Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

American Military Culture

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 09:32 PM
link   
I found this article to be very interesting. Apparently our military is definitely not anywhere near "good" condition.

American Military Culture

This leads to me to ask, is our military much of one anymore? Is American Military Culture contrary to what makes good militaries?




posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Thats an interesting perspective. I'm pretty sure that we're still pretty good but were starting to go downhill. I get the feeling that Americas lack of large scale war is causing disicpline problems. Not that I want war, it's just that some high school kids seem to think the army is just some boy scouts type of thing that you do for some easy money.



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
I found this article to be very interesting. Apparently our military is definitely not anywhere near "good" condition.

American Military Culture

This leads to me to ask, is our military much of one anymore? Is American Military Culture contrary to what makes good militaries?


The US military has a few million people - Some people are going to be disgruntled, and some things need to be done better.

It is impossible to make any conclusions whatsoever from one letter from one person - no matter who that person is. Also, people will always have a tendancy to think that the culture that they were brought up in (in this instance the army culture of 15 years ago) is better than today - this often not the case.

Many of the changes to military training and recruiting are neccisary to produce people who still have discipline - but can also function independently soon after basic training. It should no longer take years for the average new recruit to think that he/she may have some valuable input into whatever the task at hand is - and that it will be accepted.

Anyway, just my 2 cents.....



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Sadly, I can probably agree with most of what was said.

I wouldn't really say the problem is with all of the military, though. It's just the army, which is more about adding numbers to our infantry. The marines are our frontline soldiers, and they're damn good at what they do.

I think we'll see a big change in the army in the coming years. With the FCS programming, the size of the army can be scaled down. We'll be able to train them to a higher level then before, and they'll be using the most advanced equipment around.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 02:00 AM
link   
We need a larger army if anything, that is also better trained, not a scaled-down one. And they could train a larger army very good as well. It is because the funding was cut and because of how many people these days are such babies in the military; we more need the army we had in the Cold War years, just not as politically incorrect as it was then; but today's army is too politically-correct from what I have read.

However, I disagree with the author of that article on Vietnam and Somalia. Vietnam we won the first battle in. Also, the Lyndon B. Johnson administration literally let the enemy camp in our backyard over there, because they wouldn't let the military bomb certain areas it wanted to. Thus the Vietcong could regroup and resupply and attack very easily. Also, the Army didn't get the proper support from the Air Force that it had wanted. All in all, Vietnam wasn't fought the way it should have been.

As for Somalia, that turned into a bigger ordeal than it should have because the troops went in too lightly armored and too few. They still accomplished their mission and brought everyone back, though; and the Somalis suffered far more casualties than the Army troops. The Secretary of Defense at that time, I forget his name, he wouldn't let them take in the M1 Abrams tank over there, which the Army knew it would need for going through an area like that. He lost his job for that too.

But I mean Somalia was not any defeat, it was just again poorly executed.

As for the other conflicts he mentions, I am not sure on those.

The thing with the Marines is no matter what your job is, they expect you to be a Marine first and whatever your job is second. They are also very protective over their traditions and such. The military has in recent times been trying to remove the aviation division of the Marine Corps and merge it with the Navy (i.e. costs less), but the Marines basically said no way in hell. Which is good.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Broadsword20068
However, I disagree with the author of that article on Vietnam and Somalia. Vietnam we won the first battle in. Also, the Lyndon B. Johnson administration literally let the enemy camp in our backyard over there, because they wouldn't let the military bomb certain areas it wanted to. Thus the Vietcong could regroup and resupply and attack very easily. Also, the Army didn't get the proper support from the Air Force that it had wanted. All in all, Vietnam wasn't fought the way it should have been.

As for Somalia, that turned into a bigger ordeal than it should have because the troops went in too lightly armored and too few. They still accomplished their mission and brought everyone back, though; and the Somalis suffered far more casualties than the Army troops. The Secretary of Defense at that time, I forget his name, he wouldn't let them take in the M1 Abrams tank over there, which the Army knew it would need for going through an area like that. He lost his job for that too.

