Talk:Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape

a tad biased

although this article mentions the USAF's SERE program, it seems to mainly focus on the NAVY's SERE program and neglect the other. either go into more detail on both or divide them up and make them two seperate articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hauk55 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi all, rich1vanwinkle here (June 2020). A friend (former USAF SERE instructor) suggested I work on the Wikipedia SERE article - so here I am. As a former Air Force SERE instructor, I had the privilege of teaching Navy, Marine, and Army SERE instructors (or prospective instructors). The Air Force program is so much more "robust" (as indicated by career instructors and their high regard around DoD [ United States Department of Defense ] and outside the military) that any SERE article that doesn't seem a bit biased in that regard is simply dishonest. Personally, I bring only one bias here - that we produce the most relevant and useful content for the reader/researcher. I share the bias that revealing some details could prove harmful to American troops while also believing that information already in the public domain or sector is just that. Unfortunately, there is a vast amount of disinformation regarding SERE out there and I would hope to remedy that a bit. Since the “RT”, “Origins” and “torture” sections were added/amended, much more information has become known – mostly from the Congressional Hearings (prompted by good press reporting). That info needs to be sifted, gleaned, organized, and often explained. Certainly, excessive reliance on one author (Mr. McCoy) yields a controversial and disputed outcome, especially when his arguments are facially flawed. So, piece by piece - with a bit of restructuing - I am working top to bottom on a re-write. I realize that it's a bit arrogant of me to presume that need and/or privilege, but I'm open to criticism, change, and input. So, here we go... Rich1vanwinkle (talk) 02:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

In above contribution: indentation, moving of the signature ( from the top to the bottom ) and clarifications (e.g. DoD) added by Steue (talk) 09:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

The SERE Patch section

This section sounds a little "fanboyish" to me. It's nnot really objective at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casual Karma (talk • contribs) 07:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it "fanboyish" at all. I am a former SERE instrictor and basically expanded upon the meaning of the patch, instead of just the reference to "tiger". What are your qualifications to make that comment?I55ere (talk) 14:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This section represents a particular point of view and is clearly a quotation that should be represented as such, with the source clearly cited. I will add quotes and a 'citation needed' tag Alan R. Fisher (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Rich1vanwinkle (talk) 02:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC) I like patches and insignia. I could fill the page with relevant ones. But the article is about SERE TRAINING. Those interested in the patches should be able to click on a link for descriptions. The most relevant patch is the "flying boot" since it directly relates to the "storyline". I did not/would not use an Army patch (or simliar ones) that merely say SERE or "Survival, Evasion...".

Sensitive info

The previous information is considered Sensitive by the Federal government and should not be retained. It has been replaced with superior information, in the fact that the current information is accurate and obtained from official information sites, and not New Yorker articles based on hearsay and intended to inflame. I apologize to anyone bothered by the change.=Tsalagi

It's a little late for censorship. The information has already been distributed in about 800,000 copies of the New Yorker. One of the benefits of the free press in your country is that you can publish information that your government would like to suppress (i.e. mark secret or sensitive). Also the WP article does not state that the New Yorker information is "fact", only that this is what has been reported about SERE. It's also worth noting that Wikipedia is not limited to sources approved by the US military. I think most editors would agree that this is a good thing. --Lee Hunter 18:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The techniques taught at SERE are classified for a reason. If they are common knowledge then US (and Commonwealth) servicemembers are at risk. However, I think a compromise has been reached in the current incarnation of the article? =Tsalagi

But if they've been published in a high-circulation magazine then they are already by definition common knowledge. --Delirium 13:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Rich1vanwinkle (talk) 03:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC) While this section has been removed in the current published page, the issues may remain under the new "Curriculum" section. Also, the comments above are "dated" with the VAST number of artcles, books, blogs, and hearings that had become public since 2005. Indeed, with the release of CIA documents under Congressional Hearings and FOIA requests, anyone seriously researching the subject would find much of the material formally classified as "Confidential" or "Secret". Luckily, almost none of the more sensitive (TS+) stuff was released. While some harm has been done by this release, most of the concerns above are negated by the scope of disemination combined with a torrent of misinformation and changing "wartime" factors.

NY Times material

I've trimmed and edited the new material from the NY Times substantially. It seemed like the extensive quotes were a bit over the top. Also it's an op-ed column, not a report by a staff writer. I've also removed the link to the article because NY Times links die after a few weeks. --Lee Hunter 16:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Sleeping bag what?

