Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 86

Thread: FM 3-27.75 The Warrior Ethos and Soldier Combat Skills

  1. #21
    i pwnd ur ooda loop selil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Belly of the beast
    Posts
    2,112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marct View Post
    Hi Ken,
    Hmm, could be. I keep thinking back to my family history when it was socially de rigeur for all gentlemen to hold commissions (at least in Colonial society). One of those little cultural differences between the US and Canada .
    I've been thinking back on my family history. Dad was Army chasing around 1962 Vietnam. But, what has me thinking about family is my uncle (married to my dads older sister) who recently died. He was supposedly awarded the bronze star twice by Macarthur, and I wonder what he'd think about todays soldiers. My cousins are all in law enforcement of some variety. His OBIT is here.

    I have no way to support the assertion, but I think that family history has much more to do with a person choosing the military in the future.

    My other uncle (mom's brother) was at the Berlin airlift and after that was (the way he tells it) stationed in a French cat house for the rest of his enlistment.

    My own history is less than stellar. My only claim to fame is that I went through Army basic training, and Marine Corps boot camp within 13 months of each other. I'm not to smart. Now at my ripe age I REALLY want to do OCS or Basic School at Quantico but the price is a bit steep to get in.

    History can be infectious. I'm sure there has to be a vaccine.
    Sam Liles
    Selil Blog
    Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
    The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
    All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.

  2. #22
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Families in jeans... Or Utilities...

    Quote Originally Posted by selil View Post
    ...
    I have no way to support the assertion, but I think that family history has much more to do with a person choosing the military in the future.
    . . .
    ...My only claim to fame is that I went through Army basic training, and Marine Corps boot camp within 13 months of each other...

    History can be infectious. I'm sure there has to be a vaccine.
    Heh, I reversed the order over a longer period -- and my order was the way to go. The Corps insists EVERYONE go to boot camp; when I went in the Army, I only got two weeks of 'Refresher Training' in lieu of Basic and AIT since I'd been in the Corps. That 'refresher' consisted of pulling details, going through the Gas Chamber (?) and signing a plethora of forms wherein I attested I had received this or that training. And pulling details -- did I mention that?

    I agree with you on the family history element. I've also become pretty well convinced there's a genetic impact. Some people object to violence, some can tolerate it. At one pole you have those who will never perform a violent act no matter the provocation; at the other there those that love violence for its own sake. Fortunately, there are very, very few of either.

    Most of us are on a continuum between the two poles. I think about half are disposed toward non-violence and half can accept it without flinching and I'm convinced that's a genetic imprint. I do not deny for a second that there can be and are environmental impactors that skew that in all directions but watching a lot of societies around the world in and out of wars over a bunch of years has left me pretty well convinced that the genes are paramount and the environmental factor is secondary.

    That would play with your family history theory, that is, some families would be more disposed to a military hitch or career than would others -- with the aforementioned environmental impacts thrown in for the many variations.

  3. #23
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Somebody say somehting about a Warrior? The Warrior by Scandal


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC-BW...eature=related

  4. #24
    Council Member wm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    On the Lunatic Fringe
    Posts
    1,237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    I agree with you on the family history element. I've also become pretty well convinced there's a genetic impact. Some people object to violence, some can tolerate it. At one pole you have those who will never perform a violent act no matter the provocation; at the other there those that love violence for its own sake. Fortunately, there are very, very few of either.

    Most of us are on a continuum between the two poles. I think about half are disposed toward non-violence and half can accept it without flinching and I'm convinced that's a genetic imprint. I do not deny for a second that there can be and are environmental impactors that skew that in all directions but watching a lot of societies around the world in and out of wars over a bunch of years has left me pretty well convinced that the genes are paramount and the environmental factor is secondary.

    That would play with your family history theory, that is, some families would be more disposed to a military hitch or career than would others -- with the aforementioned environmental impacts thrown in for the many variations.
    I suspect that much of the "family history" element is due to familiarity with the institution. In other words, if one's parent or other close relative of the parent's generation served for more than a single term, a kid is more likely to join up. Folks who have no experience with the military are probably much less likely to visit a recruiter. And, as a corollary, I suspect that the branch of service one selects is directly related to that in which you forebears served, in most cases. I think that the draft of the 50's and 60's was a leveler that caused folks, who would otherwise never have had any contact with things military, to become somewhat familar with the services. However, I also think that the ability to "duck the draft" was directly related to one's family's socio-economic status, which helps to explain why so many "upper class" Americans (who, btw. happen to be those who are the "academic thought leaders" as well)today havenb't a clue about miltary affairs.

