Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Recently a facebook page created by some serving and former army personel came under fire from the media when comments from the social group were leaked by an anonymous user. The comments in question were mainly aimed at Muslims, homosexuals and the reforms for women being allowed to serve in combat roles. These idiots "venting" on the internet have even gone to the extent of threatening the journalist who exposed them by texting her with abusive messages. Now the few perpatrators have only recieved a warning email and that is about the most action the Army has taken so far. One comment for instance:

"What do you do when you see a muslim crossing the street? Reload."

That is only one comment and I'm too ashamed to post the rest on here.

The users making these disgusting comments have been identified as currently serving members which was confirmed by the new Chief of Army Lt. General David Morrison. The general went on to say that this type of behaviour is in some areas common and sometimes impossible to put out, but like most things in society he said that the army is slowly making process to change that.

Now before we all post I must say that Australia's defence force has done excellent work in the Solomons, Timor and Afghanistan in terms of working with and understanding the locals in those theatres. These guys making the comments are to an extent a minority but still human nature and social ideas do still apply to your ordinary soldier who is still human and this is creating an unhealthy culture within the defence force.

My question to Dakka:

Should we see soldiers, sailors and airmen/women as a higher standard of human being? I say yes as they are representitives of our country overseas and I hope to hell these facebooker's don't get deployed somewhere that is volitile in terms of social fragility.

Should the Army be cracking down harder on the ethical behaviour of its troops? I say yes. The training does already cover teaching troops to be ethical and respectful of diversity. However at a smaller unit level this behaviour goes unnoticed and is sometimes accepted. I have even experienced the pressure of "going with the flow" in terms of not caring when a fellow soldier does it and we all have a decent laugh. But with social media this behaviour is being exposed and needs to change now.

The guys are educated enough to know not to do it but they do anyway because they don't realise the consequences. I say a harsher punishment for these idiots, even if they are safe under the "law of the land". The army has its own discipline system, and the I hope the Chief uses it order to crack down on these fools.

Private_Joker wrote:Recently a facebook page created by some serving and former army personel came under fire from the media when comments from the social group were leaked by an anonymous user. The comments in question were mainly aimed at Muslims, homosexuals and the reforms for women being allowed to serve in combat roles. These idiots "venting" on the internet have even gone to the extent of threatening the journalist who exposed them by texting her with abusive messages. Now the few perpatrators have only recieved a warning email and that is about the most action the Army has taken so far. One comment for instance:

"What do you do when you see a muslim crossing the street? Reload."

That is only one comment and I'm too ashamed to post the rest on here.

The users making these disgusting comments have been identified as currently serving members which was confirmed by the new Chief of Army Lt. General David Morrison. The general went on to say that this type of behaviour is in some areas common and sometimes impossible to put out, but like most things in society he said that the army is slowly making process to change that.

Now before we all post I must say that Australia's defence force has done excellent work in the Solomons, Timor and Afghanistan in terms of working with and understanding the locals in those theatres. These guys making the comments are to an extent a minority but still human nature and social ideas do still apply to your ordinary soldier who is still human and this is creating an unhealthy culture within the defence force.

My question to Dakka:

Should we see soldiers, sailors and airmen/women as a higher standard of human being? I say yes as they are representitives of our country overseas and I hope to hell these facebooker's don't get deployed somewhere that is volitile in terms of social fragility.

Should the Army be cracking down harder on the ethical behaviour of its troops? I say yes. The training does already cover teaching troops to be ethical and respectful of diversity. However at a smaller unit level this behaviour goes unnoticed and is sometimes accepted. I have even experienced the pressure of "going with the flow" in terms of not caring when a fellow soldier does it and we all have a decent laugh. But with social media this behaviour is being exposed and needs to change now.

The guys are educated enough to know not to do it but they do anyway because they don't realise the consequences. I say a harsher punishment for these idiots, even if they are safe under the "law of the land". The army has its own discipline system, and the I hope the Chief uses it order to crack down on these fools.

