William S. Lind :collection (merged thread)

[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