Unethical attitudes in the Army

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.

**sebster**

Private_Joker wrote: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.

Ah, you mean hold them to a higher standard because the job they do carries a significant level of responsibility. Fair enough, I agree with you there, thanks for the clarification.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andrew1975 wrote:In today's linked in society desecration really is the better part of valor.

Was this intended as a pun, because if so it was really pretty clever.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

No-one, anywhere has made either of the claims you make above, so don't just make things up. It makes you look silly, and drags the conversation away from something that could be interesting and towards people correcting your ridiculous claims.

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.

Uh huh. So all the peace keeping operations that continued throughout the 1990s and 2000s, albeit without US troops, are to be entirely ignored, and instead we are to hyper-focus on the two US led campaigns, and use that as absolutely evidence of future events.

You do not get to just make things up because you like how they sound in your head.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

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. 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.

Does your knowledge of military operations extend beyond US engagements at all?

How does your theory of 'soldiers are there to kill people' reconcile with the successful East Timor peacekeeping operation?

**Private_Joker**

Yeah lot's of flag planting in this thread...

**sebster**

Andrew1975 wrote: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.

We can expect them to have the discipline required to effectively complete their mission. That's kind of the point of having professional, exceptionally trained soldiers.

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.

Sure, there's no need to extend that need for discipline to making sure they never, ever tell a racist joke, I agree with you there.

**Private_Joker**

Racist jokes are fine for private matters, I admit they are funny and some of my friends laugh who are of that ethinicity make them with me. But what they did on facebook was way, way over the top of just a few jokes between mates. The page was litterally attacking, not just joking, but attacking these minoritys.

I would also like to point out that this discussion isn't solely based on the facebook matter but what the troops are doing in real life. Some of it amounts to bullying and harrasment and yet seems to go unpunished.

**Tauzor**

You know , having looked at the source material for my self , I am surpised not by the comments or the material its self

What does surpise me is the poor operational security, I recall having a long very detailed instruction on personal safety , information security and what you share with others...

Granted I serve with the world most proffesional standing army and all the others are poor imitations, its clear that this level of traning is either absence,poor or not enforced in these lesser tranined or skilled forces.

**Joey**

This doesn't surprise me in the slightest...have you ever actually met squaddies? They aren't known for their bourgeious opinions.
And the notion of soldiers being warrior-gods has only come about in the past 20 years or so. In the Victorian age professional soldiers were regarded as scum on the same level as manual workers.

**purplefood**

Joey wrote:This doesn't surprise me in the slightest...have you ever actually met squaddies? They aren't known for their bourgeious opinions.
And the notion of soldiers being warrior-gods has only come about in the past 20 years or so. In the Victorian age professional soldiers were regarded as scum on the same level as manual workers.

In the Victorian age we used prisoners for soldiers...
Admittedly training was extensive (in those days) but they were still a rather large bunch of armed criminals...

**Private_Joker**

Tauzor wrote:You know , having looked at the source material for my self , I am surpised not by the comments or the material its self

What does surpise me is the poor operational security, I recall having a long very detailed instruction on personal safety , information security and what you share with others...

Granted I serve with the world most proffesional standing army and all the others are poor imitations, its clear that this level of traning is either absence,poor or not enforced in these lesser tranined or skilled forces.

Alright as I said at the start of the thread the training is there, but you are obviously going to have a few so and so's muck it up for the majority who really are professional and exceptional soldiers. I mean the work done overseas and the character shown is amazing but the issue of racism and sexism is still prevelant from long standing ideals from troops who were part of the era where even the mention of homosexuals joining was laughable, and some of these guys are passing it onto the next generation, hell even a senior officer is being investigated over this. I mean we're not all perfect and even the UK's soldiers have even been in some hot water before.

**loki old fart**

"What do you do when you see a muslim crossing the street? Reload."
Dark humor like that is a human way of dealing with emotions, so stressful you can't talk about them openly.

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."

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

+1

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Private_Joker wrote:"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.

These guys are out there getting shot at.
So you can stay safe at home in a warm bed, pontificating on the internet

**Private_Joker**

When I was saying "these guys" I was referring to the inconsiderate ones ruining the majority's reputation. I am part of the majority so start reading before you start flaming mate.

**Albatross**

I think it's less important to look at what they SAY, and to appreciate what they actually DO - UK, USA and Australian (and Canadians, Kiwis... Anglophone nations, basically)troops overwhelmingly conduct themselves with tact and professionalism. They abide by strict rules of engagement, and brutalisation of native populations is very, very rare amongst Anglophone servicemen - it's a cultural thing. They really are held to, and perform to, higher standards than pretty much all other militaries on the planet. I think we can afford to cut them some slack when it comes to, shall we say, 'inadvisable' humour.

Just look at our very own mattyrm, for example.

**Kilkrazy**

There are several issues with this.

1. Multicultural societies like the USA, Australia and the UK, have many citizens of the groups the bigoted military hate.

