Talk:Code of the United States Fighting Force

Contradiction

Article says "It has been modified twice—once in 1977 by President Jimmy Carter in Executive Order 12017, and most recently in President Ronald Reagan's Executive Order 12633 of March 1988, which amended the code to make it gender-neutral." But then the Text 1a says "As a member of the armed forces of the United States, you are protecting your nation. It is your duty to oppose all enemies of the United States in combat or, if a captive, in a prisoner of war compound. Your behavior is guided by the Code of Conduct, which has evolved from the heroic lives, experiences and deeds of Americans from the Revolutionary War to Operation: Iraqi Freedom." "Operation: Iraqi Freedom" didn't happen until 2003. So this article contradicts itself; either the provided text is wrong, or it has been amended more recently than 1988 - some time during or after 2003. The official text reads "Your behavior is guided by the Code of Conduct, which has evolved from the heroic lives, experiences and deeds of Americans from the Revolutionary War to the Southeast Asian Conflict." - so it looks like maybe someone has modified this text to be different from the original (unless the linked text is not the latest version). 60.225.114.230 (talk) 11:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

debate on utility (or harmfulness) of Code and/or predecessor ((un)official) policy?

I am not widely-read in this subject and so am not a viable candidate to edit for this sub-topic, but I'm interested to know about debate on the utility of the Code, and even the potential harm to US service members that could be caused by rote adherence to the precepts. In the book "The Interrogator" by Col. Raymond F. Toliver, about the Luftwaffe's "master interrogator" Hanns Scharff, there is a lively discussion about the origin of the Code, and also its limitations (informed by the horrible torture of captured pilots by North Vietnamese, for example).

• "Name, rank and serial number cost many a POW his life in those conflicts, yet what they knew and could say was insignificant as far as secrets were concerned."

• "It became clear that if this dreadful torture continued, it was going to be impossible to adhere to the Code of Conduct..."

There's more, too, but I can't find the excerpt right now, and it's the most salient part! Basically it's said that the US aircrew in WW2 who "resisted" interrogation for the longest time, and thus spent the longest period of time in the transient Luftwaffe interrogation center, before being sent on to permanent POW camps, were most likely to be suspected (by Allied control authorities) of having collaborated with the enemy (b/c they weren't expected by their commanders back home to spend a week, for example, refusing to provide any info but name, rank and serial number). If you haven't read this book, but you're interested in the topic, I highly recommend it, and it will open your eyes to why there's a Code, but how it can leave any reasonably educated or sophisticated soldier facing quite the "moral" dilemma! Azx2 17:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm an U.S. Army Infantry and M.I. Vet. Years of service 1989-1993 (M.I.) 1994-1997 (Infantry). (I get asked this a lot so I'll save everyone from asking. I re-enlisted as Infantry cuz I just wanted to live the "other-half" of the Army.). So I believe I may have a unique view point on what I think your stating. While in M.I., our interrogators gave a short course on counter-interrogation techniques (attempting to learn as much from the interrogator while not spilling anything) but that was a long time ago and was only a few hours long "semi-official" course. I really don't remember much except to lie your ass off. Then as an infantryman, (the most likely to be captured, except maybe for aircrews) deny you know anything. But I do remember one thing from both MOS's. The U.S. Military no longer has unrealistic expectations of strict adherence to name, rank, SSN, date of birth. The code does state "to the best of your ability." As long as you don't willingly collaborate and truthfully hold out as long as possible without giving up too much info that'll get your fellow service members killed, you'll be excused. In other words, it is highly subjective. I'd like to think I'd be able to hold out like our POW Vets from Vietnam did, but I really don't know. Also as far as I know, all the POW's from Vietnam who "collaborated" were forgiven except for that one Marine Corporal. And in not just my opinion but most Marines I know - including my brother, a Marine Rifleman Vet- believe he was super screwed over by the U.S. Government. Any of that help? Solri89 (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Parole during wartime for US Military

Does anyone know if the U.S. Military ever used or accepted parole as a legitimate action during warfare? If so, when was the last time it was used/allowed? Solri89 (talk) 13:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Thinking on this subject, something curious just entered my mind. The four vilest enemy the U.S. ever faced in war, Japan, Germany, Korea and Vietnam who all used murder as a tool did not use murder as their standard immediate go-to upon capturing their uniformed enemy. What does this say about the human condition or the military mindset? Seems like it either says they looked forward to the torture they were about to inflict or they (as I, as a Vet) respected their enemy - enough to not immediately go that route. Or by murder after the interrogation. Even the Japenese didn't immediately turn to murdering captured or surrendering prisoners of war and historically we all know how they felt about those who surrendered. Any comments or knowledge of any studies, facts on this subject? Solri89 (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Under see also...

What's this "Thomi Decam Fowler" business? Is it a person? Google searches lead back to this page and to a PDF on the SERE subject but nothing else. Maxxinpeng (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Code of the United States Fighting Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130316204551/http://www.kunsan.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123241828 to http://www.kunsan.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123241828

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)