8 dead after soldier opens fire at army base

[Duke Wellington]

17 minutes ago, Setton said:

Because the morons often in charge of training, who joined the military because they were too thick for another career, daren't let recruits think for themselves. The intelligent ones quickly leave for other, better suited roles, while the cannon fodder stay on. 

The culture present inside the armed forces is intentional and exists for a reason.

You are to put yourself aside for the group, you are supposed to fight and die for it if need be, you are to follow orders, and that means when a more senior officer tells you to kill someone you do it.

The army is not about individualism. You can give your ideas when you are asked for them, you can point them out in the correct manner if you think your senior officer overlooked something, but what your senior officer decides and tells you to do then you do.

Senior officers let hazing exist, and may in fact direct a platoon to haze one of its members, to teach them that their ego does not come first. Their unit comes first and they need to follow or they get hazed as a punishment. 

[Setton]

58 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

The culture present inside the armed forces is intentional and exists for a reason.

You are to put yourself aside for the group, you are supposed to fight and die for it if need be, you are to follow orders, and that means when a more senior officer tells you to kill someone you do it.

The army is not about individualism. You can give your ideas when you are asked for them, you can point them out in the correct manner if you think your senior officer overlooked something, but what your senior officer decides and tells you to do then you do.

Senior officers let hazing exist, and may in fact direct a platoon to haze one of its members, to teach them that their ego does not come first. Their unit comes first and they need to follow or they get hazed as a punishment. 

Which is why they lose their best and brightest to other areas. Which, in the long run, will hugely degrade the capability of our armed forces. 

If you teach new recruits to blindly obey, what happens when those recruits have to make their own decisions? 

[Duke Wellington]

4 minutes ago, Setton said:

Which is why they lose their best and brightest to other areas. Which, in the long run, will hugely degrade the capability of our armed forces. 

If you teach new recruits to blindly obey, what happens when those recruits have to make their own decisions? 

If you are talent then why would you be going into our armed forces as a private?

You would be entering in as a commissioned officer. Upon completing your basic training (where you are going to get hazed anyway) you then go to officer school. Officers lead, the troops follow. Officers are paid to come up with ideas and use their brains, troops are paid to follow.

Opportunities for troops to show they have leadership potential occur, during which time they can show they are right for non-commissioned petty officer positions. If they succeed in getting promoted then they get to be more of an individual.

Edited January 10, 2020 by RabidMongoose

[+and-then]

3 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

I regret to inform the drill sergeant that the private has a full magazine and is locked and loaded... Sir!

Had the Drill been able to show ANY restraint and tone down his "inner screamer"  he might have survived that encounter 

I don't how they handle rifle range training in the Corps now but  my buddies from high school said when they got to the range, they never even saw their drill sergeant   They got handed off to different instructors - that they DIDN'T hate 

[Setton]

5 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

If you are talent then why would you be going into our armed forces as a private?

You would be entering in as a commissioned officer. Upon completing your basic training (where you are going to get hazed anyway) you then go to officer school. Officers lead, the troops follow. Officers are paid to come up with ideas and use their brains, troops are paid to follow.

Opportunities for troops to show they have leadership potential occur, during which time they can show they are right for non-commissioned petty officer positions. If they succeed in getting promoted then they get to be more of an individual.

As you say, the whole hazing thing doesn't just happen to privates. 

Even so, privates can have huge potential stamped out of them because some insecure little sergeant with a napoleon complex is scared he'll be leapfrogged. 

[Duke Wellington]

10 minutes ago, Setton said:

As you say, the whole hazing thing doesn't just happen to privates. 

Even so, privates can have huge potential stamped out of them because some insecure little sergeant with a napoleon complex is scared he'll be leapfrogged. 

No one climbs high in any career unless they become a politician.

No one performs in a high ranking position unless they know how to use politics to make results happen. Performance in a high level position is about managing large organisations of people, not your own personal abilities. 1 person does not make an army.

[Setton]

9 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

No one climbs high in any career unless they become a politician.

No one performs in a high ranking position unless they know how to use politics to make results happen. Performance in a high level position is about managing large organisations of people, not your own personal abilities. 1 person does not make an army.

You seem to have gone onto a totally unrelated subject now. 

Bottom line is, the culture of bullying by middle management in the military stifles potential, creativity and adaptability. All essentials for a modern military. 

[Duke Wellington]

4 minutes ago, Setton said:

You seem to have gone onto a totally unrelated subject now. 

Bottom line is, the culture of bullying by middle management in the military stifles potential, creativity and adaptability. All essentials for a modern military. 

No it doesnt, the low ranks are not potential in 99% of instances.

Although no doubt each likes to convince themselves that they are.

Edited January 10, 2020 by RabidMongoose

[Setton]

25 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

No it doesnt, the low ranks are not potential in 99% of instances.

Although no doubt each likes to convince themselves that they are.

