Michelle Malkin and neo-neocon (or “Neo” as we call her when she’s wearing her fashionable sunglasses) have posts up excoriating Jane Fonda for her recent commentary that American troops had been brainwashed into killing machines, and so were relatively blameless for all the atrocities they were committing.
No, really.
“Starting with the Vietnam War we began training soldiers differently,” the anti-American actress says in an email to the Washington Post.
Fonda claims she learned of the policy switch in “secret meetings” she had with military psychologists “who were really worried about what was happening to our combat personnel.”
One doctor, she insists, told her U.S. troops had been deliberately trained to be “killing machines.”
“This began,” Fonda maintained, “because the military discovered that in World War II and Korea, [U.S.] soldiers weren’t killing enough.”
“So they changed training procedures” to teach troops how to commit atrocities.
It’s not for a moment worth taking anything Jane Fonda says about anything more serious than movies, cellulite, and celebrity culture with any seriousness whatsoever. What, in her entire personal history, would demonstrate any measure of historical or political awareness?
The fact that this woman would bloviate about this in the middle of a war where our troops take immense personal risk to avoid killing where they easily could; a war with less collateral damage than any war in recent history; a war where our enemies commit atrocities and run schools to condition their young jihadi to do so – unremarked by Ms. Fonda, unsurprisingly – should remove whatever shred of seriousness people may have foolishly granted her.
Let me offer Ms. Fonda some relatively simple facts.
I’m not a soldier and have never been one. I have shot guns competitively, and trained in places where those who train soldiers train, sometimes alongside those trainers.
The exercises we’ve done – in clearing houses, crossing streets and moving through neighborhoods while engaging targets simulating enemies – are, I’m told, very similar to what troops undergoing training for fighting in urban terrain are given. In fact, they are probably more intensive than what a typical infantry rifleman would get.
One interesting thing that is a factor in all these exercises – not shooting certain targets is as important as shooting others. In my first, untrained exercise in Gunsite’s training house, I did what a lot of novice shooters do when they are adrenalized and ill-trained. I shot everything in the house, often several times. Clint Smith was my training officer, and his sad, laconic question when he stopped me mid-drill – “Marc, why in the world did you shoot Bozo the Clown?” – has pretty much stuck with me.
The reality of it is that someone who is well-trained is likely to do two things that pretty much everyone – including Ms. Fonda, if she’d taken time to actually learn anything – would think are good things. They teach you to shoot the bad folks better and faster, and equally importantly, not to shoot the good folks.
I’ve been through maybe a dozen similar exercises since then, and I’m happy to say that I’ve never shot at a “no shoot” target again. Why? because of that awful “killing machine” training that I went through.
Go read any of the milblogs, or ask anyone who has contact with any of our troops. Go read some history about what war was like in the recent past, or what it’s like in other parts of the world. Then realize that the restraint they take, and the risk they undergo to exercise that restraint, far exceeds that of any other army in history. We are not brainwashing our troops into mindless killing machines anywhere except in the fevered imagination of celebrity salons.
I’ll also note that Fonda is largely basing her fantasy on the work of LTC Dave Grossman, author of “On Killing,” a book I like a lot and which I think makes some interesting points. I also believe that some of the core premises of the book – based as they are on SLA Marshall’s work on World War II – are potentially significantly flawed.
“Marc, why in the world did you shoot Bozo the Clown?”
Now THAT is one for the ages.
I think what Jane is vaguely referring to is that Army training did change after Korea as a result of S.L.A. Marshall’s book “Men Against Fire”, which noted that most US infantry under fire in WWII did not fire their weapons. The M-16 was also introduced in the belief that the automatic/semi-automatic nature of the rifle would encourage soldiers to use it in combat.
Of course, encouraging soldiers to use their weapons under fire is not quite the same thing as turning them into “killing machines” – but it is a bit unrealistic to expect Hanoi Jane to understand the distinction.
He’s a clown, dammit. Nobody likes clowns.
And a “rotating title” if ever there was one. Pity this is not a feature at “Winds”…
[I had a serious comment but kpom beat me to it].
I believe that there have also been changes in training since Vietnam that are designed to decrease the propensity of soldiers to refrain from pulling the trigger when they should (there was a long article in the New York Times magazine on this phenomenon within the last couple of years, I believe). However, I have seen no evidence that that increases our soldiers’ propensity to shoot civilians. Indeed, if we look at rates of civilian casualties in Iraq and compare them to any struggle of the 20th century, they are startlingly low even if we accept as true the high end of the estimates. Even if one were inclined to credit Fonda rather than discredit her, it is impossible to reconcile Fonda’s argument with this simple fact.
S.L.A. Marshall wrote an interesting account of the Vietnam battle at LZ Bird, where a 1st Cavalry battalion destroyed an NVA regiment. Presumably by firing rifles at them.
His theories about WWII combat used to be very influential, but I doubt if they carry much water now. It’s kind of arrogant to claim that we defeated all those Germans and Japanese while fighting at one-quarter strength, with both arms and one leg tied behind our back.
A more important historical question: How long did it take Roger Vadim to talk Jane Fonda into doing a threeway with one of his girlfriends? My guess would be that it took one joint and about twenty minutes of casual effort, during which time Vadim probably said “I love you” at least twice, and “This doesn’t mean that I’m bored with you” at least once. No secret meetings with military psychologists were required.
I don’t know about Marc, but I’ve always had a hankerin’ to shoot Bozo the Clown. That is one scary dude…
koom, lewy et al…
The military definitely changed it’s training post Ww II, largely in response to Marshall. It’s much more realistic (fewer square ranges and bullseyes), and the training I’ve done is the direct product of that line of thought. Should have been more clear, sorry.
