• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

MILITARY ATTRACTS VIOLENT LOUTS

Teddy Ruxpin

Army.ca Veteran
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
410
I was struck speechless by this today (well, almost).  The article is from CP and reflects additional results of the survey quoted elsewhere on the Forums.  What purpose is served by such inane, pointless and expensive surveys?

Military attracts violent louts - study

By CP

OTTAWA -- Young Canadians interested in joining the military tend to lack life goals, feel alienated and accept violence to achieve ends, says an internal army study obtained by The Canadian Press. Some findings in the 80-page report suggest army recruiters should carefully screen the 5,000 additional soldiers they plan to hire over the next five years.

People interested in a career with the Canadian Forces tend to be "lacking in life goals and feel alienated from society and its values," says the document, co-authored by three senior officers.

"They are attracted to violence more than the average member of Canadian society and accept violence as a legitimate means of getting what they want."

Generally, those interested in joining the Forces also tend to be "somewhat timid in the face of change and preferred traditional categories of identity by race, gender, and nationality," says the survey. "As a result, they may resist affirmative action initiatives."

The observations are contained in a draft copy of the study, Canada's Soldiers: Military Ethos and Canadian Values in the 21st Century Army. The attitudes of people interested in joining the military were extracted from pollster CROP Inc.'s annual survey of Canadians. The research was also based on 60 questions to 1,297 regular soldiers and 440 reservists.

There are about 19,500 active soldiers and 15,000 army reservists in Canada. The Canadian Forces survey's 26% response rate - about 7,300 were distributed - was considered low but acceptable. The army, expected to take on a greater role in international peacemaking and disaster relief, is likely to get the bulk of the new recruits under new government policy.

While the report suggests attitudes "mellow" with age, it paints a picture of potential recruits who are spoiled, petulant and who "defer to external codes and rules" but look after their own self-interest:

- Those exploring a military career are not so much interested in serving as in "being someone and belonging to something."

- They tend to pursue happiness before duty, give personal life priority over work, and in ethical dilemmas tend to favour personal interests.

- They want to own status symbols and look good, and need to "break out of their isolation and share the collective emotions of a group."

Col. Mike Capstick, a co-author of the report, says not all those who expressed an interest in the military would have signed on, nor would all who signed on have been accepted, survived training or unit integration. "We know that some of them are released because they're just not suitable for military service," said Capstick.

Some characteristics of potential recruits are similar to those of serving soldiers.

"Survey results suggest that soldiers tend to be traditionalists in regard to gender and minorities," it says.


And another:

Que. soldiers have different views on role

By STEPHEN THORNE

OTTAWA (CP) - Quebec-based soldiers have "a completely different view" of appropriate army roles compared with troops in the rest of the country, placing domestic disaster relief and search-rescue above combat, says an army survey.

"To (Quebec) personnel, non-combat operations in Canada are the most appropriate roles," says the draft report, obtained by The Canadian Press. In a poll of Canadian Forces members conducted last year, Quebec-based soldiers rated disaster relief and search-rescue in Canada as first and second priorities.

Soldiers in the other three army areas - West, Ontario and Atlantic - rated combat operations to defend Canadian territory and combat operations to defend Canadian citizens at home and abroad as first and second.

Quebec-based soldiers rated combat operations fourth and fifth, even lower than aid to the civil power in Canada - a role that includes enforcement of the former War Measures Act, now the Emergencies Act, that was so resented by Quebec during the October Crisis of 1970.

The report does not specify which units were questioned in Quebec or elsewhere. About a quarter of Canada's 19,500 full-time soldiers are based in Quebec, home to the Royal 22nd Regiment, or Vandoos.

The 80-page report, Canada's Soldiers: Military Ethos and Canadian Values in the 21st Century Army, is based on questionnaires completed by about 1,700 soldiers.

The survey found that Quebec-based soldiers are more concerned with ecology and social responsibility than their counterparts in other areas, and are more intolerant of foreigners.

"This might lead to a preference for 'in Canada' disaster relief operations rather than foreign war-fighting operations," says the report, written by three senior officers.

"(Quebec-based) personnel express more concern for troop safety in combat operations than personnel of other (areas). However, (Quebec-based) personnel express more willingness to place troops in danger on non-combat ops compared to personnel of other areas."

Soldiers were asked to assess appropriateness of army roles such as combat operations to defend Canadian territory, peace support operations, disaster relief operations in Canada and promoting Canadian societal values.

"Personnel feel that all specified roles except one, 'promoting Canadian societal values,' are appropriate army roles," says the report.

