Are Singaporean conscripts too soft?
-
True. Many a pointed question have been asked of Officers when I was serving.Originally posted by LazerLordz:A Commander who is always questioned by his men, shows that he has not been able to fully inculcate in them a sense of trust in his judgment and battlefield decisions.
-
Regarding the US female soldier who didn't fire a single shot... I think she should be discharged or posted to a desk job back home. She onviously hasn't got what it takes.
-
Regarding the C&C issue.
I was at Borders today and I came across this book written by an American who served in the Israeli Defence Force.
He claimed that in the IDF conscript army, soldiers are allowed to question orders and disobey if they feel the order is unfair. He claimed that the IDF encourages soldiers to think for themselves. -
She wasn't the only one, the entire convoy failed to return effective fire or stage a proper retrogade. The failure was with the unit, not the soldier. She was luckly not to pay for her defective training with her life. Of course it made the entire bronze star for not being a soldier a big slap in the face of many others.Originally posted by scabstermooch:IIRC, that stupid bint's rifle jammed due to dust and sand so she did not fire even a single shot. What a waste of rations she is. Should have been charged imo.
But charged and booted out of the army? That's unreasonably harsh (and a moot point as well considering she didn't want to have much to do with the Army after her experience) given the main fault lay with her unit, NCOs, commanders and what have you not. She was simply a private caught in a unit that didn't know how to fight during at the wrong time, really how much blame should she get? Not any more then the rest. It's not as if she really had any control over what the press did with her story.
It's the CO that ought to be responsible, going down the line before we bear down on the private. -
I did not say she should be booted out hor. But she should be charged for being incompetent. Whether or not her unit NCOs were also at fault is besides the point. Re Training, I find it hard to believe that Basic doesn't teach her how to clean her rifle. Yes, oil might exarcebate the situation but that is irrelevent - she could have cleaned it again and slotted a condom/watever over the barrel.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:She wasn't the only one, the entire convoy failed to return effective fire or stage a proper retrogade. The failure was with the unit, not the soldier. She was luckly not to pay for her defective training with her life. Of course it made the entire bronze star for not being a soldier a big slap in the face of many others.
But charged and booted out of the army? That's unreasonably harsh (and a moot point as well considering she didn't want to have much to do with the Army after her experience) given the main fault lay with her unit, NCOs, commanders and what have you not. She was simply a private caught in a unit that didn't know how to fight during at the wrong time, really how much blame should she get? Not any more then the rest. It's not as if she really had any control over what the press did with her story.
It's the CO that ought to be responsible, going down the line before we bear down on the private.
Incompetence is incompetence. I am not even going to comment on her medal - and the press for spouting the hero BS. -
Lynch's maintanence convoy was a political setup to ensure that the support for the war would not dry up in the early stages..they needed a feel-good rah-rah story to feed to the minds back home.
-
And wat a rah rah story it was. Rangers, Delta et al coming in like heroes. Think they even made a movie out of it.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Lynch's maintanence convoy was a political setup to ensure that the support for the war would not dry up in the early stages..they needed a feel-good rah-rah story to feed to the minds back home.
-
There's nothing you can do for a "trigger finger IA".Originally posted by scabstermooch:I find it hard to believe that Basic doesn't teach her how to clean her rifle.
Did her rifle jam or did she pee her pants with fright?
You decide. -
Incompetence can only be measured by the amount of training the soldier recieved before the incident in question. If all they were taught were some basic shooting at the range, weapons cleaning never enforced, and generally not trained to react to being under fire... it's hard to blame a poorly trained soldier for incompetence.Originally posted by scabstermooch:I did not say she should be booted out hor. But she should be charged for being incompetent. Whether or not her unit NCOs were also at fault is besides the point. Re Training, I find it hard to believe that Basic doesn't teach her how to clean her rifle. Yes, oil might exarcebate the situation but that is irrelevent - she could have cleaned it again and slotted a condom/watever over the barrel.
That having said, having a weapon at any time clogged up with sand is a poor sign of soldiering. But at the end of the day if you don't train the people in your unit to keep their weapons and fight one should not be surprised that such a thing happens. Jessica Lynch would be faulted for incompetence if she was the only one who did not fight when the rest of her convoy did... but as it turned out there was something very wrong with the entire unit.
