William S. Lind :collection (merged thread)

[carl]

JMA:

The reason this type of thing happens is twofold. The progressives, liberals, chattering class elites, superzips or whatever you want to call them are very enthusiastic about using the military as a laboratory for social experimentation and engineering. Who can blame them for being so excited? They get into a position of political power and when they tell soldiers what to do, they have to obey them. "What a trip dude, we don't have to cajole them they just have to obey." Civilians are so bothersome in that respect, so many of them have opinions of their own and insist on thinking for themselves, but the military has to obey. The superzips don't concern themselves about the effect these things will have on US ability to fight and win wars because they believe wars won't happen again especially since wars are our nasty fault anyway and if we are nice enough they won't occur.

This is stupid but the 'zips are civilians too so they get to have dopey ideas. The real problem is the most important thing Lind mentioned, the moral rot at the heart of the American officer corps. That rot manifests itself in a general officer corps that will not provide a counterweight to the dangerous enthusiasms of the superzips. They will not because honest, principled opposition would be dangerous to their careers. And their careers are the most important thing because they do not view the military as thing that is there to defend the country by fighting when needed, they view the military as a vehicle to advance their careers. To them that is why the Army exists, the Navy exist, the USMC exists and the USAF exists; to provide opportunities for one stars to be two stars to be three stars and if the stars align properly and Gen. Massingale plays his cards right, to be four stars. These guys aren't stupid, just morally corrupt. They pose a mortal danger to the nation, one that when the next big war comes, the good officers of moral fibre, and there are a lot, who haven't been weeded out yet may not have time to overcome before defeat comes.

(Great point about the boots. I never thought of that.)

[JMA]

Carl we can look at this piece from 1926:

"We am make a catalogue of the moral qualities of the greatest captains but we cannot exhaust them. First there will be courage, not merely the physical kind which is happily not uncommon, but the rarer thing, the moral courage which Washington showed in the dark days at Valley Forge, and which we call fortitude — the power of enduring when hope is gone, the power of taking upon one's self a crushing responsibility and daring all, when weaker souls would play for safety. There must be the capacity for self-sacrifice, the willingness to let worldly interests and even reputation and honour perish, if only the task be accomplished. The man who is concerned with his own prestige will never move mountains. There must be patience, supreme patience under misunderstanding and set-backs, and the muddles and interferences of others, and the soldier of a democracy especially needs this. There must be resilience under defeat, a tough vitality and a manly optimism, which looks at the facts in all their bleakness and yet dares to be confident. There must be the sense of the eternal continuity of a great cause, so that failure and even death will not seem the end, and a man sees himself as only a part in a predestined purpose."
Homilies and Recreations by John Buchan 1926

I'm afraid most countries militaries have long since lost it so this is not a situation perculiar only to the US officer corps.

Looking deeper into all this I believe soldiers are indeed a breed apart from the average citizen which is why both careful and stringent selection processes are vital. This would be for a standing army as opposed to during a general mobilisation when just about anyione gets accepted into the military.

Again here there are those who will maintain you can make a soldier out of anyone... I would ask then what is the definition of a soldier?

[wm]

Homilies and Recreations by John Buchan 1926

An interesting choice of authority. Here are some career highlights for the 1st Baron Tweedsmuir PC GCMG GCVO CH, from Wikipedia.

Buchan then enlisted in the British Army and was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the Intelligence Corps, where he wrote speeches and communiqus for Sir Douglas Haig. Recognised for his abilities, Buchan was appointed as the Director of Information in 1917, under the Lord Beaverbrooka job that Buchan said was "the toughest job I ever took on" and also assisted Charles Masterman in publishing a monthly magazine that detailed the history of the war, the first edition appearing in February 1915 (and later published in 24 volumes as Nelson's History of the War).

and as Governor General of Canada,

Buchan's experiences during the First World War made him averse to conflict, 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.

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

[carl]

An interesting choice of authority. Here are some career highlights for the 1st Baron Tweedsmuir PC GCMG GCVO CH, from Wikipedia.

and as Governor General of Canada,
But he apparently sold out and

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

Ok now we know what you think of the man. What do you think of his words as quoted? I thought they were pretty good.

[wm]

Ok now we know what you think of the man. What do you think of his words as quoted? I thought they were pretty good.

