Hazing is Simply Intolerable
Hazing is Simply Intolerable
Army Regulation 600-20, Army Command Policy, states "hazing is fundamentally in opposition to our values and is prohibited." The recent case of Private Danny Chen, who took his own life in Afghanistan this past October after being physically and verbally abused by up to 8 fellow members of his platoon (a platoon he had been part of for less than 70 days), has brought to the forefront the issue of hazing in the US Army. In April Marine Lance Corporal Harry Lew committed suicide after a night of hazing by the hand of his fellow Marines, an incident resulting in a trial by court-martial of three Marines who physically abused and harassed him before he shot himself. General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, issued a statement on 23 December 2011 on his Facebook page stating "hazing is simply intolerable." Indeed, hazing is intolerable and is an egregious act that violates every thread of value and decency we hold as valuable as an institution and profession. Hazing and interpersonal abuse significantly increases the risk of suicide in those who have an acute feeling of burdensomeness and inability to assimilate or belong. Hazing is blatantly toxic and erodes the trust and confidence required of comrades in arms whose reliance upon each other ultimately contributes to their survival in the most austere conditions. Lastly, blaming the victim of such a crime is morally corrupt and discounts the horrible act of abuse imposed upon those who are not in the position to defend themselves.
Hazing is an inexcusable act counter to the values we hold dear as an Army. Our values of loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage are the hallmarks of our institution. Conduct in direct violation with one or more of these values consume the moral bedrock of the organization. The concept of serving our country in the service of others is juxtaposed to the idea that harming one of our own somehow makes them better members of our team. Leadership through deceit and coercion is as equally corrosive as the physical and psychological abuse of our own. We lose our moral legitimacy passively condoning these actions in failing to address them. Further, our inability to adhere to the values we profess to make our institution great destroy our heritage, traditions, and principles. Of paramount importance is the understanding that the violation of reasonable expectations of professional conduct and common decency contributes to the degradation of our institution.
Our rising suicide rate in the active, guard, and reserve force resultant of the increasing stresses of military life emphasize the significance of cultivating environments that do not further contribute to the preventable loss of life by our Soldiers' own hands. Dr. Thomas Joiner's interpersonal theory of suicidal behavior indicates three prerequisites of suicidal behavior; a thwarted sense of belongingness, an increased sense of burdensomeness, and an acquired capability or means of killing. Hazing and other abuses deteriorate one's sense of self-worth and increase the feeling of burden and worthlessness. Hazing accelerates all three of these prerequisites, particularly in a military culture where lethal means and capability is a mechanism available to all Soldiers assigned a weapon. Why any leader would knowingly engage in behaviors that would possibly add to our suicide issues is beyond comprehension.
The targeting, ostracizing, bullying, and humiliation of another person for the purposes of "building camaraderie" or "exercising discipline" is the weakest form of leadership and the most obvious example of toxicity. That PVT Chen's platoon leader has been charged with dereliction of duty related to the hazing and suicide of PVT Chen is even more disconcerting. Leaders are responsible for the training, morale, welfare, and discipline of their Soldiers. When the actions of subordinates prevent a leader's ability to monitor and contribute to any of these four aspects the fabric of trust within the team and small unit disintegrate. Leaders are supposed to know their subordinates, their families, their motivations, strengths, and weaknesses in order to facilitate their improvement and contributions towards mission accomplishment, not exploit those weaknesses or shortcomings for personal amusement or sadistic examples. Leaders who cannot provide for the common good or who fail to recognize the worth of each of their subordinates do not deserve to lead.
