# Military Essay - I Need help



## Freerider (30 Oct 2005)

Believe me I don't like this probably as much as all of you will. I am in my last year of highschool and in a university philosophy class. For my major essay my teacher asked if I would do the topic Authoritarianism in the Military. Its a pretty broad topic which I am almost thankful for. If anyone knows any information that may help me support my thesis that paraphrased basically is 'Soldiers who disobey a direct order than intern had a positive affect in community don't deserve to be punished for their actions' don't worry its not that poorly written. My teacher selected the topic and the point of view I had to take.

My sources must be recent and examples no earlier than 1939. I am looking at the Canadian Military specifically. Thanks for your time.


----------



## Michael OLeary (31 Oct 2005)

You may want to search on the term "illegal order" as a start to consider instances where a soldier is justified in disobeying an issued order.

Other aspects that come to mind that may need better definition to situate your thesis include:

 - whose viewpoint is used to define "positive effect in community"?
 - define that community (the military unit, the township or other jurisdiction within which the military operations take place, .... etc.)
 - what would be the "acceptable" loss in unit cohesion/discipline/etc at the cost of an external "positve effect"; and who gets to decide that balance?

You teacher seems to have prejudged the case, without a clear understanding of the military social environment to start with. 

It would appear that he/she would decide that a mutiny that makes a unit incapable of launching an attack in which collateral damage might include non-combatants would be an acceptable action because it prevented those deaths at the cost of the operation and its resultant effects. Yet, conversely, the damage to the military community could be devastating.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (31 Oct 2005)

Please define positive affect in community and how it relates to refusal to follow order, lawful order unlawful?
Tought teacher!


----------



## geo (31 Oct 2005)

"It would appear that he/she would decide that a mutiny that makes a unit incapable of launching an attack in which collateral damage might include non-combatants would be an acceptable action because it prevented those deaths at the cost of the operation and its resultant effects. Yet, conversely, the damage to the military community could be devastating."

Notwithstanding the fact that, mutiny during combat ops would usually have the effect of drastic measures being taken to restore order.... in jail forever if you are unlucky - or a quick death if you aren't :|


----------



## UberCree (31 Oct 2005)

Freerider said:
			
		

> Believe me I don't like this probably as much as all of you will. I am in my last year of highschool and in a university philosophy class. For my major essay my teacher asked if I would do the topic Authoritarianism in the Military. Its a pretty broad topic which I am almost thankful for. If anyone knows any information that may help me support my thesis that paraphrased basically is 'Soldiers who disobey a direct order than intern had a positive affect in community don't deserve to be punished for their actions' don't worry its not that poorly written. My teacher selected the topic and the point of view I had to take.
> 
> My sources must be recent and examples no earlier than 1939. I am looking at the Canadian Military specifically. Thanks for your time.



You should write an essay on shitty teachers and the shity essay's they make their students write, you can title it "Authoritarianism in Teaching: Masking Bias in the Classroom..."  Philosphy my ass.
Philosphy is about thinking not propoganda.


----------



## Old Sweat (31 Oct 2005)

The topic is passing strange to me and probably reflects a bias on the part of your teacher. However, there were at least two occasions in the campaign in North West Europe where brigade and/or battalion commanders refused to continue an attack because they had lost confidence in their superior officer. The better known took place during Operation Spring circa 25 July 1944 in Normandy when the commander of 9 Canadian Infantry Brigade and two of his battalion commanders took this extreme step. They were relieved but escaped further disciplinary action, perhaps because the divisional commander was in danger of being canned himself for his poor performance.

To do so is a drastic step and a group of soldiers that tried something along those lines would likely not get as sympathetic a hearing. One could argue that they took the right, if not the militarily correct, step.


----------



## Chimo (31 Oct 2005)

I would suggest you write an article on helicopter pilot WO Hugh Thompson, who when witnessing the Mai Lai Massacre, placed his aircraft between the American soldiers and the Viet villagers. He then ordered his crew to shot any Americans that continued to kill civilians. 

To give American Soldiers to shot their own would at the outset of any argument would appear to be wrong. However, if the order was used to stop an atrocity and is justifiable then it is correct and legal. I have copy a small part of an editorial and provided the link. 

Personal, the framing of the teachers thesis seems to appear somewhat slanted and anti- military in context, however, I wish you luck in showing her/him that Soldiers more times then not do the right think and represent the very best values a nation can provide. 

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/mostert/040518


"While even today nearly everyone knows the name of Lt. William Calley, who was court-martialed for the Mai Lai massacre, few today know the name of Hugh Thompson, the helicopter pilot who stopped the massacre and promptly reported it to his commander. According to Chief My Lai prosecutor William Eckhardt, when Thompson realized what was happening "He put his helicopter down, put his guns on Americans, and said he would shoot them if they shot another Vietnamese. He then had his people wade in the ditch in gore to their knees, to their hips, took out children, took them to the hospital...flew back [to headquarters], standing in front of people, tears rolling down his cheeks, pounding on the table saying, 'Notice, notice, notice'...then had the courage to testify time after time after time.""


