D. Roosevelt and Mackenzie King.

But he apparently sold out and

authorised Canada's declaration of war against Germany in September, shortly after the British declaration of war and with the consent of King George; and, thereafter, issued orders of deployment for Canadian soldiers, airmen, and seamen as the titular commander-in-chief of the Canadian armed forces.

Here's a formalization of the proof that I used:
1. Buchan does not like wars and tries to stop them (true from Wikipedia)
2. Buchan authorized Canada's declaration of war (true from Wikipedia)
3. If a person claims to have certain beliefs about what is right but behaves in a way that disagrees with those beliefs, then that person is a hypocrite. (Paraphrase into a conditional of the meaning of hypocrite-true by definition.)
4. Buchan said one thing/claimed certain beliefs, and he behaved differently (from premises 1 and 2 above by instantiation and conjunction introduction)
5 Buchan is a hypocrite (from 3 and 4 by Modus Ponens)

So the "cheap shot" I posted was actually much more watered down than what I actually concluded from what I read.

[carl]

Here's a formalization of the proof that I used:
1. Buchan does not like wars and tries to stop them (true from Wikipedia)
2. Buchan authorized Canada's declaration of war (true from Wikipedia)
3. If a person claims to have certain beliefs about what is right but behaves in a way that disagrees with those beliefs, then that person is a hypocrite. (Paraphrase into a conditional of the meaning of hypocrite-true by definition.)
4. Buchan said one thing/claimed certain beliefs, and he behaved differently (from premises 1 and 2 above by instantiation and conjunction introduction)
5 Buchan is a hypocrite (from 3 and 4 by Modus Ponens)

So the "cheap shot" I posted was actually much more watered down than what I actually concluded from what I read.

Can I try some sophistry too?

Here goes.

Mother of the year is a pacifist and wouldn't hurt anybody or anything anywhere for any reason. She lived her life by that and never wavered. She didn't swat mosquitoes, she gently brushed them away and wished them well. One day she comes home and a home invader has her 14 year old daughter down and is beating her and from the state of dishabille of both parties, the home invader is about to have his way with the girl. Mother picks up a golf club and cracks the home invader's head like a melon and keeps on swinging. The club breaks and she sticks the sharp end into the guy's heart.

Conclusion: Mother is a hypocrite.

[JMA]

Your original request was rather different. viz.:

Here's a formalization of the proof that I used:
1. Buchan does not like wars and tries to stop them (true from Wikipedia)
2. Buchan authorized Canada's declaration of war (true from Wikipedia)
3. If a person claims to have certain beliefs about what is right but behaves in a way that disagrees with those beliefs, then that person is a hypocrite. (Paraphrase into a conditional of the meaning of hypocrite-true by definition.)
4. Buchan said one thing/claimed certain beliefs, and he behaved differently (from premises 1 and 2 above by instantiation and conjunction introduction)
5 Buchan is a hypocrite (from 3 and 4 by Modus Ponens)

So the "cheap shot" I posted was actually much more watered down than what I actually concluded from what I read.

Wow... and you were teaching ethics and logic at some point?

On this you get a Fail grade.

Lets start here with your man:

I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its stupidity.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER, speech, Jan. 10, 1946

So Eisenhower shared Buchan's belief based on experience of personal exposure to war.

Therefore his attempts to prevent another war are understandable, acceptable and logical.

But what role did Buchan personally have in the Canadian Declaration of War against Germany which led to your labelling him a hypocrite?

I don't wish to humiliate you and you can curse the inaccuracies of Wikipedia if you wish but...

A little education:

Going to war? 'Parliament will decide'

The Statute of Westminster of 1931, negotiated by King's government but enacted in Britain when the Conservative government of R.B. Bennett was in office, had been a declaration of independence, giving Canada the powers in foreign policy to accompany its full control over domestic policy.

But if the nation was independent in fact, it did nothing to exert itself on the international stage. In power again from 1935, King said little as the world drifted toward war. If they listened at all, the Nazis, the Fascists and the militarists in Tokyo heard only "Parliament will decide" from Ottawa.

And Parliament did. Summoned back to Ottawa, the members of the House of Commons and the Senate heard the governor-general, Lord Tweedsmuir, tell them that the government proposed to go to war at Britain's side. Yes, the country's tiny regular military and naval forces and weak reserves had been called to the colours; yes, action had begun to round up potential subversives under authority of the War Measures Act of 1914; but no, Canada was not yet at war and would not be at war until the Speech from the Throne was accepted by Parliament. Then, and only then, could George VI, king of Canada, declare war on behalf of the Dominion of Canada.

