The IDF (and other defence forces) - professionalism

r3nu4l

So, recent events aside...

I was reading Bob Shepherd's book 'The Circuit' detailing his life as a private security contractor following his years in the SAS and I was struck by a couple of paragraphs in particular regarding the IDF.

Bob says that as a member of the SAS he was always very impressed by the IDF and their professionalism as a well-trained, well-equipped outfit. He said that he never had anything other than good experiences of the IDF while he was in uniform.

However, as a civilian operating in a war-zone he says that his opinion changed dramatically and that he viewed them as brutal, thuggish bully-boys (paraphrasing here, not direct quotes). His experiences were anything other than good.

This got me thinking about a soldier's viewpoint versus a civilian. Bob was 'lucky' to have experienced two different viewpoints of the IDF and it reminds me that sometimes when you spend all of your time on one side of a fence you become accustomed to that view and unable to see the other side.

Another example of this was an interview I heard on BBC Radio 4 about 8 months ago where the interviewer was talking with a Catholic woman from NI. The BBC are historically (and necessarily) a part of the British Defence forces propoganda machine. You only have to look at the way in which they report British Army activity and use phrases such ash 'winning the hearts and minds' of the people etc.

Anyway, this interviewer asked the Catholic woman:
'When you met them on the streets during everyday life, what did you say to these soldiers who you viewed as invaders in Northern Ireland?'

She replied:
'Nothing. I never ever spoke to a British soldier'

He was incredulous and pushed the point, saying:
'Surely you must have at least said 'Hello' at one point.

When she replied in the negative and reiterated her first response he was totally dumbfounded, reminding me that again, the Establishment (and part of the BA propoganda machine) just could not fathom the depth of animosity of an ordinary citizen against their defence forces. It was almost as if they truly believed that only those planting bombs and shooting at soldiers were those that hated the BA and that everyone else wanted them there.

So should there be a groundswell change in how military personnel are trained? Should there be more emphasis on getting soldiers not just to 'think like the enemy' but to 'think more about what the civilians might be feeling'?

I'm just putting it out there because no matter how good a soldier is militarily, s/he increasingly these days ha to deal with civilians and those dealings are important. Is the job of a soldier changing?

Discuss :P

punchdrunk

I think soldiers should be thought to be aggressive to a point
but history has shown that good soldiers don't make great police officers

r3nu4l

punchdrunk wrote: »

I think soldiers should be thought to be aggressive to a point
but history has shown that good soldiers don't make great police officers

This is my point. Increasingly soldiers are being asked to be police officers in foreign countries. Afghanistan, Iraq, Gaza, Northern Ireland (at one time) etc. are all places where soldiers were asked to 'police' rather than 'fight', or 'police and fight'.

Obviously the two don't mix well at all as they are very different things but should training now be changed to include policing in war zones?

iceage

Funny that..many Soldiers go on to join Police Forces when they leave.. British Met, Gardai etc.

r3nu4l

iceage wrote: »

Funny that..many Soldiers go on to join Police Forces when they leave.. British Met, Gardai etc.

Yeah funny that, they also get full training as police Gardaí etc., they aren't just put out on the street with a baton just because they were in the forces ya know

So bearing your very salient point in mind iceage do you think forces personnel training should include a lot more policing training?

iceage

Most Soldiers do receive some training but mainly in the form of riot control. Baton and shield stuff. Apologies for tardy reply...juggling at the minute.;)

punchdrunk

I definitely agree that armed forces need to adapt to the situation we find currently in the world.
I think having the same guys that done the door kicking and the shooting in the initial conflict (i.e paras,special forces,US marines) then try to adopt the "blue" role isn't ideal

Ideally either a retrained local force would step in to fill the breach,but as that normally takes too long a compromise of sending in units trained to be more like a gendarme,would work better

I think that ISAF have the right idea,it's just that forming a fair,democratic
and trustworthy police force clashes with the idea of tribalism

the attitude with a lot of them seems to be
"I am a pashtun first,soldier second" so it's very hard to form a disciplined force from this

Avgas

Perhaps one ...possible explanation for the difference in perception might be that when he was in the SAS his contact would have been with more elite and highly motivated Israeli units......whereas when he was on the ground...in Gaza or West Bank (?).... what he was meeting were the more jaded/wasted regular conscripts doing their 3 years or even reservists well hacked off at being called out... and therefore less disciplined in their violence....some units in the call out of 2006 had systematic low-level ill-discipline/morale problems it seems which contributed to their defeat in that "war"......and soldiers doing more or less continuous public order/intifadah duty ...it was notorious for sapping their self-control...individuals snapping in terms of restraint...... nothing new here....I'm afraid......

Moreover, is there not a distinction to be made between necessary levels of martial aggression, which all armies try to develop especially say in infantry, tank units, fighter jocks..... while also controlling that aggression, and outright ill-discipline and thuggish conduct...which some armies in some contexts let go....and others are usually stricter......

BTW good post!

source

r3nu4l wrote: »

This got me thinking about a soldier's viewpoint versus a civilian. Bob was 'lucky' to have experienced two different viewpoints of the IDF and it reminds me that sometimes when you spend all of your time on one side of a fence you become accustomed to that view and unable to see the other side.