----------



## Infanteer (31 Oct 2005)

UberCree said:
			
		

> You should write an essay on shitty teachers and the shity essay's they make their students write, you can title it "Authoritarianism in Teaching: Masking Bias in the Classroom..."   Philosphy my ***.
> Philosphy is about thinking not propoganda.



Do this one.  Well, do your essay, let me write this one, and hand it in as well.


----------



## geo (31 Oct 2005)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> The topic is passing strange to me and probably reflects a bias on the part of your teacher. However, there were at least two occasions in the campaign in North West Europe where brigade and/or battalion commanders refused to continue an attack because they had lost confidence in their superior officer. The better known took place during Operation Spring circa 25 July 1944 in Normandy when the commander of 9 Canadian Infantry Brigade and two of his battalion commanders took this extreme step. They were relieved but escaped further disciplinary action, perhaps because the divisional commander was in danger of being canned himself for his poor performance.
> 
> To do so is a drastic step and a group of soldiers that tried something along those lines would likely not get as sympathetic a hearing. One could argue that they took the right, if not the militarily correct, step.



a former CO of my 1st unit was a Bde commander that was bumped down for refusing an order that was proven to be wrong.... he lost his Bde, was brought back down to LCol and uhhh.... never saw another command.... but I take my hat off to him.


----------



## Freerider (1 Nov 2005)

Such good ideas an examples. Thanks a lot everyone. believe me my teacher is very strange in matters like this. He is very unclear about what he expects out of this writing. If there's anything else that anyone can think of it would be greatly appreciated. Oh and by the way, if anyone feels like writing this for me feel free. Ha ha I am just kidding around.

I just have one last thing. I remember a long time ago, a Warrant told me about a sergeant in Bosnia who witnessed the murder and torture of villagers by opposing forces and were ordered not to interfere but the next night when it happened again he and his men attacked to try and save the people. He faced punishment or something for his actions though they seemed lawful. Anyone else hear about this or was the warrant just telling stories?


----------



## paracowboy (1 Nov 2005)

sounds a little fishy to me, but stranger things have happened I suppose.

Have you considered delivering a throat-punch to your butt-munch teacher? (Hey, that could be worked into a rhyme!)

And, what's up with you and the pole in your picture, there?


----------



## Freerider (1 Nov 2005)

Some how I don't think that would work so well with me trying to get into university. After all I need a good mark in this class. Sucks eh?

As for the pole and I. My friends and I had a competition at Loon New Hampshire and we had a little to much to drink, made a scavenger hunt, one of the things was make out with a pole, so I did it and that's the picture.


----------



## TCBF (1 Nov 2005)

"Authoritarian (autocratic)
This style is used when the leader tells her employees what she wants done and how she wants it done, without getting the advice of her followers. Some of the appropriate conditions to use it is when you have all the information to solve the problem, you are short on time, and your employees are well motivated. 
Some people tend to think of this style as a vehicle for yelling, using demeaning language, and leading by threats and abusing their power. This is not the authoritarian style...rather it is an abusive, unprofessional style called bossing people around. it has no place in a leaders repertoire. 

The authoritarian style should normally only be used on rare occasions. If you have the time and want to gain more commitment and motivation from your employees, then you should use the participative "

-style.http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/leadstl.html

A start.  Keep it broad.  So much happens so fast, that authoritarian is needed to avoid useles carnage.  Indeed, authoritarian SAVES more deaths than it causes.  Imagine the stored violence of a military unit out of control suddenly unleashed wihout direction.  There is a good case to be made here for  dynamic leaders surgically applying ALL types of leadership.  Make it.

Nice to have a chance to educate a teacher, isnt it?

Tom


----------



## 3rd Horseman (1 Nov 2005)

Free Rider,

    Good luck and yes there are incidents that have a similar ring to them as your warrant described, I know of a few such situations. Watch the movie Op Tango (3 hour mini series) it depicts a very waterdown version of a similar event. Watered down so it would withstand normal Canadian TV.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Nov 2005)

Perhaps some anecdotal evidence will help, a bit.

Many, many decades back, when I was a young soldier, I used to make known my concerns about various and sundry things such as polishing the backs of our buttons and the insteps of our boots.  These little _requirements_ were imposed upon us, now and again, in a totally autocratic manner by corporals and sergeants who were, in turn, responding to warrant officers and officers.