But I mean Somalia was not any defeat, it was just again poorly executed.


That wasn't the point. He wasn't talking about winning or losing. In fact, what you said above is exactly what he calls the problem with the military. The military today emphasizes efficiency over effectiveness and he is simply saying Somalia is a very good example of that. The U.S. accomplished their mission, but it should not have lasted more than one hour nor should they have lost 18 men in the process. They used a plan that would get things done quickly but still put their soldiers at great risk. Like you say, it was poorly executed, and that was the point, not that we killed more of them than us or we accomplished what we set out to do.

As for the Vietnamese or Somaliis losing more people, tell them about it. They don't care, so it's a moot point how many of them you killed. That's another point he was trying to make, how does the U.S. Army fight against a resolute enemy that doesn't care? Thus far, it has shown it can't.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 01:14 PM
link   
No, thus far it has shown it CAN, and would fight a lot BETTER if the gov't would let them go in armed the way they would like. And yes the Vietnamese DID care, they are not mindless drones; no people fight for their homeland like that if they don't care; if they truly didn't care, they wouldn't fight at all.

The Somalis drugged themselves up to fight, I guess because they were scared, but the still cared enough about whatever their belief was to fight against the U.S. forces.

And efficiency IS imporant in military affairs, as well as effectiveness. You don't have just one and not the other.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 01:21 PM
link   
I fail to see how an article that lists problems in the US Army translates into question the entire military culture of the US. Several of the problems do not translate to the other services.

After having read the article I must admit that it did bring up some good points, however they were not enough to make me question the culture of the entire armed forces.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 03:13 PM
link   

The U.S. accomplished their mission, but it should not have lasted more than one hour nor should they have lost 18 men in the process. They used a plan that would get things done quickly but still put their soldiers at great risk. Like you say, it was poorly executed, and that was the point, not that we killed more of them than us or we accomplished what we set out to do


I think you're missing the point. This guy complained about America not putting enough emphasis on getting the job done, and instead worried about preventing losses too much.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 08:04 PM
link   
You have to concentrate on both; and getting the job done often involves keeping the losses as low as possible. What I meant was he worded it as if the U.S. failed in Somalia, which it didn't.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 11:29 PM
link   
All this "freedom" and selfcenterness of American society dont mix well with the realities of military ways and life..

As you see military isnt democrazy and also its no place for women..

But its not like US military has ever excelled in disepline or skill of warfare, it has always relied on the mass of weapons, firepower, logistics and personel.. but never on skill, so not much has actually changed.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 11:35 PM
link   

But its not like US military has ever excelled in disepline or skill of warfare, it has always relied on the mass of weapons, firepower, logistics and personel.. but never on skill, so not much has actually changed.


Our military training has its problems. It's still superior to that of most European nations (those that are better keep very small armies, anyway), Russia, and just about any other nation in the world on average.



posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo

As for the Vietnamese or Somaliis losing more people, tell them about it. They don't care, so it's a moot point how many of them you killed. That's another point he was trying to make, how does the U.S. Army fight against a resolute enemy that doesn't care? Thus far, it has shown it can't.


If you asked the family members of those killed they would care like Broadsword20068 said they are not mindless drones. What they did have that the US lacked was great support of their people for the cause.

The US had this in WW2 when we went up against one of the most resolute and fanatical armies the world has ever seen the Japanese. The Islamic terrorist cant hold a candle to the Samurai like code the japanese had.

About Somila we didnt go there to fight some war it was a humanitarion mission after the blackhawk down incident US troops wanted to go back and level the city and they could have. But the higher ups knew they didnt come ther to fight a war.



posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by FULCRUM
All this "freedom" and selfcenterness of American society dont mix well with the realities of military ways and life..

As you see military isnt democrazy and also its no place for women..

