Today in U.S. military history: U.S. breakout at Anzio, and the "self-cleaning" M-16

Apologies to the forum for slow replies.

We live in a rural area, where thunderstorms play the very devil with satellite links (the only kind we can get, beyond the land-line phone).

I’ve not been trying to second-guess Chainmail’s experiences in action.

I have been attempting to shed a bit of light on the limits of conventional thinking and “common sense.”

There are several common conceits in the uniformed military; they operate across the board. Here are some relevant to the discussion:

1. Only those who have seen action can understand “the truth” of armed conflict; therefore they possess the only moral authority to define what the military does, how it does it, and what it buys to do it with.

1a. There’s a hierarchy among those who’ve seen action: ground combat tops the list, followed by sailors and then aviators.

2. Military service is about ego and one-upmanship, not about service to the country, nor effectiveness in action. This one is observed less often and less explicitly in public, but operates just below the surface all the time. And not everyone believes in engaging in it every minute: it afflicts the officer corps in greater percentage,and tends toward universal among those climbing to highest ranks. They are so ambitious, so egotistical, that they are incapable of forgoing competition. And they deem fellow high-rankers as the only worthy competition.

Sometimes (2.) takes the form of a sort of reverse machismo: whoever has survived the most intense action, the grimmest field conditions, gets one-up on the others.

3. In quintessentially American fashion, we insist on universalizing it all: given our inability to resist “timeless truths” and “unchanging verities,” a combat veteran becomes the ultimate authority on all things military, no matter the era, no matter the location, no matter the weaponry nor the politics of the moment. But in reality, combat is utterly particular and generalizations are of more help if formulated with more care.

Don’t know where Chainmail got the idea that I was defending M16 development. I’ve thought of it as singularly mishandled and misdirected: blunders that have plagued other systems too.

Have heard the sentiment Chainmail detected on the part of his uncles, from a great many other veterans, and not all of them served in USAAF. The idea of flying into action instead of walking into it struck them as a practical advantage, a move they could make, as mere individuals caught up in the biggest war ever. If Chainmail feels better by casting aspersions on their motives 75 years on, that is of course his privilege, but it ultimately tells us nothing about the relative contributions of this or that armed service, nor what priorities we ought to place on this or that system, or doctrine.

"Military service is about ego and one-upmanship, not about service to the country"

Quite possibly the stupidest and most insulting statement that I've seen on the FreeRepublic and possibly even Lefty sites too. Military service is about sacrificing our individual freedoms and identities for some period of years to provide the safety for our country and its unique form of constitutional government, often putting our own young lives at stake.

I am a combat veteran and unlike many others that were with me, I made it back alive. If anyone on Earth should know about what works and what doesn't in that environment, it's men like me in my war and the other young men who fought in our latest wars.

You are one weird individual; you're claim to fame is that you were a navigator in a B-52 and then, you mention some interesting activity with nukes. Quite possibly I will have to defer to your opinions of the navigation station and equipment for navigating B-52s but you apparently have zero experience shooting other people or being shot by them. Or living in the nasty areas where combat takes place and seen the effects those conditions have on weapons and other items. Or seen what happens to people around you when the "latest and greatest" from experts in the States fails abysmally and your young fellow soldiers die because of it.

Note that I am speaking directly to you, not to some unseen audience when I tell you that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about - and it would be better for the sake of what little reputation you have remaining that a continuous stream of thunderstorms completely blanked out your ability to babble further from that remote area you live in.

PS; my Air Force Uncles told me that they became pilots to stay out of the mud with the infantry. It was their call. I chose to be with the infantry because that's where the real war takes place and I didn't want others to suffer while I stayed safe and warm somewhere.

“... the stupidest and most insulting statement that I’ve seen on the FreeRepublic ... Military service is about sacrificing our individual freedoms and identities for some period ....”

Can’t decide whether to gasp in astonishment or use one of those near-vocalizations (Hmmmmm...) in skeptic hesitation.

The gambits of one-upmanship and gamesmanship (as described by Stephen Potter) come as close to universal truths about human/group behavior as can be found. Everybody engages in them at some point; some folks do nothing else. I found them in every outfit to which I was assigned, every unit I visited, every organization and office I encountered. Suchlike are inescapable, whenever people are present; sometimes it took a few days, sometimes hours or minutes - but they invariably manifested themselves.

I find it inconceivable that Chainmail didn’t notice. I’d not like to think he was blind to them on purpose.

Chainmail and like-minded believers are overly optimistic: military service - in action or not - is not universally leveling. It has been undertaken by many millions. And people who undertake it have various reasons for doing so. To maintain otherwise is to make light of human variability, of individuality in all its glory - and its limitations. Qualities of character Americans know about and honor ... or would do well to.

