"Excellent interview with British soldier in Afghanistan." Topic

link
He threw back a grenade that landed in his position. But that's not as impressive as his general demeanour and matter of fact attitude. Stuff like this should be broadcast at prime time every night to give people an idea of what's going on over there. Doesn't matter if you support the war or not, it's difficult not to feel humbled by men like this.

agreed!

Great story.

Thanks for the link.

Todays media's selected deafness is most laughable these days.

David
wardepot.blogspot.com
6to20painting.blogspot.com

If this had been a WWII forum then the fireworks would have started ….

"The rifleman, who is originally from New Zealand, has been fighting in Sangin for the past five months."

It seems that he is actually a Kiwi!

[Todays media's selected deafness is most laughable these days.]

This story did, of course. appear in 'the media'.

The BBC has a lot of Iraq and Afghanistan coverage. If other media sources don't, there is always the option of changing channels.

Yes, there are a lot of good soldiers there, doing a great job. Sometimes you see some good stuff on the History Channel. However, IMO, the media likes to post friendly KIA & WIA numbers. And show the civilians affected by the war … Not how well our Sniper Tms are doing, totals of enemy KIAs, etc., etc. … They would look like blood thirsty cheerleaders. And it is easier to make it look like the soldiers are victims as well and not highly skilled and trained fighters. That's not PC now, is it ?

"And it is easier to make it look like the soldiers are victims as well and not highly skilled and trained fighters."…Yes there does seem to be a desire amongst the media to portray the misery/angst of war rather than the humour soldiers find in situations, the comradeship etc etc…I always get annoyed with politicians/media types talking about how criticising the war will affect morale in the forces--I thought that first and foremost soldiers fight for their mates??

Yes, in a combat situation, all the patriotic rantings, Mom, apple pie and the gal you left behind pretty much goes on the shelf. Survival of your comrades, doing the mission and just plain making it thru another day becomes paramount. Many media types, politicos and even just civilains on the street don't get that. But after serving in a combat unit in a hot zone or two, it becomes very clear to those who have been there …

Having the media jumping up and down supporting the war would be worse than criticism. I just meant interviews with the guys on the ground giving the public an idea of what's going on and who's doing the fighting. The great thing about that interview was that the reporter didn't have an agenda. She just encouraged the soldier to tell his side.
Ask someone in the UK about our armed forces and many seem to think the majority are pretty much neanderthals who are unable to function in the real world or at best are brave but a bit dim. They just have no idea of the professionalism needed to carry out their job.
And it would beat yet another interview with a PR guy in uniform who knows as much about being in action as the public and just trots out the usual phrases and platitudes without seeming to understand the events behind them.
Glad I got that off my chest.

A man who knew the subject well once said "It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it." In an age where video games and youtube footage of drone strikes inundate us with the "fun" side of war I don't mind at all if the media tends to focus on the terrible side. It seems to me we need a bit of balance.

Well done Rifleman McKie!

Got to agree … as I said, the Media could look like blood thirsty cheerleaders if they were too positive. And only the mis-informed(stupid!) would think soldiers are "bloodlusting brutes". However, I believe the media should just report, unbiased without an agenda. But maybe that is too much to ask for. And most civilians know very little to nothing about professionalism, duty, honor, courage, etc. … It normally has no place in their lives. Which is a standard since those things rarely come up in their daily lives. And I think that there is nothing wrong with focusing on the terrible things that happen in war, as R.E. Lee said, it is terrible. But the troops fighting it should not be villified. And today that happens less and less. As compared with the '60s, Vietnam, etc. … But when troops do "heroic" things, as with McKiel, and shows "we" are defeating the enemy, that should be reported accurately too …

I meet some of these guys when they return home on a regular basis through work. I can not fault their attitude and temperament.They always look out for each others backs,great example to us all.

The bond between soldiers is like nothing I can think of in the civilian world. Save for maybe some police and firemen …

Top bloke.

"Ask someone in the UK about our armed forces and many seem to think the majority are pretty much neanderthals who are unable to function in the real world or at best are brave but a bit dim. They just have no idea of the professionalism needed to carry out their job."
Unfortunately, most of the limited number that I have met fit that description very well. A friend of mine left the Booties because he found that most of them were indeed "bloodlusting brutes", who would fight each other, or anybody else, if there wasn't a legitimate enemy to fight. Despite having wanted to join for as long as he could remember, he didn't want to serve with people who, in his words, really wanted to kill people.

