Cavalry Training

[conz]

May 7, 2009 9:49:05 GMT -6 crzhrs said:

How many times did the US Army send someone to a village and say "surrender and nothing will happen to you"?

Custer didn't do it. Maybe he made a big mistake?

From past experiences Indians knew that if soldiers found a village they would attack it.

That's not how the system worked, and the Natives knew it. They would not often be offered surrender terms if it was a surprise attack on their village...it would rather ruin the surprise. <g>

The surrender happened during negotiations before the campaigns ever began...before Soldiers were anywhere nearby, normally. If the tribe didn't surrender then, they became "fair game" for their village to be overrun without any notice. That's the normal rules for warfare anywhere, anytime, including today.

Note, however, that Custer DID sometimes ride ahead into a village and negotiate its surrender...he was rather famous in the U.S. for doing this, back in the '60s. He was unusual in this regard, although many Army commanders, if they had a chance, would talk tribes into surrendering if they thought there was a chance.

There was no chance of talking Sitting Bull & Co into surrendering, and everyone knew it, American and Native.

That's how the cavalry was trained.

Clair

[conz]

May 7, 2009 13:23:25 GMT -6 wild said:

Conz

What is your definition of "blood lust?" Is it an immoral or illegal condition to have?
The dynamic of a cavalry charge is animal aggression.Anything less than that is a waste of time.
A cavalry charge is a weapon launched with the purpose of killing everything in front of it.A trooper seen to be holding back,discriminating, need not show his face in the mess again.

That is somewhat true. We attempt to minimize noncombatant casualties and infrastructure damage when we can, but we don't prosecute Soldiers for getting carried away in the confusion, and "bloodlust" of battle. Generally Soldiers are only charged with "cold-blooded" crimes on a battlefield, not those done in a chaotic frenzy.

It is immoral to use this weapon in prosecuting an immoral war.

Now THAT is a whole 'nuther argument, and not applicable to Army training. You are talking about societal morality and what justifies society to send in a force that is focused on destruction of enemy resistance, rather than a police force which is focused on targeting guilty individuals.

Any war may be "immoral," but it is not a sin for the officers and Soldiers to conduct their required actions in a moral and legal way, once society at large has determined upon a course of action.

Now justified or not, Soldiers must still adhere to moral norms in their unit and individual actions. But Soldiers can morally conduct themselves even if the war is immoral.

So you can't argue Soldier immorality just because you think the war is immoral. The Soldiers may conduct their affairs in an entirely ethical and legal way, even if you think the war is immoral or unjustified. Different argument.

Clair

[wild]

You cannot prosecute an immoral war in a moral manner.

A war of aggression has been defined by your country as a war crime as per Nuremburg.
The application retrospectively of this defination to the Indian wars is academic but for the purpose of our discussion is fundamental.

[crzhrs]

<There was no chance of talking Sitting Bull & Co into surrendering, and everyone knew it, American and Native>

According to Indian accounts SB told one of his warriors (One Bull?) to go out and negotiate with the soldiers . . . apparently SB was willing to negotiate.

[Dark Cloud]

There are several instances of Army officers not engaging a camp and attempting to negotiate.

ALL the major war chiefs surrendered, killed themselves, or were captured. Sitting Bull. Crazy Horse. Geronimo, even. There was every chance in the world they might come in. All these sweeping generalizations are just about always wrong, especially when conz offers them.

[conz]

May 8, 2009 6:34:42 GMT -6 wild said:

You cannot prosecute an immoral war in a moral manner.

I submit that you can. Army training is predicated upon it. Please explain.

A war of aggression has been defined by your country as a war crime as per Nuremburg.
The application retrospectively of this defination to the Indian wars is academic but for the purpose of our discussion is fundamental.

We don't prosecute individuals for waging a "war of aggression." Charges of war crimes have to be specific illegal and immoral activity...not how you label the type of war it was.

Now a leader who ordered that war that the winners deem to be "unjustified" might get tried and hung for it. But not the Soldiers who were just doing their jobs, and didn't commit any individual crimes in doing it.

