Inspired in part by two 'ers disparate views, based on our time serving in the military, and inspired by my own experiences with people about their perceptions of our armed forces.................I am curious about people's views of political influence and, dare I use the term 'brainwashing' of our sons and daughters who enlist or who are commissioned.
I am fully aware of many people's impressions, but I chalk much of this up to Hollywood portrayals and dinner table conversations with veteran's of years gone by. I believe that I would readily admit to many of the shortcomings of our military, but I temper this with the knowledge of the many programs that citizens may not be aware of, such as Consideration of Others and the Equal Opportunity policies.

Although I realize much of the input may be anecdotal, please attempt to substantiate as much as possible. The questions I pose are:

Do you believe that the US Military culture in general fosters a climate of racism, sexism or intolerance.....and why?

Does the Military have a covert or overt policy of swaying it's members to a conservative mindset?

What policies might you institute to prevent events such as Abu Ghraib, the rape/murder in Mahmoudiya, and other instances combat related crimes? And does any political persuasion play a role in such occurrences

Do you believe that the US Military culture in general fosters a climate of racism, sexism or intolerance.....and why?

It could happen in some units, and does, but just like any organization, it only takes that acts of some to spread onto the group as a whole, just look at the republican party and the current administration.

Does the Military have a covert or overt policy of swaying it's members to a conservative mindset?

No, I just think a majority of people in the military happen to either be religious, or heavily religious, or conservative, or very conservative, so you have what you got on AD, the I am right and that’s that mindset to crucial to an open debate, being I follow science, happen to be agnostic and basically am pro environmental, my general experience with the military is basically keep that to yourself, it will not help you win any affection even if you do happen to be “high speed” and they want to send you to OCS at 19(so happy I did not take that route in life), plus I think it took just over a year to make E-4, spec. image counts for a lot.

What policies might you institute to prevent events such as Abu Ghraib, the rape/murder in Mahmoudiya, and other instances combat related crimes? And does any political persuasion play a role in such occurrences

Sending troops to a war, not a police action.

Do you believe that the US Military culture in general fosters a climate of racism, sexism or intolerance.....and why?
The US Military represents America’s team on the ground to fight whatever fight it is asked to fight... It is comprised of people, mostly loving America and what it stands for and for the most is only intolerant to leaders swayed by liberals that put their “game” in jepordy like the press and the UN that has a differing agenda.

Does the Military have a covert or overt policy of swaying it's members to a conservative mindset?
The military mindset is to kill the enemy and accomplish the mission given to it by the government... All actions requiring the military are conservative actions as I define war... There simply isn’t a touchy feely task for the military in a conflict that is associated with liberalism. You don’t try to understand why your enemy wants to kill you ... you simply want to offer him or her the greatest opportunity to die for his or her cause using superior force.... War is a failure of diplomacy and simply stated is a game of who is stronger and has the better will... actions to limit victory by peacetime standards only cause more deaths. Do diplomacy after or before war and let the soldiers loose to do what failed diplomacy causes ... killing the maximum number of the enemy... feel sorry for no one in the way of victory since the opposing leader where diplomacy failed has determined death to his masses is more valuable than coming to some agreement. War has to be considered a conservative mindset because talking is liberal and killing and defeating a enemy is conservative.

What policies might you institute to prevent events such as Abu Ghraib, the rape/murder in Mahmoudiya, and other instances combat related crimes? And does any political persuasion play a role in such occurrences
No policy is necessary since the military has it’s own rules... the military is outside of the constitution and has federal rules for dealing with such violations of rules. The military has a mission and the mission always proceeds with ALL RULES being enforced so no additional policy is necessary. Live civil society, some violate laws or in the case of the military rules and the military is required by its rules to punish violators.

Does politics play a role in law or rule violations?..... Yes, but hell yes and Vietnam is proof when we had draftees from all political parties and some of the all violated the rules. Liberals cause most of the incidents like Abu Ghraib since there is no clear war rule of engagement that ensures victory... When things like the opinion of Arab street and the American street counter the mission to win total victory without boundaries people take actions they may normally not take. When a politician votes yes to support war he or she should support that mission until complete and not allow politics to enter in words falling out of his or her mouth from that point. Each person voting yes for war should address each citizen they represent that in their judgement war is the only way and if necessary they will approve all funds and the draft of all able bodied citizens to come out victorious and then keep their mouths shut if it isn't positive.

FOR AN EXAMPLE, if I were a soldier in Iraq assigned to quell the violence between the Sunni’s and the Shiite's and know that the Shiite’s are being promoted by Iran to cause my fellow soldiers to die... and, my country, along with the UN didn’t condemn Iran for being the cause of the death of my comrades ... and, the liberals in the American political realm didn’t acknowledge Iran was the problem and not Bush policy then I would want to exterminate Shiite’s since they represent the enemy the liberals, the UN and the unknowing allow to kill and maim my friends and I.

Racism? No. There will always be bigots wearing the uniform and tarnishing it, but I don't think the military is plagued by racists any more than the field of medicine, law or plumbing. Perhaps it is unnatural to throw young men of diverse ethnic backgrounds into a situation and compel to see each other as brothers and not strangers or enemies. I never saw any overt racism between Black and White soliders when I served. Oh sure, a lot of the brothers hung out with each others and the White dudes showed up at the NCO Club for the rock n' roll and country music nights, but that was the extent of it.

But since Harry Truman desegregated the armed forces, the military has been one of the leading institutions in the nation in making great strides in making racism a thing of the past and providing opportunities for soliders of color.

Sexism? Oh yeah. BIG TIME sexism. From Tailhook to the general resistance/resentment women in the military often encounter, I'd say the U.S. Military has a serious problem with sexism. Women are not treated equally, promoted equally or valued equally.

Intolerance such as homophobia continues to be a problem in the armed forces. From what I've read, there seems to be some creeping religious intolerance in places such as the Air Force Academy and I'm sure this is not the best time to be a Muslim in our armed forces.

Does the Military have a covert or overt policy of swaying it's members to a conservative mindset?

The Military encourages respect and trust in authority, submission of the individual in favor of the group, places an emphasis in obeying the directions and dictates of "superior" officers and obedience to the mission of the organization (even if they run counter to the individual's personal beliefs).

All of this can lead to manifestations of super-patriotism, an overabundance of trust placed in authority figures and impatience with those who exhibit dissenting views from that of the majority. While there are many ex-soldiers who go on to become flaming liberals like a John Kerry, most others tend to become status quo conservatives. That's fine, but one of the reasons I decided against pursuing a career in the military was I felt I was becoming too conservative.

There is no deliberate, systematic, stated plan locked away somewhere in a file cabinet in the bowels of the Pentagon to turn young men and women into future Republicans. It just goes with the profession just as most lawyers and journalists tend to be liberals and most cops and country music singers seem most comfortable on the conservative side of the street.

When individuals are trained to sublimate much of their own personality to ensure the smooth and efficient function of the larger collective, it's easy for groupthink to begin to take hold. That is not to say liberals are immune to the herd mentality---far from it. Conservatives have emphasized order and respect for cherished institutions as part of what keeps us secure, safe and free. Despite the awful things politicians occasionally make soldiers do, the military is still viewed as a respected institution in this country. The further you go up the military food chain the more Tommy Franks you find and not so many Wesley Clarks. This is just the nature of the beast. Conformity creates conservatism and the military places a high value upon conformity.

What policies might you institute to prevent events such as Abu Ghraib, the rape/murder in Mahmoudiya, and other instances combat related crimes? And does any political persuasion play a role in such occurrences?

I would encourage and educate the 19-year olds we send off to fight in places like Iraq to first be proud to serve their country and know that they have the support of the folks back home and that includes those who never wanted them over there in the first place.

But secondly, I would never send them to places where they don't know the history, don't have enough translators to speak the native tongue, without the proper equipment or enough of it and without a clearly defined objective and purpose with a equally clear strategy to get them out.

I would stress that as guests in another person's country, while they have a mission to accomplish, it can't be done by running rough shod over the people who have to live there after we go home.

