Lying in the military is common, Army War College study says
Source: Stars and Stripes
A new study by Army War College professors found that not only is lying common in the military, the armed forces themselves may be inadvertently encouraging it.
The study, released Tuesday, was conducted by retired Army officers and current War College professors Leonard Wong and Stephen J. Gerras. They found that untruthfulness is “surprisingly common in the U.S. military even though members of the profession are loath to admit it.”
The paper’s release follows a series of high-profile incidents involving bad behavior across the services, including a still widening corruption case involving senior Navy officers and at least two incidents in which Army generals were accused of sexual assault.
Read more: http://www.stripes.com/news/us/lying-in-the-military-is-common-army-war-college-study-says-1.330702
This study from the US Army War College tries to understand why lying among the officer corps
is rampant, the magnitude of the problem, and the damage done to the country.
You really should not believe anything you hear from the officials running the national security state.
We don't.
Veterans For Peace
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
merrily
(45,251 posts)By "the military," I mean the military as an institution, not some 19 year old the PTB see fit to put in harm's way.
tclambert
(11,087 posts)
Baitball Blogger
(46,750 posts)As much as I adore them for the sacrifices they have made for this country, there is no question that a few bad apples are coming back into our retirement communities in Florida. Integrity and honor are not the first words that come to mind when I think of the way they have added to the chaotic environments we have in predominately red communities. But because of their military service, they have the immunity prescribed to sacred cows.
sarge43
(28,941 posts)When punishment more often than not excess the crime, when promotions are shaved by point one cent, when a bad stat can score you a reassignment to Wake Island as morale officer, etc, lying is encouraged.
Low level example of turn on the crap detector re military stats: I was monitoring the base Weight Control Program. I was informed that the base commander was giving a talk to some civilian group. He wanted bragging rights for the amount of weight lost during the year. I was ordered to come up with numbers. I didn't have enough time left on my enlistment to figure that one out and at least half of the overweights had shipped out, taking the stats with them.
So I wait a half hour, check one of the files. Sgt Smith lost 14 pounds this year. Rough guess number of on Program, multiply by 14, apply ground crew rule, multiply by 2 and add 10%. Inform boss. "Did you check files, sergeant?" "Yes, ma'am."
I'm sure someone out there believe that X amount of weight was lost at Crash 'n Burn Plane Patch.
"Sir, I'm not cynical. I'm realistic in a cynical situation."
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)but depending on what it is though CID is a very independent force that nailed numerous people involved in the 2005-2007 bribing scandal in Arif Jan. I told many lies & kept many secrets from the "chain of command". I could reveal many things but the bulk doesn't involve seriously harming others or clear corruption. The time an ACC had to go up the backstairs to the Battalion Commander to get the order he was looking (the correct one consistent with Army regulations) because 1SGT and Company Commander told him to proceed is something I'd mention freely.
I'll note, some of the best leaders who were more competent relative to the average kept potential revelations (typical stuff, nothing major). The very brief company 1SG as well as the very brief last one I had were very fair to the interests soldiers. I had a lot of close talks & wish we had him a long time ago. He had a law education background and was helpful in repelling law enforcement interrogations & later threats to accuse me of whatever it was regarding who it was they were looking for in a city 35 miles north, my 1SG quickly referenced my barracks detail signatures as to why I couldn't possibly be there. (Long story, had to do with something over who I let borrow my car I couldn't afford to drive & marijuana given the arrest of the passenger for marijuana and marijuana still in the car at the impound lot)
msongs
(67,430 posts)
Stryst
(714 posts)I lied every day. I lied to my friends (who might let something slip), I lied to the girls I 'dated', and I lied my lips off to my bosses.
Bandit
(21,475 posts)Always has been and I imagine it always will be. They will do and/or say anything to cover their ass. SOP for the military
packman
(16,296 posts)How mid-range officers, lieutenants-captains-majors-, would "invent" situations near combat areas to qualify for medals to look good on their jackets. Sort of like Bill O'really being near combat zones so that qualifies him as a true soldier.
aka John "Swift Boat" Kerry told some pretty big whoppers
madville
(7,412 posts)Typically there are so many training requirements, cumbersome approval procedures, so much paperwork, evaluations, supply, etc it's impossible to do everything "required". You have to decide which corners to cut.
mahina
(17,682 posts):
It was as if there were two different wars, the one on the ground and the one on paper. On paper the Jarais tribe had support from the US in the form of medical clinics, fully staffed and supplied, schools, same, and wells constructed. The well, a hole in the ground, was used to stow trash as Montagnards only use flowing water. The schools and medical clinics were fully funded and ongoing fiction.