I agree that the words read well. I am not so sure of the need for patience, but then I am one of those impatient Americans. I also am not of a mind to support the "sense of the eternal continuity of a great cause.". That sort of attachment can lead us to excessive "missionary zeal" of the kind found in things like Hitler's 1000 year Reich, AQ efforts to restore the Caliphate, or the Spanish Inquisition.

The US Army used to teach the 4 C's: courage, candor, competence, and commitment, as military virtues (and I hope it still does). However, please remember Aristotle's definition of a virtue: the mean between two extremes of a passion. Courage, for example is not the absence of fear. Rather it is having the appropriate amount of fear. What that amount is will vary from person to person and situation to situation, which, by the way, is why one cannot exhaust the catalogue of moral qualities as Buchan noted in the quotation's opening sentence.

[JMA]

I agree that the words read well. I am not so sure of the need for patience, but then I am one of those impatient Americans. I also am not of a mind to support the "sense of the eternal continuity of a great cause.". That sort of attachment can lead us to excessive "missionary zeal" of the kind found in things like Hitler's 1000 year Reich, AQ efforts to restore the Caliphate, or the Spanish Inquisition.

OK... now you need to share your war experience - briefly - so others can understand the context and where you are coming from as this does not make sense.

The US Army used to teach the 4 C's: courage, candor, competence, and commitment, as military virtues (and I hope it still does). However, please remember Aristotle's definition of a virtue: the mean between two extremes of a passion. Courage, for example is not the absence of fear. Rather it is having the appropriate amount of fear. What that amount is will vary from person to person and situation to situation, which, by the way, is why one cannot exhaust the catalogue of moral qualities as Buchan noted in the quotation's opening sentence.

I submit you have missed the essential point.

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

You talk of teaching virtues . Now the bad news is - using your example - is that you can't teach the 4 Cs.

This I suggest is the greatest fallacy and probaby the main reason behind the moral and intellectual collapse Lind speaks of.

My contention is that the selection and training of potential officers is the most critical aspect which in the case of the US seems to attract the least attention. See thread Initial Officer Selection

To cover the fatal flaws in the US officer selection system the fallacy "made, not born" has become the mantra of those unable or unwilling ro make the necessary changes to fix the system ... or worse, those who don't even realise the system is broken.

If you wish to take this discussion further please indicate your exposure with selection and training of officers ... training in the real sense and not teaching officer cadets trivial aspects such as English and Geography (for example).

[JMA]

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

An interesting choice of authority. Here are some career highlights for the 1st Baron Tweedsmuir PC GCMG GCVO CH, from Wikipedia.

and as Governor General of Canada,
But he apparently sold out and


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

[JMA]

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

wm... I am waiting for a response to this.

Your cheap shot should not go unchallenged as you are not setting the example of the 'morality' of officers which you espouse.

[JMA]

Looking deeper into all this I believe soldiers are indeed a breed apart from the average citizen which is why both careful and stringent selection processes are vital. This would be for a standing army as opposed to during a general mobilisation when just about anyione gets accepted into the military.

Carl,in support of this contention I borrow from Lord Moran in his Anatomy of Courage

It is a grey world these clever people live in; they see in human nature only its frailty. These little servants of routine, these poor spirits whose hearts are with their bankers, who sought safety in life and still seek it in the turmoil of a bloody strife, can they impart the secret of constancy in war? ‘All warlike people are a little idle and love danger better than travail.‘ That love of danger has the ring of another day, but it is still true that the pick of men, as we knew them in the trenches, were not always the chosen of more settled times. These clever people when it came to the choice between life and death called vainly to their gods, they helped them not at all. Success, which in their lives had meant selfishness, had come in war to mean unselfishness. If we once believe that the capacity to get on in life is not everything, we shall be in a fair way to employ in peace tests of character as searching as those which the trenches supplied in war.

I contend that fortitude in war has its roots in morality", that selection is a search for character, and that war itself is but one more test - the supreme and final test if you will - of character. Courage can be judged apart from danger only if the social significance and meaning of courage is known to us, namely that a man of character in peace becomes a man of courage in war. He cannot be selfish in peace and yet be unselfish in war.

Here I repeat my theme from my earlier posts in SWC that recruiting needs to be carefully targeted and certainly no reliance on the use of 'walk-in' recruiting offices - on Times Square for example - made to draw the 'right' candidates into the service.

