Why we do what we do

[Garry]

When I first joined up, there were an awful lot of rules that didn't make much sense to me. I was lucky, in that I didn't grumble about them, just shut up and did what I was told (turns out this is a good thing to do in basic training)

I was even luckier in that my M/Cpl was pretty switched on, and one evening I had the opportunity to ask him why we had all these little rules (haircuts, keeping pockets buttoned, etc) that didn't seem to be such a big deal be so rigidly enforced. He replied to me that everything we do in the Military is focused on acheiving the mission, and that the mission would be acheived in the field. We practiced in garrison so that when we hit the field it would be second nature.

Things like:

We button our pockets so that we won't lose what's in them. Whatever is in them is important, otherwise we wouldn't have it in the field (weight/bulk) and since we're in the field, it'd be tough to replace.

We keep our hair short so that it's easier to clean. Clean body= healthy body= soldier fit to fight.

We polish our boots so that they're waterproof (well, kinda) and serviceable. An army fights on it's feet- no boots=sore feet=no fight.

We drill so that the young guys get used to doing what the old guys say immediately. (Discipline) The thinking goes that old guys have more experience, and a better chance of staying alive. They may be able to keep the kids alive too- if they listen.

There's an awful lot more....everything I have ever done, or made others do, has had a direct field related reason for the action. Makes a lot of the "chickenpoop" seem much more reasonable, and knowing this, also made the troops a little more compliant.

Anyone have anymore??

Cheers-Garry

 

[Centurian1985]

A lot of rules we have are based on British Army rules that can be traced back to the Napoleanic wars.  The basic concept of laws, rules, and regulations, for the military is the same as for civil and criminal law.  If a soldier does something that appears to be illegal, but there is no rule written down against it, he tends to 'get away' with it because there is no means of prosecuting them.  This results in the creation of a new rule so that following soldiers who commit the same act perceived as illegal can be prosecuted.  It is also needed to set out what the applicable punishment is, so that everyone gets the same reasonable punishment (to avoid bias on the part of the prosecuting authority).  It is all based on British Common Law concepts. 

As you will see when you read through them, military laws get antiquated, and need revising as perceptions change and technology change.  I.e. back in WW 1, a soldier who suffered a mental breakdown during or after a battle could be charged with cowardice and shot.  This has been changed to recognize PTSD and other issues.  This happened again with the introduction of computers into the military.  No rules were in place for when soldiers used computers to commit what was perceived as an illegal act, so new rules had to be written so that the acts could not be repeated by others without punishment as an example for others.

Samples of old rules: You will find in QRAO's a rule along the lines that it is illegal to remove food from the mess hall (commonly known).  This rule was created to prevent soldiers (usually cooks and quartermasters or others with acces to the food) from taking the food (that rightfully belonged to the army for issue to the soldiers) and selling it to military and nonmilitary perosn for presonal profit/gain (also known as black marketing).  Common sense dictates that you are allowed to put an apple in your pocket and eat it later on in the day.  However, many people obey the word of the law rather than the spirt of the law, which results in confusion and even up abuse of authority when laying charges. 

Sample of lack of common sense: In one case I know of from the early 1980's, an officer ordered all his men on parade to remove their boots and woolen socks; any soldier who had a ball of wool lint in their sock was charged under the guise of 'self-inflicted injury' (cant remember the old code....119?) because they could have gotten a blister from the ball of lint and made themselves incapable of performing their duties.  Each soldier was charged, found guilty, and paid a $50 fine.  This was ridiculous for the following reasons; having a ball of lint does not qualify as 'intentional'; unless an actual incapacitating wound is present you cant charge a person for having a 'self-inflicting injury'; having a blister rarely constitutes an injury severe enough to warrant removal from active duties; and, unless the soldier is actually incapable of performing their duties, or unless they have requested they be removed from active duties due to injury, they havent purposely inflicted a wound on themself for the purpose of evading their duties.  The reason the charges stick is we are taught to obey the system and 'soldier on' - which I agree with but as far as I am concerned this case is just plain stupidity and does not build respect and trust between men and officers.