So Buchan was not in any position of authority to 'authorise Canada's declaration of war' as he was merely the Governor General at the time. See this for how the system worked:

Declaration of war by Canada

I quote:

Nazi Germany
After Nazi Germany invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, the United Kingdom and France declared war on September 3. To assert Canada's independence from the UK, as already established by the Statute of Westminster 1931, Canada's political leaders decided to unnecessarily seek the approval of the federal parliament to declare war. Parliament was not scheduled to return until October 2, but returned to session early on September 7 to consider the declaration of war.

The Senate approved a declaration of war on September 8 and the House of Commons approved it on September 9. The following day, Prime Minister Mackenzie King and the Cabinet drafted an Order in Council to that effect. Canadian diplomats brought the document to King George VI, at the Royal Lodge, Windsor Great Park, for his signature, whereupon Canada had officially declared war on Nazi Germany. In his capacity as the government's official recorder for the war effort, Leonard Brockington noted: "King George VI of England did not ask us to declare war for him—we asked King George VI of Canada to declare war for us.

Let's complete your education with the radio broadcast by Prime Minister Mackenzie King:

1939: Canada declares war on Germany

He begins with:

For months, indeed for years, the shadow of impending conflict in Europe has been ever present. Through these troubled years, no stone has been left unturned, no road unexplored in the patient search for peace.

So ends the lesson.

I would suggest that John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir PC GCMG GCVO CH is innocent of the hypocrisy you accuse him of. Only an apology and retraction from you remains necessary.

Finally, Google is indeed your friend and the Internet is powerful but the golden rule to confirm your sources before sticking your neck out is the most powerful of all.

[JMA]

This is my opinion. I "got" it from many years of reading, thinking, and talking with others in a wide variety of venues about the morality of war. I was going to start listing the sources, but came to the conclusion that compiling such a list covering about 50 years of such activity would be subject to error by exclusion and well outside the scope of this thread.

Then we are so far apart on the definition of a soldier better we leave it there.

[wm]

Then we are so far apart on the definition of a soldier better we leave it there.

I suspect your "soldier" would be much more like what I might call a "warrior. " Militaries need some warriors at the pointy end of the spear, but the spear has a lot more to it than just the point. When a military has too many of them, it must create "special" forces of various kinds and keep pumping up their membership's egos by telling them just how "special" they are.

I guess we need to get our feet back firmly on the ground

When it comes to services academies, that is probably not going to happen. You said it quite well here .

West Point like Sandhurst are national institutions which are almost impossible to tinker with... say no more

I would note, however, that USMA was partly formed to provide a Republican Party (the party Americans now know as the Democrats) counterweight to the predominantly Federalist officer corps of the time. Jefferson, the primary author of the sentiment found in the Declaration of Independence "that all men are created equal," was President when USMA was created. USMA graduates did much to help grow America in the 1800s and much of what they did and still do would not fit under the definition I think you ascribe to the term "soldier."
Because of this fact, your proposal for officer initial selection would probably not provide America what it wants from its military officers. The American military does more than just fight and win the nation's wars or "provide for the common defense." (Ask your legal advisor to tell you about the various titles in the US Code that apply to the military.)

While many have been at odds with American Pride's posts about the need of the American army to reflect the country's population, that, in fact, has been a policy goal since Jefferson. Warriors may not like it, but soldiers accept it and do the best to accomplish it along with their other assigned missions. It is one of the dilemmas those who choose a career of military service in America must face. I would not doubt that similar dilemmas exist in other militaries, but I can only speak to the military that I know.

[carl]

I would note, however, that USMA was partly formed to provide a Republican Party (the party Americans now know as the Democrats) counterweight to the predominantly Federalist officer corps of the time. Jefferson, the primary author of the sentiment found in the Declaration of Independence "that all men are created equal," was President when USMA was created. USMA graduates did much to help grow America in the 1800s and much of what they did and still do would not fit under the definition I think you ascribe to the term "soldier."
Because of this fact, your proposal for officer initial selection would probably not provide America what it wants from its military officers. The American military does more than just fight and win the nation's wars or "provide for the common defense." (Ask your legal advisor to tell you about the various titles in the US Code that apply to the military.)

While many have been at odds with American Pride's posts about the need of the American army to reflect the country's population, that, in fact, has been a policy goal since Jefferson. Warriors may not like it, but soldiers accept it and do the best to accomplish it along with their other assigned missions. It is one of the dilemmas those who choose a career of military service in America must face. I would not doubt that similar dilemmas exist in other militaries, but I can only speak to the military that I know.

We could get away with picking officers based upon things other than leadership ability, character and fighting talent but I don't think we can do that anymore. We got away with it up until the end of the Second World War because we had the oceans between us and the rest of the world and as importantly the Royal Navy sailed upon those oceans to keep the world away and help us hugely when we needed it. The war ended and the Royal Navy was there no more. But that didn't matter because the war had broken everything in the world outside the Western Hemisphere and it took them decades to catch up.