Blaming victims of hazing is as reprehensible as blaming victims of rape, murder, or domestic abuse. Hazing is an abuse of power and control manifested in the commission of a violent or coercive act of domineering others in an oppressive or vicious manner. Private Chen didn't need to "toughen up" or "require better coping skills" as many internet commenters have suggested under news articles and blogs related to the case. He was an American Soldier who enlisted as an infantryman during a time of war to serve the United States, a country that gave this child of hardworking Chinese immigrants a New York education and opportunity to live the American Dream. He was a Soldier who served less than a year from enlistment to the time of his death who was forced to his breaking point by a group of fellow Soldiers who, instead of mentoring him, training him, and ensuring his development as a professional Soldier in the 70 days he was with them, decided to bully him, beat him, and harass him to a point where he believed his only logical escape was killing himself with his own weapon in a guard tower. This Soldier deserved better, and his chain of command failed him.
Recent events in both the US Army and United States Marine Corps have brought the practice of hazing resulting in the violent death of the victim, by whatever means, to the front pages of the national news. In the cases of both US Army Private Danny Chen and Marine Corps Lance Corporal Harry Lew hazing has been determined to be instrumental in the causation of their suspected suicides that criminal charges have been preferred on members in their chain of command. Hazing violates the principles and ethics of our military. It openly contributes to a rising suicide rate within our armed forces, particularly the US Army. It is a tool of abuse utilized by the ethically bankrupt and morally flexible to compensate for their inability to truly lead. Further, it is not the fault of the victims but, rather, the conduct of the aggressors that such behaviors continue. Our Soldiers have enough to worry about in combat while fighting violent and ruthless enemies who use deceit, tyranny, fear, and coercion to accomplish their ends. They should not have to worry about those same tools of oppression being used by those serving to their left and right.
Ryan T. Kranc is a major in the U.S. Army and squadron operations officer in 1st Squadron, 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment at Fort Irwin, CA. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the United States Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
Major Kranc’s article is regrettably timely — and it is important.
In the case of Private Chen, The author rightly express concern that the Platoon Leader has been charged and cites that as a leadership failure of some magnitude. True and I share his concern — however, I am more concerned that Non Commissioned Officers involved, those who should have been first to notice and halt any peer harassment were allegedly involved in the hazing. Having been around when the US Army integrated African Americans into previously white units, I know the Non Commissioned Offices who had been in World War II generally stomped hard on any attempts at hazing because they knew it could quickly get out of hand and was dangerous. That knowledge has apparently been lost.
Non Commissioned Officers are not saints, nor should they be — but they generally used to have enough sense to stop behavior that was harmful to the unit or to one of the 10% (those of a different persuasion, capability level, race, creed, color, sexual orientation or whatever…). If they are not doing that today in over 95% of cases — and it seems they are not — then they haven’t been properly trained. Or they have been misled and believe other things are more important. As Major Kranc wrote, that kind of stupidity is not conducive to camaraderie or discipline; it will destroy those valuable traits.
This is not the first incident in the last few years of Non Commissioned Officer not only failing to lead and prevent but in fact apparently actually participating in unethical, illegal or just plain stupid activities. My instincts tell me this is due to a culture that has placed appearance and conformity ahead of competent tactical and technical performance. Forced conformity always breeds rebellion of sorts and in an excessively conformist environment, it will be hidden to an extent — it is all the more dangerous for that.
Non Commissioned Officers derive their authority and ability to lead from competence. The competent leader has no problems in getting people to do what is required and desired (even if that particular thing is sort of dumb. OTOH, all the education and anointing, all the laws and regulations, all the badges and gimmicks in the world will not help the incompetent to be an effective Non Commissioned Officer…
If, as I suspect, appearances replace capability as a measure of qualification and studied risk aversion is preferred to tactical proficiency for promotion, the system is in trouble. Big trouble.
This is beyond an issue of mere hazing, it literally goes to the depths of the system. Private Chen and his peers and superiors were not an unfortunate harbinger, Private Lynndie England and her peers and superiors were. It appears little attention was paid…
When somebody like Ken says the system is in big trouble, it is in big trouble. And when it is in big trouble, the country is in big trouble.
