Let's talk about AWOL Soldiers

[HMS_Irruncible]

[QUOTE=Bear_Nenno]
A 17 year old is a child? I think you’re reaching hard here. I love how you neglect to acknowledge that a 17 year olds need parental consent to enlist (no doubt to help them think through the huge decision. And I don’t know why you mention 17 year olds. What very small percent of enlistees is that freakin young?
[/quote]

I was, as were a number of people in my basic training platoon. Don’t like 17? Add 1 and the population gets a lot larger.

And I still think your “Hug First” attitude is just a thin veil over a pile of shit.

Where did I mention anything about hugging? Please point out where I said anything about hugging. Is this the Army catchphrase they tell you to use when you’re being asked to think with something other than your balls?

So where do you draw the line? I’m curious? If a soldier says “screw this” at Basic and leaves it’s okay with you? What if he says, “screw this” and leaves in the middle of a fire fight? Or while guarding the motorpool?

This is a logical fallacy called “reduction to the absurd.” It may be comprehensible to you, but ducking out during boot-shining hour in basic has dramatically different consequences than ducking out of a firefight. I would argue that ducking out in boot camp is actually more productive because it saves the government money.

Do you have employees of your own? If you assigned one a spcific task, and then he just felt the stress was too much, so he left in the middle of it and quit the job, you would just think to yourself…

Well, that’s a very good question. I could think “pussy.” I could think “poor fellow.” But the fact is that judging him will not benefit me one way or the other, except using him as an example to shame anyone else who might be considering leaving, or congratulating myself for sticking with it. Apart from that, this is a false comparison because boot camp recruits are seldom given any task of any real significance. If I assigned someone to scrub a toilet and they couldn’t handle it, well, my only thought would be “next!”

Sounds like you have other issues or some personal grudge you’re holding.

:rolleyes: Now who’s hugging Oprah?

[Bear_Nenno]

[QUOTE=Brain Wreck]
I was, as were a number of people in my basic training platoon. Don’t like 17? Add 1 and the population gets a lot larger.
[/quote]
But then it would be harder for you to convince people that AWOL soldiers are poor misguided children.

Where did I mention anything about hugging?

It’s a literary device called a metaphor. It was used to describe your “love everyone and always be nice to every human being” mentality.

Is this the Army catchphrase they tell you to use when you’re being asked to think with something other than your balls?

So I’m a mindless zombie brainwashed by the Army, is that it? I regurgitate catchphrases they tell me to use?
If that were the case, I would go hunting every weekend, hate faggots, love Jesus, at vote Republican. One is allowed to be a free thinker in the Army, despite what you claim.

I would argue that ducking out in boot camp is actually more productive because it saves the government money.

But what does being more productive have to do with him being a pussy or not. You’re saying that the Army is better off if all the Pussies just left?
I would argue that if these people would grow a set of nuts, they would probably be a successful and productive soldier. That’s why we have Chaplains and such. To encourage people to tough it out. Soldiers in Basic learn to find courage they didn’t know they had. I know of people who thought of quitting, but are much more proud of themselves and happy they stayed with it.

But yea, if a person absolutely can’t take it, and he’s been counseled and the Chaplain talked to him and he is just very convinced that he cannot do it and refuses to try. Then I agree that having the soldier leave is better than keeping him. But that’s irrelevant to whether or not he’s a pussy.

But the fact is that judging him will not benefit me one way or the other, except using him as an example to shame anyone else who might be considering leaving, or congratulating myself for sticking with it.

It seems your issue is with being quick to judge or label people, and not necessarily with my definition of Pussy.

I thought the debate was “Enlisting in the Army in and of itself shows someone is not a Pussy so he shouldn’t be labeled as such just for running away at Basic”

It seems that it has changed to “You shouldn’t judge people because it makes you look weak and selfconcious and has no real benefit.”

I have no desire to debate the second one. Had this been the original retort, I would not have responded. I neither agree nor disagree there. I’m not going to change but I’m also not going to try to defend my personality. The original response, though, was that my LABEL was wrong, and not the act of LABELING.

As for the first debate, we’re getting nowhere because Pussy is an objective term. I believe someone who runs away from Basic Training is a pussy. You think that calling him a pussy is wrong, but mainly because name calling and judging is wrong and not because he is exempt from the Pussy label because of his initial enlistment.

[medstar]

Not to break up the love fest between Bear_Nenno and Brain Wreck, but I have a question about leaving your military obligations. In peacetime, the punishment is probably fairly mild as shown in the previous posts. But we’re in a wartime situation now, so wouldn’t the punishments be more severe? Just wondering.

[Bear_Nenno]

I think the punishment should be more severe for someone who enlists during peacetime but goes AWOL before a deployment.