Most of all I would be open and upfront in going after wrongdoers no matter how far it goes up the chain of command. It probably would help to rotate the troops out and keep them out and away from repeated tours of duty in Iraq. Plus, there are some commanders and upper brass that should be replaced as well. There are times when new blood and fresh perspectives need to be brought to the table.

In battle, there's no such thing as Republicans and Democrats, conservatives or liberals or any of that jive because the enemy is trying to kill Americans, not political philosophies or parties. Dogtags don't have any party affiliations listed and even the solider from the bluest state will bleed red.

I agree with this assessment. Being white, I may not see the whole picture, or how other races view the climate in the military, but I have not witnessed much in the form of racism; I haven't really heard anyone tell racist jokes, not in a number of years anyway. I've attended the Army Equal Opportunity Leader's Course a few years back, serving for a time as my unit's EO rep, and I never once had to handle a race related complaint. I would like to think that it shows real progress in this area.


I might disagree with this statement, based at least on my experience and that of my wife's. My wife went through the ranks of 2LT to Major and served a large portion of her time in an Infantry brigade, a unit dominated by testosterone laden Infantrymen, Artillerists and Tankers, and other than some predictable personality related issues (as we all deal with) she can honestly say that she had never felt discriminated against in any way due to her gender. Her Officer Evaluation Reports were all stellar, and she was promoted either with or ahead of her male peers.
I do hear the occasional gender related jokes and comments, but when it comes down to performing the mission at hand, promotions and other favorable actions, I really haven't witnessed or heard a whole lot that would indicate that sexism was a serious problem.
Not to imply that we don't still have work ahead of us however; the one gender related aspect that does get people rankled tends to be pregnancy, but with the restriction that a pregnant soldiers has placed on them, it does require extra effort on the part of the other soldiers in her unit to perform the same tasks. Not necessarily a justification, but merely an explanation of some reactions.

The only time I witnessed an overt attempt at swaying political thought was not the expected (by some) toward voting conservatism, but rather of voting liberal. In the above mentioned EO Course, there was a block of instruction on the Army/Federal Government Affirmative Action Program. I attended the course in the summer of 2000, prior to the Bush/Gore race. The instructor, at the end of her instruction stated nearly verbatim: "AA is a good program, and we should all support it......so you know who you should vote for in the election".
I was appalled at such a lack of professionalism, that senior NCO, teaching a formal block of instruction, would utter such a statement. I proceeded to excoriate her soundly on the end of course critique, but would never find out if anyone spoke to her about stating such things in front of a class..........

Other than that, political debate or conversations really have never entered my workplace. On a couple of occasions I would have younger subordinates ask me who I was going to vote for, but I firmly told them that it was not professional for me, their superior, to say anything that may influence them in how they should vote.


Airman Nighttimer, I can't agree with you strongly enough! This is one of the biggest shortcomings, at least in the Army. We're getting a little better at it, but far too late and far too slowly. Simply handing a soldier a country pamphlet and putting them on a plane cannot ever suffice. I do presently have some soldiers receiving classes on Iraqi language, but it's still pretty rudimentary.


Again, this is anecdotal, but in my 20 years, I have never found myself in a unit where even 1/3 of my fellow soldiers attended church beyond the Easter/Christmas visits. When Chaplains visit soldiers in garrison or in the field, attendance to any service is voluntary and sparse. The Chaplains I have had contact with seem to spend far more of their time and energy dealing with soldiers marriage and other general counseling than ministering to their faith.


I disagree with this in the sense that understanding your enemy and what motivates him to try and kill you, will almost always give you an edge in determining the best way to kill him first.

Do you believe that the US Military culture in general fosters a climate of racism, sexism or intolerance.....and why?

Racism- no, Sexism, getting better, intolerance- you bet- homophobia would be the biggie here. Who the soldier has sex with should be none of the militaries business as long as it is not with someone in thier direct chain of command.


Does the Military have a covert or overt policy of swaying it's members to a conservative mindset?

Absolutely. Conservatism is conformity by definition. Tradition rather than change. I have personally seen officers degraded in the Reagan era for being a "bleeding heart liberal". I am sure there has been some change since- but Ol'Sarge pretty much nailed it- not by his explanation- but by his frequent posts about "gays and liberals"- what you see there is pretty much the military mind set that is allowed to flourish. Let me say this- if the generals are conservative, and want conservative thought- it pretty much filters down, perhaps not as some evil scheme mind you- but as, to use a buzz word "corporate culture"- take the homophobia. Sexual harrasment- when generals started losing thier jobs over it, things changed, and changed quickly. Homophobia is allowed because generals don't lose thier jobs over homophobia. Same with this conservative thing. But conservative thought is a tricky thing- and I will post another thread on it- because, in reality, conservatives rarely back thier own ideals- for instance- how can one even call oneself conservative and support GW?

What policies might you institute to prevent events such as Abu Ghraib, the rape/murder in Mahmoudiya, and other instances combat related crimes? And does any political persuasion play a role in such occurrences

I would make the upper eschelon officers more responsible for thier soldiers actions. Rumsfeld should have to serve time right along side those soldiers that were there. "plausible deniablity" seems to be the running watchword for general level officers- they should be held personally responsible. Same with the Haditha (sp?) soldiers- the marine commandant should be charged right along side of them.

Things don't happen when the bosses are held responsible like this. Because, then, they take a slightly more "hands on" approach to make sure the wrong "corporate culture" doesn't take.

It is enlisted men (mostly) that are paying the price for what the "corporate culture" allowed to thrive.

CR, you do realize of course (your blanket statement aside) that there are a good number of us even here on , who are conservative, yet are not Bush cheerleaders? But I'll save more comment on that if you start a thread on it.


Are you prepared to take the time and effort, were you in charge of implementing this inquisition, to prove linkage between the actions of individual soldiers who commit crimes......and the General Officers, who are often removed by geography and layers of the chain of command? I think it is ridiculous to think one could make a coherent legal case of charging the Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker, with the rape/murder committed by PFC Steven Green.


Really? Have you taken the time to study the culture and militaries of communist nations? Conformity is/was the mantra in those societies, and conservative (by our definitions) were most certainly not.

DTOM- I take your point about Pvc Green- if there wasn't a coverup afterwards? Abu Gharib, Guantanamo etc etc- much different issue- and I will admit the Haditha incident is definately more of a local command problem- but the Abu Gharib and all the other places we are torturing prisoners- that is a direct link straight to Rumsfeld himself. Geography and all that is just an excuse to immunize themselves from blame- no way on God's green earth Abu Gharib would have happened if Rumsfeld knew there would be consequences to him for that behavior. At the very least- if it was just poorly trained soldiers dropped into a bad situation as some would say it was- at the very least- Rumsfeld would have not taken allowed the risk to be taken of putting untrained soliders into a prison with that reputation!

BTW- in Russia- the conservatives are considered the communists- and the liberals are the capitalists

How did you come to such a conclusion? My posts on gays reflect the majority of the of the United States Congress during the Clinton administration. The don’t ask don’t tell is a US Policy democratically decided by an overwhelming majority and signed into law by President Clinton. This law or rule may be, no surely is homophobic but not my views, the views of the lawmakers. The policy exists for a reason other than discrimination against gays... It exists because if it wasn’t policy the large percentage of conservative volunteers would fall to the point a draft would be required to fill the military needs under the equal rights allowing gay commanders and leaders. Please explain how I got this all wrong and reflect something wrong in the ranks of the military... Why hasn’t the law-rule been changed since it clearly now limits openly married citizens of MA from serving their country in the military? The problem isn’t in the military it is in the representatives of congress that the last time I checked are not subordinate to the DOD.

As for Bush support ... both parties have issues conservatives or liberals disagree with... if McCain ran for example I would prefer to vote for any Democrat to defeat him since then when the Dems screwed things up it would be because a liberal party gained office as opposed to if McCain won a liberal republican screwed the nation up. Support is usually determined by a majority of issues of agreement... in the case of Bush I disagree with his immigration policy proposed, NCLB and portions of the drug - health program. In the case of the drug - health plan the alternative would be a communist socialistic plan offered by Dems so I support it.

