I refrain from citing writings from around the Internet when
I’m unable to offer much in the way of value-added analysis. However, occasionally an article is of such
immense interest and value that I can’t help but do so. The Marine Corps Times website has such an
article about a famous (and previously unknown to me) hand to hand combat
instructor, Francois d’Eliscu, who revolutionized training and hand to hand
combat mindsets during WWII.[1]
Please read the linked article and
then come back for a few brief points to consider.
Welcome back. That
was a great article wasn’t it?
The article reminds us of just how brutal and barbaric war
is. It’s, literally, kill or be
killed. We’ve forgotten that in our
quest to apply social niceties to the military instead of ruthlessly embracing
and promoting the killer mindset.
The article drives home exactly why we want only the
toughest, meanest, nastiest, most brutal soldiers who have the combat mindset
that never gives up and will do anything to kill and survive.
What does this mean for, say, women in the military? Unfortunately, but realistically, this is not
your typical woman or even your one in a thousand woman. In addition to lacking the physical strength
and quickness for combat, women simply don’t have the primitive, brutal mindset
required for combat. As an example, in
ten years of coaching women’s basketball, the toughest, meanest female I ever
encountered couldn’t match the bottom 5% of men for strength, speed, and mental
toughness.
Heck, let’s be fair and acknowledge that not all men have
the requisite characteristics. We have
far too many men in service who are ill-suited to combat and have no business
in the military.
This same consideration applies to transgenders, overweight
computer geeks, former drug users, and any other sub-par group of potential
military service members. The military
is currently in the process of lowering their admission standards to include
former drug users, high school dropouts, transgenders, women, etc. That’s not how you develop an organization of
effective killing machines. It is, however, how you wind up with a hollow
military incapable of executing its primary function and lacking the combat
mindset to even care.
I bet half of you reading this are squeamish about the
post’s title let alone the reality of the subject matter. Think about it and what that ought to mean
about our recruiting efforts.
https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-military/2024/11/30/killer-instinct-how-one-man-taught-us-soldiers-to-fight-dirty-in-wwii/
A Marine platoon, fighting on a ridge line, would have to send men down to bring up ammo, food, water, etc... A 3 hour climb up a steep slope carrying 120 Lbs. In 100 degree jungle heat. For 4 months straight.
ReplyDeleteEven a healthy 18 year old man will begin to break down after a while.
When the ship's ammo conveyor shuts down during a battle. Men will have to form a human chain up 5 decks to get the 100 Lbs ammo crates up to the guns. It could be days, or even weeks, before they can get it fixed. In a 120 degree hold. In a tossing ship.
Could be a problem.
As Patton once said, no poor dumb bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won by making the other poor dumb bastard die for their country.
ReplyDeleteWinning a war, regardless of the military branch, requires aggression. In the last world war the US had no problem removing command officers who failed to be aggressive. Nor were the best leaders afraid of personal involvement or personal responsibility. Now they can produce a debacle like the withdrawal from Afghanistan and actually get promoted. And that debacle wasn't from the efforts of the ground troops as you can see the lower ranking officers right there with the troops, but the RETARDS with stars who wanted to play nice with the Taliban.
I mean no offense to those on the spectrum for mental disability by using the word retard. They can't help their deficiencies. Someone who has been to Annapolis or West Point and still give us this kumbayah crap are genuine retards in every sense of the word: they retard the development of sound tactics, they retard the creation of effective weapons, they retard the careers of capable warriors while pushing their own, and they retard the aggressive natural instincts of those willing to fight for the latest politically based psuedo-academic babble.
I genuinely believe there are people in the Pentagon right now that if Pearl Harbor had happed to them, would be apologizing for provoking Japan and would have responded to the Japanese threat by fielding a fleet full of DD's armed with one 3" gun and two depth charges, each costing 100million in depression era dollars, and then blame the Ensigns for not being able to beat Japanese battleships.
"The essence of war is violence. Moderation in war is imbecility."
ReplyDeleteJackie Fisher
"Moderation in war "
DeleteThat's our strategy and philosophy!
ComNavOps - I saw your BLOG on "Long Range Naval Guns" from back in Nov 2016. I wanted to follow up with you more regarding this topic. Could we take this discussion offline? 818.371.5029. Was wondering what your thoughts are regarding if maybe the timing is right, for possible interest by NAVSEA in a new Large Caliber projectile AGWST Program? Text me you'd be interested in having a quick discussion. This is a sincere inquiry.
Delete"possible interest by NAVSEA in a new Large Caliber projectile AGWST Program?"
DeleteI don't know what AGWST stands for but, that aside, I'll offer a thought for you. So many people want to turn large caliber naval guns into some kind of long range weapon. That's a mistake and fails to recognize what the purpose of a large caliber naval gun is.
Compounding this failure is that fact that every extended range munition is achieved at the expense of explosiveness by reducing the munition to a saboted sub-munition which defeats the purpose of having a large caliber naval gun to begin with.
We have plenty of very long range weapon systems. We don't need to duplicate those and create yet another. The phrase, 'stay in your lane', is appropriate in these discussions.
What specific aspect are you interested in?
Well said, 100% agree with all of it.
ReplyDeleteAhem .... Not all computer geeks are overweight or soft, just try to get various open source pieces of software to work together, it requires an incredible amount of toughness and endurance, and don't tell me it's not physical, I can break any keyboard/screen you throw at me (don't shout at me please CNO, I'm at least half joking).
