Jane Fonda: Back at it in a new war Posted by: McQ
on Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Yes, the woman who best epitomizes the morale busting anti-war left of the Vietnam era has now began working on a new war in earnest:
"Hanoi Jane" Fonda is claiming that ever since Vietnam, U.S. troops have been trained to commit atrocities against innocent civilians as a matter of military policy.
"Starting with the Vietnam War we began training soldiers differently," the anti-American actress says in an email to the Washington Post.
Fonda claims she learned of the policy switch in "secret meetings" she had with military psychologists "who were really worried about what was happening to our combat personnel."
One doctor, she insists, told her U.S. troops had been deliberately trained to be "killing machines."
Obviously a story which starts by labeling Fonda as "Hanoi Jane" may not be the most unbiased source. But in reality, there's not much argument about her activities or their effect during the VN era.
However, dealing with the point, note the focus of Fonda.
The soldiers.
Remember the myth perpetrated for years of the unstable Vietnam veteran? Remember how long that meme existed in our society, enabled in film, news accounts and literature?
Well, here we go again.
"This began," Fonda maintained, "because the military discovered that in World War II and Korea, [U.S.] soldiers weren't killing enough."
"So they changed training procedures" to teach troops how to commit atrocities.
Still, the anti-war gadfly cautions, it's important not to blame the soldiers themselves for carrying out war crimes.
Recalling the "Winter Soldier" hearings that she and John Kerry staged in 1971, Fonda lamented: "When you put young people into an atrocity-producing situation where enemy and civilian are commingled, where the 'other side' is dehumanized, we cannot be surprised."
Actually the training didn't at all change, the lethality of warfare changed. Another thing which changed was we went from a draft military to a professional and volunteer military. What that means is those who volunteer for specific duties rather than being drafted are more likely to do what those duties call for them to do. But Fonda would prefer you to believe that we purposely dehumanize our enemies and thus our military kills indiscriminately and commits atrocities as a matter of course. This is the same charge Kerry made in front of the Senate during Vietnam.
"We have not learned the lessons of Vietnam," she declared.
Actually, what many of us have decided is we are not willing to relive the consequences of withdrawing from Vietnam before the job was done. Different time, different military, different ground rules. And this time we have a medium by which our voices can be heard and isn't dependent upon the major media for exposure.
Don’t get me wrong Hanoi Jane and her ilk from the 1960’s and now from the 2000-period on turn my stomach. But I would point out the grain of truth in her story...Military Training, Army training, HAS changed since the Second World War. As a result of studies by US Military Historians, S.L.A. Marshall in particular. It was Marshall’s contention that most combat infantrymen, NEVER FIRED THEIR WEAPONS IN COMBAT. This conclusion is strongly contested, TODAY, of methodological grounds, but in the post-WWII era it was accepted as dogma. It’s "truth"/validity was confirmed by reports from the Korean War of troops not firing, when confronted with a large number of Chinese targets.
The upshot was to change both the weapons philosophy and training of the US Army. Marshall believed that automatic weapons gunners tended to fire, first and firing spread along the firing line from them. therefore the US Army adopted a weapon capable of automatic weapons fire, the M-16, in order to increase the rate of firing by troops. Also, Known Distance Ranges and the Bulls eye Targets were replaced with "pop-up" targets of a humanoid shape. The Bulls eye targets did not indoctrinate troops well, it was thought. Combat firing is not at known distances versus little sheets of paper, but against sudden targets of opportunity, that are human. It was believed that troops when confronted with live targets froze, not being able to translate the theory of rifle fire to the actuality. The result was different rifle ranges and more emphasis, in Vietnam, on "Killing".
