WEST POINT, N.Y. — Cadet pillow fights like the bloody one that left 30 injured this summer will be banned and actions are being pursued against many of those involved, U.S. Military Academy officials said Wednesday.
First-year students, known as plebes, organize the annual pillow fight as a way to build camaraderie after a grueling summer of training. But the pillow fight on Aug. 20 escalated into a free-for-all with plebes being hit from behind and knocked to the ground. Injuries included a broken nose, a fractured cheek and 24 diagnosed concussions, according to a report on the pillow fight released Wednesday.
“While never officially sanctioned, it is now officially banned, and we will take appropriate action to ensure that all faculty, staff, leaders, the Corps of Cadets and everyone at West Point knows that it will not be tolerated,” West Point Superintendent Lt. Gen. Robert Caslen said in a statement.
There were reports that some cadets were injured by hard objects placed in pillow cases after photos and video of the melee circulated on social media. But the report said many injuries were caused instead by elbows and falls to the ground. One cadet was identified by military police as striking another cadet with a hard object in a pillow case. One cadet was found unconscious.
The report said upper-class cadets did not take proper control of the fight to ensure the safety of plebes. Caslen said the incident could have been prevented with better communication between cadet leadership and senior military personnel before the pillow fight.
“I’m troubled by the failure to mitigate and lead, and by the conduct of those whose actions contributed to this incident,” Caslen said. “I am taking appropriate action based on these findings — to include administrative actions against senior military members and cadets alike — to send a clear message that this kind of behavior will not be tolerated at our nation’s premiere military academy.”
" West Point Bans Pillow Fight After Dozens Injured "
WTF ??
What are these guys going to do in combat, call "time out" if they get a scrape?
Back in my day, we did bayonet training with padded sticks, don't remember what they called them now. Maybe Pete remembers. I remember one guy got a couple of broken ribs.
What this report fails to mention is that some of the cadets replaced pillows with helmets . The injuries occurred when those objects were used. Not sure if that is part of the unwritten rules ,or using them was out of bounds . I suspect it was part of the unwritten rules of the ritual .
What do you mean by win ? Do you mean military victories or political decisions that were not made by the military branch ? If you mean military victories ,I don't recall losing any in the post-WWII era .
Korea ,we 1st repelled the NORK invasion of the South and then repelled the combined NORK-Chinese invasion of the South. It ended in a political stalemate.
1964 Congo the Simba Rebellion was put down. We also helped put down a rebellion in 1978 .
1965 Dominican Republic the rebels in the Civil war were defeated .
Vietnaam there was no military defeats.South Vietnam fell after the Democrat dominated Congress cut off funding for the South Vietnam government ,2 years after American forces withdrew.
Grenada Military dictatorship of Hudson Austin deposed, defeated Cuban military presence and restored Constitutional Government.
Tanker war against Iran . Successfully kept Iran from closing the Persian Gulf to commerce.
Panama invasion Deposed Narco-dictator Noriega .
Gulf War 1990-91 achieved goal of forcing Iraqi forces from Kuwait .
Somalia intervention . Achieved goals established by UN ;an intervention that saved 100,000 lives.
Haiti reinstalled Aristide as president of Haiti.
Bosnia and Kosovo ;achieved the military goals set by the political leadership. Nuff said.
Afghanistan the military achieved the destruction of al-Qaeda training camps. The fall of the Taliban government.The establishment of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan under the Karzai administration. Security and control of Afghanistan taken over by Afghan security forces ;Still contending with the Taliban insurgency .It will be a political decision if we leave while the Taliban insurgency is ongoing.U.S.currently is indefinitely committed ground combat units in 4 garrisons.
Operation Iraqi Freedom defeated the Hussein Army ;deposed Hussein . Helped establish a democratic government . Defeated multiple insurgencies including the al-Qaeda insurgency .The Sunni insurgency became allied with us to defeat AQ . When President Bush left office there was a twice democratically elected government as our ally and we had a Status of Forces agreement with them to assist them in security .
Libyan Civil War . Right or wrong ,Q Daffy was deposed.
Syrian Civil War/War against Islamic State . ongoing.
You have a convenient memory, let's start with Vietnem, what an abject pitiful loss and you try to explain it away. You need to see these things through a different lens if you don't have victory you have a loss.