So charging her individually would be overkill, not to mention not really fixing the root problem that sent poorly trained soldiers into ambushes.
In any cause awarding the bronze starl was a rather vulgar thing to do, and it's sad because it tarnishes the other grunts who deserve to wear it.
As for rah-rah stories, there are plenty others which are more true then this, and a lot better to listen to. Why is this the only one we must remember 4 years after it happened? -
what's the title of the book?Originally posted by moca:Regarding the C&C issue.
I was at Borders today and I came across this book written by an American who served in the Israeli Defence Force.
He claimed that in the IDF conscript army, soldiers are allowed to question orders and disobey if they feel the order is unfair. He claimed that the IDF encourages soldiers to think for themselves. -
Hey, they could have charged the entire unit including the commander for all I care. The thing is I am only familiar with her case, hence my emphasis on her. It is almost impossible that Basic did not teach them/her to clean their/her weapons and to fire back when attacked. Maybe no convoy drills were taught but firing back when fired upon almost certainly has been taught.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Incompetence can only be measured by the amount of training the soldier recieved before the incident in question. If all they were taught were some basic shooting at the range, weapons cleaning never enforced, and generally not trained to react to being under fire... it's hard to blame a poorly trained soldier for incompetence.
That having said, having a weapon at any time clogged up with sand is a poor sign of soldiering. But at the end of the day if you don't train the people in your unit to keep their weapons and fight one should not be surprised that such a thing happens. Jessica Lynch would be faulted for incompetence if she was the only one who did not fight when the rest of her convoy did... but as it turned out there was something very wrong with the entire unit.
So charging her individually would be overkill, not to mention not really fixing the root problem that sent poorly trained soldiers into ambushes.
In any cause awarding the bronze starl was a rather vulgar thing to do, and it's sad because it tarnishes the other grunts who deserve to wear it.
As for rah-rah stories, there are plenty others which are more true then this, and a lot better to listen to. Why is this the only one we must remember 4 years after it happened?
That girl said her rifle couldn't fire because it was jammed and she curled up somewhere crying (not sure about the crying bit it just came to my mind). I do agree that she should not have been given a medal but these are the yanks we are talking about - even Popov36 (Gus Kohntopp) got a medal so as can be seen this is not against the run of things in the US. It is a media war as much as it is about guns and bullets. -
In which case if you are so poorly read on the subject, then why on earth are you even putting out your opinion further then it can possibly stand on the limb of reason? Much less talk about it, and about basically the only thing you know- which is rather little and insufficent for discussion.Originally posted by scabstermooch:Hey, they could have charged the entire unit including the commander for all I care. The thing is I am only familiar with her case, hence my emphasis on her.
And it does not take much to find out more about this, just trawl around the net or even drop by Strategy Page to see what some of the Yank grunts are saying about the whole thing and how it's really run there. You focus on lynching Jessica Lynch in hopelessly small pictured, as much as it is an ironic pun.It is almost impossible that Basic did not teach them/her to clean their/her weapons and to fire back when attacked. Maybe no convoy drills were taught but firing back when fired upon almost certainly has been taught.
Being taught to clean your weapon and knowing the weapon TH is VERY different from normal field discipline and routine, which by all means is enforced at unit level. If a Guardsman does not clean his weapon the question is raised with the OC or CO of that unit, not BMTC where the soldier orginally came along.
Unit culture is extremely important in making sure some things get done. Should every soldier clean their weapon? Yes. Should every soldier know what to do when the stuff hits the fan? Of course. But in the end the thing that really makes this drilled into the soldier is the culture and training of the unit.
You don't give a girl a rifle for the first few weeks of boot, then post her to a unit where more or less they have a mentality that fighting will not come to them and think that no bad habits or sloppy soldiering should develop. Once again as I point out, your focus on the alleged sloppy soldiering of Jessica Lynch is hopelessly microfocused... the real problem was with her commanders and her unit.That girl said her rifle couldn't fire because it was jammed and she curled up somewhere crying (not sure about the crying bit it just came to my mind). I do agree that she should not have been given a medal but these are the yanks we are talking about - even Popov36 (Gus Kohntopp) got a medal so as can be seen this is not against the run of things in the US. It is a media war as much as it is about guns and bullets.
