Hurrah for Robert Baer after all

[DRorchia]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

I agree that today's soldiers are less averse to killing than has been in the past. Maybe it's because of violent video games, the idealization of thuggery in youth culture, or the fact that the volunteer system self-selects out people who are not inclined to kill. But the American special forces guys I've met recently are different from the older veterans I worked with in the past. I don't think today's soldiers grew up with the same moral inhibitions that former generations possessed. I believe this is also reflected in the homicide rate at US military bases today - something which never existed in the past. American culture is in crisis today. There is a current of savagery and barbarism that's tolerated now that would never have been tolerated before, a moral decay, and one manifestation of this is the lack of conscience many of today's soldiers exhibit as compared to the past.

Violence in our society may have changed but fundamentally there's there no difference between today and 60 years ago. Atrocities were carried out by American troops and their enemies in almost any war you care to name. Certainly in the civil war, WWII and Vietnam. I name these wars specifically because of my knowledge of documented cases in these wars. Certainly the enemies we faced in those wars carried out many atrocities as well. The Russians, Germans, Confederate, Yankee, North Vietnamese etc. Were morals to blame for this?

As far as war always being in the future I cannot agree.

In Sam Huntington's seminal work "The Soldier and the State" he explains the that American military personnel possess an institutional belief that war will always be with us because of the dark side of human nature. He explains that the reason they hold this view is because they must demonize their enemies in order to justify their existence, and the violent nature of their work.

However these views are without foundation. In the modern age wars are not started over greed or envy. In the modern age all wars were fought over IDEOLOGY, sincere differences in beliefs over what is right and wrong. American military personnel don't like to admit this to themselves because it makes it very difficult to kill someone if they are sincerely fighting for a principle they believe in just like you are. It's a lot easier to kill someone if you have convinced yourself that they are evil bad guys who are greedy and envious and therefore deserve to die.

War is an endemic state in primitive societies. In the imperial age wars were fought for the wealth, glory or prestige of elites, but that was a long time ago.

In the modern age wars have been fought over legitimate and sincere disagreements over ideology, or were sparked over misperceptions of security risks and threats. In my opinion bureaucratic and institutional interests bear heavily in this.

This is not true. Many wars were simply stirred up by human emotions such as ethnic hatred (ie..ignorance), greed, corruption, you name it.
Secretary of State Clinton yesterday stated that Europe's oil and immigration issues were of vital interest to those countries and necessitated the U.S. military to help our allies protect those interests. That's not ideology my friend.

In the last two hundred years in the west the start of every war was anticipated with optumism, and a belief that war would be quick, painless and redeeming. When these wars turned out to be otherwise it infused western culture with a hard strain of pacifism.* The fact is none of the wars of the past two hundred years would ever had started if the participants had known beforehand what horrors would be unleased. The addition of the nuclear dimension made that all the more certain.

I completely disagree. The men who lead us into these wars, politicians, corporate business, some military officers, many of them knew full well the horrors of war, having witnessed wars during their lifetime. They simply don't CARE because it won't be them doing the fighting or the dying. Their only thoughts concern what gains they or the country stand to make by a successful outcome of the war.

Eventually war will be a thing of the past, and history as we've known it will be at an end.

Then people who get off on killing their fellow man will have to play out their malice and barbaric tendencies through video games and gansta rapper fantasies.

*One example of this is reflected in public opinion in the US after WWI.
After WWI none of it's lofty goals was achieved, and the American public realized they had fought for nothing. They were so embittered that they were determined to never be conned into fighting in another European war, and were 90 plus percent opposed to joining the fight against Hitler before 1941. After the Pearl Harbor attack there was much enthusiasm for the war effort, but this faded as the months went by and as the public realized that their homes and families were not actually directly threatened either by Japan or Germany. This is the reason why 60% of American men under arms had to be drafted. If they wanted to serve they would have volunteered. The reason why the had to be drafted is because if they had not been they never would have shown up to enlist, and enlistment goals would never have been met, as they would never have been met in the North during the civil war, or in WWI, or in Vietnam.

I've already disputed this statement. There are documented polls that show that the highest percentage ever reached during WWII of people who opposed the war was 25%.
Since a draft WAS instituted, no one can say with certainty how many people would have volunteered to serve without the draft. Once a draft is in place, attitudes tend to chance. It's human psychology. If you know you're going to be called up anyway, why volunteer? Many had no intention of not serving but felt they would wait until they were called up. They did this for a variety of reasons. So it's simply conjecture to reason that because 60% were drafted that 60% opposed the war or opposed serving in the war. Many published interviews with veterans would suggest otherwise.