Soldiers will not follow liberal leaders with a wet finger in the wind. Prez Carter would be a dead 2nd Leiutenant resultant of friendly fire in any combat unit I have ever been affiliated with. The problem isn’t we are too aggressive on the battlefield ... the problem is liberals and the press tie down the options that could result in victory.

You, Ol' Sarge- have made my point for me quite nicely with your diatribe against Jimmy Carter- who led a very, very distinguished career in the navy- and was and is a devout Christian:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter

His other sister, Ruth (1929–1983), became a well-known Christian evangelist.

He attended Georgia Southwestern College and Georgia Institute of Technology and received a Bachelor of Science degree from the United States Naval Academy in 1946. Carter was a gifted student and finished 59th out of his Academy class of 820. Carter did some post-graduate work, studying nuclear physics and reactor technology for several months at Union College until his father's death after which he resigned his commission. [1] Unfortunately he was never able to command a nuclear submarine, as the first of the fleet was launched over a year after his discharge from the navy. He married Rosalynn Smith in 1946.

Carter served on submarines in the Atlantic and Pacific fleets. He was later selected by Captain (later Admiral) Hyman G. Rickover for the U.S. Navy's fledgling nuclear submarine program, where he became a qualified command officer. [2] Rickover was a demanding officer, and Carter was greatly influenced by him. Carter later said that next to his parents, Admiral Rickover had had the greatest influence on him. There was a story he often told of being interviewed by the Admiral. He was asked about his rank in his class at the Naval Academy. Carter said "Sir, I graduated 59th out of a class of 820". Rickover only asked "Did you always do your best?" Carter was forced to admit he had not, and the Admiral asked why. Carter later used this as the theme of his presidential campaign, and as the title of his first book, "Why Not The Best?". Carter loved the Navy, and had planned to make it his career. His ultimate goal was to become Chief of Naval Operations

Sounds like someone that commanded, and commanded quite well, and was well respected in his service, and loved his service in the military- it is YOUR inherent bias against liberals- most likely, from reading your posts, influenced by your military career, and it's tendency to reward the hatred of liberals- Prez Carter would be a dead 2nd Leiutenant resultant of friendly fire in any combat unit I have ever been affiliated with.

You bring great dishonor to your own service to even suggest such a thing. You are willing to kill the man, or suggest that a unit would never tolerate his leadership, due to his political beliefs. Seems that conservative indoctrination worked quite nicely on you my man! However, while in the military, it seems as though he served with some distinction- though, admitedly, he went to the military academy in 1946, or graduated at that time- when, the "greatest generation" was OVERWHELMINGLY liberal.

And Ol' Sarge- Eisenhower, perhaps one of our greatest and most moral presidents, didn't go out warning about communism, he went out warning about "the military industrial complex" (think Haliburton, Iraq and Vietnam?) - seems as though Eisenhower may have had a crystal ball into the future. By your standards- Eisenhower wsa a flaming liberal.

But you did make my point for me quite nicely.

Jimmy Carter was undoubtedly the worst president in American history! He created the “thought” in Islam radical groups that they could win when he allowed US hostages to be held by Iran through the end of his administration. The war with Iran and Islamic terrorists began during his administration and the deaths of those in all terrorist acts leading up to the world trade center on 9-11 fall on his shoulders.

Carter supports Chavez, Castro and gives credit to Hezballah as good forces... Carter is an idiot and I will equally characterize anyone who agrees with him!

If you were an infantry soldier and someone like Carter was placed in your charge who openly comforts all enemies of America would you follow him into battle as he commands he don’t think the action is just and we should shoot to wound the trigger finger as the enemy aims to kill you? Carter belongs in a mental institution along with liberals that agree with his logic.

Carter is just a little left of George Sorrus and Coffie Annan... to follow such a crew into conflict would be equal to committing suicide.

Carter is a communist sympathizer and socialist and should have been charged with treason long ago!

If you consider Carter an American soldier leader icon then I can see how you could see an openly gay USMC combat commander in the military. Liberals that justify living beings like carter as proud Americans make me want to puke. I liked his alternative energy policies but other than that he really was lower than whale crap in my humble opinion as a leader of the free world and has became more of a disgusting person since leaving office.

So- you have said you would only NOT serve under him based on his political belief- but you would advocate his assasination by his own troops based on his difference in political beliefs (even though most of what you say is seriously conservatively slanted and a very un-objective and highly conservatively partison OPINION of Carter, most of which has no basis in reality?)-

DTOM- how would you rebut this obvious example of conservative indoctrination by the military?

Carter= treason?

Communist sympathizer?- ya, pretty hard core brainwashed at that point- considering this is the guy that boycotted the olympics due to Soviet agression against Afghanistan, and served his ENTIRE CAREER in cold war naval career-


Ol Sarge- under his influences- cited the military as his great influences.

Now- I may not agree with Carter on his policies, or his politics- but he did serve with far more distinction, than say, Ronald Reagan, GW Bush or Clinton- (GH Bush is near war hero status)- but none of those would I have advocated thier assasination by troops while in service what have you- now, I suggest impeachment for RR for Iran-contra, or treason for GW based on his Iraq lies- but, this is not due to my military indoctrination, but rather, policy well after my enlistment was over.

Yes. I felt, during my service in the reagan years, enormous pressure to be conservative while in the military- in fact, many a seargent frequently used terms like "bleeding heart liberal" (the rest of the descriptions would get me quickly banned on AD )- in conversation, regularly- to 17 year olds that are very impressed by seargent's bravado, power etc-

I think Ol Sarge's response is a "slam dunk" of military conservative ideology indoctrination, by his own statements.

Point being from me is this. I joined up with the military in a reserve capacity, being my thirst for freedom if you will probably would have ended up making regular active duty a danger overall, I hate people that use rank to push themselves and it happens, just think regular world people in uniforms. I love a unit with a solid ethos, trained to the point where talk is non void because everyone follows some code of honor and is on the same page, save this does not happen all to often.

I got to experience in minor the hell that is the mid east in the contemporary sense. I got to experience drive bys, terrorist dry runs, terrorist observation and all that nice stuff. The reality of it is some soldier that wants to bring the iron fist in such a situation is only going to provide more battle and horrid situations, the bad guys feed off of drama in support operations, which is really what our force is facing in Iraq, its called soso I think, you know the military and its acronyms, you get to experience lots of situations that the modern army was never really trained for, and in a modern sense we have a large hole there that the genius Rumsfeld just simply accepted, we had no plan after the fall of Saddam simply because we did not have this structure of force in existence really, the man needs to pony up for a lot of issues he generated and will not admit to, overall, our best bet in Iraq is economic growth and a capable Iraqi army, the U.S can stay for another hundred years and turn Iraq into a crater slowly, this is the current stay the course future. The destruction of Iraq in our hands would be an utter failure in the war on terrorism, more so then pulling out.

As for the topic at hand, yes, liberals in the military are a minority, most often or not its not a military thing then it is the same social issues you have today amongst civilians types. Of course in the military it happens to be that conservatives make up a bulk of the population in any giving branch, and yes it typically is heavy with religion also, I have experience in an army wide sense with this aspect of the army ecology. Its not to say its repressive in that tone, but it can be at times and in situations. I got awards for honorable conduct amongst other things, so its not that someone whom is not a conservative cant make a good soldier, I have watched conservative soldiers basically give in after the sun goes down to come back up and no sleep, first time in my life I had to cause myself pain to stay awake because I fell asleep walking, and literally could not stay awake.

I don’t consider myself a liberal either, but that’s just the problem, you have conservative and then everything else, which is basically called a liberal, its junk really. The only reason I did not take the route of OCS years ago is because I did not want to have to control such things, I never felt I could do a good enough job for whatever I was responsible for in that position, that I would fail and the results would be horrible, not because I hate conservatives and that they make up a bulk of our armed forces. I also did not want to have to live separate from the family in such a position. I have a choice to extend my contract in about 17 months, I think I will do such, but really I think I might change branches, maybe air force, they seem overall just in a better state mentally, and maybe people that do not make such a big issue out of things. Sometimes in the army it feels like I am back in high school.