And I am frankly not surprised that the convoy was routed in such a way... if all you got is very basic training in contact reactions and drills, your main job is ferrying stuff around, and this is your first time in a firefight it is not surprising you will end up being unable to fight. Do you seriously think the Pes C clerk at S1 could defend himself if HQ got attacked? And what's more do you think your army driver really knows the value of keeping his weapon clean like the normal grunt who knows firsthand what happens when you IA in the heat of battle?
At the end of the day blaming individuals isn't going to help the situtation when the pattern is generated higher up, and that's where you should really be talking.
Your focus on Jessica Lynch simply because (as you admitted) you don't know enough about the subject and have some limited valid points to make (which is about the whole of your case) sounds a lot like a person sometime back that insisted on very limited knowledge and circular logic that the SAR-21 could be "improved" when the very improvements he "invented" already existed and the "problem" (if there was any to begin with) was really with the SAF who for some reason (of which I can think of many) was not implementing and not the weapon itself... and somehow he keeps droning on and on while evading the rather obvious truth... that for some curious reason, he sees the need to brand the SAR-21 as "not one of the worlds best yet" for whatever bizzare reason that is quite irrelevant to the normal grunts that use the weapon, love it, and know it works very well indeed.
It would behoove you not to follow his path.
Nuff said. -
You are being a very silly person. Not knowing about the circumstances of everyone in a unit and therfore commenting only on the person you know something about = misfocus?Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
Are you suggesting that if the unit is somehow negligent then the individual suddenly bears no responsibility? That is senseless.
Whether or not the unit as a whole is responsible is one thing. There is also another thing called individual responsiblity. She was trained as a soldier, she took the paycheck, she damn well do her job. For that reason alone, she should have been charged. Dun give me the BS about you are posted to a logistics unit therefore there is a mindset that you will be doing REMF tasks and therefore you are exempted from soldiering.
RE the SAR 21 nonsense, I believe you have drifted somewhat. -
scabs, think about this way.
The storemen, clerk, drivers, hardly touch a rifle besides ATP during their NS Life. They are not inculcated with the discipline to make rifle cleaning a daily task. If we were to suddenly go to war, and they are not quickly corrected, then we'll see the same problems.
Not cleaning the rifle in a place like the sandbox on a daily basis is asking for trouble. Its hot n dry in the day, with the sand, and cools rapidly at night. + add the condensation and the sand, and u'll have some interesting jams i think.
Its no excuse, but they just dun have culture, as what SgTRex said. -
I understand the point about vocation, expectations and unit culture. However, if a soldier is in a warzone and he fails to keep his weapon ready for firing so that when his unit is attacked he is unable to perform his duty as a soldier, then I do not think it is a stretch to suggest that he is either incompetent or not terribly intelligent.Originally posted by Shotgun:scabs, think about this way.
The storemen, clerk, drivers, hardly touch a rifle besides ATP during their NS Life. They are not inculcated with the discipline to make rifle cleaning a daily task. If we were to suddenly go to war, and they are not quickly corrected, then we'll see the same problems.
Not cleaning the rifle in a place like the sandbox on a daily basis is asking for trouble. Its hot n dry in the day, with the sand, and cools rapidly at night. + add the condensation and the sand, and u'll have some interesting jams i think.
Its no excuse, but they just dun have culture, as what SgTRex said.
In the first case, he should be charged. In the second, he should be discharged. In both cases, he is a danger to himself and to his colleagues.
If it is unit culture that you do not bother with basic soldering tasks, then the unit commanders need to be looked at. However, it would be absurd to say the individual soldier is without personal responsiblity. -
Well, if the organization does not play an active part in inculcating the right habits, training the soldier to do the tasks of a soldier, then its unreasonable for very high expectations for that soldier.
What the soldier does not/ cannot do in peace time, we can't expect him to do well in war. If a bloke in the support arms hardly does ANY SOC, can we expect him to be able to expect him to clear the same obstacles in battlefield conditions and then blame him totally for not being able to do so?
Or perhaps in the area of physical fitness. If he cannot even run 400m without dying and quitting, can we reasonably expect him to be able to dash 400m, crawl for another 50, use his weapon effectively, and make further dashes? No. He cannot be blamed wholly for being unable to do so.
If a student does not do his revisions before exams, and the school does not inculcate him with proper study and revision habits (eg. with disciplinary action or counselling), can we expect him to do well for exams and blame him wholly for bad results?