To clarify, they were saying these things in a private group, to each other, correct? And then it was leaked by an anon? Threatening the journalist was certainly wrong (and possibly illegal), but I can't honestly see why they should be censured for having what amounts to a private conversation, no matter how bigoted. My point being, they weren't going out of their way to advertise it, at least in this instance. Without further evidence, who are we to say they don't put on a genuinely convincing and charming facade while on duty?

The army is not a private group and that facebook page is not a private group considering it has a thousand members and was not meant for being complete and utter A-holes on. I was aiming for the fact that this type of behaiviour is unacceptable in a workplace (which the army is) and by acting that way on a website has tarnished the army's image. Just because your out of uniform doesn't mean you have no responsibilty. Imagine how many people who are serving muslims and women feel about this and whether they feel comfortable working in such an enviroment.

Agreed about the above, if it was a private conversation, they are entitled to say whatever the damn hell they want to say, and should not be held responsible/accountable for it. If, however, they are acting in such a manner in a public setting in uniform/in a manner which can be conceived as representative of a military organization, then they shouldn't be serving period.

Do you really want to employ these types of people into an organisation that is constantly working with cultures and genders that the facebooker's are abusing? No.

Joining the Army doesn't mean you give up your right to free speech, which includes speech we don't like. That said, someone like the Chief of the Army is always under the spot light, and no one cares about whether or not he has any rights. If he actually said something bigoted or remotely inappropriate his career is probably over.

Do you really want to employ these types of people into an organisation that is constantly dealing with the people that the facebooker's are abusing. No.

Members of an armed force have come to hate the people they're fighting and possibly have taken their anger a little too far? Damn. That's NEVER happened before.

Private_Joker wrote: The army is not a private group and that facebook page is not a private group considering it has a thousand members and was not meant for being complete and utter A-holes on. I was aiming for the fact that this type of behaiviour is unacceptable in a workplace (which the army is) and by acting that way on a website has tarnished the army's image. Just because your out of uniform doesn't mean you have no responsibilty. Imagine how many people who are serving muslims and women feel about this and whether they feel comfortable working in such an enviroment.

Ah, ok. I see your point. 1000's of members is quite different from what I was thinking of. I was under the impression that it was a small facebook page-- maybe a dozen or so that knew each other.
Since it's not private, than I would tend to agree with you. If they are on duty and speaking in a public forum, they should be mindful of military policy regarding minorities, gender, et. al. I'm not sure how it works in Australia, but I know U.S. Military members have a contractual obligation to 'tow the party line', in other words they have willingly given up some portions of their freedom of speech.
They should probably face a bit more repercussion than a strongly worded email. Even if it's just having to undergo diversity re-education. That being said, I don't think this should apply to the commentors who are no longer serving, if only because that helps to preserve the delicate line between freedom of speech and a friendly work environment, and also because they are no longer bound by the aforementioned contractual obligations.
As for holding servicemen and women to higher standards? I'm not so sure. Service members in active duty in hostile environments face a great deal of stress that can easily lead to all sorts of psychological damage. The widespread occurrence of PTSD in U.S. veterans certainly indicates they are every bit as human as the rest of us. I think they're entitled to a certain amount of venting, but I do think they should keep such activities private.

Just because you aren't "under the spotlight" doesn't mean your behaviour isn't damaging.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:Joining the Army doesn't mean you give up your right to free speech, which includes speech we don't like. That said, someone like the Chief of the Army is always under the spot light, and no one cares about whether or not he has any rights. If he actually said something bigoted or remotely inappropriate his career is probably over.

Do you really want to employ these types of people into an organisation that is constantly dealing with the people that the facebooker's are abusing. No.

Members of an armed force have come to hate the people they're fighting and possibly have taken their anger a little too far? Damn. That's NEVER happened before.

Members of an armed force going overboard is exactly what they are not looking for. Hence this needs to stop.

Private_Joker wrote:Do you really want to employ these types of people into an organisation that is constantly working with cultures and genders that the facebooker's are abusing? No.

