Military Training/Brainwashing

[tamiO]

I have never been in the military nor have I ever been interested in joining. Once, my daughter expressed an interest and it bothered me deeply. I had to keep reminding her that a commitment to the military means you just might have to kill someone one day.

In order to have a functioning military, people have to take orders and fulfill them without any thinking. I guess this is what bothers me most. I like to think for myself and I just don;t think that any amount of brainwashing would turn me into a drone.

I would be a bad candidate for the military and I bet they are glad I don't join. Someone who can't follow orders blindly makes a military weak in it's purpose and could end up getting more people killed if orders are debated before fulfilling them.

I just got through reading Ms. England's reasoniong for posing with a big grin on her face while she pretends to shoot the genitals of an Iraqui prisoner. She claims she was following orders without question as she had been trained to do.

Recently Luke T. broke silence about things that were going on in the backroom of JREF. He felt that he had kept his mouth shut for so long because of his military training. He said something to the effect that he realises now that the military way is engrained in his DNA.

In my mind, the "military way" produces some dysfunctional thinking. It may be good for people to have this engrained in ther DNA on the battlefield, but doesn't carry over well into civilian life.

I imagine it may be difficult for someone who joins the military during formative years, 18, 19, 20... what does this training do to them?

I don't know what sort of "debate" wopuld come from my post, but these have been my thoughts about the military.

One the one hand I see it is necesary on the battlefield, but I think it may mess you up for Real Life.

 

[Grammatron]

..snip

In order to have a functioning military, people have to take orders and fulfill them without any thinking. I guess this is what bothers me most. I like to think for myself and I just don;t think that any amount of brainwashing would turn me into a drone
....snip....

I have never been in the military and perhaps I should leave to Rick or Luke to address this but speaking with my friend -- who is in the military -- on this very subject did not leave me with that conclusion. While the military does train the soldiers to act in certain situations with out much thinking -- such as always having your weapons with you as if it was a part of you -- the army has no interest in turning out mindless drones. Soldiers have to follow orders as long as they are legal.

That's about it, I'm sure the aforementioned people will respond with much more comprehensive and insightful posts.

 

[Kodiak]

In order to have a functioning military, people have to take orders and fulfill them without any thinking.

Not true. Soldiers are required to think constantly. Orders only provide the "what". It is usually for the individual soldier(s) to figure out the "how".

Also, it is incumbent upon every soldier for him or her to recognize and not follow any and all unlawful orders as established by the UCMJ (uniform code of military justice).

 

[Agammamon]

Well I'm in the military, or at least the Navy which is pretty close.

All the services have a different culture. The navy for example doesn't (at least in the 12 years I've been in) require unthinking compliance with orders. Given that greater and greater responsibilities are falling on ever more junior members, a good deal of emphasis is placed on thinking for yourself. Of course, while discussion is encouraged it is also important to realize that the Man has the final say and once he's decided, the time for discussion is over and everyone needs to pull together to make it happen.
Not to mention that the servicemember is still legally responsible for his actions - just following orders doesn't cut it as an excuse.

 

[Kodiak]

I just got through reading Ms. England's reasoniong for posing with a big grin on her face while she pretends to shoot the genitals of an Iraqui prisoner. She claims she was following orders without question as she had been trained to do.

She's full of B.S.

That excuse didn't work for the Nazis, and it doesn't work for her.

Unthinking military automatons are only created in Hollywood.

 

[uruk]

Soldiers have to follow orders as long as they are legal.

I've had conversations (concernng recent events) with my brother and a friend who have both served in the military (in peace time). The difference between the two is that my brother graduated from college before he joined and became a radar tech. My friend went in after highschool and was assinged as a Bradley (APC) driver.

My brother said that he was given clear learning about the geneva convention and rules concerning treatment of prisoners and the soldiers duty concerning unlawful orders. My friend, on the other hand, said his class was given just the briefest of info concerning the soldiers duty if given an unlawful order. More as an "after thought" was his recollection. The primary concern was with the importance of following orders. My friend said they were made certain they knew the penalties for not following orders.

The purpose of boot camp is to break you down as an individual and build you back up as a cog in a fighting machine. One of the lessons of WWII was that in a fire fight only 20% of the solders actually fought back. The rest would freeze or lock up mentaly. The military change it's training to include physcological conditioning as well. In vietnam the number of soldiers who did not lock up in battle was grately reduced.
My friend and brother concurred that there is lot of psycological conditioning to make you act with little concious thought. (mostly through repetition and dehumanization of the enemy. It's easier to kill someone if you think of them as an abstract "enemy" rather than a person. Hesitation can get you or comrmads killed.
What we are seeing is simply a concequence of training.
Trained soldiers are more apt to follow orders (even unlawful ones) rather than question their superiors.

 

[Kodiak]

I've had conversations (concernng recent events) with my brother and a friend who have both served in the military (in peace time). The difference between the two is that my brother graduated from college before he joined and became a radar tech. My friend went in after highschool and was assinged as a Bradley (APC) driver.