All the above from Marshall and Dr. David Grossman LTC. USA. My point is, that Fonda strikes CLOSE tot he truth, when she says, military training has undergone a change, it has. She just assumes or believes that the change was in the easing of creating atrocities! Heck, mayhap she believes that killing people IS an atrocity or more likely she and her kind simply believe that is what militaries do, commit atrocities. Any way, just a thought and a small point before we jump on her and then Pogue or MKULTRA pop-in with some point about Army training. She is right, to an extent, training ahs changed and it does focus more on killing than it used to, at least for 11-B’s and 11-M’s.
The upshot was to change both the weapons philosophy and training of the US Army.
I’m afraid you’re missing the intent of her comments, Joe. The fact that we’ve improved our training through various changes doesn’t then imply that during and before WWII we weren’t turning out "killing machines" and now we are.
I’m afraid you’re missing the intent of her comments, Joe.
No I don’t think so. I was just pointing out, as I said, that there is a KERNEL of truth to her claims...that training has/had changed. Is she wrong on 95% of it, yes, but is she vaguely right on 5%, yes and I thought I’d try to point out the 5% before MK or others did and claimed somehow that that 5% was really more significant than it was.
Now I don’t agree with Grossman, but he would say, guardedly, that yes we ARE turning out killing machines. His book "On Killing" addresses that point and his concern is that this may affect soldiers, but more importantly that this training is leaking over into civilian applications, like first person shooter games. I don’t see US Army training creating PTSD-stresses in soldiers conditioned to kill and returned to civilian life and nor do I see First Person Shooter Games as Spawn of Satan, but there is a school of thought out there and not just from Michael Moore and Jane Fonda that would disagree with you.
I guess the point I’m trying to get across Joe is the mission of all militaries is to kill people and break things. There’s nothing that has changed in that regard throughout recorded history.
However, three things have chaged our military’s efficiency in carrying out that mission: increased lethality of munitions and systems, better training, and a professional force which accepts the responsiblity inherent with the position.
If you look at WWII the problem wasn’t we weren’t "killing" enough, it was that the number of soldiers who actually fired their weapons was in the minority. The techniques she talks about were to give the soldier training enough to understand the importance of firing that weapon and to enable him to do so.
And any good soldier knows that wounding is usually better than killing. Killing eliminates one soldier. Wounding can take two to three out of the battle (the other one or two being utilized to care for and move the wounded).
Our soldiers are being trained to become killing machines, so why are we wasting billions developing smart weaponry that can take out a specific target? Why not just slaughter indiscriminately???
Again, the left loves to insult our soldiers. They’re never consenting adults, they’re always either poor minorities forced to join the Army to get a job or innocents who were duped into joining. Oh, and they’re accidental war criminals.
Fonda claims she learned of the policy switch in "secret meetings" she had with military psychologists. As a good Hollywood LeftyLiberal, shouldn’t she align herself with the Tom Cruise message about "psychology"? :-)
I wonder if this is a convenient bait-and-switch on the part of Fonda. Taking one (relatively benign) issue and twisting it into another.
Military training did in fact change after WW2. In WW2 and prior, infantry rifle/combat training was done by aiming at circle-shaped targets in the distance to measure the ability of the soldier to accurately hit the target. The only problem is that, as some military studies discovered, only a small fraction of soldiers ever fired their weapon in the course of a given battle. Shooting a circle shaped target dosent prepare a soldier to shoot another human being, and many soldiers were understandably reluctant to do so when someone else could just as easily do it for them.
The army began incorporating human shaped silohuettes in an attempt to train men to instinctively shape at vaguely human-shaped targets in the distance. By doing this they dehumanized the enemy to a certain extent, but it worked. By Vietnam nearly every man would fire his weapon on the enemy, and the kill to casualty ratio for American troops improved signifigantly.
This by itself isnt particularly concerning. A soldier in the heat of battle needs to think about the enemy as a target that needs eliminated, and dwelling on the fact that it is another breathing human being in the sights of your rifle is something that a soldier can deal with after the battle is over.
