I Knew Chelsea Manning in Basic Training. Here’s the Story You Haven’t Heard(huwieler.net)
huwieler.net
I Knew Chelsea Manning in Basic Training. Here’s the Story You Haven’t Heard
https://huwieler.net/2017/01/18/chelsea-manning-in-basic-combat-training/
54 コメント
Serious question: is it a fairly accurate perception that if someone can't hack it in basic they will _never_ be able to make it as a soldier? I'd like to think that Manning had the potential to become better, though I'm not really familiar with her career outside of the leak.
I don't know, luckily I nerver had to work as a soldier.
But I read some stories about soldiers getting medals for progarmming stuff, when they were deployed somewhere. So it seems the stuff you learn in basic training doesn't necessarily determine the value you got for the army you serve for.
But I read some stories about soldiers getting medals for progarmming stuff, when they were deployed somewhere. So it seems the stuff you learn in basic training doesn't necessarily determine the value you got for the army you serve for.
As a veteran, I can say that Basic really doesn't prepare you for much other than the rudiments of military life.
Heck when I went through a couple of decades ago we were still shouting anti-communist slurs while we practiced with bayonets.
Heck when I went through a couple of decades ago we were still shouting anti-communist slurs while we practiced with bayonets.
This type of article amounts to “ad hominem attack”. Whether or not any of this is true does not matter when fairly judging the actions of the same person.
In other words, forget what you know about the person and consider only what they did.
In other words, forget what you know about the person and consider only what they did.
The article's intent is to address the picture that was painted, for how she was treated. The author is saying that she came in, repeatedly quit and put herself at odds with the team. Being a non conformist has no place in boot camp. According to the author, she was not mistreated or characterized there, rather, she was encouraged to try and to be one of the team.
> Being a non conformist has no place in boot camp.
That's not necessarily a good thing.
The most effective soldiers are actually quite good at figuring out how to counter the system.
In addition, soldiers are given quite clear orders about things like the Geneva Convention and they are supposed to disobey orders that contradict them.
That's not necessarily a good thing.
The most effective soldiers are actually quite good at figuring out how to counter the system.
In addition, soldiers are given quite clear orders about things like the Geneva Convention and they are supposed to disobey orders that contradict them.
This is how it works, a unit works because you know with as much certainty as one can have how some one would act and react to every situation.
Soldiers have to be predictable and interchangeable otherwise the entire structure falls apart, this isn't some hollywood action movie.
Yes (predictive) initiative is encouraged and rewarded but what Manning did according to the article and the behaviour shown during boot camp was not intuitive for the lack of a better word manning acted like a brat.
Now this isn't a personal attack, not everyone can fit into the military, not everyone can be made to fit through boot camp, but honestly if the first thing you do is effectively stomp your feet on the ground and say nope (the bag thing during initial induction) doesn't really bode well.
People like manning used to get a "blanket part", not the prison one where you actually get covered by a blanket and beaten half to death but things like shoe polish in your boots and other stuff was pretty common hazing for anyone who thought they were a special snowflake.
Most militaries work on unit cohesion which means if 1 fails everyone fails, sometimes a single infraction is enough for the entire unit, squad or troop to get punished (e.g. mess duty, extra PT, weekend passes revoked etc.).
Additionally when a unit is assigned tasks the task is assigned with mind that everyone is not only going to give 100% but effectively 110%, anyone who doesn't effectively makes everyone else work harder to pick up the slack for them because they don't want to get punished for someone else's mistakes.
Yes it may suck, but there is no way around it, acting like a brat doesn't work in the military and don't expect your fellow soldiers not to show their "dissatisfaction" in various ways with your behaviour.
I think the best question is why wasn't manning booted out in the first place.
Soldiers have to be predictable and interchangeable otherwise the entire structure falls apart, this isn't some hollywood action movie.
Yes (predictive) initiative is encouraged and rewarded but what Manning did according to the article and the behaviour shown during boot camp was not intuitive for the lack of a better word manning acted like a brat.
