This is a video one of my soldiers, SGT Bond, made after our deployment in Iraq '03-'04. He was in 3rd Platoon, 18th EN, 3/2 IN (SBCT).
2008-09-04
Basic training graduation speech video - LTC White
This is a old video of a speech given by LTC Randolph White at a Basic Training Graduation at Ft Benning, GA. He is extremely eloquent. In my opinion, one of the greatest modern military speeches.
APOBS video
This is a video of my company (18 EN, 3/2 IN) firing an APOBS (Anti-personnel obstacle breaching system) at YTC (Yakima Training Center).
2008-09-02
Mandatory fun
Many times in the Army we are required to attend social events. These events are often called mandatory fun. Officers will groan and complain about attendance but the events are useful for the bonding and comradery that is a hallmark of the military profession. In fact, I personally usually had a great time once I was there. How can a field grade officer make mandatory fun more 'fun' so that people can't wait until the next one instead of groaning when one is announced?
Is this another symptom of the decline of the warrior culture within the military; that we are closer to corporate America than ancient Sparta? Corporate America largely goes home at five o'clock and their professional lives and social lives are not entwined. The military used to be an organization where the social and professional lives were intimately intertwined: on-post housing, the O-club, O-calls, staff rides, golfing with the COL, and wives relying on each other during deployments.
I'd appreciate any suggestions on making 'mandatory fun' more fun in my future units.
Is this another symptom of the decline of the warrior culture within the military; that we are closer to corporate America than ancient Sparta? Corporate America largely goes home at five o'clock and their professional lives and social lives are not entwined. The military used to be an organization where the social and professional lives were intimately intertwined: on-post housing, the O-club, O-calls, staff rides, golfing with the COL, and wives relying on each other during deployments.
I'd appreciate any suggestions on making 'mandatory fun' more fun in my future units.
Warrior ethos
In 2003, the Army codified the "Warrior Ethos" into the Soldier's Creed.
What is a warrior? To be a warrior, one must be practiced in warfare. However, there is a much larger requirement. A soldier, rebel, mercenary, and terrorist are all practiced in warfare as well. A warrior is also implies a code of honor emphasizing loyalty and courage. In addition, a warrior must be willing to sacrifice themselves for the 'greater good'. For Sparta and the Native American cultures the warrior ethos was vital to the survival of their families, their nation, and their way of life. The warrior places the emphasis on others not upon himself.
Is the US military today a warrior culture? Current Army recruitment emphasizes what you can gain personally from service in the military (education, job skills, etc) but the warrior culture emphasizes what the warrior gives back to society not what he gets from society. In addition, war for the US is an instrument of foreign policy not a way of life for the population. The common phrase, "the military is at war; America is at the mall," illustrates the differences between the spartan and Native American cultures versus our modern society.
Other facet of the warrior ethos is the image of a warrior in our (Army's) collective mind. The tall, muscular, airborne, ranger, special forces, 'snake-eater' could be classified as the dictionary image of a warrior in today's modern military. However, compare that to the roly-poly Nintendo generation soldier deployed to Iraq who when faced with a car (most likely vehicle borne IED) speeding towards his checkpoint calmly unloads round after round into the radiator and windshield of the vehicle disabling it and preventing it's detonation. (story related by MAJ Rick Garcia). That soldier is the true warrior despite his physical appearance.
As an aside, our nation has become enamored of political correctness. One instance of this trend is the banning of Native American imagery for sports teams. I was at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign from 2005-2008. During my time at Illinois, the NCAA deemed the Illini mascot, Chief Illiniwek, as 'hostile and abusive' and banned the team from NCAA tournament competition until its removal. The term Illiniwek stems from the Illiniwek Confederation who historically inhabited much of present-day Illinois. The term Illiniwek means a complete human being; strong and agile with an indomitable spirit. What better tribute than to have our student athletes attempt to emulate the warrior ethos of the Native American people. Political correctness has gone too far!!
- I will always place the mission first.
- I will never accept defeat.
- I will never quit.
- I will never leave a fallen comrade.
What is a warrior? To be a warrior, one must be practiced in warfare. However, there is a much larger requirement. A soldier, rebel, mercenary, and terrorist are all practiced in warfare as well. A warrior is also implies a code of honor emphasizing loyalty and courage. In addition, a warrior must be willing to sacrifice themselves for the 'greater good'. For Sparta and the Native American cultures the warrior ethos was vital to the survival of their families, their nation, and their way of life. The warrior places the emphasis on others not upon himself.