Once, having said my piece, whilst earnestly painting a rock or, more likely, applying thin strips of blue, gold and black paint to a curb, I found myself in a 'conversation' with an NCO - an NCO with, _inter alia_, an MM on his chest - leading a fair 'rack' of service medals and campaign stars.  Having satisfied himself that I was not a bit of pond scum too many miles from shore he explained: _"big and busy and crowded as the battlefield is, lad, you are often - way too often for comfort - all by your lonesome.  There is no one to tell you what to do or how to do it now; you have to decide for yourself.  It's a very confusing, frightening place, not just the first time, either, and it's hard to think things through and remember battle-drills and procedures so we all need to do the right thing the first time, instinctively.  The way we do that is by overcoming our fear; what helps us to overcome our fear is our sure and certain knowledge that there are 'right things' to do and 'right ways' to do them.  No one will tell you, you have to know, all this BS, the shining and painting and polishing and playing at toy soldiers on parade is designed to provide you with tools to overcome your fear and to do the right thing, the right way, right now.  We do all this to you in the comfort of a peacetime camp because you have to do it for yourself when it really counts."_

So yes, there is _autocracy_ but, very often, the individual soldier is on his own - perhaps part of a small team - and (s)he/they must dig deep to overcome their natural, human fear and then do whatever is necessary.  The _autocracy_ of military discipline and training helps to 'stiffen' them.


----------



## teltech (1 Nov 2005)

(Call me the confused philosopher ???)

The way I see things there is only one type of discipline that counts - SELF discipline. A superior can attempt to impose discipline, but the individual must be willing to accept it Yes, someone who disobeys a direct order can be punished, but if the punishment does not change the ways of the individual, then there is no discipline.  Some people willingly accept imposed discipline, and some will never accept "being told what to do". In between the extremes are most people - willing to do what they have been told to do, but little else (usually avoids volunteering for extra tasks, for example) and those who "seek and accept responsibility" (Where have I heard that before?). To do the tasks without being told shows a higher level of self discipline than those who "go along, get along". To do a task that involves great personal sacrifice, and to do it without hesitation shows great self discipline. To motivate others by your example of self discipline is a part of LEADERSHIP.
Sorry for the rambling, need to go to bed earlier...


----------



## geo (1 Nov 2005)

Edward.... ergo the term "drill".... battle drills or ceremonial drills, out to do the same thing.... do things in a continuous manner till it becomes second nature. Eventualy, when you are out on your lonesome with no one to give you orders or instructions... you push instinct (and pucker factor) to the side and follow your drills.


----------



## Freerider (1 Nov 2005)

Okay, I have decided to take a different turn in my essay just to play against what my teacher is kind of stating because he obviously feels the millitary is nothing more than one guy telling us all what to do and that's wrong. I however can not write an essay on what I don't believe so I am turning my ideas around and saying that we need set regulations in the army to prevent idiots with weapons in their hands from doing something stupid and possibly harming a civilian or another soldier. I can still use some good examples because the ones I have are basically the My Lai Massacre and the the March 4th 1993 incident in Africa. If anyone else has any additional information that would help me I would love to hear about it. If anyone has a statement to make then please post it here along with your information so I can include in my text.

I better get a 90 on this paper.


----------



## geo (1 Nov 2005)

freeride,
The army does not want a bunch of drones. We train our troops to work and make decisions at the section level (our lowest level).... The rifle section even has "it" broken down into fire & movement teams.... certainly receiving orders from up above but provided with the training and resources to operate independently.

Members of engineer sections are all trained in small party tasks, they are expected to think for themselves, analyse problems and with their "mates" solve the problem.

There was a time when the Soviet (conscript) army would train only it's officers in mapreading and other essential military skills. The troops were expected to OBEY.

If your teacher is looking for drones... he's looking in the wrong woodpile IMHO


----------



## paracowboy (1 Nov 2005)

geo said:
			
		

> freeride,
> The army does not want a bunch of drones. We train our troops to work and make decisions at the section level (our lowest level).... The rifle section even has "it" broken down into fire & movement teams.... certainly receiving orders from up above but provided with the training and resources to operate independently.


Tactical Corporal. Do some research on the phrase, and it should arm you for your paper.


----------



## Michael OLeary (1 Nov 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> Tactical Corporal. Do some research on the phrase, and it should arm you for your paper.



I believe that's "Strategic Corporal".


----------



## geo (1 Nov 2005)

Strategic Corporal, check!


----------



## Freerider (1 Nov 2005)

Strategic Corporal? Never heard of it. I will look it up


----------



## geo (1 Nov 2005)

Strategic Corporal
Three block war.....


----------



## DG-41 (1 Nov 2005)

It is probably worth mentioning - especially in an open-ended subject like philosophy - that the reason your teacher is being so vague is that he really doesn't care about the actual answer, but rather the aim of the exercise is to see if you are capable of forming an opinion about a subject, and then supporting that opinion via a well-written, well-researched essay.

