No, but you were implicitly assuming undisciplined aggression, when what the military actually needs and tries to train for is disciplined aggression--aggression against only the right targets at the right time and place. Undisciplined aggression is an obvious violation of military discipline and should be treated as such by the leadership.
I'm not assuming anything, explicitly or implicitly. People like to pretend you can turn agression on and off and only turn it towards the "right" direction. Those people are either in denial or have no experience of what this training does to you.
Disclosure: 12 years in military multiple tours of various warzones.
> 12 years in military multiple tours of various warzones.
How recently? I'm guessing, recently enough that the military you served in is the dysfunctional military described in the article, which suffers from a severe lack of leadership. People whose service was further in the past can tell you a very different story.
I'm not recent no, been out over nearly 2 decades. I also don't look back with rose tinted glasses.
I can agree with basically everything you've said, bar the assumption that the military is only recently dysfunctional. A brief look at any period of history will mostly show you a severe lack of proper leadership with very few exceptions.
I'm aware my experience isn't everyone's.
Unpopular as the reality might be, when you train people to be killers, in the lowest ranks many of whom are there instead of in gangs or jail, because there's no other options for them, don't be shocked that within that subset of the population you finding high rates of various crimes, especially violent ones.
Does that mean you're not expected to turn aggression off towards commanding officers? If you can't direct it or turn it off, are generals constantly getting yelled at and punched by enlisted soldiers?
Or does the inability of soldiers to control themselves mysteriously only apply to subordinates, women, and civilians?