This article reminds me of something a guy told me several years ago. I worked with him a lot in a civilian setting and he was great, hard working and responsible. But he was young and had the foibles and faults of the young. He was also in the reserves and told me about something he liked when his unit was activated. He said one of the things they would do to build comradery was to select one member of the group and pick on him. He said it was great fun and they all really bonded by doing that (except the one picked on). He didn’t see anything at all wrong with that and in fact thought it a positive thing. It was obvious that no one in his unit thought there was something wrong with that or even noticed.
Like Ken said, there is really something wrong. If guy who in a civilian setting is a stand up guy, can be transformed into a thug merely by assuming his place in a military unit, something is horrifyingly wrong.
One additional thing I don’t understand. I believe hazing is still the norm at the military academies. If it is allowed to exist in what are purported to be the preferred way to recruit and inculcate military values in officer aspirants, how can anybody take seriously any Army regulation that prohibits it?
RTK,
Great Article !
Since the early 70s when I joined, hazing was almost encouraged and even the MPs took their turns on basic and AIT trainees.
Having been around military suicides at American Embassies and in a foxhole during the 2nd ID Ingman Range incident in 1981 (Korea), I can only agree with Ken; this goes beyond hazing and is clearly a lack of NCO leadership which led to the Marine suicides in Africa and multiple deaths and injuries at Ingman.
Ryan,
Fantastic article; well said. We as leaders need to get back to leadership. There are many “mini revolutions” going on right now in the Army: learning, resiliency, creative thinking, etc. Counseling, mentoring and getting to know our Soldiers and ourselves again needs to be in the forefront of any revolution in our affairs.
The core competency the Army has historically provided the Defense community and the Nation is ethical Leadership. It is high time we solve the current issue and get ahead of future issues.
Again, great insight. Thanks.
Joe
Although I in no way wish to condone abusive hazing, or any activities that result in suicide, I also don’t think it helps to be pollyanish about something that I submit we have all participated in- and in most cases benefited from.
Reading both the encyclopedia’s and AR-600-20’s definitions of “hazing” leaves one in a little bit of a gray area. Figuring out what what kind of activity will leave “all participants feeling proud” is asking too much. The definition: “Hazing is defined as any conduct whereby one military member or employee, regardless of Service or rank, unnecessarily causes another military member or employee, regardless of Service or rank, to suffer or be exposed to an activity that is cruel, abusive, oppressive, or harmful” does not even give one the ambiguous assumption of a reasonable person’s state of mind and puts the burden on everyone to attempt to figure out what every person might think is harmful or oppressive. I can’t imagine that most of those in the military wouldn’t be able to give at least one example of an unreasonable person who felt oppressed or harmed at the slightest actions and comments from the majority of those in the military.
From getting wings pushed into one’s skin by a punch to the chest, to prop-blasts, to PT until one almost passes out, to mentally challenging ones’ skin thickness- hazing, I submit, has and can contribute to healthy team-building. This is key in some small-level units and other sections involved in stressful conditions in order to build cohesiveness and identify those who won’t handle stress very well. One sees this in the way new soldiers were treated when they showed up to units in wartime- as portrayed in the series Band of Brothers, to the way thin-skinned individuals are treated in most organizations, to the rites of passage in most military units with any history and tradition. To pretend this does not exist, that every practice is detrimental, or that it is never positive is disingenuous at best- at worst it is just as risk averse as some have hinted is at the root of some of the problem.
I have no doubt that some hazing- quite possibly both of the incidents mentioned here- were detrimental to not only good order and discipline- but also the health of individuals in our military. I also hold, however, that to take the extreme step of labeling all hazing as bad and attempting to avoid oppressing and harming everyone is an exercise in futility. Unfortunately our personnel system does not always get people to the jobs they will survive in. A better effort IMO- but one fraught with personal and professional risk- would be to identify and sanction those types of hazing activities that both contribute to team building and identifying those people who won’t do well under situations of stress; while at the same time discouraging those activities that are mainly sadistic in nature and harmful to the organization.
As much as we do either activity- totally discouraging all forms of hazing, or attempting to identify good as opposed to bad- being “positive” to everyone is an impossible task. Let’s face it- there are some people who just aren’t cut out to be in the military- or in every unit in the military- and if some forms of hazing didn’t work in building teams- teams from many different disciplines and professions wouldn’t be engaged in it. Hazing- positive hazing- can help identify those individuals who have a greater chance of putting people’s lives at risk and result in more soldiers surviving combat IMO. To pretend it would never help and to only focus on the negative examples is to knee-jerk react with a blanket policy that hurts everyone.
You guys are simply singing the Company Line and drinking the Company Kool Aid-
“Hazing is an inexcusable act counter to the values we hold dear as an Army. Our values of loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage are the hallmarks of our institution.” Care to add a few more to that long list of platitudes that I see on posters a lot but rarely buried into folks minds unless it via a BS Power Point designed to check off a box or CYA on something. The other comments about this being against the Army Core values, that somehow high training standards are enough to make good soldiers makes me cringe. I challenge you to show me these “high” training standards the Army has outside of the SOF areas? Core Values? You guys change them every recruiting campaign, stop acting like you guys are attempting to develop a sense of tradition when you change it every couple of years depending on who your advertiser is or who your GO is that needs to look good for Congress. The Army is broken as an institution and has been for a while, fix it then talk about the other things.
As for the Hazing, both the kids obviously had something wrong with them and it was more than being taunted and or physically taxed. That was the main failure here, that no one noticed that the kids were obviously depressed and do not think it was just those “hazing” incidents that did it, they were obviously in a bad place prior to that.
One more point, you mention the USMC and Lew, the kid feel asleep in a combat zone while on watch, something that requires a bit harsher treatment than what he got and he did so repeatedly, so while you weep for the young man as do I for taking his own life, how much would you (who are obviously career oriented officers) cry for the guys who could have died due to him falling asleep while on watch? Honestly, SWJ looses more and more status with me every time I see tripe like this pass as an “article”.
Eric- that is why I post anonymously on a few subjects: 1) females in the military, 2) homosexuals in the military, 3) anything that is the latest knee-jerk flavor of the month (suicide, hazing, etc.), 4) Army and national policy, 5) religion. Unfortunately for our institution, giving an honest opinion about some or all of those things can get one in trouble. Call it PC, call it something else- but, I have heard that officers used to publish anonymously in the Infantry Journal going way back, so I don’t feel like much has changed…
I agree with some of your comments- the Army values, for instance: although laudatory, it always makes me sick to hear them talked about by senior leadership- it always comes across to me as if they mean that only NCOs should follow the values- especially the ones about respect and selfless service. I don’t know how many activities I’ve been to wherein a senior officer treats someone with disrespect while talking about the Army values! The message to me is embarrassing: “you NCOs sacrifice everything, we officers will pretend…” So, although I think the NCO corps has some issues- I personally think the Army is great BECAUSE of its NCO corps and IN SPITE of its officers (at least above the rank of CPT…). And, yes- I am above the rank of CPT…
As you can see by Carl’s response to my post- for many people anything that leads to suicide today- or is thought to (or is tied to any other high-profile issue), is condemned in the most vehement way. Although hazing- as defined broadly by the regulation- is used by every culture, unit and group I’ve experienced, it is still vilified by today’s elite because it is prone to the one thing their increasingly engineered utopian dream cannot stand: risk. Because hazing is prone to getting out of control if not seriously monitored and can lead to serious reprecussions, hazing has become like riding a bike without a helmet. I think BG Kelly was commenting on the same concept in his Fighting Small Wars article when he noted:
The notion of individual negation is an absurdity in
a market state that exists to create opportunity for
individuals. As a result, in modern war, the death
of a soldier is accepted as an unquestioned national
tragedy. Furthermore, the West no longer views war as
a wholly legitimate means of advancing the interests
of a state or group of states…
…It is interesting that, at least according to The Guardian,
the notion that, whatever its causes, aims or outcomes, war is
morally wrong is a given. …
…Even if we accept The Guardian’s view as unconsidered
and faintly risible, we should also accept that the
underlying sentiment exists and that in the view of a
substantial portion of our population war is morally,
at least, tainted.
In combination, these two factors mean that the
basic mechanism of warfare; combat, is discredited.
The moral taint reduces the tolerance that the
community, local and international, has for the death
and destruction that is an inevitable corollary of
combat and constrains the choice of available means
—the current trend of demonising air power being
one example. The community is equally reluctant
either to see its sons die or to employ the weapons
that minimise the chances of this occurring. The
inability to resolve this dilemma means that instead
of being the principal means to an end, and at least
in contemporary Western theory, combat is reduced to
being an undesirable externality of warfare.”
I think the same factors are at work here. Today the loss of one soldier to suicide is a tragedy and the fundamental means with which to build a strong military unit and institution- a focus on what is best for the whole (as opposed to the individual)- is viewed by many as morally wrong- but, similar to Kelly’s comment on war- we should at least accept that that underlying sentiment exists and that in the view of a substantial portion of our population the military is morally, at least, tainted (and thus, if allowed to exist, at least should be undermined by forcing it to shift to a focus on individual rights). And much like combat being discredited, informal means of team-building and selection are discredited. But it goes beyond just hazing- the “moral taint” against traditional martial culture “reduces the tolerance that the community, local and international, has for the death and” accidents (think of all the restrictions on live-fires and other risky training) “that are an inevitable corollary of” realistic preparations for combat and constrains the choice of available means —the current trend of demonising normal male social behavior being just one example.
To further use BG Kelly’s example to explain our current problems: “The community is equally reluctant either to see its sons die” (or be abused) or to sanction the martial culture of the warrior that inevitably entails risk, negative 2nd and 3rd order effects, the denial of some group’s ability to serve (due to issues with cohesion, physical ability, physiology, group behavior, etc.) that minimize the chances of death occuring (and/or minimize effectiveness in combat). “The inability to resolve this dilemma means that instead of being the principal means to an end” the military (read: traditional warrior and martial culture) is reduced to being an undesirable externality of warfare.” I mean- come on- we even have to remind ourselves we are warriors, for goodness sakes!
So, to wrap-up- the loss of one soldier to suicide- who, in most cases I’d argue has more problems than just something that hazing supposedly triggers- becomes so intolerable that we would rather do away with portions of our martial culture. This is repeatedly seen in other areas: policies of micromanagement, risk-aversion, politically-correct briefings to CYA top leaders and commanders instead of honest discussions about perceptions and underlying issues, refusing to buck the system and conventional wisdom, etc. But, like BG Kelly- I think this is just a reflection of our society, wherein all things martial, traditionally male, and “Western” cultural have been demonized for some time now.
As the author I want to be clear on a few issues.
Promoting the Army values, a set of ideals we profess to every cadet and recruit in the earliest stages of precommissioning and basic training, is not merely “towing the company line.” It’s a reminder of the value set we are supposed to use to guide our conduct. Call it naive, some of us still believe they have validity.
As for Eric Stratton’s belief that the Army doesn’t have high training standards outside of Special Operations – your perception is your reality, but it doesn’t make you right. Each month a brigade worth of Army Soldiers, with the addition of SOF from all branches, converge on the National Training Center in the Mojave Desert to hone their skill. And it’s hard training that replicates current tactics, techniques, and procedures downrange in a very difficult environment. Every platoon and above conducts after action reviews with an observer/controller team assigned to them. Not only do you see each unit rise to the challenge, you see good units turn great. From the Opposing Force perspective, the Troopers assigned to 11th ACR must be at the top of their game every month for every unit to give them the qualitative training environment they deserve.