Do you believe that the US Military culture in general fosters a climate of racism, sexism or intolerance.....and why?

No, I don't believe this. Why? History.

Racism is not in the best interests of an organization that takes in people of color from other countries with the promise of citizenship at the end of active service.

Sexism has raised its ugly head at the AF Academy. It has been addressed and isn't tolerated from the top.

Religious arrogance has appeared at the same place. It's not the military but society pulling this off. I won't blame the military for something that's bigger, and ultimately, more powerful.

I do see the concept of dehumanizing enemy. Seems to be a necessary thing when we're talking about killing each other.

Does the Military have a covert or overt policy of swaying it's members to a conservative mindset?

Didn't work on Wesley Clark. Didn't work on John Kerry, Jimmie Carter, or the platoon of Demo candidates fresh from the fight. George Senior seems to have gotten a shot of liberalism in his old age, and I don't think he was in the same league as the current militarily-challenged conservatives in power when he was Prez.

I've worked with a lot of people who have had long military service, those who put in the twenty-some years and taken the retirement package. I haven't noticed any leaning toward conservatism and just the opposite. There's an almost universal shock and awe about how corrupt civilian service often is.

So, if one defines conservatism as a desire for order and sense, and a measure of honesty, in a chaotic and corrupt world, yeah, I can see that desire. But I don't define conservatism that way. I actually define liberalism that way, on the level of corporate and government leadership. It's a kind of idealism.

What policies might you institute to prevent events such as Abu Ghraib, the rape/murder in Mahmoudiya, and other instances combat related crimes? And does any political persuasion play a role in such an occurrences

Can't answer this one, other than the rules are in place, the chain of command is in place, and I strongly suspect that orders came down from above. I also strongly suspect that people hit their tolerance levels in combat and go far past them.

I won't condemn the lower ranks. I am sorry that we don't have higher quality leadership. If I had the power to change the situation, I would, and have exercised the limited power I do have toward this end.

I also think that the military experiences that most people have are very positive and generate admirable citizens, if somewhat bewildered. The rest of us have become accustomed to the chaos and crookedness over decades in the civilian trenches.

You're serious? Where did Ol Sarge cite any examples of indoctrination? He stated his opinion, an opinion that could have very well been voiced by a civilian. Nowhere in his posts did he give an example of how the military used a methodology to brainwash him. He is a self professed conservative, but many people come out of the military as true blue liberals........does that mean that the brainwashing just didn't take with them?
I've noticed the disparity between fact and fiction for many years now, many people like yourself will take some anecdotal evidence, such as having a hard nosed conservative sergeant, and conclude that there is a program of indoctrination in the armed forces.
While the point can be made that there are more conservatives than liberals in the military population, nobody can point to any concrete data to support indoctrination. I consider myself a libertarian (note the small l), did I reject the brainwashing?

In order to prove a fact, you have to bring more data to the table than a couple guy's opinions.

Um- I did cite his "influences" in the post- he credits the army with his conserative thoughts...

However- you are correct- any debate on this issue is going to be COMPLETELY opinion- because ONLY anedotal evidence can be used- since no empirical, scientific study published in an appropriate peer reviwed journal has been done- so YOU anecdotal evidence is no more or less valid than mine and vice versa- however- Ol Sarge, with even his very handle- cites influences of his conservative thought through the military. Now- one point I will concede, I see him a very much "old guard" type military as well- he would fit in very well with my Pa's friends, they all speak about the same way, lots of "squared aways" and "good to goes" and "bleeding heart liberals" interspersed throughout thier day to day speech.

Influence does not = indoctrination, no matter how hard you try to stretch it. I credit the military with influencing me in many of my libertarian beliefs........was I indoctrinated or was I not? Did I have KP duty the day they taught Conservatism for dummies in Basic Training? How do you explain people who leave the military and credit it for their liberal beliefs?

Most polls conducted by entities such as Rasmussen and Quinnipiac put the political leanings of military members at around 60% conservative to 40% liberal. Hardly overwhelming...........


I partially agree with you, however it is one thing to state that there are more conservatives in the military than liberals; it is quite another to state emphatically, that indoctrination is the order of the day.

Once again- unless the poll has some scientific guidelines as well- 60/40 is even suspect- though, just for clarity of argument I will say fine- 60/40- but then, move up the ranks a bit- say, to E-5 and above, or, only those on a second enlistment/re-up - how do they stack up? Is it more by profession within the army- say, are there more liberal nurses but more conservative infantryman?

I would suspect that the number becomes VERY heavily wieghted towards conservative once you get above E-5- or "Ol Sarges" - and therein lies the "indoctrination by the corporate culture"- when more than half of your superiors are of a conservative type- and, I would LOVE to see a real empirical poll of those above the rank of E-5, or officer O-3, that vote republican, and call themselves conservative- and this middle management has enormouse <cough> "influence" to the point that it certainly BLURS into "indoctrination"

I know during my enlistment the very LANGUAGE that Ol Sarge uses was commonplace- I do not consider my current dealings with the military (family counselling) a good sampling because I only see problems in the core family structures of the military- but I still hear quite a bit of the language that, perhaps not overt enough for you to notice it DTOM- but the very language of soldiers is inherently ANTI- liberal. I don't know if it is true today- but it certainly wasn't in my day (80s)

Is there a common, everyday heard anti-conservative phrase?

You are correct that the higher up one goes in the chain of command, the more conservatives you are likely to encounter. However, as you ascribe that to the corporate culture, it could just as easily be ascribed to the increased level of education within that group.


Link

There will never be a true empirical study done, but it is worthwhile to note of the Military Times survey above, the majority of subscribers are senior NCO's and Officer's..........leading me to cite that 56% of those surveyed considering themselves Republican, doesn't even come close to implying a conservative indoctrination.

I also enlisted in the 80's, and can agree with you more on the type of language used then amongst the Joe's, but in my experience, it really isn't so much the case today. As I've said before, my time at work is the most politically neutral time I spend. That is of course anecdotal for me, but we are discussing the military of today, not of yesterday.

CR please re read the Casual Conversation thread and read my entry again on influences. The things not said about my rearing were mentioned earlier in different posts... for example my father being a bigot... I fought against it... I openly supported fair treatment of gays hurting my dad to the core in his public work place. I used statements like “TV in the 50’s where good and evil and a moral reasoning was used for all actions... In the 50’s TV explained in detail nationalism...” I went on to say “We are all products of our environment I suppose. I would say the greatest impact on who I am and how I see the world first reverts to my parents beliefs and neighborhood where I was reared, that I challenged from day one and secondly, my service in the military...”

I think you placed weight on this statement in the post “The military changed me entirely from the former since I was introduced into so many different cultures, including the military culture...” I did not mention this in the way you took it... I didn’t instantly turn into a bigot or change from my childhood understanding of right and wrong... I continued to grow into accepting diversity including interracial marriage... during my rearing I lived in a segregated environment and in the military I worked and subordinate to persons of other race and sex and visited many other cultures outside of the US. In other words I continued to grow.

The military didn’t brainwash me, it reinforced my feelings toward right and wrong and understanding of accepting diversity... I was always conservative if one can include diversity sensitive folks like myself being conservative...

I cried when JFK was shot but I hated him first for allowing the Bay of Pigs invasion to start knowing he didn’t have the heart to support the mission to completion and victory.... I was just a boy when he was shot but I had already hated my first wet finger liberal changing their mind after soldiers were committed to battle... again in Vietnam I saw the wet finger liberals flop like fish and if you didn’t live then just look at liberals flopping now on another hard war. Flopping, wet finger decisions by liberals violated every western image of moral to the story delivered of right and wrong and my parents guidance of standing up for and being responsible for decisions you make in life.

In basic training a son of a liberal called his mom about bayonet training complaining about the indoctrination cry of the bayonet fighter... When the DI asked, “What is the spirit of the bayonet fighter?” The indoctrination acceptable answer was, “Kill, kill, kill!” The liberal mom called a liberal senator and the liberal senator directed DOD to change the answer to, “Incapacitate, incapacitate, incapacitate! You know something... in the spring of 68 many of those taught to lower spirit were killed in the Tet offensive by bayonet fighters who stuck bayonets through their chest. I can’t stand wet fingered wishie washie flopping non-mission supporting liberals that vote for war and then embarrass me when they call themselves honorable Americans. The military did not brainwash me!