Now this isn't a personal attack, not everyone can fit into the military, not everyone can be made to fit through boot camp, but honestly if the first thing you do is effectively stomp your feet on the ground and say nope (the bag thing during initial induction) doesn't really bode well.
People like manning used to get a "blanket part", not the prison one where you actually get covered by a blanket and beaten half to death but things like shoe polish in your boots and other stuff was pretty common hazing for anyone who thought they were a special snowflake.
Most militaries work on unit cohesion which means if 1 fails everyone fails, sometimes a single infraction is enough for the entire unit, squad or troop to get punished (e.g. mess duty, extra PT, weekend passes revoked etc.).
Additionally when a unit is assigned tasks the task is assigned with mind that everyone is not only going to give 100% but effectively 110%, anyone who doesn't effectively makes everyone else work harder to pick up the slack for them because they don't want to get punished for someone else's mistakes.
Yes it may suck, but there is no way around it, acting like a brat doesn't work in the military and don't expect your fellow soldiers not to show their "dissatisfaction" in various ways with your behaviour.
I think the best question is why wasn't manning booted out in the first place.
Said as a true non conformist.
Nothing wrong w/ that to conform is to become in essence just a cog in the machine, there's no value to conformity, it takes away one's humanity... as I work each day to conform to the coding standards of psr2, and that our dev team has -- lol but that's more for aesthetics and organiztion than just the sake of demanding conformity for the sake of control.
This article is about things Manning had done before, and may help someone understand the disclosure to Wikileaks in the context of the individual's other actions.
Do you think the leak should be judged in isolation? It seems very difficult to judge any one act in isolation, as one cannot interpret whether the action was motivated by justice, loyalty, attention-seeking, or other motives.
Do you think the leak should be judged in isolation? It seems very difficult to judge any one act in isolation, as one cannot interpret whether the action was motivated by justice, loyalty, attention-seeking, or other motives.
Manning has described the experience she had in the military; this article provides a counterpoint.
> forget what you know about the person
We know very little about Manning. We know about the leaks. Everything else we know is mostly autobiographical. (For instance, the suicide attempts were reported by Chelsea to the media)
> forget what you know about the person
We know very little about Manning. We know about the leaks. Everything else we know is mostly autobiographical. (For instance, the suicide attempts were reported by Chelsea to the media)
For the sake of an argument, yes. However, Manning has a played very significant role in history and to fully understand that role we must understand the person, and why that person in particular chose to do what so many others in that same place did not.
However, if this assessment is correct, then I am surprised Manning even made PFC. Thats the story I would like to hear.
However, if this assessment is correct, then I am surprised Manning even made PFC. Thats the story I would like to hear.
Sorry, but in the long run I manning didn't play an important role in history, besides a few activists and now the media no one really remembers him or the leaks.
One can even say that Snowden is irrelevant in the long run, he only pops up once in a while.
There was not major political or social fallout following manning. Same goes for Snowden, the NSA is still there with more power than ever, more and more countries developing similar capabilities and no one seem to really care.
One can even say that Snowden is irrelevant in the long run, he only pops up once in a while.
There was not major political or social fallout following manning. Same goes for Snowden, the NSA is still there with more power than ever, more and more countries developing similar capabilities and no one seem to really care.
>There was not major political or social fallout following manning. Same goes for Snowden, the NSA is still there with more power than ever, more and more countries developing similar capabilities and no one seem to really care.
Just because something extraordinary happens and nothing changes doesn't mean it didn't become history; it's precisely the kind of history of the time we are in. Things dont change because the world has been artifically crafted to be perceived as a stable system.
If you haven't seen Adam Curtis' documentaries, I highly recommend them. Particularly HyperNormalization.
Just because something extraordinary happens and nothing changes doesn't mean it didn't become history; it's precisely the kind of history of the time we are in. Things dont change because the world has been artifically crafted to be perceived as a stable system.