For example there are as many muslims in the UK as there are Roman Catholics. Do we want the British Army to hate our own muslims?

2. Despite macho posturing, it isn't actually within our capability to kill everyone with whom we disagree, so we need to find other ways to come to terms with them.

Some muslims in some countries are enemies now. All of them throughout the world are not. If we let our forces do things to piss off muslims, it harms the overall objective of achieving a settlement.

3. Bigotry and hatred does not make a good basis for sound operational reasoning.

**Joey**

loki old fart wrote:"What do you do when you see a muslim crossing the street? Reload."
Dark humor like that is a human way of dealing with emotions, so stressful you can't talk about them openly.

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."

Sebster wrote
"I'm pretty sure that's exactly what Facebook is for. "
+1

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Private_Joker wrote:"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.

These guys are out there getting shot at.
So you can stay safe at home in a warm bed, pontificating on the internet

Somewhat miss-leading. It is in the nature of every man to fight for the defence of his country and family.
What we have at the moment is a professional army full of people who want to kill for a living. This does not make them bad people, or savages, or whatever. But to be surprised at attitudes like this from such people is, frankly, naive.

**loki old fart**

Albatross wrote:I think it's less important to look at what they SAY, and to appreciate what they actually DO - UK, USA and Australian (and Canadians, Kiwis... Anglophone nations, basically)troops overwhelmingly conduct themselves with tact and professionalism. They abide by strict rules of engagement, and brutalisation of native populations is very, very rare amongst Anglophone servicemen - it's a cultural thing. They really are held to, and perform to, higher standards than pretty much all other militaries on the planet. I think we can afford to cut them some slack when it comes to, shall we say, 'inadvisable' humour.

Just look at our very own mattyrm, for example.

+1
Everybody makes mistakes.

**Albatross**

Kilkrazy wrote:

There are several issues with this.

1. Multicultural societies like the USA, Australia and the UK, have many citizens of the groups the bigoted military hate.

Woah! You're saying the military is bigoted? That's a pretty sweeping generalisation.

For example there are as many muslims in the UK as there are Roman Catholics. Do we want the British Army to hate our own muslims?

I'm not saying that should be the case, I'm saying that we should judge our servicemen on their actions, and not their words. They are not men of words, after all. They are men of action, and their actions speak for themselves. The overwhelming majority of British/US/Can/Aus/NZ service personnel discharge their duties with consummate professionalism.

**Joey**

Kilkrazy wrote:
For example there are as many muslims in the UK as there are Roman Catholics. Do we want the British Army to hate our own muslims?

By 2001 census figures 13.5% of people are Catholic, 3.3% are Muslim.
Given that immigration from South Asia slumped and immigration from Catholic Eastern Europe rocketed in decade since, it's unlikely those figures have changed much.
source

**Private_Joker**

"What we have at the moment is a professional army full of people who want to kill for a living."

If you want to join the army in order to kill people you won't even make it past the recruitment interview.

**CptJake**

I bet your country has more cops than soldiers, and that those cops interact with your citizens much more extensively. And I bet your cops have a similar sense of humor and that they tell similar jokes.

These kids screwed up threatening the journalist. They should have been smarter than to post any of this crap to Facebook (I've had a long talk multiple times with Son2 about the lack of privacy and the permancy of internet comms).

But to think they are unethical for telling jokes in bad taste? I don't get that.

Ever watch a Richard Prior stand up routine? One done in public, and taped for release? Are comedians like him unethical?

You should hear some of the running cadences troopers use daily in garrison at PT. Filled with sex and violence.

It almost seems a if you think their ought to be some type of mind police that control the way folks think and punish them for thoughts you don't approve of.

**Kilkrazy**

Albatross wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:

There are several issues with this.

1. Multicultural societies like the USA, Australia and the UK, have many citizens of the groups the bigoted military hate.

Woah! You're saying the military is bigoted? That's a pretty sweeping generalisation.

I mean that bigoted people in the military are bigoted -- referring to the people whose facebook page is the thread topic. They naturally have counterparts in other militaries and in society as a whole.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
For example there are as many muslims in the UK as there are Roman Catholics. Do we want the British Army to hate our own muslims?

By 2001 census figures 13.5% of people are Catholic, 3.3% are Muslim.
Given that immigration from South Asia slumped and immigration from Catholic Eastern Europe rocketed in decade since, it's unlikely those figures have changed much.
source

I am sure you do not mean that it is alright for people in the army to hate only 3.3% of their own population.

**Albatross**

But again, what they say and what they do are actually two different things. Making off-colour jokes between friends is not the same as active discrimination and brutality at operational level.

Racist humour is socially transgressive, and some people enjoy engaging in such behaviour, but I'm willing to bet that very few of those people are actively racist. I know people who make racist jokes (and jokes about other taboo subjects) who would baulk at the idea of treating people differently based on the colour of their skin. Transgressive behaviour is about the thrill of breaking out of social straightjackets - it has nothing to do with hate. We need a sensible discussion about this at a national level urgently.

