The Military - Should people be tst'd on the Const?

[Groty]

Should people joining the Military be tested on their understanding and comprehension of the Constitution and American History before being admitted?

I live in near the "Largest" military base in the world. I encounter military personnel quite often. I find most to be ignorant. Their job is to kill "Bad Guys". The problem I have is that I don't feel they really understand what the military was created to defend.

*Exception*
I used to live in Savannah. Home of a Ranger regiment, the Rangers that were sent to Somalia. All of them that I met were very analytical and political. When speaking with them, they openly argued against the Presidents' conquests, but admitted it was their duty to follow... Which explains why the wouldn't sign up for another tour.

[flan2dave]

If they learned more what the military is all about, probably a lot fewer would want to have anything to do with it.

[MacGuffin]

The military's job is to kill people and blow stuff up. Not debate foreign or domestic policy.

[lauriep]

The military's job is to kill people and blow stuff up. Not debate foreign or domestic policy.

I agree. If the military was made up of intelligent thinking people, would they be as likely to follow orders blindly and go into such dangerous situations.

[Claverhouse]

The military's job is to kill people and blow stuff up. Not debate foreign or domestic policy.

Zu befehl, mein fuhrer !



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Hypnos]

The military's job is to kill people and blow stuff up. Not debate foreign or domestic policy.
That's a formula for fascism. The citizen-solider knows what he's fighting for.

EDIT: Oh shit, Claverhouse and I agree on something!

[MacGuffin]

The military's job is to kill people and blow stuff up. Not debate foreign or domestic policy.
That's a formula for fascism. The citizen-solider knows what he's fighting for.

EDIT: Oh shit, Claverhouse and I agree on something!

Maybe, maybe not. What does knowledge of the Constitution do for a grunt? Does it help them throw a hand grenade? Shoot accurately?

The civilian leadership should know history and the Constitution.

[Claverhouse]

Possibly it might help them refrain from pounding a captured Republican Guard General to death, thus obviating the possibility of spending the rest of their sordid lives in jail without remission.



Claverhouse :ph34r:


[ Unless they pick the lucky Lieut. Calley card and get a presidential pardon after a couple of years ]. :ph34r:

[Groty]

Possibly it might help them refrain from pounding a captured Republican Guard General to death, thus obviating the possibility of spending the rest of their sordid lives in jail without remission.



Claverhouse :ph34r:


[ Unless they pick the lucky Lieut. Calley card and get a presidential pardon after a couple of years ]. :ph34r:


So we Americans should be held to the same international standards the U.S. and Europe use when deliberating War Crimes trials?

[Arioch]

Informed solders are not exactly what the army needs. You've seen the solders... they don't have to be the brightest crayon in the box. What generals want is solders filled with propaganda.

Anyhow I suspect that many solders are in fact SP's and in it for the action.
And SP's arn't known for their love for abstract things like history and why and stuff like that,

[Claverhouse]

So we Americans should be to the same international standards the U.S. and Europe use when deliberating War Crimes trials?

Or at least some.


Interesting point I recently realised:

Imaginary
We cannot allow others to dictate our own security or our use of military force: I am not prepared to surrender the safety of our country to outsiders. I will not allow xxx troops to be dictated to by the United Nations, nor put them in danger of facing charges brought by other nations. We can determine our own courses and decisions.

Determine whether this is a good statement or a bad one; supposing it was said by a/ President Bush or b/ President Saddam.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Arioch]

So we Americans should be to the same international standards the U.S. and Europe use when deliberating War Crimes trials?

Or at least some.


Interesting point I recently realised:

Imaginary
We cannot allow others to dictate our own security or our use of military force: I am not prepared to surrender the safety of our country to outsiders. I will not allow xxx troops to be dictated to by the United Nations, nor put them in danger of facing charges brought by other nations. We can determine our own courses and decisions.

Determine whether this is a good statement or a bad one; supposing it was said by a/ President Bush or b/ President Saddam.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

I'm not happy with the statement either way. Spread the power so it is harder to be abused.