Yes actually. I know in this increasingly touchy-feely politically correct "lets be sensitive towards others and do something positive" world we have the perception that the military exists to help people, etc. but the reality of the situation is that the military exists to destroy property and to kill people. Everything else is secondary and of far lesser importance. The type of person that dislikes others for being of a different culture/nationality from themselves/their homeleand, has anger issues, and acts in what would otherwise be described as a violent/antisocial manner is exactly the kind of person you want employed in an organization thats prime directive is to destroy things for being of a different culture/nationality from the people they are sworn to protect.

"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." – Winston Churchill

Hell, a lot of this is state-sponsored. Its no secret that the military conducts psy-ops on itself (its even integrated into basic military training programs if you look carefully) to create a feeling of hostility towards current and future threats (both real and perceived) within its ranks. This was very true during the Cold War, and is still true today (though its not quite as overt). There was certainly a lot of it going on in the first half of the last decade (certain popular jodies (military cadences) were actually quite explicitly violent and derogatory towards those of middle eastern descent and the muslim faith) and its since been toned down some as things are winding down, but you can already see it starting to pop up here and there targeting the Chinese/North Koreans.

Meh. Threats against the journalist or whatever, if true, are too far. But you can't expect every enlisted man or woman to be a goodwill ambassador to the world at all hours of the day and night.
Even as advanced and professional as armies in first world nations are becoming, there has to be an element of hating and dehumanizing your enemy. It's how you make yourself go out and kill them, and an army that can't do that isn't much of an army.

Private_Joker wrote:Should we see soldiers, sailors and airmen/women as a higher standard of human being? I say yes...

What? Seriously dude that's crazy. They do a really tough job, but that doesn't make them a higher standard of human being.

Should the Army be cracking down harder on the ethical behaviour of its troops? I say yes. The training does already cover teaching troops to be ethical and respectful of diversity. However at a smaller unit level this behaviour goes unnoticed and is sometimes accepted. I have even experienced the pressure of "going with the flow" in terms of not caring when a fellow soldier does it and we all have a decent laugh. But with social media this behaviour is being exposed and needs to change now.

I don't think standards of practice should extend to what's said between friends in a private forum. That's pretty intrusive, to be honest.

If they did make threats to the journalist, then that's a serious matter, though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Private_Joker wrote:The army is not a private group and that facebook page is not a private group considering it has a thousand members and was not meant for being complete and utter A-holes on.

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what Facebook is for.

It is an interesting question. Some facebook pages are public. I'm assuming that since this one had a 1000 members, it was a public page, correct?

chaos0xomega wrote:Yes actually. I know in this increasingly touchy-feely politically correct "lets be sensitive towards others and do something positive" world we have the perception that the military exists to help people, etc. but the reality of the situation is that the military exists to destroy property and to kill people. Everything else is secondary and of far lesser importance.

The problem is that isn't true. We simply do not judge a units performance by how much stuff it destroyed, we judge it by whether it got the mission done, and increasingly that mission simply doesn't involve straight up destroying stuff.

The type of person that dislikes others for being of a different culture/nationality from themselves/their homeleand, has anger issues, and acts in what would otherwise be described as a violent/antisocial manner is exactly the kind of person you want employed in an organization thats prime directive is to destroy things for being of a different culture/nationality from the people they are sworn to protect.

Which is also completely not true. Military forces are more commonly deployed to secure the peace overseas, not just shoot people from a different background.

Alright people here have no clue what a modern army is, for one killing people is good and all if you want like 10% of the result you wanted. Also sebster when i say higher standard of human being I mean they have to be presenting what there preaching. Acting like tools and not respecting how society works is for civilians. When a soldier presents himself in public he is not going to act like a civilian because he is doing a job that represents an entire nation and his actions have an effect on the entire nation.

When a soldier presents himself in public he is not going to act like a civilian because he is doing a job that represents an entire nation and his actions have an effect on the entire nation.

A forum that is (officially) only viewable by members is hardly public (and I'm someone who argues the internet is like a public street). We needed some douche from Anon to actually make us aware of this and he's probably swimming in self-righteousness about now. The actions of an individual are not representative of a nation whether your a tinker, tailor, soldier, or a sailor. Only idiots, and thus, the vast majority of the world's population think that hence why we get stuck dealing with crap like this that should otherwise be no where near noteworthy.