If so, then your focus should be on forming that opinion (whatever it may be) doing the research to pull up supporting facts, and then crafting it all together into a single, cohesive, and compelling whole.

The thing to remember is that an essay is a very specific type of document. It is an argument, in which you are trying to sway someone to your point of view without being physically present. Unlike debate or discussion, there is no back-and-forth in an essay; it (and its argument) must stand on its own merits.

There is a formal structure to an essay: topic sentence and introduction, supporting arguments, each with a cited fact or example (usually best grouped in threes) and a summary and conclusion.That structure is important - it is the bones upon which you flesh out your argument. If you haven't been taught this already, do some reading on the hows and wherefores of essay writing.

The meat of your essay is the supporting arguments and the cited facts that support them in turn. This is where you can get a lot of help here, as you can get leads on potential facts from lots of regular forum members (as you are doing now)

But the start point is to come up with your topic sentence; the point you intend to prove. One might be "While the demands of the battlefield require a more authoritarian approach than is typically found in civiallian life, soldiers are not mindless drones following orders, but rather have considerable leeway to decide their own fate". Another might be "While soldiers are required to surrender certain aspects of their free will during the conduct of their duties, the end result of that surrender, when tied to responsible and moral political leadership, is a net positive for the community as a whole".

Etc.

Good luck!

DG


----------



## paracowboy (1 Nov 2005)

hmm, I have always heard it referred to as 'Tactical', but 'Strategic' certainly fits the bill better. 

And, I'm still pissed that a stupid pole is getting more action than me! Pretty young girls kissin' poles when I'm standing right here, all kissable an' shit...bloody bollocks right there!


----------



## Infanteer (1 Nov 2005)

Here's one for biased teachers.

I work out with a guy who is a HS teacher.  Recently, BC teachers went on strike about a government bill regarding their bargining status.  The strike was considered illegal by the court but the BCTF refused to go back to work.  However, this guy decides to cross the picket line because he refuses to break the law.  He gets taunted, union bullies show up at his wife's place of work and try to intimidate her, etc, etc.  Anyways, the teachers cave the next week and go back to work.

So, given that the teachers ultimately gave into the demands of the government and the court to return the work, were the other teachers who illegally stayed on the picket line (and screwed the parents who payed their wages over) in the wrong?  Was the action of crossing the picket line by the one guy ultimately the right one to take?

Send that to your teacher.


----------



## paracowboy (1 Nov 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> hmm, I have always heard it referred to as 'Tactical', but 'Strategic' certainly fits the bill better.


I mis-remembered (what a wonderful word! Sounds so much better than "I had a senior moment and confused 'Tactical' with 'Strategic', 'cause I'm a dumbass" doesn't it?) I feel shame...



> And, I'm still pissed that a stupid pole is getting more action than me! Pretty young girls kissin' poles when I'm standing right here, all kissable an' crap...bloody bollocks right there!


this still applies!


----------



## Freerider (1 Nov 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> And, I'm still pissed that a stupid pole is getting more action than me! Pretty young girls kissin' poles when I'm standing right here, all kissable an' crap...bloody bollocks right there!



To be young again eh?


----------



## redleafjumper (2 Nov 2005)

As a 'teacher' that sometimes assigns interesting topics to students, I have some suggestions.  

First, write down the purpose of the report in one sentence.  Based on the posts so far, your topic sentence does not seem clear.  

Second, make an outline of your essay. The outline is critical to the success of your essay or research report.  Without one you will likely write in a disorganized fashion, get a poor mark, and mistakenly think that you got that mark because the teacher disagreed with you.  Make headings that arise from that outline and use them in your paper to force you to write in a coherent fashion.  If the expectation is that there not be any headings as coherence devices (some essays), then remove them when you have finished writing.  

Third, write an introduction that provides the aim and objectives of the report.  Focus your paper on a particular point of view that is clear from your topic sentence.  

Fourth, present the information that both challenges and supports that view in the body of your paper.  Refute the challenges where possible.  Provide a balanced look at the issue.   Provide sources for the information that you are supplying so that your instructor can see that you are not merely plagiarizing the work of others.  

Finally, write a conclusion that does not contain any new information, but clearly states (summarizes) what you have learned from your research.  If appropriate for the paper make recommendations.  

Regardless of the point of view that your instructor has assigned, realize that the main objective is not for you to parrot what you perceive that the teacher wants to hear, but that you present an argument in a coherent and rational fashion.

Good luck on your paper.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Nov 2005)

This sounds quite interesting. If you don't mind, could you post your finished product here for the forum to peruse?


----------



## Freerider (2 Nov 2005)

Yes I will post the finished product for all of you to critic. Just don't be too harsh ....


----------