My brother said that he was given clear learning about the geneva convention and rules concerning treatment of prisoners and the soldiers duty concerning unlawful orders. My friend, on the other hand, said his class was given just the briefest of info concerning the soldiers duty if given an unlawful order. More as an "after thought" was his recollection. The primary concern was with the importance of following orders. My friend said they were made certain they knew the penalties for not following orders.

The purpose of boot camp is to break you down as an individual and build you back up as a cog in a fighting machine. One of the lessons of WWII was that in a fire fight only 20% of the solders actually fought back. The rest would freeze or lock up mentaly. The military change it's training to include physcological conditioning as well. In vietnam the number of soldiers who did not lock up in battle was grately reduced.
My friend and brother concurred that there is lot of psycological conditioning to make you act with little concious thought. (mostly through repetition and dehumanization of the enemy. It's easier to kill someone if you think of them as an abstract "enemy" rather than a person. Hesitation can get you or comrmads killed.
What we are seeing is simply a concequence of training.
Trained soldiers are more apt to follow orders (even unlawful ones) rather than question their superiors.

Common sense covers most questions, and for those orders that straddle a line or exist in some grey area, there is still the chain of command, the UCMJ (which can be read and researched), and the JAG dept.'s of each respective military branch.

Ignorance is also no excuse.

 

[crimresearch]

It is more than just 'military thinking' it is groupthink, which all organizations are prone to, and no one is immune from.

The military, law enforcement, and other groups add an extra dimension, in that anyone who chooses to ignore the common good/unit cohesion, by marching to their own drummer, will face the possibility of having their life depend upon the goodwill of others in the group, in a very real way.

But thinking that you are in any way, shape, or form different from those in the military, or that your military unit could never do such things as in those pictures, is a classic symptom of suffering from the very same malady.

Might want to read a little Sutherland, and see if you recognize anybody you know.

Paul

 

[Earthborn]

Re: Re: Military Training/Brainwashing

Soldiers have to follow orders as long as they are legal.

That makes me wonder: how is the average soldier supposed to know what is legal and what isn't? They are not trained to be legal experts.

Usually the way things work is that the government defines what is legal and what isn't. So what happens if that government tells you to do something that is 'illegal' ? What is the higher authority that makes it illegal?

There are lots of other problems. How can some orders be legal and others illegal when the whole war is not authorized by the appopriate international legal institutions or was started without the express consent of Congress as is necessary according to the constitution? One could argue that any order in such a war is illegal, because the war itself technically is.

And the normal sense of 'legality' we use in everyday life is pretty useless too. In everyday life, we know that punching someone in the face is illegal, or stealing is, and we know that as a result things that hurt people even more are also illegal. In a war, why should clusterbombing civilian areas be legal, but piling up naked prisoners be illegal? In everyday life we think killing people is illegal. Once you have taught people to obey you when you order them to kill, they'll do anything they're told.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

......

I just got through reading Ms. England's reasoniong for posing with a big grin on her face while she pretends to shoot the genitals of an Iraqui prisoner. She claims she was following orders without question as she had been trained to do.

....

I somehow doubt that Ms. England was ordered to ' grin '...

 

[Tmy]

All organizations "brainwash" if you will.

For example religion. People take small children to church to be "brainwashed" does anyone complain.

Ive been brainwashed to be a Red SOx fan. No matter how awful they treat me, I still love them like a battered wife!

I am so not religious but to this day I still will pray to god during difficult times. I cant shake them crazy nuns from my DNA!!

 

[Grammatron]

Re: Re: Re: Military Training/Brainwashing

That makes me wonder: how is the average soldier supposed to know what is legal and what isn't? They are not trained to be legal experts.

Usually the way things work is that the government defines what is legal and what isn't. So what happens if that government tells you to do something that is 'illegal' ? What is the higher authority that makes it illegal?

There are lots of other problems. How can some orders be legal and others illegal when the whole war is not authorized by the appopriate international legal institutions or was started without the express consent of Congress as is necessary according to the constitution? One could argue that any order in such a war is illegal, because the war itself technically is.

And the normal sense of 'legality' we use in everyday life is pretty useless too. In everyday life, we know that punching someone in the face is illegal, or stealing is, and we know that as a result things that hurt people even more are also illegal. In a war, why should clusterbombing civilian areas be legal, but piling up naked prisoners be illegal? In everyday life we think killing people is illegal. Once you have taught people to obey you when you order them to kill, they'll do anything they're told.

Congress approved it I don't know where you have been.

As for the other things, how do you know when something is legal or illegal?

 

[uruk]

Of course, while discussion is encouraged it is also important to realize that the Man has the final say and once he's decided, the time for discussion is over and everyone needs to pull together to make it happen.
Not to mention that the servicemember is still legally responsible for his actions - just following orders doesn't cut it as an excuse.
.

This provides a level of plausable deniability for the COs. The CO gives an ambiguous order like "we need to soften these prisoners up for interogation." Well how else are you going to "soften" someone up, especially if they are the "enemy"?
According to the Redcross, this activity was going on for more than a year. The COs had to have known. If not, then they were seriously derilect in thier own duty. If the illegal behaivor is found out the COs can claim that the order was not correctly carried out.