  5. #25
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wm View Post
    I suspect that much of the "family history" element is due to familiarity with the institution. In other words, if one's parent or other close relative of the parent's generation served for more than a single term, a kid is more likely to join up. Folks who have no experience with the military are probably much less likely to visit a recruiter. And, as a corollary, I suspect that the branch of service one selects is directly related to that in which you forebears served, in most cases. I think that the draft of the 50's and 60's was a leveler that caused folks, who would otherwise never have had any contact with things military, to become somewhat familar with the services. However, I also think that the ability to "duck the draft" was directly related to one's family's socio-economic status, which helps to explain why so many "upper class" Americans (who, btw. happen to be those who are the "academic thought leaders" as well)today havenb't a clue about miltary affairs.
    Avoiding the draft was definitely related to socio-economic status, and I suspect that it contributed to both the ignorance of things military and to the urge to "over-credential" following generations.
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

  6. #26
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Blair View Post
    Avoiding the draft was definitely related to socio-economic status, and I suspect that it contributed to both the ignorance of things military and to the urge to "over-credential" following generations.
    I'd agree with that, but why did you have to send so many of them up here !

    Back to Ken's comment about genetics for a minute, I suspect that there is some genetic component(s?) that increases the potentiality of being involved in conflict. BTW, this is not a "gene for the military" or any such idiocy. What it probably is is a constellation of gene sequences that increase the likelihood that a person would be socially and/or culturally encouraged to join a military group.

    All too often the concept of genetics is misunderstood when it is applied in a social setting. The why's and wherefores of that misunderstanding go back quite a ways and are rooted in philosophy, epistemology and politics rather than in a real understanding of genetics (which, BTW, I don't have; I know just enough about genetics to know that I don't really know anything ).
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  7. #27
    Council Member J Wolfsberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    806

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marct View Post
    I'd agree with that, but why did you have to send so many of them up here !
    And welcome to them you are.

    Back to Ken's comment about genetics for a minute, I suspect that there is some genetic component(s?) that increases the potentiality of being involved in conflict. BTW, this is not a "gene for the military" or any such idiocy. What it probably is is a constellation of gene sequences that increase the likelihood that a person would be socially and/or culturally encouraged to join a military group.

    All too often the concept of genetics is misunderstood when it is applied in a social setting. The why's and wherefores of that misunderstanding go back quite a ways and are rooted in philosophy, epistemology and politics rather than in a real understanding of genetics (which, BTW, I don't have; I know just enough about genetics to know that I don't really know anything ).
    I'm not sure that captures it. I believe it has to do with a sense of civic responsibility - a belief that membership in the group entails a responsibility to the group. That doesn't necessarily express itself through military service, it could also come out through the Peace Crops, volunteering for community service, foreign service, etc. However expressed, it derives from the acceptance of obligation to ones group.

    Today, the "popular" attitude is that the group (the US) is fundamentally evil, but occasionally does good. And the natural consequence is a lack of any sense of civic responsibility.
    John Wolfsberger, Jr.

    An unruffled person with some useful skills.

  8. #28
    Council Member tequila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,665

    Default

    Today, the "popular" attitude is that the group (the US) is fundamentally evil, but occasionally does good. And the natural consequence is a lack of any sense of civic responsibility.
    Really. Where's the evidence of this?

  9. #29
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Hi JW,

    Quote Originally Posted by J Wolfsberger View Post
    I'm not sure that captures it. I believe it has to do with a sense of civic responsibility - a belief that membership in the group entails a responsibility to the group. That doesn't necessarily express itself through military service, it could also come out through the Peace Crops, volunteering for community service, foreign service, etc. However expressed, it derives from the acceptance of obligation to ones group.
    I should have been clearer in my comments - I was only addressing the "genetics" side of the comment, not the cultural side. Really, this is just the old Nature-Nurture debate in a new form (I'm constantly amazed at how long this debate has been around ).

