US Army urged to scrap "Warrior Ethos"

[The Bread Guy]

US army’s kill-kill ethos under fire
Sarah Baxter, Sunday Times Online (UK), 24 Sept 06
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2372122,00.html

The US Army should scrap the Warrior Ethos, a martial creed that urges soldiers to demonstrate their fighting spirit by destroying the enemies of the US at close quarter rather than winning the trust of local populations, according to senior American officers and counter-insurgency experts.

Soldiers are instructed to live by the creed, which evokes the warrior spirit of the modern US Army. It begins with the stirring vow, "I am an American soldier," and goes on to affirm that "I will never accept defeat. I will never quit ... I stand ready to deploy, engage and destroy the enemies of the United States of America in close combat."

Admirable though this may be in the heat of battle, the Warrior Ethos's emphasis on annihilating the enemy is inimical to the type of patient, confidence-building counter-insurgency warfare in which the US is engaged in the Middle East, according to Lieutenant General Gregory Newbold, former director of operations to the joint chiefs of staff at the Pentagon.

"The future crises that relate to Iraq and Afghanistan will be a struggle for hearts and minds," he said. "We're in a different environment now and that requires different techniques and ways of operating." . . . .


US Army Warrior Ethos Web Page
http://www.army.mil/warriorethos/

 

[tomahawk6]

The pc crowd cant stand the military so it stands to reason they dont subscribe to a warrior ethos. Screw them.

 

[Kirkhill]

The pc crowd cant stand the military so it stands to reason they dont subscribe to a warrior ethos. Screw them.

.....according to senior American officers and counter-insurgency experts......

Soldiers may be warriors. But warriors are not necessarily soldiers.  Warriors can, perhaps, be made into soldiers.  Soldiers take the Queen's Shilling and do what she requires - sometimes that involves killing people.

I don't see myself as particularly PC but I have always seen a difference between a Warrior and a Soldier.

 

[GAP]

I see nothing wrong with the warrior ethos...if the PC crowd has a problem with it, they can water down the Latte's with their tears. 

 

[paracowboy]

there's a time to ramp up and a time to scale back. When not required, you take your sunglasses off, smile and wave, and hand out candy to the kiddies. When required, you kill everything that looks remotely dangerous. A properly trained soldier knows when to do which.

 

[Kirkhill]

+1 paracowboy.

Edit:  Although perhaps it should also be noted as well that actions taken are in response to orders given and are not free-lanced decisions.

 

[54/102 CEF]

Warriors!

Transfer to SOF now because you will be going to the kinder gentler Army of the Reconstruction Phase in the future.

ParaCowboy is right on the money - well trained troops can switch back and forth. There is a long argument down south about - we don;t do reconstruction - that sputters on.

You may want to watch this 300 MEG video from the Thomas Barnett at the US SANDIA LABS to get a sense where the long range security market is going - http://www.sandia.gov/ACG/videos/TBarnett_June605_1123791436_457kbps.wmv

Before you watch video read this article he wrote http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/published/pentagonsnewmap.htm

What type of work Sandia Labs does is here http://www.sandia.gov/mission/index.html

 

[x-grunt]

Warriors!


Before you watch video read this article he wrote http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/published/pentagonsnewmap.htm

Thanks for that. Interesting read.

 

[cobbler]

The pc crowd cant stand the military so it stands to reason they dont subscribe to a warrior ethos. Screw them.

Most western Armies, in aprticular those in the English speaking world, don't subscribe to such warrior ethos. And it doesn't do them or their soldiers any harm.

 

[Red 6]

The warrior ethos is a solid concept that shouldn't be messed around with. The Marine Corps has a different way of phrasing it: "No better friend, no worse enemy." The message is the same.

 

[Trinity]

And your point is?  There is another thread on the forum that is discussing the US military's use of the purple heart to designate a soldier as having been wounded in combat.  There was a suggestion to adopt something similar. Interesting to note that most CDNs have the same comment - mostly responses were a politically correct SCREW U!

Actually..  after reading that thread (3 pages) most responses were NOT a politically correct Screw you.