But its not like US military has ever excelled in disepline or skill of warfare, it has always relied on the mass of weapons, firepower, logistics and personel.. but never on skill, so not much has actually changed.


So in plain words the U.S. military has the best training, excellent maintenance of weapons and vehicles, pinpoint firepower, and logistics, all through lack of discipline, riiiiight.......

You cannot rely on the mass of weapons or firepower without excellent discpline man. And what do you call the extreme discipline of General Patton's troops, or the Marines who took Iwo Jima, etc...

[edit on 24-12-2004 by Broadsword20068]



posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 01:46 AM
link   
Thats 60 years ago. Americans nowadays just rely on superior technology and firepower.



posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by W4rl0rD
Thats 60 years ago. Americans nowadays just rely on superior technology and firepower.


Superior technology and firepower is a very important aspect of warfare and always will be. What you dont think they relied on firepower or superior technology in WW2?

You could have all the resolve in the world and still lose out to better tech.



posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 02:14 AM
link   
The Japanese had better tech and training until nearing the end of the war,and the invasion of europe was in 1944,thats when american troops had plenty of training.



posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 02:40 AM
link   
American military culture?
Doesn't that go something like this: YEEHAAWW! WOOHOOO!!! *bang bang bang* YEEHAAA!

Something like that anyway....



posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 02:45 AM
link   
Yep,thats the way


Mainly they got good tech and go trigger happy.



posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 02:46 AM
link   
As an enlisted Marine I got a look at several major problems which I believe are the root of many others in the US military. Unfortunately we can do little to fix most of these problems. The problem is that a military rises and falls with the culture it defends. This can be seen in the Roman military, which as it declined was far too lax about training and discipline, and had elements which began to pledge themselves to individual loyalties instead of values.

American culture is not physically healthy. People in general tend to be dehydrated most of the time because they rely on sodas and other drinks instead of water. We consume too much bread, sugar, and fat but not enough vegitables. The result is that a recruit who is new to the depot is fat and generally "slow" in many ways because of poor nutrition. Bone fractions are far too common because recruits generally have not had the proper minerals for building healthy bones.
Physical excercise is almost unknown to many recruits. A large part of the population spends an alarming amount of the time zoned out in front of the TV, computer, or game console when they are not at work or school.

Discipline is foreign to many young Americans. When many children have only a single parent living with them, they spend a lot of time on their own and unable to be corrected. Teachers can not enforce discipline in a meaningful way anymore because of social promotion, bans on physical discipline, and even the apathy of parents. As a result many recruits have spent years of their life running completely unchecked for 8-24 hours a day.
An abused child is easy to spot in bootcamp- he's the only one who does what he's told without question from day one. What a country where abuse is more common than proper discipline perhaps.

Abosolutes are much less common in American society. Religious absolutes are not appropriate in public. Any weakness is attributed to some perfectly acceptable disorder. Tradition and respect for position seem somewhat diminished while the demand for justification/explanation of any given thing is more common. The good or bad nature of these several things could be argued, however they produce people who resist measurement by a strong standard, who have difficulty holding or being under strong authority, and who will not accept criticism. These traits are extremely unwelcome in a soldier but are more present in today's Americans than they have been in the past.

In short- the more free and comfortable people are, the less conditioned for military service they become. It would take a change of our entire culture to defeat these problems.

These problems also give rise to other problems in the officer corps. The growth of politically correct, jargon obsessed, bureaucratic business culture in the officer corps is killing the Army especially and it is the result of the environment in college and in the workplace. The source of this business culture is of course the lack of absolutes. The jargon, softspeak, and complication of simple tasks/instructions which have developed in persuit of some ill-defined illusion of being a manager rather than the boss so as not to be offensive in the workplace is ridiculous and ineffective, and it is getting into the military. If you dont know what I'm talking about you have two options. 1. Get a job with Granite Construction Company. 2. Watch the movie "Office Space".






top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join