Is the US military today a warrior culture? Current Army recruitment emphasizes what you can gain personally from service in the military (education, job skills, etc) but the warrior culture emphasizes what the warrior gives back to society not what he gets from society. In addition, war for the US is an instrument of foreign policy not a way of life for the population. The common phrase, "the military is at war; America is at the mall," illustrates the differences between the spartan and Native American cultures versus our modern society.
Other facet of the warrior ethos is the image of a warrior in our (Army's) collective mind. The tall, muscular, airborne, ranger, special forces, 'snake-eater' could be classified as the dictionary image of a warrior in today's modern military. However, compare that to the roly-poly Nintendo generation soldier deployed to Iraq who when faced with a car (most likely vehicle borne IED) speeding towards his checkpoint calmly unloads round after round into the radiator and windshield of the vehicle disabling it and preventing it's detonation. (story related by MAJ Rick Garcia). That soldier is the true warrior despite his physical appearance.
As an aside, our nation has become enamored of political correctness. One instance of this trend is the banning of Native American imagery for sports teams. I was at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign from 2005-2008. During my time at Illinois, the NCAA deemed the Illini mascot, Chief Illiniwek, as 'hostile and abusive' and banned the team from NCAA tournament competition until its removal. The term Illiniwek stems from the Illiniwek Confederation who historically inhabited much of present-day Illinois. The term Illiniwek means a complete human being; strong and agile with an indomitable spirit. What better tribute than to have our student athletes attempt to emulate the warrior ethos of the Native American people. Political correctness has gone too far!!
Technology and the military
Technology is always seductive to the military commander. Technology promises a way to kill the bad guy without risking your own soldiers.
Gulf War I was a great example of the application of technology. A long air-war with precision guided weapons resulted is a quick victory with very low casualties for allied forces. This unprecedented victory had several negative consequences.
The Gulf War gave both military and political leaders an illusion that war is understandable and can be controlled from the top down. This is simply a delusion. No matter how perfect your technological intelligence - SIGINT (signals intelligence) or IMINT (imagery intelligence) - it does not replace on the ground HUMINT (human intelligence).
The Gulf War's technological success also fed into the procurement of new and expensive weapon systems - crusader, F22, etc. However, precision weapon systems and fancy equipment will never replace the infantry soldier and 'boots on the ground'. Look at WWII and the reaction of the British public to German bombings. The bombing did not break their resolve, but hardened it, 'This was their finest hour.' - Winston Churchill. Air power and technology can shape the battlefield and set the stage, but infantry soldiers will always be the final and decisive weapon, opening doors, searching closets, and occupying the terrain.
Finally, the illusion of a technological solution contributed to the low number of ground forces approved for Operation Iraqi Freedom. Technology allowed the US military to win the battles that lead up to the seizure of Baghdad but technology was ineffectual in securing the peace. The current situation in Iraq and Afghanistan are great examples of the limitations of technology and air-power.
During the Cold War we spent out defense money on technological systems. During the 'Long War', we need to spend our defense money on people.
Gulf War I was a great example of the application of technology. A long air-war with precision guided weapons resulted is a quick victory with very low casualties for allied forces. This unprecedented victory had several negative consequences.
The Gulf War gave both military and political leaders an illusion that war is understandable and can be controlled from the top down. This is simply a delusion. No matter how perfect your technological intelligence - SIGINT (signals intelligence) or IMINT (imagery intelligence) - it does not replace on the ground HUMINT (human intelligence).
The Gulf War's technological success also fed into the procurement of new and expensive weapon systems - crusader, F22, etc. However, precision weapon systems and fancy equipment will never replace the infantry soldier and 'boots on the ground'. Look at WWII and the reaction of the British public to German bombings. The bombing did not break their resolve, but hardened it, 'This was their finest hour.' - Winston Churchill. Air power and technology can shape the battlefield and set the stage, but infantry soldiers will always be the final and decisive weapon, opening doors, searching closets, and occupying the terrain.