If someone voluntarily enlists during a time of war and then chickens out at Basic and runs off, I dont think his penalties should be more severe than a peace time deserter.

Currently, the punishments are about as described in previous posts.

[Moirai]

[QUOTE=Bear_Nenno]

There is the .1% chance a person could have some kind of severe family emergency, but there are other options than AWOL/Desertion so I find that explanation unlikely.
[/QUOTE]

Of course, that person could do what my brother had to do when our grandfather died- he left Ranger School, dealt with what he had to deal with, then went back and did it again. He is a man of his word and he had made a commitment.

I thank God that his service has always been in Rangers and SF, so that all the guys he serves next to are there because they want to be. My nightmare would be him serving with somebody just marking time, who fucks up.

But it’s true that special operations soldiers are different, and probably shouldn’t be included in this debate. They must volunteer again and again, for the most difficult duties, and their sense of duty is very strong- it has to be.

I’m sorry, but if you sign a contract, you honor it.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

[QUOTE=Elendil’s Heir]
I agree, he should turn himself in ASAP - of his own volition - rather than be picked up for a traffic offense, or try to get a government loan or benefit in a few years, and be facing a warrant and possible criminal charges.

Although I agree we shouldn’t insult him, I would note that, if Robert Heinlein had his way (as described in Starship Troopers), the guy would never be able to vote or hold public office.
[/QUOTE]

If Heinlein had his way noone who didn’t complete military service AND separate from service would never be able to vote or hold military office.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

[QUOTE=Brain Wreck]
If I had my way, nobody would ever be able to quote Robert Heinlein as anything but a producer of medium-quality entertainment.
[/QUOTE]

Heinlein is one of the writiers in the sci-fi pantheon. He made quite a few political statements in his bookos from racism to sexual liberation to social commentary.

[SSG_Schwartz]

OP by Bear Nenno

I thought the debate was “Enlisting in the Army in and of itself shows someone is not a Pussy so he shouldn’t be labeled as such just for running away at Basic”

I thought I would never agree with you on this thread, but thank you for keeping the hijack on track. There are people, I agree, that the lablel pussy should be applied to. (Mine would be the people that voulenteer for Airborne school and then quit before making the first jump, or even worse, those who refuse to exit the thirty foot tower. These quitters cost the units money, take the soldier away from there place of duty for no gain, and take the slot away from someone who could complete the school.)

SGT Swartz, I realize you spend the majority of your work day working with soldiers who desparately want out of the Army and/or can’t take the stress of deployment, etc. And it is your job to talk to them sensibly and let them express their feelings and help them work through their issues and let them know their feelings are natural, etc.
I’m glad the Army has people like you to help those who have the balls to stick to it so they can cope. I have respect for them and for you.
But these people you see at work did not run away. They are not deserters. They are not pussies.

I do see lots of people who want out for one reason or another. Some come to us on their own, some are directed by their leadership to come to us. We don’t make it easy for them to get out. If that was the case, I would have to work 24/7 and there would be a line out the door of my office. But a lot of the people who run, or who consider running away already have self concept issues. Many of them came in the Army to prove themselves tough. Believe it or not, Bear, it takes a lot of balls to raise your right hand at the MEPS. I respect the men and women who can do that. At the time they really belive that they have what it takes to protect and defend the Consititution of the United States. I would not label a quitter a hero, but for that one simple act, I cannot allow these young men and women to be called a pussy.

I have a further question, based upon this discussion. Would you call a person who wants to quit in a combat zone a pussy?

SGT Schwartz

[Bear_Nenno]

[QUOTE=Sgt Schwartz]
I have a further question, based upon this discussion. Would you call a person who wants to quit in a combat zone a pussy?
[/QUOTE]

Wants to quit? No. Sneaks on the next plane to Germany? Sure. Sucks down a lethal amount of vodka two days before deployment so he can get liver failure and end up in the hospital so the unit deploys without him? YUP!

It’s not about being fearless. One is not a Pussy if he cries or wets his pants in combat. He’s a pussy if he runs away from it.

[SSG_Schwartz]

[QUOTE=Bear_Nenno]
Wants to quit? No. Sneaks on the next plane to Germany? Sure. Sucks down a lethal amount of vodka two days before deployment so he can get liver failure and end up in the hospital so the unit deploys without him? YUP!

It’s not about being fearless. One is not a Pussy if he cries or wets his pants in combat. He’s a pussy if he runs away from it.
[/QUOTE]

So what I am hearing (sorry the MOS slips out sometimes) is that military service or not, combat enviornment or not, a “pussy” as you define it is a person who runs from anything that he/she cannot handle. That seems to drift away from the debate as you defined it. Or are only SM’s "pussies’ in your eyes.

