![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mandragoraMy assistant at work handed in his resignation today. I knew it was coming as we'd discussed it at length, but I'm still I'm sad about it, although I think his new firm is a great opportunity for him and that he's definitely made the right decision in deciding to move firms. I also sprained my ankle (God, it was painful, although the women in the nearby branch of Alliance & Leicester were incredibly nice and helpful and sweet, fetching me an ice-pack, and pressing a cup of water on me, and offering me tea. Well, of course). Anyway, the upshot is that instead of concentrating on some work I ended up chatting a lot with assistant to take my mind off my ankle.
He's ex-army, served in Croatia with the British Army, as a young lieutenant. We were talking about the way members of the British forces are disciplined (he hopes to build up a steady practise of courts martial work, given his army contacts) and of course I discussed with him what happens to people who disobey orders. Now, he's not RAF (Royal Air Force), of course, but his view is that military discipline is pretty much the same across the various British armed forces. I asked him what would happen if a British officer did what Sheppard did, disobeying orders in Afghanistan in trying to save the lives of fellow servicemen. Cutting for potential Season 3 spoilers....
"Hmm," he says, "they'd probably give him a medal. And a bollocking." Suppose that officer lost the helicopter and didn't manage to save his fellows, I asked. His response was that the officer would get a bollocking, but that would be the end of it.
No transfer to somewhere else, no black mark?
Nope. Definitely not. And most certainly no possibility of a court martial. In addition, once in the air then it's down to the judgment of the pilot whether it's safe to land or not, and those on the ground back at base have little say, because they're not there and can't judge the situation like the pilot can.
He explained that British army personnel are deliberately trained to think of their mates - their fellow soldiers - first and foremost. Loyalty to them is paramount. The way that the British Army gets its personnel over their perfectly natural reluctance to shoot at fellow humans, even if they are the enemy, is to make it so that if you don't shoot then you're letting your mates down. And you never want to do that. In addition, though, you're taught to fire broadly at the target, knowing that incidentally you're going to hit and possibly kill other humans, but the broad target is what you're aiming at, not them. That's all you think about at the time, the fact that you've killed others to placed at the back of your mind, to be only dealt with later.
As for how they cope, when serving soldiers come back, they have a few pints with fellow soldiers and ex-soldiers who've gone through the same thing they have. Then they'll maybe talk about what they've seen and done - in Croatia, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq. And the others will listen to them talk, knowing that they need to offload. And when that's done most likely they won't talk about it again. But if they do most likely it will be to fellow or ex-soldiers and not their families.
Interestingly, though, assistant thought that US service personnel are also very strongly inculcated to think of their fellows first and foremost, and that loyalty is paramount. From what I can gather formal discipline is perhaps stricter in the US forces than in the British and the US army is run along slightly different lines. Assistant's view is that British sergeants (NCOs) perform many of the same tasks that junior officers do in the US army. He said that in Croatia his job as the officer was to get the company to a certain point and then the NCOs would get the men moving and the Lance Corporals (who each command 5 soldiers) would be getting their men to fire at the target, move forward in accordance with commands etc. Whereas he thinks that the lieutenants in the US army get the men moving (with the caveat that he could be wrong, but he served alongside US companies). In any event, though, given the same culture of loyalty to ones fellows, it seems rather churlish of the US authorities to take so against an officer who takes this to heart as being paramount.
The other thing, in assistant's view, is that live action is so fucked up anyway, that it's far better to reward initiative, yell at those who fuck up (including disobeying orders), and then just move on and forget about it, especially if the individual in question is otherwise a decent soldier.
Cultural differences, always fascinating.
He's ex-army, served in Croatia with the British Army, as a young lieutenant. We were talking about the way members of the British forces are disciplined (he hopes to build up a steady practise of courts martial work, given his army contacts) and of course I discussed with him what happens to people who disobey orders. Now, he's not RAF (Royal Air Force), of course, but his view is that military discipline is pretty much the same across the various British armed forces. I asked him what would happen if a British officer did what Sheppard did, disobeying orders in Afghanistan in trying to save the lives of fellow servicemen. Cutting for potential Season 3 spoilers....
"Hmm," he says, "they'd probably give him a medal. And a bollocking." Suppose that officer lost the helicopter and didn't manage to save his fellows, I asked. His response was that the officer would get a bollocking, but that would be the end of it.
No transfer to somewhere else, no black mark?
