Calling all wannabe Middle East actors in Bavaria

Agree, but 90 bucks a day is very little to pay those guys for being put in such a situation. Shows you how desperate they are for money.

What situation? To be the equivalent of an extra in a film? I don't think it's that's shabby. They will likely get room and board on top of that. Remember, they are playing a role, it's not real. Yes, the Stanford experiment aside says different, but remember, it's not just good guys against bad guys here, it's supposed to be a village with all the life of it. Meaning perhaps there will be riots, but it will also be peaceful times and just the frustration of trying to get directions from someone who doesn't speak English will be tested.

Anybody that has studied some psychology knows that there are inherent risks in role play situations without proper external and disinterested supervision.

I don't think anybody on this thread has suggested there is some ulterior motive other than training for likely situations in Iraq. Although I suspect the use of civilians has as much to do with an overstretched US military than anything else.

It's not just being part of a "film". It's being part of a social experiment for a couple of days, an experiment which probably will involve a lot of stress. An experiment which is aimed at bringing together people with vastly different backgrounds, giving half of them weapons and putting them in charge of the other half. €90 is very little for that.

@MajorBummer
The Yahoo! article said $130 a day, not $90.

EDIT: $130 a day, which works out to EUR100 is not bad, if you are already on benefits. Even minus the latter, EUR2100 for three weeks work is more than some people make in a month.

I'll ask my son for feedback. Might take a while seeing as he's in basic training in Kentucky, but he's the only person I know who is qualified to give inside information.
@ Jules, I'm glad I made you laugh, my good deed for the day is done.

$130, €90, it's money all the same.

It's not an "experiment", it's a mock situation. To prepare you for the real situation. It's not just "let's see what happens when we let these guys loose in a village". Of course there will be stress - that's half the purpose - to learn to deal with it in a controlled enviroment.

Experiement?..didn't the article say this has been done before, somewhere else...I don't know, could be training exercises like this are conducted routinely, porobably have been for years with no visiblity at all. Maybe, just maybe, this is nothing new it's just that nobody cared before.

The Sueddeutsche Zeitung says €90, like I said earlier I didn't read the Yahoo article. I wouldn't be doing it for €130 either.

You don't have to be a member to know that the US Army is desperate for recruits and as a result the selection criteria are not strictly applied. Everyone knows too that the Army is a way for many out of their miserable, hopeless backgrounds. That's fine for a conventional war, but those days are long gone. When the US will realise that, only God - if He truly does exist - will know. The British Army, on the other hand, is a professional army, which means the brain power of the average soldier is a lot higher than the average American soldier. That makes a huge difference in unconventional warfare where half the battle is won when you can win over the population rather than just run around blowing everyone apart as if it's a Cowboys and Indians game. Sure, you might say the British learnt from Northern Ireland. Just what then did America learn from Vietnam?


For you it may not be a lot of money, but for many others it is and they're grateful for the opportunity to earn it. Beats cleaning toilets anyday.

I wonder how authentic something like this would be, imagine the UK mocking up a town in the US for training in Northern Ireland populated by people of Irish decent.

There used to be a mock village in Hythe on the south coast for NI training. They used dummies with tape recorders that would swear at you in Belfast accents.

Oh that's irrelevant Exile, it's close enough to be realistic. Back in the day when I practiced lifeguarding drills, it would be a young healthy teen or 20-something, pretending to be unconscious on the bottom of the pool. Most times you will actually pluck someone out they will be either very old or very young. It didn't take away from the value of the practice.

I know, that's why I said I feel sorry for people who have to do something like that for €90. Besides, I have done some pretty shitty jobs already and for less money than that. But I wouldn't want to be part of such an experiment.

...and someone always proves the point..don't they Ulysses?

Yes it is irrelevant because it was meant to be a joke.

Ah, I didn't realise. Most of your other ones are funnier. Sorry, carry on.

Objective source that backs this statement up please?


An objective source that backs this one up too please, or can this be dismissed as the random generalization that it appears to be?


This is meaningless, the British armed forces like the US's are all-volunteer.


Really? You learn something new everyday...


Well... As the British have been "dabbling" in Irish affairs for several centuries, I would expect nothing less from them. Right now the internecine fighting in Iraq does not bear much resemblance to what was going on in Vietnam forty years ago.

This type of role playing is also routinely conducted as part of training dispensed to staff of humanitarian organisations (Doctors Without Borders, International Committee of the Red Cross, etc.) before they're sent abroad. It's also done during the selection process to see whether they're strong enough to cope with the stress of situations such as intimidation, armed attacks or hostage taking, so the enactment has to be quite realistic.