We have a fundamental disagreement on the status of the Army and the Soldiers that are in it. I’ve read your comments on Tom Ricks’ blog long enough to know there’s no way I’m going to change your mind or convince you that you’re wrong, even if you are.
There is nothing careerist about standing up for what is right. You might be the first person to ever accuse me of that.
Finally, there’s a big difference between telling a kid to get a box of grid squares and throwing rocks at him for leaving a hot water heater on. You make this sound like a grey issue, and that conditions outside of your paradigm mean the military is turning soft. I maintain there are still element of ethics that are still black and white and that the compromise of morals, ethics, and integrity deteriorates the overall institution.
Can anyone here say definitively that they would be able to judge a person’s demeanor after knowing them only a around 5 weeks? Pvt. Chen did not deploy with this platoon, he was a replacement. His family is bringing up charges that supposedly occurred during OSUT at Fort Benning…this platoon had nothing to do with that.
I would like to add one more thing…..the TRUTH needs to be told…IF these soldiers were sadistic then they should be punished! HOWEVER, if these soldiers are being accused of atrocities based simply on the word of the Media, Ethnic and Political Acitivists then WE all are in big trouble!
http://www.racialicious.com/2012/01/02/private-danny-chen-and-why-i-will-never-again-reach-out-to-ows-about-something-that-matters-to-me/
Another suicide. Again in the comments the chain of command mentioned.
http://www.gazette.com/articles/wrote-131361-facebook-springs.html
Wake up, everyone. Hazing happens openly and some units even Bragg About it. Yep, you telling me Prop Blast week is not hazing? Once again, double standard, “You ain’t Airborne, you don’t understand!” Next time I hear someone tell another person that, my response, “You ain’t getting it, you don’t understand Army Regulation 600-20.” Throwing misc fluids on me and the items that accompanied the “not hazing” but “team building” was frankly, disgusting and IT IS hazing.I’ve done numerous events that was considered initiation, mostly fun and I agreed to those that didn’t subject my group to ridicule and stupidity.
Those involved in PVT Chen’s chain should be subject to UCMJ and charged with aggrevated manslaughter. The Army had a similiar incident last year with a Soldier being abused by his chain of command. They were deployed. The investigation cleared the chain of command, simply put, he died of self inflicted wound. Even though the investigation clearly pointed out that his chain of command made him do extra duty and useless pointless duty everyday to the point he went inside a port a john and blew his head off.
Once again, like anything else in the Army, the people in charge will address this and couple of weeks later we will hear nothing else of it. Just like how they dealt with Toxic Leaders, they talked about it for couple of weeks, and now that’s over, back to business as usual.
I have read the article regarding Pvt. Chen in New York Magazine twice now. In my opinion, based on the article, Pvt. Chen should NEVER have been placed on that COP! Who takes responsibility for that? The platoon?
I am asking as a civilian, who makes the decision as to where to place these soldiers? Doesn’t the Army keep something similar to a report card based on performance and perhaps placed based on that?
From the article, he was shy and timid, did not like confrontation, he says in a letter, he is the weakest soldier left in Basic. He was uncomfortable with the intensity of AIT and the normal agitation among the soldiers towards the end. He arrived at the COP physically unprepared and it was brought up, yet he was kept there. He would have been better off at KAF being a trainer.
My own son has said time and time again in frustration on guys not squared away…”What did these guys think they were signing up for? This is not a video game!” If Pvt. Chen was not squared away mentally and physically, that is not being ugly, it is just the truth and if would make life harder no matter what race, religion, ethnicity.
If anything, maybe it the Army itself that needs to look at what they are doing! There HAD to be signs at OSUT and yet he was passed along and then assigned to the MOST intense situation possible.