Korea, a stalemate after years of bitter conflict, all you achieved was pushing the opposing forces back to the original border and at one point they almost kicked you off the korean peninsula. Perhaps you can blame it on your allies
Gulf I. You returned Saddam Hussien back within his borders to wreek vengance on his own population. Twelve years of containment followed leading to Gulf II
Gulf II. You overwhelmed the Iraqi army only to spend years fighting an insurgency that has morphed into the Daesh conflict. you achieved regime change but insurgency continued. Iraq was not pacified when you left and your objective of finding WMD was not realised. Cannot be regarded as victory
Libya; you bombarded Libya with sophisticated weapons and left the locals to sort it out in a conflict that is ongoing. You achieved regime change replacing a stable regime with a vacuum. Cannot be regarded as victory
Afghanistan: Yes you removed Al Qaeda and the Taliban government but left the taliban insurgency in place and growing. In no way could this be considered victory
Perhaps when you are capable of dealing with the enemy within will you have the resolve to pursue a foriegn enemy to a conclusive victory. You see these conflicts as victories but the world sees them as failures, a failure to achieve a decisive victory and ensure a lasting peace. Let's face it Tom your brand of gunboat diplomacy has failed. Regime change is not victory if the conflict continues
Syria/Iraq. Daesh may not have the capability to militarally kick your ass but you lack the resolve to carry this conflict to a conclusive victory so we can expect that Russia will eventually have the glory. Don't expect the arabs to do your fighting for you. The shiia have no taste for losing lives to liberate sunni homeland
Again ,all you describe to me is political decisions that have nothing at all to do with how the military performed their duty. I stand by my contention that there were no military defeats in any of those conflicts .
When one discusses military defeats you must look to battles and campaigns.
I agree with your assessment as relates to battles and campaigns. We have had a few losses in our military history. Battle of Long Island comes to mind for an early account. Kasserine Pass during WWII.
Now on losing wars, Von Clausewitz would argue those are lost by nations. As he pointed out the triangle of political leadership, military, and will of the people.
Applying that more complete model, our nation has lost conflicts.
The military can win all the battles and campaigns, yet a nation lose the entire conflict or war.
Kinda sorta sounds like he doesn't like military people
You cannot divorce the military from the political, in a conflict to win you have to win a military victory and enforce a political victory
Korea was not a military victory, Vietnam was not a military victory, in the Gulf you might have won the main war but you lost the peace, if what happened could be described as peace. I don't count it a victory just a debacle. politically they are as far from you as they ever were and the only way you will see final victory in teh conflict in Iraq now is with committment of forces
You have not won Afghanistan or Libya, the conflict has not ceased and Syria may take a long time to get a solution unless strategy changes
Basic what I'm saying is regime change doesn't equal victory, ceasation of shooting doesn't mean victory; to suggest it does is just political rhetoric
You cannot divorce the military from the political, in a conflict to win you have to win a military victory and enforce a political victory
I made such very clear in my comments on this thread.
I mentioned the Von Clausewitz triangle. You left out a key piece. The last apex...the will of the people. To be more specific it was Col Harry Summers "On Strategy" which applied the works of Clausewitz and his "On War" for modern society application.
In the US the military is run by the civilian executive branch and funded by the legislature. The politicians of both branches are elected by the people. The will of the people will influence elections and thus civilian elected leaders.
Without all three in concert with goals and objectives, nations, especially Western types lose conflicts easily.
How you see a failure of military leadership over stupid pillow fights applying to US foreign policy failures and a short term memory disordered populace with a penchant for being fickle is absurd.
Here's the true issue. US presidents (regardless of party) will accept little (none in the case of Obolo) strategic exposure employing the military element of national power. Strategic exposure is measured by military destructive power against media coverage. The longer it takes to meet national goals and objectives, the more strategic exposure. The more the strategic exposure, the more destruction and body bags. This then has an effect on the will of the people, who pressure the very political leaders who order the conflict. The leaders measure their political support and then adjust their objectives, thus prolonging conflicts never meeting their original goals.
Our enemies KNOW the above and constantly fight the US and allies in the information realm. They know if they can hold out longer than two months, the US populace loses interest and her leaders fold like a cheap lawn chair.
I served on 3 & 4 Star level staffs and witnessed senior General officers directly tell politicians visiting combat zones that the political guidance and direction would amount to stagnation.
There are three levels of war. The strategic, the operational and the tactical. Iraq was lost at the strategic level when Obolo decided to nix negotiations with Iraq on a strategic partnership which would allow combat advisors and a rapid response force for security. USFOR in Iraq never lost a campaign at the operational level nor did combat forces lose any tactical battles or engagements.
So no, you cannot "divorce" the military from politics as you cannot separate the will of the people from the politicians.
