A Few Good Men: Is COL Jessup right?

[AndrewR]

I just watched that movie again last night (on TBS), and something dawned on me since I've been reading the history of the 45th Infantry Division (the Thunderbirds) in World War II and have recently seen The History Channel's comparison of the real life of Patton versus the movie portrayal with George C. Scott.

Anyway, was COL Jessup (Jack Nicholson) correct in his actions and in his testimony? Are "Codes Red" (the proper plural, even if it sounds funny!) necessary for the strict discipline and effective cohesion of a military unit in a hostile environment (or one that could be placed in such an area)?

Obviously, gross violations of the law and obvious cruelty still need to be policed, but is the very idea of a "Code Red" so abhorrent and not in keeping with the needs of the military? We had some guys subjected to "blanket parties" in my first year at VMI because they were such fvck-ups that they needed to be sent a message (we never had one in my company, however).

It comes down the needs of peacetime versus the needs of wartime. I have seen it mentioned before that Patton would not have lasted long in today's military and when you look at his actions in WWII, it should make you pause about the wisdom of excluding a combat commander of that caliber. Viewed in that light, we do need commanders like COL Jessup "on that wall", as he says.

PVT Santiago's death was not truly caused by the Code Red -- it was caused by his heart condition. Since it was undiagnosed, it is conceivable that he would have died anyway during the course of rigorous military training. The Code Red could be considered part of that training, albeit an unauthorized one (though hardly an unpracticed one).

Thoughts?

 

[unxpurg8d]

I put the Code Red mentality right up there with the idiots that beat my son. If someone is incapable of performing to standard in the military a beating isn't going to change that. That's sheer idiocy. A good leader should know whether a troop is screwing up because of an inability to perform or a lack of desire to perform. If it's inability then no amount of beating in the world is going to change that. If it's lack of desire do you really think FEAR is a great motivator? Do you want a man behind you with a loaded weapon in battle who was beaten by you into conforming? That's not the guy I want to trust with my life.

Simply put: No, I don't think Codes Red solve one damn thing. It's another excuse for mindless cruelty and used as a form of sick bonding to unite the ones actually doing it, not as a form of discipline. It's been my experience that the person beaten usually is transferred, chaptered, or finds a way out of the military - sometimes by suicide. Yeah, THAT solved a lot, didn't it?

 

[classy]

unxpurg8d I agree with you. To beat a person who is unable to do the task asked of him is foolish. Col. Jessup was a self righteous fool. He was suppose to be a leader not a tyrant. Something similar was done in Full Metal Jacket and the kid eventually went crazy. While I agree only the strongest of the strong should be defending our country, to beat a person to try to get them to conform is senseless.

 

[guyver01]

If you watched the movie and thought Code Red was acceptable, then you missed the point. As someone else mentioned, Full Metal Jacket also has a good example of how unacceptable it is. All it does is cause more pain and regret. And believe me, if i was subject to a Code Red, then yes I would try to shape up, but the first second i get a loaded weapon in my hands, you are all going to pay for what you did to me.
The person who is subject to the code red is probably feeling bad because he's not doing well, and attempting to fit in as is..... by subjecting him to a beating like that, you're just reinforcing his beliefs that he's not good enough. Do you have any idea what that does to a persons psyche? That makes them more introverted than before. So you accomplished NOTHING!

Let's liken this to something that happens in every day life.
A child acts up in a store. The parent then disciplines the child by slapping them. Does this child become all happy and a polite person now? NO! Just the opposite. The child starts screaming and becomes worse than before. Is that what you wanted to accomplish? I don't think so.

While i am all for discipline, especially in the military, there is no need for that kind of behavior anywhere.

 

[XMan]

I agree and disagree. There is no place for Code Reds in the military - if somebody isn't doing their job, they get transferred to a different job or dishonorably discharged. The military isn't like corporate America, where idiots like the ones Windogg works with keep their jobs for some unknown reason. If somebody screws up, it's usually a fatal mistake. So screwups get transferred to jobs where if they screw up it won't be a big deal - admin, etc.

