War Dogs

They have been given a bigger role and better equipment. Body armor, specialized harnesses, cameras, and light just top the list. Our canine friends are a larger part of the military effort than ever and are on the verge of becoming standard for many units.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/05/04/war_dog?page=0,0

Pity.

Sue

Maybe a pity ... but i was just thinking the other day that a few military dogs wearing body armor would be a really serious weapon on the battlefield. I wouldn't want to mess with them.

Pete #2

Thank God for them. They have saved my life before. They are treated very well also, and receive high honors for bravery and a nice retirement with the family of their handler for many.

As opposed to how we otherwise treat dogs?

I don't want to anthropomorphize dogs but the stories involving dogs sacrificing themselves to save humans are legion. Dogs who fight bears to save their master, tiny dogs who jump burglars, police dogs that jump gunmen without any instruction.

Seems many dogs are genetically, if not behaviorally, predisposed to being sensitive to their master's desires to the point of self-sacrifice. For them it is their place and job. Kind of like firemen running into a burning building. In that context, assuming the category allies at all to the psychology of dogs, I doubt that the dogs themselves wouldn't consider it a "pity".

IMO dogs are in an intimate genetic and behavioral dance with humans, and have been for something along the lines of four thousand years. Humans wouldn't have prospered so well without dogs, we may have learned organized hunting form dogs, and dogs have benefited from their status as pets and partners in work.

It's a Shame the word Pity is used regarding Dogs in The Military!Goes to show how people say things in order to get some Attention,Even if it's Negative Attention.Military Dogs save Lives,EVERYDAY!They are Heroes as much as their human counterparts are!God Bless our Military!

I'm not sure it is so cut and dried. Sue didn't elaborate on the reasoning behind and meaning of her comment. I don't always agree with her but she seems reasonable and caring. I'm also not insensitive to the numbers of animals injured and killed serving what would seem to be a situation of short term military significance. In fifty years will the lives, human and animal, and treasure spent in Iraq and Afghanistan be deemed worthwhile? Was Grenada, Panama, Vietnam worth it? Does that change over time? It is what it is and nobody at the time was entirely free to say yes or no.

Better if none of the animals, two legged or four, had to be injured or killed. But dogs would seem to be particularly well qualified for certain jobs.

Pity.= cut & dried!Pity with No period,Now that leaves the door open!Our ability to even have the internet is solely derived from Military Significance!Art you Failed to mention WWII,The Korean War-It's been over 50 yrs since,Do you feel those wars were Insignificant?Art are you going to Live 50 yrs,to see whether there is/was significance,long or short term to Vietnam,Grenada,Panama?If you are Not going to stand behind our troops,Then why don't you stand in front of them!

Whoa! Lets all keep in mind that if all the dogs in the world were gone tomorrow humans would still exist and do just fine. They are useful in some circumstances but they do not drive cars, perform heart surgery, or even talk. Lighten up guys.

Rich, I do not think Art's thoughts are in any way anti-American or deserve such an extreme reaction on your part.

[

Granted, dogs have limitations. So do humans.

It is a subject of debate exactly how well humans would have done, and where we might be developmentally, if our distant ancestors not participated in one of the great cross-species symbiotic relationships of all time. Some evidence shows we were partnered with dogs over 30,000 years ago. Inuits openly observe they wouldn't survive in their traditional manner without dogs. Certain desert tribes survived because they bred dogs that could run down and bring back game animals.

Given the tenuous margins of survival our distance ancestors maintained dogs very well have been the difference between modern humans making or not. It may be as simple as no domestication of dogs; no modern humans. maybe not, but it is pretty well established that without dogs human history and culture would be completely different. And likely much poorer.

We have, presumably, moved past the marginal days of the dawn of man when dogs were essential. We might get along without dogs but I'm not sure we want to.

Domestication of animals and plants has not been a one way street. Domestication of certain grasses allowed us to create modern wheat, corn, rice. But domestication changed us and the way we live. Grains gave us beer, a safe alternative to water when we didn't understand disease and germs. Having domesticated crops and something safe to drink meant we could have villages. We stopped being nomadic.

We domesticated sheep and had dogs take over their defense as they lost many of their own defense mechanisms. Hard to raise domesticated animals with wild predators around without domesticated dogs to help.

With town and steady inputs of food and water people were able to specialize and develop a knowledge base in their specialty. We got pottery and carpentry, and the basics of both knowledge and technology infrastructure. And it all started with a half-human carrying a sharpened stick and and a half-wolf that was genetically predisposed to use teamwork to hunt and to share anything they bag as a team.

