FM 3-27.75 The Warrior Ethos and Soldier Combat Skills

[Ken White]

One of the few benefits of being old is that most things have been seen before and therefor one realizes that many worries are misplaced. In the 1930s when I was a kid, the people in the Armed Forces were virtual oddities to most Americans. The two societies were quite distinct and had little in common on the surface -- yet, those serving came from that greater civil society and reflected it quite well. WW II of course changed that -- not necessarily forever...

I think JW is correct in ascribing some of the current angst on that score to the ascendancy in Academia of the anti-everything crowd from the 60s; most of them do not understand the Beast and it therefor worries them; all they know is that they don't like what it is or does...

They have transmitted that worry to the ever larger population of tertiary students. It has always fascinated me that coterie is first to call for some form of citizen service -- explicitly including the military for some -- but themselves would (did?) go to great lengths to avoid such service. Most would go to equally great lengths to insure that if their children had to serve, it would not be in uniform. I think there's some incongruity there...

In any event, JW is correct when he notes that a civilian - military disconnect is the norm in the US. I served during a period when one could wear a uniform anywhere and also later when one was ill advised to wear that uniform away from the base or post. I've been insulted, had things thrown at me and been subjected to petty tirades by ill-informed people half way around the world and back. No big thing, one simply considers the source and moves on. Yet, in all that time and since, the Armed forces of the US were and are today nothing more or less than a broad reflection of the society from which they spring -- with the minor exception of the presumed elite other than in exceptional cases.

Thus I think that your statement

"...When citizenship no longer requires defense of the society and the defense of that society is in the hands of people who have no vested interest in that society...

reverses the problem; it seems to me we should be worried when the defense of the society is in the hands of people who have a very strongly vested interest in that society -- because in any democracy it is after all their society, is from where they come and is the home of their friends and relatives and is the place to which most will return (and that is emphatically the case now) -- but that society has little or no real interest in they who would defend it.

[marct]

Hi Ken,

Thus I think that your statement reverses the problem; it seems to me we should be worried when the defense of the society is in the hands of people who have a very strongly vested interest in that society -- because in any democracy it is after all their society, is from where they come and is the home of their friends and relatives and is the place to which most will return (and that is emphatically the case now) -- but that society has little or no real interest in they who would defend it.

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 .

[Ken White]

...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 .

the model a little earlier. I think the Civil War curtailed a lot of interest in things military...

In the case of the US, I will NOT call that earlier maturity...

In any event, WW II and the subsequent failure of that 'Greatest Generation' worldwide to raise their kids as they had been raised -- fairly well, in most cases -- due to the siren call of Dr. Spock destroyed way too many societal norms in the sixties. Never to return...

Some good and some bad in that.

[120mm]

I doubt "warriors" would use buzz-words, much less a crappy one like "ethos". It pisses me off at a very basic level to hear some deployment-avoiding, smooth-talking and polished staff officer or NCO using words like "warrior." A real warrior would shoot them in the face, just on principle.

The real "warriors" that I know crave conflict on the same level as most crave sex. Perhaps even more so.

Does being a "warrior" mean you get to decapitate that 40 hours a week shamming PAC clerk who just screwed up your pay, because they were too lazy to do it right?

If so, I might reconsider adopting a Warrior "ethos", Army-wide.

[Germ]

I doubt "warriors" would use buzz-words, much less a crappy one like "ethos". It pisses me off at a very basic level to hear some deployment-avoiding, smooth-talking and polished staff officer or NCO using words like "warrior." A real warrior would shoot them in the face, just on principle.

The real "warriors" that I know crave conflict on the same level as most crave sex. Perhaps even more so.

Does being a "warrior" mean you get to decapitate that 40 hours a week shamming PAC clerk who just screwed up your pay, because they were too lazy to do it right?

If so, I might reconsider adopting a Warrior "ethos", Army-wide.

