Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

["Alan MacHett" <machett AT ibiblio.org>]

point ... match.

When I was in Military Intelligence (no jokes please, they're not original
anymore ... and the problem in MI is the same problem the entire military
has -- the officers) the only type of units I worked with were Special
Ops, and the only books or manuals I've read on strategy or tactis mention
wounding rather than killing.  My opinion was obviously slanted.  But
you're absolutely right; what's taught to every basic soldier is to aim
center mass and "Kill! Kill!! KILL!!" (enter A. Guthrie again...)

--Alan

James Dasher said:
> You're right about the affect of injured soldiers on morale, mobility,
> and logistics.  Injuring, as opposed to killing, enemy soldiers is even
> included in the tactical doctrine taught at elite unite and warfare
> schools.
>
> I should've clarified that I was speaking of standard infantry tactics
> - what every soldier is taught at Basic, and has reinforced through
> field maneuvers and other unit training exercises.  Elite units are
> taught guerilla tactics (among assorted other useful things :), which
> emphasize the tactical benefits of, among other things, forcing troops
> on the move to deal with an injured comrade.  As an elite unit, Rangers
> learn such tactics.
>
> Standard military doctrine and theory, however, promotes killing rather
> than injuring.  Close air support pilots, for example, are taught to
> blow stuff up so that they can kill whoever's there.  Armored units are
> taught to blow stuff up - cars, tanks, railroad cars, and so forth - in
> the hopes of killing whoever's inside.
>
> Snipers and other specialized troops, whose military objectives
> generally involve the morale/mobility/logistics factor, certainly have
> the option to aim for an injurious, rather than fatal, wound.
> Advancing infantry, whose goal is to take and hold territory, benefit
> from an absence of enemy troops, whether wounded (and therefore, under
> Geneva, requiring medical attention from their captors) or not (and
> therefore, again under Geneva, requiring humane treatment).
>
> Cheers -
>