Private_Joker wrote:Alright people here have no clue what a modern army is, for one killing people is good and all if you want like 10% of the result you wanted. Also sebster when i say higher standard of human being I mean they have to be presenting what there preaching. By acting like tools and not respecting how society works is for civilians. When a soldier presents himself in public he is not going to act like a civilian because he is doing a job that represents an entire nation and his actions have an effect on the entire nation.

Look, it's no that complicated. Soldiers should be able to act, say, feel (almost) however they want.......just not in public. They don't need sensitivity training, they need publicity training. It's stupid crap like this that is constantly giving the US military Black Eyes on the global stage. Burn Korans with secret messages in them, fine, but be discrete about it. In today's linked in society desecration really is the better part of valor. Remember, in general you are dealing with 18 year olds that couldn't afford to go to college, what exactly are you expecting from them. I'm sure during the Empire there there were centurions that had some great jokes about Gauls, it's kind of a time honored tradition.

It's like Clinton. Am I angry he was getting a BJ, not really. I'm angry he was stupid enough to get caught.

NOTE: I try really hard to stay out of off-topic but this one hits close to home:

I'm in a group on Facebook called US INFANTRY, it has a lot of members and gets in trouble with facebook for things like this too. I don't post on it except maybe like a picture every once in a while but What ya'll may not know is that this group does fundraising, and seeks out and outs people who pretend to be military as well. These guys are just having their own kind of fun. One of the people they outed as having lied about military service complained to Facebook and had the posts in question removed, so not all of the bad press is justified. Most of the guys in the group are prior service, you have guys who were in Somalia, Desert Storm etc. The guy who started it isn't even in anymore. As for holding military to higher standards, we are regular people just like everyone else, we just chose to do something most people are unwilling or unable to do themselves and that's straight out of my drill's mouth in infantry OSUT. As for some of the name calling I have seen in these posts about this whole thing, those "idiots" are the ones fighting and dying for the 99%'s to about how much their lives suck, and allow the 1% to make money off of it all and use it in campaigns. Would you get mad at your grand dad who was in Guadalcanal or your great uncle who jumped into normandy for calling someone a slur, probably not, you'd chock it up to old prejudice created in the hell that is war. This is the same thing just over blown because of the openess of the internet. I understand it's all about hearts and minds but I know from experience that that is a lot of gak. They don't care and don't want it. If they were threatening someone that goes to far, but infantry are infantry if you didn't have the dirty mouthed fowl minded individuals doing all the dirty work, then who would? The cooks? The mechanics? Seen them in action too, not too impressed. I think ol' winston said it the best. BTW who in this little discussion has actually served?

Private_Joker wrote:Alright people here have no clue what a modern army is, for one killing people is good and all if you want like 10% of the result you wanted.

I think you're the one who has no clue what a modern army is. The US has learned the hard way that modern militaries are too small to successfully function as a peacekeeping force or as a force of occupation, and that hearts and minds campaigns are a waste of resources. The story that the global media has sold you is a lie engineered by senior military and government officials to downplay how disastrous operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have been. Make no mistake, a military exists to destroy property and kill people. Even the finance officer sitting behind a desk safe and sound in the American heartland is there so that the trigger-pullers and door-kickers in the AO will be able to effectively accomplish that task. You won't see many modern militaries attempting to nation-build while fighting an insurgency again in the future. The events in Libya, Egypt, and Syria are proof enough of that.

Private_Joker wrote:Recently a facebook page created by some serving and former army personel came under fire from the media when comments from the social group were leaked by an anonymous user. The comments in question were mainly aimed at Muslims, homosexuals and the reforms for women being allowed to serve in combat roles. These idiots "venting" on the internet have even gone to the extent of threatening the journalist who exposed them by texting her with abusive messages.

If this is true, its the only thing that's worthy of disciplinary action.

Venting in a private context is one thing, but its another matter when that "venting" amounts to threats.