I am so sick of politicians and political groups trying to run our military. Until a person has been in these young soldiers boots don’t begin to think that you know how they should act. If you are under seige every single day and someone goes to their guard tower without a helmet or un prepared, yes, you must do something to get their attention. Most of the so called hazing occured during basic training. As far as AIT, did he even get that? Was he prepared? I would say no. What these fine young men “allegedly” did, and I say allegedly because nothing has been proven yet,is nothing that they weren’t taught when they were privates. Policy’s are in place for only one reason- for those in charge to say ” well we have a policy”. That is just a bunch of B.S. Tell me who in the military or even in the careers they have chosen haven’t violated a policy?
Has anyone ever exceeded the speed limit? You violated a policy. Oh have you ever copied something from a book or magazine? You violated copyright laws.
This whole thing is political and there are 8 young men you are literally fighting for their future lives. Yes, I am sorry that the young man took his life and yes I am sorry that his family is going through this because they don’t understand the whole situation. THey are only being told what the “activist lawyer” intrepets for them. Give me a frickin break. War is hell and these young men are out there laying their lives on the line every frickin day and what do they get in return? Negligent homicide charges. Supposedly, they young man reported the incidents to his chaing of command and it is said the chain of command did nothing. I find that really hard to believe. There is so much more to this story than we know.
Holy crap, if I had reported everthing up the chain of command that every Sailor that worked for me complained about that would have taken me my entire day.
I believe that these 8 young men, if they really did anything ( hey remember that innocent until proven guilty), only did what they were taught and what they thought was the Army way of handling it.
there is a term called smoking a private. For those of you who have been in the Army, you have either done it, been a part of it or received it. Right wrong or indifferent, everyone in the Army knows it happens. It is a systemic issue..
Has no one ever gone through a right of passage? Anyone ever joined a sority or joined a fraternity?
I really find it hard to believe that he was singled out because his ethnicity. Whatever allegedly happened to him, happened because of his carelessness, ineptness, and lack of skills. The Army didn’t prepare this young man for combat. He was just another body to them. He was sent as a replacement. He was unprepared.
Good grief this kid was 6 foot 3. He was trained in basic hand to hand combat. If he really felt threatened he could have done something.
I am so sick of people playing the victim to get sympathy. Using their race because something allegedly happened to them that happened to everyone else. This kid was not singled out because of his race. I wonder did anyone ask any other private with any other platoon if anything like that happened to them. I would bet my retirement that they would say yes.
Any young person who really wants to serve their county— DO NOT JOIN THE ARMY! You are nothing but fresh meat, they expect you to go kill the enemy or even become a POW but lordy don’t violate any policy.
I am infuriated that these 8 young men are being charged in the death of a fellow soldier. What about those 8 young men’s families? They are going through hell,finanical support and are never allowed to tell their story.
Do not allow the media to convict these men. Do not jump to conclusions. Unless you have been in combat or walked a mile in these young men’s boots constantly looking out for IED’s, or seen your buddy have their arms and legs blown off, or have been in a war zone every year you have been in the army, do not condem these men. They are sons, fathers, brothers, nephews or uncles. They are all American. They volunteered. They love their country.
Unless you would like to but on a helmet,kevlar and boots, you have no idea what these young people go through. I wish everyone could spend a month in a warzone and then hopefully come back and tell it like it really is.
Hazing is counter-productive, don’t think people dispute that. The problem is in defining what hazing is – and that’s tough.
What confounds this issue is the subject of abuse. Harsh training and treatment can cross the line into abuse. Does abuse fall under hazing? Or does hazing fall under abuse?
When the learning stops (assuming an action is done as part of training/discipline, etc), then the it’s either abuse, hazing, or just a waste of time. That’s where I find it time to call index. I believe that if we all follow that rule, whether we’re NCOs, officer, Plt leaders, BN Cdrs, or whatever, then we’ll be ok.
Everything is very open with a precise explanation of the issue. It was truly informative. I Strongly agree that hazing is intolerable. How will the government and army respond in this kind of issue and what actions will take place to end this kind of abuse?