[Claverhouse]

It's not so much as question of power as of a policy. A utopian anarchist state could adhere to the same defence of their control over their own destiny.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Misty_Kye]

There is another area on this form that asks, “Do you feel that other people on the forum don't like you?” I guess I answered too soon. I didn’t realize that I came across as a mindless, murdering, bloodthirsty, power-hungry, robotic imbecile who takes pleasure in humiliating everything in sight. Thanks for clearing that up. <_<

Btw. I guess that means it’s OK for all of the voting Americans who graduate High School and don’t go into the military to be unfamiliar with our history and constitution. Personally after being in the Navy for 20 years, I’ve learned to be happy when I get a high school graduate that can read and balance a checkbook. Maybe someday they will be able to speak the English language without completely butchering it. (I’m not holding my breath though)

[file cabinet]

There is another area on this form that asks, “Do you feel that other people on the forum don't like you?” I guess I answered too soon. I didn’t realize that I came across as a mindless, murdering, bloodthirsty, power-hungry, robotic imbecile who takes pleasure in humiliating everything in sight. Thanks for clearing that up. <_<

Btw. I guess that means it’s OK for all of the voting Americans who graduate High School and don’t go into the military to be unfamiliar with our history and constitution. Personally after being in the Navy for 20 years, I’ve learned to be happy when I get a high school graduate that can read and balance a checkbook. Maybe someday they will be able to speak the English language without completely butchering it. (I’m not holding my breath though)

His post was not meant to be a direct attack on you.
He was posting his real life observations, not observations he gleaned from your posts.
anyway, maybe you should post your point of view

[Nighthawk]

The military's job is to kill people and blow stuff up. Not debate foreign or domestic policy.

I agree. If the military was made up of intelligent thinking people, would they be as likely to follow orders blindly and go into such dangerous situations.

The "kill people and blow stuff up" is actually an accurate view of how many soldiers feel. Many of the lower level soldiers are indeed, people of action rather than thought. Most of them are also very young. It is easier to tell a 19 y/o action-seeker to charge an enemy machine gun nest than a 30 y/o who has some capacity for thought. The 30 y/o will likely view being tossed out of the military as a better alternative. "No Sir, why don't YOU charge the machine gun."

Having said that, I am glad there are enough young, action seekers available for the task. We'd be in dire straits of nobody at all wanted to fight.

Nighthawk - ex-soldier

[Nighthawk]

The military's job is to kill people and blow stuff up. Not debate foreign or domestic policy.
That's a formula for fascism. The citizen-solider knows what he's fighting for.

EDIT: Oh shit, Claverhouse and I agree on something!

Maybe, maybe not. What does knowledge of the Constitution do for a grunt? Does it help them throw a hand grenade? Shoot accurately?

The civilian leadership should know history and the Constitution.

Indeed, you are all correct with respect to how it works, or should work, in the military ... but it works at different levels. Each soldier is required to have some level of understanding of how what they do fits into the structure of historical perspective, and military and constitutional law. "Just following orders" does not wash. The higher the level, the more understanding they are required to have.

The grunt soldier has very little (if any) training about the constitution and history. They are usually trained in the conduct of warfare and rules of engagement. Beyond that, proficiency in their weapons systems and military craft is their job. I say "usually trained" because we see incidents like Abu Ghairab from time to time. Grunts are expected to follow legal orders, and to know the difference.

The mid level sergeants usually receive more training in historical perspectives, military law, and leadership. Sergeants are expected to exercise initiative at the small unit level and ensure that legal orders are given and followed.

The officers receive the most training in the areas of history and the constitution. I received a few semesters of history, both American and military, as well as a semester of military and constitutional law, in addition to a ton of military training. Officers are expected to exercise initiative at small, mid, and large unit levels and set the tone for what is and is not permitted by the unit. Everything that happens within their unit is their responsibility ... although some less scrupulous officers manage to dodge that responsibility.

Having said all this, the quality of the training received by soldiers, sergeants, and officers varies greatly depending upon the unit and status. Reservists and guardsmen generally receive much less training than active duty soldiers. In the rush to get manpower, I believe that many reservists involved in the war have very little appropriate training. It does not surprise me that the prisoner abuse occurred within a reserve unit. In my opinion, it stems from poor leadership or lack of leadership by the officers and sergeants in that unit. Abusing prisoners illegal, and that is very clearly stated in many areas like the code of conduct, rules of engagement, and Geneva Convention. The sergeants should have know it was illegal and never let it get that far. The officers should have been more involved in what was going on with their unit and stopped this kind of activity the moment it first became apparent. The fact that no officer was present at the prison during the evening hours is inexcusable. The fact that upper level officers never visited the prison at all is also inexcusable.

