William S. Lind :collection (merged thread)

[carl]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Fuchs]

First of all a 'soldier' is a fighting man.

First of all, you deal too much in counter-factuals:


sol•dier (ˈsoʊl dʒər)

n.
1. a person engaged in military service.
2. an enlisted man or woman, as distinguished from a commissioned officer.
3. a person of military skill or experience.
4. a person dedicated to a cause.
5. a low-ranking member of a crime organization.
6. a member of a caste of sexually underdeveloped female ants or termites specialized, as with powerful jaws, to defend the colony from invaders.

[wm]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[carl]

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

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

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

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

[JMA]

OK... back to your question then.

You are absolutely correct, there is absolutely no reason why your airman who is a spare-parts storeman can ever be 'special'.

But... soldiers who have seen combat and aquitted themselves well will always be special.

First of all, you deal too much in counter-factuals:


sol•dier (ˈsoʊl dʒər)

n.
1. a person engaged in military service.
2. an enlisted man or woman, as distinguished from a commissioned officer.
3. a person of military skill or experience.
4. a person dedicated to a cause.
5. a low-ranking member of a crime organization.
6. a member of a caste of sexually underdeveloped female ants or termites specialized, as with powerful jaws, to defend the colony from invaders.

[JMA]

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

Your cheap shot was:

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

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

[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.

[JMA]

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

Yes you have missed the point.

I said:

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

The 'virtues' you speak of should be selected for - prior to commencement of training - and not taught during the course.

Please explain exactly how you would assess candidates for officer training prior to starting it.

I gave you the link of the thread earlier: Initial Officer Selection

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

The thread I mentioned covers all this, but suffice it to say that the in comparison to the other NATO countries the US army has the least efficient pre-course officer selection process. The evidence and the argument is in that thread.

I suggest that this initial fatal flaw - in officer selection and training - contributes to what Lind alleges manifests itself later in the careers of the officer corps.

A more important concern is who assesses the assessors? What qualities should they display?

Good question. Why you asking me?

USMA cadets are required to learn what they know as Worth's Battalion Orders:

One trusts that the cadets "internalize" the sentiments expressed by Major Worth.

While I would have selected other words and a slightly difference nuance that sounds fair enough.

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

Sounds good but do yourself a favour and read through that thread it may just assist you to see these matter more clearly.

[JMA]

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

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

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

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

Then your Benjamin Franklin got ahead of himself:



Now with you it gets to 1,000!

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

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

[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.

[wm]

Your cheap shot was:

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

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

Your original request was rather different. viz.:

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

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

But he apparently sold out and

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

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

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

[carl]

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.

[carl]

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

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

Can I try some sophistry too?

Here goes.

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

Conclusion: Mother is a hypocrite.

[JMA]

Your original request was rather different. viz.:

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

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

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

On this you get a Fail grade.

Lets start here with your man:

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

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

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

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

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

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

A little education:

Going to war? 'Parliament will decide'

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

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

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

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

Declaration of war by Canada

I quote:

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

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

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

1939: Canada declares war on Germany

He begins with:

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

So ends the lesson.

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

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

[JMA]

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.

[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]

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.