SAS Criticizes Britain's 'gung ho' Armed Police

In a written statement to The Sunday Times, two SAS soldiers who formerly trained British police firearms teams have strongly criticized the level of professionalism and suitability of their trainees to carry weapons. They described the officers as unfit and 'gung ho', and further denounced the lack of physical and psychological tests to determine their capacity for the job. The SAS soldiers also described some alarming incidents which occured during the firearms training, and stated that it was likely the officers which shot to death an innocent Brazilian on the London Underground in July were amongst those they trained.



The SAS is probably the best-trained armed forces unit in the world, and if any organization is qualified to criticise the British police, it is them. I hope the statement by these two soldiers, which contrasts sharply with certain British politicians' blasé attitude to the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, sparks a formal re-assessment and re-structuring of armed police training and selection in the UK.

[edit on 27-9-2005 by DJDOHBOY]

It is unfortunate that the author of the article chose to use the terms "gung ho" and "unfit" to describe the same condition of the police officers to whom her refers. The fact is that the term "gung ho" is perhaps the highest term that can be applied to any group who share a common goal. The term derives from the Chinese and although somewhat changed from the original, it means "work together." But really, it mean far more and I will refer the interested to the following article that draws from the explanation of Evans Carlson, who commanded the fabled Carlson's Raiders" during WWII.

In an article titled "The Legacy of Evans Carlson," by Robert J. Dalton (LtCol USMC Ret.) in the August 1987 Marine Corps Gazette, the author states, "...Ironically, the term 'gung ho' has come to mean almost the opposite of how it was originally used. Today, the term has an aggressive, Prussianistic connotation. It has little of the 'ethical'meaning for which it was originally used...."

[...]

Carlson wrote, "The superb fighters of the Chinese Eighth Route Army had studied the Japanese methods, tactics, and psychology for years. They knew intimately the strengths and weaknesses of the Japanese troops.

Surprise was the Eighth's heaviest weapon against the invaders. With surprise, they made life a hell for the men from Nippon. But there was another and even more important element which made the success of the Eighth Route Army.

I sought this element assiduously. Then the answer came to me one day when I had completed a march of 58 miles without sleep, along with a column of 600 Chinese. Not a man left the column on this march. I thought: What could be the stimulus which would induce 600 men to complete such an arduous task without even one failing. It could be nothing but the Desire and Will of each individual to complete the task. Here was the secret weapon of the Eighth Route Army.

[...]

"In war, as in the pursuits for peace, the human element is of prime importance. Human nature is much the same the world over, and human beings everywhere respond to certain fundamental stimuli. So, if men have confidence in their leaders, if they are convinced that the things for which they endure and fight are worthwhile, if they believe the effort they are making contributes definitely to the realization of their objectives, then their efforts will be voluntary, spontaneous, and persistent.

The men of the Eighth Route Army had a term for this spirit of cooperation. They called it 'gung ho.'"

www.angelfire.com...

[edit on 2005/9/19 by GradyPhilpott]

You have to take the term from the perspective of the speaker. In Britain and Australia, the term "gung ho" is taken more to mean overzealousness and an unprofessional, unthinking, machismo attitude towards armed conflict or law enforcement. Yes, the term is usually associated with US marines and in the States it is a compliment inferring courage and dedication, but elsewhere the term has evolved to carry a slight deprecatory connotation.

[edit on 2005-9-19 by wecomeinpeace]

Unfortunately, even in the US, gung ho has come to mean exactly what is implied by the author. However, such a meaning is not only incorrect, but it deprives society of a concept essential to high civilization. That is why I never pass up an opportunity to inform the uninitiated of the true meaning of gung ho and how important such a concept is to even the smallest of human endeavors.

I honestly appreciate the education/reminder, especially coming from an ex-marine, and maybe you can start a thread in the military forum explaining how the term has evolved and become corrupted from its original use, but the historical meaning of the term and the argument regarding semantics you present here is completely irrelevant in the context of this modern-day article. There are reasons why the SAS are the best in the world, and one of those reasons is that they are not mindlessly 'gung ho' according to the modern usage of the term. And armed police officers should also NOT be 'gung ho' by the modern definition, as starkly illustrated by the slaughter of an innocent man in the London Underground, and this reaction from the soldiers who trained them.

The fact that 'intercourse' in its purest form used to mean "an exchange", doesn't mean that health officials are wrong when they say "under-age intercourse" is a problem. They're not talking about two 13 year-olds having a chat.

It's interesting that they cant fail police they think arent up to the job.............

guess they'll have all kinds of fun when Britain brings in it's new terror laws. This is all starting to spiral out of control.

The term intercourse has not actually changed in meaning. In the example you use, the term is actually "sexual intercourse," which has been shortened to "intercourse" and its popular usage as such has completely overshadowed the fact intercourse is a perfectly acceptable term for nonsexual interaction. I wouldn't discourage any discussion that boots your submission, which I voted for, to the top of the list.

The term intercourse has not actually changed in meaning. In the example you use, the term is actually "sexual intercourse," which has been shortened to "intercourse" and its popular usage as such has completely overshadowed the fact intercourse is a perfectly acceptable term for nonsexual interaction.

Exactly my point, just reworded, just as the term ecstasy can also be used to describe a rage or a negative emotion, but the common modern usage mean that the word has become almost solely associated with pleasurable sensation or positive emotions, except in more cerebral prose. And hey, all this discussion of the roots and evolution of the English language is simply fascinating, but what does it have to do with British cops being unprofessional and trigger-happy?

I wouldn't discourage any discussion that boots your submission, which I voted for, to the top of the list.

Thanks for the vote, but I honestly don't care about whether or not the submission gets upgraded, particularly if the discussion has nothing to do with the important topic in question as it relates to armed officers on the streets of London who are obviously unfit to bear those arms...but would you believe that there's a glitch in the system somehow, such that I receive an "ATSNN Upgrade" notification U2U for this very story at the rate of about one every few hours, but it somehow never quite manages to upgrade itself? I'm up to a running total of 15 now.

Update, and I just got a "no:not right" vote. lmao


[edit on 2005-9-20 by wecomeinpeace]

I posted a submission the other day that was upgraded faster than I could open it, but I never got a U2U and my count didn't change. I couldn't tell about the points. Maybe there's a code glitch.