There is mention of the sleeping bag technique but there is no description of what it is. It may as well not be mentioned, and one wouldn't miss a thing. --Anagnorisis 22:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Article Accuracy

Considering that what is know about SERE is primarily speculative, I think that anything specific to the methods employed and details of the course be documented line by line. In other words, I don't think an anonymous email to Juan Cole is going to cut it. TDC 21:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Please specify which facts you have a problem with. --Lee Hunter 03:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I have a problem with all the facts about SERE coming from one biased source. TDC 05:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Start with the section title that includes the phrase "torture allegations." Reading the New Yorker and NY Times pieces, it's difficult to find any credible allegations of torture related to SERE. An Iraqi militant was apparently killed while undergoing stress positions, but given that those involved have been charged with crimes, it's not evident that this was an authorized part of the procedure that allegedly comes from SERE. The ones trying to make that claim are the very men who've been charged. That's hardly a credible source. -- Randy2063 04:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, the source for SERE's training techniques, in the opening of the article, has only one sourec, namely an anonymous email to Juan Cole. TDC 18:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Note the wording of the sentence: "The SERE program has been reported to involve ... " --Lee Hunter 19:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Once again, there are other sources for the material other than Juan Cole's anonymous email reporting the tactics used at SEREs. TDC 20:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The author of that email was interviewed by Jane Mayer for her article in the New Yorker. The New Yorker has long had a good reputation for fact checking - i.e. they wouldn't necessarily confirm that the techniques are real but they would confirm that the author of that email is someone who should know what he's talking about. --Lee Hunter 20:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

One problem with this article is that the techniques listed are not really techniques. They may be things that could happen at SERE but I believe this gives a very misleading impression of what really goes on. The reality is far more complicated. Anyone who wishes to learn about SERE is not going to be well served reading that.

I read Cole's blog semi-regularly, and had read the letter when it first came out. While I believed the guy could have been there, his extrapolation to Gitmo (which I recall is the reason he wrote it) is well off the mark. I think it was before the "mining the program" scenario hit the press, and that he was trying to offer credence to the Koran desecration spin that was just out. -- Randy2063 22:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The New Yorker article claims several sources for the discussion of SERE techniques, the guy who wrote to Cole and someone the writer describes as an "affiliate" of the program. The sexual element is confirmed by the 1995 lawsuit. But again the WP article is clear that this is only what is "reported" - in other words, there is certainly more to the program but this is what has been published to date. --Lee Hunter 01:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

My point was that those techniques don't begin to tell the real story. Those articles aren't attempting to do so either. They're starting from the torture narrative angle and veering off into a different direction that really has little to do with SERE.

This is not to say that I favor getting rid of that list of techniques. It's already out there, and somebody else would only come along to put it back. Ironically, any connection of SERE to Gitmo lends credence to the U.S. military's claims that they're not using any real forms of torture. -- Randy2063 19:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Focus on "Resistance" portion of training

I find it dissapointing and rather cynical that this article focuses almost exclusively on the Resistance portion of SERE training. In terms of time investment, it accounts for less than 25% of the course. The majority of SERE deals with Survival and Evasion, yet there is almost nothing mentioned on this. Ironically, the Survival and Evasion portions of the course are the most transparent parts, with only a few classified areas, whereas the Resistance (POW camp) portion is almost entirely Classified Secret.

Land Navigation, climate-specific survival skills, creation of improvised tools, "survival medicine" (a modified version of battlefield first aid), camouflage techniques, and communication protocols comprise a great deal of what is taught at SERE. Students are taught about various methods to make contact with friendly forces and getting home. THAT is the focus of SERE- Getting home.

I will say two things regarding the Resistance training. 1)It sucks. 2)The "guards" don't like it when you ask them what time arts and crafts will be. ;) This is from a SERE graduate, so you can trust what I say. I can verify that if absolutely necessary. I cannot, however, divulge any classified info- Sorry. Si3gmund 20:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I am a USAF SERE Specialist--and actually instruct S-V80, the combat survival course--and there is some incorrect information within this page. How can I correct it?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.35.138.10 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 18 May 2006.

On the top, there is a tab saying 'edit this page'. This on it and it will go to the edit page. Simply make changes and click on 'Save page' and your edit will take place immediately. Skinnyweed 21:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This article was started after the New Yorker article came out, and took its cues from its naive conspiracy-mongering. Correcting a few facts wouldn't remove the underlining B.S. quotient. Worse, it would lend the torture meme a sense of legitimacy it doesn't merit.

-- Randy2063 01:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The bulk of this article is a neutral fact-based outline of the SERE program. This is followed by a mention of the Air Force Academy scandal and the more recent controversy re. it's well-documented use in interrogation at Guantanamo Bay. Seems pretty straightforward to me. What part do you have a problem with? --Lee Hunter 12:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing neutral about a supposed GTMO-SERE connection.

I don't see the alleged use in GTMO as being well-documented. Jane Mayer takes too many leaps.

Bloche and Marks are lawyers clearly taking a side (the wrong one). They have no direct knowledge in any of this. I would throw that entire reference out. The only good purpose it serves is that we may remember these two.

The bit on Iraqi Major General Abed Hamed Mowhoush has apparently fallen apart. The phrase "SERE-trained interrogators" can refer to a lot of things. I went to that Wiki article and found the quote, and then followed its source to the Washington Post article hoping to see what it meant. Well, the Post evidently figured out it was clueless, as they removed the reference to SERE. It's gone. The paragraph is there but it doesn't mention SERE.

As for the rest, helping fascists undermine SERE training is not something I want to participate in. You may think it's of service to help expose a violation of some sort, but that's only if the story itself is to be believed.