Some serve a hitch for the adventure; some find the (alleged) manliness of it all irresistible and yearn to test their abilities against those claiming to be “the best in the business.” Others do it to escape unhappy family situations, or poor economic prospects, or to get away from criminal charges. Still others do it to satisfy ambition: to command, to rise, to work their will upon others. Some do it to find a stepping-stone into the technical establishment, or other organizational structures (including pursuit of civilian professions like the law or medicine). And there are many other reasons I cannot remember or never heard of.

“Service to country” sounds great on the resume, but is a little broad; having met many servicemembers, and listened to them at length, I’d hazard the guess that few who sign on the dotted line do it for one single reason. People can harbor innocent reasons but don’t stay pure for long. Sometimes, they’ve conflicting reasons.

“... I am a combat veteran ..., I made it back alive. If anyone on Earth should know about what works and what doesn’t in that environment, it’s men like me in my war ...”

Chainmail may have seen action but is quite simply in error about the universality of it.

Masses of people and equipment might become entangled, but the experience is inescapably particular and personal. Chainmail survived; others did not. I’d call that a big difference; there are others, but this is possibly the starkest. His experience is neither exhaustive, nor definitive.

It must be stressed that the military establishment is not composed solely of servicemembers and doesn’t reflect their motivations alone. Neither is it a top-down hierarchy, not exclusively: with significant elements of history and tradition, it never reflects the will and the personality of commanders - not perfectly. Still less is it a collection of “mindless robots” facelessly performing the bidding of elected politicians and appointed civilian officials, neither Left nor Right.

” ... Quite possibly I will have to defer to your opinions of the navigation station and equipment ... apparently have zero experience shooting other people or being shot by them. Or living in the nasty areas where combat takes place and seen the effects those conditions have on weapons and other items. Or seen what happens to people around you when the “latest and greatest” from experts in the States fails abysmally ... you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about - ... I chose to be with the infantry because that’s where the real war takes place and I didn’t want others to suffer while I stayed safe and warm somewhere.”

Chainmail has built up a store of moral authority, and all of us are right to honor him for his accomplishments. But he writes as if no one else noticed deficiencies or problems, nor lifted a finger to do anything about it.

High dudgeon does not translate into design expertise, nor engineering insight, nor strategic understanding, nor tactical talent - each of which are indispensable attributes in solving the problems and correcting the shortfalls that burdened him & fellow troops, putting them in peril and causing more yet more losses.

Experience in action, and endurance through unpleasant conditions and privation, may grant one a moral one-up, but is no guarantee of accurate understanding. In fact, it can’t tell us anything at all about what’s going on.

I’ve watched high rankers insist on the “truth” of their encounters with the enemy - every detail of which was in error, some contrary to the laws of physics. Some of us were left wondering how these guys survived to adulthood, to say nothing about their completion of military technical training, their survival of hostile fire, and subsequent rise to positions of authority. Luck defies explanation. Or prediction.

Wow Schurman ("sure man") - you must have had a really long spell between thunderstorms to write all that nonsense, which can be summarized as:

- Men who have been in combat really don't know anything more than anyone else about combat conditions.

- Men like you are far more qualified because you have escaped the awful mental paralysis of those who saw combat - therefore, you know better what we'd need.

You don't mind terribly if the BS Flag is thrown onto the field?

Admittedly, my particular case is unusual - I am really a combat veteran, defined as someone who spent 4 months in the infantry on daily operations until I was severely wounded and then spent 7 months in the hospital, followed by two years wearing a steel brace. And I am an experienced mechanical engineer and Program Manager for advanced technology programs - with a Master's in Engineering Management - so I sort of DO know more than most B-52 Navigators living in remote areas about defense acquisition, Requirements, specifications, project design, budget and schedules, RFPs, White Papers, test plans, safety testing and approval and such.

Back to the original insult that you o discretely omitted in your last screed:"Military service is about ego and one-upmanship, not about service to the country". You had the same choices as all of us, now live with what you picked. I do tend to value the service of those who chose the misery and danger of direct combat over the others. In your heart of hearts, you know better than the stuff you've been spouting.

"Chainmail may have seen action but is quite simply in error about the universality of it."

I think that I may need to work harder at getting you to understand. Combat experience is limited to just a few because that's the way it works. For every person who serves his or her country in uniform, only a few actually are sent to the combat area. Of those, only about 10% are involved in the actual fighting and they are almost all infantry or armor.

Of those, many are casualties because the direct exposure to small arms, mortars, rockets, artillery, mines (lately IEDs) has a high probability of affecting them. All who are there see death: the death of fellow soldiers, the death of enemy combatants, the deaths of civilians. The see people injured horribly, sometimes for the first time in their lives and everyone experiences fear, day and night, week after week.