Those who regard "warrior ethos" as a buzzword should pull the thread on it, back to the 90's. The Marines adopted it right about the time Sarah Lister proudly claimed that soldiers were better normed with society than Marines. The Marine reply was "she's right and we're glad." They turned her slight into a brag, going even further by claiming a 24/7 characteristic and attitude held by all Marines, a (you guessed it) warrior ethos. The effort not only rebutted Lister's comments, it furthered an internal effort to get Marines back on the track away from forgetting everything at the end of the day and doing stupid things with cars, alcohol and drugs. Finally, it contributed to a time proven ability for Marine units to prevent disaster by employing non-infantry MOS Marines as provisional line companies in pinches. The technique worked well for them in November of 1950, and lent to the motto, "Every Marine a rifleman," which may lack total fidelity, but served Marine truck drivers better at An Nasaryah than Jessica Lynch's unit was served by their lack of preparation for small unit action.
So it's too late for a short answer, but I think you're missing the point. At the same time you complain that support MOS's don't have a clear vision of what you do and how to support you, you decry Army efforts to unify the force. Which do you want -- a better complaint or a better Army?

[120mm]

Those who regard "warrior ethos" as a buzzword should pull the thread on it, back to the 90's. The Marines adopted it right about the time Sarah Lister proudly claimed that soldiers were better normed with society than Marines. The Marine reply was "she's right and we're glad." They turned her slight into a brag, going even further by claiming a 24/7 characteristic and attitude held by all Marines, a (you guessed it) warrior ethos. The effort not only rebutted Lister's comments, it furthered an internal effort to get Marines back on the track away from forgetting everything at the end of the day and doing stupid things with cars, alcohol and drugs. Finally, it contributed to a time proven ability for Marine units to prevent disaster by employing non-infantry MOS Marines as provisional line companies in pinches. The technique worked well for them in November of 1950, and lent to the motto, "Every Marine a rifleman," which may lack total fidelity, but served Marine truck drivers better at An Nasaryah than Jessica Lynch's unit was served by their lack of preparation for small unit action.
So it's too late for a short answer, but I think you're missing the point. At the same time you complain that support MOS's don't have a clear vision of what you do and how to support you, you decry Army efforts to unify the force. Which do you want -- a better complaint or a better Army?

The problem is that the "buzz-word" has replaced developing soldiers, with discipline. You cannot turn a soldier who is naturally a born-victim into a warrior, and frankly, you don't want to. But you CAN make born victims into soldiers, and you CAN enforce discipline. Having lived through OIF 0/1/2, (as a TC Officer, obtw) we (transporters) invaded with an indisciplined mob of born victims, (but we left all our ring mounts and crew-serveds in Germany/The US, sir!!!) and progressed through to an indisciplined mob of born victims who sprayed gunfire willy-nilly at everything that moved. (God dammit, when you get an ambush, I want you to SHOOT somebody! - BG Fletcher 3d COSCOM Commander, July 2003) We have hopefully achieved a disciplined force who will fight through ambushes when necessary.

Enforcing discipline, throughout the Army, has nothing to do with renaming everything "Warrior". The "Warrior Ethos" is nothing less than a slick internal marketing ploy by the "Brylcreem Boys" who value career over leadership. The Army isn't "better" because I eat at a "Warrior Cafe" instead of a "Mess Hall". And the Army Reserve is no more "battle ready" because we burn 48 UTAs a year doing B.S. mandatory sex harassment/EO classes in a "Battle Assembly" instead of a "drill."

What is most frustrating, is that there are a bunch of people who are not mentally equipped to notice the difference between the so-called building of "Warriors" and actually developing and enforcing "Disciplined Soldiers".

I guess my poor attitude means I haven't "transformed" enough to truly generate "synergistic" effects through "bootstrapping new paradigms."

It's Bull####, in other words.

[marct]

Hi Guys,

Those who regard "warrior ethos" as a buzzword should pull the thread on it, back to the 90's. The Marines adopted it right about the time Sarah Lister proudly claimed that soldiers were better normed with society than Marines. The Marine reply was "she's right and we're glad." They turned her slight into a brag, going even further by claiming a 24/7 characteristic and attitude held by all Marines, a (you guessed it) warrior ethos.

The problem is that the "buzz-word" has replaced developing soldiers, with discipline. You cannot turn a soldier who is naturally a born-victim into a warrior, and frankly, you don't want to. But you CAN make born victims into soldiers, and you CAN enforce discipline.

