No apology necessary, I just didn’t understand what you were trying to say.
Agreed - they’re not going to listen to us homicidal maniacs. :rolleyes: I give up.
Sgt: We are deep in insurgent country so if you see armed Iraqis coming down this road you kill them.
Pvt DrCube: What the hell are you talking about? I wasn’t trained for that!
Sgt: Sorry, I meant “shoot at them”
Pvt DrCube: Oh, OK.
Sgt: And don’t call them “Sand Niggers”. We caught a lot of flak during Gulf War I on that.
Well, CarnalK, it might seem like sophistry, but I think there’s a real difference between being “trained to kill” and being “trained to fire your weapon”.
I would imagine that anyone who would refuse to fire their weapon in combat on the grounds that doing so might kill someone is probably not going to join the military in the first place.
So yeah, the army teaches you to shoot your weapon, because that’s the way the enemy ends up dead. But they don’t give you special psychological training to turn you from a regular guy into a killer. You’re already psychologically equipped to kill the enemy, or you wouldn’t be in basic training. Ordinary people are already killers, they don’t need to be trained to be killers.
If you go to the rifle range, and practice putting holes in paper targets, are you training to become a killer? Well, if you’re a better shot you’re going to be more effective if you decide to start shooting people. But you’re not training to become a killer, you’re training to put holes where you want them. That’s useful when you decide a particular person needs to have a particular hole put in them, but it doesn’t make you a killer, unless you’re already a killer. Since many or most people are killers in the correct circumstances there’s no need to turn peaceful pacifists into mindless killers, there’s a need to teach normal aggressive humans how to effectively use their weapons.
Ironically enough, if we ever have to start drafting all the skeptics and individualists, they may need a complete brainwashing to become useful members of the military.
I think you guys are exaggerating my point, which is that Basic training lowers inhibitions on killing (or at least lowers the mental connection between pulling the trigger and causing death) and heightens respect for authority. I’m not saying it creates mindless killbots, dangerous to anyone around them.
So how about sniper school? Does that mold cold blooded killers? Or is it just teaching you how to sneak around and totally chillax while shooting paper targets from a mile away?
Sniper School trains you how to deal with high-value targets under complete concealment from a long distance…
Hmmm, do “high-value” targets resemble “paper” targets as far as putting a bullet through them goes? Because in that case I know how to deal with their kind…
So if you were in hostile territory and your platoon was supposed to take a farm suspected of being a staging area: Dude in casuals is carrying an AK-47 and watching the tree line. Is it inconceivable that your superior might order you “take him out”? Would it be borg-like to follow this order without walking in front of him and proffering handcuffs?
First of all, thats a hypothetical situation that has nothing to do with basic training. It wouldn’t be borg like to follow that order since you’ve described a situation that clearly implies the man is an enemy combatant. Anyone in the Army is well aware that they might have to fire on someone someday. I’m not an infantryman, but I’ve been in a combat zone before. If you point a weapon at me I’m going to fire back. Anyone that says they wouldn’t probably would NEVER make it to basic training. I used to be a recruiter and one of the questions on the entrance paperwork is to ask if you are a conscientious objector. I’ve never had a recruit say yes to that…it would be silly to assume that you the freaking army wouldn’t put you in a situation where you might gasp have to kill someone. Most people that have never been in the military at all would consider the circumstances you just mentioned:
[ul]Hostile Territory- By that I can assume that the platoon and myself would be fired on by “the enemy” if spotted. The expectation is that we are in constant jeopardy of being fired on at any given moment.[/ul]
[ul]Why would we “take” that farm? Does it have any strategic value? Is it a base of operations for the enemy? Because we could, you know, blow it up from a distance. [/ul]
[ul]A guy with an AK-47 in the treeline? Yeah, I’m sure he uses that for farm work. What are the rules of engagement? The guy is armed with an assault rifle. ROE can vary, but in dangerous situations a civilian with a weapon considered a combatant. Is he alone? Are there other people in the treeline with weapons?[/ul]
If I were somehow placed in that situation without ever having been to BCT I’d probably shoot the guy if told to. But its a loaded question, the situation is set up in a way that almost makes it inevitable. What would you do? Have you ever been in the military? If so, did they strip away your inhibitions on shooting a person?
Basic is a form of conditioning in which inductees are encouraged to submerge their individuality for the good of the unit. They get all the same haircuts and uniforms. They are given ID numbers. All to submerge individuality and become part of a unit. A recruit that has trouble falling into step is weeded out. A recruit who does not follow orders well is thought unreliable and apt to put a mission in jeopardy.
When one argues that I went through basic and came out a stronger individual than before it begs the question. It is not about anecdote.It is the concept of basic training and what its aims are. Your separate stories are irrelevant to the concept of military training. It aims to make obedient and successful military units . They are trained to obey.
That wasn’t a loaded hypothetical question, Jolly Roger, it was a rhetorical one. No reason for the deconstruction and attempting to shoot holes in it.
Of course, I would expect you to kill the guy and no it wouldn’t be borg-like. Just following orders and your training. The fact remains that you are willing to kill some guy you’ve never met on someone else’s orders. If I was in that situation? I’d probably say “WTF? I don’t want to kill some guy. I’m going home”. Though I suppose that might have come up when they were ordering me on to a plane so’s I could invade a foreign country in the first place.
Well and good, I suppose, for an all-volunteer force. But during the draft era the weeding-out process extracted a very high price on the individual. Men were routinely broken and/or given dishonorables that would ruin their records, employment, etc., as civilians.