IOW, there are two different categories of judgments here (at least), and two categories of who can be found guilty of war crimes.

One judgment is going to war in the first place...was it legal or moral, or was it illegal or immoral?

The next judgment is how Soldiers conducted themselves...morally, or not.

You certainly can go to war for immoral reasons, but the Soldiers can still conduct themselves in a legal and moral manner throughout winning, or losing, that war. American Soldiers are trained to do the latter...as a matter of policy, we will conduct ourselves in legal and moral manners, according to the laws of war and our Christian concepts of morality, regardless of any consideration for the morality of going to war in the first place.

No matter if everyone thinks the war is moral, if Soldiers violate this training, they will be punished. And regardless if anyone, including the Soldiers, think that going to war in the first place was immoral or illegal, they will still be held to the very same standards of law and morality. Reasons for the war make no difference in this Army and Cavalry training and standards.

Clair

[conz]

May 8, 2009 8:41:08 GMT -6 crzhrs said:

<There was no chance of talking Sitting Bull & Co into surrendering, and everyone knew it, American and Native>

According to Indian accounts SB told one of his warriors (One Bull?) to go out and negotiate with the soldiers . . . apparently SB was willing to negotiate.

Still, there was no expectation that the Soldiers would stop to listen...they never had before in the history of Indian Wars.

SB would certainly have tried to do such a thing in order to gain time against a surprise attack. The Cavalry may have expected him to try something like this...if so, they would have ignored it.

When you get surprise over an enemy, you don't stop to negotiate. It is not a part of the "laws of war" or any morality that such an attacker do so.

That's Army training. When we have you in an ambush or surprise, you forfeit any right to negotiate. Then, and today.

Clair

[conz]

May 8, 2009 8:57:05 GMT -6 Dark Cloud said:

There are several instances of Army officers not engaging a camp and attempting to negotiate.

ALL the major war chiefs surrendered, killed themselves, or were captured. Sitting Bull. Crazy Horse. Geronimo, even. There was every chance in the world they might come in. All these sweeping generalizations are just about always wrong, especially when conz offers them.

All my generalizations are correct, you will find if you research. They all have exceptions, but they are "rules of thumb."

Clair

[wild]

I submit that you can. Army training is predicated upon it. Please explain.
The purpose of every action in a war of aggression by the aggressor is to achieve an immoral outcome.If the sum of the parts is immoral then the parts are immoral even if in themselves they appear benign.

We don't prosecute individuals for waging a "war of aggression." Charges of war crimes have to be specific illegal and immoral activity...not how you label the type of war it was
Individuals were prosecuted and executed for waging a war of aggression.
The morality for the fire bombing of Japanese centres of population and the use of the abomb was based on the guilt of the entire Japanese nation.Same goes for Germany.There were no innocent Germans or Japanese.

Reasons for the war make no difference in this Army and Cavalry training and standards.
Armies which are not defence forces but rather forces dedicated to aggression train their troops never to question the reasons for war.

[conz]

May 8, 2009 11:04:46 GMT -6 wild said:

I submit that you can. Army training is predicated upon it. Please explain.
The purpose of every action in a war of aggression by the aggressor is to achieve an immoral outcome.If the sum of the parts is immoral then the parts are immoral even if in themselves they appear benign.

It is not a very helpful attitude, however, if you are trying to judge, and train, conduct of Soldiers in individual actions. Such overall judgments are pretty worthless when talking about, say Wounded Knee.

With your perspective, every single death in every single war can be considered immoral. So what is the use?

At the very least, you must judge that every Native American death was immoral and a war crime. Again, this is a useless judgment, so why bother.

How would you train a professional Soldier to make sure his/her conduct is legal and moral? Stop being a Soldier?

What "code of conduct" for the Soldiers in the U.S. Army of 1867, if they kept to that standard, would make them moral and legal?