I am sorry Ol Sarge- but your characterization of Carter, though perhaps not a great president, though, not in the top ten worst either- and your completely unfactual, and damn near fantasy based rants on liberals and such- that pretty much SCREAMS brainwashing LOL-

I mean- you seem to forget that it was liberal democrat that led us to victory in WW2, JFK was a hawkish liberal (though his bay of pigs invasion was ALMOST as bad as the Iraq cluster- you-know-what, except, of course, JFK was smart enough to get out and try something else at least) pretty much liberals ushered in this countries golden age, our best times, and that the "greatest generation" was overwhelmingly liberal. That is why we had over 30 years of near total democrat dominence- because the country was left of center (completely left wing by todays standards) - by your standards- Eisenhower was a flaming commie liberal. After all- he didn't warn about communism- he warned about corporate America- sounds alot more like John Kerry and alot less GW. It is funny, the guys who served with distinction and honor (Kerry, Carter) you call traitors, and the ones that were total wussy cowards (Cheney,(gawd, how many draft deferments DID that guy get- was it over five or over 10?) GW, busy doin' coke, partying it up in the "senators son" champagne unit) you support-

ya, that is a pretty good sign of indoctrination- NOT influence LOL

I am truly sorry if my words are taken personally- I respect and admire Ol Sarge's service to his country- my point is that there is more indoctrination than he may realize. It is like I said with DTOM as well- whom I respect and admire his honor for his service - it is that I believe he may very well be so far in the forest he can't see the trees? Correct Cliche'?

It is the very language and culture that I adress here- that they are taught to hate Carter and Kerry by culture- not neccesarily by actual facts, or reasoned research into thier life. I DO agree that Carter was a largely incompetent president- but he is also a fine man, a man that has devoted his life of privilege to hard labor for those less fortunate than himself- a very admirable trait, NOT deserving to be castigated as he is- he has devoted his life to true public service- no lip service, and, even if I don't agree with his politics, I can agree that he is a fine man, a man I can admire despite my disagreements with him, whereas, through the simple research of the neo-con goverment leaders we have- there is precious little to admire. I don't agree with much of GH Bush's policies- but I do respect his life long service to his country. I heatedly disagree with both Carter and GHs policies- but I can still admire thier service and conviction. I find nothing like that in this adminstration, or, in fairness, not much of the prior one, though slightly less so.

But my point is, betwen Gordo's and Ol Sarge's posts- you get a bit of a window into the soul of the military I have known since I was old enough to walk and go potty in the big boy toilet!

Do you believe that the US Military culture in general fosters a climate of racism, sexism or intolerance.....and why?
In my case the military supported racial and sexual acceptance and, I might even add tolerance towards lesbians.... I had a female company commander that was surely a lesbian but didn’t openly acknowledge same. Many very conservative people with deep religious beliefs in the military will not serve with a known gay person, an out of the closet gay. I’m sure if such a debate were conducted in the fifties the same would be stated of blacks or women... Congress judged the intolerance and decided with don’t ask don’t tell not the military.

Does the Military have a covert or overt policy of swaying it's members to a conservative mindset?
I think not and use recent comments about our great leaders from the left in the past that were unmistakably liberal or, left leaning. The leading influence of conservative mindset in military are the traits of leaders and elected officials of late, since the Korean War. Soldiers will support a leader that is resolve in the mission and refuses to be influenced by politics. I use the wet finger to describe the left because for the most part in the Vietnam conflict and now during the Iraq War it has been the left that seems to dream up reasons for no longer supporting something they voted for. I agree some right wingers also divorce themselves but history shows soldiers that a wet finger can mean I lost my legs for nothing or my friend lost his life for nothing other than political advancement for a liberal usually, that put a wet finger in the breeze of public opinion on a war that he or she had voted to support. I think the Vietnam Memorial is a wall of shame and brings back personal losses of comrades that have names on it... I will be the first person to say Vietnam was a bad idea but any elected representative that voted to support that bad idea shouldn’t be able to change their mind when going gets rough. How would Korea ended if such weakness occurred when the N. Koreans and Chinese pushed us to the Pusan perimeter? We live in a democratic republic... in my mind the republic part of that means the elected may support unpopular actions in support of the interest of America. Korea as an example... had lefties or righties ignored the republic part of their office Korea, Japan and China would not be as it is today with N. Korea and China defeating America. I think the same of Vietnam and Iraq in comparison and the first person that says “what is the exit strategy?” and doesn’t accept when we are victorious don’t deserve our democratic REPUBLIC.

What policies might you institute to prevent events such as Abu Ghraib, the rape/murder in Mahmoudiya, and other instances combat related crimes? And does any political persuasion play a role in such occurrences
These incidents are violations of military regulations and regardless of where they happen, FT. Bragg or Iraq should be handled by the military. When either party paints it any other way it discredits the military and subordinates it to property of one party. The military is our military and no direct party claim should be uttered. If someone thinks the appointed DOD staff had directed such actions then present proof or shut up since it is our military and they have ample rules and rules to enforce those rules.

What policies might you institute to prevent events such as Abu Ghraib, the rape/murder in Mahmoudiya, and other instances combat related crimes? And does any political persuasion play a role in such occurrences?

Ol Sarge:

These incidents are violations of military regulations and regardless of where they happen, FT. Bragg or Iraq should be handled by the military. When either party paints it any other way it discredits the military and subordinates it to property of one party. The military is our military and no direct party claim should be uttered. If someone thinks the appointed DOD staff had directed such actions then present proof or shut up since it is our military and they have ample rules and rules to enforce those rules.

Politicians, right or left, have took great pains in the past to shield themselves from orders or implications that thier decisions might have been wrong- and, now, with the recent conviction of a CIA agent (finally, I didn't think it would happen) and evidence was excluded in the Abu Gharib trial that appears, to me, to be purposely shielded Rumsfeld and others:

I would like to say, right now, that I consider this source to be extremely biased and left slanting- it is a socialist site for gawds sake! - BUT- the quotes and trial notes are accurate- those can be cross checked- the facts presented are accurate portrayals of the trial and such- the editorializing can be discarded if you wish- but this was the best site that I could find that had pulled all the different elements together in one site, instead of going to several sites and coming up with the same thing in a much more disjointed fashion- so the items of fact gleaned from this site are more for clarity of my point that to say I agree with the politcal leanings of this site- capiche?

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/jan2005/gran-j19.shtml

The judge in the Graner case, Army Colonel James Pohl, sought to exclude any evidence pointing to the culpability of higher-level military officers or government officials. Pohl denied the requests of Graner’s attorney to call to the stand the former commander of US forces in Iraq, Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, as well as Rumsfeld and his undersecretary for intelligence, Steven Cambone. He further denied attorney Womack’s request to grant immunity to Colonel Thomas Pappas, the head of the military intelligence brigade at Abu Ghraib, so that he could testify.

Having excluded these top military and civilian officials, the judge disallowed any questioning of witnesses about orders given by officers regarding the treatment of prisoners. In a classic “Catch-22” maneuver, he refused to permit witnesses to explain what higher-level officers knew about the abuse on the grounds that such statements were “hearsay.”

a bit more:
Some of the other soldiers who have already pleaded guilty noted that Graner and others were encouraged in their actions by military intelligence and CIA officials in order to “soften up” prisoners for interrogation purposes.

Former Specialist Megan Ambuhl, who has pleaded guilty to charges relating to the Abu Ghraib torture, said, “They encouraged us all the time.” She said military intelligence officers “would come down and let us know what they wanted us to do with the detainees.” They told her “to point at detainees and laugh at them while they were in the shower” in order to humiliate them.

Ambuhl also said that Lieutenant Colonel Steven Jordan, head of the Joint Interrogation and Detention Center at Abu Ghraib, saw photos of the abuse that had been placed on the screen of a desktop computer at the prison.

