# What makes a good soldier?



## Keyboard (7 Apr 2008)

I've been reading around this forum for a while, and I've got a question.  I keep reading about Reserve Force soldiers trying out and making it through JTF-2 selection and the SOAC.  Now, whenever someone describes a Reserve Soldier who has gone to selection, they are described as "switched on", or being "hardcore".  Now, what I'm trying to ask here, is what does someone mean when they say a soldier is "switched on", and what kind of character traits are the elite units looking for?  I would imagine, professionalism, dedication and maturity are key, but what other traits would a Reserve Soldier be able to work on to improve one's soldiering ability, as well as the chance of making it through selection if one were so inclined to try out?

Any insight is appreciated.

Thanks!


----------



## 2 Cdo (10 Apr 2008)

Keyboard said:
			
		

> I've been reading around this forum for a while, and I've got a question.  I keep reading about Reserve Force soldiers trying out and making it through JTF-2 selection and the SOAC.  Now, whenever someone describes a Reserve Soldier who has gone to selection, they are described as "switched on", or being "hardcore".  Now, what I'm trying to ask here, is what does someone mean when they say a soldier is "switched on", and what kind of character traits are the elite units looking for?  I would imagine, *professionalism, dedication and maturity * are key, but what other traits would a Reserve Soldier be able to work on to improve one's soldiering ability, as well as the chance of making it through selection if one were so inclined to try out?
> 
> Any insight is appreciated.
> 
> Thanks!



Intelligence would be an asset, as would mental and physical toughness. Ability to work as a member of a team.


----------



## geo (10 Apr 2008)

Knows his trade and is able to apply what he has learnt - Proffessional
Physicaly fit
Has a head on his shoulder
Uses initiative
Able to act & react
Team player
Natural leader
Leads by example


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (10 Apr 2008)

IMO, that question has no answer..........no one knows what will happen to any individual until the poop is flung. 

..and, thats where I think good soldier's/ people are made, not on course's, etc.


----------



## 2 Cdo (10 Apr 2008)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> IMO, that question has no answer..........no one knows what will happen to any individual until the poop is flung.
> 
> ..and, thats where I think good soldier's/ people are made, not on course's, etc.



So true Bruce. I have seen troops who seemed to be the "poster child" for JTF fail selection, and at the same time seen guys who nobody gave a rats ass of a chance who not only passed selection but then went on to become a valuable member of the unit.


----------



## GUNS (10 Apr 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> *Knows his trade and is able to apply what he has learnt - Proffessional
> Physicaly fit
> Has a head on his shoulder
> Uses initiative
> ...



IMHO - good soldiers are born to be soldiers. Everyone else have to work their butts off.


----------



## dapaterson (10 Apr 2008)

GUNS said:
			
		

> IMHO - good soldiers are born to be soldiers. *Everyone else have to work their butts off*.



I'd change that to read:

Everyone has to work their butts off.


----------



## Red 6 (10 Apr 2008)

New Soldiers are like blank slates waiting to be filled with information. In basic training, they get the entry level instruction in tactics and techniques of their MOS, but the learning never stops. The combat arms (that's my frame of reference, so that's why I specify) are extremely complex and there are layers upon layers that make up the whole. Every team relies on every other team, and every sub-team, and every Soldier within all those sub-teams. I would go so far as to say that many Soldiers don't grasp how complicated the Army is. Especially in peacetime, you never see the thing in in full mass, even on maneuvers like the old REFORGERs. On CALFEX ranges you begin to see the complexity when combat teams move, shoot and communicate with live ammo and supporting arms.

These are the US Army's leadership principles and they go back many, many years. They've been tested and proven again and again in combat and training. I think they offer a great view of not only what it takes to be an effective leader, but to be a follower as well.

The U.S. Army's Eleven Leadership Principles

    * Be tactically and technically proficient
    * Know yourself and seek self-improvement
    * Know your soldiers and look out for their welfare
    * Keep your soldiers informed
    * Set the example
    * Ensure the task is understood, supervised and accomplished
    * Train your soldiers as a team
    * Make sound and timely decisions
    * Develop a sense of responsibility in your subordinates
    * Employ your unit in accordance with its capabilities
    * Seek responsibility and take responsibility for your actions

cheers, Mark


----------



## medaid (10 Apr 2008)

Mark, those seem very similar to our Principles of Leadership


----------



## Red 6 (10 Apr 2008)

That doesn't surprise me MedTech. When you strip away all the unique things of nationality, the core of soldiering is the same whether you're a Canadian, American, Australian, etc.