And you would be the expert, based on your extensive military experience? 

Again, it's not just about lower ranks. I've seen the impact it's had on highly capable people among privates, NCOs and senior officers who have had the confidence and creativity beaten out of them since they were sixteen. Now they're starting again in their 40s and need to build that up from scratch. 

Edited January 10, 2020 by Setton

[+and-then]

43 minutes ago, Setton said:

And you would be the expert, based on your extensive military experience? 

Again, it's not just about lower ranks. I've seen the impact it's had on highly capable people among privates, NCOs and senior officers who have had the confidence and creativity beaten out of them since they were sixteen. Now they're starting again in their 40s and need to build that up from scratch. 

Are you referring to the British Army?  I came late to this discussion so I might have missed something.  I realize that hazing and having jerks in NCO positions is a negative but in an all volunteer force, I assumed those NCOs benefit from mentoring and training up their soldiers to competency?  After all, the expectations for performance in the ranks is squarely on those NCOs.  If their men fail, THEY fail.  

The Russians are a totally different animal, I'd imagine.  They're still all conscript as new privates, right?  I think Putin is spending more and trying to retain a core cadre of  quality NCOs but having troops at the bottom that are constantly coming and going after a couple of years must be difficult.

[Duke Wellington]

12 hours ago, and then said:

Are you referring to the British Army?  I came late to this discussion so I might have missed something.  I realize that hazing and having jerks in NCO positions is a negative but in an all volunteer force, I assumed those NCOs benefit from mentoring and training up their soldiers to competency?  After all, the expectations for performance in the ranks is squarely on those NCOs.  If their men fail, THEY fail.  

The Russians are a totally different animal, I'd imagine.  They're still all conscript as new privates, right?  I think Putin is spending more and trying to retain a core cadre of  quality NCOs but having troops at the bottom that are constantly coming and going after a couple of years must be difficult.

He was battling for the lower ranks having potential that gets crushed out of them.

I dont know what he classes as potential but I told him that in all organisations (military or otherwise) no one climbs high unless they become political. That doesnt mean backstabbing, lying, withholding information, or screwing people other. It means turning the important people into friends and allies, helping them do well in their careers, and not being negative about them or their decision making.

Political ability is a skill that defines someone as talent, especially in a large organisation (which the military is) requiring someone to get along and work with lots of different people. If someone cannot work with other people without creating plenty of enemies then they arent right for management or rank.

In the military a privates job is to follow and do as he is told. When opportunities arise for showing basic leadership (and they do) then they can offer their opinion done respectfully and without putting anybody on the defensive. The brains of the army are its officers, it is their positions which require a person to have qualifications ranging from a college to university education depending on the specific role.

While looking after the egos of all soldiers is an important leadership and management skill that doesnt mean we let privates with a low IQ (yes, the armed forces test that) and a lack of qualifications gain rank. Doing so gets people needlessly killed in warfare because someone put a moron in charge who thinks they are special when they arent.

The armed forces also like to promote people who are un-emotional. We are not talking psychopaths, but we are talking people with some psychopath traits. For example, people who dont experience fear or stress are also the people who dont panic when under fire. If you are sending in the fighter-bombers in an initial attack you dont want people that will fall apart when being shot at by flak and missiles. You want someone who psychologically wont be affected by it allowing themselves to do the job.

Edited January 11, 2020 by RabidMongoose

[Setton]

11 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

He was battling for the lower ranks having potential that gets crushed out of them.

I dont know what he classes as potential but I told him that in all organisations (military or otherwise) no one climbs high unless they become political. That doesnt mean backstabbing, lying, withholding information, or screwing people other. It means turning the important people into friends and allies, helping them do well in their careers, and not being negative about them or their decision making.

Political ability is a skill that defines someone as talent, especially in a large organisation (which the military is) requiring someone to get along and work with lots of different people. If someone cannot work with other people without creating plenty of enemies then they arent right for management or rank.

In the military a privates job is to follow and do as he is told. When opportunities arise for showing basic leadership (and they do) then they can offer their opinion done respectfully and without putting anybody on the defensive. The brains of the army are its officers, it is their positions which require a person to have qualifications ranging from a college to university education depending on the specific role.

While looking after the egos of all soldiers is an important leadership and management skill that doesnt mean we let privates with a low IQ (yes, the armed forces test that) and a lack of qualifications gain rank. Doing so gets people needlessly killed in warfare because someone put a moron in charge who thinks they are special when they arent.

The armed forces also like to promote people who are un-emotional. We are not talking psychopaths, but we are talking people with some psychopath traits. For example, people who dont experience fear or stress are also the people who dont panic when under fire. If you are sending in the fighter-bombers in an initial attack you dont want people that will fall apart when being shot at by flak and missiles. You want someone who psychologically wont be affected by it allowing themselves to do the job.

You don't actually know any military do you?