Master Sergeant Brian Lipinski testified that Jordan commended Graner for “doing a good job” shortly after the incident involving naked prisoners stacked in a pyramid, though the performance report chastised Graner for smashing a prisoner’s head into a wall. Graner was not punished for this action, but was offered time off to deal with stress.

According to a Washington Post article of January 11, Private Ivan Frederick, who has also pleaded guilty to charges relating to the Abu Ghraib torture, “said he had consulted with six senior officers, ranging from captains to lieutenant colonels, about the guards’ actions, but was never told to stop. Frederick also said that a CIA official, whom he identified as ‘Agent Romero,’ told him to ‘soften up’ one suspected insurgent for questioning. The agent told him he did not care what the soldiers did, ‘just don’t kill him.’”

So, I think there is more than sufficient collobarating testimoney in this trial to say that it was definately tolerated and encouraged- but in a manner that they knew would shield them from prosecution, or even a bump in thier career!

That is why, I say, we should AUTOMATICALLY hold those from the heads of the CIA and DOD responsible, force them to resign in shame, career over, at the very least, when these things come to light- just like in other countries where the APPEARANCE of wrong doing by someone leads them to apologize and resign.

Prior to GW, and I am including RR and GH Bush, Carter, Nixon and others- I meight have agreed with you Ol'Sarge about "letting the army handle it"- but GW has made systematic war on the military's honor.

Dtom--Among officers, who represent roughly 15 percent of today's 1.4 million active duty military personnel, there are about eight Republicans for every Democrat, according to a 1999 survey by Duke University political scientist Peter Feaver.

Okay- so here is the indoctrination I recieved when in- I heard basically the same language as Ol'Sarge every day "liberals" this and that- since I was enlisted in 1982 in basic in SC, Ol'Sarge's language railing against the "liberals" was the norm, if anything, I am willing to bet it was MUCH harsher than Ol'Sarge uses on this board (I am NOT disparaging Ol'Sarge here or meaning to pick on him- but he really does represent the norm I saw while in, and, I am willing to bet Gordo would recognize the speech pattern quite well? ) - 1rst off, I am willing to admit, and participated myself, as a lad of 17, that the Army doesn't exactly have politically correct anything during day to day operations LOL- though, they tip toe pretty quietly around the sexual stuff due to sexual harrasment issue- but, there is no analogy while I was in of disparaging conservatives- to be as balanced as you say- you would pretty much have a balance of negative language, or positive language, in the day to day speech of a soldier- though, today, I do see the "chickenhawk" and some other disparaging neo-con remarks start to creep in, the language of the military is DEFINATELY anti-liberal. It is spat as a curse word as often as not- as, (not personal again ) pretty much, the way Ol'Sarge posts go on liberals. I mean really, I was at a bike rally last week with about 50 soldiers on sport bikes (not even the uber-american pro-harley crowd here, we are talking young 2nd term enlisteds mostly, at all all biker rally) - at breakfast, the news was on about 4 TVs, and about 10 of them were pretty much always engaged in some liberal bashing to items on the news, with the usual Clinton reference here and there etc- about half of them never made a single comment to rebut, nor did they offer any opinion- however, not ONE of them made the slightest peep condemning conservatives at all, with one calling GW a "liberal dressed in conservative corporate clothing" as a joke.

What I am alluding to is this DTOM- is that the anti-liberal bias is pervasive, daily and massively unbalanced to the point of indoctrination- because those that may believe and speak to the opposite see it as, at least "bad form, bad manners or anti-social, party foul, buzz kill" to argue against the liberal bashing atmosphere in the military.

DTOM- the reason that "liberal" message shocked you so much in your EOA briefing is that it was SO out of the norm of everyday military speech partterns- If you are not going to say something anti-liberal, then don't say anything at all! i

I tell you what = if an "Ol'Sarge" went on one of those diatribes, "bleeding heart liberal with his finger to the wind needs to be fragged in his tent, if he don't like America, leave, he must be un-american communist" things you would hear from day to day as normal conversation in the military- I sure as heck wasn't going to correct him or complain!

But I tell you what- if I railed against republican rule, with talks of corporate America etc- i am sure I would not get invited to the promotion party!

I'll place the disclaimer ahead of time here that my observations are mostly anecdotal. Obviously one person's experience might be 180 out from another. To juxtapose by using a different subject, a tanker pilot friend of ours told me his squadron is so underfunded that they have to bring their own toilet paper from home. He has had to do this for the past two years. There is literally no money to buy toilet paper for the squadron bathrooms. They try not to land in Baghdad, because they have no defense systems (no money for that either), though they are shot at all of the time over in the middle east. Last year four exchange pilots from Italy came over and they had no money to buy them four flight suits. It nearly created an international incident and eventually they just passed around the hat and paid out of pocket because they had no funds to give the Italians their uniforms. Now, ask him if the military is under or overfunded, and his answer will be COMPLETELY different than Mr P's, who works in the sexy programs with the most funding.

Ergo, I am sure that some people have experienced discrimination and harassment, or perhaps a bad confrontation or two because of their political leanings. In the 10 different tours of duty my husband has done in the Airforce, I haven't noticed this phenomenon. No "conservative indoctrination". I've encountered very few who speak their minds about politics anyway, and when I do they are as likely to be liberal as conservative (probably more likely to be "liberal" these days). It is frowned upon to openly and publicly disparage the Commander in Chief. This has been the case for every administration not only this one.

There is a greater than average proportion of minorities represented in the military, and I know for a fact that there is a great attempt to promote minorities and women. Officers are now required to take numerous "sensitivity training" courses. I am also personally acquainted with many women in the military. Several went to the AF Academy at the time of the scandals, and not one of them personally (I mean privately, because I've brought the subject up) supports the allegations against it. (disclaimer: I myself can't vouch for the academy, as to me it's a loony bin but those I know who have been there don't think so....) Of all of the military women I know, one, a JAG, encountered significant sexual harassment from a superior officer (he grabbed her knee). He was subsequently demoted and discharged (hers wasn't the only testimony).

I've personally known of more "reverse" sexual discrimination than any other kind. I've seen women promoted to high levels who would have absolutely been kicked out long before if they were men...for fraternization and a host of other problems. One of them is going to be a squadron commander soon, which literally makes me shudder. I look forward to reading about her as the center of some big scandal in the next few years, and my crystal ball tells me somehow that things will be skewed to make it look as though she is the wronged party.

Negative CR, I was shocked because that was the first and only time that someone who was superior in rank to me, and using her position as an instructor in a Department of the Army course, would use that position and platform to endorse a particular political candidate.
It was unprofessional and unbecoming no matter who the candidate would have been. I can at least agree with you that things were a little different back in the 80's and before.....cannot you not concede that today's Army may be much more politically neutral than then?

Ya- no problem with conceding that- though, the language I hear is mostly the same- but as Iraq turns more and more into a cluster thang- - I doubt good troops are going to be swayed too much by the idea that liberals are the ones getting them killed as well.

Most units do expect that you bring personal toiletry items, such as toothpaste and soap, etc. Toilet paper? I never saw that, nor have I personally heard any soldiers discuss it, even though I'm sure it happens in some units. I also would argue the missle defense system issue in Baghdad, and moreover say that a large portion of flights are escorted in by a gunship and/or an airforce escort. There ARE undoubted tragedies in reference to the quality of life for soldiers while abroad, to include communication with family, etc depending upon what unit you're assigned to and what external help you've gotten. While I was in Afghanistan, church groups sent us everything from socks to trail mix. Our church now also is a HUGE supporter of these type of ventures. Ironically, we do send toilet paper. The military mostly is like any other company and has to rely on its employees to allocate money effectively. A large combat arms unit (infantry for example), may spend large amounts of money on things like Gatorade and TP may not be in the budget, where as a communications unit doesn't need gatorade, water socks, pantyhose (for the weapons), or anything else related to being in the desert heat. They then can spend the "allocated money" on whatever else... see?

I think in reference to accomodations, everything has to do with the unit that you're assigned to and it's location in the middle east. Frankly, it's sad, but often times Navy guys and the Airforce get better places to stay, the better food, etc. It's actually true state side too. All the stories about buying radio shack walkie-talkies have some truth to them, etc.