As if this were not enough, you have the wildcard of marginally unstable people in positions of authority. In the corporate world, that means getting yelled at and working 60-hour weeks. In the military, it can have far greater consequences. People in power sometimes develop God complexes and start to believe all their own BS. If they are charismatic to boot, they can have a following of loyal soldiers buying into their BS .. a'la Colonel Kurtz in Apocalypse Now. I knew a lieutenant colonel during the first gulf war who loved to slap around prisoners and threaten them with pistols to the temple and in the mouth. The soldiers of his unit, by extension, believed it was OK to psychologically terrorize prisoners. I butted heads with him on more than one occasion, threatening to have him forcibly removed if he did not stop abusing prisoners under my protection. Probably why I never made it past captain. I shudder to think of the games he played back in the rear area, withinin the perimeter of his own unit.

[Nighthawk]

Anyhow I suspect that many solders are in fact SP's and in it for the action.
And SP's arn't known for their love for abstract things like history and why and stuff like that,

This has always been something that fascinated me, and I have given it a lot of thought and study. Artisans are, indeed, a very good match for the quintessential warrior ... tactical thinkers, usually very athletic, impulsively daring, with a gift for doing whatever it takes to improve their immediate situation. Yes, there are a lot of Artisans in the military, particularly at the lower levels. Many of the most skilled small unit level soldiers and commanders are Artisans.

I've found that Guardians usually run the show however, with a sprinkling of extraverted NT's here and there. The military is an SJ heaven, with tons and tons and tons of procedures and rules. Everything you do is regulated by stacks of documents. Many processes, particularly in the logistical and administrative areas, are so unbending that there is no way to change or manipulate them. Artisans buck the processes and the SJ-SP rivalry is very central to military power struggles. The SJ's usually win out in peacetime, when there is no real measuring stick for success ... except for logistical budgets. In wartime, however, poor results mean losing and getting killed. That is when the helm is usually turned over to the SP's (Patton) and NT's (Eisenhower). SP's are allowed, to a certain extent, to break the rules as long as they get results. If they fail to bring in results, they are canned without mercy. After the war is over, may of the SP's are canned anyway because the Guardian caretakers are in charge again. In a nutshell, Artisans are the troubleshooters, and Guardians are the maintainers. I think part of the problem in this most recent war is that non-tactical Guardians are still running the show.

As you would probably expect, it is very difficult to find an NF or introverted NT anywhere near the military.

On a final note, please do not dismiss the officer corps as a bunch of militaristic morons. About 90% of my graduating year group has at least a masters degree. About 15% have PhD's. While a degree alone is not a measure of genius or ability ... it is still a measure of some amount of intelligence.

[Groty]

NightHawk:

What's you're opinion of DU? What kind of training exists? I remember seeing a lot of photos from Gulf War part 1 in which Soldiers were poking around and standing on tanks that were obviously hit by DU rounds, small holes in the side. A-10 cannon and Sabot rounds.

Southern Iraq became a nuclear disaster...

[Nighthawk]

The military's job is to kill people and blow stuff up. Not debate foreign or domestic policy.
That's a formula for fascism. The citizen-solider knows what he's fighting for.

EDIT: Oh shit, Claverhouse and I agree on something!

Speaking of formulas for fascism, there have been some post 9/11 developments that cause me concern. There is a criminal law called the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids the use of federal military units to "execute the law." That is why you see National Guard units (which are state militias) called up to maintain order during natural disasters and riots. We now have federal troops enforcing immigration laws along our border, and providing security at our airports and in some of our large cities. My question is, has Congress ammended the act to permit this activity?

