To be a military type

[BagOfCrisps 24]

Last night a few of us were having a few pints and talking about a few things and got on the subject of being a soldier/military dude. None of us really could imagine wanting to do that and wondering what peoples thoughts are when they enter that profession?

 

Do we have any military type on here?

[bushpig 0]

Spud? O11? You two were military right? Any other takers?

[damian 0]

Being a tradesman in the military apparently has its benefits and for the most you are a mechanic working on bombers or tanks, not a fighting soldier. Lots of people do this and enjoy a good start to their trades career this way.

 

Then there are the other military types: the fighting soldiers (rather than support troops).

 

People choose a job that allows them to engage in the things that interest them. So lets look at the role of the position on offer (basic Army soldier). See below for the official role of the Australian Infantry. I still know it by heart as I screamed it several time each morning as the sun came up and we got the day off to an aggressive start by practicing some old fashioned bayonet combat drills (the details of which will shock you). To answer the question, "what peoples thoughts are when they enter that profession". Their thoughts are that they want to train to do the following:

 

"The role of the Infantry is to seek out and close with the enemy. To kill or to capture him. To seize and to hold ground and repel attack by day or night regardless of season weather or terrain".

 

If that is what you want to do then you become a ‘military dude’ of the fighting variety. If you don't want to learn how to kill without being killed then you get a really nasty shock not long after enlisting, because that is exactly what you are there to do. It sickens me to think how many months and years I spent practicing a wide variety of ways to kill people. I became particularly good at using quite a few instruments of death.

 

But generally, talking only about the fighting arms of the military, I suspect most people aren't thinking when they join, or that they are capable of limited thought and that is manipulated by recruitment people.

 

I was not manipulated; I walked into the recruitment office of my own will. I joined as I needed to pay for university somehow and in the end I became an Army lieutenant in charge of a bunch of soldiers and 4 tanks. I did this knowing that as a 22 year old uni grad with no work experience, it would look good on my resume. it actually helped a lot when applying for jobs within the professional industries.

[2pints-mate 0]

Is the pay good?

[damian 0]

I was never on the full time pay roll, but I knew what it was and a young officer it was rubbish pay, considering that you have the equivalent training and responsibility of a university graduate professional junior executive, with an MBA. You will always earn way more in the corporate world. I would imagine that the same rule applies to the non-professional military personnel as well (soldiers and tradesmen).

 

You would often met young military officers who where very envious of the amount the average uni grade corporate employee was paid (which isn’t high anyway). Among other method of non-financial self-reassurance, these officers would often quote the extra benefits that they got (free housing in an Army suburb etc). None of them were convincing, particularly not the benefit of free comprehensive health insurance. Somehow that doesn’t counter balance the reality that your job has the occupational hazard of being blinded, having your skin burnt off and abdomen torn open by a roadside bomb in Afghanistan.

 

England has a massive military history and I imagine that would provide some motivation for people enlisting in contemporary forces. Joining the Royal Navy is for some people like joining one of the world’s oldest and most successful companies.

[eskimobasecamp 0]

as military you are an instrument of larger powers - beyond your control, and you have little moral decision making ability in the grander scheme of things - i wouldn't join the military because of some supposed austere history, look at the real situation in the world NOW - why would you support that?

 

what's interesting is the idea of mandatory military service for young people in countries such as israel and korea.

 

but don't ask me - i come over as quite offensive to people in the military

[jgraves 0]

 Quote:

Originally posted by eskimobasecamp:
as military you are an instrument of larger powers - beyond your control, and you have little moral decision making ability in the grander scheme of things

To you (and me), that may be a bad thing, but I know a few for whom that is precisely the reason they joined. No thinking, just doing. There is a great deal of freedom in that.

Also, being in a fire fight must be five times the adrenaline rush of skiing a huge line. No shortage of adrenaline junkies out there.

And don't forget military schools.