If you haven't seen Adam Curtis' documentaries, I highly recommend them. Particularly HyperNormalization.
The fact that something is recorded in history doesn't make it a historic event.
I can guarantee you that more people know that Kim Kardashian was robbed at gunpoint in London than what Manning did.
From the article:
>Manning altered not only the way we think about information security, authentication and confidentiality, but also about the grave damage posed by the insider threat.
So it was a historic event to the military, and we still don't know how the repercussions of this will eventually play out. History isn't what people know about, it's what happens. I doubt you know about how an obscure British psychologist crippled the American psychological profession with doubt which had a major role in ushering in global neoliberalism, but it happened, and it affected nearly everybody.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment
>Manning altered not only the way we think about information security, authentication and confidentiality, but also about the grave damage posed by the insider threat.
So it was a historic event to the military, and we still don't know how the repercussions of this will eventually play out. History isn't what people know about, it's what happens. I doubt you know about how an obscure British psychologist crippled the American psychological profession with doubt which had a major role in ushering in global neoliberalism, but it happened, and it affected nearly everybody.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment
That's not how justice works.
To name just one example, repeat offenders are always punished more harshly than first-timers, and yet the fact that they did something in the past doesn't change the act for which they are judged in any way; but (rightly or wrongly) the justice system thinks it illustrates who they are.
It's always a person who is judged.
To name just one example, repeat offenders are always punished more harshly than first-timers, and yet the fact that they did something in the past doesn't change the act for which they are judged in any way; but (rightly or wrongly) the justice system thinks it illustrates who they are.
It's always a person who is judged.
The arguments in this open as to why we shouldn't like Chelsea Manning was that she misunderstood social cues, didn't respond well eating a whole meal within 2 minutes and 45 seconds, and complained she couldn't do it about a few of the idiotic exercises you are asked to do.
Yeah no shit... military training is ridiculous. I think a lot of us have enough sense to not ever join.
Yeah no shit... military training is ridiculous. I think a lot of us have enough sense to not ever join.
I recommend reading the entire thing. The article is not trying to pitch the audience against Manning, just that the currently popular image of Manning is incomplete.
I don't care what the image is of Manning, that's no excuse to treat her like the US military did.
We are human beings (or so we like to believe), not savages.
We are human beings (or so we like to believe), not savages.
What is the US military accused of doing?
Outrageous amounts of solitary confinement.
Yes sir, given the sharp picture this article paints her actions in leaking while in boot camp was just another example of someone refusing to get with the program. Either that or the two things don't really have much to do with each other...
I find it weird, the implication in the article is of a weak person.
So, she leaked classified material and went to prison because she was weak, which sure is a narrative alright. I bet the author of the piece is mentally, morally and physically strong enough to never leak classified material, destroy their life and suffer greatly for doing something that has no appreciable benefit to them.
So the logic goes like this: Manning was different, therefore Manning was weak, Manning did something the author and other people at boot camp wouldn't therefore Manning is still different therefore still weak. Weak, weak, weak not strong like the author and other soldiers who cohere together to value commitment and loyalty, manly non-weak virtues that weakling Manning could never know.
Anyway, really it seems a little unlikely given this description of Manning as a soldier that she would ever have gotten through basic. So I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few lies sprucing up the main point of the article, which main point being that Manning is weak and we should feel a sort of moral disgust about that condition of weakness.
ah well, the writing was just awful. Maybe that's why I ascribe an awful world view to it.
I find it weird, the implication in the article is of a weak person.
So, she leaked classified material and went to prison because she was weak, which sure is a narrative alright. I bet the author of the piece is mentally, morally and physically strong enough to never leak classified material, destroy their life and suffer greatly for doing something that has no appreciable benefit to them.
So the logic goes like this: Manning was different, therefore Manning was weak, Manning did something the author and other people at boot camp wouldn't therefore Manning is still different therefore still weak. Weak, weak, weak not strong like the author and other soldiers who cohere together to value commitment and loyalty, manly non-weak virtues that weakling Manning could never know.
