Psychological Training

[Infanteer]

There is a book that takes an opposite approach to one of the central ideas to Grossman's thesis; namely that man is by nature not predisposed to kill.

Michael Ghiglieri, a combat veteran, has written The Dark Side of Man: Tracing the Origins of Violence, in which he believes violence and killing is a biologically entrenched part of humanity.  I've had the book sitting on my shelf for a bit, and this discussion has encouraged me to read it in the next little while to approach the topic from a different angle.

Here is the amazon link if anyone is interested.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0738203157/qid=1096917741/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-6565164-1432754?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Cheers,
Infanteer

 

[1feral1]

Here's a good book. Acts Of War, by Richard Holmes. Its about the behaviour of men in battle, and covers centuries of battles to the present, and what we all have in common. Its a UK book available here in Australia, and goes for GBS20.00.

Seriously, a very good read, and hard to put down once you start.

It may be available in Canada.

Published 2003,  ISBN 0-297-84668-X

Cheers,

Wes

 

[jrhume]

I've read "Achilles in Vietnam" and found it very interesting.  I think the author goes overboard in some areas, mainly because he only worked with disturbed vets.  But one insight I found particularly interesting was his belief that older veterans, friends, family and community directly contribute to the mental health of younger vets by the way they welcome them home.

Veterans throughout history have tended to congregate, to swap stories, etc.  This act reassures the returning veteran that he has done well, that his actions are acceptable and even laudable.  Obviously, the welcome he receives from family, friends and community has a huge impact as well.

When I came back from Vietnam in '68 my family was very welcoming, as were my friends (who mostly also served) and my community (a small town in Montana).  The overall reception for us VN vets was less than welcoming in the general sense, especially in the Northeast and California -- especially on college campuses, where most of us intended to go when we got out.  I joined the VFW briefly in the mid-70s and found a couldn't-care-less attitude toward VN vets.  After all, we lost our war.

After reading "Achilles in Vietnam", I understood more fully the damage our own nation did the my brothers when we came back from doing what most of us still see as our patriotic duty to America, the Vietnamese and the world.  Althougth, as a group, VN vets have fared as well or better than our peers in the last 35 years, we all carry around a tinge of bitterness at the way we were treated.

Disclaimer -- I was not a combat veteran.  My job was Air Traffic Control at various Army airfields. 

Jim

 

[Gayson]

Also aren't some parts of training such as drill instilled upon to recruits to get them to listen to words of command.  Such as when the section cmdr yells grenade everyone gets down.

I remember when I was a recruit I made a left turn when the WO yelled right turn.  He told me that I was going to die in a conflict.  ;D

 

[pbi]

J. Gayson:   Once again you raise an interesting subject, one that could be a thread on its own: the role and value of drill.

Personally, I am a great believer in drill for several reasons, and I think that we are sadly neglecting drill today as a result of misunderstanding its value(that said, we are a heck of a lot sharper on the square than many others, let me tell you.....) Some people say there is no place for drill in a modern army, and that it has nothing to do with combat soldiering. I disagree with this position. As an   NCO/WO I loved teaching drill, training drill instructors, and participating in ceremonial parades. I still do. (Although as a pogue I don't get to draw my sword too much...)

I remember reading "The Wild Geese" a few years back, in which the famous mercenary commander Col Mike Hoare spoke about his exploits. He stated that he was a big believer in drill as an indicator of soldierly qualities. Normally, as part of his merc hiring process, he would have his Sgt Maj form up the group of prospective mercenaries and then drill the heck out of them. He stated that he had found that a soldier who really worked hard and looked sharp on the square was often a good hire.

While I do not believe that performance on the square is a direct indicator of the abilities of a soldier, I have also generally found over the years that soldiers who take pride in themselves on the square, who put some "crack and drive" into their drill, will usually work hard elsewhere as well. Now, this does not mean that soldiers should spend their lives on the square, or that mindless drill should replace tactical training. Rather I think drill is both a useful tool to acculturate soldiers and to develop the habits of attention to, and immediate execution of, correct orders (Remember: you don't react to an impossible word of command, unless of course you are in a Rifle Regiment   ) as well as a good way of gauging effort and attitude. A good way, I said--not the only way.

As well, public drill displays (no: NOT wearing chrome helmets and white bootlaces and spinning rifles around-not that kind of BS drill...) of well trained, disciplined troops sharply turned out and smartly executing movements such as Advance In Review Order, March Past In Line In Slow Time, Fix Bayonets, etc send an extremely important and impressive message to the public, IMHO. They are always impressed by the sight of disciplined drill, especiall en masse. On the other hand, sloppy, shoddy drill by lazy, unkempt troops who don't know what they're doing and obviously couldnt care less sends and equally strong message.

What do folks think about drill today? Cheers.

 

[Infanteer]

Agree 100%.

I remember the first words to me when I was a Recruit on the parade square was "there is nothing more impressive then a formed body of disciplined troops maneuvering as one"; I still believe that Sergeant was right.

To me "discipline", "drill", and "professionalism" are all directly related.

 

[pbi]

Agree 100%.

I remember the first words to me when I was a Recruit on the parade square was "there is nothing more impressive then a formed body of disciplined troops maneuvering as one"; I still believe that Sergeant was right.

To me "discipline", "drill", and "professionalism" are all directly related.

Yes, I think so too. However, I have heard some military people vehemently deny all of the above, and say that drill is rubbish, a waste of time, antiquated, etc. In terms of training value, I think that one need look no further than sports teams, Fire Service, police tac units, etc. all of whom who spend hours on drills of various types, so that in the heat and confusion of the game/fire/incident people will do what is expected of them at a basic functional level, thus freeing leaders to concentrate on the matter at hand. I believe that it also instills confidence. Cheers.

 

[A.K.]

One could say that drill is a form of indirect psychological training. Although I agree with the whole aspect of one inteligent person telling an organised mass of soldiers what to do, what if the highest in command is killed? Who takes over? Is there a hierarchy of command? (on the battlefield)

 

[Infanteer]

Two levels up, my friend....

 

[pbi]

One could say that drill is a form of indirect psychological training. Although I agree with the whole aspect of one inteligent person telling an organised mass of soldiers what to do, what if the highest in command is killed? Who takes over? Is there a hierarchy of command? (on the battlefield)

Normally every commander, from large formation (division, brigade, etc) down to the section (8-10 soldiers led by an NCO) there is a "Second in Command" or "2IC". This person is (or should be) trained and ready to step up. Once that person is also killed/injured/etc, the next  most senior person available knows that it is his duty to take command immediately. If there are two soldiers left, one is th boss.

In any good Army, all people are trained to do the job of the person above them, either through formal training or by osmosis/observation. In a really good Army, people can tackle a job two up, but this is much more difficult and is normally only possible in a smaller, highly professional force.

All of this is facilitated by an important concept known as "Commander's Intent". This is always included in orders, and explains the main intent of the commander two up, as well as that of the immediate superior (one up). This way, if the chain of command becomes disrupted, communications are lost, the situation changes so that orders are no longer relevant, etc, subordinate leaders can act within the commander's intent instead of just sitting there like a dummy waiting for orders. Cheers.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Hence why Battle Procedure is so important and should not be shortened except in extreme circumstances.

"Soldier, you're the last one left standing. What can you do to help fulfill the Commander's Intent"