I had a case close to this myself; after working at an airshow for 8 hours (on the weekend) I ended up with a severe sunburn along one arm and side of my face.  However, painful lesson as it was, it didnt prevent me from performing my duties the following day, and I had no intention of using the burn as a reason for being relieved of my duties (soldier on!).  My sergeant at the time still had the balls to say 'you know, I could have you charged for a self-inflicted wound'.  He did not like my reply, which emphasized what I thought of the statement he had just made (which he, again, could have had me charged for, but you dont piss off your hardest working staff members, especially when they have gained the 'injury' while performing valid work'). 

There are many examples of this from the past, there are ongoing examples of this now, and there will always be examples of this in the future.  Watch your ass and know how to defend yourself from those who read the words and not the intent!

 

[Centurian1985]

Now for the supporting case.  You need strict rules to control soldiers, period.  Failure to correct improper, inappropriate and illegal behaviour leads to anarchy and the dissolving of the chain of command.  You get ,in effect, a lawless rabble, not an organized unit capable of effective actions.  A wise commander applies the rules in a fair and firm manner, taking into account the context of the case and whether punishment is appropriate or not.  I believe that in most cases, the punishment is appropriate to the crime, but as I outlined earlier, the system is not 100% perfect

(But then, no system is...)

 

[pbi]

Sample of lack of common sense: In one case I know of from the early 1980's, an officer ordered all his men on parade to remove their boots and woolen socks; any soldier who had a ball of wool lint in their sock was charged under the guise of 'self-inflicted injury' (cant remember the old code....119?) because they could have gotten a blister from the ball of lint and made themselves incapable of performing their duties.  Each soldier was charged, found guilty, and paid a $50 fine.  This was ridiculous for the following reasons; having a ball of lint does not qualify as 'intentional'; unless an actual incapacitating wound is present you cant charge a person for having a 'self-inflicting injury'; having a blister rarely constitutes an injury severe enough to warrant removal from active duties; and, unless the soldier is actually incapable of performing their duties, or unless they have requested they be removed from active duties due to injury, they havent purposely inflicted a wound on themself for the purpose of evading their duties.  The reason the charges stick is we are taught to obey the system and 'soldier on' - which I agree with but as far as I am concerned this case is just plain stupidity and does not build respect and trust between men and officers

I bet I know who this was! If it was the person I think it was, he was an egocentric nitwit who on a number of occasions made a mockery of some good and sound principles by over-doing them in an irrational way. And (again, if it is the same person...) he later added hypocrisy to his sins by blatantly disregarding his own rules.

Cheers.


[Edited to take out the Code that stretched your post out over several screens.   ;D ]

 

[Centurian1985]

Thanks for the support; I used to get labelled a 'bunkhouse lawyer' for explaining these things to people... which was rather silly since I managed to scrape through 20 years without a single charge atached to my record  (when they say 'you can take my punishment or go before the colonel', I always take their punishment!).   

 

[Garry]

Well, that's not quite the direction I was wanting to go.

More hoping for reasoning behind the myriad of little things we do- more to prove that there is a sound reason why your Sgt is so demanding vice otherwise.

However, since we're on it, I never accepted the offer of extra duties. I figured that the reson I screwed up was either I didn't know any better (and therefore needed training), I had a lapse in judgement (these things happen) or I did it on purpose (and deserved the charge).

28 years and a clean conduct sheet (I can talk quickly when required)

 

[Centurian1985]

28 years! 

 

[Centurian1985]

More to your point, there's a valid point to learning to obey displine; in times of crisis, there's no time to ask "why are we doing this?" Do it and ask why later when there is time to reflect on the 'lessons earned' (yes, without the ell, as in earned the hard way).  ;D