----------



## sigtech (10 Apr 2008)

"One More Step"
I read this on the back of a RMC students shirt and I said to my self , self "now that sums it up doesn't it"

No matter how hard things get
No matter if you have no sleep
No matter what

"One More Step"

The ability to keep soldiering on no matter what and telling you just "One More Step"

That is what makes a good soldier 

If you keep stepping forward others will see and fall in behind.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Apr 2008)

integrity, loyalty, selflessness.

strength of mind, body and character.

compassion.


----------



## Greymatters (10 Apr 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Strength of mind, body and character.



If you added 'and ethics' I would say that sums it all up.  Everything else is gravy...


----------



## medaid (10 Apr 2008)

Honesty, Integrity, Professionalism, Compassion, Accountability and Respect

That's what I believe in... and that's what I believe any good soldier should have.


----------



## Love793 (10 Apr 2008)

MedTech said:
			
		

> Honesty, Integrity, Professionalism, Compassion, Accountability and Respect
> 
> That's what I believe in... and that's what I believe any good soldier should have.



... add to that the heart and soul to serve and sacrifice.


----------



## daftandbarmy (11 Apr 2008)

MedTech said:
			
		

> Mark, those seem very similar to our Principles of Leadership



Yes, and guess where we got them from? I beleive that they were orignally published in a US Army manual in the 70s.


----------



## 1feral1 (11 Apr 2008)

To sum up, courage, mateship, and teamwork.

Sound fair?


----------



## medaid (11 Apr 2008)

Daft, that's interesting never knew that ;D


----------



## Byerly (11 Apr 2008)

MedTech - The RCMP would love you.

Stu


----------



## belka (11 Apr 2008)

Timmies runs in the mornings would send you up the chain quick.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Apr 2008)

NINJA said:
			
		

> Timmies runs in the mornings would send you up the chain quick.



Leave it to a zoomie...


----------



## Kat Stevens (11 Apr 2008)

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women.


----------



## CougarKing (11 Apr 2008)

Red 6 said:
			
		

> New Soldiers are like blank slates waiting to be filled with information. In basic training, they get the entry level instruction in tactics and techniques of their MOS, but the learning never stops. The combat arms (that's my frame of reference, so that's why I specify) are extremely complex and there are layers upon layers that make up the whole. Every team relies on every other team, and every sub-team, and every Soldier within all those sub-teams. I would go so far as to say that many Soldiers don't grasp how complicated the Army is. Especially in peacetime, you never see the thing in in full mass, even on maneuvers like the old REFORGERs. On CALFEX ranges you begin to see the complexity when combat teams move, shoot and communicate with live ammo and supporting arms.
> 
> These are the US Army's leadership principles and they go back many, many years. They've been tested and proven again and again in combat and training. I think they offer a great view of not only what it takes to be an effective leader, but to be a follower as well.
> 
> ...



Mark,

So the US Army's 7-8 core values of Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Service, Honor, Integrity, Personal Courage, Gratitude are emphasized sparingly in today's US Army, compared to the above leadership principles? What about the 3 General Orders?


----------



## Rice0031 (11 Apr 2008)

So, all the keys I've learned to be a good soldier (rape; loot; pillage; burninate the peasants) are all wrong?


----------



## Keyboard (12 Apr 2008)

Thanks for all the responses so far.  When I join the reserves, I will definitely do my best to integrate all of these things, until then I can work on these as a civilian.  

Thanks again!


----------



## Greymatters (12 Apr 2008)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women.



A bit out of date that one...


----------



## medaid (12 Apr 2008)

Stu said:
			
		

> MedTech - The RCMP would love you.
> 
> Stu



Stu,

   Only when they need me. When it's convenient they'll kick me out.


----------



## Red 6 (12 Apr 2008)

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> Mark,
> 
> So the US Army's 7-8 core values of Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Service, Honor, Integrity, Personal Courage, Gratitude are emphasized sparingly in today's US Army, compared to the above leadership principles? What about the 3 General Orders?



Techy, The three general orders are specific to guard duty and they detail what a sentry's duties are. The Army hands out dog tags with the core values on them that Soldiers can put on their dog tag chains and also, the Army issues laminated cards with the core values on them. I remember back in the 80s when the US Army started the (overt) mindset of ethics and ethical actions. They came out with the four soldierly virtues, which ultimately morphed into the core values. The original ones were Courage, Competence, Candor and Commitment. I always liked these because they're easy to remember. 