    On the cultural side, I don't disagree with you although your description could be more inclusive . For example, I doubt that it is a simple as pointing towards the State - it probably comes in a hierarchy of my family, my kin group, my organization, my community, my state, my country,... I think Heinlein got it right in Starship Troopers (book, not movie!).

    Quote Originally Posted by J Wolfsberger View Post
    Today, the "popular" attitude is that the group (the US) is fundamentally evil, but occasionally does good. And the natural consequence is a lack of any sense of civic responsibility.
    There is some evidence to support it and some to contradict it - I suspect that the attitude is probably closer to the ideal is fine, the mechanism needs fixing and many of the people involved are _______ (fill in your own expletive to be deleted ).
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  10. #30
    Council Member wm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    On the Lunatic Fringe
    Posts
    1,237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by J Wolfsberger View Post
    I believe it has to do with a sense of civic responsibility - a belief that membership in the group entails a responsibility to the group. That doesn't necessarily express itself through military service, it could also come out through the Peace Crops, volunteering for community service, foreign service, etc. However expressed, it derives from the acceptance of obligation to ones group.

    Today, the "popular" attitude is that the group (the US) is fundamentally evil, but occasionally does good. And the natural consequence is a lack of any sense of civic responsibility.
    I suspect the group loyalty/sense of obligation issue has a lot to do with it. I know I joined the military out of a sense of "indebtedness" to the institution for the life it had afforded me (I am an Army brat).

    I also think that many people who are baby boomers have a sense of entitlement, which I ascribe in part to the "social fixes" instituted as part of the New Deal. I know many folks, who did notserve in the military or any other service related organization like the Peace Corps or VISTA, feel that the government (and other institutions) "owe" them what they get. For example, I have had people tell me that driving is a right which cannot be taken from them--even though they drive drunk or have accrued too many points from driving too recklessly/dangerously--"No one's gonna tell me I have to wear a seatbelt/motorcycle helmet" captures this sentiment pretty well.

  11. #31
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default I totally agree with that.

    Quote Originally Posted by wm View Post
    ...I also think that many people who are baby boomers have a sense of entitlement, which I ascribe in part to the "social fixes" instituted as part of the New Deal...
    Being older than I have a right to be, I've watched it happen. In three generations we've gone from perhaps excessively independent and very self reliant to dependent. I even got to watch a short term abbreviated version when I moved to Florida. Shortly after we arrrived, so did a major hurricane, the first to hit this area in over 70 years. there was adequate warning, most folks were prepared and though damage was significant, people pitched in and helped each other and self help was the order of the day.

    After most of the big work was done, FEMA finally arrived and started dispensing checks willy-nilly -- literally, they fouled up so badly they had to recall half of 'em (so much for how great FEMA was under the previous administration...).

    Fast forward three years, another, not a bad one -- same scenario. Fast forward four more, yet another but this time, little was done until FEMA came in -- no self help to speak of. The next year yet another and then absolutlely nothing was done until FEMA appeared; people were screaming, "What's the government going to do about this?"

    Sad.

  12. #32
    Council Member wm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    On the Lunatic Fringe
    Posts
    1,237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    Being older than I have a right to be, I've watched it happen. In three generations we've gone from perhaps excessively independent and very self reliant to dependent. I even got to watch a short term abbreviated version when I moved to Florida. Shortly after we arrrived, so did a major hurricane, the first to hit this area in over 70 years. there was adequate warning, most folks were prepared and though damage was significant, people pitched in and helped each other and self help was the order of the day.

    After most of the big work was done, FEMA finally arrived and started dispensing checks willy-nilly -- literally, they fouled up so badly they had to recall half of 'em (so much for how great FEMA was under the previous administration...).

    Fast forward three years, another, not a bad one -- same scenario. Fast forward four more, yet another but this time, little was done until FEMA came in -- no self help to speak of. The next year yet another and then absolutlely nothing was done until FEMA appeared; people were screaming, "What's the government going to do about this?"

    Sad.
    You can also see its evolution in the Army recruiting campaigns from "Be all you can be" through "Am Army of One" to "Army Strong." From where I sit as an interpreters of their messages, each of these campaigns focuses more and more pointedly on the individual perspective of getting something from the institution rather than the need to work together to produce solutions/results on behalf of the institution.

