Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Friday January 13 2017, @09:02PM   Printer-friendly
from the what-the-experts-say dept.

Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956

The Pentagon could be poised for a rapid about-face under the Trump administration, with the Obama administration's push for social reform surrendering to what could be an old-school emphasis on combat readiness and the spirit of the United States military, experts told FoxNews.com.

Under President Obama, the military sought to integrate transgender persons into the ranks, allow women into special operations forces and purge the nomenclature of gender-specific words, adopting what some critics say was a "politically correct" liberal agenda. That's a contrast to the traditional U.S. military approach.

In addition, some Navy ships have been named for civil rights activists. And while the Obama administration has taken an inclusive approach on some issues, it has also worked to minimize expressions of Christianity in the ranks. For example, several officers have been disciplined for displaying Bibles or gospel verses in their quarters.

Veterans and military experts told FoxNews.com that, while some of Obama's civil rights advancements may be locked in, neither Trump nor his choice for secretary of defense, Gen. James "Mad Dog" Mattis, are likely to make social experimentation a priority.

Source: Fox News


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday January 14 2017, @12:05AM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 14 2017, @12:05AM (#453609) Journal

    At My Lai, there wasn't just a commander and a couple wet-behind-the-ears privates. I would have to look for specifics, but I can say that there were almost certainly some sergeants, some of them with years, maybe even decades of service. Among the people who acted to end the massacre were a spec 4, and a warrant officer. A spec 4 shorhorned in between corporal (discontinued in the Army, I believe) and sergeant. It might be reasonable to say that a tech 4 has replaced corporals - that is, the next step up from private first class.

    But, all of that command structure aside, let me ask you Phoenix. Some lieutenant orders you to put your weapon to an old man's head and pull the trigger, do you obey? Are you going to commit murder, at the order of some mere lieutenant? How about a colonel? A general? Do you even question the order to murder? Or, are you afraid of the uniform?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 1) by charon on Saturday January 14 2017, @05:53AM

    by charon (5660) on Saturday January 14 2017, @05:53AM (#453719) Journal
    The point of basic training to break down the recruit's will and spirit so they can be rebuilt as a soldier. A soldier obeys the commands of his superiors, always, under penalty of discharge, prison or, in combat situations, summary execution. So yes, most or all soldiers told by their officer to shoot a man while in combat would do so. Maybe you are one of the exceptions. Or maybe you were a senior non-com who has some leeway in speaking to officers about tactics. But Joe private would shoot and only ask, "burst or full auto, sir?"
    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday January 14 2017, @04:18PM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 14 2017, @04:18PM (#453818) Journal

      My Lai wasn't combat. My Lai was a massacre of unarmed civilians. Much the same as the massacre at Wounded Knee.

      • (Score: 1) by charon on Saturday January 14 2017, @05:28PM

        by charon (5660) on Saturday January 14 2017, @05:28PM (#453845) Journal
        So the implied (or explicit, I am not well read on My Lai) threat was limited to discharge and prison. I guess that makes a grunt emotionally and morally able to challenge his commander.
  • (Score: 2) by bradley13 on Saturday January 14 2017, @10:48AM

    by bradley13 (3053) on Saturday January 14 2017, @10:48AM (#453752) Homepage Journal

    Do you obey orders? Illegal orders? Immoral orders? Suicidal orders? This is a surprisingly difficult question, for a whole pile of reasons.

    - Depending on the situation, there may be no time to thing - if you're under fire, for example.

    - An individual or even a unit in the field sees only a very small part of the larger context. In my training, we were given a scenario where we (a small unit) were ordered leave cover, for no good reason that we could see. Suicide, stupid REMF with no clue, right? Wrong, it turned out that we were serving as bait in a larger plan, and by endangering our lives would save a whole pile of other people. See the first point above: command didn't have time to hold a philosophical discussion with us; they just needed us to follow orders.

    - It's the military, which is not a democracy. People under massive stress must be trained to follow orders, otherwise your military will be utterly ineffective.

    That said, officers are held to a higher standard. As an officer, you are expected to do all of the above, plus also filter for illegal orders. It is your duty to disobey illegal orders, while immediately obeying all legal orders. With little time to think, knowing only a small part of the context, that is not an easy standard to meet.

    Next to last, war is not nice, it is not civilized. Really, there are no rules other than "win". Geneva conventions, domestic laws - all of that can and does go by the wayside from time to time. If you find yourself in a situation where blowing away a grandma will save the lives of you and your unit, odds are you're going to blow away grandma. If your green-behind-the-ears 2nd Lt objects, it's called "fragging".

    Which brings us to last: In order to kill people, you first have to dehumanize them. If the enemy is subhuman, dinks, cockroaches, whatever you've mentally turned them into so that you (as an otherwise normal human being) can kill them, then it's easy to slip over into atrocities. Kill all the cockroaches for the betterment of planet. That doesn't excuse My Lai and other sordid events, but it does explain them.

    --
    Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.