The army isn't the same anymore Fattimus, you can't have these idiots (yes they are idiots, even the Chief is calling them that) going around doing this racial/sexist behaviour. The major problem I was pointing out was that this report opened up a whole world of hurt on people who are on the recieving end of the jokes on Facebook.

It's the Facebook behaviour that they don't want in the military, and they are trying to get rid of it. The report opened up this whole culture within the military that has nothing to do with facebook. Sure I respect people who have fought and died trying to protect our freedom, but does that allow them to take the freedom of Muslims, homosexuals and females from being able to have the same chance?

chaos0xomega wrote:The US has learned the hard way that modern militaries are too small to successfully function as a peacekeeping force or as a force of occupation, and that hearts and minds campaigns are a waste of resources.

The issue, as occupation and peacekeeping go, isn't size, its cost and political support. The US military is plenty large to occupy Iraq, its just expensive to do so, and political support for occupations is, generally, very low.

Strategies that focus on hearts and minds (read: COIN) are definitely not a waste of resources.

chaos0xomega wrote:
The events in Libya, Egypt, and Syria are proof enough of that.

Not really, the rebellions there are not at all like the situation that lead to the most recent conflict in Iraq, or the terrorist action that instigated Afghanistan.

I agree, we aren't likely to see much nation building in the future, certainly not of the unilateral sort, but not because its impossible task for the military: because no one wants to pay for it politically, or economically.

Look, those comments are going to be made either way, whether it be verbally around the campfire/watercooler, via text message, or on facebook. "Minority" groups (relative to the military population, not the civilian one) will generally know full well that this behavior goes on, and is unavoidable. It doesn't make it right, but this shouldn't come as a surprise...

chaos0xomega wrote:

Private_Joker wrote:Alright people here have no clue what a modern army is, for one killing people is good and all if you want like 10% of the result you wanted.

I think you're the one who has no clue what a modern army is. The US has learned the hard way that modern militaries are too small to successfully function as a peacekeeping force or as a force of occupation, and that hearts and minds campaigns are a waste of resources. The story that the global media has sold you is a lie engineered by senior military and government officials to downplay how disastrous operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have been. Make no mistake, a military exists to destroy property and kill people. Even the finance officer sitting behind a desk safe and sound in the American heartland is there so that the trigger-pullers and door-kickers in the AO will be able to effectively accomplish that task. You won't see many modern militaries attempting to nation-build while fighting an insurgency again in the future. The events in Libya, Egypt, and Syria are proof enough of that.

So destroy the nation, remove the government and not bother to help the thousands of refugees you just created? Yep that will work.

Oh look the British did the exact opposite in the Dhofor war in the Oman. Wow maybe they should have spent big bucks on bombing the gak out of them.

dogma wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:The US has learned the hard way that modern militaries are too small to successfully function as a peacekeeping force or as a force of occupation, and that hearts and minds campaigns are a waste of resources.

The issue, as occupation and peacekeeping go, isn't size, its cost and political support. The US military is plenty large to occupy Iraq, its just expensive to do so, and political support for occupations is, generally, very low.

Strategies that focus on hearts and minds (read: COIN) are definitely not a waste of resources.

I disagree. Besides the fact that we presently lack the manpower to effectively occupy a country like Afghanistan (which is somewhat of a unique case in that regards owing to the terrain and the porous border situation with pakistan, as well as to the political orientation and leaning of certain neighboring states...), our hearts and minds/counter-insurgency campaign has accomplished little for us overall, Afghanistan is just as dangerous now as it was 5-10 years ago. An interesting article that better illustrates things:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/02/23/the_juice_ain_t_worth_the_squeeze?page=0,0

So destroy the nation, remove the government and not bother to help the thousands of refugees you just created? Yep that will work.

Oh look the British did the exact opposite in Dhofor. Wow maybe they should have spent big bucks on bombing the gak out of them.