Gotta disagree with you about FMJ, Classy. Nowhere in there did the DI or any of the instructors beat up "Private Pyle." He was socked by his own squadmates for not being able to carry his load. My dad made it to Lance Corporal in the Marines, and according to him, everything in the boot portion of FMJ was realistic (he was in during the same time period) except that anybody who couldn't keep up with the rest of the squad would have been dropped to a squad made up of drops from all other squads. If he couldn't cut it there, he would have been washed out. So basically, the guy (Vincent D'onofrio) would have been out of boot and back home before he had an opportunity to go Looney Tunes.

 

[vi edit]

That's wierd. The g/f and I watched this movie last night...but not on cable(don't have it), but on VHS tape.

Anyway. There are things that can be fixed through "training" and there are things that will never be fixed. Dropping your gun durning a drill or having a messy barraks are "trainable" issues. Someone who cannot physically keep up with the group and even has a medical admission of difficulties IS NOT "trainable".

I felt that one of the most important parts of that movies trial rested on the doctor's testimony. It was when they talked about the coronary problems that could lead to death. I personally believe that the doctor was lying to save face. Tom Cruise had him by the balls. That kid should not have been kept in that unit.

I have never been in the military. I wanted to be, but I couldn't. Reason: medical liability. I only have one kidney. I played football for 4 years, and ran Cross Country and track for 4. I ran around a 5:00 minute mile. I could bench my weight + 20 pounds 5 times in a row. They still wouldn't let me in.

Now, if I couldn't even get into the Air Force with this condition, then there is no way in hell that a kid with these problems should have been allowed into the Marines. He is a liability to himself and to his unit. It was a blatant error on the Col's part to not transfer him out.

 

[Rogue]

Blanket party or not, those people have a way of sifting themselves out anyhow. When I went through basic training at Ft. McClellan, AL in '95/'96, we had quite a few guys who just couldn't hack it. Yeah, we gave them a hard time and called them all sorts of names, but they ended up finding their own way out. Some of them would lay in bed bawling at night, keeping us awake when sleep was limited and hard to come by, but they always managed to meet up with someone else who was getting out with "medical conditions" and they did the same. Do I condone the beating of another soldier who just can't hack it in a training environment, no. Do I think that a soldier in a combat environment where lives are on the line daily needs some stiff "corrective action" from time to time, yes. If a soldier on the front lines is lacking in discipline and has a piss-poor attitude toward their job, they are a security risk to everyone. So you see, you can't really compare the sequences in FMJ to those in AFGM.

 

[AndrewR]

<< If it's lack of desire do you really think FEAR is a great motivator? >>


Not to be blunt, but you've obviously never been in a military training environment. [edit]Obviously, I was wrong! [/edit]Fear is an excellent motivator -- fear of failure, fear of death. Fear is a constant companion to someone in combat because only the foolhardy feels no fear. Fear keeps one ALIVE by keeping one on alert. Obviously, I can only speak secondhand about fear in combat, but I think I have read enough first hand accounts to address the subject to an extent.

The point of a Code Red, or a &quot;blanket party&quot; like what happened in FMJ (which is what happened at my school on at least four occasions -- twice to the same guy) is that there is a message being sent to the recipient which cannot be sent through official channels. Shape up or ship out. When you are in a group situation where your actions impact what happens to the group, the group WILL react if you are constantly causing extra work with your screw ups. It's not necessarily a question of being incapable of performing to standards but rather one of being lackadaisical in performing to those standards.

Of the cases I remember from school, one guy didn't come back after Christmas. A second guy shaped up considerably and became an effective cadet. The guy who received two remained a complete fvck up and was never accepted as a member of our class. He ended up rooming with underclassmen when we were in our third year and never came back to graduate.

Anyway, my main point seems to have been lost. The needs of the combat soldier, and leader, are different from those of everyone else. The combat unit must efficiently and effectively kill the enemy while minimizing casualties to itself or preventing certain things from happening or causing certain things to occur. Now, someone who is in such a unit and CAN effectively contribute but who is not responding to official suggestions to improve MIGHT respond to his peers' &quot;suggestion&quot; for improvement without causing official stain on the person's record and while keeping that troop as part of the unit already formed.