However, as far as racism and sexism go, I'll AMEN Mrs. P's deal about it almost going overboard to the other direction. Women, particularly in a combat zone, are handled with kid gloves. Also, when it comes to promotions and affirmative action, etc... minorities in general have it made in the shade. There ARE good ol' boy systems in place, particularly in the top brass, but it more has to do with experience and whether you went to the academy or not. Funny enough, black officers in the USMC tend to be on the fast track, but often are very competent soldiers. The irony comes in that even had they been that competent and white... who knows where their careers would've led them. I have a very close friend that was black and hated the whole system... as folks watched him like a hawk so as to perpetually prove their promotion was legitimate, etc.

Iraq is a cluster... and it all depends on who you talk to as to whether soldiers are complaining or not. Frankly, enlisted men often DO complain. They're not as involved in their own destiny, often joined out of necessity or lack of better choices, and really often didn't want to fight in the first place. This is also true with Army National Guardsmen it seems to me. Most people that feel like pawns are going to lean towards dissent... but if you took the same sized cross-section of officers, I'd be interested in seeing what the results are.

Anyone sleeping and eating in the desert, away from their families, and in relatively miserable conditions by all standards won't be too keen on the idea of being there after a while. This is particularly true when their friends begin to die. I was on a plane from Chicago to DFW a few months ago w/ a 22 year old butter bar who was in an Armor unit. You'd think that his time in Iraq was a vaction. He was home on leave, and was tickled pink that he'd saved thousands of dollars during his time over seas. He actually hadn't even seen much action. We spoke about the inconvenience of missing his girlfriend, the lack of cold beer, and his hate for anywhere with sand... but he kept talking about putting money into a new truck and maybe even a wedding ring (God I hope that girl hadn't left him!). He truly felt like his unit was making a difference, and that his deployment was worthwhile.

My point is that the folks most likely to be hating the war are the ones with little ones growing up, those sleeping/eating/showering in the hot desert, and those who's lives are the most difficult... not to mention those who's buddies aren't making it home.

That’s one of the problems with soso is that it typically requires a lot of bodies on the ground. This admin could not convince really at large the world with our reasons to gain large support for the war in Iraq and what that would all really mean. So now with that in mind, we see units that have year plus long deployments, sometimes longer then that, only to see deployment in Iraq over and over again, of course with the stop loss draft.

I can only hope that we can get something going, and the fear of a draft does not come to exist. We just need more patriotic red blooded Americans that will join on and go over, after all I mean its not that bad is it. Though if a draft did occur, we sure could get more people on the ground, and various units might not have such a high operational tempo. I don’t know how that will sit with Americans around the table though, i mean vets get called traitors and people that never saw any war are called heroes, it seems more often then not just the talk and not the walk can win perceptions, though if a draft did occur, we will need people to protect the air space around Texas.

Do you believe that the US Military culture in general fosters a climate of racism, sexism or intolerance.....and why?

My service time ended 20 years ago almost to the day now. The military was a lot different back then, though with my eldest daughter currently serving in Iraq I feel that I still have a firm grasp on the attitudes in general in the current military.

When I entered the service it was just after Vietnam and the transition from the Draft Army to the all Volunteer Force was in still in progress. We had people that were finishing their draft while a majority of us were the new volunteer army. So there were a lot of issues to be resolved. Racism, sexism and intolerance were a fact. We I started out as a Private I was made very aware that there was overt racism. The Women's Army Corp was still part of the Army and heaven help any of the gay community that were caught. It was very much an Army of Rednecks to put it simply.

By the time I made Sergeant the military had finished converting into from the Vietnam era to a more modern military. Once I made Warrant Officer we were dealing with the issue of women in the military. My class in the flight school was the second with women. And yes there were a lot problems with that, especially since there was a quota that had to be filled by women even if they were not qualified. We had two females one qualified the other was a quota filler. The qualified female happened to be black and could always find somebody that wanted to fly with her, the other was white and nobody would get on the same bird without a direct order. Thankfully the non-qualified female was washed out but not until she nearly killed several people. The most unfortunate part was that both were treated by others as 'quota' females, that really didn't belong there.

My eldest went into the service on her own. I never encouraged her to enlist. The truth be told I never considered her to be the type that would make it, boy was I wrong in a big way. She has held own and is going to become a Sergeant in a little while, then she wants to go to OCS. She serves in a line unit in Baghdad and tells me that none of the issues that I had still exist.

I think that America has evolved and the military is a partial reflection of our society.

Does the Military have a covert or overt policy of swaying it's members to a conservative mindset?
I think that in any organization we will find a similar strata of mindsets. Are the corporate leaders more conservative than the workers? I think that we will find that very true, the military is fairly similar in that regard.

For myself I became more liberal in the service than when I went in.

What policies might you institute to prevent events such as Abu Ghraib, the rape/murder in Mahmoudiya, and other instances combat related crimes? And does any political persuasion play a role in such occurrences
I have learned that our soldiers become hardened by combat. To be effective there one has to be less sensitive to a large extent.

My daughter in first combat was a M2 gunner on a Humvee. After she had to kill one attacker we talked a lot, she was having a difficult time, even though that person was shooting at others in her convoy. Well to shorten the story the next time she had to kill another those issues were resolved for her.

This is part of war. Political persuasion plays no role in combat.

I see you've posted a topic without sticking your neck out for debate.



Do you believe that the US Military culture in general fosters a climate of racism, sexism or intolerance.....and why?

No, it does not foster these prejudices. People come to the military with their personal value systems already matured. The military works to form teams and eliminate the "me" mentality. Their job is to prepare for battle. The govt has mandated certain social training to combat racism and sexual harrassment since women are now in the combat environment.

Does the Military have a covert or overt policy of swaying it's members to a conservative mindset? The military is volunteer, the people that join want to serve their country in a military capacity. Did you think these people would be flower children?

What policies might you institute to prevent events such as Abu Ghraib, the rape/murder in Mahmoudiya, and other instances combat related crimes? And does any political persuasion play a role in such occurrences
Such policies are already in place, but certainly nothing is perfect. It is likely that you make mistakes in your own home as a parent that you later regret, right? War is brutal, and is the physical solution to diplomatic failure. The job of the military is to kill people and break things. I believe that grave misconduct is being dealt with. What the purpose of your last question?

Could you clarify for us who you are addressing and what in particular you mean by this?

I believe you should at least include your general thoughts on the subject matter from the start of the topic/thread. Most people are naturally curious about what the topic author thinks. Maybe I have it all wrong, but how can one debate an issue when one does not know the position of the other side. Well if you agree with the other side then I guess they're not the other side.

Do you believe that the US Military culture in general fosters a climate of racism, sexism or intolerance.....and why?

I was going to issue a fairly mild response mainly because the concerns I have with the military are at the top, those involving the joint chiefs of staff and the commander in chief. I’ve run across numerous examples where generals were trying to influence change, most recently in taking the nuclear option off the table. At this point I could not mount a consistent argument against the every day soldier.

Then I ran across an article which described policy changes the military underwent after enduring the trials of Viet Nam. Specifically, after being subjected to the spotlight of the My Lai massacre the army revised its creed in an effort to promote responsible attitudes. Framed in this context, the creed is straightforward and understandable.

"I am an American soldier.
I am a member of the United States Army--a protector of the greatest nation on earth. Because I am proud of the uniform I wear, I will always act in ways creditable to the military service and the nation that it is sworn to guard ...
No matter what situation I am in, I will never do anything for pleasure, profit or personal safety, which will disgrace my uniform, my unit or my country.
I will use every means I have, even beyond the line of duty, to restrain my Army comrades from actions, disgraceful to themselves and the uniform.
I am proud of my country and it's flag.
I will try to make the people of this nation proud of the service I represent for I am an American soldier."

The impression I walk away with is one of empathy, observation, with a focus on external or extroverted events. IE the eye and mind are the most important tools to the soldier.

Here is the revised version after the Bush administration got a hold of it in ’02 It is appropriately called the “Warrior’s Ethos”.

