Originally posted by miko2d
About 10% of males fit the psychological profile of "the warrior" - meaning they feel OK about fighting. They are the guys who would aim and shoot as opposed to "earth-huggers" and "freezers". A small fraction of them are far enough on the phsychopathy scale that they would actually be looking for a fight.
miko
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I guess that's 10% of the general populace. I think that at least 90% of the males in the military fit the profile.
Originally posted by AKIron
Where are you getting this number? You pulling it off the top of yer head or outta the crack in yer ***?
I think I know what miko2d means and if I am correct I'd agree with him.
The guys I am talking about - who volunteered to get to Afghanistan A.S.A.P. and agreed to a ~2 year extension of their active duty commitment were all special operations guys. The reason for the 2 year extension was so they would be around to pass on lessons learned from very modern/recent combat experience by acting as instructors for various training programs in the special operations community. In other words, if they were going to form and send some 'task' units they wanted to make sure they were sending guys who would benefit the community with the experience they were certain to gain.
Once you get below the 'tier' of units that are all-volunteer and the most likely to see combat in some form or another (special operations and Ranger mainly) you are going to have a certain % of guys who are not 'eager' to get into combat (some would say this makes them more intelligent
). They volunteered or selected an infantry or armored unit, but their mindset at the time of their selection was not "I am doing this to see combat". I would say the mindset was more along the lines of "I am in a combat unit and am prepared to fight if we go to war". There is a difference between the two in a 'peacetime' or 'low intensity' environment. These guys are not lacking in bravery or professionalism in the least bit, but there is for certain a difference in 'agressiveness'.
Also the guys miko2d is referring to make up a % of the 'regular' infantry, etc. In almost every unit you are going to have guys that are 'hot for action', etc. But the bigger the unit and the less stringent the selection the more variation you will find in terms of 'agressiveness' (that's not the best term but it's the best one I could think of at the time).
When I use 'agressiveness' I don't mean 'agressiveness in combat'. A good way to put it - if you took an infantry company a certain small % of the guys in that company are going to volunteer every time patrols, etc. Those are the guys that I'm talking about when I say 'agressive'. Those are the type of guys that are most likely volunteer for Ranger school, etc.
Sandman if he meant 10% of the military he wouldn't be too far off. The vast majority of military personnel (excluding the USMC, which has a higher % of personnel in combat units than the other branches) are not in combat units. And even in combat units - barring the 'top tier' of units that are composed of personnel who volunteered for those units for a chance to see some type of combat - a certain % of the personnel in those units did not join up 'looking for combat'. That's why tactical and operational leadership is so important - a certain % of any non-'elite' combat unit is going to need an agressive leader to enable them to have an effect on the battlefield.
Mike/wulfie