COL Jessup's point in his testimony was that the guy who mans the wall is very different from someone who does not simply because it takes a different mentality to be in a job where killing is part of the description. A commander like COL Jessup demands unflinching loyalty and obedience because he needs to know that if he orders a squad to a specific objective, they won't question his authority and possibly endanger the lives of others depending on that objective being taken.

Obviously, on a basic &quot;humanity&quot; level, the idea of a Code Red is repulsive, but as COL Jessup says, the very idea of him is repugnant. However, when you think about it, the mission of the military is repugnant -- they kill people with extreme prejudice and are VERY effective at it. Does the repugnancy of that job entail necessarily repugnant training or methods?

guyver: You misunderstand the message of a Code Red, and you also misunderstand the mentality of those in a military unit. The message is simply this: &quot;You have screwed up consistently, and we (the unit) are tired of it. You are being punished for your mistakes, but you are still a part of the unit and can redeem yourself in the future.&quot; It is a punishment and a warning, but it does not preclude acceptance or inclusion. The military is not a feel-good, positive reinforcement place. It trains on a negative reinforcement basis -- you screw up, and you will be called on it. You perform to expectations, and it is accepted. The reason is simple -- when you screw up in combat, people die. If you do your job, then it's just that -- you've done your job as you were trained and as you were asked to do. The tolerance for mistakes is small because the results of mistakes are counted in body bags.

Xerox: The only problem with your father's assessment is that while he was initially truly a screw up, he DID shape up after the blanket party and became &quot;locked on&quot;. Yes, he was a little bit intense as well, but that could easily have been mistakenly attributed to his &quot;rebirth&quot; as a Marine recruit who cared. So, if the DI truly wanted him to improve and didn't want to send him to a &quot;failure platoon&quot;, he could have ridden him a little longer up until the blanket party happened. After that, he was no longer such a problem.

 

[vi edit]

Andrew, what conditions must one meet to be able to remove themselves from a unit? The kid knew he had problems and wanted out. He wrote several letters expressing this. Was there anything legally or by protocol stopping him from just packing up and walking off?

 

[Aceman]

And Rogue has stated the difference between the &quot;Army of the 90s&quot; and the &quot;Army be the 80s and before&quot;.

Do I believe in the &quot;Code Red&quot; concept. On the record, no. Off the record, YES. I have no problems with this concept. It is a vital part in teaching discipline.

I've been in the Army for 15 years now. Today's basic training absolutely sickens me. The soldiers I get from Basic and then AIT now are some of the most undiciplined and rude soldiers I have ever had to deal with. They are soft. This life isn't Club Med, this life isn't a &quot;doing my own thing&quot;. This is the military! When people screw up in this job, they get killed or kill someone else.

 

[Rogue]

Aceman, you and I should meet sometime. I may be considered a &quot;new soldier&quot; having been in only 6 years now in the Army Reserve, but my father did 20 years. I remember him coming home and talking about how Private Snuffy f*cked up again today and they had to go out behind the motor pool and have a &quot;talk&quot;. Private Snuffy came to look up to soldiers who implemented &quot;corrective actions&quot; on them because they understood that it was unacceptable. It pisses me off to see how soldiers are today because I can compare them right back to when dad was in. Most combat units are still pretty rigid, but the pencil whipping weenies in most units today are pricks. I am an MP and you'd be surprised by the amount of disrespect we get as is, much less from undisciplined, untrained soldiers with a chip on their shoulder.

 

[perry]

Didn't Col Jessup order the code red? I think that's where there was a breakdown in a system. He should not have gotten involved, he should have let his troops figure out that there was a problem within their unit and let them decide to perform the Code Red on their own. He's really messing with unit chohesion by jumping down the chain. The squad should act as one, not one plus a man with god like powers.

I did ROTC for a year and a half before I realized a couple of things. The main being that my class had no idea how to act as a unit. I, personally, told a couple cadets that they needed to shape up but it had no effect. The main thing they needed to shape up was their uniform, since we only had class two days a week. There's not much else to worry about in ROTC. They'd come with their shoes unshined, shirts hanging loose, hair around the ears, not clean shaven, etc. By them looking bad, they made the whole detachment look bad. There were a few of us that felt the same way but being on a 'normal' college campus there wasn't much we could do except talk to the kids on drill day and hope to finally break through to them. Our flight commander was slack and would let them get away with it, which just compounded the problem.

