by Aldus Marius on Wed Jan 21, 2004 3:10 am
Salvete, commilitones...
A certain military man of the Greek persuasion said:
> "A soldier should fear his commander more than his enemies."
...and we have been asked to comment on it. As an ex-drill sergeant, one with some small experience in these matters, I would be delighted to do so.
I would say that fear of one's superiors (and of the punishment they can mete out if they are not promptly obeyed) is effective, as far as it goes. I'll even agree that it goes pretty far. Whole societies (not to mention millions of working animals and the more unfortunate pet dogs among us) have been run on the principles of fear and compulsion. Iraq (and some dogs) are only the most recent examples of my acquaintance. Boot camps are run in this fashion, at least at first. Imposed discipline is not the most effective tool in that particular box, but it works.
What works better?
In the modern American armed forces, imposed discipline is merely the first step--a means of getting a busload of green recruits (called "rainbows" for their variegated civilian clothing) into some semblance of order, some form of readiness for the next stage of training. The "Drill" puts the fear of God into them, or at least the fear of the Drill. I was usually hell on wheels to them for the whole first week, maybe longer...and I was considered one of the milder instructors. The idea was to get them to perform with "snap". Consistency, reliability, came later.
Very soon, group discipline would kick in. This is just the militarese for "peer pressure"; the nascent teamwork, the sense of togetherness, born of the recruits' shared (and desperate!) desire to get out of that place, most preferably by graduation. If one messes up, he'll hear about it from his buddies. Some of the men help the others. Each one wants most keenly to please his fellows, as well as (of course) the instructor.
How far will group discipline take a man? --Studies conclude that American soldiers do not really die for flag and country or any president's agenda. They die for their buddies, and for the honor of their units. Already they would rather perish than be shamed.
A third type of discipline arises in some contexts, that being task discipline. Task discipline means that the very nature of the soldier's job requires that he stay on his toes and bear excruciating attention to detail. The men in a missile silo, anyone in NASA, and any Special Forces unit (for examples) have been handed a challenge, and they know it; they have full confidence in themselves, in their expertise, and in their ability to carry out the mission with thoroughness and even with a little bit of flair.
But the goal of any modern training program is the development of self-discipline, which is nothing more (or less) than deep personal integrity as expressed in doing the correct--because one deems it to be the right--thing. Imposed discipline is no longer necessary, indeed superfluous; group and task discipline are included, but are not the whole thing. The recruit at this point has moved beyond doing what he must for anyone else's reasons. He does it simply because he must (the impulsion arising from within)...and because if he did not, he could no longer respect himself as a soldier, or even as much of a man.
The soldier, sailor or airman trained to this level does not fear his commander, indeed cannot be gotten to fear anyone. Some commanders dislike working with an intensely self-disciplined unit for this very reason; the things that motivate them leave fear and intimidation in the dust. It's a little harder to get a handle on pride. But these troops will be reliable, they will be consistent, and the quality of their work is always superb.
I should point out here that not many military personnel ever reach this level. Some coast along for years on group or task discipline; some (the ones with permanent reservations at the brig) need imposed discipline throughout their careers. That's okay; the armed forces have room for all types. Needless to say, however, all types will not respond to the same command style. Xenophon, depending on his adaptability, might be considered a rather poor commander these days, even a martinet (a type universally subjected to widespread derision; the Ami term is @$$hole, and we can tell 'em even by their salutes).
Hopefully this will provide a springboard for discussion of this topic. I do not intend it to be the end of said discussion! I have no experience with other nations' armed forces and their training programs, nor am I familiar with the methods used in other times except the Roman. I encourage anyone with an observation or opinion to post it here so's we can compare notes!
In amicitia et fide,
Aldus Marius Peregrinus.