  13. #33
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default True and I always thought that perspective was

    Quote Originally Posted by wm View Post
    You can also see its evolution in the Army recruiting campaigns from "Be all you can be" through "Am Army of One" to "Army Strong." From where I sit as an interpreters of their messages, each of these campaigns focuses more and more pointedly on the individual perspective of getting something from the institution rather than the need to work together to produce solutions/results on behalf of the institution.
    very short sighted. You may get an extra bod or two with the 'learn a trade' route but most kids in the target age group want to be challenged (even if a lot of them don't realize it). I'd rather have 50 dedicated folks than 500 unmotivated skilled people. Most people leave the services because they're disappointed at the lack of challenge (as todays combat arms high reenlistment rates show)...

  14. #34
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    129

    Default

    Ken,

    Would it help to raise standards of physical fitness, marksmanship, etc? How about rotating transport and maintenance personnel, etc through combat arms?

    It seems like people don't join the army just to learn to turn a wrench or file paperwork. They could do that at home, after all. But what putting everybody in the front lines go too far?

  15. #35
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Well, I'd buy that - but I suspect most would not.

    My ideal Army for the US today would be about 350-400K (while doubling the current size of the ARNG). Tooth : tail ratio would be 1:1 instead of the current 1:3 in favor of the tail and equipment would be designed to be rationalized to a minimum number of parts and pieces that can be assembled to make the requisite toy -- sort of like we ended WW II with three sizes of tracks and roadwheels, five hull types and four powerpacks for every tracked vehicle -- ultra reliable and low maintenance instead of to do everything for everybody. We can keep all the electronics, most of that uses LRU anyway.

    Everyone would enlist for three or four years in the combat arms and after one hitch could reenlist for a CS/CSS job. Probationary hitch there and then they could reenlist for a career where ever they wished if there was a space. PCS's in CONUS would be cut by 2/3 saving big bucks. Homesteading would be tolerated. No 'up or out' but a definite out for non-performance. Most Training, MAAGs and ROTC Dets would use a Junior ROTC-like contract for Retired folks (language required for the MAAG jobs, all other Active duty standard met including height and weight) on five year contracts, renewable one time, periodic re-greening required.

    Congress would never buy it -- neither would most of the Generals.

    To realistically answer your question, some do join to learn a skill or trade. Most of the farm kids and suburban dwellers opt for the combat arms for fun and frolic and many plan on one tour and out. A few do go for the technical stuff but the majority who enlist for that do it to get a later leg up in civilian life. The reenlistment rates in those skills vary from time to time and MOS to MOS but are rarely as good as the Army would like -- those skills are in some cases, very expensively acquired. I don't think requiring some combat arms time of everyone is going too far (even though I know it would impact recruiting a bit) but I think most might disagree with me.

  16. #36
    Council Member Surferbeetle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,111

    Default Paradigm

    Some of the European countries require/required mandatory service from all male inhabitants as a way to provide for social/national cohesion and of course provide for the country's defense. I have also observed that field time often helps up the common sense quotient. Both have their advocates.

    In terms of the wise use of resources I would agree that spending a few years in a position is more conducive to throughly understanding the requirements of a job (and incurs less in PCS costs) than spending 12-18 months before moving on to another job combined with spending only 36 months before moving on to a new geographical location.

    This would however require a major paradigm shift and inertia is a...
    Sapere Aude

  17. #37
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    Everyone would enlist for three or four years in the combat arms and after one hitch could reenlist for a CS/CSS job. Probationary hitch there and then they could reenlist for a career where ever they wished if there was a space. PCS's in CONUS would be cut by 2/3 saving big bucks. Homesteading would be tolerated. No 'up or out' but a definite out for non-performance. Most Training, MAAGs and ROTC Dets would use a Junior ROTC-like contract for Retired folks (language required for the MAAG jobs, all other Active duty standard met including height and weight) on five year contracts, renewable one time, periodic re-greening required.

    Congress would never buy it -- neither would most of the Generals.