[Rag-Doll 0]

I spent 6 years in the regular army, firstly doing officer training and then working in a couple of different units around the place in Australia. I’m not sure what a “military type” person is but I met a very wide range of personality types during my time, ranging form the very smart, committed and down to earth to the absolute dregs of humanity. Most were average people making their way in the world and providing for their families. Military types? They’re not much different from everyone else.

 

I joined in 86. Australia hadn’t fired a shot in anger for years and there wasn’t much on the horizon to indicate things would change. The focus of the training at that time was on low level operations (although the tactics we studied during our training had an emphasis towards dealing with large scale soviet forces). I was never particularly concerned about death or injury or things like that. Mortality is a difficult concept to gasp for your average 18 year old – it was for me anyway. Although there was one day early in our training when all of the newbies were lined up and shown an infantry section (9 men, 1 armed with a Rambo type M60, several with the ubiquitous US M16 and the rest with 7.62mm Self Loading Rifles). These 9 guys ran out and with their rifles and machine guns proceeded to shred some railway sleepers, 44gallon drums and all sorts of other stuff. It was my first firsthand experience with the damage military weapons can do and (as was the intention) it was quite a shock. Then and there I made a mental note to remove infantry from my career choice – that shit is dangerous.

 

Why join? I thought it would be exciting and fun. And it was. Riding around on dangerous and expensive toys blowing the shit out of things is fun. The trouble is it is also very limiting and ultimately a fairly pointless way to spend one’s life, even without the sheer idiocy of finding oneself fighting a war for someone else’s political expediency. I have class mates who are now working in Iraq. Very occasionally I even see them on the news and I’m left in no doubt whatsoever that leaving when I did was the right thing to do.

 

Like Spud, I found having officer training and military experience on my CV to be an advantage. Class mates of mine have gone into all sorts of different careers and jobs, with varying degrees of success.

 

The pay wasn’t bad but it wasn’t good either. Although living on base was pretty cheap so our disposable income was higher than it otherwise would have been. For any bloke who likes a bit of rough and is looking for something to do for a couple of years before he decides to commit himself to something long term, I would recommend the military. I wouldn’t recommend it as a career and I certainly won’t be recommending it to my daughter. Would I do it again? Probably I would. I might make a few changes to the way I did things but I don't consider the time I spent in the army to have been wasted.

[Rag-Doll 0]

"No thinking, just doing. There is a great deal of freedom in that."

 

Tohoku - mate, that is absolutely spot on. For many people in the military they join straight from school and go from one embracing paternal environment to another - the former is unlikely to send you out to be mained or killed, but then, as Spud says, for most soldier types, neither is the latter.

[damian 0]

Good posts RD and TB.

 

Besides the ultimate aim of killing people, I found some substantial benefit from the things I was taught in the Army. I don’t really like the conservative military mentality combined with macho and rules. But do like having the experience as part of my history. It makes you quite a robust and capable person.

 

 Quote:

there was one day early in our training when all of the newbies were lined up and shown an infantry section (9 men, 1 armed with a Rambo type M60, several with the ubiquitous US M16 and the rest with 7.62mm Self Loading Rifles). These 9 guys ran out and with their rifles and machine guns proceeded to shred some railway sleepers, 44gallon drums

I was just thinking about such a display a few days ago. I twice attended a military display in Australia that involved every weapon employed in our Army. Mostly training officers, senior officers and political types attended. We all sat in a grand stand over looking a huge live firing area. The ‘show’ started with the crack of a sniper rifle and some descriptive data and info from the commentator. The hidden sniper then stood up and displayed his weapon. From then on the weapons became progressively larger. The day ended with fighter jets bombing the hill in font of us. Every single gun, grenade, projectile type and land mine was demonstrated.

 

Looking back, it was a bizarre event, but one that appeals massively to the typical guy on the street. Joining the Army gives them the chance to play with half that stuff.