Well the military is full of all types … and for good or ill, infantry units need people that can/want kill the enemy. In my 10+ years in the Infantry, I found very few of those that "wanted" to kill, however, I found many including myself that would have no problem with it killing the enemy in combat. It's part of the job description, it's part of the job … It is called, the Armed Forces … However, soldiers fighting among themselves is not new. But it certainly has to be controlled by unit commanders. As I was a Plt Ldr and later Co Cdr, and had very little of that … however, it happened. And in the US Army, psych eval is part of the enlistment testing, so many of the thugs, punks, and "psychos" that try to get in … don't … Combat Ldrs are "Managers of Violence", for want of another term. And that violence must be controlled, guided and channelled to be effective. Those that can't follow orders or be controlled … have no place in the Military. That being said, I'm sure some of the "Want to Kill types" slide thru … And we used to say, there is nothing wrong with killing people as long as the right people are being killed. A bit silly, but truthful, gritty & realistic … sorry to say …

"Well the military is full of all types … and for good or ill, infantry units need people that can/want kill the enemy."

Of course it is, but you can hardly complain about public perceptions of soldiers, and I include the Royal Marines in this, being, at times, "bloodlusting brutes" or "neanderthals who are unable to function in the real world or at best are brave but a bit dim."
The vast number of ex soldiers who don't seem to be able to function in the real world seems to bear this out.

"And most civilians know very little to nothing about professionalism, duty, honor, courage, etc. … It normally has no place in their lives. Which is a standard since those things rarely come up in their daily lives."

I realise that military people are fed this kind of drivel in order to make them feel better about themselves, but surely a Captain, I assume, is intelligent enough to know that even civilians understand and deal with these concepts in their daily lives?

Your points are well made … However, I don't know if the vast number of ex-soldiers/marines/etc. have problems back in the real world. I know many vets, and we didn't have a hard time adjusting. But we had to adjust none the less. Public preception is always based on their experiences with vets in the media, etc. However, if they had served in the military and in "Hot Spots", they'd have a more accurate view. And that is not drivel fed to us. We were never put in a room and told that or anything else like that … The military does not "brainwash" … to make us feel better about ourselves. Those are my observations after being back in the real world … and other vets I know feel the same. And yes, I was an Infantry Captain, have 2 degrees and would like to think I have some intelligence. However, my IQ is only like 110-112 … But after all my time as a civilian, I found very few examples of professionalism, duty, honor, courage, etc. Save at times from police, firemen, medical personal, etc. … But my views of civilians may be as skewed as their perceptions of vets. Regardless … be aware that there are people for whatever reason, are willing to put themselves in harms way, so others that can't or won't can go about their daily lives …

My particular perception isn't based on the media. It is based on those that I met, and the evidence that I've seen of ex-service people finding it hard to adjust to civilian life, especially when they've been taught, even unconsciously, to despise those people who are not of their "group". Having experienced that brainwashing they will find it very difficult to move in a society that they've been taught to despise. Of course the Military are brainwashed, they need to be part of a group, a self-supporting and self-preserving group. Part of that bonding process is the inculcation of the idea that they are special and better. This is necessarily the case, or their unit won't function as well as it could. Their section is the best, their platoon is the best, in the best company, in the best battalion, in the best brigade. You'll have done some of that creation of self image of your men yourself.
Ex-service people have a dreadful track record in terms of social maladjustment. Not the majority, but a significant minority. They experience higher percentages of drug, especially alcohol, abuse than the civilian population. Higher percentage of homelessness than the civilian population. Much higher percentages of domestic violence than the civilian population, and higher levels of mental problems than the civilian population, and not just through post-traumatic stress. The very institutionalisation of their lives makes the apparent chaos of civilian life hard to adjust to.
As a civilian, now, I see many examples of honour, and courage, duty and professionalism from people who don't wear a uniform. I'm not decrying the courage of some of our Armed Forces, but I stand by my original statement, as it is based on personal experience, and evidence gained from my partner's research, not on a popular media based perception.

Well obviously, my perceptions of the whole situation is very much different than yours … And as a Combat Leader, my experience is vastly different than yours. And I never saw any "brainwashing" going on. I lead, trained and movitated the troops under my command, so they could acomplish our mission and survive. And the only people we despise are those that have attacked us or committed atrocities against us, like Al Quada, etc. … Many vets from WWII on have said, they really didn't hate anyone … they were just surviving. But hating obviously makes it easier to do your job. I know very few vets that have problems. There may be a small percentage, but most I know are getting along fine … including me. As far as courage, honor, etc., I see very little of it in the civilain world. But all that being said, you are entitled to believe and feel as you do towards vets, etc. … As I said, I see things very differently. But of course, you'll just see me as one of those brainwashed, warmonger, psycho-killers, no matter what I say …