    To realistically answer your question, some do join to learn a skill or trade. Most of the farm kids and suburban dwellers opt for the combat arms for fun and frolic and many plan on one tour and out. A few do go for the technical stuff but the majority who enlist for that do it to get a later leg up in civilian life. The reenlistment rates in those skills vary from time to time and MOS to MOS but are rarely as good as the Army would like -- those skills are in some cases, very expensively acquired. I don't think requiring some combat arms time of everyone is going too far (even though I know it would impact recruiting a bit) but I think most might disagree with me.
    Huh, now there's something that I had never considered. I've strongly tended to perceive an almost impassable barrier between the combat arms and the administration and logistics types, especially in so far as the latter didn't have time on a three or four-year contract to do both a full-length, half-year infantry syllabus, plus their own specialized training, which in some cases can be very specialized. Not to mention that the CSS sort would not have the time to maintain even basic levels of proficiency in infantry skills.

    So it comes as a bit of a (pleasant) surprise to see Ken proposing that everyone spend their initial three or four year contract in the combat arms, and then go on to CSS assignements after that. Great idea , and a lot less time arguing with some supply "tech" over trying to get basic clothing and equipment replaced when it really does need it, because he's already been there himself and knows how it goes.

    Jones_RE makes a strong point about not only the need for superior physical fitness and weapons handling skills, but also how that in and of itself provides the motivation for people to really stay in the military; if they find it challenging and rewarding (in a moral, not monetary, sense), they will tend to stay. The Canadian Army used to maintain very high individual standards in the Infantry - and they could afford 2/3 rds attrition rates just on the Infantry Course itself, because people wanted to join, and if they were among the 1/3 rd or less who passed the Infantry Course (on a few courses, every single candidate failed), they wanted to stay, because they had found what they were looking for.

    Right into the 1990's, infantry battalions enforced the 2x10, which was a 10 mile battle march in full kit performed within 2 hours on the first day, and then repeated on the following day (in order to test stamina and recovery); after each of the two 10-mile battle marches, the troops would immediately, without rest, undergo a 300-400 metre assault course on one day, and a live shoot starting at not less than 300 metres on the next day, and having to achieve not less than marksman doing so. Non-hackers were gotten rid of administratively.

    That changed during the 1990's as a result of PC political pressures and especially the Human Rights Commission, which simply decreed that the military had to allow practically anyone who didn't need a wheelchair or strong eyeglasses to go into the infantry. Until then, the infantry had been male-only, and no one over the age of 26 could attend the infantry course. In the 90's that changed, the 2x10 and markmanship standards (amongst others) were scrapped and replaced by a lame shooting standard and a lame "forced march" of 8 miles with full kit in 2 hours, 26 minutes - the British Army, by contrast, still enforces an 8 mile battle march with full kit within 1 hour, 50 minutes, and an 8.7 mile battle march in full kit within 2 hours, followed immediately by a live shoot starting from 300 metres.

    Needless to say, while Canadian infantry battalions were suffering up to 50% annual attrition rates of new infantry recruits after the collapse of the standards, the Brits held on rather better until the Iraq and Afghan Wars mud-sucked the vitality out of the British Army. In any case, both the Canadians and the Brits have had to lower recruiting standards to get fresh bodies, and in the Canadian case, that has meant that the standards have in effect, almost collapsed entirely - there is, for example, no longer any physical fitness requirement upon enlistement. Infantry battalions have "unofficially" had to resort to enforcing Cooper's Test in order to mitigate the worst PT problems, and I was told by a friend of mine who was still in last year that a version of the 10-miler (in just FFO - boots, webbing,helmet, rifle, but no ruck) has been brought back.

    Jones_RE is right: no high soldier standards set and maintained, no reason for the squaddies to stay.

  18. #38
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default We have suffered variations on the same theme.

    The lowering of standards here has been mostly in response to Congressional pressure, (perceived) public clamor for 'equality' or due to stupidity (low graduation rates cost $$ and harm reputations). The facts that all people are not equal and that the combat arms demand * great physical conditioning and superior cognitive skill are diligently ignored.

    Back in my misspent youth, when the 101st was a real Airborne Division, the 101st MP company would not accept anyone who had not served at least a year in a Rifle Company and who was not 5'11" or taller. Given some thought, both requirements make a great deal of sense. That was brought to an abrupt halt in 1958 when two short graduates of the MP School reported in and were told to go serve in a Rifle Company and gain a few inches of height. Congress got involved. A great MP Company became another mediocre MP Company...

    Round pegs fit in all holes -- just not well.

    In the past, that slack training was a peacetime norm because the Mothers of America did not like their children getting hurt or killed in training. In WW II, we threw that concern out the window and trained harder -- in our wars since then we have not done so. We have improved training, no question but we've also made it easier. It no longer weeds out the inept.