What I suspect Fonda here does is attempt to spin the dehumanization of the enemy in battle into an explanation of why atrocities and human rights violations could occur. This is of course erroneous. Quickly dispatching the enemy without dwelling on his humanity while you are being shot at is hardly a war-crime, and it hardly causes a soldier to commit war-crimes. That is simply absurd.
It is true however that training techniques were changed after WW2, even if her analysis of said techniques and their impact are way of the mark.
(Oops. Looks like someone else already posted this. I spent way to much time typing this up not to submit it now, though.)
Thanks, joe. I think you got the point across well enough though.
I should point out however that I was recalling this particular information from "War" by Gwynne Dyer, which I read many years ago. I only mention this because, if I recall correctly, he is somewhat unpopular around certain conservative circles. I dont really recall why, though, because other than "war" I am not particularly familiar with that authors work.
As far as I can tell, despite any issues some might have with that author, that his information regarding that particular military practice was more or less correct. I just wanted to throw the disclaimer out there just on the odd chance that someone else decides to question my source on this matter.
By doing this they dehumanized the enemy to a certain extent, but it worked.
Making a target in the shape of a human "dehumanizes" it?
The point is the training for marksmanship has changed very little from WWII to now. The basics remain and it is a matter of making it more realistic (as well as doing one heck of a lot more of it).
The problem in WWII wasn’t so much that we didn’t dehumanize the targets well enough so the soldiers would fire their rifles, but that we spent the absolute minimum time training them to shoot before we shipped them off to war where they faced life and death situations. They weren’t the most confident or well trained soldiers in the world, and for many, it was the first time they’d ever fired a weapon.
We do a much better job today of preparing our soldiers to endure and survive combat than we did then, but that’s more of a function of repetative and intense training than any sea-change in how we approach marksmanship.
I should point out however that I was recalling this particular information from "War" by Gwynne Dyer, which I read many years ago. I only mention this because, if I recall correctly, he is somewhat unpopular around certain conservative circles. I dont really recall why, though...
Because he was extremely touchie-feely, but his PBS (???) Series "Gwynne Dyer’s Commentaries on War" was an excellent piece, I thought. He could oppose war, but he wasn’t some screaming Leftie about it. He DID try to understand it and it’s uses, even if he didn’t always or ever approve of it. At least that was my thought on him. As I say, I thought it was great, "Anyone’s Son Will Do" was an excellent as was "The Same Old Game."
McQ, I would not disagree with your point about training then and now, BUT it isn’t simply training time, it is also the nature of the training... and to an extent the human material in the training that has changed. As to the latter, human material, I would refer you to the "Strategy Page" for many discussions on the AVF and the folks who volunteer for the 11-Series. I don’t mean this as Fonda/Moore/Kerry might mean it, but rather simply that the AVF tends to get folks in the 11-Series that want to be grunts, as opposed to the Draft Army that tended to load the 11-series with folks that couldn’t be anything else OTHER THAN grunts. BTW, no offense to grunts, most of my friends wear the Crossed Rifles, I would use "grunt" as Pryor would use "n*gger."
I don’t mean this as Fonda/Moore/Kerry might mean it, but rather simply that the AVF tends to get folks in the 11-Series that want to be grunts, as opposed to the Draft Army that tended to load the 11-series with folks that couldn’t be anything else OTHER THAN grunts.
Joe, that’s precisely my point when I say:
However, three things have chaged our military’s efficiency in carrying out that mission: increased lethality of munitions and systems, better training, and a professional force which accepts the responsiblity inherent with the position.
BTW, no offense to grunts, most of my friends wear the Crossed Rifles, I would use "grunt" as Pryor would use "n*gger."
Hell, I was a grunt for 28 years ... no offense taken.
I will say to the larger point of the article, that if Jane says it it must be true... I can think of no keener intellect than Jane Fonda’s for an insightful and incisive discussion of National Security Affairs. If Barbarella says it is so, or that she has learned it from secret meetings, I believe her. If only she and Barbara Streisand could run for office, together, what a dream team they would make. They could include Sharon Stone, Julia Roberts, George Clooney and the Baldwin Clones in their Cabinet and my heart would thrill to see the effects on whatever place elected them! I would say I’d look forward to the interviews with Ms Stone......