Anyway, really it seems a little unlikely given this description of Manning as a soldier that she would ever have gotten through basic. So I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few lies sprucing up the main point of the article, which main point being that Manning is weak and we should feel a sort of moral disgust about that condition of weakness.
ah well, the writing was just awful. Maybe that's why I ascribe an awful world view to it.
just in case anyone is confused - the statement about leaking in bootcamp is sarcasm, since I think - well it really seems the narrative is of someone who wouldn't have made it through bootcamp to a place where they could end up leaking classified intel and anyway I'm one of those who think the actions in the two places do not have as strong a thematic article as the author implies... so I don't really believe the story as told.
I don't understand everyone picking on military training practices. They don't do that for fun or to humiliate you, they do it to prepare you for combat. You sign up for that when you join the military.
I just don't understand why even a single person on earth would voluntarily want to join this torture, or why she didn't quit. I would have quit after 2 minutes.
Torture? Sounds like high school wrestling practice.
That's just you. And to be honest, I seriously questioned why I was there about a week or so into the whole affair.
Some people really find they are good at that stuff. Others have no real options (I met both). Most are somewhere between that and where you are.
Some people really find they are good at that stuff. Others have no real options (I met both). Most are somewhere between that and where you are.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
So, if she had all of these problems in training, why didn't she wash out?
I had the same question. Toward the end, the article mentions that the military was starved for recruits and the standards relaxed a little. Maybe eventually she passed at a minimal bar and they needed bodies so she made it through.
I think the article paints a picture of someone who didn't fit in, and who just wasn't in a mental space compatible with the military. Nothing wrong with that, but probably shouldn't be a soldier. I'm sure her experiences all contributed to her taking the extraordinary step of leaking all this information. Human behavior is complicated, I think it would be best not to demonize her despite what I believe to be a mixed record on the outcomes of the leak.
I think the article paints a picture of someone who didn't fit in, and who just wasn't in a mental space compatible with the military. Nothing wrong with that, but probably shouldn't be a soldier. I'm sure her experiences all contributed to her taking the extraordinary step of leaking all this information. Human behavior is complicated, I think it would be best not to demonize her despite what I believe to be a mixed record on the outcomes of the leak.
He rails on her for the entire article as a quitter.
... But she didn't quit. Kinda diminishes his entire point for me.
... But she didn't quit. Kinda diminishes his entire point for me.
Reads like a classic co-dependent personality? Always trying to stand out by eliciting sympathy for weakness. "Poor me, I can't do this stuff". Even to the point of faking choking. Isn't there some psychiatric examination to detect this early on?
Sounds like she was a sane person in an insane environment
the military's duty is to prepare its soldiers for war, which isn't a particularly "sane environment". It seems logical to break down a recruit's sense of self and rebuild it in a manner that emphasizes the interests of the group over the individual. I'm shocked that the Army let someone with this kind of "me first" syndrome rise up the ranks high enough to be near sensitive material.
My other thoughts on the case are that her 37 year sentence was draconian, and the solitary and mind-tricks they played on her in prison were cruel and unusual. And that overall we are better off having the collateral murder video so the war can be seen for what it is. Not sure if there was any value in leaking the diplomatic cables, though.
My other thoughts on the case are that her 37 year sentence was draconian, and the solitary and mind-tricks they played on her in prison were cruel and unusual. And that overall we are better off having the collateral murder video so the war can be seen for what it is. Not sure if there was any value in leaking the diplomatic cables, though.
I was in the military (not in the States), and the environment was similar. It is what it is. At least in the States is not compulsory, I had no choice.
Impressive recall.
Well, you haven't to be a soldier to be a hero.
But what's the point of harping on it years later? I don't think anyone would be surprised that Manning was a 'bad soldier'.
Then there is a bunch totally unrelated stuff that happened much later, took a huge amount of courage, and led to arrest and imprisonment.