We don't prosecute individuals for waging a "war of aggression." Charges of war crimes have to be specific illegal and immoral activity...not how you label the type of war it was
Individuals were prosecuted and executed for waging a war of aggression.
The morality for the fire bombing of Japanese centres of population and the use of the abomb was based on the guilt of the entire Japanese nation.Same goes for Germany.There were no innocent Germans or Japanese.

I'm not sure you understand the moral philosophies of warfare very well. In none of the above actions were we waging war on the civilians...they were simply in the way. Our aim was to destroy a nations capacity to wage war, not specifically to kill civilians. We never marched out a bunch of civilians and gunned them down, and if individuals did this we prosecuted them for crimes.

Reasons for the war make no difference in this Army and Cavalry training and standards.
Armies which are not defence forces but rather forces dedicated to aggression train their troops never to question the reasons for war.

That is not true...we DO train in moral philosophy, at West Point, for example, the concepts of just and unjust wars. Also moral versus legal activity in the conduct of combat actions. So you are wrong here...we take these concepts very seriously.

The U.S. Army IS a "defense force" fighting defensive wars for the security of our people, our nation, our resources, and our interests.

Of course, the best defense is a good offense, right?

THAT is what we are trained to do, and do it morally and legally. Then, and today.

Attack our people, for ANY reason, and we attack back and wipe you out, in a legal (Geneva) and moral (Christian) way. That's pretty much what our Army has always done, and always will. If you don't want to be destroyed, don't attack Americans...we are pretty good at what we do, and rarely give up.

Anything immoral about that training or attitude?

Clair

[wild]

With your perspective, every single death in every single war can be considered immoral. So what is the use
Simply put aggression is immoral,reaction to aggression is the right of all soverign states.
The Russian invasion of Afganistan was a war crime as it was aggression for the purpose of subjugating that state.
Germany and Japan waged wars of aggression.

At the very least, you must judge that every Native American death was immoral and a war crime. Again, this is a useless judgment, so why bother.
Is condemning the Holocaust,the genocide against the Armenians and the recent genocide in Darfur a useless judgement?

How would you train a professional Soldier to make sure his/her conduct is legal and moral? Stop being a Soldier
Adhering to the Geniva convention.

What "code of conduct" for the Soldiers in the U.S. Army of 1867, if they kept to that standard, would make them moral and legal
The war against the Indians was a war of extermination [tribe society,way of life,land etc]and as such was a war crime.

I'm not sure you understand the moral philosophies of warfare very well. In none of the above actions were we waging war on the civilians...they were simply in the way. Our aim was to destroy a nations capacity to wage war, not specifically to kill civilians.
Actons were specifically taken to kill civilians.Bombing raids were so designed so as to create firestorm in centres of population.The A bombs were used to specifically kill civilians.

That is not true...we DO train in moral philosophy, at West Point, for example, the concepts of just and unjust wars. Also moral versus legal activity in the conduct of combat actions. So you are wrong here...we take these concepts very seriously
The army has no discretion in this it just obeys orders.

The U.S. Army IS a "defense force" fighting defensive wars for the security of our people, our nation, our resources, and our interests
The US uses violence to further it's interests beyond it's own frontiers.It has invaded more countries than all the rest of the world combined.

Attack our people, for ANY reason, and we attack back and wipe you out
Cuba,Vietnam,Cambodia,Nicarigua,Lebanon,Somalia,Iraq, Afganistan never attacked the US but suffered and are suffering the consequences of a policy the US's ambition to order the world by violence.

we are pretty good at what we do, and rarely give up
No you're pretty stupid.The US has not succeeded anyhere with the possible exception of Panama of achieving a favourable result throught violence.
The biggest myth is that Bush kept America safe.He got more Americans killed than were killed in 9/11 and for what?

[conz]

May 8, 2009 16:58:25 GMT -6 wild said:

Simply put aggression is immoral,reaction to aggression is the right of all soverign states.

Okay...that's a good point. It is not the "war" that is immoral...it is attacking somebody without justification that is immoral. I'm down with that.

So now you must decide for yourself what is a moral justification for attacking someone...more precisely, using deadly force against another group.