In the words of "Rick" in the movie Cassablanca: "I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship."

That's a fairly extreme, although not unreasonable, statement about the role of dogs in the development of human culture. Let's not forget that while the guys and dogs were out running down the occasional wild boar or mammoth, the ladies and small kids were collecting the plants and herbs that formed the day to day staples of most prehistoric groups. In the process they became very proficient and pragmatic botanists. And so it began...

One anthropologist has speculated that the typical prehistoric hunter managed to kill one mammoth, and spent the rest of his life talking about it...

Nonetheless, I am a dog lover, and clearly it goes way back. Even in a non-hunting situation, I marvel at how my dogs' senses and mine combine in good teamwork. How would we ever get those ducks out of the water without a dog?

By "pity", I was thinking of all the dogs, and all the children and other innocents who were dumped into wars that shouldn't have been started in the first place.

I have a Belgian Tervuren*, a breed that was used in WWI and WWII and later, as guard dogs, to carry messages, and harnessed with spools of wire to run communications systems covertly between units.

When all the American wars were over, the dogs were destroyed. Every single GD one. This didn't change until 2000. So much for loyalty, trust and affection... pretty one-sided, wouldn't you say?

The military don't give a rat's a$$ about anything or anyone, just getting the job done. Dogs are like soldiers, easily expendable, easily replaced. Fodder.

*The Belgian Tervuren, Belgian Shepherd, Belgian Malinois and Belgian Laekenois are basically all the same dog with different types/color of haircoats.

Sue

I'm with Susan and Art on this one, they make valid points, thoughtfully expressed, and hardly deserving of such overwrought reaction. I'm supportive of the military but not to the point of being unquestioning about programs, strategies and body counts -- human and canine.

It is interesting to see the attention being drawn to how capable dogs are proving on the front lines in the Middle East. That dogs are astonishingly capable is not news to many of us but it is good to see that being recognized in the media. The next time some doofus disparages a "dumb dog" maybe I'll ask what the heck they've done for America lately.

Samoyeds were being parachuted into the Sierra Nevada in the 1940s for SAR work. Samoyeds also were WWII military dogs (naturally camo for snow).

I have had Samoyeds for the past twenty years. It only now occurs to me that if the news article were about hundreds of Samoyeds in harm's way on the front lines I would be both proud and profoundly sad.

It must be a great comfort to the soldiers to have the dogs with them. When the dogs are not working they're probably getting a lot of belly rubs from their soldier-comrades.

Certified Therapy Dogs and Assistance Dogs are also doing a lot of great work at military hospitals, such as Walter Reed in DC.

I also have mixed feelings about the Navy's program using dolphins. I hope they are treated well and not having a high mortality rate.

http://www.spawar.navy.mil/sandiego/technology/mammals/

I loved Flipper....

Susan - Gidget's best buddy is a Belgian Shepherd mix -- an amazing canine athlete. They are ebony and ivory walking around town.

Until 2000, with a few exceptions, working dogs used by the military were considered equipment and their welfare and transport were handled by the same simple cost/benefit calculations used when disposing of a well used truck. If it was deemed cheaper to leave them behind and buy another they were left behind if extraordinary efforts were not made. Some handlers were forced to quite literally steal their dogs, or report them lost in combat, and find unofficial ways of shipping them home. Too often they were left behind with little or no provisions being made for them.

Some of this goes back to the rules established in early in the formation of the US military for procurement and maintenance of livestock. Well into WW2, mainly in the Burma and Italian campaigns, the US military was purchasing and maintaining service animals in the form of horses, mules and donkeys in addition to some dogs. This wasn't unusual and the German army was still using horses in large numbers through to the end of the war in Europe. The common view during that time was that these horses and mules were entirely expendable to be used as transport or food, or liquidated at will.

I'm not saying any or all of this was a good thing. Acceptance of routine abuse of animals is a sign of a society that is also willing to abuse humans. Insensitivity and a lack of empathy is an expression of our dealing with others. Torture of animals is one of the defining behaviors of sociopaths.

Well said Dagney. I've owned Dobermans for over 40 years and I'm too both proud and profoundly sad of all the dogs who have served our country.

Art & Susan,I Apologize for my Irrational Behaviour!

No problem.