Now they have caught up and our fighting services will be called upon to fight without the Royal Navy and the time and options it gave us. That lack of time and options will have to be made up by the ability of our fighting services to fight, effectively, especially the Navy. The ability of our services to fight depends directly upon the quality of the officer corps and how its members are selected and promoted. Though we probably will we really can't afford to dink around anymore.

Also, I don't see how good character isn't prerequisite for any officer in the services whether that officer is a civil engineer, passes out socks or maybe leads one of my nephews into battle.

[JMA]

I suspect your "soldier" would be much more like what I might call a "warrior. " Militaries need some warriors at the pointy end of the spear, but the spear has a lot more to it than just the point. When a military has too many of them, it must create "special" forces of various kinds and keep pumping up their membership's egos by telling them just how "special" they are.

It is not my 'soldier'. It is in fact your - a US - soldier.

I hate to find it necessary to refer you to your own - US - manual FM 1 where contained in Army Values is the Soldier's Creed which starts with:

I am an American Soldier.
I am a Warrior and a member of a team.
I serve the people of the United States and live the Army Values.

May I suggest to you that it is rather you who is out of step with your own doctrine.

In order for an army to act as a deterrent to foreign aggression and be able to defeat foreign military aggression to the country or its national interests it is the combat arms of the service that stand ready to engage in combat. Yes there are supporting services which are necessary for success but never should the tail be allowed to wag the dog.

I suggest to you that this is exactly the problem with the US military which contributes to Lind's criticism.

While the US has been involved in wars for the last 12 or so years the deployed troop levels have never been at the level where the stateside institutions have been forced out of their peacetime mode of operation and importantly ... the peacetime thought pattern.

I'm sure that stories abound in the US as they do in the UK and elsewhere where the garratroopers put the soldiers returning from war in the picture.

The NCOs - who have never been ti war - waiting to smarten up returning soldiers with hours of drill in order to get 'back to some real soldiering'. Then a WW2 returning officer at a job interview being admonished for galavanting across Europe while the interviewing manager did the real work and battled to keep the wheels of commerce and industry turning at home.

Yes indeed, the tail is certainly wagging the dog when one hears that the army has too many 'fighting soldiers' and supposedly therefore too few 'real soldiers' in stores, academia and anywhere else far from the irritation of gunfire.

Lind is correct the US is in big trouble.

[JMA]

USMA graduates did much to help grow America in the 1800s and much of what they did and still do would not fit under the definition I think you ascribe to the term "soldier."

Well I don't know this aspect of US history so can't comment other than to ask you if there are periodic reviews carried out across the services and the institutions to make sure that outdated nonsense is not being perpetuated. The Brits are not good at this so I would assume neither are the yanks.

Because of this fact, your proposal for officer initial selection would probably not provide America what it wants from its military officers.

I support initial officer selection very much along the British lines so it is not my personal proposal. Just to put that straight.

Does America know what it wants from its officers? Who speaks for America? The more I read the less certain I am that anyone knows what is actually going on. Does anyone know what is going on... especially in this regard? Not sure it is in America's best interests to let liberal non-combatants define their military and its design their officer selection and training.

The American military does more than just fight and win the nation's wars or "provide for the common defense." (Ask your legal advisor to tell you about the various titles in the US Code that apply to the military.)

Does this provide jobs and careers for those who never get near 'the sharp end' in time of war by any chance?

While many have been at odds with American Pride's posts about the need of the American army to reflect the country's population, that, in fact, has been a policy goal since Jefferson. Warriors may not like it, but soldiers accept it and do the best to accomplish it along with their other assigned missions. It is one of the dilemmas those who choose a career of military service in America must face. I would not doubt that similar dilemmas exist in other militaries, but I can only speak to the military that I know.

He like you are way out in left field... you don't support your own doctrine.

Go read FM 1 again and you will find this:

1-40. The purpose of any profession is to serve society by effectively delivering a necessary and useful specialized service. To fulfill those societal needs, professions- such as, medicine, law, the clergy, and the military-develop and maintain distinct bodies of specialized knowledge and impart expertise through formal, theoretical, and practical education. Each profession establishes a unique subculture that distinguishes practitioners from the society they serve while supporting and enhancing that society. Professions create their own standards of performance and codes of ethics to maintain their effectiveness. To that end, they develop particular vocabularies, establish journals, and sometimes adopt distinct forms of dress. In exchange for holding their membership to high technical and ethical standards, society grants professionals a great deal of autonomy. However, the profession of arms is different from other professions, both as an institution and with respect to its individual members.

Simple and straightforward. What exactly do you not understand?