West Point's motto is Duty, Honor, Country, which may be the best of all possible sets of core traits of the soldier. The Army (any army) can give you a set of words to memorize for promotion boards, Soldier of the Quarter, or whatever. But more importantly, what is it that makes you as a Soldier different from guy with a gun and a uniform that represents a brutal regime with no ethics? At the point of contat with the enemy, human instinct has hard wired us to do one of two things - fight or run. The training you get, the unit you serve in, the uniform you wear; they are all intended to push you into doing the right thing at that moment. But at that moment of truth, you as a Soldier have to make the decision. Here's one of my favorite quotes. It's from "Fix Bayonets" by Capt John Thomason. (published in 1926):

"There is nothing particularly glorious about sweaty fellows, laden with killing tools, going along to fight. And yet — such a column represents a great deal more than 28,000 individuals mustered into a division. All that is behind those men is in that column, too: the old battles, long forgotten, that secured our nation — traditions of things endured, and things accomplished such as regiments hand down forever...”

Right now here in Eugene, there's a murder trial going on that involves a former Navy Corpsman who did a failure drill on his wife a couple of years ago. It's a long story and terrible in the extreme. This guy was stationed at the Pentagon on 9-11 and basically experienced the whole thing. He then volunteered to be a Corpsman and was assigned to the Fleet Marine Force, but never saw combat. He and his wife had a child and were having marital trouble. They were separated and were in a custody dispute over the baby. So this guy went over to the wife's house with some duct tape, and a shotgun. As police officers were trying to force entry, he executed his wife with a failure drill and then surrendered to the police.

Since there's no possible way in the world this guy can claim he didn't do it, his defense is that he was traumatized by his experiences on 9-11 and that his training turned him into a killing machine. Here's the link to the story in the Eugene Register Guard from 4-10-08.

http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/dt.cms.support.viewStory.cls?cid=90982&sid=4&fid=2

This guy's arguing that, in effect, "it's the Marine Corps' fault" since they supposedly conditioned him to be a killing machine. But what he conveniently leaves out is the ethical training he received while he was in the service. As military members of ethics-based military forces, we are at the tip of the spear in deciding how to employ our weapons and tactics. Do it right and no one outside of our small circle will know. Get it wrong, especially out of vengeance or retribution, and the world will probably know tomorrow morning.

cheers and have a great weekend,
Mark


----------



## medaid (12 Apr 2008)

Mark,

    That man is a douche bag. He was in the Navy and only attached to the Marines. His first and foremost duty was to provide medical care to troops, and that involves compassion, empathy, respect, integrity, honesty so on and so forth. He was unfit to wear the uniform. He was unfit to call himself a father.


----------



## Red 6 (12 Apr 2008)

I agree with you 110% Medtech.


----------



## CougarKing (12 Apr 2008)

Red 6 said:
			
		

> *Techy*, The three general orders are specific...



Mark,

Thanks for the reply. However, my name's not Techy.  ;D Good to hear that your weather is good down there in the Williamette Valley as you said in your PM. It's great here too in Richmond, BC.


----------



## Greymatters (12 Apr 2008)

MedTech said:
			
		

> That man is a douche bag. He was in the Navy and only attached to the Marines. His first and foremost duty was to provide medical care to troops, and that involves compassion, empathy, respect, integrity, honesty so on and so forth. He was unfit to wear the uniform. He was unfit to call himself a father.



The shame of it is that too many people out there will agree that it was the Corps fault, because thats the story they heard and they never checked for any of the associated facts left out...


----------



## medaid (13 Apr 2008)

GM agreed mate. It's always easier to blame the institution then the people who has made the mistake. The only fault the Corps had in this matter was not screening him and helping this guy before he went postal. Then again the Navy is so big...


----------



## Greymatters (13 Apr 2008)

I was thinking more of people who already have a prejudiced opinion of the military, regardless of what branch of service.  In their minds, every military member is a killer of innocents and the story is merely a tool for propogating their opinions...


----------



## Armymedic (13 Apr 2008)

Keyboard said:
			
		

> I've been reading around this forum for a while, and I've got a question.  I keep reading about Reserve Force soldiers trying out and making it through JTF-2 selection and the SOAC.  Now, whenever someone describes a Reserve Soldier who has gone to selection, they are described as "switched on", or being "hardcore".  Now, what I'm trying to ask here, is what does someone mean when they say a soldier is "switched on", and what kind of character traits are the elite units looking for?  I would imagine, professionalism, dedication and maturity are key, but what other traits would a Reserve Soldier be able to work on to improve one's soldiering ability, as well as the chance of making it through selection if one were so inclined to try out?!