Wars are no longer fought by formations marching back and forth, waving banners and forming squares. Both you and the enemy try real hard not to be seen by the other, since if he can see you he can kill you. Soldiers need to be taught to fire when they can not see the enemy, because THE ENEMY FIRES FROM HIDING! I suspect that most soldiers have no problem firing when they see the enemy.
S.L.A.Marshall was a good writer, but both he and Drew Pierson got at least one action wrong in my personal experience.
As for shooting to wound, why not just shoot the gun out of his hand, or shoot off his earlobe so he can no longer wear bangles?
I love to read what Feather Merchants write about soldiering.
As for shooting to wound, why not just shoot the gun out of his hand, or shoot off his earlobe so he can no longer wear bangles?
Because, Sirrah, THAT would scare one’s opponent! And that might be considered, cruel....No doubt you are one of those blood-thirsty minions of running dog finance capitalism that longs to oppress the "other" in a hetero-normal, machano-technical manner....
As for shooting to wound, why not just shoot the gun out of his hand, or shoot off his earlobe so he can no longer wear bangles?
No one said anything about "shooting to wound". The point made was wounding takes out 2 to 3 of the enemy (depending on how they choose to evacuate the wounded memeber) while killing them takes out one at a time while placing no priority on evacuation of the body and leaving the others to continue to fight.
That’s simply a reality of war and always has been.
Soldiers need to be taught to fire when they can not see the enemy, because THE ENEMY FIRES FROM HIDING!
Really? At what? There’s such a thing as suppressing fire, but its not very effective for the most part. Obviously the most effective method of firing is to site in on a TARGET.
I suspect that most soldiers have no problem firing when they see the enemy.
You’d think, but there are plenty of studies out there which don’t support your hypothesis.
I suspect that most soldiers have no problem firing when they see the enemy.
You’d think, but there are plenty of studies out there which don’t support your hypothesis
Actually, no there aren’t, IIRC. SLA Marshall advanced the theory, HOWEVER his study(ies) have been faulted methodologically. He may NOT have interviewed as many troops as he said, it is in fact claimed, that he made up a great deal of his evidence. I believe Grossman quotes studies that detailed findings of post-battle forensics of Korea, grunts with unfired weapons in the face of Chinese assaults (purported). The conclusion was that they had not fired and the reason inferred, though here I really could be wrong...
I do think Rosensteel is onto something with his "Bait and Switch" Theory, yes, there has been a sea-change in military training, but the end result is not MORE atrocities, but a cleaner battlefield. Ms Fonda is NOT quite the expert that Gwynne Dyer is/was...
The military is far better trained, and much more likely to engage the enemy successfully, at the tactical level, since Vietnam and the Gorman reforms of training, such as SCOPES and the ARTEP. And NTC and JRTC, plus Top Gun and Red Flag have produced outstanding small-unit or low level results. And the training makes it easier to engage, by making, "Their drills were bloodless battles. Their battles bloody drills". NTC teaches you what it’s like to DIE (in a virual way)... I believe one of my friends had a unit commander who would have his subordinates write lettres to the families of those "Killed" at NTC by his bone-headedness. It has produced a much better trained military, again at the lowest levels... hard to simulate Corps/Army conflict.
Making a target in the shape of a human "dehumanizes" it?
Yes. Step back for a moment and ignore the political and emotional attachments to the word ’dehumanize’ for a moment. The idea is to get the soldier used to the idea of shooting at a vaguely human-shaped target in the distance reflexively and without question. Dont think about the enemy on the battlefield as some other human being, but merely as some target that needs quickly and effectively removed.
Turning the enemy into a simple target is, in effect, dehumanizing it. I dont say this with any judgement. In fact, you hint at this in your post.