 

 Quote:

Australia hadn’t fired a shot in anger for years

This reminds me of something totally off the topic, but it is itching me and so might give it a scratch, get it off my chest

 

Over beers and dinner I was once deridingly asked by a young American man who had only just graduated from pimples and fancied himself as a thinker, why Australia holds its armed forces in some special regard. His attempted point was that we never engage in conflict and send so few troops to wars and our role (death count) is so minor in each of them. He quoted Vietnam as an example. I mentioned the Battle of Long Tan. He dismissively sneered and said “before I visited Vietnam [as a tourist], I read [on the internet] about every major battle that took place and I have never heard of that battle. Whaaad evrrrrr!”

 

Australia doesn’t consider its Army to be amazing, but it does value it’s armed conflicts as vital building blocks in our very short white history. This is why Australians are often heard big noting ‘Aussie’ military events. They were a huge deal for such a small country at the time. A few of the more famous ones were utter failures with most ANZAC soldiers getting slaughtered.

 

Any how, I didn’t bother to mention that and nor did I bother to mention that Long Tan was such a huge success and against ridiculous odds that the infantry unit involved (D Company 6 RAR) received a Presidential Unit Citation from the American Government of the day.

 

For the record:

 

 Quote:

The Presidential Unit Citation is awarded to units of the Armed Forces of the United States and allies for extraordinary heroism in action against an armed … The unit must display such gallantry, determination, and esprit de corps in accomplishing its mission under extremely difficult and hazardous conditions so as to set it apart from and above other units participating in the same campaign. The degree of heroism required is the same as that which would warrant award of the Distinguished Service Cross to an individual

Another partial motivation for people to join the Army as it is the ultimate football team.

[firedog23 0]

From an American point of view and probably covers several other countries.

 

What is a military type?

 

It is the kid who can no longer pay for college or has flunked out due to grades.

 

It is the kid with no direction in his life.

 

It is the guy who due to powers beyond his control needs to support his family and the military fits that need.

 

It is the guy who loves action, travel or doing something against the grain.

 

It is the rich kid who was given everything in his youth and now finds he needs to prove to his parents he can do something on his own.

 

It is the girl who loves her country.

 

It's the 20 something who is looking to pay off his school bills.

 

It is the college graduate who gained a degree in a field that is over-populated with others and does not want to be a food service waiter any longer.

 

It's the kid just trying to get away from where he is at.

 

It is the occasional pro sports player who turns down $$$$$$$ because he feels obligated to do what others like him are doing.

 

There is no military type. The military is filled from one type to the other. It is not republican, democrat or other. It is all of them.

 

Do we sit around waiting to plunder the world? Hardly. Quite a vast majority are wanting to do good things. Does what we do have an underlining purpose? Of course it does. Does responding to a predominatly Islam country during a massive Tsunami to help restore and rebuild help better than picking a fight. It explains itself. It really bothers me when the media shows all of the bad that goes on in places like Iraq. Rarely do they show the schools, water plants and so on being built. Do many people know what it is like to see a person drink water that isn't filled with bacteria for the first time. How about the little kid who was in the wrong place at the wrong time and we give him a chance to live because we had a hospital nearby. All of this has a reason but like I said, as a military guy I would rather help someone that hurt them but you know what? Some people/groups don't mix and things are going to happen that makes most of us cringe.

 

By the way, I ran into some Australian Army in Iraq and they were some of the coolest dudes you could meet in a place like that. Even though they were heading out into the bad parts of the country they had a really laid back approach to it. No worries they say.

 

Oh and at least alot of us on here who are in the military have the choice to join. Some countries like Honduras show up to the village, ask to see your college card and if you don't have a card then get on the bus because you are in the Army. Nothing like a 15 year old wielding an assult rifle.

 

Just my 2 cents but it takes all types to be a "military type"

 

I just happen to be a snowboarding my ass off military type. If it was not for the Air Force I probably would have never made it to Hakkoda.

[eskimobasecamp 0]

Also, being in a fire fight must be five times the adrenaline rush of skiing a huge line. No shortage of adrenaline junkies out there.

 

excuse me did you really just say that?! dude, being in a fire fight or whatever you want to call it, most likely involves innocent civilians being killed and injured, towns and amenities such as hospitals, vital for life being destroyed ---- and you are talking about the adrenaline rush --- and in the same breath making a comparison to skiing a huge line? yehhh is that the same adrenaline rush of people flying planes into buildings and blowing themselves up on trains?