I must say I have no problem accepting such exercises in the above case. I think they're actually necessary in order to give adequate preparation to people who'll be putting their lives on the line trying to help others.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...ecruiting_x.htm

I think the biggest difference between British and American forces is doctrinal rather than the capabilities of the individual soldier. Also there have been reports of abuse of civilians by the British Army in Iraq as well.

I think the issue here is not the training or the need for it but the wisdom and necessity of including civilians in military training.

It is a good idea to use civilians in these training scenarios. A soldier used as a civilian role player is a soldier that can't participate in the training. Civilians have a different perspective and it shows when talking and interacting with them. Civilians can appear to be mind boggling stupid at times, they're not...they just have a different view of things. It's easier for a soldier to get his point across to another soldier, but the communication between soldiers and civilians can get complicated. It's a good idea and necessary for realism.

@Jack
You need to look at what standards they are lowering and by how much. For example, allowing 4% instead of 2% of recruits to have low aptitude test scores is still a very small figure. You're still getting 96% of recruits who are meeting requirements, at least as far as aptitude tests are concerned. Granted, you are lowering standards, however it's all relative.

@JW

So, if the British took several centuries to sort out Ireland, what made the management of America and it's Army think they would have Iraq sorted in a couple of months? Clearly, an MBA from Yale doesn't teach you much about strategic planning. Or perhaps teaching a monkey is a waste of time and money as much as trying to teach ill-educated soldiers how to deal with civilian combat situations like this exercise is trying to do.

Would you care to estimate a figure for the percentage of soldiers that are involved in things like Abu Ghraib?

For what it's worth, I'm not having a go at the US Army per se. It's more people like Bush and Rumsfeld who have screwed up and expect the Army to perform miracles based on very little resources. I suppose that then turns on the American public who want to ensure their safety, but when it means increases in taxes, they don't want any part of it anymore. In fact, they've gotten the opposite which just blows the mind really - no pun intended.

@Jules Winnfield
Now who am I to judge whats objective and whats not but have a look at this one:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...ING42LCIGK1.DTL

4% might not sound like a lot, but what percentage did it take to screw up in Abu Gareb. Those few heads did more damage to the US army (at least indirectly) than the whole Iraqi army.

@Ulysses
You got there before me

You don't need to be smart not to commit human rights abuses, you need to be stupid to take pictures and allow them to be distributed randomly...

I believe that the problem with Abu Ghraib was having an inexperienced unit guard a facility which was that important and sensitive politically.

QUOTE
which means the brain power of the average soldier is a lot higher than the average American soldier.
Really? You learn something new everyday...


I think you just answered your own one there

What's your point? What about reports of abuse involving the British? And the Germans in Afghanistan?

I didn't actually exclude the British on that one. With regards to the Germans: They had some photos taken with sculls that they had found. Tasteless, but they didn't physically abuse anyone.

But I think we are getting away from the point. This training thing was conceived to prepare these kids for a situation that they should never be put into. I think if one is genuinely concerned about the health of these guys then the allies should pull out of Iraq now because they shouldn't be there in the first place.

Don’t you just love that term – we have to win their hearts and minds - that’s IMPOSSIBLE. For the safety of the troops, if nothing else, they should be kept as far a way as possible from the civilians. There is plenty of space out in the desert.

For anyone who is interested in this topic and knows some German, on another forum I post on there was a discussion about this. Some first-hand experience was also shared there:
http://www.talkaboutusa.com/viewtopic.php?t=30879

Interesting. Sounds like method acting for the fighting man.

Seeing as nobody is being coerced at gunpoint to participate, I fail to see the relevance. Organizations train their people in all kinds of ways. If somebody wants to participate, so be it. If not, saying no, or nein in this case, seems to be the simple solution unless skipping over the ad and ignoring the entire thing is somehow not an option.

Some people sure get bent out of shape over some stupid things.

I wonder if they're also recruiting children? If they want a really authentic simulation, they're going to need a bunch of horrible little monsters throwing stones at the soldiers, so they can practice not retaliating against the kids no matter how much they're provoked. Oh, and maybe a few wheelchair-bound stone-throwing old grannies, too.

Nope, minimum age is 18. I think maximum was 50ish. But women are allowed to apply even when unaccompanied by a male family member.

I spy a money making oppurtunity for impoverished female students, or females in general really, to make a bit of money, don a Burkha and get yourselves over there, they're hardly going to risk telling you to take it off!

Thanks for the link, interesting reading. Too bad Jules' German isn't that hot. Would like to hear his opinion on this.