I add this link: Charles Wilson, 1st Baron Moran to allow wm to provide a rapid character assessment of the author.

[wm]

Looking deeper into all this I believe soldiers are indeed a breed apart from the average citizen which is why both careful and stringent selection processes are vital. This would be for a standing army as opposed to during a general mobilisation when just about anyione gets accepted into the military.

Again here there are those who will maintain you can make a soldier out of anyone... I would ask then what is the definition of a soldier?

A soldier is one who defends non-soldiers from the attacks of others. Soldiers are a breed apart because society has authorized them to violate the prohibition against killing other humans. However, that authorization comes at a price. Soldiers may also be killed. The right to kill is limited to other combatants, however, and we must still respect the human being that is wearing the uniform. The right to kill is granted to soldiers because they serve as defenders by proxy for all those others in the soldiers' countries who are not soldiers. This includes the civilians in your opponents' country as well. This last constraint requires that soldiers must expose themsves to additional risks to protect any and all non-combatants. Otherwise soldiers are not performing their primary duty of protecting non-combatants. Too often the focus shifts, wrongly, from protection to winning. The aim, then, of any military is to defend civilians. This is codified in the Preamble to the US Constitution with the phrase, "provide for the common defense."
I refer folks to Jaspers' The Question of German Guilt for a reasoned position on why a country's non-combatants are innocents.

[Fuchs]

A soldier is one who defends non-soldiers from the attacks of others.

Much of the time, they themselves are the ones attacking. Your description fits better to policemen, bodyguards and bouncers than soldiers.

Soldiers are a breed apart because society has authorized them to violate the prohibition against killing other humans.

No, this only applies to warfare - and many non-military combatants are then authorised to do the same.
A normal soldier is not authorised to kill anyone during almost his entire career.


You guys keep mistaking "war" for "military".


Challenge:

You guys claim soldiers are substantially different (or superior) to civilians in general. I write "in general" because you keep writing "soldiers" without much qualifiers (at war, in combat arms etc.) attached.

Show how this soldier is special:

An airman works in an air force depot, doing inventory and equipment checks on spare parts. The inventory starts again once it's done, week after week. He's working with a civilian there who does the exact same thing.

What's so substantially different about this soldier to justify any special attitude or expectations for rewards?

[carl]

An airman works in an air force depot, doing inventory and equipment checks on spare parts. The inventory starts again once it's done, week after week. He's working with a civilian there who does the exact same thing.

What's so substantially different about this soldier to justify any special attitude or expectations for rewards?

I don't know about any justifications or expectations but what is different is the airman can be ordered to leave the depot and go to the front and fight as an infantryman and he has to go or face penalty. The civilian doesn't.

[carl]

Wm:

Most all good words in your two posts above.

There is one small thing I would sort of disagree with and it is about "sense of the eternal continuity of a great cause." A great cause is not confined only to big politics and big ideology I think. I think a great cause could also be that soldiers and soldiering be what you enunciated in post #190. That is a great cause worth pursuing for as long as there are men.

[Fuchs]

I don't know about any justifications or expectations but what is different is the airman can be ordered to leave the depot and go to the front and fight as an infantryman and he has to go or face penalty. The civilian doesn't.

Not if there's peace. Besides, airman? A civilian can be drafted and be ordered to go fight at the front as well, and that's in many countries much more likely to happen than this happening to an airman.

Again, the difference is not mil/civ, but 'mil at war'/'civ away from war'


Why is it so hard to think logically about this, instead of blurring lines all the time and then drawing an allegedly unblurred conclusion?

[carl]

Not if there's peace. Besides, airman? A civilian can be drafted and be ordered to go fight at the front as well, and that's in many countries much more likely to happen than this happening to an airman.

Again, the difference is not mil/civ, but 'mil at war'/'civ away from war'

Why is it so hard to think logically about this, instead of blurring lines all the time and then drawing an allegedly unblurred conclusion?

Soldiers are soldiers because they are to fight and they don't have the option to refuse sans penalty when ordered. Civilians do.

If a civilian is ordered to the front he in effect just got drafted.

Lots of German airman got sent to the front as well as many American Army Air Corps guys at Bataan.

[JMA]

Why is it so hard to think logically about this, instead of blurring lines all the time and then drawing an allegedly unblurred conclusion?

Yes indeed, it is difficult to understand why you are so confused about this issue.

