Follow TV Tropes
dRoy: Given they heavily recruit from Spec Ops that should not be a surprise.
De Marquis: Spec Ops regularly searches for those who are "highly aggressive" they are going to be nabbing people with questionable pasts and the ratio of those with problematic backgrounds in the military has far higher ratios than the general civilian populations.
Edited by TuefelHundenIV on May 10th 2019 at 10:42:41 AM
Late to the conversation, but alright.
I don't really buy into the argument that SpecOps requires bad types to begin with. It requires professional types - who can focus on getting the job done rather than going berserk and causing trouble.
I wager the SEALs sure as hell didn't take that shit-stain in just so he could make them look like unhinged psychopaths. They don't make very good soldiers - just liabilities.
I get that bad eggs do slip through the cracks. But a bad egg slipping through the cracks until it becomes national news is not acceptable under any circumstances.
They really need to inspect their selection procedure. Chances are, they're probably doing that anyway. And if you want to be utterly cynical, they might just write it off as acceptable range of problems than actually fix it, largely because it's often difficult to figure out what is controlled aggression and what is just psychopathic behaviour.
I sure as hell don't see this kind of complaint coming out of the British SAS and SBS. Or the Russian Alfas. So using the "high-stress" argument is a pretty lame excuse.
On a side note, the ones calling for his release and pardoning are utterly despicable human beings. Trying to score cheap political points over a fucking criminal - M84s signature is the gift that keeps on giving.
Edited by TechPriest90 on May 11th 2019 at 10:09:17 AM
Is it coincidence that the infamous Blackwater was founded and staffed by mostly former Navy Seals? I think not.
The British SAS and Australian SAS have both had these issues, to lesser degrees. Delta has had issues, MARSOC has had a few too. It’s not that these units require bad people, but they do require a certain kind of person and combining that with long periods of high stress and the almost total lack of supervision or consequences the SEALs have and you get issues.
SEAL culture is pretty toxic on top of everything else too which certainly doesn’t help.
Edited by archonspeaks on May 11th 2019 at 8:25:24 AM
It isn't. Erik Prince was a former SEAL and that, he got the idea of training for special operations being privatized from his time in the SEA Ls.
High tempo of operations for prolonged periods of time causing issues across the special operations community have been reported on for years, a result of the War on Terror. Mind you, nobody operates like the US does anyway. SEAL culture has been toxic for a while, nevermind DEVGRU and the early days with Marcinko (and his legacy in the unit).
Plus a lot of mercs these days are former SEALs.
Edited by TheWildWestPyro on May 11th 2019 at 3:28:12 AM
I guess that I'm suggesting that their selection procedures are working fine, depending on what they are trying to select. I'm also suggesting that it's not fundamentally a question of "bad apples", or even aggressive individuals. If there is a pattern that goes beyond one person, then it's the institutional culture that is at fault, and that's a question of the incentives that are in place. Ultimately, it sounds like yet another case of the policy makers wanting some sociopaths on board, because sociopaths can be useful (as well as deniable).
It's not that the military or special ops attracts psychos - the problem is one of politics.
Officers and senior enlisted don't give a damn until the problem causes embarrassment or affects the mission.
As long as this Ed Gallagher could make mission and bully his team, the higher ups were all "See no evil, speak no evil".
And when the acts became to heinous to ignore? The chain of command turned on the whistleblowers out of fear as to what would happen:
As Chief Gallagher’s men were sounding an alarm about killings in Iraq, his superiors were lavishing praise on him. An evaluation quoted in the investigation report called Chief Gallagher the best chief of the 12 in the team, and said, “This is the man I want leading SEA Ls in combat.”
A few days after the March 2018 meeting, the chief was awarded a Bronze Star for valor under fire in Iraq.
A month later, the seven platoon members finally succeeded in spurring their commanders to formally report the killings of the three Iraqis to the Navy Criminal Investigation Service, by threatening to go directly to top Navy brass and to the news media.
The problem with special ops is that they get a lot of leeway. Richard Marcinko made SEAL Team 6 out of good men and some of the worst assholes in the Navy because he was looking for heavy hitters. It was only when RED CELL embarrassed the Navy and the NIS with their antics that they sent him to prison when they got charges that would stick. As long as he was making mission and had friends in high places, DEVGRU could do no wrong - at one point their training ammo budget was higher than the same budget for the entire USMC.
If you tell someone that they are the best and hide their misdeads, you get someone who feels that they can do no wrong. Freud said that if you meet a child's needs and never punished the child from birth to the age of 20 - you'd have a 20 year old infant.
Gallagher believed he could do no wrong and went down a dark path because he never got corrected- was never punished for the first misdeed.
Of course Gallagher -if convicted - will go to prison. Sadly his superiors may get slaps on the wrist (relief for cause, demotion, early retirement). In a just world they would join him.
There is a good chance that Trump will pardon or commute his sentence, he's been Tweeting about it for a while.
While a bad apple ruins the whole barrel, a bad barrel of apples does nothing good for the good apples you toss into it.
Defending Europe: scenario-based capability requirements for NATO’s European members
Edited by TerminusEst on May 13th 2019 at 10:58:11 AM
You folks remember the EA-18 Growler that used its contrail to draw a giant sky penis?
Here's a transcript of the cockpit (ahem) discussion.
There's word getting out that other military forces operating in the ME say that they don't see anything worth of intel value that Iranian force are going to do anything provocative.
Got this to be safe.
So, no change at all from last week then.
What's the mood among the Enlisted when it comes to invading Iran?
About the same as they feel about invading anywhere else, but it’s not the enlisted you need to worry about.
On the contrary, it's them whose fates I find worthy of concern. The brass tend to end up just fine.
Their fates have very little to do with their mood, though.
Brass does what the brass does. Boots do what boots do.
We all gotta do what we all gotta do.
You think morale has little to do with the process, outcome, and aftermath of a military campaign?
Edited by Oruka on May 15th 2019 at 11:02:05 AM
Well, with morale you have to keep in mind that the circumstances of the conflict affect it just as much as the other way around.
Morale is very different from political affiliation.
Community Showcase More