[eskimobasecamp 0]

 Quote:

Originally posted by firedog23:
Do we sit around waiting to plunder the world? Hardly. Quite a vast majority are wanting to do good things. Does what we do have an underlining purpose? Of course it does. Does responding to a predominatly Islam country during a massive Tsunami to help restore and rebuild help better than picking a fight. It explains itself. It really bothers me when the media shows all of the bad that goes on in places like Iraq. Rarely do they show the schools, water plants and so on being built. Do many people know what it is like to see a person drink water that isn't filled with bacteria for the first time. How about the little kid who was in the wrong place at the wrong time and we give him a chance to live because we had a hospital nearby. All of this has a reason but like I said, as a military guy I would rather help someone that hurt them but you know what? Some people/groups don't mix and things are going to happen that makes most of us cringe.

- sit around waiting to plunder the world.... ehh yeah it's kinda looking that way isnt't it.

- the schools and water plants.... sorry the ones being bombed?

- how about the other little kid who lost his entire family and home when you bombed the crap out of that country?

.... if only the media would show the bad stuff that is really going on, if only the world could see, un-edited and un-cut images of WHAT is happening.

........ and what if some country has the military might and bullying power to tear your country to shreds because they don't like your leader, (cause is who has laid waste to more lives - saddam hussein or mr bush?) and at the same time they invade they try to control, occupy, monopolise your resources and induce their alien culture and ideas, changing and destroying your whole nation. it would be a different story if the usa was bombed to the ground..... as was the disproportianal press reaction and attention and feelings towards the events in new york on 11th sept..... how are the lives of the people in those towers worth anymore than the innocent civilians in iraq? ohh but they are aren't they?!!!! they are in your mind and in newspapers.

What about the absolute ignored atrocity and violence that was the Congo?

What about looking at what lies behind the actions of minority militant groups/terrorists?

[daver 0]

do you actually know what you are talking about? or did you just feel like giving us an internet informed rant?

[eskimobasecamp 0]

it's called debate and i have an opinion - as others clearly do too.

 

internet informed? i don't think so

[Ocean11 0]

 Quote:

Originally posted by daver:
do you actually know what you are talking about? or did you just feel like giving us an internet informed rant?

Which part of what she is talking about merits that question? Or is that just contentless internet ad-hominem?

The humanitarian activities of most armies is just window-dressing and a salve to the conscience of the people involved. The same humanitarian activities can always be carried out much cheaper by civilian agencies without requiring the presence of armed forces which in nearly all cases is an unnecessary irritant. (This was exactly the case with Japan in Iraq - civilians were providing the same services, unprotected because protection wasn't required, at a 10th of the cost. The military were sent, not because they were needed, but because Japan wants to send its troops around the world.)

Military people like daver (and myself when I was one) always like to kid themselves that what they do has some wider social value. But it doesn't.

[eskimobasecamp 0]

thank you ocean i agree.

 

humanitarian and guns don't exactly mix very well. if anyone is interested in humanitarian activities and building hospitals in war zones (instead of using weapons to destory them) perhaps they should consider joining the UN peacekeeping forces (if they really must hold a gun) or otherwise join an aid organisation. if you are in someone's country bombing them (as a main activity) don't start writing about the good stuff you are apparently doing, you are kidding yourself.... theres's nothing good about any of it. diplomacy and peace would be good.... guns ARE NOT.

[Rag-Doll 0]

Daver,

I think it was just a rant. There was nothing in formed about it at all.