**Kilkrazy**

It's hard to distinguish on a message board between soldiers whose bigotry is genuine and others who are just "having a laugh".

Some soldiers do enact their hatreds on the battlefield, which is against operational doctrine and military law. We need our soldiers to carry out the assigned mission, not enact their personal biases. That is why they are under military discipline.

We know that "group think" can lead to the diffusion of attitudes within a social group, of soldiers for example. Part of the way this happens is by verbal interaction.

Therefore the kind of "hate speech" under discussion should be suppressed, otherwise we tacitly license it, which may lead to an increase in the undesired behaviour.

**biccat**

While I don't like the comments, I don't see why you should hold military personnel to your personal level of ethics.

Albatross wrote:Woah! You're saying the military is bigoted? That's a pretty sweeping generalisation.

And especially shocking coming from someone with this link in their signature.

**Sturmtruppen**

I have a lot to say about this, but can't muster the effort to say it all, so here are just a few posts that stand out to me.

Bromsy wrote: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.

Oh, I see. I thought we were fighting a war against terrorism. But it turns out it's a war against Muslims in general, and apparently, homosexuals and women too! I didn't know that!

Fattimus_maximus wrote:BTW who in this little discussion has actually served?

I love it when people pull this. Puts them on a nice high-horse.

Albatross wrote:But again, what they say and what they do are actually two different things. Making off-colour jokes between friends is not the same as active discrimination and brutality at operational level.

Except that they're soldiers, and they're telling jokes about shooting people. Which is a sign that these guys might be inclined to go out and kill people indiscriminately, despite the rules of engagement. So by judging their words, we can prevent their actions, rather than waiting for Captain Hindsight.

And just to finish off, in the UK, you can be arrested for saying things like that. You'd get chucked out of the army, no question. You can come up with any excuse you like, the fact is that the armed forces have standards, and if you're below them, you're not fit to serve.

**Kilkrazy**

biccat wrote:While I don't like the comments, I don't see why you should hold military personnel to your personal level of ethics.

"I" don't hold the military to anything.

The body politic, however, holds the military to certain standards, to which I have referred in previous posts.

**biccat**

Kilkrazy wrote:
biccat wrote:While I don't like the comments, I don't see why you should hold military personnel to your personal level of ethics.

"I" don't hold the military to anything.

The body politic, however, holds the military to certain standards, to which I have referred in previous posts.

The OP does. He asked for personal opinions.

You're ignoring your role in "the body politic." Majority ethics don't arise sua sponte, they are a reflection of the society as a whole.

**Joey**

biccat wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
biccat wrote:While I don't like the comments, I don't see why you should hold military personnel to your personal level of ethics.

"I" don't hold the military to anything.

The body politic, however, holds the military to certain standards, to which I have referred in previous posts.

The OP does. He asked for personal opinions.

You're ignoring your role in "the body politic." Majority ethics don't arise sua sponte, they are a reflection of the society as a whole.

They are a reflection of the ruling elite.
The general public have no qualms whatsoever about racism or hatred...where do you think these soldiers come from?

**Kilkrazy**

biccat wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
biccat wrote:While I don't like the comments, I don't see why you should hold military personnel to your personal level of ethics.

"I" don't hold the military to anything.

The body politic, however, holds the military to certain standards, to which I have referred in previous posts.

The OP does. He asked for personal opinions.

We don't have to stick rigidly to the OP's topic. Talking around the subject is a normal part of this forum.

biccat wrote:You're ignoring your role in "the body politic." Majority ethics don't arise sua sponte, they are a reflection of the society as a whole.

I don't understand what you mean.

**Frazzled**

biccat wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
biccat wrote:While I don't like the comments, I don't see why you should hold military personnel to your personal level of ethics.

"I" don't hold the military to anything.

The body politic, however, holds the military to certain standards, to which I have referred in previous posts.

The OP does. He asked for personal opinions.

You're ignoring your role in "the body politic." Majority ethics don't arise sua sponte, they are a reflection of the society as a whole.

DANGER! Lawyer using Latin! Approach with caution.

**biccat**

Kilkrazy wrote:I don't understand what you mean.

You claim that soldiers are subject to the moral standards of the body politic. Assuming you're living in a marginally democratic country, this includes you.

You can't, in toto, abrogate your responsibility for forming part of the body politic.

Frazzled wrote:DANGER! Lawyer using Latin! Approach with caution.

inter arma enim silent leges

**CptJake**

Frazzled wrote:
biccat wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
biccat wrote:While I don't like the comments, I don't see why you should hold military personnel to your personal level of ethics.

"I" don't hold the military to anything.

The body politic, however, holds the military to certain standards, to which I have referred in previous posts.

The OP does. He asked for personal opinions.

You're ignoring your role in "the body politic." Majority ethics don't arise sua sponte, they are a reflection of the society as a whole.

DANGER! Lawyer using Latin! Approach with caution.

Actually Sua Sponte is the Ranger motto.