We do a much better job today of preparing our soldiers to endure and survive combat than we did then, but that’s more of a function of repetative and intense training than any sea-change in how we approach marksmanship.
Repetitive and intense training. So much so that firing on the enemy becomes an ingrained response, and the enemy is simply a target which needs removed. This is precisely what I am talking about. You arent thinking that the enemy has a wife and kids... you arent thinking at all. You are responding instinctively to the training that has been instilled into you. This isnt a bad thing. This makes our military highly effective.
You are right, we do a much better job today of preparing our soldiers for war. Part of that is intense and repetitive training so that the individual soldier can act on instinct as much as possible and engage enemy targets quickly and efficiently without stopping to think about the human being on the other end. I understand that it dosent sound nice or politically correct, but its war, and thats what we are training them to do.
Obviously, I dont say this in order to defend Fonda whatsoever. I am merely pointing out what it is I think she is referring to, and how it is possible she could be trying to spin it into something negative. Overall, I agree with Joe. War has only, relatively, gotten more humane... not the opposite. (Well, as humane as the act of war can possibly be) So her statements are clearly off the mark. However it would be incorrect to deny that there have been changes to the way that militaries train in this regard.
It has produced a much better trained military, again at the lowest levels... hard to simulate Corps/Army conflict.
No, it’s not at all. In fact I spent years doing just that through CPXs (and computer simulation). In fact we ran the OPFOR for Atlantic Resolve which was a computer simulated war fought through computer simulation at a ministry of defense level (I wrote a MoD OPLAN for the invasion of another country and we fought NATO in Europe).
It’s called "Battle Staff Training" and it is done regularly at all levels to include Corps and Army levels.
Isn’t time to stop lying and tell the truth. We Americans are barbarians. We always have been ever since our calvary massacred the Indians in a systematic manner. Winter Soldier is right on target. A World War II Marine, I spent seven years in Vietnam throughout much the war. As a refugee advisor in the Mekong Delta I witnessed atrocities of innocent civilians on a regulart bases. The napalm and white phosphorus were the worst. Seeing villagers taht I had known personally burned alive is a horror I will never forget. The Special Forces called them barbacue runs. The combat grunts (70% were REMF)all had photos of atrocities they’d committed and posed for them. They were proud. It was the macho thing to do. Those of girls and women were the worst. Many had necklaces of peoples ears that they enjoyed wearing in the province capital(s) Then there was the CIA and their interrogation centers at every province capital. Vietnamese trained at the University of the Americas at Fort Benning usually carried out thes atrtocities but were supervised by CIA operatives. Yes, Jane Fonda is a brave American hero. I admire her intestinal fortitude.
I agree with the references to SLA Marshall’s work as having a slight connection to Jane’s claim.
I think others above made the points about:
1. many soldiers didn’t fire their weapons, even in units overrun by CHICOMs
2. The avg I think was 25% of the riflemen firing. Higher % for the automatic and crew served weapons.
3. Changes from bullseye to popups.
Other points I didn’t see above.
4. more auto weapons. SLA’s rationale and analysis led him to believe the reason riflemen didn’t fire was that they didn’t think the risk was worth the increased contribution of a rifle. Hence, equip more folks with auto weapons so that they would risk firing, and
5. deploy troops in 2 man fox holes. Marshall said that men did not fight for God, country and apple pie, but rather for the respect of the men in their squad. a single man in a fox hole could cower. In 2 man foxhole, a coward would have a witness, hence neither man would shirk and both would fire.
BWT to all you grunts SEMPER FI! The corps trained boots to fire at both silhouettes and donuts, when i was in boot camp in 65 the firing range instructor mentioned that studies had shown 70% army troops firing in the air.I still believe most of this was meant to be supressing fire. that being said the legendry sharpshooting abilities of the marines is not in dispute. if you disagree , then read about ALL the beachheads the corps took.