No, not you, but they do exist.
Perhaps brainwashing is too strong a word, but to motivate men you have to encourage them to feel confident about themselves and their ability. This takes many forms, but can take the form of suggesting to them that they are the best platoon, section, company, best Division, best Ship, whatever. That idea stays with them when they return to civilian life. They were the best. Now what are they? A well adjusted, bright and intelligent person, with a good job to go to, and with a good civilian network of friends will be more able to readjust. A soldier of limited intelligence, and I know they exist, without a good family support network, without a circle of friends in civilian life, will find it very hard to adjust to civilian life, and will find it very hard to get, and keep, a job. I've met them before, after and during their service. As "before", I've seen them excited to start, with the prospect of a new "family" as it were, with a new purpose, rather than the failure they were at school. I've seen the same person brimming with pride and confidence in the "during" part. And I've seen them when they've come out, even more unable to achieve and fit in than they were before.
I've also worked with otherwise intelligent people whom, having been an Officer commanding a platoon, for example, have since been unable to see themselves as anything else. Still, although they're in civilian employment, despising, if not consciously, the civilians around them. The training, even as an Officer, creates that feeling of superiority, which is very hard to get into a true perspective.
I would suggest that the majority of Army veterans from WW2 weren't soldiers, but were conscripted civilians in uniform. As such they wouldn't have had a soldier's outlook, and were looking forward to their discharge, rather than trying to be the best that you can be!
"As far as courage, honor, etc., I see very little of it in the civilain world."
Perhaps, but you're probably unconsciously looking at the people around you with your biased ex-soldier's eye. Just because honour and courage aren't paraded in front of you doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. How often do you hear of ordinary civilians risking their lives to help others? Quite often I think you'll find.
The US military is, to an extent different, in that the social care and educational opportunities for ex service people make Military service far more attractive to the more intelligent, especially if they're from a poor background. But, the ordinary soldiers of volunteer "professional" armies are still mostly made up of the socially, educationally and intellectually weaker members of society.
There used to be a joke, when I was in a different life, that there was an Officer in the Household Cavalry who was so stupid that even the others noticed…..

Well again, I do see your points … And I'd like too think those are the minority. A very small minority. And as I said, I may be looking at civilians thru skewed eyes, tempered by 10+ years in the Infantry. But many civilians, not all that, I met still don't impress me. Save for some of the police, firemen and medical personal. Again, my preception may be colored. I would like to think that most of the soldiers I served with in an all volunteer army were not socially, etc., weak as you discribe. And I know most officers I served with were very intelligent and capable. Admittedly some were better than others … but you'll find that on a football team or with car salesmen, etc.. Motivating and training soldiers is an art as much as a science, as is warfare. Many of the Officers and Senior NCO Corps are very intelligent and skilled at their craft. As skilled as any business professional, banker, lawyer or even a doctor. And I would like to think that very few would be considered "stupid" … When I think about my close comrades/fellow officers, I don't remember any that were stupid or "mal-adjusted". And I know myself and many of my vet friends, have good jobs, family, and many friends … and are well adjusted. But again, I see some of your points. And the whole concept of "being the best", you'll find in many Alpha Male types, athletes, etc. … even in some business types. And regardless, I will always hold a soldier that is an Airborne, Ranger, Green Beret in much higher esteem than any civilian. As I know what it takes both mentally and phyically what it takes to get those qualifictions. And yes, my Father, was a volunteer in WWII. And ended up as an Infantry SGT. He served well and was decorated. The last thing he want me to do was become and Infantry Officer in an Airborne unit. Based on his WWII experiences. But I strongly felt that was what I wanted to do … and don't regret it … So I guess we can agree to disagree on many points here, but I can only feel the way I do based on my expiences. Some may be products of their enviroment or victims of it … I make that choice. No one else … And by the way, I found this "chat", very interesting and even somewhat enlighting … even if I am an intellectually challenged, sub-human, blood lusting, primate …

" And I'd like too think those are the minority "

My own personal experience is that the vast majority of ex-services personnel adjust to civilian life without any problems at all, even people who have had, shall we say, an exciting time of it.

I do know three who have had mental health problems however, and one of them committed suicide. Given the sample size I suppose that is higher than average for the population as a whole, but it is a fairly small sample.

Agreed Martin … only a very small precentage have problems. And based on the nature of the military(fighting wars and such) … it's not surprising that it is a higher average then the general population. But still small …

As usual in our media-oriented society, great focus is placed on those who cannot adjust and very little on the vast majority who do, thus giving a disproportionate appearance of the scale of the problem. However the important thing to remember to necessity to provide support to help those who do require it.

It matters a lot whether you support "the war" – which is interesting euphemism for choosing between supporting Terrorism and Medieval Barbarism or not.

As for psychological problems. The News Media and the 'Anti-War' lobby present all returning soldiers as pathetic victims – either corpses or physical or mental cripples – and serving ones as either stooges or naive dupes. And you wonder why they have trouble readjusting?

I agree with both points … and again, those that can't adjust is very small overall. And something, that may or may not play into it. Some of those who can't adjust may of had some deep seated problems before they became soldiers. And the experience only helps bring those problems out. But regardless, popular media likes to focus on the failures and not success. It's good "news" … And #6's point is valid, as Ralph Peters said in an article in Armchair General May 2010, " The growth [of the Taliban] is a clear-cut indicator of the appeal of tradition over modernization." "[And] a global revolt against civilization."