Hmmm. 120, have you noticed that the Marines have what amounts to a "regimental consciousness" (Corps wide)? Adopting a "warrior" label, while certainly incorrect terminology, does fit in with group symbolic protection - i.e. the symbolic "walls" a group builds around itself to define us-them boundaries. The real problem is the secondary loops set up - the semantic associations.

Enforcing discipline, throughout the Army, has nothing to do with renaming everything "Warrior". The "Warrior Ethos" is nothing less than a slick internal marketing ploy by the "Brylcreem Boys" who value career over leadership. The Army isn't "better" because I eat at a "Warrior Cafe" instead of a "Mess Hall". And the Army Reserve is no more "battle ready" because we burn 48 UTAs a year doing B.S. mandatory sex harassment/EO classes in a "Battle Assembly" instead of a "drill."

Honestly, "Warrior Cafe"?!? I'm getting images of Vercingetorix ordering a half goat, half sheep mocha latte!

Anyway, it's all part of the semantic drift when you associate a new label with a core component of identity. One of the things I've noticed about marketing, and I'll be intrigued to see what RA thinks, is that while there is a tremendous amount of expertise at manipulating symbols, there is a very short time horizon on the effects of such a manipulation.

As an example, "warrior" is, at the deep cultural symbol level, a class or caste in western cultures. Furthermore, it is extremely individualistic and/or blood line oriented. It is a group that is set apart by inherent differences. This is totally different from the concept of "soldier" and, especially, of "citizen-soldier" which carries with it the concept of combat as a civic duty and a function of citizenship (not blood line). Entry is via training processes that are available to all citizens and involves the imposition/acceptance of discipline, as compared to the concept of a warriors inherent "ability".

What is most frustrating, is that there are a bunch of people who are not mentally equipped to notice the difference between the so-called building of "Warriors" and actually developing and enforcing "Disciplined Soldiers".

I guess my poor attitude means I haven't "transformed" enough to truly generate "synergistic" effects through "bootstrapping new paradigms."

It's Bull####, in other words.

LOLOL - Yup, but it is high quality Bravo Sierra . Possibly more importantly, it actually fits in with the current models of games played by many kids as they are growing up - complete with the disregard for any civic duties. This means that it is attractive to a lot of the kids ("Hot Damn! Wi II wants to play!").

Marc

[raymondh3201]

i doubt "warriors" would use buzz-words, much less a crappy one like "ethos". It pisses me off at a very basic level to hear some deployment-avoiding, smooth-talking and polished staff officer or nco using words like "warrior." a real warrior would shoot them in the face, just on principle.

The real "warriors" that i know crave conflict on the same level as most crave sex. Perhaps even more so.

Does being a "warrior" mean you get to decapitate that 40 hours a week shamming pac clerk who just screwed up your pay, because they were too lazy to do it right?

If so, i might reconsider adopting a warrior "ethos", army-wide.

+1

[selil]

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.

[Ken White]

...
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.

[slapout9]

Somebody say somehting about a Warrior? The Warrior by Scandal


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

[wm]

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.

[Steve Blair]

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.

[marct]

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 ).

[Noble Industries]

They have transmitted that worry to the ever larger population of tertiary students. It has always fascinated me that coterie is first to call for some form of citizen service -- explicitly including the military for some -- but themselves would (did?) go to great lengths to avoid such service. Most would go to equally great lengths to insure that if their children had to serve, it would not be in uniform. I think there's some incongruity there...



As someone currently engaged in university study (security, terrorism and counter terrorism studies), albeit online, I do come across a lot of ‘why don’t we have national service, if only they knew how bad it was they’d all join up’ etc. But rarely do I see those people follow through.

Perhaps this is simply just a case of it being easier to cry from the sidelines that the team should be winning, without actually donning pads and running out to assist.

[goesh]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0yVaHKcs9E

-quite a tune by the Kid but I agree that "warrior" causes young men to ignore the reality of all the discipline and sacrifice and hard work leading up to that first fire fight that ends all notions of glory.

[Steve Blair]

/waves to goesh/

Yeah...can't forget the Kid.