Military Discipline.

The psychology behind these disciplinary processes is not hard to fathom. The aim is for men to obey orders unquestioningly, and accept unreservedly the authority of the powers-that-be. That this is the general policy is without doubt. That such a policy is morally valid can be answered in terms of the war crimes tribunals, and the present case of Lt. William Calley.

Treatment of offenders is for the most part a straight-forward process. If found guilty of committing a particular overt act. punishment follows. Consideration of motives and underlying reasons is only in mitigation.

In such a system there is room only for black and white, for the immediately identifiable shades are not allowed. By this I mean you are only assessed in naval terms. You are either "navy minded' in that you conform to the set pattern, or you are not. This is where the disciplinary structure is blind, insensitive and unthinking.

The non navy minded are square pegs in round holes, continually being hammered home in an attempt to fit.

The same rigid attitude is present in the process by which you can 'air your grievances'. At one stage during my detention I complained of not being allowed enough time to eat. The reasons for my complaint were more curiosity about the reaction and the process than the nature of the complaint.

We were paraded before a visiting officer, and had to rattle off our name, number, length of sentence, and whether we had a complaint; standing rigidly at attention, eyes straight ahead, and begining and ending with "Sir". I was the last in line and half a minute's tense silence followed my statement that I had a complaint - shades of Oliver Twist! then I was marched briskly off to the Commandant's office, stamped to attention and delivered my complaint in the required formal militarised terms. After a rigorous grilling my complaint was found groundless.

He was right, there was no specified length of time for meals, you stayed until you finished. But, of course, you were simply made to feel very uncomfortable if you weren't finished by the time everyone else was, with the staff standing over you, arms folded, glaring and inspecting their watch every minute. All implicit but you got the message.

However, it was the manner in which complaints were aired I was interested in. The rigorous formality and cultivated sternness are very clever methods of deterring would-be complainants. The ordinary man in the street, from whom, without denigrating them, these men are largely drawn, has a marked aversion to the physical manifestations of the bureaucratic machine. They shrink from officialdom and will sacrifice a great deal to avoid it.

Many men who 1 spoke to - 'Military policemen' are themselves sceptical of the 'old fashioned' discipline. They talk of detention in terms of necessitating discontinuity of service, the relative inefficiency of it, because it only creates cynicism, bitterness or indifference or all three. They talk of the disruption of family life for married men. This more or less comes down to one thing - economics. The financial upkeep of detention centres must be phenomenal. There were never more than'10 of us at any given time, and not many more for the past 18 months. For these men a full time staff of 30 odd is required, the average wage of whom would be about $60 per week. If a system of fines was imposed it would serve the dual purpose, I believe, of acting as a greater and certainly more humane deterrent, and would allow for the recirculation of money already allocated. It would also reduce tremendous administration costs.

Pay earned is directly related to social life. The lives of most navy personnel fall distinctly into 2 categories, work and social life. If their pay is reduced by fines their social life is consequently curtailed. For the single man, this means much more than simply being broke. It means he must stay aboard ship.

That the present system makes for efficiency, I do not dispute but at what cost to the men?

In this system there is an inconsistency between the projected role i.e. as men, and the disciplinary methods. Such things as extra work, stoppage of leave, attention focussed on standard of dress and military formality,' are childish in their application and create conflict between role and status.

It is this discrepancy between the way they are treated and the way they are supposed to act that leads to gross irresponsibility in these men Irresponsibility to themselves, and to their surroundings. Although manifested as a carefree easy-going attitude, it is, beneath the surface ignorance of themselves, and of their relation to society. There exists alarming unawareness of wide social issues; of political situations that directly affect their lives, of moral issues inherent in Armed forces.

It is not for nothing that interest in current affairs outside the narrow confines of naval life is discouraged, however subtly - even hobbies am handicrafts are rare.

Their lives, feelings and relationships are simple They are well used to imposed authority and externa discipline.

This makes these men particularly vulnerable as group to manipulation and exploitation. They accept the values thrust upon them by an institution. It is this exploitation and sacrificing of human dignity to Military and political function, that is deplorable, and that should be thoroughly investigated.