Rather than playing the blame game, I would think its better to pre-empt it by enforcing proper soldiering discipline and habits, and regularly brushing up on it. -
Agree.. which brings me back to our guys. Current training I believe is too "soft". Without being adequately trained to take battlefield pressure, i suspect many will break down in war condition.Originally posted by Shotgun:Well, if the organization does not play an active part in inculcating the right habits, training the soldier to do the tasks of a soldier, then its unreasonable for very high expectations for that soldier.
What the soldier does not/ cannot do in peace time, we can't expect him to do well in war. If a bloke in the support arms hardly does ANY SOC, can we expect him to be able to expect him to clear the same obstacles in battlefield conditions and then blame him totally for not being able to do so?
Or perhaps in the area of physical fitness. If he cannot even run 400m without dying and quitting, can we reasonably expect him to be able to dash 400m, crawl for another 50, use his weapon effectively, and make further dashes? No. He cannot be blamed wholly for being unable to do so.
If a student does not do his revisions before exams, and the school does not inculcate him with proper study and revision habits (eg. with disciplinary action or counselling), can we expect him to do well for exams and blame him wholly for bad results?
Rather than playing the blame game, I would think its better to pre-empt it by enforcing proper soldiering discipline and habits, and regularly brushing up on it.
Older NSman are like sponge.. younger NSF are like cotton.. sponge stays in shape when soaking up "pressure" while cotton turns flat.
In my unit, NSman almost twice as old as active NSF, are regularly beating them in exercises. Watching them "fight".. makes me wonder what our "generals" are thinking. -
I do not think it is asking too much of soldiers to keep their weapons clean and ready for firing in a war zone. Unit culture may be a mitigating factor but no more. If my rifle was found covered with rust, I would expect to be shafted for it; I would not expect to get off by saying that my OC/PC/Sgts have never ever checked or told us to clean my rifle.Originally posted by Shotgun:Well, if the organization does not play an active part in inculcating the right habits, training the soldier to do the tasks of a soldier, then its unreasonable for very high expectations for that soldier.
What the soldier does not/ cannot do in peace time, we can't expect him to do well in war. If a bloke in the support arms hardly does ANY SOC, can we expect him to be able to expect him to clear the same obstacles in battlefield conditions and then blame him totally for not being able to do so?
Or perhaps in the area of physical fitness. If he cannot even run 400m without dying and quitting, can we reasonably expect him to be able to dash 400m, crawl for another 50, use his weapon effectively, and make further dashes? No. He cannot be blamed wholly for being unable to do so.
If a student does not do his revisions before exams, and the school does not inculcate him with proper study and revision habits (eg. with disciplinary action or counselling), can we expect him to do well for exams and blame him wholly for bad results?
Rather than playing the blame game, I would think its better to pre-empt it by enforcing proper soldiering discipline and habits, and regularly brushing up on it.
The blame game is also crucial - too often the term has been used to sweep aside issues. Blame, or rather responsiblity, needs to be allocated so that we can identify where the problem is. Finding out the various spheres of responsibility, identifying the irresponsible and punishing those found to be lacking is part of the process of improving and preempting similar incidents.
After all rules and directives are useless without a big stick to enforce them. Hence they must be enforced and be seen to be enforced. -
In your opinion, how is current training 'too soft'?Originally posted by siaokao:Agree.. which brings me back to our guys. Current training I believe is too "soft". Without being adequately trained to take battlefield pressure, i suspect many will break down in war condition.
Older NSman are like sponge.. younger NSF are like cotton.. sponge stays in shape when soaking up "pressure" while cotton turns flat.
In my unit, NSman almost twice as old as active NSF, are regularly beating them in exercises. Watching them "fight".. makes me wonder what our "generals" are thinking. -
Something like "the lonely soldier" or "the lonely one"> Cos he was a recent immigrant with no family or friends in Israel. I didn't buy.Originally posted by relackjack:what's the title of the book? -
As I said, the whole Jessia Lynch thing was a problem with the entire unit and not just the private by herself. She just happened to mention to the media that her weapon was jammed with sand during the fight and she never got off a single shot. That is if the media can be trusted to quote her in context...Originally posted by Shotgun:scabs, think about this way.
The storemen, clerk, drivers, hardly touch a rifle besides ATP during their NS Life. They are not inculcated with the discipline to make rifle cleaning a daily task. If we were to suddenly go to war, and they are not quickly corrected, then we'll see the same problems.