    * Like many demands, that one can be ignored -- and is -- but, as always, there's a cost. In this case missions not well performed and higher own casualties than necessary.

  19. #39
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    129

    Default

    Dean Langdell of the Harvard Law School converted legal education from a bachelor's degree (the LL.B.) to a three year graduate degree (the J.D.) in the 19th century in order to raise the level of legal education in the United States. By making it very difficult to get a degree, the value of the degree and the holder increased tremendously. Other top schools rapidly followed suit. Modern lawyers, even the lousy ones, are very well educated and command high pay and a variety of perks in almost every market.

    I also think it's noteworthy that virtually all police departments start their new hires in patrol work. You don't go straight to detective work or into forensic work, you start out dealing with traffic tickets, domestic calls and whatever else is out there. Their specialized jobs call for a lot of technical training, so they only give that training to people who've already demonstrated their commitment to the work. It would be interesting to compare and contrast the attrition rates in large police departments with those of the military.

    The Army's current recruiting slogan says in effect "Join the Army and we'll make you strong." That'll get a lot of warm bodies to sign up. A better one might be "Join the Army - if you're strong enough." That'll get the *right* people to sign up. The Marines have a poster with a tagline that says "We don't accept applications, only commitments." That's definitely moving in the right direction.

    In order to get high caliber recruits and retain them the armed forces has to become an elite profession. Military experience should be a coveted asset.

  20. #40
    Council Member Ratzel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    Warrior -- a man engaged or experienced in warfare; broadly : a person engaged in some struggle or conflict.

    Soldier -- a: one engaged in military service and especially in the army b: an enlisted man or woman c: a skilled warrior.

    Simply, a warrior is anyone who fights, a soldier (or Marine) is one who is trained, disciplined and, hopefully, skilled in fighting. Thus he's more than a warrior. Much more, IMO.

    Basically, warriors aren't professional, soldiers are.

    A good pro can whip a good amateur any day of the week.
    We discussed this point in an "Anthropology of Warfare" class that I took. Warriors also fight for personal glory and tend to view themselves as individuals, as opposed to soldiers, who see themselves as a member of a unit. Warfare is a way of life for the warrior, for which he is socialized to value. Within the warrior society, prestige is found in acts of warlike behavior and ones' social standing can depend heavily on how brave someone is perceived to be. Warriors usually supply their own weapons.

    So when we think of the warrior in this way, we can see that being a soldier is much different. At no time while serving in the Army did I fight for personal glory. From the minute you get to basic training, you're socialized to have a "buddy" and the idea of doing something as an individual was frowned upon greatly. Warfare really wasn't a "way of life" either. After training was over, I didn't carry my M16A4 around and decorate it. Besides playing with toy guns and watching Red Dawn, I can't really say that I was socialized to be a warrior either. I guess there can be some debate whether social prestige comes with being a soldier but certainly not in Berkley California. My social standing hasn't really improved as a result of being a soldier but, the values I learned in the military have made me a more successful person. Obviously this isn't the same thing as say, being made the town supervisor due to my military service, so I think this is different too. Last despite wanting to bring my own sidearm to Iraq, I never supplied my own weapons.

    So being a soldier is much different than being a warrior. About the only thing they have in common is that they both fight in armed combat. But so do Mercenaries, guerrilla's and insurgents, and we could define these differently as well. It would seem that different people go to war for different reasons and in different fighting roles. I don't think I'd even want to go to war with a "warrior." There was one Indian tribe (Forgot which one) in which the warrior would ride his horse and try to get close enough to the enemy to touch his horse. The purpose was not to kill, but to impress the tribe with the warriors bravery. Maybe today's equivalent would be driving a HUMVEE just close enough to slap a VBIED and then drive away? Anyway, I would rather go to war with soldiers any day.

    So instead of the "Everyone a Warrior" concept that came about due the Jessica Lynch ordeal, why not "Everyone a Soldier?" The Marines say "Everyone a Marine" first, so why not the Army too? What "Everyone a Warrior" implies to me is that we had soldiers who thought of themselves as non-combatants.
    Last edited by Ratzel; 02-22-2008 at 08:51 AM.
    "Politics are too important to leave to the politicians"

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •