# Army Culture



## Joe Blow (20 Oct 2005)

_(Hmm.. Where to put this thread..   ???  Recruiting?  Maybe..  Radio Chatter?  Maybe..  Well, where are the people with the answers?  OK.  I'll put it in Combat Arms.)_

MIKsam posted a cut and paste from the New Glasgow News in the Agent Orange thread.  

Here's the link to the article:
http://www.newglasgownews.com/news.aspx?storyID=41754

Here's the link to the the thread:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27191.150/topicseen.html

I'll spare you the whole article here are a couple of points that made me ask some questions about the culture of the institution I have applied to enter.



> "The government had a whole generation of guys like us," Megeney said. "We were mostly uneducated, children of working people, who were subjected to very dangerous chemicals without our consent.





> Many of the men questioned what they were spraying, Megeney recalled, but were told it wouldn't cause them any harm.
> *"Even if we knew different, you couldn't complain to your superiors back then," he said. "You'd be labelled a complainer and you'd be out. You did what you were told and you kept your mouth shut."*



These two statements say a lot about the culture of the army at the time.  I was hoping that someone could comment on how the culture of the army today might be similar or different.

Also:



> The planes would swoop over the area, dumping the sticky chemicals on the foliage below, then set down and fill their canisters again.  Some people, like George Megeney, were sprayed directly.



They don't do things like that any more ...do they?!  

...and



> Some rubbed against the chemical where it landed on the foliage. Some even drank it, because the only water available while training was from the streams and rivers that had been sprayed.



People know better than this now right?  ...and the system makes sure there is plenty of potable water around?

I'll be flat out honest with you, I'm wieghing a couple of job offers.  Any insight you can give about culture in the combat arms (generally speaking ..but also in reference to the above) would be very much appriciated.

Thx
Joe


----------



## Joe Blow (20 Oct 2005)

...I guess this was moved by a moderator!?  ???

Anyway, I invite replies from anyone, but most especially from those in the combat arms. 

...Which - again - is why I put it in that forum.


----------



## Infanteer (20 Oct 2005)

I moved the thread; the questions you are asking are general in content and are not specific to the Combat Arms.


----------



## Joe Blow (20 Oct 2005)

Let the replies rain down!  Any input is greatly appreciated.


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (20 Oct 2005)

I have decided to erase what I originally started writing as it was kind of harsh. Alot of things were done in the past (both military and civillian) because we as a society didn't know any better.

 Atomic bombs were detonated in the US with soldiers sitting a few miles away watching, cigarettes were advertised as slimming for women, lead paint was used on the walls of hospitals.

 In this day and age with the media constantly looking for a good story, the use of the internet in most Canadian homes, and the ability of public inquiries, do you really think someone would realistically allow anything like that to happen?

 No, you have nothing to worry about. The only time things like that happen these days are totally unintentional situations such as soldiers may go into an area like during the ice storm to help out and afterwards realize they had been standing near a transformer that had broken open and may have released a harmfull substance.

 School kids that went to school in places lined with asbestos were in just as much danger. How would it benefit the armed forces to knowingly put its troops in danger?


----------



## Joe Blow (20 Oct 2005)

Thanks for the reply Shelldrake!!.   

My post was not as clear as it should have been.   I don't suppose that the CF intentionally sprays herbicide on it's soldiers anymore (knowing what they do now), or exposes it's people to any other knowingly harmful substance.   I meant to get at the apparent lack of care taken in the past where there were uncertainties present with regard to consequences of exposure.

Your examples are good too.



> Atomic bombs were detonated in the US with soldiers sitting a few miles away watching, cigarettes were advertised as slimming for women, lead paint was used on the walls of hospitals.





> No, you have nothing to worry about. The only time things like that happen these days are totally unintentional situations



That is reassuring.      Just the info I was looking for.   It sounds like there has been a positive culture change in the Army.  From MIKsam's post it seems like in the past 'unlimited liability' extended so far as to include others being careless with your health ...and that one was encouraged to 'shut up' about it and keep slogging along.  

So, to be clear then, if Pvt. Bloggins was crawling around Gagetown in the middle of some elaborately planned and expensive exercise, and he saw the corner of a buried barrel exposed (or something), and noticed a funny taste in his mouth ..he would be thanked for standing up and saying; "Whoa.. time out.   Something ain't right here.   I don't think we should be here."?

No one would look at him sideways for "complaining"?


----------



## Michael OLeary (20 Oct 2005)

Joe Blow said:
			
		

> So, to be clear then, if Pvt. Bloggins was crawling around Gagetown in the middle of some elaborately planned and expensive exercise, and he saw the corner of a buried barrel exposed (or something), and noticed a funny taste in his mouth ..he would be thanked for standing up and saying; "Whoa.. time out.  Something ain't right here.  I don't think we should be here."?
> 
> No one would look at him sideways for "complaining"?



In fact, it is his responsibility to identify any condition he feels compromises the safety of himself or other exercise participants.

From our current Training Safety manual (B-GL-381-001/TS-000 Training Safety):



> Safety is at once a state of mind and a condition of the training environment. All ranks have a very real responsibility and must work hard to develop and to maintain a high level of safety consciousness and to ensure an accident free environment. Safety consciousness and an accident free environment starts with ensuring correct drills and procedures are followed and taking appropriate steps to ensure an unsafe situation does not develop at any time.


----------



## Sig_Des (21 Oct 2005)

In you example, Pte. Bloggins would probably report what he'd seen up his chain, a noduff would most likely be called (halt to excersise) Area quarantined, Hazmat team called in, any personel who may or had been in contact in said area be tested, etc.

As mentioned, Pte. Bloggins is duty-bound to do so. No one's going to jack you up for following proper procedure to identify a safety hazard.

Now if, instead of reporting it, Pte. Bloggins waits until the ex is over, goes whining to the media about what he'd seen, and create a big brouhaha while ignoring the proper chain, a whole storm of excrement awaits him/her


----------



## Jungle (21 Oct 2005)

The change in Army culture can be summed up in one phrase:
"Our most important resource is our people."


----------



## Michael Dorosh (21 Oct 2005)

Jungle said:
			
		

> The change in Army culture can be summed up in one phrase:
> "Our most important resource is our people."



That isn't a huge change in culture, we simply implement it in different ways now.

In the 1940s cigarettes were issued free to soldiers as a comfort item.   Today they are recognized for what they are -   a harmful and addictive drug.  This wasn't apparent in the 1940s, and the issue of tobacco products was seen as a morale boost with positive medical effects.  Times change.

At the end of WW II, soldiers were granted access to educational initiatives, etc. - but not all veterans were granted access (such as the Merchant Marine.)

Even tactical doctrine in WW II was focussed on preservation of manpower, being artillery based - Crerar's personal motto was "use guns instead of men."

We are simply more aware of environmental issues now, the effects of stress, and how to treat diseases and other problems, including psychological ones.  The previous writers are correct when they say 'we simply didn't know better" - "back in the day."  But despite some embarrassing gaffes, the military has always looked upon manpower as precious and made pains to minimize the effects of hazardous duty on its men and women.


----------



## Jungle (22 Oct 2005)

I'm not sure we would see battles like the Somme or Dieppe these days.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (22 Oct 2005)

Jungle said:
			
		

> I'm not sure we would see battles like the Somme or Dieppe these days.



That has far more to do with the nature of modern warfare than any ideas of "Army culture."  If the entire world was at war and we were fighting against two world powers that were both waging aggressive campaigns to conquer large tracts of territory as well as conducting genocide on millions of people, I rather suspect we would make exactly the same kinds of sacrifices as the 1916 and 1942 generations.  Or at least, I would hope so.  No one in the 1920s thought we would go through the hell of the Somme or Passchendaele again, but in fact the NW European campaign was more dangerous, statistically speaking, to take part in than the First World War had been, with infantry casualties actually being higher in WW II than in WW I on a unit-for-unit and month-by-month basis.

We're simply not likely at all to have to fight such a war again.  If we did, though, I kind of think we would be a little less concerned about putting drip pans under our trucks and more concerned with killing the enemy.


----------



## pbi (22 Oct 2005)

Hi everybody. Good to see the site is still churning and burning. I'd like to chip in by agreeing with the general trend of posters who are reassuring Joe Blow that the Agent Orange business is very unlikely today. I joined in 1974 and I have the great good fortune and privilege to still be serving today. So, I can comment first-hand on the changes in our collective attitudes to soldier safety. 

While I agree with Michael that the Army has probably never been significantly more "careless" or "heartless" than the Canadian society it served, I strongly believe that our experiences in the last decade or so have put us way ahead. We have learned the hard way, in many cases, but we have learned.

If something like Agent Orange were to happen today, I believe that it would only be by sheer accident or unusual negligence. Neither of these is impossible in a human organization like the Army, but I believe we have very, very significantly reduced the risk.

Finally though, let me just remind Joe (and others both in and out of our profession...) that military service is not a "...safe job offer..." While none of us (least of all me) wants to die or be crippled as a result of negligence or stupidity, loss of life and injury in the line of duty are part of the game. The readiness to accept our own sacrifice and that of our fellows is part of what makes us unique. If we can't accept that, we shouldn't be here.

Cheers (and glad to be back).


----------



## Infanteer (22 Oct 2005)

pbi said:
			
		

> Cheers (and glad to be back).



...and good to have you back on these means.  :cheers:

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## reccecrewman (22 Oct 2005)

Just to add onto Micheals post about Gen. Crerar's personal motto, we can alos go back to WWI and look at the painstaking limits that Gen. Sir Arthur Currie took to minimalize Canadian casualties on the Western Front.  Never before had a GOC taken the steps that this great man took to try and have as many of his soldiers still alive after the battle was done.  His preparations on Vimy, Amiens and countless other battles in that war helped Canada's Infantry Battalions take as few causualties possible while getting the job done, and at the same time, giving the Canadian Corps a reputation that no other formation on either side of the Front could match.  This reinforces the idea that even back in those days, our soldiers were valued as an asset not be squandered or whose lives were expendable. Now, Gen. Sir Arthur Currie's counterpart in the British Army Gen. Sir Douglas Haig on the other hand.......................................................


----------



## 3rd Horseman (26 Oct 2005)

Joe Blow, just another positive comment to add to the thread join without fear you are the most important  resource of the CF, dont ever forget it.

  A note on all the Agent Orange hype,

  I was not around back then but served under those that were and I dont believe for a second that any of them would have put soldiers in harms way. That being said the facts about Agent Orange are very clear for those who are inside the mil but appear to be clouded outside. A few points on AO 
   Agent Orange was sprayed (two barrels) in two places on the base by US contractors no forces were near or at ground zero.
   The residual effects of AO are not present enough to rub off onto a soldiers uniform or persist in the soil or water after a period of time. Soldiers did not exercise in the two test areas after the spraying until much later if at all.
  AO is a combination of two herbicides that those same soldiers back in the 60s could have bought at a hardware store for usage on there own lawns.
  The whole thing is just a little blown out of proportion. Not to take away from the real problem of the 20 year herbicide spray program which was conducted by civilians who after long periods of exposure of mixing and spraying probably have gotten ill, they deserve the review and the compensation.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Oct 2005)

Horseman,
You should read this thread....there are certainly those who disagree with you.
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27191.0.html


----------



## 3rd Horseman (26 Oct 2005)

Bruce,

    Thanks for the link, I went over and read in detail many pages of passion, concern and confusion. Many people do have a different opionion on that link but I would say they are not in the know just guessing. I hold the same opinion of the many experts in the field and would trust them over people who are very passionate but without the details. This is an emotional issue and all those people who posted have valid questions and concerns it would appear they need some facts to resolve the issue. The investigation (the 3rd such) will no doubt resolve the issues again. What is keyhere is that AO was a legal chemical used within legal guidlines and no soldiers were purposely exposed (if at all), I think the young soldier who asked the question needs to know that his CF will not expose him to harmfull chemicals. 

   Your posting of a portion of my post (out of context) to that thread will surely get things heated over there, dont know what the motive was but it will be interesting to watch I hold no responsability for the result.


----------



## the 48th regulator (27 Oct 2005)

I am missing something here, how was it posted out of context.

You made the statement, did you not?  And please elaborate your sources so we can see the gist of what you are trying to convey.

dileas

tess

(ready to head to the flag pole and string up the BS flag anytime soon...)


----------



## 3rd Horseman (27 Oct 2005)

48th,

    Context, The thread is about reasuring Joe Blow about the AO issue and how it was not a deliberate thing and that it would not happen to him if he joined as he was the CFs most important asset. To cut the part about just the AO technical observation puts it out of context and purley meant to get a heated discussion started.

   As for the statement it is what it is, if you want the source see the first two investigations into AO at CFB Gagetown.


----------



## the 48th regulator (28 Oct 2005)

nope

I will not source it out, in fact I demand you provide infomation to back it up. Why?

I am tired of people making asinine comments regarding injury and treatment, without a lick of understanding the process.

dileas

tess


----------



## Joe Blow (28 Oct 2005)

I am enjoying the discussion but just wanted to inject a quick thanks for all of your replies.  A particular thanks to Michael O'Leary for the quote from the Training Safety manual.  It is very reassuring to know that this is interpreted in such a way as to imply that everyone has a...



> responsibility to identify any condition he feels compromises the safety of himself or other exercise participants.



I think that does speak to the state of the 'safety culture' - and to the wider culture - of the Army.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (28 Oct 2005)

48th,

    I dont think this is the proper thread to go on about the AO topic. That being said I will try to answer your question. Bare with me because I have never posted a link or quate from another source in the forum.  This should solve your concern on one point if the cut and paste works I will send along the next one.


----------



## the 48th regulator (28 Oct 2005)

It worked,

So are you disputing evidence found of it's use, and discussed by VAC

I mean, what better thread than this to show how the Army culture is, especially from those whose statements's actually hurt those that have been affected, rather than help.

dileas

tess


----------



## 3rd Horseman (28 Oct 2005)

48th,

   Maybe you are right this could be a good place if we discuss it with open minds and scientifically without the emotion found on the other thread. Not that theres anthing wrong with the emotion it is just hard to have a civil conversation when people are hurting. My statements were not meant to hurt they are statements of fact from my sources in no way could the truth be seen as harmfull. 

   As for your last question I dont dispute the findings that AO was used at the base that has always been admitted to and has been general knowledge at base Gagetown for 30 years, I dispute the amount and application and locations claimed by the non informed on the other threat and specifically the so called cover up that has never occurred from my opinion. Read what I said again specifically that I believe the problem is 20 years of herbicides spraying at the base not AO and the ill are manely the civilians who worked on the project

 Next attachment answers your last challenge


----------



## the 48th regulator (28 Oct 2005)

Well then stop the press...

You have got to relay the information from that Doctor, pronto!



> The US Institute of Medicine (IOM) is the leading scientific authority on Agent Orange. The IOM has identified several medical conditions that have an association with Agent Orange exposure. These conditions include:
> 
> soft-tissue sarcoma
> non-Hodgkin's lymphoma
> ...



Make sure the IOM gets a read of that report.



> Read what I said again specifically that I believe the problem is 20 years of herbicides spraying at the base not AO and the ill are mainly the civilians who worked on the project



And that exonerates the liability?  Or are you stating that any military personnel that claims an ill associated with the spraying, is misinformed and should not bother with a  claim?

dileas

tess


----------