Finally, the illusion of a technological solution contributed to the low number of ground forces approved for Operation Iraqi Freedom. Technology allowed the US military to win the battles that lead up to the seizure of Baghdad but technology was ineffectual in securing the peace. The current situation in Iraq and Afghanistan are great examples of the limitations of technology and air-power.
During the Cold War we spent out defense money on technological systems. During the 'Long War', we need to spend our defense money on people.
Georgia vs Russia
The current conflict in Georgia poses an interesting question about NATO.
If Georgia was a member of NATO - would the other NATO states have come to Georgia's aid militarily?
It is interesting because both Ukraine and Georgia were denied the Membership Action Plan they requested. The request was opposed most vocally by Germany and France over concerns of angering Russia. It seems that Germany and France were clairvoyant and foresaw a conflict with Russia and Georgia that they did not want involved in.
So if Georgia were a member wouldn't that same fear of angering Russia still prevent the European members of the alliance from acting?
The US is over committed and could probably only lead symbolic air strikes against Russia troops as they moved into Georgia. But would the US even attempt air strikes against the Soviet Union, our former cold war foe, who still owns a sizable nuclear stockpile. NATO intervention in Georgia could be the beginning of WWIII - hopefully with more limited aims that MAD (mutually assured destruction).
So if no one intervenes, what is the purpose of NATO? A collective defense agreement where the members only help each other if it doesn't piss off Russia?
The future of the Ukraine will be interesting to watch. If NATO accepts the Ukraine to prevent military action by the Soviet Union - member states will need to be ready to back up their bluff and stop Russian aggression. If NATO again reject Ukrainian membership then Europe and the US are acknowledging a return to the status quo of the cold war - Russia surrounded by friendly buffer states.
But this new cold war - if realized will be much more complex than the last one with a rising China and a continuing ideological battle against radical Islam.
Another interesting signs of a returning cold war is the timing of the Russian invasion of Georgia - during the Olympics. The Olympics were hosted in Beijing this year essentially as a symbol and showcase of China's arrival as a world power. While all the media attention was focused on Beijing, Russia sent a clear message, "Don't forget about us!! We are still a power to be reckoned with."
As a final thought - there is no word for subtle in the Russian language. This comment was brought up during class and offers an interesting lens through which to view Russian behavior and actions. However, I was unable to confirm this fact. If anyone has conclusive proof that this is not just an urban legend / old wives tale - let me know.
Article ref. Georgia/NATO membership
If Georgia was a member of NATO - would the other NATO states have come to Georgia's aid militarily?
It is interesting because both Ukraine and Georgia were denied the Membership Action Plan they requested. The request was opposed most vocally by Germany and France over concerns of angering Russia. It seems that Germany and France were clairvoyant and foresaw a conflict with Russia and Georgia that they did not want involved in.
So if Georgia were a member wouldn't that same fear of angering Russia still prevent the European members of the alliance from acting?
The US is over committed and could probably only lead symbolic air strikes against Russia troops as they moved into Georgia. But would the US even attempt air strikes against the Soviet Union, our former cold war foe, who still owns a sizable nuclear stockpile. NATO intervention in Georgia could be the beginning of WWIII - hopefully with more limited aims that MAD (mutually assured destruction).
So if no one intervenes, what is the purpose of NATO? A collective defense agreement where the members only help each other if it doesn't piss off Russia?
The future of the Ukraine will be interesting to watch. If NATO accepts the Ukraine to prevent military action by the Soviet Union - member states will need to be ready to back up their bluff and stop Russian aggression. If NATO again reject Ukrainian membership then Europe and the US are acknowledging a return to the status quo of the cold war - Russia surrounded by friendly buffer states.
But this new cold war - if realized will be much more complex than the last one with a rising China and a continuing ideological battle against radical Islam.
Another interesting signs of a returning cold war is the timing of the Russian invasion of Georgia - during the Olympics. The Olympics were hosted in Beijing this year essentially as a symbol and showcase of China's arrival as a world power. While all the media attention was focused on Beijing, Russia sent a clear message, "Don't forget about us!! We are still a power to be reckoned with."
As a final thought - there is no word for subtle in the Russian language. This comment was brought up during class and offers an interesting lens through which to view Russian behavior and actions. However, I was unable to confirm this fact. If anyone has conclusive proof that this is not just an urban legend / old wives tale - let me know.
Article ref. Georgia/NATO membership
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)