 

EBC,

 

All I was trying to say and I think Firedog was too is that whilst there are the stereotypical gung-ho types in the military, there are also lots and lots of people who are really no different from the rest of society. In addition to the combat forces, a well structured army also contains most of the elements one would see in a small town. There are doctors and engineers, teachers, nurses, drivers, cooks, police, pilots, mechanics, electricians, etc. etc. whatever the reasons those people joined up, I’m pretty sure it wasn’t to kill civilians and destroy other countries. One of the major designated roles for the Aust Defense Force (and most other OECD military forces I’m sure) is to provide aid to the civil power, this includes amongst other things, disaster relief. I’m very certain that those military personnel who helped the survivors of the 2004 tsunami, for example, derived an enormous amount of satisfaction from being able to make a contribution. I’ve no doubt that for some it will have been a career highlight, just as the intervention into East Timor was for others. As Firedog says, actions like that speak for themselves and they also make a lie out of the idea that simply by being in uniform one automatically supports the death and destruction of war. It is simply not true.

 

The army that I was in was chauvinistic, misogynistic and socially very conservative. It was run by men so institutionalized that they were mistrustful of anything strange or different and were very resistant to change. There was a culture of arrogant distain for civilians (pronounced “civies” with a sneer and a hint of contempt). Perhaps you've sometimes encountered this and that is where you getting your prejudice from. But I don’t remember anybody striking me a being a psychotic killer taking delight in killing and destroying. Hospitals and schools aren’t targeted as a matter of course in war and even during the recent invasion of Iraq, the Aust Air Force F-18s had very strict rules of engagement which required them to abort missions if there was a risk to civilians. Operating under these rules, Australian pilots did abort missions.

 

I’ve always thought though that the distain for civilians was nothing more than petty tribalism that had been manipulated by our training with the aim of inculcating the members of the unit with a greater sense of identity and cohesion. Even within the army a similar thing existed between the different corps. The Infantry were grunts, Artillery were dropshots (i.e. the shells from the guns would fall short of the intended target and hit our own troops instead), the logistic corps were poges (I’m not sure what the term ever meant but it was intended as an insult). One of few times the disparate corps of the army would form any cohesion was when they confronted members of the air force or the navy. Both of which were regarded as being little better than civilians, especially the air force! As I say, it was nothing more than petty tribalism and when there was work to be done those petty differences faded pretty quickly.

[kintaro 0]

I can't imagine what would inspire a young man or women to join the military other than dire circumstances (no money, no education, etc.). you basically sign your life and freedom over to somebody else who for what ever reason they see fit, will use you as a disposable object and reward you with close to minimum wages. However, at 17 and not sure what to do with your life, I can think of many worse things to do. The military is probably a pretty good option for some people.

 

However, imagine the work that could be done if the Peace Corps or similiar groups had the budget of most modern millitaries.

 

There are many ways to enhance a resume. Shooting a gun, getting up early and doing calisthenics in matching green clothing is proablably not the best way to enhance your carreer abilities but it will gain you life long friends and teach you the discipline needed to succeed.

 

Another thing I have learned about military types is that while they are a well travelled lot, they rarely take the time or opportunity to learn about the places they visit. Their military culture stays with them wherever they go. I don't think i'm being unreasonable here, having grown up in Hawaii I saw military from each branch of the armed forces on a regular basis. One thing that always struck me was their inability to grasp local ways.

[daver 0]

 Quote:

Originally posted by eskimobasecamp:
it's called debate and i have an opinion - as others clearly do too.

that might be the case, but the debate is not about the merits of the military, it is about what type of person joins and why. lets stick to the point or start a new topic.

[Rag-Doll 0]

"UN peacekeeping forces (if they really must hold a gun)"

 

A very fine idea. The trouble is when joining up there isn't a box that you can tick for peace keeping only.

 

 

Ocean,

 

"The humanitarian activities of most armies is just window-dressing and a salve to the conscience of the people involved. "

 

Mate, that is just silly. As if the generals say, oh, the troops are getting a bit restless with all of the killing, we'd better go and build a bridge or two to salve the conscience.

 

Yes, there are situations where the private sector can do things more cost effectively but not always. A perfect case in point is the recent deloyment of Aust forces to East Timor or the Solomon Islands. There are situations when the only real option is placing well armed and trained personnel on the ground.

[Rag-Doll 0]

"I can't imagine what would inspire a young man or women to join the military other than dire circumstances (no money, no education, etc.)."