You may be surprised to hear that, occasionally, those traits which describe a good soldier, are not necessarily the same as those of a good Assaulter. Assaulters tend to be those guys who were the captains of their hockey team, the "jocks", and guys who are just generally good at whatever they do. There are several personality traits that make those guys what they are, and which no one on this site can or would possibly be able to discuss.

But a 'good soldier'. Many of us have an accurate description of what one is. There is also several great soldiers on this site. But there is not one single answer to your question. It is all a matter of perspective.


----------



## Greymatters (13 Apr 2008)

St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> But there is not one single answer to your question. It is all a matter of perspective.



I think the past three pages have demonstrated that amply... nice summary!


----------



## sigtech (14 Apr 2008)

St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> You may be surprised to hear that, occasionally, those traits which describe a good soldier, are not necessarily the same as those of a good Assaulter. Assaulters tend to be those guys who were the captains of their hockey team, the "jocks", and guys who are just generally good at whatever they do. There are several personality traits that make those guys what they are, and which no one on this site can or would possibly be able to discuss.
> 
> But a 'good soldier'. Many of us have an accurate description of what one is. There is also several great soldiers on this site. But there is not one single answer to your question. It is all a matter of perspective.


Good way of putting about what it takes to be a good Assaulter, mite want to add slightly left of center. Assaulters are defiantly not cut from the same cloth that most good soldiers are, they are there own breed. It is men/women like those in the JTF that are willing to go where most don't want to go and if ordered to would probally look at the person given the order and say " are you nuts"


----------



## geo (14 Apr 2008)

Ummm... many great field soldiers find themselves in the dog house once they get back into garrison...


----------



## RiverDriver (14 Apr 2008)

Flexibility: Responsive to change and adaptable.


----------



## sigtech (14 Apr 2008)

Follows Orders , understands policy and procedure yet is able to be flexable within the constraints placed upon us.


----------



## Red 6 (14 Apr 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> Ummm... many great field soldiers find themselves in the dog house once they get back into garrison...



From time to time during my career, I ran across Soldiers who had trouble in garrison, but seemed to shine in the field. I even went to bat a few times for guys like this who worked for me. But over the years, I came to the realization that there is no such animal as a "good garrison Soldier" or a "good field Soldier." It's like being half pregnant.


----------



## Yrys (14 Apr 2008)

Red 6 said:
			
		

> From time to time during my career, I ran across Soldiers who had trouble in garrison, but seemed to shine in the field. But over the years, I came to the realization that there is no such animal as a "good garrison Soldier" or a "good field Soldier."



Could you explain the contradictions between the firt and third sentence please (puzzled civil here) ?


----------



## Red 6 (14 Apr 2008)

It's not a contradiction, Yrys. It's me explaining that I had guys from time to time that worked for me who had trouble with disciplinary issues, etc, that I went to bat for, usually a track commander. Later on in my career, I came to the realization that guys who screw up in garrison, but not in the field, aren't doing their job. I'm not talking about the occasional foul-up, but guys who do stuff that's just wrong. 

If you have a Soldier in your squad who does a good job in the field, but uses meth when he's off duty, under the "he's a good field Soldier, but not in garrison" theory, what's the problem? That's an extreme example, but hopefully it illustrates my point.


----------



## geo (14 Apr 2008)

Mmmm.... 
While I concurr with you in many respects Red6 - the half pregnant animal does exist.
We're not talking about meth users or anything that is that extreme.... but, he was a pain in the a$$ in garrison.  All in all, I found that he got bored with his garrison duties and started to look for "interesting things to do".  He was a masterful scrounger and brillinat in the field - would have his boys on steaks & baked potatoes in the field - when everyone else was on IMPs or a poor excuse of hot rations....  However, after defending him for several years, he stepped on his D1ck one time too many and .... ciao!


----------



## Red 6 (14 Apr 2008)

I used the meth example because I had a Soldier (specialist/E-4) in my company once who popped positive for meth on a urinalysis. His PSG and PL wanted to keep him because he was a "good in the field." I called the PSG and asked what he would've done if the Soldier had used meth in the field. The PSG said something to the effect of, "send him to the CO for an article 15." I asked, "what's the difference between being in the field and doing something wrong, and being in garrison and doing the same thing?"

cheers, Mark


----------



## geo (14 Apr 2008)

Well, I would have to concurre 100% with you on that call.... 
But in my case it was a Pl Sgt who really took care of his troops but didn't have much time for garrison chicken $h1t.
For a long time it was relatively simple to overlook.... but over time, it got progressively worse - till the day when things went wrong at home between him and the Mrs.  In the end, he was encouraged to release.... I still see him from time to time - he's even thanked me for having given him an ultimatum to get his crap together and look after his family.