Codes Red may sound cruel to the general population, but putting a sub-par soldier out on the line will end up, best case, with one dead soldier and possibly more. People get killed when there are mistakes in the military, people merely get fired when they screw up at the office. Should the problem be taken care of before combat (i.e. Codes Red), or should the sub-par soldier be allowed to the front line? I'd rather a few Codes Red take place than have a Chaplin knocking on my door telling me that a loved one was killed in action.

 

[AaronP]

&quot;Didn't Col Jessup order the code red?&quot;
---

You're godda*m right he did!

 

[unxpurg8d]

AndrewR, maybe you should do a little thinking from a TROOP standpoint, not an officer's. There is a vast difference in the military experience each has.

To quote you:

&quot;Not to be blunt, but you've obviously never been in a military training environment. Fear is an excellent motivator -- fear of failure, fear of death. Fear is a constant companion to someone in combat because only the foolhardy feels no fear. Fear keeps one ALIVE by keeping one on alert. Obviously, I can only speak secondhand about fear in combat, but I think I have read enough first hand accounts to address the subject.&quot;


Obviously, huh? Interesting that you think it's obvious. I spent 6 years in the Army Reserve and another 5 on active duty - three with the 118th M.P. Company (Airborne) while stationed at Ft. Bragg, NC. We did a six month trip through Panama in '88, during which time our unit did jungle patrol with Infantry troops, held the gates during rioting, and other fun stuff - which included being fired upon. I feel comfortable in stating that I do NOT want someone armed in combat with me that was beaten into living up to a standard. Fear may be a great motivator, but so is revenge.





EDIT: Btw, I've noticed that quite a few of your threads are related to the military - would you mind if I asked what your military background is? I know that you went through VMI, but that's about all. This isn't an argumentative question - I'm female and therefore capable of arguing all day long based on absolutely nothing... just curious.

 

[AndrewR]

I stand corrected. I must say that your restraint in your latest trouble is even more impressive with that information.

I think you are misunderstanding the purpose the &quot;blanket party&quot; as well (and similar actions -- at least as I see them). See above for a better description. I would suggest that it loses its effectiveness if overused, and constantly battering someone to keep them in line obviously (there's that word again!) points to a problem. The effectiveness is in the SHOCK of realizing that those who are your peers ALSO think you need to shape up. Once the action is repeated, it becomes abuse and loses its worth as a tool. I agree with you that someone who is beaten into submission is not the person you want with you on duty. However, I'm not talking about extremes here though some would argue that the mere concept of a blanket party is extreme.

I think part of the problem comes from a perception that these blanket parties are commonplace and used with wild abandon for such infractions as dropping your rifle (from the movie). While it was effective according to that Marine (Noah Wiley -- I had forgotten that he was in there), I am not really referring to something so trivial. As I said, there were three guys that I knew about who received blanket parties during our Rat Year -- out of 410 or so who started the year. They were not meted out without justification, and the guys who received them were &quot;sad sacks&quot; who were not performing anywhere near the expectations. The biggest failure was not failure itself but the lack of effort. If someone was making mistakes but earnestly trying to correct themselves, the cadre knew it and at least gave them credit for that. If someone did not try at all and never responded to punishment by the cadre, the cadre took out their frustration on the rest of the company. The rest of the company then made the message clear to their &quot;problem child&quot; as a last resort. I know of other times when the cadre did encourage a blanket party, much as in the same manner as with the Code Red from the movie.

The INTENT of the blanket party is not to beat someone for the sake of beating them. The intent is to push them back into line, and to make them want to achieve more than they were. If they are pushed into a revenge mindset, then the &quot;corrective action&quot; failed. Is that a possibility with these kinds of actions? Maybe. However, I would argue that people who respond in such a manner, or by committing suicide, are unstable to begin with and not as a result of the blanket party. It's much the same as in the movie -- the Code Red set off the heart condition but was not the CAUSE of it. Who is to say that the &quot;break&quot; they experience from the blanket party would not have occurred in the midst of combat? From that viewpoint, the worth of the method is even greater.