He came into this situation, but was not provided any support whatsoever himself out in the middle of nowhere, after raising questions and complaint about the obvious fraud up the chain of command. It is amazing that he lived, never mind make such close relationships among the Jarais. He was abandoned in terms of support while a system of corruption profited very handsomely. He didn't ever tell us. We were given this account after he died, way too young and deeply affected by Vietnam and the loss experienced by the people there.
Anyway, to the OP, yes, and within the military there is resistance to the norm.
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)Sam Nunn was running his despicable Senate hearings on gays in the military. A parade of brass from the Pentagon dressed up in their shiniest medals, had their chauffeurs drive them over to the Capitol, and then proceeded to lie their asses off in front of the Senate committee. No one was reprimanded for their perjury.
malthaussen
(17,209 posts)Obviously an error.
-- Mal
One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)When your own rating is based on not having any below average underlings, what do you expect. Can't admit there is a problem cause it's your fault for not having already fixed it. So guess what nothing is ever broke, everyone is above average and there are never any discipline problems or foul-ups in the command.
And have I got a bridge for you!
sarge43
(28,941 posts)everyone else has given their troops an outstanding rating.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Last edited Tue Feb 24, 2015, 08:43 AM - Edit history (1)
there were three guys in his company who, um, made unauthorized departures from the base. One of them was caught and taken back to the barracks, the other two were not heard from again. Yet his company got the "No AWOLs" award.
rexcat
(3,622 posts)Having spent 4 years of active duty in the USAF and receiving an honorable discharge in 1975 not much as changed from my vantage point. The military encourages a kick down kiss up environment and many in leadership positions, especially in the enlisted ranks, are nothing more than bullies and liars. It is not a nice place to be for most people but at least for those who need to be told what and how to do things and can't make it in civilian life it is a great place.
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)Can't speak for the AF, my son can, as I was Army, discharge 1990 and recalled for Oil War I. It's a much more professional force and the bullies and liars for the most part have departed. For example, if you don't have a four year degree you're chances of E-6 and especially E-7 are greatly diminished. A lot has changed in 40 years.
Having said that, there's always going to be this sort of thing in the services due to the system and it gets more frequent as the pay grade rises.
rexcat
(3,622 posts)around 200ish and the first sergeant was pretty much an ass. The physician I worked with and the civilian nurse were okay. There was and still is a lot of control issues in the military. I have a nephew currently in the Army, initially enlisted then received his degree and then his commission and from my conversations with him those in power hold it over their subordinates.
That said I was in when there was a draft. The only reason I "joined" was so not to get drafted and end up in Viet Nam. My draft number was 18 in 1971 and would have been drafted. On top of that Canada was not an option because my father was a career officer in the USAF (fighter pilot). He threatened to hunt me down, shoot me, and drag my corpse back to the US and collect the reward (whatever that meant). The lifers did not like us "first termers" and went out of their way to make life less than pleasant.
As far as the current military, too gung ho for my tastes. The founders of this country did not want a purely professional military and I think some of their concerns will end up coming to fruition. Too much power with too few people. Blind patriotism, not so good for the country. Our military has tortured prisoners, kill innocent men, women and children in our name and our government, in our name, has been willing to send our military to war without much thought and without the proper support of the VA. Now we are hearing from the republicans that we can't afford to fund the VA properly. Senator Sessions and former Senator Coburn have said this but we have never treated our Vets well since the founding of this country.
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)That people in the military lie when it benefits them.
Coming from the same people who claimed we would be greater as liberators by the Iraqi people.
Is this a good sign that we should gut and rebuild the mitary leadership? After all, they are so incompetent that they didn't realize they are being lied to constantly
tabasco
(22,974 posts)Joint Chiefs Chairman Erik Shinseki told them it would be a 10-year war and they laughed at him.
4bucksagallon
(975 posts)INTERESTING CENSUS STATISTICS & THOSE TO CLAIM TO HAVE "Been There":
1,713,823 of those who served in Vietnam were still alive as of August,1995 (census figures).
During that same Census count, the number of Americans falsely claiming to have served in-country was: 9,492,958.
As of the current Census taken during August, 2000, the surviving U.S. Vietnam Veteran population estimate is: 1,002,511. This is hard to believe, losing nearly 711,000 between '95 and '00. That's 390 per day.
