> But I do think there's an inconsistency wrt the wide latitude we give the armed forces. To the extent that such inconsistency is acceptable, I'm curious as to why.

The armed forces are specifically looking to replace any creative or independent thinking with responsiveness to the chain of command and willingness to commit acts of violence. Those are exceptional requirements which are generally in direct conflict with the productive functioning of any other organization.

I do think it’s worth inquiring into why we’ve created a society which necessitates such broad-scale weaponization of human beings, however.

> responsiveness to the chain of command and willingness to commit acts of violence

There is even a term for it: Followership. Something I had never even heard of until I looked into joining ROTC, and realized they weren't looking for future leaders, but robots they could program.

The basic training that lasts a few weeks that involves yelling, breaking down a person only to rebuild them stronger by the end could be looked at as filtering and weeding out those who would not work well under those conditions. This is part of the interview process. Once basic training is over most move into positions without yelling.

In this case yelling was used to belittle everyone and secure more power. If you break someone down but never build them back up you have crushed people.

If we still want to turn people into killing machines than yelling is a tool to help that process.

> The basic training that lasts a few weeks

“a few months” would be more accurate