Rich, I could never be a breeder of dogs (esp Tervs!) because no prospective home would be good enough. Probably irrational, but many of you folks have known me a long time, so you shouldn't be surprised.

There are people who are proud to be in the military, those who wouldn't be caught dead in it, and me, who, if drafted back in the 60s, would be serving life in a Federal prison.

Drafting people is one thing , but drafting dogs is waaaay below that!

You probably don't agree, but then, you don't have to. Me, either.

Sue

There certainly are valid points on both sides of the issue. Personally, I'd rather have a dog trip an IED than a soldier. Or better yet, have that dog find the IED and let the EOD folks earn their money. At the very least, it's acceptable to put a dog down. Not to mention the emotional toll a family goes through with a KIA. I doubt the dog's family even knows.

Yes, it seems the military is getting better about working dogs staying with their handlers. And I truly believe that the dog in a unit has to be a morale booster.

Don't know if it's common knowledge, but I think the Army is the only branch with a Vetirnary (I can't spell that word) Corps. So obviously there is some though to keeping the animals healthy.

Curious how Sue and Art feel about police or airport dogs? Same resistance to their use?

Perhaps I perceive a failure of communications.

It seems to me the issue raised is whether we treat animals as companions with an inherent entitlement to as good a life as circumstances permit, or with the minimal consideration required to have them available for use as discardable tools without any inherent right to be treated well.

I did not sense any argument that animals should be treated better than humans who we put in harm's way, only that animals sent in harm's way be treated respectfully - perhaps especially because unlike humans it is not likely such animals have any realistic choice about their duty.

Callous use of animals is no more defensible than callous use of humans. Unnecessary sacrifice of animals is to be avoided just as is unnecessary sacrifice of humans.

If it comes down to a choice between necessary sacrifice of an animal or of a human, then there is no difference of opinion. The point in both cases is to make sure there is no reasonable alternative to such sacrifice and that sacrifice is really necessary.

Probably. I'm actually glad the dogs are getting some body armor. Though I wonder how well they tolerate the heat with the extra insulation and weight.

However, if we're talking about a working animal (horse, dog, etc), does it have the same entitlements as a companion, ie a pet? I'd hazard a guess of no. If Fido doesn't want to play fetch, no big deal. If Cujo decides he just doesn't feel like sniffing packages at Logan international and a bomb slips by...

I agree that there should be respect for the animals, and to not make life any more difficult than necessary. Certainly when they've lived out a productive life doing their job they shouldn't just be put down. But at the end of the day they, like soldiers or cops, have a job to do.

I will not get into any philosophical or moral debates; but I do feel that I have to answer this one statement. I served 24 years on active duty, and an additional 7 so far in government service as a civilian, still going to combat zones and getting shot at. While I agree with your basic premise that war is bad and should be avoided if at all possible, it is not always possible to do so. Most soldiers hate it more than you do, especially the ones out there getting shot at all the time. While the military exists to accomplish the missions given to it by our civilian leaders,it does put its people a close second to accomplishing the mission. The military is a very large bureaucracy run by human beings, and they have personalities and attitudes just like everyone else. They make decisions, good and bad. We do care about our people, our country, our dogs, our families, peace and people in general. It is the rare soldier who does not. It was soldiers, the dog handlers, who fought to get the policy changed on the final disposition of the dogs, because they cared so much. I have personally risked my life to protect and help civilians all over the world. I sacrificed much of my time with my family to go and perform these missions. The U.S. military has performed more humanitarian operations than anyone except the Red Cross. We fed and sheltered more people than they did. We lose more friends and family members than anyone else during war time, and in many cases we watch them die in horrible ways. We care, about you and every other person in this country.

Please do not use such a general description for the military. It is a human endeavor, and it has all the good and bad that humans posses. It also has a broad cross section of the American population. We follow the direction of our elected leaders. It is not perfect, but these men and women do not deserve to all be lumped into such a negative category.

I apologize to all for this if it is inappropriate. I could not leave it unanswered. I will remove myself from these forums if it is deemed necessary by the moderators.

Well said.

Thank you for your service-

Pete

I second that.

I was drafted in the 60s, fortunately before Vietnam. I did not enjoy my time in the military, but, overall, it was a positive experience.

The biggest SAR operation in which I was ever involved also included over 1000 troops. I can't even count the number of incidents in which a nice military helo participated, usually saving the day.

Montanero - I don't see anything objectionable in your post. An opinion well thought through and stated without resort to insult or outrage is always welcome.

Ditto