In that context we became kind of an unacknowledged Spartan state: if a man could not submerge his individuality to the degree the military required, he was not entitled even to be an equal citizen with other men. It kind of assigned him to a phantom underclass after he left the service.
Your question doesn’t leave much room for any other choice, though. A man with an AK-47 in hostile territory at a staging area.
Thats a good description of war. Now if I was ordered to fire into a crowd of unarmed civilians? I’d refuse. That order couldn’t possibly be lawful anyway, but as a human being I wouldn’t kill someone that posed no threat. I wouldn’t order one of my soldiers to do something like that.
Well, to be honest if you felt that way, you probably would never have enlisted in the first place. As I said before, I was a recruiter (a job that truly, truly sucks…recruiting has probably made me more willing to kill people than BCT ever could , and thats no joke) and one of the questions we have to ask a person is if they are a conscientious objector.
I’ve never had a recruit say yes, so I’m not sure what happens if they do say yes. I believe that you can still join, but your probably not going to get a large pick of jobs. Combat related jobs would be out, obviously…and probably anything that requires a high security clearance. I’m only guessing at that and I put all of my recruiting manuals away in the attic where those hellish items will never see the light of day again. (I really, really, really HATED recruiting)
Of course, if you don’t claim to be an objector at enlistment and then go all through the training, get deployed and refuse to fire on enemy targets you’ll probably end up in front of a court martial.
I don’t think BCT submerges someone’s individuality. Teamwork is stressed, but with 2 or maybe three drill instructors trying to train 30 to 40 people in 8 weeks, no one is going to lose their individuality. By the way, they don’t give you numbers, they use the last four of your SSN to identify things belonging to you. They will give you a silly nickname, especially if you have an unusual last name.
Of course its to make successful military units. Thats a given. Soldiers are trained to follow lawful orders, not to blindly obey. A troop that can’t think for his or herself is pretty useless unless you plan on micromanaging them for the term of their enlistment. I don’t think you should so easily dismiss the stories of people that have been through basic training. Surely the experience differs from person to person. What was it like for you?
True. My cousin was drafted during vietnam, though he never saw combat. He liked being a marine from what hes told me, but he wouldn’t have joined otherwise. Another relative of mine signed up during the same period, but then, he’s always been kind of a daredevil.
I’ve purposely ignored most of the news on recruiting within the army for awhile now, because I so much hated the job, but I do know they lowered the standards for joining a lot. (I blame Bush. His misadventures have done a lot of internal damage to the armed forces) But thats another subject for another time.
That is also one of the reasons why the professional officers tend to dislike the idea of a return to conscription as practiced under the draft system (a yearly lottery, rather than Universal Service, so the Army literally HAD to try to make whoever they got into a soldier no matter how wrong for the job). Because it forces them to have to deal with people who should not be there, plus it creates a presumption that whoever is failing to fit with the training is malingering with the intent of bailing out so they have to then put extra effort to identify the people with real problems. They’d much rather have people who can get with the program to begin with than waste time and resources forcing square pegs to fit round holes.
Which is why I didn’t like some of the changes they made to the requirements before I left recruiting. There were some people that actually failed the entrance exam that were allowed to join (because they lowered the score.) . If they didn’t learn to read and write properly by the time they’re at least 18, its going to be a problem when you’re trying to train and work with them on active duty. The ASVAB is a difficult test but I’ve seen recent High school graduates come out of it with single digit scores. There really has to be something wrong with our education system for that to happen, but again, thats a subject for another thread.
I’m reminded of a post somewhere on this board where someone said that when he was in the military some of the “pep-talk/rants/lectures” went on about how civillians are selfish/lazy/stupid and how they were so much “better”.
I’ve never been in the military.
But someone breaks into my home with an AK-47 or walks into a restaurant with an AK-47, I’m going to shoot him given the chance.
What’s that, or your question, got to do with basic training?
If a soldier follows orders and shoots the man in the tree line it’s got little to do with brainwashing. It’s the same decision most people would make using independent thought.
My life is in danger from that man, along with the rest of my squad so I’m going to shoot him. Plus my boss is telling me to do that. He agrees.
Essell, I don’t know what the question was supposed to be for, since as I said above, theres no leeway in making any other decision other than to shoot the man with the AK 47. But you’re right, it has nothing to do with basic training.
The OP’s idea of basic training is something out of a horror movie. It is what most people that have never been to BCT think its like. People in this thread that have been in the military have shed some light on what Basic Training is like but some people dismiss this as irrelevant. I’d like to know where this information comes from, since I’ve been to BCT.
The way you guys are distorting my little rhetorical sure reminds me of conversations I have had with people thinking of signing up for the military. essell “hey if I someone breaks into my house with an AK he’s getting shot”, Lemur thinks we are “all killers”, Jolly Roger thinks you’d probably be the type to shoot someone* or you wouldn’t have joined the Army in the first place!
Sure, everyone thinks they can shoot someone in “self defence”, but you guys are missing the central point that when you are in the military the idea of “self defence” gets pretty broad. Yeah, shooting that sentry in the back may be “self defence” because he’d shoot you if he had the chance, but that’s only because you invaded his country in the first place. So essell, while breaking into your neighbor’s house would you shoot them when they tried to defend themselves? Would you do all this solely on the orders of some authority figure?
*besides he’s got a gun! That’s no farmer! Afghani farmers don’t carry guns to protect their farm! At least Iowa farmers don’t, I know that for sure.