Nope. Definitely not. And most certainly no possibility of a court martial. In addition, once in the air then it's down to the judgment of the pilot whether it's safe to land or not, and those on the ground back at base have little say, because they're not there and can't judge the situation like the pilot can.
He explained that British army personnel are deliberately trained to think of their mates - their fellow soldiers - first and foremost. Loyalty to them is paramount. The way that the British Army gets its personnel over their perfectly natural reluctance to shoot at fellow humans, even if they are the enemy, is to make it so that if you don't shoot then you're letting your mates down. And you never want to do that. In addition, though, you're taught to fire broadly at the target, knowing that incidentally you're going to hit and possibly kill other humans, but the broad target is what you're aiming at, not them. That's all you think about at the time, the fact that you've killed others to placed at the back of your mind, to be only dealt with later.
As for how they cope, when serving soldiers come back, they have a few pints with fellow soldiers and ex-soldiers who've gone through the same thing they have. Then they'll maybe talk about what they've seen and done - in Croatia, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq. And the others will listen to them talk, knowing that they need to offload. And when that's done most likely they won't talk about it again. But if they do most likely it will be to fellow or ex-soldiers and not their families.
Interestingly, though, assistant thought that US service personnel are also very strongly inculcated to think of their fellows first and foremost, and that loyalty is paramount. From what I can gather formal discipline is perhaps stricter in the US forces than in the British and the US army is run along slightly different lines. Assistant's view is that British sergeants (NCOs) perform many of the same tasks that junior officers do in the US army. He said that in Croatia his job as the officer was to get the company to a certain point and then the NCOs would get the men moving and the Lance Corporals (who each command 5 soldiers) would be getting their men to fire at the target, move forward in accordance with commands etc. Whereas he thinks that the lieutenants in the US army get the men moving (with the caveat that he could be wrong, but he served alongside US companies). In any event, though, given the same culture of loyalty to ones fellows, it seems rather churlish of the US authorities to take so against an officer who takes this to heart as being paramount.
The other thing, in assistant's view, is that live action is so fucked up anyway, that it's far better to reward initiative, yell at those who fuck up (including disobeying orders), and then just move on and forget about it, especially if the individual in question is otherwise a decent soldier.
Cultural differences, always fascinating.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 14 October 2006 13:15 (UTC)Very interesting what "assistant" had to say! It does gel though. I wonder why they felt they wanted to misrepresent the culture of U.S forces in such a way? Just to build the maverick, against the odds quality into the John character? I wonder if there was a Canadian perspective influencing that decision?
no subject
Date: 14 October 2006 15:14 (UTC)The thing is, I'm not sure they actually did misrepresent the US forces culture. The reason I say this is because on the little-details LJ community someone asked a question regarding British courts martial. It was in relation to a fight between two officers, one of slightly higher rank than the other, and as a result whether the lower-ranked one would be forced to go AWOL to avoid a court martial and to try and prove his innocence concerning his conduct.
I said that I'd ask the assistant what would happen in such circumstances, and in the meantime a couple of present and former US services personnel said that in the US military not only would a court martial definitely occur but it might even lead to the imposition of the death penalty! Because striking a superior officer is regarded so seriously in the US military.
By contrast, the assistant said in the British military at most one of them would be asked to resign their commission and most probably the instigator would be asked to apologise, and they would shake hands and move on. The theory is, an officer and a gentleman, and therefore gentlemanly behaviour is paramount etc. Also, what happens in the [officers] mess stays in the mess. Plus, a slight difference of rank, say only between a captain and a major, is regarded as pretty inconsequential in such circumstances, whereas in the US military it's much more important.
So, there do seem to be definite differences in the way people get treated in different countries' military. I suspect the Canadians veer more towards the British model than the US, but have no evidence of this; it's just a gut feeling.
no subject
Date: 14 October 2006 16:45 (UTC)The second post resonates more ...
in the US military not only would a court martial definitely occur but it might even lead to the imposition of the death penalty! Because striking a superior officer is regarded so seriously in the US military
It sounds a helluva lot more rigid and non-negotiatiable. There doesn't seem to be that somewhat more easy going kind of bleed of attitude/perspective across ranks here (as you describe in the Br. system) that sustains individual visibility across ranks. I see reflections of that in wider social attitudes on various issues - various sexual practices for example. There is generally far less tolerance for so called "deviance" (which for me is just difference) in America.
Interesting, what you wrote above in your last query to elucidate. Thanks for that!