The normal rule is, if they swing first, you are justified in swinging back, and even harder. However it is in some kind of measure...it is usually not considered moral to reply to violence that didn't originally include deadly force, with deadly force on your own.

So we should limit the discussion to deadly force...if used against you first, you are morally, and usually legally, justified in responding with deadly force.

With groups it gets even more complicated. In our case, if the Americans were just trying to cross Sioux land to get to California, and the Sioux didn't like them messing up the buffalo migrations, and so used deadly force against a wagon train or two, doesn't that justify using deadly force against the Sioux?

Is condemning the Holocaust,the genocide against the Armenians and the recent genocide in Darfur a useless judgement?

Nobody committed genocide against the Native Americans, so the comparison is useless. Americans did not target NA for extermination...if they did, none of their ancestors would be alive today. We never captured them, lined them up, and then killed them all. Some militia may have, but not the U.S. Army, and it was certainly never policy.

Genocide is a policy to exterminate to death every man, woman, and child in a group of people, normally in a specific region. This never happened in America.

How would you train a professional Soldier to make sure his/her conduct is legal and moral? Stop being a Soldier
Adhering to the Geniva convention.

So do you propose a Geneva rule that the Soldiers violated anywhere on the Plains? Or specifically at Wounded Knee?

The war against the Indians was a war of extermination [tribe society,way of life,land etc]and as such was a war crime.

Prove it, then. How would you like to define a "war of extermination?" Is there a Geneva definition of the term, since you seem to like that standard?

Actons were specifically taken to kill civilians.Bombing raids were so designed so as to create firestorm in centres of population.The A bombs were used to specifically kill civilians.

Not true...the cities were full of infrastructure that supported the nation's respective war efforts...factories, government, ports, airfields, train centers, etc. That is what was targeted. In all instances, we told the civilian population to leave the cities before we bombed them, proving the point.

The army has no discretion in this it just obeys orders.

All humans have free will...even Soldiers. Soldiers will not obey an illegal or immoral order. That, too, is Cavalry Training, then and today.

The US uses violence to further it's interests beyond it's own frontiers.It has invaded more countries than all the rest of the world combined.

That is a silly statement...the U.S. hasn't been in existence long enough to invade as many countries as any ONE country in Europe, I'm sure, in their long histories as peoples.

This is a global economy...every countries "interests," and citizens, are all over the world. So there is no place you may not see the U.S. Army if our interests need to be defended. Just like on the Plains, even before anyone wanted to settle there.

Cuba,Vietnam,Cambodia,Nicarigua,Lebanon,Somalia,Iraq, Afganistan never attacked the US but suffered and are suffering the consequences of a policy the US's ambition to order the world by violence.

It is in our interests to remove dictators that threaten U.S., or our allies, interests. We defend against those threats, meeting violence with violence, if necessary.

No you're pretty stupid.The US has not succeeded anyhere with the possible exception of Panama of achieving a favourable result throught violence.

Europe is a democracy today because of the United States...NO OTHER REASON. Every nation in Europe, including Great Britain, would be a socialist dictatorship had the U.S. not fought wars on that continent, and lost many more lives than anywhere else we fought foreigners.

I can't think of any nation that is worse off today than it was when the U.S. fought there...ALL have benefited when we win wars in their lands.

The biggest myth is that Bush kept America safe.He got more Americans killed than were killed in 9/11 and for what?

To defend American interests...in this case, for a better world in the Middle East that moves toward democracy and doesn't attack each other, or the West.

Not unlike how we dealt with the Native Americans.

We will continue to pursue these actions for the next couple hundred years, until the world can live with each other peacefully.

Like the Native Americans live today...more peace than they ever knew before the Americans came, and with a much higher standard of living, better mortality, better health care, etc., etc...

Don't you want this for the rest of the world?

Clair

[lew]

"Every nation in Europe, including Great Britain, would be a socialist dictatorship had the U.S. not fought wars on that continent," I find this hard to believe. Are you saying the Soviet Union could have singlehandedly defeated all of Europe? "I can't think of any nation that is worse off today than it was when the U.S. fought there...ALL have benefited when we win wars in their lands." I can think of Mexico!

[wild]

So now you must decide for yourself what is a moral justification for attacking someone...more precisely, using deadly force against another group
I think the elephant in the room is a good guide on this issue

With groups it gets even more complicated. In our case, if the Americans were just trying to cross Sioux land to get to California, and the Sioux didn't like them messing up the buffalo migrations, and so used deadly force against a wagon train or two, doesn't that justify using deadly force against the Sioux?It was not a single wagon train but an invasion.The whites were a veritable tide of people spreading across the country.

Nobody committed genocide against the Native Americans, so the comparison is useless.
US policy was to clear them off the land and imprision them on human reservations.They ceased to exist in any meaningful way.

So do you propose a Geneva rule that the Soldiers violated anywhere on the Plains? Or specifically at Wounded Knee?
There was no Geniva convention at the time.
In proscuting a criminal war the US Army had a number of options in their coercion of the tribes.They were responsible for overseeing the disarming of the Indians at Wounded Knee.Having blundered with the organisation of this they reacted with disproportionate force and probably used it as an excuse to destroy the tribe.

Not true...the cities were full of infrastructure that supported the nation's respective war efforts...factories, government, ports, airfields, train centers, etc. That is what was targeted. In all instances, we told the civilian population to leave the cities before we bombed them, proving the point.
Dresden had no military significance and in fact was crowded with refugees when the allied bombing created a fire storm.
Cities were not warned before being targeted.The USAAC were not capable of precision bombing and used daylight carpet bombing.

All humans have free will...even Soldiers. Soldiers will not obey an illegal or immoral order. That, too, is Cavalry Training, then and today.
My Lay,bombing of Cambodia.

That is a silly statement...the U.S. hasn't been in existence long enough to invade as many countries
Since WW2

It is in our interests to remove dictators that threaten U.S., or our allies, interests. We defend against those threats, meeting violence with violence, if necessary.
Trouble is you remove democratically elected governments and install dictators.Pinochet,the Shah,the Taliban.You support the tyrants who goven Saudi and from where the 9/11 bombers came.You even supported Saddam when it suited and terrorists like the Contras.You even mined the harbours of Nicaragua in order to starve the population into rebellion.

Europe is a democracy today because of the United States...NO OTHER REASON. Every nation in Europe, including Great Britain, would be a socialist dictatorship had the U.S. not fought wars on that continent, and lost many more lives than anywhere else we fought foreigners.
The US entered the war after being attacked by the Japanese not to save Europe.And it allowed the USSR to establish communist dictatorships in Eastern Europe.

I can't think of any nation that is worse off today than it was when the U.S. fought there...ALL have benefited when we win wars in their lands.
A million Iraqis would disagree

To defend American interests...in this case, for a better world in the Middle East that moves toward democracy and doesn't attack each other, or the West.
Cost :Two wars,millions dead,two countries wrecked,war has now spread to Pakistan,thousands of Americans dead,thousands of young Americans suffering from PRS.Eternal war for eternal peace great idea

[conz]

May 8, 2009 20:03:38 GMT -6 lew said:

I find this hard to believe. Are you saying the Soviet Union could have singlehandedly defeated all of Europe? "I can't think of any nation that is worse off today than it was when the U.S. fought there...ALL have benefited when we win wars in their lands." I can think of Mexico!

First, either Germany, or the Soviet Union, would control ALL of
Europe today had the U.S. not entered the war, courtesy of the Japanese. I have no doubt whatsoever about this, and probably neither does any other military historian. It is very hard to concoct a scenario where one of those countries does not control the whole hemisphere after 1945, were it not for American armies on the continent.

Second, Mexico is much, much, better today since the War of 1848. They have had their troubles, but the positive influence of having the United States as a neighbor has benefited it in ways that countries like Venezuela, Columbia, Ecuador, or Peru have not, I think.

Clair