Not cleaning the rifle in a place like the sandbox on a daily basis is asking for trouble. Its hot n dry in the day, with the sand, and cools rapidly at night. + add the condensation and the sand, and u'll have some interesting jams i think.
Its no excuse, but they just dun have culture, as what SgTRex said.
The fact she even dared to mention this to the media shows somewhat that in her mind weapon discipline was always the furthest thing from her mind. Any grunt who knows his stuff would certainly refrain from putting in this detail when giving his/her account to the media for they know it reflects badly on them. Unless of course they were never taught the importance of keeping your weapon working at all in the field of ops... and their main concern was getting their stuff from point A to B without watching out for ambushes or getting lost.
Also we are ASSUMING, for the sake of an argument that she does not keep her weapon clean. It may very well be so that she does keep her weapon well cleaned, but simply happened to be unlucky at the wrong moment, and mentioned this suck-thumb fact to the media and left it to us to draw all the wrong pictures. Even combat units who keep their stuff in tip top condition as and when they can report fouling with dust and sand happening- in Generation Kill, the recon marines were forced to fight with fouled Mk 19s simply because a logistical screwup prevented them from getting the proper lube for their weapon. If this is the case we have argued mostly for nothing.
In the end what we do know for sure, the facts we can really deduce is that there was something seriously wrong with Jessica Lynch's unit. They reacted in all the wrong ways to the ambush, got lost, and did all most of the things soldiers weren't supposed to do. All things considered the only conclusion I can draw up is that from the start they were screwed and poorly prepared for the war... if Jessica Lynch's weapon really jammed because she didn't take good care of it... unit quality would certainly be a main contributing factor. This not to say that grunts do not have individual responsibility... but often they are only as good as their commanders. If their commanders do not train and create an outfit that in which they can be proper soldiers... it's hard to blame the individual enlisted soldier even if they were on some level responsible for their own demise.
If one put her in a proper outfit, could we argue that she would have been drilled and trained to do far better? We may never know but I don't think there's any reason to automatically suggest that she must be a total incompetent just because the media saw it fit to paint her at first as G.I. Jane... A mistruth in the other direction is still a mistruth.
As for the post on the SAR... it's a cautionary tale of an impending pitfall in logic to avoid. -
all i know is trained hard and fight easy....
-
I think only the first few batches trained by the Israeli soldiers deserve to say that their training is the most siong. Other than that, we can be considered pampered liao.Originally posted by LRRP:Are Singapore conscripts too soft?
Compared to other conscripts from TW, KR, i seriously think our local soldiers got a lot of "discount" in terms of "siong" training. Compare to the training from even just say 5 years ago..Theres a LOT more mechanisation of equipment.
And yet I still see so many grumblings on sgforums and others on how "siong" the training is ah..blah blah..the food no good etc etc and how they wanna give up..
Youngsters now are just simply too pampered..
But then again, I guess that's the problems with us humans. We think we suffered the most, when actually, there will always be people who are worst off than us. -
I seriously think SAF lack one major factor. That is motivation!
Be it true intention or propaganda. Motivation always work very well in war time. Stalingrad,Chinese civil war 1948-49 or Vietnam war all proved that. One thing u can't kill with any type of modern weapon is the spirit of a soldier mould by motivation.
He will sacriface himself to protect his believe or property. He will suddenly draw abnormal amount of energy to accomplish something physic can't explain. And he will fight to the last blood and perish with the enemy! -
Compare average Singapore NSF infantryman with average Thai, PLA, Indonesian infantryman.
We are not soft compared to them meh? C'mon, don't kid yourself.
These other guys grew up in the countryside. Their training is tough, dangerous and often, they get involved in real firefights. And being physically beaten by superior is part of life.
I am not belittling SAF.
But as the Chinese saying goes: one has to recognise one's own strength and weaknesses.
But not being physically tough doesn't that mean we will lose a fight.
We can still win through discipline, weaponry and tactics.
But if you want to talk strictly about physical and mental toughness, then we ain't it.
Israel, for example, uses a lot of reservists during war whom are surely not the fittest, toughest soldiers - being yanked suddenly from civi street. But through being well-trained, motivated, superior weaponry and tactics, they helped win many wars.