I would say that people in the know who are dealing with a certain situation every day become somewhat cynical, and as a result will only see something from one particular viewpoint.

For example I am a member of AGS, and my girlfriend works for the youth reach programme in the local VEC. A lot of the students that she has in there would also be my "customers", We both see very different sides of these young people, and have very different opinions on them, based on our specific dealings with them. It's not that we're unable to see the other side, it's more like we've been blinded by the specific circumstances that we meet these people in.

If I only ever meet them while they're committing crimes I will never know the other side of these people, likewise my girlfriend only ever sees them in school and thinks they're angels. The same can be said for the way we see international events unfolding. We tend to agree with the viewpoint that we recognise.

Also chances are that Bob Shepard found the IDF agreeable because he was a member of a well known and world renowned military unit. When he was working for a military contractor, I would imagine that the IDF soldiers attitude towards him was negative because they didn't know his credentials and probably saw him as just another mercenary.

r3nu4l

Avgas wrote: »

Perhaps one ...possible explanation for the difference in perception might be that when he was in the SAS his contact would have been with more elite and highly motivated Israeli units......whereas when he was on the ground...in Gaza or West Bank (?).... what he was meeting were the more jaded/wasted regular conscripts doing their 3 years or even reservists well hacked off at being called out... and therefore less disciplined in their violence....some units in the call out of 2006 had systematic low-level ill-discipline/morale problems it seems which contributed to their defeat in that "war"......and soldiers doing more or less continuous public order/intifadah duty ...it was notorious for sapping their self-control...individuals snapping in terms of restraint...... nothing new here....I'm afraid......

I n this case the Israeli soldier was a Russian national so I suspect he may have been a Russian Jew and perhaps [pure speculation alert] may have been particulary 'eager' in his duties.

Moreover, is there not a distinction to be made between necessary levels of martial aggression, which all armies try to develop especially say in infantry, tank units, fighter jocks..... while also controlling that aggression, and outright ill-discipline and thuggish conduct...which some armies in some contexts let go....and others are usually stricter......

That's basically the point I'm trying to reach. For example, the British Parachute regiment are 'bred' to be overtly aggressive so a policing duty imo, is not really suitable for that regiment.

Should specific regiments be trained in policing duties, while others are left to fighting duties? Should infantry (in particular) never be given policing duties?

foinse wrote: »

I would say that people in the know who are dealing with a certain situation every day become somewhat cynical, and as a result will only see something from one particular viewpoint.

For example I am a member of AGS, and my girlfriend works for the youth reach programme in the local VEC. A lot of the students that she has in there would also be my "customers", We both see very different sides of these young people, and have very different opinions on them, based on our specific dealings with them. It's not that we're unable to see the other side, it's more like we've been blinded by the specific circumstances that we meet these people in.

If I only ever meet them while they're committing crimes I will never know the other side of these people, likewise my girlfriend only ever sees them in school and thinks they're angels. The same can be said for the way we see international events unfolding. We tend to agree with the viewpoint that we recognise.

Yeah, I'm well aware of that phenomonen. When I was a scout leader we had a lad from a 'deprived' background and a 'broken home' who was an excellent scout who loved the unit but unfortunately was also well-known to the Gardaí. Such a sweet kid who proved that in the right environment could behave and function normally but once removed from that environment, was an absolute 'scumbag'

Also chances are that Bob Shepard found the IDF agreeable because he was a member of a well known and world renowned military unit. When he was working for a military contractor, I would imagine that the IDF soldiers attitude towards him was negative because they didn't know his credentials and probably saw him as just another mercenary.

He wasn't a 'mercenary' in this case, he was an unarmed (at that time) escort for a TV crew. Maybe the Israeli army soldier had bad experiences with media portrayal of his country and therefore took it out on Bob Shepherd?

Either way, it shows that while policing by infantry soldiers has come a long way there's huge room for improvement.

I'm not a fan of this sort of policing but understand the difficulty faced by Governments and Military chiefs in restoring 'normality' to a region in conflict. Therefore I wonder should training be improved to focus more on policing such environments or should there be special regiments tasked with this work?

source

r3nu4l wrote: »

He wasn't a 'mercenary' in this case, he was an unarmed (at that time) escort for a TV crew. Maybe the Israeli army soldier had bad experiences with media portrayal of his country and therefore took it out on Bob Shepherd?

Either way, it shows that while policing by infantry soldiers has come a long way there's huge room for improvement.

I'm not a fan of this sort of policing but understand the difficulty faced by Governments and Military chiefs in restoring 'normality' to a region in conflict. Therefore I wonder should training be improved to focus more on policing such environments or should there be special regiments tasked with this work?

Could also have something to do with the fact that when he was in SAS he would have been dealing with elite commando units, the infantryman doing checkpoint duty would be 9/10 times a conscript on 2 years national service.

r3nu4l

foinse wrote: »

Could also have something to do with the fact that when he was in SAS he would have been dealing with elite commando units, the infantryman doing checkpoint duty would be 9/10 times a conscript on 2 years national service.

Not so sure tbh, there are some posters here who have served alongisde the IDF (regular units) and also seem to think the IDF can do no wrong (as Bob Shepherd once did). While I don't view the IDF as some sort of 'Devil army' I also don't take the view that they are 'Saints' either However I take the general point you are making.