William S. Lind :collection (merged thread)

[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?

[wm]

I am reminded of that piece of doggerel about the devil quoting scripture for his own purposes.

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:

What do you make of the very first sentences of the Foreword of the 2005 version of FM-1? ( I presume that is the version from which you were drawing your quotation.)

The Army is the primary landpower arm of our Nation’s Armed Forces. It exists to serve the American people, protect enduring national interests, and fulfill the Nation’s military responsibilities. (emphasis added)

And from Chapter 1

1-1. First and foremost, the Army is Soldiers. No matter how much the tools of warfare improve, it is Soldiers who use them to accomplish their mission. Soldiers committed to selfless service to the Nation are the centerpiece of Army organizations. Everything the Army does for the Nation is done by Soldiers supported by Army civilians and family members. Only with quality Soldiers answering the noble call to serve freedom can the Army ensure the victories required on battlefields of today and the future.

1-2. The Army, a long-trusted institution, exists to serve the Nation. As part of the joint force, the Army supports and defends America’s Constitution and way of life against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
. . .

1-8. Army forces are versatile. In addition to conducting combat operations, Army forces help provide security. They supply many services associated with establishing order, rebuilding infrastructure, and delivering humanitarian support. When necessary, they can direct assistance in reestablishing governmental institutions. Army forces help set the conditions that allow a return to normalcy or a self-sustaining peace.

The section from paragraph 1.62 that you selected and reported out of context uses the term "warrior" as a set up for introducing the warrior ethos. This discussion of the warrior ethos continues in paragraph 1-63 as follows

1.63. The Warrior Ethos describes the frame of mind of the professional Soldier. It proclaims the selfless commitment to the Nation, mission, unit, and fellow Soldiers that all Soldiers espouse.

With regard to your other quotation, paragraph 1-40, the paragraphs that follow it in the Section entitled THE AMERICAN PROFESSION OF ARMS are much more instructive regarding the uniqueness claim with which paragraph 1-40 concludes. Additionally, I consider paragraph 1-46 as supporting my assertion that your/British system of selection/training of leaders is not for the US Army (I suspect your mileage will vary):

1-46. A final aspect that distinguishes the American profession of arms is the professionalism of its officers and noncommissioned officers. Both are given considerable authority early in their careers. Both are expected to exercise initiative to identify and resolve unforeseen circumstances. Both are developed through a series of schools that equips them for greater responsibilities as they are promoted. This combination of professional development and experience in making decisions within general guidelines rather than rigid rules develops flexible and self-aware leaders. It has resulted in an agile institution able to conduct decentralized operations and obtain extraordinary results.

As an aside, you might note that in my original post your response to which I quoted above, I put both the words 'soldier' and 'warrior' in double quotation marks (or scare quotes) while just above I put them in single quotations. Both of these uses of punctuation are part of a convention. The use of scare quotes is to alert the reader that the word so marked is being used with non-standard definitions (the scare quote convention is also used in speech when people use their fingers to make quotation marks in the air as they speak, usually a little emphatically, the word or phrase being used in a non-standard way; oftentimes this speech habit is accompanied with a derisive tone, ) , while the use of single quotation marks indicate that the word is being mentioned (or named) rather than used as part of the sentence.

[JMA]

There is nothing in what you have quoted here nor anything I have read in FM 1 that undermines anything I have posted or refutes any of my criticism of the nonsense you continue to post on this matter.

What you need to post to achieve this is provide the quote where it is clearly stated that the US military's function is to serve as a human laboratory for social engineering experiements to be carried out either by leftist or liberal elements within the system or enforced through law and or regulation by legislators of the same ilk.

I submit that it is the social engineering and the failure of the officer corps to challenge this march of lunacy or actively participate which has contributed to what Lind terms: "the moral and intellectual collapse of the officer corps".

I am reminded of that piece of doggerel about the devil quoting scripture for his own purposes.

What do you make of the very first sentences of the Foreword of the 2005 version of FM-1? ( I presume that is the version from which you were drawing your quotation.)

And from Chapter 1


The section from paragraph 1.62 that you selected and reported out of context uses the term "warrior" as a set up for introducing the warrior ethos. This discussion of the warrior ethos continues in paragraph 1-63 as follows


With regard to your other quotation, paragraph 1-40, the paragraphs that follow it in the Section entitled THE AMERICAN PROFESSION OF ARMS are much more instructive regarding the uniqueness claim with which paragraph 1-40 concludes. Additionally, I consider paragraph 1-46 as supporting my assertion that your/British system of selection/training of leaders is not for the US Army (I suspect your mileage will vary):


As an aside, you might note that in my original post your response to which I quoted above, I put both the words 'soldier' and 'warrior' in double quotation marks (or scare quotes) while just above I put them in single quotations. Both of these uses of punctuation are part of a convention. The use of scare quotes is to alert the reader that the word so marked is being used with non-standard definitions (the scare quote convention is also used in speech when people use their fingers to make quotation marks in the air as they speak, usually a little emphatically, the word or phrase being used in a non-standard way; oftentimes this speech habit is accompanied with a derisive tone, ) , while the use of single quotation marks indicate that the word is being mentioned (or named) rather than used as part of the sentence.

