Since the First Agricultural Revolution in 10,000 B.C. which caused a global population increase and introduced the territorial culture, organized warfare has always been universal to humanity. Opposing forces have always conglomerated individuals into a collective with the common purpose of fighting another collective. But war has never been an intrinsically satisfying or popular activity for individuals to engage in; to go to war is to leave your family and friends behind sometimes for months, years, or even forever; to go to war is to know that at any moment you could lose your life—you may not even see it coming; to go to war is to come to terms with the notion that you will likely kill people who probably did nothing even nearly deserving of death. …show more content…
In the words of Thomas Ricks’ in his war-time novel Making a Corps, this phenomenon is described as “Discipline […] the instant willing obedience to all orders, respect for authority, self-reliance and teamwork,” (Ricks 71). That is, only when soldiers are indoctrinated or disciplined into a particular “military ethos” can they conduct themselves in this uncomfortable, unusual, and at times inhumane manner. According to this assumption, that military ethos is applied to each soldier; however, I’d argue that although individualism is prominent in war, individuals tend to act out of collective motivation more so than individual motivation. Based on that premise, we can see that it is in fact more accurate to apply the concepts of a military ethos to a collective, rather than to individuals. In this paper, I will provide examples to demonstrate the validity of this
The Warrior Ethos is to never leave a fallen comrade, to fight all threats of any and all Americans; both foreign and at home. When a soldier sees something wrong, a threat to the way of life, he or she stands up and takes action. Donald Trump states that U.S. soldiers “would blindly ignore their oath, their training and their conscience to follow what were clearly illegal, unethical and immoral orders.” In the article A Soldier 's View on Trump, the author Mark Hertling uses pathos, epiphany, anecdotes, and common themes to get people to agree with his opinions about Donald Trump. Mark Hertling talked about his life in the military.
But how many still obey the speed limit despite some previously been caught and pay a fine? Human’s rationalization says that it won’t happen again. The same idea with a view to war, like other countless lessons, human nature fails to correct these mistakes from happening time and time again. This lesson transcends time, it is an established notion in every country and in every human, throughout the world. From Verdun, Gettysburg, to Waterloo, examples of how war can be in any century.
War has always carried an amount of uncertainty. The harsh truths about war have often been looked at through rose colored glasses. However, the harsh, unromantic realities of war always seem to dominate . Writers, media, and organizations have portrayed soldiers in countless ways. However, the roles which these men and women have played in the defense of our country cannot be so easily summed up.
For the common soldier, at least, war has the feel- the spiritual texture- of a great ghostly fog, thick and permanent. There is no clarity. Everything swirls.” (79). This quote explains that everything a soldier does has no recognition and that the things they do are out of spite and plain gut
In the Roman Empire, England, France, and the Middle East, ever since people have been around, there has always been conflict and fighting. A common theme in war is inhumanity. For example, in World War I mustard gas would produce terrible blisters on soldiers who were exposed to it. Empathy for those suffering young men was not present in those causing the pain.
When talking about war, there are many books with few answers to what war truly is. Barbara Ehrenreich brings forth not only the possibilities towards understanding war but also the passion people from history have had towards it. One key issue she brings to light is humanities love for war, so much so that people would use excuses like holy wars to justify their need to fight in a war. She declares that war is as muddled as the issue of diseases and where diseases came from around 200 years ago. More so than that she even goes further on to state that these rituals that date back to prehistoric times are the cause of human nature during times of war rather than human instinct.
War is about principles. It can be used to end injustice, tyranny, or both. It can band people together to form a bond that is unbreakable, all fighting for the same cause. But that bond can have a high price. War kills soldiers, tearing them from family; it kills innocent people, just trying to survive.
“We all say not war, we are all for justice and peace. But sometimes in order to maintain peace, armed action is necessary. But we hope it won’t be the case"-by Silvio Bersuconi. This quote was said by former Italian Prime Minister who spoke about war.
After World War II the army revamped much of their training, with a big focus on basic training camp which “was designed to undermine all the past concepts and beliefs of the new recruit, to undermine his civilian values, to change his self concept—subjugating him entirely to the military system” (pg.321). Simply put, the army aims for the recruits to lose their individual sense of self worth so that in its place they can instill discipline and conformity. By the end of basic, the recruits embrace their new-found discipline and violence and recognize it as necessary to survive in their new world. With their new outlook on the world the soldiers are more likely to kill for two reasons, first being that they do not want to let down others in their groups and second being the relentless training they received that simulated real scenarios which allows them to do before thinking. Without the brutalization that occurs in basic training, recruits would find it much more difficult to take a life, ultimately leading to similar results seen on the battlefield in World War II.
The application of the “Holy Trinity” provides military historians with a framework to create a holistic view of wartime activities. Analysis of the Trinity on an engagement, military historians are able to narrow down the events that occurred and develop a comprehensive understanding of any wartime engagement. Disputing the influence of the Trinity on a battle aids in further developing the understanding of war and can assist in the development of future military strategy. Through the examination of psychological and physical characteristics as they apply to battle, a case study approach utilizing the Trinity framework provides new depth to the understanding of the art and science of war. Therefore, in order to fully understand how morale and psychological variances effect the Trinity, military historians should examine battles with profound psychological ramifications.
These events have defined the many rules and ethics that have led to the evolution of war and violence. The Russian Revolutions of 1905 and 1917 clearly signify the beginning of a new era of warfare and violence
These are just a few of the army values and how they play an important part in an effective leader and follower’s day to day
In her piece, Warfare: An Invention—Not a Biological Necessity, Mead removes the human component and examines what warfare really is. Her belief is that warfare is not a part of human nature and it is not something that cannot be avoided. She believes that warfare is, “[…] an invention like any other of the inventions in terms of which we order our lives” (Mead 275). What she means is that societies have created warfare because we learned to use it for a purpose. Mead examined different societies around the world to see if warfare was indeed a universal idea.
Human beings have not evolved from their primitive ancestors, which is why they turn to war and violence without batting an eyelash. As demonstrated by the evolution from Juvenal’s Satire 15 to The Onion’s “Constantly Worrying What Other People Think About Your War Crimes Is No Way To Live Your Life,” the prevalence of violence throughout the history of humankind has not diminished, requiring harsher
In order to learn more about military mind we can take a look at the United States Army; Warrior Ethos which are: i. I will always place the mission first. ii. I will never accept defeat. iii. I will never quit.