“I am an American soldier.
I am a warrior and a member of a team. I serve the people of the Unites States and live the Army values.
I will always place the mission first.
I will never accept defeat.
I will never quit.
I will never leave a fallen comrade.
I am disciplined, physically and mentally tough, trained and proficient in my warrior tasks and drills. I always maintain my arms, my equipment and myself.
I am an expert and I am a professional. I stand ready to deploy, engage and destroy the enemies of the United States of America in close combat. I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life.
I am an American soldier.”

Suffice to say I am left with a very different impression after reading this revision. There is greater emphasis placed on fear of failure, obedience, with an introverted sense of self. Some have avered,



Suddenly the abuse reports of Bagram, Abu Gharib, and Fallujah no longer come off as isolated exceptions, but a natural extension of the Warrior’s Ethos.

Compare this with SS culture of Germany. Notice the similarities.


Or we can substitute Allah for American and one quickly notices we are fighting muslim radical behaviour with more radical behaviour where we become the second side of the same coin.

Does the Military have a covert or overt policy of swaying it's members to a conservative mindset?

Not really. I can’t think of any general trends to suggest that.

What policies might you institute to prevent events such as Abu Ghraib, the rape/murder in Mahmoudiya, and other instances combat related crimes? And does any political persuasion play a role in such occurrences?

First off I would address the Christian right and their worrisome tendencies to mingle church, state and the glorification of war manifested with strong support to hard right political parties and the military industrial complex. I am a big believer in keeping church and state separated for all the historical reasons. Reasons which are apparently forgotten nowadays. In short I would crack down on the indoctrinating Jesus Camps which promote a very dysfunctional world view. Add the Warrior’s Ethos to students of these camps and one has a recipe for disaster.

Note none of what I have described directly affects the soldier, rather I am targeting the support base which normalizes war or said another way, the indirect approach.

This has been the subject of a recent article at www.counterpunch.org by Robert Fisk, (titled: The Military's Cult of Cruelty) and has made the rounds of every respectable (and some non) left wing websites......leading some to claim that this creed has influenced soldiers to commit atrocities. B-U-N-K.

As any soldier, past or present will tell you, enlisted and officer alike usually pay scant attention to a creed they are forced to recite on occasion. Take my word for what it's worth, in today's Army, we recite the Warriors Creed only on occasions few and far between. It's not as if we do not try and live by Duty, Honor and Country, but anything force fed by the 'institution' carries virtually no weight in our daily lives. At least in my experience.

Instead of trying to attribute this change of creed to the Bush Administration, with no factual basis, at least attribute it to the Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki. Shinseki, in his tenure during the Clinton Administration, began oversight of the Army Manual 7-0, Training The Force. This effort led to the publication of the final document in 2002, and contained a paradigm shift to what became known as the Warrior Ethos.
This ethos is defined as compelling soldiers to fight through all conditions to victory no matter how much effort is required. It is the soldier’s selfless commitment to the nation, mission, unit, and fellow soldiers. It is the professional attitude that inspires every American soldier. Warrior Ethos is grounded in refusal to accept failure. It is developed and sustained through discipline, commitment to the Army values, and pride in the Army’s heritage.
During the 1990's there was a noticeable shift, at least in the Army, to coddling soldiers and treating the military as more a job than a profession. There began a determined push, in both officer and enlisted ranks, to return to the idea that soldiers.......all soldiers.....were warriors first, since the emergence of asymmetric warfare there are virtually no front lines anymore.

I see this orchestrated effort by partisans to be an attack, not on the individuals, who drawn from society commit criminal acts...............but an attack on the Bush Administration, using perceived military culture as the weapon.

You've offered me your opinion on the subject. I cannot prove or disprove the internal feelings of all the members of the military. Short of a poll which would group attitudes this showdown boils down into your word against mine.



There are enough people above Mr. Shinseki's position that they could have tabled his recommendations. There have been numerous upheavals within the ranks that I can make a fairly strong argument of dissatisfaction occuring regardless if the reader accepts the Warrior's Ethos or not.

Here's a sampler:



If it is not the Ethos which is causing the problem, then what is it?

I will emphasis one point, that problems faced by the military are very wide and systemic. Problems which have persisted to this day.

If you want to deny it ask yourself why the officer corps keeps getting restless, abuse reports keep coming in year after year after year, and a disconnect manifests itself in such a way that why do people label this "standard operating procedure" as "another Viet Nam"?



I disagree, my argument maintains a fundamental change has occured in the philosophy of the soldier, one which has traded perception for endurance. All of the abusive problems lead back to a common lack of perception, the big "wha??" which is costing lives, money, and most of all, respect.



What makes American culture so unique is the level of money spent on <ahem> defense. Spending which outlives republicans and democrats, liberals and conservatives. Spending which poses the question who is really in charge the pentagon or the elected official?

From the minuteman silos in the Dakotas to the recruitment booths in high schools, nothing in the history of the planet comes close in terms of intermixing war with everyday living. I am convinced the crisis in spending is related to the crisis in discipline. This subtle but lingering problem of perceived greatness is fostered by the deification of those who serve with an ideology of patriotism that only a cold war soviet could appreciate. Some call it hubris, I call it brainwashing, but to history this culture will be cited as a delusion forced upon the people.

Trouble, as a soldier that recently graduated basic training and had to learn the warrior's ethos, I assure you that your fears of "brainwashing" are unfounded.

Are you arguing that just because the US military teaches every soldier through basic to recite this ethos that it impact's and changes people's perspective on torture??

The military first and foremost teaches discipline. There aren't any courses on torture.

Do you believe that the US Military culture in general fosters a climate of racism, sexism or intolerance.....and why?

As a civilian, I can only actually provide a statement on what I believe. I can honestly say that I have not seen instances of racism, sexism or intolerance in today's army, but that it was rife with all of the above when I was of enlistment age.

Example: I had an employer who was a retired army captain who told me that it used to be that in the army recruiters would write "Code 40" on applications submitted by people of color.

Women who served in the armed forces had to first laugh along with their fellows when jokes would come up about the crazy moods they would be in during their menstrual periods. Likewise, there was a newstory about a woman who was accused of being a lesbian by a man she refused to date when they were both serving aboard a ship. The woman was booted out because the authorities believed the man's story more than the woman's. I sure hope that sort of thing STILL isn't happening.

It is a matter of orders from the upper echelons that openly gay personnel are removed from the military. The other day there was a story that a translator in Iraq was released not because his behavior was any different from anyone else's, not because he wasn't doing his job, not because he was busting a move on another man, but just because they found out he was gay. The sad part about this is that English to Arabic to English translators are in pitifully short supply, so the military was really biting off its nose to spite its face in this case.

It was pointed out that the military is accepting those now with lower grades and lower I.Q. scores but still will not allow gays to "serve their country." It's that unspoken fear of males raping males that is behind it all, I'm sure, even though so-called heterosexual men have been known to sodomize others in situations where they have the upper--uh--hand(?). So Lynndie England and those of her ilk become sought-after while those like our Wertz are passed on (much to his relief, I am sure), his superior reasoning skills and education notwithstanding.

Does the Military have a covert or overt policy of swaying it's members to a conservative mindset?

It's hard to say about "covert" or "overt". All I can say is that my eldest son, who is a Persian Gulf War veteran (as a former sailor) and an Army National Guard veteran of the continuing war on Iraq, tended to change his tone of voice to that of sarcasm and curl his lip when talking about President Clinton. I never saw or heard that before prior to his enlistment.

What policies might you institute to prevent events such as Abu Ghraib, the rape/murder in Mahmoudiya, and other instances combat related crimes? And does any political persuasion play a role in such occurrences?

How about adequate supervision of soldiers at all times in situations where they don't have to leave a building in order to do their jobs?

How about having soldiers able to recite by rote the Articles of the Geneva Conventions, at least those dealing with suspected and/or outright enemy combatants?

With greater knowledge and responsible supervision, barring the presence of sociopaths in the ranks, there should be fewer instances of murder or abuse of the civilian and/or incarcerated Muslim populace.