Bloody Sunday, Derry, 1972, 1st Batt. Parachute Regiment

this only springs to mind because I'm Irish. It doesn't take much for a bunch of yobs dressed in green to start firing on unarmed civilians in whatever town you care to name. Sorry Spooky had to do it...

I think the point being that they are indeed less likely to do so with proper training, as closely approximating the actual situation as possible. Of course there is higher risk when a bunch of green, scared, 18 year olds with loaded weapons are dropped into situations that are totally alien to them. Everyone then becomes a potential "threat".

I think these kinds of exercises are important, I have participated myself in mass casualty exercises...and they are very realistic, very stressful and you truly learn what to expect and how you react.

My point in posting this article was in how difficult it is apparently to recruit persons for these wargames. They are taking place in a country that does not support this war, and trying to get persons of middle eastern descent, the vast majority who do not support this conflict, to play the roles of war torn villagers/imans and the like. I could see why they are having a bit of a casting problem

Ulysses - your statements were just plain OTT, and show you clearly know nothing about the U.S. military. Glad to hear the British one is such a finely oiled and trained machine and persons only join who are way up on that bell curve. Your government has been just as supportive and party to this war as the U.S., simply in smaller numbers and with the misperception that Blair is simply Bush's lapdog.

The prime minister may have thrown his lot in with Bush but it's a big step to say the entire political party was game (which is why Blair is considered the lapdog not the Labour party or the UK).

Tony Blair faced criticism from the beginning. There were high level complaints from within his own party and various people resigned in protest. A whole host of members of the other parties were equally vocal about their disagreement. Also remember that a lot of the British public were skeptical of the comments coming from America and Blair and were fully against invading Iraq.

I don't think the same was experienced within America. The Bush administration all towed the party line and the public appeared to be on board as the war on terror took off. It's only been recently that America has become more vocal against the war (which one could argue is more because it seems to be going very wrong rather than a collective decision that Iraq should have been left unharmed).

he's south african fwiw

Thanks B.R. just made the assumption based on the post.

@sek - I think you underestimate how many of us in the U.S. were against this war from the beginning. There was quite a bit of vocalizing about that. I remain ashamed of how easily my own party rolled over. In the end, whether or not there were more party members who were vocal regarding Blairs policies, and had the balls to step down in protest, the fact is the government has continued to go along with Blair's policies now for 6 years...and the end result is the same. Had we not had the staunch support of Blair, I do wonder if Bush and Co could have sold their lies so easily, and actually gone to war without another major player in the "coalition of the willing".

I completely agree with you that unfortunately the movement of public opinion regarding Iraq does have more to due with the fact that it is clearly "unwinnable" than that is was an illegal and immoral war.

We have wandered way off topic however.

Not knowing something about something does not preclude you from having an opinion on it. Do I have to have been in a war to know that it's wrong? Clearly, a lot of Americans do. That's what I said after 9/11. Good that the Americans are getting a taste of the sort of shit they cause elsewhere. Just not so groovy when it's so close to home. After all, 3,000 odd civilians is just "collateral" damage to some.

What I really was trying to say is that the dynamics of war has changed. You cannot win guerilla warfare with superior air power which is really what America's superiority is based on. The US military needs to have a massive rethink and overhaul and recruiting sub-standard individuals, as has been pointed by the quotes on this thread, indicates that they are going in the wrong direction yet again. The question is: when will they ever learn?

FWIW I have a British passport and applied for the British Army back in the day. As for British involvement, I think it was fairly clear that Blair acted against the wishes of the majority of the British population unlike the Americans who only want it to end now because it's led to higher petrol prices and a few too many own casualties (screw the fact that Iraqi casualties - including civilians is much higher).

Certainly one can have an opinion on something they have not experienced it directly. But I have worked closely with the military and the majority are not there because they had no other options, but that they were taking advantage of the programs to pay for school. Of course you have idiots and clearly the military has lowered standards in the past 4 years, but the vast majority CAN tie their own shoelaces and string a sentence together.

You've contradicted yourself there. Without the Army etc. what chance would those guys have had to go to college?

Has anybody else read Mariposa's link?

No contradiction at all. Most people don't use the military and go to college and pay via low interest loans, grants, family, working, or choosing a more local or cheaper school. The miltary provides one possible option to persons for school funding, and it can be a quite generous financial package.

Many docs choose to have the military pay for their education and monthly stipend, and then give 7 years and come out without the whooping debt. I didn't choose that route. There are pro and cons to both sides.

So no, just because you lack funds, one does not have to join the military to go to college, but it can be a very cost effective way.

@MB - my German isn't good enough to read Mariposa's link.