From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,60e2922351e0e780 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-11-16 18:34:11 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!small1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp2.aus1.giganews.com!intern1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 20:34:10 -0600 Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 21:34:08 -0500 From: "Robert I. Eachus" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Way off topic was: Re: Clause "with and use" References: <3FB1609E.D56E315C@fakeaddress.nil> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.34.214.193 X-Trace: sv3-dUJGLw+O+/DBQf2vlfzpQOCklwaSdCdSJLQKcyPAA2aY0QhqbipHQQb4DCAslA6PSREnYtk6Ew0XfTB!BjYnOvgBe2uUQ1+iHwJD7gLpRyrSE8dS2oNsKPykQSrZoG9N3EH8xx+z2wRCNQ== X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2553 Date: 2003-11-16T21:34:08-05:00 List-Id: Chad R. Meiners wrote: >>In bootcamp they force you to keep your >>shoes shiny and your uniform folded perfectly. Why? Because it >>establishes discipline. Do shiny shoes make you a more effective >>fighter? Of course not. > > > Well .... I have noticed that people that have shiny shoes and perfectly > folded uniforms can take pride in this. This pride helps self-esteem, which > improves the troops moral. Troops with high moral are way more effective > than troops with low moral. > > Note that my argument is rather holistic in that considers the effect in > whole environment. Naturally, it does not always apply, and this is where > purists shall get unreasonable. Totally off topic, but hey, I just got an e-mail from my son in Tikrit, Iraq, so let me take a detour. That barracks drill and spit and polish is a step on the path to becoming a soldier. But there is a huge difference between that and a combat unit. Take a look at the video that Fox News sent from the 3rd ID division reconnaissance in force probe into Baghdad. The footage you see looks almost ho hum, business as usual. But if you listen to the "chatter" -- which is anything but -- on the combat push you can tell the pucker factor is pretty high. My rough estimate was that the 1st Brigade combat team RIF took out the equivalent of an armored regiment and a division or so of irregulars with "technical vehicles" converted pickups with machine guns, mortars, or rocket launchers in the pickup bed, and sometimes added armor. Now take some unit with spit shined boots and other chicken***t, and add it into the mix and you have an explosive mixture. (I worried a bit about the asterisks above actually offending some combat veterans. But they know the technical term, and if I used it some other people would be offended.) The US Army is for the most part much smarter than that. But right now we have more than enough veteran troops to mix the 'cruits in as replacements and keep the ratios right so that combat is dealt with the way combat has to be dealt with when and where it occurs, and the 'cruits will become veterans almost without noticing. Let me quote a previous message from my son about the Ramadan attacks: It has been wonderfully boring for the past few months... until the first day of Ramadan. Late that night things started to explode all over post. We were ordered to shelter and full battle rattle. I was on RTO so things got real hectic where I was. We reported two SALUTE reports back on explosions that happened near our manny (maintenance) areas on post. About an hour later an assault was made on our front gate. You know how that went: no US injuries, no Iraqi survivors. Then we were ordered to start pulling security all over the place... (My better judgment tells me its a good idea not to say anything about where.) And about two hours after that we got reports that the explosions all over post were caused by a botched EOD job. The main explosion didn't trigger off like it was supposed to. So the smaller explosives started hurling s**t all over the place and some exploded on impact. So far I haven't heard about any injures that day. That's been pretty much it. A lot of the Iraqis are happy we are here and we are starting to see a good future for this country. Well we just got some internet satellites up and running so things are getting better. Well anyway ... its been a boring 7 months. > Well grant you that it depends on the DI. I would think that a good DI > would recognized when the shining of shoes won't help to make a better > soldier. However, that would probably exclude good DIs from being purists, > but I can definitely see the an average DI could very well be a purist. I don't know about Marine DIs. I do know about Army DIs, and they do know that what they are teaching is something developed over centuries as a way to create effective combat capable soldiers. It is much more effective to wash out 'cruits in training because they can't follow simple orders in a non-combat situation than to have to write to their mother about how bravely they died in battle. There is something called doctrine. It is one of the most difficult things for military forces to develop and implement. A reporter was recently embarassed because he questioned US casualty figures in Iraq. He realized that almost all of the dead were soldiers who died in combat. No soldiers listed as wounded later died. He won himself a long lecture from an expert in combat medicine. This is a part of US military doctrine--wear combat armor, get the medics and doctors as close to the front as possible, medevac patients to rear area facilities by air as soon as possible, etc. All devoted to ensuring that casualties know that if they can be "dusted off" (lifted out in a medical chopper) they will survive. And a lot more training and doctrine devoted to fire supression and "owning" the battlefield as soon as possible so that the medevac teams can do their jobs. (And to "preparing the battlefield" so the choppers are ready when needed among other things.) Is all this "worth it"? I think so. There are three other kinds of military organizations out there. Those that emulate US doctrine, and try to get as good at it as we are. Those that look at US casualty ratios and understand that going head to head with the US military is crazy. And those like Saddam who don't believe those numbers. (I almost got into a discussion of which countries have doctrines that may be better in which situations. But if you want to hear that, find a friend who will take you to an O-club or senior NCO club and let the vets talk your ear off. To veteran NCOs and Officers, doctrine is vital compared to tactics or strategy.) -- Robert I. Eachus 100% Ada, no bugs--the only way to create software.