 

Kintaro,

 

You get to do things that most people would never dream of doing. Standing on the skids of the helicopter as it screams along a tree top height before abseiling to the ground amongst rocket and grenade simulators making all sorts of racket is a real buzz. As a 20 yr old, planning and commanding a dawn attack involving tanks, APCs and about 50 soldiers is amazing. Regardless of the personality defects it highlights, being a minor warlord for a day is good fun. Then again, maybe it’s just the smell of napalm in the morning!

[Ocean11 0]

Rag-Doll, you just show that you haven't bothered to find out the details about Australia's colonization of Indonesia and support for military oppression there, which is what allows you to maintain your pretty fantasies about all the good the Australian military is doing there. When somebody says "the only real option is", you know they have not even considered any other option, let alone the route by which we arrived.

 

When you see the military recruiting, do you see lots of pictures of the 'humanitarian' side, or do you see real pictures of what soldiers at war see and do? It's deception and self-deception from day zero.

[daver 0]

ocean11, please don't take this as malace rhetoric, it is not intended as such. do you regret your military involvement?

[eskimobasecamp 0]

Rag-Doll, i'm not ranting i'm stating my opinion on military forces in general, with reference to the current state of affairs in today's world. You can talk about nurses, doctors, teacher if you want, but they are all part of and support the main machine, which is essentially aggressive and uses weapons as a means of finding a solution or plundering to the ends of the powers in control of that military. How about sending those nurses, doctors, teachers, drivers to some African nations for example in dire need of medical aid/vaccinations. How about spending money, not on weapons for military use and therefore destruction, but on the input of medical and food programs. What about humanitarian 'military' action in a country like Zimbabwe where Robert Mugabe is responsible for the disintegrating infrastructure of the country and food shortages.

 

Military may also be sent on peaceful missions, such as supplying aid and man power in the event of a disaster - but that is because those soldiers have been ordered to do that, as they are similarly ordered to drive tanks through iraq - either way there is a political agenda of which soldiers have no control, so you cannot justify actions, because you could be sent into any given situation, positive or negative, it's not YOUR choice. You can't deny that by installing military forces in a country, that the civilian population won't be at risk --- quite the opposite, they are the ones who suffer, get injured, die, have their homes destroyed, their lives torn apart and have to live with a foreign military presence, who perhaps as kintaro suggest may not have an ability to grasp local ways and culture. That isn't aided by the fact that us and british soldiers have been involved in brutality (for which many of them are being/have been sentenced) against civilians... murder, rape. That may be a tiny minority of military involved in such events, but it's disgusting and doesn't do anything to benefit the honour and respect of the foreign forces in that country. Furthermore, those soldiers have taken the choice to be in the military, therefore understand the risk involved - the civilians involved are that... civilians, innocent people.

 

You would talk differently if this was happening in your own country. If a country with overwhelming military might, such are the us and british forces in iraq, invaded your nation - causing destruction and death - even in small measures you'd have something else to say about it. Again, there is a marked difference in the value of lives of, for example us citizens and the citizens of iraq.

 

As for targets - i'm well aware that a hospital would never be an intended target, but the infrastructure of iraq for example has been damaged, including buildings like hospitals --- and i believe there's a rather quaint name for it --- collateral damage, which includes human beings. Again, unfortunate numbers dying - civilian deaths... and it would all be a different story if it were on western soil.

 

As for military types - i have no idea why anyone would want to put their energy and time into joining any type of force which uses weapons as a means of negotiation. I have yet to meet anyone in the military who has impressed me with their balanced view of life, the world or politics - let alone have an informed or educated opinion of the greater powers which lie behind their actions. From my own background, i do know personally people involved in logistics and ground forces in the british military - and i don't agree with what they do. The good, if any, will always be outweighed by the bad in war - investing money in soldier, military, weapons is not the answer, because destruction and death are inevitable.

 

Essentially, military involved in combat are putting their lives on the line and killing others at the orders of greater powers, with a huge amount of political agenda behind that - humanitarian or offensive, the operations take place in certain regions of the world, and NOT in other, according to a political agenda.