[theaustinescorts]

Given the tenor of the times it's very surprising that as many as even 25% of the population would admit to being opposed to being in WWII, so I suspect it may have been higher.

But even if only 25% opposed the war that doesn't mean that those who didn't oppose favored it enough to serve. Usually polls have several different categories, and I think the 60% of American servicemen under arms who had to be drafted because they would never have been inducted otherwise [therefore I declare them not wanting to serve] would have said that although they were not OPPOSED to the war, that they didn't care to serve in it either.

In WWI the public tenor was even more shrill given the government German-hating propaganda created. Symphonies had to cancell their performances by German composers. In San Antonio the famous "King William Street" was temporarily renamed "John Pershing Avenue" until the end of the war.

In terms of the causes of war, please consult any theorist of International Relations. The best is Jack S. Levy at Rutgers. If you are speaking of war between nations, not civil wars or ethnic conflict, then it's clear that IN THE MODERN AGE [the European nation state] that all wars were the result of misperception and ideological conflict between sides that were each trying to do what they thought was right. Corruption, criminality, and greed are more aptly attributable to the imperial conquests of the past. To attribute greed or corruption to someone like Kaiser Wilhelm, for example, is to fall prey to wartime propaganda. I don't agree with what he did, but I recognize that he thought he was doing the right thing when he did it. The tragedy of modern war is that both good guys and bad guys die on BOTH sides.*

Regarding the difference between today's American soldiers and those of the past when it comes to killing...

I have to say I used to work with retired government assassins, and every one of them suffered psychologically because their upbringings were inconsistent with what their government made them do. Some committed suicide. Today however all the SF soldiers I've met kill without remorse as far as I can tell. I can't imagine they'd have any of the problems I witnessed from the prior generations. Like I've said, I think they grew up in a gansta-lovin' hip hop drive-by thuggish youth culture where it's cool to blow people away. This kind of violent entertainment would never have been tolerated before, and it's effect on many people should not be dismissed. I think it explains why there are soo many homicides on military bases today. How else do you explain that today's soldiers are coming home and killing their girlfriends? There's a real callousness about killing in this society now that never existed before. Also I think the erosion of religion in most people's live might have something to do with this.

*But this doesn't speak to "war" in primitive places like sub-saharan Africa. Those situations [which are not wars between nations anyway] are of course totally about corruption and crime. When I was in Sierra Leone in the 1990s I was more than joyous every time a rebel or a government soldier was killed [they were both the same] because every single participant was motivated by criminality and malice. There were no good guys to be found anywhere in that war. Everyone on all sides were thoroughly bad.

[DRorchia]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Given the tenor of the times it's very surprising that as many as even 25% of the population would admit to being opposed to being in WWII, so I suspect it may have been higher.

But even if only 25% opposed the war that doesn't mean that those who didn't oppose favored it enough to serve. Usually polls have several different categories, and I think the 60% of American servicemen under arms who had to be drafted because they would never have been inducted otherwise [therefore I declare them not wanting to serve] would have said that although they were not OPPOSED to the war, that they didn't care to serve in it either.

Again, you simply have no way of knowing how many people would have volunteered since the STSA was established in 1940, before the U.S. officially entered the War.
One of Woodrow Wilson's motivations for instituting the draft in 1917 WW1 was to head off ex-president Theodore Roosevelt who proposed to raise an all volunteer division, which would upstage Wilson. In fact, there was much less resistance nationally to the WW1 draft then there was to the Civil War draft. So your theories as to men not believing in WW1 or WW2 and trying to avoid service don't ring true given that more opposed fighting right here in the USA (Civil War) than opposed either WW1 or WW2 induction and service.
For example, "of the 168,649 men procured for the Union through the draft, 117,986 were substitutes, leaving only 50,663 who had their personal services conscripted. Although there is a tendency to blame immigrants for Civil War draft resistance, this probably reflects Nativist prejudices of the era; in that regard, few are inclined to recollect that an able-bodied Mark Twain spent the Civil War in Nevada and California".

In WWI the public tenor was even more shrill given the government German-hating propaganda created. Symphonies had to cancell their performances by German composers. In San Antonio the famous "King William Street" was temporarily renamed "John Pershing Avenue" until the end of the war.