A good number were about placement of the wound stripe and eligibility of other (US medals).  There was one comment
that even supported changing the old ways to go to a medal.  There were a few that said they did not agree
with a medal or changing traditions however if giving their opinion followed up with their reason constitutes being
politically correct... then I must be mistaken.

So as a U.S. soldier I would say, up yours! Our military, our ethos, our traditions!

That's fine.  Your opinion is your right.  It doesn't however stop these people or anyone for that fact
from having their own opinion even if you disagree.  Simliar to the Lefty's over at Babble to consider
Afghan to be an occupation and Karzai a warlord.  I disagree but it's their place and their discussion
and they are free to have opinions too. 

I disagree that Canadians are too PC.  Apparently you haven't been reading paracowboys posts. But
para usually isn't as rude as to tell people to "Screw U" or "up yours". (although I know he thinks it)

 

[Journeyman]

And your point is?  There is another thread on the forum that is discussing the US military's use of the purple heart to designate a soldier as having been wounded in combat.  There was a suggestion to adopt something similar. Interesting to note that most CDNs have the same comment - mostly responses were a politically correct SCREW U!

So as a U.S. soldier I would say, up yours! Our military, our ethos, our traditions!

Did you even read the original article? The suggestion to change the US Army ethos comes from "...senior US officers." It is your military, its ethos, and its traditions....being debated by your officers.

ps - the Purple Heart vs Wound Stripe issue is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Get over yourself.

 

[Shamrock]

I will always place the mission first.
I will never accept defeat.
I will never quit.
I will never leave a fallen comrade.

Methinks they've confused the Warrior's Ethos with the Soldier's Creed; the Ethos is contained within the Creed.

I am an American Soldier,
I am a Warrior and a member of a team.
I serve the people of the United States, and live the Army Values.
I will always place the mission first.
I will never accept defeat.
I will never quit.
I will never leave a fallen comrade.
I am disciplined, physically and mentally tough,
Trained and proficient in my warrior tasks and drills.
I always maintain my arms, my equipment and myself.
I am an expert and I am a professional.
I stand ready to deploy, engage, and destroy, the enemies of the United States of America in close combat.
I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life.
I am an American Soldier.

Okay, who cares.  Since when are journalists required to report on the right thing, anyhow.  Now, let's tear into the argument.

Combat is a shitty job that no-one in his right mind should ever want (or want us to) do.  It involves loud noises but isn't a concert, heavy equipment but isn't a construction site, danger but isn't NASCAR, incredible stress but doesn't require a TPS cover report, and people wishing each other ill but isn't rush hour traffic.  Everyone knows this, yet a creed can help instil the motivation to more than survive combat, it can instil the motivation to move, fire, and operate within a team.  I'm not a rocket surgeon, but I'm pretty sure the endstate of combat isn't converge on the enemy and hand out hugs and handshakes.  Nor does it state in the creed, "I am a soldier and I exist for combat." 

I don't understand how this can be interpreted as kill-kill.  It's not as though they're forming up entire battleschools and bellowing, "What's the spirit of the bayonet?"  However, and this may be the short-haired hippy in me, but I do agree with defeat vs. destroy but not for the reasons mentioned in the article.

For posterity, the old Soldier's Creed:
I am an American Soldier.
I am a member of the United States Army -- a protector of the greatest nation on earth.
Because I am proud of the uniform I wear, I will always act in ways creditable to the military service and the nation it is sworn to guard.
I am proud of my own organization. I will do all I can to make it the finest unit in the Army.
I will be loyal to those under whom I serve. I will do my full part to carry out orders and instructions given to me or my unit.
As a soldier, I realize that I am a member of a time-honored profession--that I am doing my share to keep alive the principles of freedom for which my country stands.
No matter what the situation I am in, I will never do anything, for pleasure, profit, or personal safety, which will disgrace my uniform, my unit, or my country.
I will use every means I have, even beyond the line of duty, to restrain my Army comrades from actions disgraceful to themselves and to the uniform.
I am proud of my country and its flag.
I will try to make the people of this nation proud of the service I represent, for I am an American Soldier.