[Steve Blair]

Challenge:

You guys claim soldiers are substantially different (or superior) to civilians in general. I write "in general" because you keep writing "soldiers" without much qualifiers (at war, in combat arms etc.) attached.

Show how this soldier is special:

An airman works in an air force depot, doing inventory and equipment checks on spare parts. The inventory starts again once it's done, week after week. He's working with a civilian there who does the exact same thing.

What's so substantially different about this soldier to justify any special attitude or expectations for rewards?

This is actually a very good challenge/question. I've worked with military folks for a great percentage of my life, and this fairly recent attitude of exceptionalism is disturbing. I do think it's worth looking at and discussing without references to exceptional situations like Bataan and the like.

Folks seem to forget that for a great many years the Army in the United States was seen as alternately unnecessary, a mercenary force composed mainly of foreigners, or an instrument of Government oppression. Most popular acclaim was saved for state-based Volunteer units. Much of the glorification of the military gained momentum after the First Gulf War (for a variety of reasons, including some delayed guilt on the part of elites when it came to memories of their denouncement of the troops during Vietnam), and it's only gained steam ever since.

The military is in many ways an institution like any other large organization. You're going to have good folks, bad folks, and those who just do their job and go home. But the system's also set up to reward those who can "work the system" and doesn't reward or advance the sort of people they like to laud in hindsight (a Patton or an Olds wouldn't make it very far these days). And certain segments of the culture are seriously broken. To give one example, anyone who was surprised by the recent problems the Air Force's ICBM force is experiencing simply hasn't been paying attention to the culture.

I'll dismount the soapbox now, but I still think the original challenge/question is a good one. Having worked on a post during the late '90s, I saw a fair number of soldiers find ways to avoid deployments or other unfavorable assignments. They may not have a "check the box" option, but there are certainly ways to do it without significant penalty.

[wm]

Fuchs,
US military members are authorized to use deadly force outside the battlefield as well. The restrictions are very explicit, but that, as well as being subject to a special penal code, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, in the US anyway, make military members a separate group from most folks in the country.

[Fuchs]

Fuchs,
US military members are authorized to use deadly force outside the battlefield as well. The restrictions are very explicit, but that, as well as being subject to a special penal code, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, in the US anyway, make military members a separate group from most folks in the country.

I noted how Floridian civilians "are authorized to use deadly force outside the battlefield" in general and in ways soldiers in New York State aren't. The restrictions in Florida infamously are not very explicit. I also heard about how bodyguards, guards, policemen, executioners and in many countries also hunters/park rangers are authorized to use deadly force outside the battlefield", and in often ways soldiers aren't.

Killing is no military monopoly - and certainly not so in peacetime. In fact, intentional kills by soldiers are in peacetime again extremely uncommon and rather the extreme exception compared to the many legal kills by civilians.
So no, the big difference regarding "killing" is also about war/no-war, not mil/civ.

Besides; even in wartime civilians are hardly going to be prosecuted by their own country for killing a hostile soldier.

-----

Did you know tenured civil administrations, policemen, seamen and plenty other civilian job groups are under a special penal code in many countries all over the world? In fact, the penal code of German policemen is by its nature a twin of the Bundeswehr's. As is in fact the penal code for all German tenured public servants. Teachers, for example. Yes - a first grade teacher who teaches children the alphabet is under a special penal code in some countries!

I made a quick google search, and it confirmed that in the United States there's a huge legal difference between a public servant in a utilities institution and a normal employee in the same job.
Did you ever hear about a conviction for "abuse of office" by a non-government employee?
Me neither.
Non-governmental jerks can be fired, but never charged with "abuse of office".

-----

Besides, even IF soldiers were different/special because of special penal code or killing authorization:
That would still not support all the attitude stuff about it. No support for higher morality, hardly support for requirement of higher morality such as no cheating on spouses, no 'deserving' much respect et cetera.

[JMA]

This is actually a very good challenge/question. I've worked with military folks for a great percentage of my life, and this fairly recent attitude of exceptionalism is disturbing.

Please help me understand where you are coming from here.

This work you have done with 'military folks' has it always been stateside or also in combat?

There is an essential issue here and that is the 'grunts' or GIs can't be faulted for their efforts in both Iraq and Afghanistan. On the other hand the performance of the senior officers - home and away - has been questionable and that of the politicians has been disgraceful.