Who said anything about removing the government? For the longest time, war was seen as a way of forcing a government into compliance, not of replacing the government entirely. The only time in the past century that I can think of (prior to Iraq/Afghanistan) that a major power rebuilt the government of a conquered foe was the Allied occupation of Nazi Germany. There was also that thing with Panama, but thats a bit more complicated... >.> Sometime during the Bush administration the government seemed to come up with the idea that you it could create a Pax Americana by setting up pseudo-puppet governments in trouble spots, which is part of the reason why we got into this mess in the first place. If you look back through history however:

Bosnia/Kosovo: bombing campaign to force compliance and ceasefire
Gulf War: military campaign to force withdrawal from Kuwait, protect Saudi Arabia, and disarm Iraq
Vietnam: military campagin to protect South Vietnam, convince North Vietnam to agree to ceasefire
Korea: military campaign to protect South Korea, convince North Korea to cease hostilities
etc. etc.etc.

This thread isn't about the current war, start leaning towards the actual soldiers fighting the war.

The guys are educated enough to know not to do it but they do anyway because they don't realise the consequences. I say a harsher punishment for these idiots, even if they are safe under the "law of the land". The army has its own discipline system, and the I hope the Chief uses it order to crack down on these fools.

Who are "these guys" you speak of. Your average soldier is an uneducated 18 year old that could not afford college. You really expect them to be paragons on morality at all times, while asking them to risk their lives in combat against people who really don't give a gak. It's unrealistic and I'd submit counter productive to expect them to be professional 24/7 and have no bias against their enimies . When they get caught doing something stupid in public they need to be reprimanded, but everybody makes off color jokes behind closed doors. Somewhere there is a guy who heard Gandhi tell a racial Joke or two.

While I'm against war in general, soldiers tend to go through hell on a stick. Making jokes to cope is like when a fireman asks his workmate if he will be eating bacon for tea.

"These guys" are the ones who dressed up in a KKK outfit and decided to video tape it. "These guys" are the ones that had sex with a girl at a defence academy and decided to post it on youtube without her permission. "These guys" are the ones who mock and degrade people based on gender and skin colour. "These guys" don't deserve the right to be in a UNIFORMAL yet DIVERSE army. When I say uniformal I mean they are all to the same standard of behaviour they signed in a contract and when I say diverse I mean people who are protected from this constant BS from "these guys". Just because they are 18 doesn't mean they come under a different set of rules.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I disagree. Besides the fact that we presently lack the manpower to effectively occupy a country like Afghanistan (which is somewhat of a unique case in that regards owing to the terrain and the porous border situation with pakistan, as well as to the political orientation and leaning of certain neighboring states...), our hearts and minds/counter-insurgency campaign has accomplished little for us overall, Afghanistan is just as dangerous now as it was 5-10 years ago.

Not having the man power to occupy any country in the world does not mean you do not have the man power to occupy a country. No military has man power to occupy Russia, save maybe China, but that doesn't mean no country in the world can occupy, say, Yemen.

And, while COIN hasn't worked well in Afghanistan, it did work well in Iraq. Significantly better than prior military strategies which largely focused on doing exactly what you're saying we're good at: killing people and blowing things up. You can't dismiss and approach to warfare as ineffective simply because its not effective in all possible situations, because no approach to warfare is effective in all possible situations.

chaos0xomega wrote:
An interesting article that better illustrates things:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/02/23/the_juice_ain_t_worth_the_squeeze?page=0,0

Sure, I read that, but as I said above, you can't take Afghanistan as a universal example.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Who said anything about removing the government? For the longest time, war was seen as a way of forcing a government into compliance, not of replacing the government entirely. The only time in the past century that I can think of (prior to Iraq/Afghanistan) that a major power rebuilt the government of a conquered foe was the Allied occupation of Nazi Germany.

Did you forget Japan? Then there's all the early 20th century imperial wars (mostly France), and all the conflicts leading up to the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Bosnia/Kosovo: bombing campaign to force compliance and ceasefire

Kosovo's government was built by the UN.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Gulf War: military campaign to force withdrawal from Kuwait, protect Saudi Arabia, and disarm Iraq

Ended in the de facto removal of control over about 1/3 of Southern Iraq by way of no-fly zones.

Dogma I know he's wrong but please stick to the main question.