Sgt Schwartz

[Bear_Nenno]

That’s pretty much what I’m saying. And from the begining I’ve said that the military portion of the debate was irrelevant to me.

I dont think it drifts away from the debate.
“Enlisting in the Army in and of itself shows someone is not a Pussy so he shouldn’t be labeled as such just for running away at Basic”
That does not conflict with the statement “military service or not, combat enviornment or not, a “pussy” as you define it is a person who runs from anything that he/she cannot handle.” Enlisting in the Army does not exempt someone from being called a pussy, in my opinion. And in fact, successful military service doesn’t either.

To put it even more strangely:
If someone did something cowardice after getting out of the military, and I read about it here, I would say “What a pussy.” And then, if someone said “The article claimed he served two years in the military, so pussy is too strong a word” I would say “I dont care. Sounds like he’s a pussy, regardless”

[Slithy_Tove]

[QUOTE=Bear_Nenno]
It’s not about being fearless. One is not a Pussy if he cries or wets his pants in combat. He’s a pussy if he runs away from it.
[/QUOTE]

My great-great grandfather was with the 47th Illinois at Shilo. From what I’ve read about that day, I can’t imagine how he survived by any other means besides running away. The guys who stood and fought did so not out of courage but because they were too close to the enemy and scared turn their backs. After the battle, neither Grant nor Sherman took any reprisals against their men who broke and ran. In extreme circumstances, men are not responsible for their actions. Combat is such an extreme, unreal environment, that the concept of “pussy” doesn’t enter into it. Only if the soldier is trained to the level of “muscle memory” can he be expected to function without being overwelmed by terror.

To train people to that required level, should the “I don’t want to be thought of as a pussy” factor be part of the motivational tools? I don’t think so. When a guy rings the bell to drop out of SEAL training, and they remaining trainees sing him off with “Goodby Pussy” to the tune of “Goodnight Ladies,” I don’t think that song serves as an inducement for the drop-out to avoid, but rather as an artificial reward for all the guys who get to sing it because they didn’t ring the bell.

[Bear_Nenno]

[QUOTE=Slithy Tove]
My great-great grandfather was with the 47th Illinois at Shilo. From what I’ve read about that day, I can’t imagine how he survived by any other means besides running away. The guys who stood and fought did so not out of courage but because they were too close to the enemy and scared turn their backs.
[/quote]
Was there an order to retreat? Doesn’t sound like it to me since you mention others stayed and fought. So basically you’re saying that your great grandfather left his comrads on the line to fend for themselves while he ran away. Yea, maybe that was the only reason he lived. But how many died because of the individuals who ran away? Sorry, I could not live with myself if I ran away while my teammates were in contact and just left them to fend for themselves.

After the battle, neither Grant nor Sherman took any reprisals against their men who broke and ran. In extreme circumstances, men are not responsible for their actions.

Men are always responsible for their actions.

[Slithy_Tove]

My history professor’s own professor had been a minor nobleman and army officer under the Czar. Ath the beginning of the war, men were disqualified for service based on specific afflictions. For soem reason, their names were filed away by affliction. So later in the war, when the armies couldn’t afford to be so picky, these men were recalled and put into battle in these same job-lots.

“I can’t believe it! All my replacements arrived today, and they are all one eyed men!” complained the future prince-professor.

“That’s nothing. All my replacements are one-armed men!” said his friend.

And yet nations think nothing of shoveling anyone whomsoever into combat.

Of course, every one contributing to this thread would never expect cripples to perform capably. But what about mental health? In WWII, the US rejected 14% due to mental deficiency (retardation, psychosis, etc), but in 1914 Britain, which could be expected to have the same percentage of mental illness in its population, lack of understanding allowed fewer exemptions. In WWII, the US shot 1 deserter (an ex-con who had no business being in the army in the first place). in WWI the British shot 306. Was there a connection?

I won’t whine that insulting someone’s great (sic) great grandfather constitutes a personal insult in Great Debates. I will, however, remark that Bear_Nenno’s optimism in regards to human nature is truly unique in its clarity. I’m no more interested in “AWOL from boot camp” here than I would be with “shares toys in kindergarten.” But when the discussion concerns actual combat, we’re in a different universe.

That same prince-professor took part in the Brusilov offensive where, on account of Russia’s poor roads and the limitations they placed on effective supply, each soldier was given thirty pounds of ammunition on top of his 60+ pound regular load. Thirty pounds which were soon dumped. Was that the men’s fault, or the planner’s? Was it my great-great grandfather’s fault that Grant never considered that Albert Sydney Johnston might march through the woods instead of only on the roads? Can someone who’s had the misfortune of being a lion led by donkeys please contribute to this thread?