During this Census count, the number of Americans falsely claiming to have served in-country is: 13,853,027. By this census, FOUR OUT OF FIVE WHO CLAIM TO BE Vietnam vets are not.
http://www.nationalvietnamveteransfoundation.org/statistics.htm
I've met many on different message boards. but they are easily found.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,356 posts)... I looked at the questions on "census.gov" for 2000, found a question about serving in "Vietnam Era", but no question about serving "In Vietnam". To that question, I'd expect the number to be much higher than 1.7 million. I would have said "yes" to the "era" question. This draftee was sent to Europe, not SE Asia.
Then, there's a grey area of "In Theater", such as a munitions handler on an aircraft carrier or on an air base in Laos. It's a hard job, and dangerous, and part of the war. Would you consider those posts to be "In Country"? I'd have no problem labeling such a person as a "Vietnam Veteran", without the "-era" added on.
An unrelated point: The statistics you linked to indicated that Vietnam had a much higher percentage of enlistees vs draftees than WW2. But, in WW2, many who tried to enlist were turned away, told to wait for the draft, simply because the military training facilities could not process the number of volunteers. The draft was not so much a tool for building strength as it was a tool for regulating the build-up. Or so I heard from some beer-lubricated elders.
4bucksagallon
(975 posts)No they do not consider themselves Vietnam vets. Only those that set foot in country would be considered a Vietnam vet the others are all 'era' vets. Nothing hard about the distinction. You were either there or you were not. As to your point about the draft. Lots of men did enlist but it was with the real threat of a draft hanging over their heads. Many enlisted to ensure they could get into the AF or Navy and avoid ground combat. Or to pick their MOS, at least that is what the military recruiter promised them. I chose, also with the threat of a draft, to join the Marines rather than wait for a notice from the Army. I'm not buying the story told to you by your elders. You can if you like. I know in my family, all the men went into the military, one branch or the other, they all went and joined and they were not turned away. This was in the early days of the war right after Pearl Harbor. Maybe later on that was the case?
sarge43
(28,941 posts)Thailand, Laos and Cambodia were In Country and direct air and naval support also.
If your friends were granted the Vietnam Service Medal, they are Vietnam vets.
4bucksagallon
(975 posts)Unless you set foot in Vietnam you are a Vietnam era veteran if you served from 1961-1975. One can receive the Vietnam Service Medal without having set foot in country but still are considered Vietnam era vet and nothing you say will change that.
Even flying over the country did not count toward being a Vietnam vet, Vietnam era sure. Sorry.
A Vietnam veteran is someone who served in the armed forces of participating countries during the Vietnam War.
The term has been used to describe veterans who were in the armed forces of South Vietnam, the United States armed forces, and countries allied to them, whether or not they were actually stationed in Vietnam during their service. However, the more common usage distinguishes between those who served "in country" and those who did not actually serve in Vietnam by referring to the "in country" veterans as "Vietnam veterans" and the others as "Vietnam-era veterans". The U.S. government officially refers to all as "Vietnam-era veterans".[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_veteran
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2009/07/08/who-are-the-real-vietnam-vets/
Too many are trying to claim the mantle of warrior and very very few actually qualify.
You can argue this until the cows come home but I know the difference and no matter how you try and spin it the facts are the facts.
Again from Wikipedia.
United States veterans
See also: Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act
According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 (VEVRAA) states, "A Vietnam era veteran is a person who
served on active duty for a period of more than 180 days, any part of which occurred between August 5, 1964 and May 7, 1975, and was discharged or released with other than a dishonorable discharge.
was discharged or released from active duty for a service connected disability if any part of such active duty was performed between August 5, 1964 and May 7, 1975.
served on active duty for more than 180 days and served in the Republic of Vietnam between February 28, 1961 and May 7, 1975." [1]
The U.S. Census Bureau (2004) reports there are 8.2 million "Vietnam Era Veterans". Of these 2.59 million are reported to have served "in country".
More than 58,000 U.S. military personnel died as a result of the conflict.[2] This comprises deaths from all categories including deaths while missing, captured, non-hostile deaths, homicides, and suicides. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs recognizes veterans that served in the country then known as the Republic of Vietnam from February 28, 1961 to May 7, 1975, as being eligible for such programs as the department's Readjustment Counseling Services program (aka Vet Centers). The Vietnam War was the last American war with conscription.
Disagree all you want "in country" means just that..
sarge43
(28,941 posts)That would be news to John McCain and one of my commanding officers who was flying F-4s out of Udorn until things got hairy. Bigger news to them and many others that they weren't combat veterans of the Vietnam War.
Solly Mack
(90,778 posts)Former military spouse says "Duh".
RussBLib
(9,027 posts)reality sets in once again