Soldier seem to be expendable both in lives and letigeously.

Common sense covers most questions, and for those orders that straddle a line or exist in some grey area, there is still the chain of command, the UCMJ (which can be read and researched), and the JAG dept.'s of each respective military branch.

Ignorance is also no excuse..

Well common sense only applies if the person has it in the first place. I've known a few people who seem to have no common sense at all. In my coversation with my brother and friend, each one told of the consequnces of not following an order from a superior officer in the field, even an illegal one. The consequences maybe particularly unpleasant if the most of the platoon agrees with the CO.
Ignorance is certainly no excuse. but coersion is something else entirely.

I don't know how many soldier will or can consult the UCMJ and the JAG office when in the field.

 

[Doubt]

I see several people here posting what they believe about the military based on faulty sources of information. I think a few of you have seen to many movies.

I have been both enlisted and an officer. As an enlisted solider, I remember sitting in a classroom in basic training listening to a briefing on the UCMJ. What was and what was not an illegal order was a very big part of that briefing. We needed to know the difference. This instruction was not an afterthought. References to what was and what was not legal showed up in other parts of basic training. I even recall a film that dealt with how to handle POW’s. The subject also came up in conversations through my enlistment. Discussions about Vietnam and atrocities were quite common. At least once a year we received refresher briefings on the UCMJ.

As an ROTC cadet, we spent about ½ of a semester covering military law. Again, illegal orders were a big part of that class.

Here is a very good article on why the “just following orders” defense does not work:

The Vietnam War presented the United States military courts with more cases of the "I was only following orders" defense than any previous conflict. The decisions during these cases reaffirmed that following manifestly illegal orders is not a viable defense from criminal prosecution. In United States v. Keenan, the accused (Keenan) was found guilty of murder after he obeyed in order to shoot and kill an elderly Vietnamese citizen. The Court of Military Appeals held that "the justification for acts done pursuant to orders does not exist if the order was of such a nature that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know it to be illegal." (Interestingly, the soldier who gave Keenan the order, Corporal Luczko, was acquitted by reason of insanity).

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/obeyingorders.htm

An entire copy of the UCMJ can be found here:

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/ucmj/blucmj.htm

Now groupthink is a problem in the military. It is a problem everywhere. The difference being that the consequences are greater for soldiers.

The day of the military drone ended a long time ago. Modern warfare requires soldier to be alert and thinking in order to function. Fewer troops are used to cover greater amounts of terrain than ever before. The individual solider has to be more alert, better at communicating, and prepared to act individually to what he sees going on around himself/herself. The military is no place for a drone. We don’t fight wars of attrition anymore.

 

[Earthborn]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Military Training/Brainwashing

As for the other things, how do you know when something is legal or illegal?

Government officials tell me what is legal and illegal. If I want to argue that something officials tell me is legal is actually illegal, I need to refer to a higher authority.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.usapa.army.mil/pdffiles/r190_8.pdf

Clear written instructions as to how the MP's are to handle prisoners. Pay close attention to page 2, 1-5 (PDF page 6).

 

[Grammatron]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Military Training/Brainwashing

Government officials tell me what is legal and illegal. If I want to argue that something officials tell me is legal is actually illegal, I need to refer to a higher authority.

So before your every action you consult a government official, do you have some sort of hot line set up that you call every time you want to do something?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Military Training/Brainwashing

Government officials tell me what is legal and illegal. If I want to argue that something officials tell me is legal is actually illegal, I need to refer to a higher authority.

So what we needed here, was a clear law about embarrasing prisoners of war?

 

[Agammamon]

. . .This provides a level of plausable deniability for the COs. The CO gives an ambiguous order like . . .The COs had to have known. If not, then they were seriously derilect in thier own duty. If the illegal behaivor is found out the COs can claim that the order was not correctly carried out. . .

I suppose the correct answer is that officers would never do that, being trained to uphold the highest standards of honesty, courage, and integrity. Of course over here in the real world we have to deal with people as they are, so sometimes the NCO has to have the balls to step up and say "Sir, that can't be done."

In some services the officer/enlisted relationship is strong enough for this, in others careerism on both sides prevents it. In either case those NCO's that didn't step up are just as responsible as the those who commited the crimes.

You just don't let the old man get away with ambigous orders in a borderline illegal situation. Especially since it's obvious that he doesn't have the courage to flat out tell you to commit a crime then he won't have the courage to stand by you if you get caught.

 

[crimresearch]

"The day of the military drone ended a long time ago. Modern warfare requires soldier to be alert and thinking in order to function. "

Sitting through some ROTC lectures is one thing.
Being in the miitary under real world daily conditions can be something else entirely.

What is constantly drilled into everyone is that perfomance counts, and if it can be done under the rules, fine, but it damn well better get done, rules or no rules. The 'thinking' soldier that the military values is one who can get the job done, without getting *caught* bending the rules.

The "Well gosh Sir, I sure would like to obey that order, but as I see it you are technically in violation of at least 2 UN resolutions and possibly part of the Geneva Convention, so I'll just respectfully decline..." approach sounds good on paper though. Good luck with it in reality.

Paul