Overall, "soldiers show a clear preference for war-fighting roles and specifically war-fighting in defence of Canada and Canadians.

"Combat operations to defend an ally and humanitarian operations throughout the world were rated less highly but still received support."

Soldiers were neutral to positive on gender integration, except in the West where "soldiers' acceptance is most guarded."

"Land Forces Western Area, alone among the (army areas), reject women in combat," it says. "(Western area) alone among the (areas), also refused to certify that gender integration is 'going well'."

The survey says soldiers based in the West are "not fundamentally misogynous."

It suggests that women in the West may be less able to fit in than their counterparts in other areas, possibly because of more macho units or more challenging jobs.

The report says diversity is generally well accepted in the army "with the exception of gay and lesbian members who are not acceptable as workmates to a large segment of the male sample."

"Women, on the other hand, are as accepting of gay and lesbian members as they are of members of ethnic backgrounds, though not as accepting as they are of other religions or persons of different skin colour."

"(Western) personnel are the least favourably disposed to gay and lesbian workmates."

The report's co-author, Col. Mike Capstick, says the army survey results are "very reflective" of Canadian society as a whole, based on general polls.

"We found it remarkable that there was a great deal of consistency," he said.

Quebec is unique in the military because its soldiers for the most part were born and raised in Quebec, with the exception of some francophone Ontarians and New Brunswickers.

But Capstick said attitudes elsewhere were also consistent with the general populace in those areas, even though many of the soldiers based there may be from other parts of the country.

"Support for all of the roles and missions is strong," he said. "It's a matter of degree as opposed to support or non-support.

"It's an interesting dynamic but not a red-flag kind of dynamic. It's something you have to watch."


You can find the entire survey on the net somewhere (or at least the DIN) - it makes for "interesting" reading, particularly in its rush to develop conclusions.

Restraining the urge to launch on a tirade :rage:, a Western "lout",

TR
 
My favourite was "They are attracted to violence more than the average member of Canadian society and accept violence as a legitimate means of getting what they want."

Really?  And all along I thought that the ARMED forces just sent out CDN flags and hugged a lot of people.  Isn't that how wars end?

T
 
apparently so Torlyn..those kind of studies just make me roll my eyes.
 
I wonder if this is an example of a reporter taking liberties - especially the headline writer. I would like to see the report in its entirety to see how the article fits into an overall context. It may have been obtained through access to information.   (I would imagine the officers quoted won't be happy.)   :mad:

cheers, mdh
 
I was always under the impression that one of the advantages of  Armed Forces was that they could take "violent louts" and discipline them and/or teach them self-discipline so that they could put those violent tendencies to the benefit of their Nation. 

It seems to me that having soldiers that "accept violence as legitimate" is no bad thing.  I could have sworn that was why they were being paid.

The creation of a perfect soldier - which route is easiest?  Take a pacifist individualist and teach them to kill and obey authority? Or take a violent, joiner and teach them discipline?

History suggests the latter as far as I can tell.
 
I'd like to see a copy of the questionnaire. Was anyone here involved with this or saw it? It would be interesting to see the phraseology used. As most everyone knows, many pollsters pose their questions a certain way in order to achieve the preconceived results they want. I really don't care much what the results of this one are, I'm more concerned about the agenda it's going to push. It's setting the stage for a real Us vs Them type scenario. Anglo vs Franco, male vs female, East vs West and combat vs secondary roles, etc. What's the agenda? Anyone?
 
Sorry, I was out pushing little school kids into snowbanks and stomping on puppies.
What are we talking about?
 
recceguy:

I actually saw the results a while ago (I was deployed at the time), so know it's on the DIN and isn't classified.  It may well be on the Net, too.

I can't remember much in the way of specifics regarding questions, etc., though.  I do remember sending Gunner a quote that basically stated LFWA soldiers were more individualistic and resistant to authority than others in the Army, but will have to wait to get back to work to find the details.  Perhaps someone else (not on leave) can have a look for it.

Cheers,

TR
 
I'd like to see a copy of the questionnaire
So would I. I can already see a great deal of potential for faulty results.

The questionnaire was given to CF members, and then compared to what? Did they give the same questionnaire to 'normal' canadians? What demographic? What age group? Did the study really manage to create a survey that made a comparably fair and objective analysis? I am highly suspicious that it failed to do that.

Drawing the conclusion that people who serve in the military feel that violence can be used as means of solving *some* problems it a foregone conclusion. Who did they make this comparison to? Little old ladies in supermarkets?