In terms of the causes of war, please consult any theorist of International Relations. The best is Jack S. Levy at Rutgers. If you are speaking of war between nations, not civil wars or ethnic conflict, then it's clear that IN THE MODERN AGE [the European nation state] that all wars were the result of misperception and ideological conflict between sides that were each trying to do what they thought was right. Corruption, criminality, and greed are more aptly attributable to the imperial conquests of the past. To attribute greed or corruption to someone like Kaiser Wilhelm, for example, is to fall prey to wartime propaganda. I don't agree with what he did, but I recognize that he thought he was doing the right thing when he did it. The tragedy of modern war is that both good guys and bad guys die on BOTH sides.*

We'll have to agree to disagree on your above points since we've already established in other posts that we fundamentally disagree over the causes of World War II.

Regarding the difference between today's American soldiers and those of the past when it comes to killing...

I have to say I used to work with retired government assassins, and every one of them suffered psychologically because their upbringings were inconsistent with what their government made them do. Some committed suicide. Today however all the SF soldiers I've met kill without remorse as far as I can tell. I can't imagine they'd have any of the problems I witnessed from the prior generations. Like I've said, I think they grew up in a gansta-lovin' hip hop drive-by thuggish youth culture where it's cool to blow people away. This kind of violent entertainment would never have been tolerated before, and it's effect on many people should not be dismissed. I think it explains why there are soo many homicides on military bases today. How else do you explain that today's soldiers are coming home and killing their girlfriends? There's a real callousness about killing in this society now that never existed before. Also I think the erosion of religion in most people's live might have something to do with this.

You cannot compare a Special Forces soldier with a "Government Assassin". It's apples and oranges. We could go on for weeks about the differences between various groups of society, including the military and why some find it easier to kill than others. When you're speaking of Combat, the recognized definitive expert on the psychological reasoning, ability and impact of killing is Col Dave Grossman. To save time and space, my main objection with your above paragraph is that you are over simplifying. Not sure what SF types you have been around but most of them can't stand the very culture you talk about...the "gansta-lovin' hip hop drive-by thuggish youth culture" you speak of. In fact, many of them join SF because they don't stand for those values and they are looking for an organization where pride, patriotism, honor and accountability (to oneself and to one's teammates) still mean something.

*But this doesn't speak to "war" in primitive places like sub-saharan Africa. Those situations [which are not wars between nations anyway] are of course totally about corruption and crime. When I was in Sierra Leone in the 1990s I was more than joyous every time a rebel or a government soldier was killed [they were both the same] because every single participant was motivated by criminality and malice. There were no good guys to be found anywhere in that war. Everyone on all sides were thoroughly bad.

I have always believed that one's environment, upbringing and education make a huge impact on one's morality. Many of the people you have spoken of from the "primitive" places have been capable of rehabilitation once properly educated and removed from certain influences and environments.

[theaustinescorts]

My only point about WWII and the draft is that the 60% that had to be drafted would never have been inducted otherwise, and I think anyone can draw their own conclusions as to why. Just because 25 percent of the public were opposed to the war at one point [and that probably changed] doesn't mean that the other 75% supported it. It just means that 75% were not opposed. I don't know the accuracy of these poles, but the mere fact that 60% of those serving would not have done so without being compelled says a lot about public enthusiasm for the war.

Regarding the equivalence between SF soldiers and assassins I think they're pretty much the same. Unlike ordinary soldiers both are volunteers who are trained as aggressive killers. If there is any difference it's that some of the assassins' missions involve not-combat situations, whereas SF operators are usually involved in combat of some nature [although that's even debatable].

Of the former assassins [and they never called themselves that] I worked with in the monitoring program, most were recruited from SF. The only exceptions to that were the ones recruited in the early 1950s before SF developed.

I am certain that all individuals performing assassinations today are current or former SF.

Incidentally yesterday I heard from a government contractor who knows about current government research on this issue.

According to him this issue [particularly the girlfriend killings] is a major source of concern. Research contracts have been let. According to him the findings were "disturbing." "A profound decrease in the capacity to feel empathy for others," etc. is what he mentioned. The research focused on samples of young people versus previously recorded findings, but I don't know yet for what time period [ten years ago? fifteen?]

[DRorchia]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

My only point about WWII and the draft is that the 60% that had to be drafted would never have been inducted otherwise, and I think anyone can draw their own conclusions as to why. Just because 25 percent of the public were opposed to the war at one point [and that probably changed] doesn't mean that the other 75% supported it. It just means that 75% were not opposed. I don't know the accuracy of these poles, but the mere fact that 60% of those serving would not have done so without being compelled says a lot about public enthusiasm for the war.

