From: Keith Elis (hagbard@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Mon Apr 14 2003 - 13:16:18 MDT
Mike Lorrey:
> they should be garrison troops, not line troops.
> There is a significant difference between the two.
Just a terminology quibble: when not deployed for war, 'police' actions,
or training, line troops are 'in garrison'. I'm not sure what you mean
by 'garrison troops'.
> Teaching a combat line marine to be sensitive to what
> he should be viewing as the enemy entirely nullifies
> his training for combat. You might as well just discharge
> him and put him out of his misery.
Not only does a marine in combat have to ID a target before he shoots it
(if only to say 'it's shooting at me', but often more than that) but he
has to do it under very stressful conditions. Is it a friendly? A
neutral? A civilian? And from a political standpoint, he better be
right. 'Teaching a combat line marine to be sensitive to what he should
be viewing as the enemy' hardly 'nullifies his training for combat'. In
fact, it is an essential part of his training for combat. In this age of
"civilized" warfare, soldiers, marines, and airmen are routinely drilled
on aircraft/vehicle identification and uniform recognition, and some
troops training for urban terrain even do the proverbial 'cop-style'
live-fire with pop-up mommies and kids mixed in with the bad guys. All
tank crews must pass a test on vehicle ID. Same with A-10 pilots.
Artillerymen must clear their fire to ensure there are no friendlies or
civilians or mosques in the area. Anyone who thinks this kind of
training is a bad idea needs to remember, as Saddam has shown, facing
off against modern technology in the open is suicide. The Saddams of the
world want to face modern armies where the odds are more even, in the
streets, where the kids play, among the mosques and schools. This
training is perhaps the only way to drill a marine to shoot enemies
while preserving the lives of innocent people. Does it make him
hesitate? Yes. Do I want him to hesitate when I'm in the sights? Yes.
> Civilians are entirely incapable of having an informed
> opinion about these issues.
Many civilians have served in the military at one point, and some
civilians study the issues deeply enough to have an informed opinion. I
agree it's a challenge for an 18 year old, Semper-Fi, do-or-die trooper
to preserve the lives of the innocent in a firefight, and within some
parameters, he is given leeway to do his job the best he can. But a
professional combat soldier is just that, a professional, and he *can*
do it reasonably well if given the proper training. It's a learned
skill, like any other, and the need for it is not going away for the
foreseeable future.
Keith
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 14 2003 - 13:24:01 MDT