----------



## Red 6 (14 Apr 2008)

I can see where that would be a tough call.


----------



## geo (14 Apr 2008)

... like I said... Half pregnant does exist


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Apr 2008)

Keyboard said:
			
		

> I've been reading around this forum for a while, and I've got a question.  I keep reading about Reserve Force soldiers trying out and making it through JTF-2 selection and the SOAC.  Now, whenever someone describes a Reserve Soldier who has gone to selection, they are described as "switched on", or being "hardcore".  Now, what I'm trying to ask here, is what does someone mean when they say a soldier is "switched on", and what kind of character traits are the elite units looking for?  I would imagine, professionalism, dedication and maturity are key, but what other traits would a Reserve Soldier be able to work on to improve one's soldiering ability, as well as the chance of making it through selection if one were so inclined to try out?
> 
> Any insight is appreciated.
> 
> Thanks!




"Under a good general there are no bad soldiers"  

Chinese Proverb


----------



## Dozer923 (26 Apr 2008)

I like alot of the replies in here, and I must say I have met some amazing leaders. What I think makes a good soldier is:

leading by example
being professional
maintaining personal fitness

also keeping up to par with your trade related skills is important as you go up in the ranks.

as far as the more elite troops needed for JTF2 etc. During selection they want to see what you can and cannot handle mentally and physically. 

This post could go on for days and days..


----------



## 1feral1 (26 Apr 2008)

Welcome to the site.

Just curious, but what does this supposed to mean?

"When the Rich wage war, its the poor who die".

You also might want to fill out your profile.


----------



## armyvern (26 Apr 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> ... like I said... Half pregnant does exist



Does this qualify??


----------



## 1feral1 (26 Apr 2008)

That guy is gonna die, or burst/pop/explode/detonate/fragmentate/furmentate/coagulate. Thats twisted

If he farted, he would be a human V2, and would put himself into orbit, and when up there, he might come accross that MIA priest from Brazil.

EDIT: Seriously, thats not very healthy, and nothing to smile about.


----------



## Yrys (26 Apr 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Does this qualify??



It could me be a "pregnant man " with triplet   ...


----------



## Dozer923 (27 Apr 2008)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> Welcome to the site.
> 
> Just curious, but what does this supposed to mean?
> 
> ...



Thanks Ive came to this site alot just to read the posts so I decided to finally register. As far as the Quote Its from Jean-Paul Sartre a famous WWII veteran/French Philosipher. What I get from it is, it is usually the wealthy politicial figures deciding on when and where to wage war, and the people dying are the people in the countries we fight in, which are usually less fortunate than the people making all the decisions. Long winded I know, but thats how I percieve it and I find it quite true.


----------



## Red 6 (27 Apr 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Does this qualify??



Vern that is just wrong wrong wrong.


----------



## armyvern (27 Apr 2008)

Red 6 said:
			
		

> Vern that is just wrong wrong wrong.



Well, at least let me assure you that his pic did not come from the CD of my family geneaology.

My geneaology rather does include this bod found here:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/41921/post-705777.html#msg705777


----------



## geo (28 Apr 2008)

Ummm.... the stripper/psych or the cavalry officer in briefs? ;D


----------



## RickDevlieger (2 May 2008)

After 30 years in uniform, albeit a Navy one. I have found that there are two things you must do to be a good sailor, soldier, airman or general human being.

1. Do your job well. Do it to the best of your ability, get it done and get it done on time. Own up to your mistakes and fix them.

2. (and the more important) Help the people around you, do their jobs well. Whether you work for them, with them or they work for you. Help them to complete their tasks, remove obstacles in their way and support them. There is no requirement to protect your job because anyone in uniform will tell you, there is more than enough work to go around.

To do these things requires all of the qualities and traits that have been described in many of the previous posts. Doing these will get you a long ways, no matter where you choose to work.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 May 2008)

Chief Tech said:
			
		

> After 30 years in uniform, albeit a Navy one. I have found that there are two things you must do to be a good sailor, soldier, airman or general human being.
> 
> 1. Do your job well. Do it to the best of your ability, get it done and get it done on time. Own up to your mistakes and fix them.
> 
> ...



There are 6 things in your Point #1 alone.  How's the math coming along?


----------



## RickDevlieger (3 May 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> There are 6 things in your Point #1 alone.  How's the math coming along?



It was a complex point. Sorry about that!


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 May 2008)

;D  I was just buggin' ya...forgot my smiley though!


----------

