If someone cannot adapt to the military and its tons of rules, this usually happens in early training for recruits, then those recruits are undoubtedly separated from the military on the grounds of "failure to adapt." And, I do not see a stigma associated with this kind of exit from military service. Being a soldier, sailor, airman or marine is just not for everyone. Not everyone can fit in under the conditions the military presents. Unfortunately for both the service involved and the recruit, it is impossible to know who can or cannot adapt to military life without being immersed in a military environment.
Some people rise to the challenge and find something about the military and its regimentation that they like. Meanwhile, others will find they are uncomfortable in uniform and, for whatever reason, they balk at being able to serve or rendering satisfactory service.
Well, I've discussed something about those who fail to adapt to military life, but then there are those people who do adapt. For someone to adapt to military life, in any service, they must accept that other people, with more rank and seniority to them, will control their lives a great deal (basically 24 hours per day), and any direct statement or failure to obey an order (be it spoken or written) is punishable in some way or other. So, to be a well-adjusted member of the military, there is the fundamental understanding by individuals that they might be able to request certain things but, ultimately, their lives and most of the decisions in their lives are being made by other people. The only choice the service member has is either to A. Obey their orders and do the 'right thing,' or B. Buck the system and do things their own way.
Of course, bucking the system leads to a series of bad things that no reasonable person would want to experience, because disobeying orders or breaking civil or military laws while a service member can carry extremely long prison sentences (and there is no parole in the Federal system). So, everyone who successfully adapts to the military exclude, for the most part, bucking the system and doing things their own way.
At a certain point, service members get on-board with
their respective services' rules and regulations.
|
I can speak to life in the Army, which I served in during the early 1980s to early 1990s. To begin with, basic enlistments for recruits, in my day, were two, three or four years. The state of communications technology had not reached the level of cell phones and computer chats yet. Thus, whenever a soldier was in the field or doing some other chore away from their family, they had to rely on the telephone and/or writing letters. It seems rather prehistoric today, but the world still managed to turn without 24/7 access to everyone in one's life. This means a certain amount of sacrifice was going to be experienced by everyone in the Army (who happened to do what I did for a living in the service). The choice, again, was either do it or do not.
So, there is this series of events, every single day, where someone either chose to go along with their service or did not. After successfully adjusting to the service, the notion that someone actually has a choice fades away from the individual. And, by this time, the soldier is 'adapted' to the service.
What does that even mean...'adapted'?
I can speak to my experience. As an example, a private in an infantry unit has a team leader who is responsible for him or her. They certainly have a squad leader who is very prominent in their lives, and they are responsible for not only that private but all the privates and team leaders in their squad. A team leader can be a corporal or a sergeant, while a squad leader is generally a sergeant or staff sergeant. The squad leader will ensure that everyone is where they are supposed to be, when they are supposed to be there, and prepared for whatever it is that the unit is doing.
Aside from their strictly military duties, team leaders and squad leaders are responsible for the general welfare of everyone under their command. I am using team leaders and squad leaders, but really every link in a soldier's chain of command is responsible for the military performance and general welfare of every single person under their command. The squad level is a good way to illustrate this, in my opinion.
When the private eats in the morning, they are called from sleep and expected to be in a physical training uniform formation. They will be led through exercises, then they will be dismissed to attend to hygiene and such. Then, they will be told where they can go eat and when. The private will then do whatever he or she is told to do until lunch, when they are told when and where to eat again. This process will repeat itself again for dinner. The release of the private from a day's duty is not guaranteed....if they have to perform some duty stipulated by their leadership then they do that, and subordinate whatever they want for whatever is needed.
At no point here am I making a value judgement. Leading organized lives can generally be a very good thing.
The squad leader has a right to make sure those under his or her command are keeping their rooms as expected by the service, that they perform to certain levels needed for military training, they are even responsible for the state of a soldier's dress and their hygiene, as well as their general welfare. If a soldier has a legal problem, then he or she is referred to Army lawyers, if they are sick they report to Army medical personnel, if they have a problem with their pay then they are referred to finance specialists. There is a different expert on hand to take care of any need a service member has. All they have to do is what is expected of them in that infantry team.
Getting used to this reality means someone has become comfortable in that institution, and by 'comfortable' I mean they are institutionalized. What are the 'up' sides and 'down' sides of this institutionalization? Well, that becomes a political conversation filled with speculation. I go so far as to say every single service member who fulfilled even one enlistment in a branch of the military service was, indeed, institutionalized.
-- Jim Purcell
No comments:
Post a Comment
No profanity, vulgar language, personal attacks, libel or defamation, nudity of any kind or sexual imagery is permitted on this site. The site's management reserves the right to screen all messages for appropriateness through this venue.