As a junior officer, I was taught to refuse any requests by officials to use my unit to enforce laws within the boundaries of the United States. Now, it seems that our federal units are doing exactly that. Did the people of our nation consciously choose this? ... or was it slipped in under the rug? How much of a nudge would it take for federal troops to start conducting arrests, searches, and seizures? Do we want our president to be the commander-in-chief of a heavily armed military force that can "execute the law" within our borders? What would happen if our president considered himself to be divinely inspired to "correct" the results of an election that went against him? Or how about rounding up "suspects" in the event of a terrorist attack? Isn't that exactly what the Nazi's did to their political opponents after the Reichstag fire? Germany was a democracy at the time that happened.

This also begs the question of what is our National Guard doing fighting a war on foreign soil. They are state militias created for the internal security of our nation. Seems to me that our leaders are playing fast and loose with the law.

Any thoughts?

[Nighthawk]

NightHawk:

What's you're opinion of DU? What kind of training exists? I remember seeing a lot of photos from Gulf War part 1 in which Soldiers were poking around and standing on tanks that were obviously hit by DU rounds, small holes in the side. A-10 cannon and Sabot rounds.

Southern Iraq became a nuclear disaster...

I'm somewhat biased against DU ammunition because I have some health problems which I believe are the result of prolonged exposure. I rode around in a tank for 2 years in Germany in the 80's with 40 DU tank rounds about 12 inches away from me. Same for about 8 months in the first gulf war. Not to mention all of it that was floating around in the air from vaporized hits on tanks. My personal opinion is that the military did not exercise sufficient care in exposing its soldiers to DU. Exposing Iraqi civilians to it opens up another can of worms.

The DU sabot round is an amazing piece of ammunition. The first time I ever saw one actually used was in combat. Instead of simply piercing the armor of an enemy tank, it seemed to cause some sort of reaction with the armor ... causing a large portion around the point of impact to simply vaporize, along with the crew. That was how it looked from 1000+ meters. Never got close enough to inspect the damage, because the tanks burn and explode for quite a long time afterwards.

DU has a very low level of radioactivity ... barely sets off a dosimeter or counter. Breathing in particles could constituted a significant danger. Southern Iraq is not a nuclear disaster area of Chernobyl proportions, but it is cause for concern. Another cause for concern is all the chemicals released both accidentally by the Iraqis and when US forces blew up ammunition depots/missile sites there. I personally saw quite a few chemical artillery shells and missile payloads ... nerve gas and mustard gas. Makes the WMD debate a moot point for me.

[Groty]

Yes, it's a wild piece of weaponry. Kinetic energy vaporizes everything. I remember seeing test footage from the Aberdeen proving grounds. Isn't there a plasma formed for a split second?

I grew up near the Savannah River Site in South Carolina. I remember a news story that got quite a bit of attention. Two Abrams hit with friendly fire were shipped into Charleston, then put on a train to SRS. They were buried in special concrete bunkers. Makes one wonder what is left over there.

My biggest concern is all of the particles floating around there. I personally wouldn't get within a 100 yards of any hit with a DU round. Inhaling or ingestion of the particles is a big risk, considering your body can not dispose of it. I've never spoken with a GI that has been trained on the potential risks of DU rounds.

[Hypnos]

Nighthawk,

By international treaty, international road checkpoints, airports, and other customs-clearing ports are considered "borders."

AFAIK, National Guard was created to fill in the domestic military niche left vacant by Posee Comitatus, but they are not precluded from being deployed overseas. Certainly this affect morale of Guardsmen who didn't sign up for the suicide bombings 6000 miles from home.

[Nighthawk]

Nighthawk,

By international treaty, international road checkpoints, airports, and other customs-clearing ports are considered "borders."

AFAIK, National Guard was created to fill in the domestic military niche left vacant by Posee Comitatus, but they are not precluded from being deployed overseas. Certainly this affect morale of Guardsmen who didn't sign up for the suicide bombings 6000 miles from home.

Understood. I know there are a lot of precedents for sending National Guard units overseas to fight wars. We did it in WW2, Korea, I believe some in Vietnam, and Gulf War 1. It's just my personal opinion that our leaders are giving guardsmen (and women) a raw deal. Two for the price of one, so to speak.

Then there is also the matter of calling up reservists who were tossed out of the military years earlier as a downsizing measure. "We don't want to pay your salary in peacetime, but we reserve the right to have you shot at again if the need arises." When the war is over ... dogs and soldiers keep off the grass.