ReplyDeleteThe Jacques Cassard fan club
I can bench press a mouse in each hand!
DeleteThe right people are out there.
ReplyDeleteEvery year the US has about 1 million kids playing high school football. That's approximately 250,000 per grade level. And that doesn't include all the wrestlers, basketball players, cross country runners, hockey, baseball, track and field, soccer, etc.
There are more than enough candidates in that pool of young men to fill our military's needs.
Except they are not interested in joining the military.
Amazingly, the trans sailor's recruiting videos haven't done the trick, nor Emma, the army's air defense artillery standard bearer.
In all seriousness, what is there about today's military that would make an 18-22 year young man want to be a part of it?
We need to make them feel like they're doing something exceptional, and that shouldn't be that difficult because they are.
Lutefisk
Reviving the Be All You Can Be commercials seems to be a step in the right direction.
DeleteIt's funny how woke the original 80s Be All You Can Be commercials were: they targeted and featured men, women, whites, blacks, asians. I suppose the difference was that there was an underlying element of self-challenge to those ads.
"Reviving the Be All You Can Be commercials seems to be a step in the right direction."
DeleteAbsolutely not! Could not be further from the correct approach to recruiting.
'Be all you can be' is a blatant appeal to individualism and self-centered gain - the opposite of what we want in a military. Recruitment should be focused on challenges, service to country, and the good of the organization over self. The Marines once had it right with their recruitment that basically told young people they weren't tough enough or good enough to be a Marine. The people who respond to that kind of challenge are the ones we want.
The SEALs have more candidates than they can use despite the incredible hardships and deprivations of training precisely because the emphasize group over self and make it a very tough challenge. The people we really want will come out of the woodwork if we give them real challenges.
Of course, we first have to have actual challenges for people to meet and overcome. It would help if we stood up to the myriad bad actors in the world instead of meekly appeasing them.
Well said Lutefisk. A society gets what it honors.
ReplyDeleteAnd to our collective shame our current society honors George Floyds over Daniel Pennies and Gender studies over engineering.
(That is not political. It is simply an accurate description of reality)
The good news is that America has yet, vast reserves of fearful strength....should we ever decide (and it is a choice) to deploy it. It feels to me that the veil of false self recrimination and oikophobia is lifting.
I am greatly encouraged as of late. Greatly encouraged.
The discussion about the lack of interest in military service is a deep one. Our society has undergone a softening over decades. But I also think that there's still a solid base of young people who through either patriotism, family history, that need for a challenge, or that desire to serve somthing, greater, still exists.
ReplyDeleteFirst, in their recruiting efforts, the military HAS TO stop courting minority groups, and focus on the majority. Offending or disenchanting 70% in order to entice a 15% (or smaller segment) it's just mathmatical ignorance.
Second, stop parroting the "diversity is our strength" nonsense. It's not. Diverse ideas, backgrounds, and opinions don't add a thing to combat capability. While obviously there are plenty of examples of exemplary combat performance by minority individuals and units...I'm going to point out the (again mathmatical) truth and say that the overwhelming majority of combat victories were achieved by white males. That's just a simple product of our demographic. And considering that this group is the majority, it only makes sense that it should be the main target audience for recruiting and retention. There's nothing wrong with diversity in the services, but it should roughly reflect the nation's demographic, and no effort to artificially inflate minority numbers should be expended.
Third, we need to find a way to return old traditions and attitudes to the forefront. Honor, duty, and dedication have fallen to the wayside. When young service members read about flag-level corruption and scandal in the headlines, when COs are sacked regularly, when bridge teams let personal conflicts cause collisions and deaths, younger members lose any respect for their leadership. The mystique of the officer corps, and the distancing between officers and enlisted has evaporated, hampering the chain of command strength. It's all too easy to see military service today as just another job, but with special outfits. Without the mystique and esprit de corps we once had, retention, recruiting, and combat effectiveness all suffer.
Fixing all this will be an uphill battle, but refocusing on the core mission- killing the enemy, and destroying his stuff, HAS to be the center of all efforts. Everything else will follow.
In an economy where there’s a job for anyone who wants to work the military is always going to struggle with recruitment.
ReplyDeleteIn the civilian workforce there’s better pay and conditions and very little chance of getting killed.
My daughter three years out of law school earns more than a vice-admiral with 25 years service.
Special forces will always find people ready and willing to serve but the surveys show that military careers generally are not even on the radar for most young people and who can blame them?
It’s no use bemoaning the fact that kids today are whatever they are and should be something else - eg more like their parents.
People have been saying this forever right back to the ancient Romans.
These days very few high school students have any ambition to enlist in the military and learn how to kill people - perhaps we should be grateful for that.
"In an economy where there’s a job for anyone who wants to work the military is always going to struggle with recruitment."
DeleteNot so. This mistaken belief fails to understand who would want to serve and WHY. The people we want aren't attracted to pay and benefits. They're attracted to purpose, service, and a sense of belonging to, and being part of, something greater than themself and their bank account.
Historically, we've had no problem meeting recruitment needs in times of good economy. It's only recently that we've struggled and that's not because of the economy, it's because the military has abandoned the characteristics that make it desirable for the kind of people we want. It has nothing to do with the economy.