Quote:
Originally Posted by Webstral
Grown men can only be treated like untrustworthy children for so long before they start to live up to the expectations of the leadership. The circle completes itself.
|
I think that problem has been perennial in any military organization, at least judging by Kipling's "We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too, But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you; . . . You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all: We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational."
Quote:
|
So I would argue that the Big Army doesn't get Special Forces because we're acculturated against tolerating or recognizing the behaviors that mark SF: initiative, judgment, commitment, recognizance.
|
That would be my assessment, also, having done the gear shifting back from the land of the happy secret squirrels to the Big Army (or National Guard, anyway). I see a lot of NCOs who don't seem to grasp that trying to model yourself and your conduct on how your drill sergeant treated people in basic training doesn't make you a good NCO, it just marks you as a dolt who can't really analyze and assess how to get the best out your troops in grown-up land. This would probably be less galling if the same guys didn't tend to be the best and brightest -- on paper -- but who are really just the end result of an organization that has a seriously pathological love-hate relationship with initiative and autonomy.
(On the other hand, on the SF side of the house, if someone wanted to be a stereotypical Joe -- even on the support side -- he could usually be shown the door and found some new home if he didn't make midcourse corrections. In the Big Army, when Joe wants to be as dumb as he can be . . . well, then someone has to retard their response down to his level. Or revise the system so it's easier to separate the non-adaptors and duds, but I'm not holding my breath on that.)