Roger Morrison wrote:Dr. Shades wrote:Take a look at the fighting quality of the average Marine compared to the average soldier of any other nation in the world. Then you can answer your own question.
RM: Very subjective assertion. Having talked to Canadian Vets of WWII & Korea, I heard a lot to the contrary. Their praise seemed to go to the Brits. They do agree the U.S. forces eat better, and are well equiped. But one-on-one they do 'fight' as well... Subjective, I admit, from another's experience.
I agree it was horrifically subjective, but I wanted to make a quick point without dragging out facts & figures which would do little more than bore everyone.
But, to better respond to your query, do the Brits train their soldiers the same way the Americans train theirs? If so, then maybe that's why they, too, are so praiseworthy. Or, put another way, to see whether such tactics are necessary, perhaps it would be productive to compare the effectiveness of those nations who do employ them vs. those nations who don't.
It is beyond my understanding that such demeaning, degrading psyche rape would be considered necessary AND acceptable in the "land-of-the-free"???
You can't argue with results. RM: Not with someone with prejudiced mind set...
I don't have a prejudiced mind-set. The Marine Corps is ancient history as far as my life is concerned. If you can show me a study of the combat effectiveness of the soldiers trained that way vs. the ones not trained that way, I would be very interested in reading it--I'm not joking.
RM: Yeah, a bit garbled... OK, it seems that institutionalism requires (demands:-) obedience/conformity to hiearchial 'rules'. "Individualism" must be modified/domesticated to serve the 'Top' from which "all-blessings-flow", supposedly... Historically, "survival" efforts (folowing "civilization") were/are directed to preserve the ruling/power level of Empires at the cost of thousands to millions of the lower rank/masses.
One of the unfortunate, and common, characteristics of leaders is "self righteousness"--they cannot admit to fallability. The better they are at convincing the lower rungs the longer they remain to enjoy THEIR life on the top... Blah, Blah, Blah... Did I make it better or worser :-)
That's better. But my only response is. . . yeah, so what else is new?
Wonder IF all nations trained their military forces according to the same principle of dehumanization?
Can't say, since I've never been in anyone else's military. RM: Me neither. Still wondering.
The higher educated ones (officers) are the selfsame ones ensuring the tradition continues.
It seems so. Which means what? Complete indoctrination?
I'm sure that's the goal, but believe you me, coming from one with experience, it doesn't work that way in practice. They train your body to drill, move, and react in certain ways, but your mind is free. You can think whatever you want. Back in the barracks, when the day is done, the spectrum of individuality is second to none, in my opinion.
Some people are just more susceptible to brainwashing than others. The ones who are most susceptible are the ones who will rise through the ranks. The ones who aren't--yours truly among them--will get out at the earliest opportunity. But the fact remains that the training makes you an effective fighter while you're still in.
OTOH, I sense modification of past-practice. I doubt it can be otherwise in a thinking and feeling society. Maybe not an easy thing as there are always the die-hards...
Personal experience: I have a military daughter, Captain. A graduate of Canada's Royal Millitary College, that she entered in the '80s. At that time they were rousted from sleep by blasting HARD-ROCK, full blast, through the sound system. Not so now. Too harsh and damaging to their hearing. Progress!? Warm regards, Roger
Yes, that's definitely progress. I for one am glad that things are moving in that direction. It shows a greater sensitivity to troop welfare, which has a good effect on troop morale. I'm glad that the military (even in the U.S.) is beginning to realize, however slowly, that it's counterproductive to damage or injure a recruit's body if they wish to keep him/her in fighting shape.