[wm]

There is nothing in what you have quoted here nor anything I have read in FM 1 that undermines anything I have posted or refutes any of my criticism of the nonsense you continue to post on this matter.

What you need to post to achieve this is provide the quote where it is clearly stated that the US military's function is to serve as a human laboratory for social engineering experiements to be carried out either by leftist or liberal elements within the system or enforced through law and or regulation by legislators of the same ilk.

I submit that it is the social engineering and the failure of the officer corps to challenge this march of lunacy or actively participate which has contributed to what Lind terms: "the moral and intellectual collapse of the officer corps".

I would not have expected any different response from you. However, you might want to look at ADP 1 The Army, dated September 2012, with Change1, 7 Nov 12 and Change 2 dated 6 Aug 13. This document replaced the FM 1 from which you and I previously quoted. While not exactly what you requested, paragraph 1.21's statement to accomplish all missions assigned by POTUS and SECDEF covers the request in your second paragraph above. BTW, chapters 2 and 4 are particularly enlightening.

[JMA]

Come on, enlighten me.

Where does it state that the military will function as a laboratory for social engineering?

I would not have expected any different response from you. However, you might want to look at ADP 1 The Army, dated September 2012, with Change1, 7 Nov 12 and Change 2 dated 6 Aug 13. This document replaced the FM 1 from which you and I previously quoted. While not exactly what you requested, paragraph 1.21's statement to accomplish all missions assigned by POTUS and SECDEF covers the request in your second paragraph above. BTW, chapters 2 and 4 are particularly enlightening.

[JMA]

Additionally, I consider paragraph 1-46 as supporting my assertion that your/British system of selection/training of leaders is not for the US Army (I suspect your mileage will vary):

You clearly have no idea of the British system.

To assist you herewith the following videos:

AOSB Briefing

AOSB Main Board

This two phase exercise takes place before the start of the Officer Course and is designed to identitfy those with the necessary characteristics required by an aspirant officer. This precourse selection process aids with weeding out unsuitable candidates before the actual training begins. The benefits which accrue are in time, effort and cost savings during the training period from which an unsuitable candidate will have to be removed. It is assessed that removal from the course has a greater negative self esteem impact than rejection at an officer selection board.

Once you have informed yourself as to the aim, role and function of the British AOSB (Army Officer Selection Board) you will realise that the process can not possibly be in conflict with any US cultural aspect.

I would suggest that your opposition is more along the lines of a mix of your ignorance of the British system and the "not invented here" syndrome and has no intellectual basis or foundation for this personal expressed opposition. To further compound this you go so far as to express based on your personal opinion that the British - and most of NATO - system/s of precourse selection is not suitable for the US Army.

I would appreciate your providing your career experience which would qualify you to make such a determination on behalf of the whole of the US Army. I wait with bated breath.

[wm]

You clearly have no idea of the British system.

To assist you herewith the following videos:

AOSB Briefing

AOSB Main Board

This two phase exercise takes place before the start of the Officer Course and is designed to identitfy those with the necessary characteristics required by an aspirant officer. This precourse selection process aids with weeding out unsuitable candidates before the actual training begins. The benefits which accrue are in time, effort and cost savings during the training period from which an unsuitable candidate will have to be removed. It is assessed that removal from the course has a greater negative self esteem impact than rejection at an officer selection board.

Once you have informed yourself as to the aim, role and function of the British AOSB (Army Officer Selection Board) you will realise that the process can not possibly be in conflict with any US cultural aspect.

I would suggest that your opposition is more along the lines of a mix of your ignorance of the British system and the "not invented here" syndrome and has no intellectual basis or foundation for this personal expressed opposition. To further compound this you go so far as to express based on your personal opinion that the British - and most of NATO - system/s of precourse selection is not suitable for the US Army.

I would appreciate your providing your career experience which would qualify you to make such a determination on behalf of the whole of the US Army. I wait with bated breath.

I only responded to what you previously suggested I review from the Officer Selection thread. Apparently your posts there did not provide the correct information.
I offer only my own opinions on this thread. I do not speak on behalf of "the whole of the US Army."

[JMA]

I only responded to what you previously suggested I review from the Officer Selection thread. Apparently your posts there did not provide the correct information.

Apparent to whom?

What information did I not supply?

This post covers what I have stated here and more:

http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...&postcount=148