And, to restate, the training has two drivers – to make sure you are in a position and mindset to quickly shoot those you should, and to filter those you shouldn’t (at minimum, intended to reduce blue-on-blue).
Glen, I think her personal life – as mucked up as it may be – is kind of ad hominem; I’m happy to attack her political statements/views but her sex life is kind of a low blow. Besides, in the 60’s when I was a young teen, that would have only raised my esteem for her…
A.L.
Ah yes, Jane Fonda….reminds me of my days at Glenview NAS after returning from NAM. We had her picture posted in a place of honor in the head….prominantly stuck to the back of the urinal.
I totally agree with Neo’s take on the situation: Fonda’s taken the basic facts and truth of the subject and run in the totally wrong direction with them. There’s no doubt that the military has tried to increase it’s effectiveness and efficiency, but part of that has been to increase a soldier or marine’s ability to discriminate between good and bad targets. Fonda’s taken the concept of “efficiency” to mean that the military trains them to “kill ’em all”, and that sooo isn’t the case. The training isn’t about making a person a robotic, cold harded massacre machine, it’s to develop the ability to maintain as much cool as possible in hideously stressful circumstances, and to make certain “shoot/don’t shoot” reactions reflexive. Yes, there is an elimination of thought to some aspects of the training, especially for the “shoot/don’t shoot” reflexes, but that shouldn’t be confused with creating walking atrocities. There’s a big difference between some reactions being “mindless” (i.e. “reflexive”) concerning the basic binary “yes/no” choice when shooting, and being completely mindless with the attitude that everything is a target. The first is reality, the second is Fonda’s misinterpretation.
Neo’s post is worth reading.
——————-
As an aside… re: _”…why in the world did you shoot Bozo…?”_ … You know, you’ve fulfilled a fantasy of mine: Offin’ da clown. 🙂 Then again, there’s a basic disparity of force here. I mean, what’s the clown gonna do, return fire with a cream pie?? Slap you with a rubber chicken?
Just remember Bobcat Goldwaith’s fears after making “Shakes the Clown”: A drive-by pieing. I mean, those SOB’s can fit a whole buncha themselves into a really tiny car, so that’s a heckuva lotta whipped cream firepower there…
Turning off stream of consciousness writing now…
Glen,
This is a pretty stupid comment: “It’s kind of arrogant to claim that we defeated all those Germans and Japanese while fighting at one-quarter strength, with both arms and one leg tied behind our back.”
Indirect fire weapons inflicted more than 75% of of ALL the casualties inflicted by American ground forces during World War Two – in many instances more than 90%. This differed from our enemies to only a small degree – even Japanese indirect fire weapons inflicted over half of all casualties suffered by American ground forces in the World War Two Pacific campaign. And crew-served weapons – machine guns – have inflicted more than half of all the casualties caused by direct fire weapons for ALL ARMIES starting with, and since, World War One.
The very limited aimed rifle fire of American ground forces noted by S.L.A. in World War Two did not reduce their combat effectiveness even by a third, let alone 75%. Rifles just haven’t been a significant cause of infantry casualties, period, for any army starting with World War Two.
Crew-served weapons have been the heart of any infantry force of company size or smaller for almost a hundred years.
Tom, lets not be too harsh, it can be an esoteric field even within military history.
Anybody seen Killer Klowns From Outer Space?
I rest my case.
On indirect/direct fire: if we wanted to “kill ’em all,” we would hardly need to specially train riflemen to do it. Artillery, helicopters, and carpet bombing would work a lot better.
SPQR said:
Tom, lets not be too harsh, it can be an esoteric field even within military history.
“Esoteric?” Try “Easy to find.”
Anyone studying the performance of American infantry versus German infantry in WW2, and the American rifle controveries since then, are well aware of the real killing power in infantry units.
Hell, I have a half a dozen mass market James Dunnigan books (The Dirty Little Secret… books)alone discussing that subject.
Any serious military wargamer or military historian who read Trevor Depuy’s books knows he also make that point in mind numbing numerical detail.
Tom: Indirect fire weapons inflicted more than 75% of of ALL the casualties inflicted by American ground forces during World War Two …
There is an anecdote about a German soldier who was a veteran of Africa and the Eastern Front, who was captured while fighting on the Western Front. He was asked to compare the fighting qualities of British, Russian, and American soldiers.
He said that the British were very brave, but somewhat inflexible and predictable. The Russians could be fanatical on attack or defense, but were horribly disorganized. “As for the Americans, I couldn’t tell you because all I remember from fighting them is the endless artillery and air bombardment.”
So I guess your point is well taken. But I read Men Against Fire and all I remember from it is a lot of anecdotes, not a persuasive thread of argument. The fact that some men don’t fire their weapons in combat is true of all armies and it reflects the level of their training and experience. American soldiers in WWII were not as well trained or as experienced as German soldiers, and that was no secret then or now.
That’s about as far as the point goes. Was an American soldier 75% likely not to shoot back if you shot at him? At Kasserine, maybe, but not at Bastogne.
“On indirect/direct fire: if we wanted to “kill ’em all,” we would hardly need to specially train riflemen to do it. Artillery, helicopters, and carpet bombing would work a lot better.”
That’s of course the key point of psychic dissonance within the anti-war crowd; if we were the Evil Empire their dogma pretty much requires, we would see a lot more flattened cities and a lot fewer door-to-door anti-insurgent operations. This discrepancy is so great pretty much all critical thinking has to be suppressed in order to minimize the dissonance. Either that or they develop elaborate alternative fantasy scenarios where pipelines are being built across Afghanistan, or that all government decisions are made for the financial interests of Halliburton.
Pretty much explains BDS, but I can’t think what the cure might be.
Fonda should have been shot for treason. Anyone who would quote a complete and ignorant liar like Jane Fonda is an idiot