These events have effects on all of these veterans that last all of their lives. Some of these effects are the "flinches" every time you hear a loud bang and some of these effects are horrible dreams, sleeplessness, failed marriages, distrust of others, a phobia of being in crowds, maybe drinking to excess, and other effects.

We have all learned to live with it plus any residuals we have from injuries but being an item of status? You have to be kidding! During "my war" we had the older veterans asking us "why aren't you winning your war? - we won ours". We had antiwar/pro-enemy demonstrator calling us "murderers". and we had friends and family that didn't want hear about anything at all from us.

No, you miss the point completely. Being a combat veteran is a little like having polio: you either have it or you don't and it's not considered an asset to your life.

My best and basically my only friends are those guys who served with me and made it. Do you think that being a combat veteran was a help in my career? You underestimate the effects of jealousy among your fellow officers and reporting seniors when you have certain ribbons and they don't.

The only thing that surviving combat did for me is to give me experience. Experience in what happens to people in war, experience in knowing what conditions will have to endured, experience in what works and what doesn't.

Things that no one, no matter how smart they think they are can derive by sitting at a desk.

It's just the way it is.

“I think that I may need to work harder at getting you to understand....only about 10% are involved in the actual fighting and they are almost all infantry or armor. ... an item of status? You have to be kidding! ... Do you think that being a combat veteran was a help in my career? You underestimate the effects of jealousy ...” [Chainmail, post 26]

“”Military service is about ego and one-upmanship, not about service to the country”. “ [Chainmail, post 25, expressing vexation over my earlier summary of reasons to serve in post 22]

I must apologize to Chainmail and the rest of the forum for lack of clarity. The Post 22 comment was not intended to reflect any universal truths (though if Chainmail is all he claims, he might have noticed my later comments on the large variety of motivations people have for signing up).

Chainmail’s implication is difficult to accept: that combat veterans do not engage in one-upmanship concerning their experiences, exploits, wounds, and endurance through privation and miserable conditions. I’ve watched and listened while they do it. And it happens with everyone: one-hitchers, lifers, active duty, you name it. Every service, every branch. Not everybody does it every minute, but they do it.

All humans do it. Most do it about less dire events and actions. To maintain otherwise is to confess to a degree of blindness about the human condition that is unprecedented, or an experience of life that is so far outside of any expected value - probabilistically speaking - that it borders on the miraculous. Workable policy cannot be based on miracles.

Most especially, combat veterans that later rise to exalted rank play the game with a vengeance and tenacity, a single-mindedness, that is dizzying. And it’s these giant egoes who make the decisions on systems acquisition, on design and development, on elements of strategy, on force organization and tactical development, that mean the difference between life and death: for many otherwise-blameless troops, sometimes years down the line.

If Chainmail really has found refuge in a circle of friends that has avoided all that, I salute him on good fortune.

“...they are almost all infantry or armor ...” [Chainmail, post 26]

This bears repeating: it expresses a conceit that ranges more widely than any belief within the American military, and has gained higher credibility than any other notion among enthusiasts, and millions upon millions who have not served. Namely, the belief that only ground combat has any reality or meaning, and that the footsoldier exceeds all other branches, every other application of armed force, all other systems, both in effectiveness and efficiency.

From there, it is only a tiny step to the assumption that footsoldiers, and they alone, can be granted moral authority. And from there, it’s a tinier step still, to the conviction that they are the only people capable and worthy, to lead or make decisions.

Against such solidity of belief, no rational argument can contend; numbers and real-life observations do not matter; conclusions reached through the application of professional judgment to experience are as nothing; science and engineering are pale ghosts; reality does not exist.

“Gassy little devil, ain’t ya?”

Yet another variant on “I know what I know, and that’s that.”

If footsoldiers were all that superior to every other form of armed force, the Central Powers would have won the First World War before December 1914, without spending all that money on such tedious, ineffective modern-science techno-whizbangery as battleships, submarines, zeppelins, wireless, and most especially those pesky airplanes.

chainmail and supporters are free to believe or not as they choose, but the development of each and every “advanced” weapon was driven by the imperative of saving the lives of troops already on the ground. And the more advanced concepts of air power (which turn 100 this year) were first theorized, then developed to decrease the necessity of sending troops directly into battle.

Against this logic, the senior armed services have done little except implement their own pallid imitations - even as they complain that the air power practitioners are too inexperienced and immature to grasp “time-honored traditions,” not manly enough to do “real” battle, or “unfair.”

It isn’t about manliness, nor tradition, nor fairness. It’s about effectiveness.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.