As for the CF attracting members who are unmotivated, I seriously doubt that there are more unmotivated people than the average population. In fact, looking at how lazy some of the average people are that I see, I can only conclude that people who take the effort to get off their butt and join up, are already more motivated than the general population. On top of that, looking at the qualification of some of the applicants who frequent this board, many seem to have quite a bit going for them already, and are simply looking for something better.

Anyway, if anyone can find a link to the actual study, please post.




 
Having violent tendencies is fine as long as you can control them; I personally want to hit everyone that gives me a funny face. dousn't mean I will; but if my nation asked me to kill for it's survival I'm sure those tendencies would be very usefull and in fact sought after by these psuedo intellectuals who conducted this survey.
 
recceguy said:
I'd like to see a copy of the questionnaire. Was anyone here involved with this or saw it? It would be interesting to see the phraseology used. As most everyone knows, many pollsters pose their questions a certain way in order to achieve the preconceived results they want. I really don't care much what the results of this one are, I'm more concerned about the agenda it's going to push. It's setting the stage for a real Us vs Them type scenario. Anglo vs Franco, male vs female, East vs West and combat vs secondary roles, etc. What's the agenda? Anyone?

That was exactly my first reaction.Not to mention this was based on a 26% return rate or something like that.It also did not specify the age or time in the military of the people that responded, or trades.Stupid stupid waste of money and time.

All you can really conclude from this is that members of the CF tend to be more violent than the average person.Really? Who would have thought people involved in an armed military would be the least bit violent? And here I was all this time thinking the CF was just a branch of green peace.Thank god for these helpful surveyers, im so much more informed now.
 
Hmmmm......I thought that the military folks were supposed to be more inclined towards violence so that the normal, politically correct citizens could be free to cultivate their cabbages and tend to their butterfly collections; sipping tea and eating biscuits without having to worry about the more "primitive" pursuits. Guess I was wrong....pity. ???

Peter :salute:
 
I can't fathom the reasoning as to why this study was conducted, (maybe Lloyd Axworthy and his softpower friends are behind it). I also have to question the timing these articles were released (just after the federal budget was approved) It's as if the leftwing media's saying "We know you kitten killing bastards are getting all this new money for army toys..just letting you know we're watching." Am I being too paranoid?
 
With soldiers like these, who needs enemies?;
Young <Canadians> interested in joining the military tend to lack life goals, feel alienated and accept violence to achieve ends? i get that way all the time? how about you?

The <army>, expected to take on a greater role in peacemaking and disaster relief, is likely to get the bulk of the new recruits under new government policy. is this a pat on the back?

They tend to pursue happiness before duty, give personal life priority over work, and in ethical dilemmas tend to favour personal interests. OK you got me i take happiness over duty and i bet the people who work at IBM think the same way!!!!!

While the report suggests attitudes "mellow" with age!!! Really hmm let me see i am old but my attitude has not mellowed yet so at what age really??

"They also tend to consider national superiority to be important and to see themselves as superior to foreigners," says the report. "These attitudes and values may, at times, result in conflict with <Canadian> values as expressed in the <Canadian> Charter of Rights and Freedoms."  But we are my god what are they thinking we would have it no other way.

I would really like to now the troops that took part in the survey and we should give that same survey to the people that came up with the survey and see how they fare in the survey, but i guess we will always have people out there that will slam the CF in anyway they can. so i tell them to keep up the good work and then they can go clean the snow in GTA or fight the floods in Winnipeg and all other stuff the CF has and still is doing!!!!!
 
This raises as many questions as it answers.

The first article seems to look at CF applicants and CF members across all arms (air, land, and sea).  However, the second article sounds as though it was focused only on Army units.  Is there any difference in trends between the three arms?  Is there a difference between MOCs?

How do â Å“young Canadians interested in joining the militaryâ ? compare to young Canadians with no interest in joining the military?  How do those applicants compare to new privates fresh out of battle school? (That would be an excellent barometer of how well we inculcate the military culture & ethos into our newest members)

Under what conditions did respondents find it acceptable to use violence to achieve ends?  (and who's ends?)
 
A quick scan of the draft X-grunt has posted suggests, as usual, that the articles are more indicative of media slant - and the desire to create headlines and sell news.

The Report itself seems much more balanced, just pointing out differences, not determining who is "better".

Need to see where this goes from here.

 
Agreed, Kirkhill. A very quick scan indicates the media article is quite slanted. I guess there is no surprise there, eh?

Actually, I'm interested in reading the report more closely, some interesting info in there.

Anyone know how to contact CP? I think this article deserves a response.
 
x-grunt:

That's where I'd seen it!  Thanks for posting the link...

Cheers,

TR
 
Back
Top