Stationed at Ft. Bragg? Please accept my condolences. Briefly, I went through VMI and then through a six week ROTC program at Tyndall AFB in Ft. Walton Beach (no fun in the sun -- actually the sun was quite brutal; it was a cakewalk compared to VMI though). I was then commissioned into the Air Force. Active duty time logged at No Hope Pope for 90 days. Soon to return to active duty in all likelihood as an intel officer and then possibly into JAG. I've also probably read the majority of war books in the various schools I've attended and have actively delved into military history since I was about eight.

 

[glenn1]

well, i don't know how closely the situation in the movie resembled a real-life situation, or the way that things get done in the Marines. I can tell you that i served in the Army for 10 years, about half that time in a Special Forces unit, so i don't know if my experience represents the norm either (as compared to, say, a line infantry company). I do have experience working with the nice folks in 75th Ranger Regiment, and i know that &quot;dynamic&quot; or &quot;wall-to-wall counseling&quot; (the term i've heard used for what the movie calls a &quot;code red&quot is perhaps a more common practice there.

I can say that my experience is that for simple discipline matters (or matters of proficiency), i don't see where it would be a great management technique. I won't go so far as to say that i've NEVER seen it being used though. If the situation from the movie arose, where a soldier was struggling in physical training, for example, we'd simply run him that much longer and farther, until he showed improvement. If he still wasn't able to meet requirements, we'd send him to another job with lesser physical requirements. Pounding someone who's making an honest effort doesn't help much, at least that was the philosophy in my unit.

I can think of two occasions in my unit where 'code red' type situations did (allegedly) arise.... both times, the incident report went something like, &quot;Private Snuffy fell down the staircase and was admitted to the base hospital for treatment.&quot; In one case, what precipitated the unfortunate incident was a soldier who had beaten his wife once too often (after receiving psychological treatment and such), and in the other case, a soldier who molested a young child (7 years old i believe) during an overseas deployment. In both cases, the powers that be chose not to launch investigations.... but i don't think that means that they tacitly condoned what might have occured. I hold it to simply mean that the word of a man caught red handed doing something so very heinous, was held to be of lesser truthfulness and trustworthiness following the incident. That hindered that soldier's believability, when he made allegations that he was aided in falling down the stairs - repeatedly. Although i was not involved in either incident, either directly or indirectly, I take no side in the issue, and leave it for God to judge.

 

[Hamburgerpimp]

Well, I would tell you the truth, but, &quot;You can't handle the truth.&quot;

 

[Semper Fi]

Good question.

I imagine most people here will disagree. In the military, especially in a branch like the USMC, discipline is vital. Every marine is first a rifleman and second whatever MOS they have been assigned. Sometimes it is necessary for an individual to &quot;fall&quot; down to learn if all other means have failed. The example of the movie did not warrant such measures. Not wanting to be at a particular duty station is common. However, if a person's actions or lack of actions indanger other marines or their mission, then action MUST be taken. Enlisting in the USMC is voluntary. The Marines are a fighting force trained for combat. It is a very different world than civilian life. Marines have high standards, length and difficulty of boot camp and marine life is common knowledge. Marines hold each other to these standards. A good example of a Marine that requires a &quot;Code Red&quot; is the marine that got arrested in Okinawa for lifting an Okinawin's (sp) skirt and taking a picture. His conduct toward that little girl was disgraceful and damaging to her as well as to United States mission in Okinawa.

 

[Semper Fi]

Simply put: No, I don't think Codes Red solve one damn thing. It's another excuse for mindless cruelty and used as a form of sick bonding to unite the ones actually doing it, not as a form of discipline. It's been my experience that the person beaten usually is transferred, chaptered, or finds a way out of the military - sometimes by suicide. Yeah, THAT solved a lot, didn't it?

I disagree. (I do agree that suicide is not desirable) However, sometimes the sole purpose is to get someone to leave the unit.