Ok, I won't go back and forth on the draft issue anymore. The ONLY way to know how many people would have volunteered is if there were no draft. That is the ONLY way you could say with certainty how many men would have volunteered. You simply can't come up with any statistic that would accurately tell how many men were drafted BEFORE they got a chance to volunteer. You can't accurately say how many simply waited for their number to get called up while they continued to help out on the farm, in the factory etc to provide as much money as possible for their family before they had to leave. There's so many factors here that you are ignoring in order to make it sound that 60% had to be "forced" to go. Thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands may have simply said to themselves..."I'm gonna go but I'll wait til they call me up". That's not being forced to go, that's them simply accepting the system for what it is and making the most of their time, either for family, financial or other reasons before their number is called. Many may have thought too that to go before being drafted was simply increasing their odds of getting killed since they would presumably be in combat longer than if they waited their turn to be called up. That doesn't mean they didn't want to go at all, it doesn't mean they were against the war. You simply have no data to correlate all of these possibilities/probabilities.

Regarding the equivalence between SF soldiers and assassins I think they're pretty much the same. Unlike ordinary soldiers both are volunteers who are trained as aggressive killers. If there is any difference it's that some of the assassins' missions involve not-combat situations, whereas SF operators are usually involved in combat of some nature [although that's even debatable].


Of the former assassins [and they never called themselves that] I worked with in the monitoring program, most were recruited from SF. The only exceptions to that were the ones recruited in the early 1950s before SF developed.

I am certain that all individuals performing assassinations today are current or former SF.

I've let the whole "assassins" thing slide. I will say this. I currently work with many men from SF, some are ex-SF and now work for the OGA. None of them are "assassins". If you understood the true mission of SF you would know that they're 1st and foremost mission is to train foreign forces. To go into countries and provide expertise in guerrilla warfare, weapons training, sabotage, etc.
I've had the pleasure to work along many of these fine men who had left SF to pursue work in my career field. Men from the Army SF, Marine Corps Force Recon, Navy SEALS and Delta and most were very capable operators but certainly not "assassins". Have a very small % found their way into clandestine OGA work? Sure. That doesn't mean that the ones who pursue this line of work are the same as those who don't. Many SF types have no interest in going into that line of work precisely because they would never want to become what you say they all are.
There's a young SF man in Austin who is Ranger and SF qualified, currently still in SF while also being a professional MMA fighter. If you ever met him, you'd know that you wouldn't want to be his enemy on the battlefield but he's certainly no "assassin" nor does he have ANY desire to become one. They are NOT all the same. Far from it.

Incidentally yesterday I heard from a government contractor who knows about current government research on this issue.

According to him this issue [particularly the girlfriend killings] is a major source of concern. Research contracts have been let. According to him the findings were "disturbing." "A profound decrease in the capacity to feel empathy for others," etc. is what he mentioned. The research focused on samples of young people versus previously recorded findings, but I don't know yet for what time period [ten years ago? fifteen?]

We definitely have some issues with SOME of the young military men. It is my belief (which is backed up by research) that this is not so much a result of our "culture". It is a result of fighting an insurgency war. Insurgency wars always tend to result in more atrocities and more psychological problems for the soldiers who fight them. This is a direct result of not having a clear idea of who the enemy is. Unlike in conventional wars, the enemy in an insurgency has no uniform, does not adhere to conventional tactics and there are NO front lines. This puts constant stress on some soldiers since they never can be sure when they will be attacked, where they will be attacked, how they will be attacked and by whom. Will it be a woman in a burqha blowing herself up? Will it be the guy in Farmer's clothes pushing the button on the cell phone to detonate the road side bomb? This is why SOME soldiers come back from insurgencies with psychological problems and why they are more frustrated when deployed which can lead to committing wrongful acts of killing. Read the Rolling Stone article that just came out yesterday about examples of this:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...0110327?page=1

I'm not a big fan of their exaggerated writing, their motivation for writing or their political outlook, but some facts in this are indisputable since the personnel involved admitted to carrying out these acts and their motivations for doing so.
But these things happened in the Boer War too (see the movie Breaker Morant), they happened when the German Army had to fight Guerrillas in Yugoslavia and Russia, they happened in Vietnam, they've happened in Iraq and here in Afghanistan. In all of these places the soldiers frustrations with not having a clearly defined enemy, not having a front line, and oftentimes the enemy using atrocities of their own against the soldiers, result in the soldiers frustrations boiling over and committing wrongful acts. Again I want to stress that this happens to a relatively small number of soldiers when compared to the total numbers involved.