 

[McG]

Most western Armies, in aprticular those in the English speaking world, don't subscribe to such warrior ethos. And it doesn't do them or their soldiers any harm.

Maybe, but most western armies do describe some sort of ethos.  I do not see anything in the Warrior Ethos that is incompatible with contemporary operating environments.  In fact, I think it looks fairly solid.  Maybe it is not perfect, but I would not say ours is either.

 

[Journeyman]

quit wearing your "Canadianess on your sleeve.

Actually, the person you chose to berate,

So as a U.S. soldier I would say, up yours! Our military, our ethos, our traditions!

...is Australian.

 

[Zarathustra]

From the article above:

The Warrior Ethos was introduced in November 2003 after General Peter Schoomaker, the army chief of staff, expressed alarm that soldiers in Iraq considered themselves to be support troops - cooks, mechanics and supply staff - rather than fighters. Schoomaker insisted that no matter what their job, every soldier should be a "rifleman first".

I think we all agree with General Schoomaker. You don't want to hear "I didn't sign up for this". But he said "rifleman first", not just "rifleman".

 

[Kalatzi]

'cause as a Military Intelligence Officer I would like to know.

As a U.S. Army Acquisition Officer I resent ...

 

[Trinity]

MOC: 51R, 35E,R Allsource & SIGINT Officer
Mil Exp: 16Yrs
 

(from his profile)
Looks like a re-muster... that's all.

 

[Kirkhill]

(from his profile)
Looks like a re-muster... that's all.

Trinity - what has that got to do with the price of rice in China?  You of all people should leave the ad hominem out of it.  Major Baker has reason enough for his beliefs.  IIRC some of the driving factors that encouraged their decision to formulate the warrior ethos was a combination of three factors:

Rampant careerism amongst the officer class - an attachment to the brief-case
A reliance on technology that was leading to visions of robots slaughtering the enemy and not having to put American lives at risk
The discovery that many, if not most, American soldiers could not squeeze the trigger during combat while looking at the enemy.

The latter problem is interesting because it suggests that the problems with the American soldier/recruit is that he is too UNwilling to kill as a result of effective civilian conditioning. To create effective soldiers it seems it was necessary to convince them that it was alright to kill.  From that need to break down that barrier comes the notion of psyching people up so that their emotions rather than their reason carry them over that barrier.  Unfortunately emotions are easier to generate but harder to control.

Historically the Brits have relied on those portions of society, even those warrior societies, where there were few individual moral impediments to killing.  The task became restraining those urges and disciplining the individuals to turn them into effective soldiers.  Currently though I wonder if there is much difference between the morals of the average ABCA recruit regardless of country of origin.

The real questions here - in addition to the one about what makes a soldier - are:

Do you need to be a warrior to be a soldier?
Does our society produce warriors?
Can you create warriors?

Or perhaps more fundamentally - how do you tell soldiers conditioned by upbringing to feel compassion and to believe it is wrong to kill that it is quite permissible, even necessary, to kill and that they don't have to feel degraded or remorseful for doing their duty?

We know it is possible to beat the conditioning by appealing to emotion.  But that appears to me to be a short term fix that leaves problems akin to waking up the morning after the night before to see a stranger's face on the pillow next to you.  The first question is likely to be "What have I done?"  Perhaps that plays some role in PTSD discussions as well.

I think I understand why the Warrior Ethos was felt to be necessary - and why it may still be necessary - but I still think that there is more to being a soldier than just being  warrior.

Another 2 cents worth. 

At this rate I'll be broke shortly.  Cheers.

 

[Trinity]

Trinity - what has that got to do with the price of rice in China?  You of all people should leave the ad hominem out of it.  Major Baker has reason enough for his beliefs.  IIRC some of the driving factors that encouraged their decision to formulate the warrior ethos was a combination of three factors:

Actually Kirkhill...

I was defending him.  Someone questioned him on how he was two trades....
I proved he was from his profile.

Furthermore, read my previous post where I stated he was entitled to his beliefs?

I may disagree with his beliefs, but I never denied him of it.  You might want to re read it.