-- Randy2063 20:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You're quite right about the Mowhoush article. I've made a fix in that article and removed the reference to him completely here. Thanks for pointing that out. --Lee Hunter 00:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually now that I look into it a bit further, there is a reported connection between Mowhoush and SERE. I've replaced the original paragraph with a reference to an article by Human Rights First. --Lee Hunter 01:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. First of all, the interrogator was defending himself from charges of killing that fascist in custody.

Then, if you read closer you'll see that "Human Rights" First is not really making the claim that any of the so-called "SERE techniques" led to the death of that prisoner. They may want the reader to think that, but they're a bunch of sleazy lawyers; they know how to phrase things artfully. (I'll be adding HRF to my watch list.)

I suppose you could still say that the interrogator charged with that fascist's death may have once been to SERE, and that he claimed to have used some unauthorized SERE techniques that didn't lead to anyone's death, until he changed course and used other techniques that did kill him.

-- Randy2063 21:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC) (with an edit in previous message to highlight a point)

there has been no proof given in a court of law of a SERE related death. You need to provide proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bidness (talk • contribs) 19:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Not accurate and extrememly speculative

Every service conducts SERE training differently.

The Code of Conduct is only mentioned in the first two sentences and no where else. The CoC is the standard; SERE skills are how a Service Member meets the standard set my the CoC.

Half of this page is speculative. This is not an information page. For factual information seek your units S-3 or contact the school directly.

Is this a fact page on the actual training or one documenting the scandals? Why isn't DODI 1300.7, 1300.21, or 1300.23 used as a reference instead of liberal publications focusing on scandal. SERE is not about scandal. This article is shameful. BryanBessette 20:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)The Beast

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by BryanBessette (talk • contribs) 20:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

Thanks for pointing out those documents. I've added links to two of the DODIs you mention (1300.21 and 1300.23). I'm not sure about 1300.7, perhaps I didn't have the right document but it didn't seem to have much information. I didn't do more than skim the DODIs, so if you or anyone else are aware of important facts in those documents that should be noted in the article then, by all means, please add them. Re. your question about whether it's a fact page or documenting the scandals, the answer is that like all Wikipedia articles it's everything factual and notable about SERE which can include simple descriptive information, criticism, praise, investigative reports etc. As long as it's important information and appears in a reliable source it can be included in the article. --Lee Hunter 23:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You added this back in "Despite constituting only a small portion of the whole training, it is often regarded as mysterious and controversial, despite, or perhaps because of, the dearth of verified information regarding its actual content. " and I think it is objectionable because it is speculation and not measurable. In the military it is NOT mysterious or controversial. If you insist on having this a part of the article you should site the study that was conducted that measurably concludes this villified view of the training. BryanBessette 19:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to revert that part. I was actually reverting the removal of wikilinks in the list of interrogation techniques. Regarding that statement about SERE being regarded as "mysterious and controversial" I'd be happy removing it completely because, as you point out, it's not really verifiable. --Lee Hunter 03:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I edited some content for clarity. I want anyone reading this to UNDERSTAND that SERE is not a school that trains interrogators or torturers. It is unfortunate that military leaders decided to refer to SERE training as the source of their decisions, but SERE training is STRICTLY training survival. If a graduate of SERE decides to apply techniques he saw in training to anyone he is in violation of the law. BryanBessette 18:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your "well-poisoning" comment regarding Salon.com. "Liberal" is how they are described in their Wiki article that I went to through your link. You should not obfuscate the truth. BryanBessette 20:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

My point is that the SERE article has nothing to do with politics so why are you trying to flag the political leanings of a source? Moreover, the bit about Salon was concerning a factual report (i.e. the verifiable discovery of an actual document) and does not mention their opinions (political views) about either the document or about SERE. --Lee Hunter 23:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The subject of this article has everything to do with politics, as does that one at Salon.com.

Assuming that Salon's "missing link" to SERE is true, that still says absolutely nothing about what information was passed along there. Even if you want to believe the "torture" meme, I seriously doubt you believe that's the only thing that goes on at SERE.

The Salon article allows the clueless reader to assume that's what's going on, and then it drags them along to a conclusion it cannot support.

Note the way it ends with al-Kahtani, and acting as though he is still in agony hanging by his thumbs. In reality, he was treated rough for about six weeks but it wasn't torture. Even if you want to say what he got was beyond the bounds (while the rest of the world turns its head away from true torture elsewhere), you might want to get this reality check:

There are two dates you need to know: One is January 15th, 2003. Alberto J. Mora had insisted that all harsh treatment at GTMO should end, and that's when he confirmed that it had ended. (Yes, 2003.)

The other date is January 11th, 2003. If you read the Mohamed al-Kahtani interrogation logs that were leaked to the public (and referenced by Salon), you might note that it ends very conveniently on that date, just four days before they started putting mints on the pillows.

Do you think it's a coincidence that the leaker just happened to pick that date to end the log?

But back to the Salon article: As I said, it implies he's still hanging by his thumbs. (Go ahead and read it; it does try to make you feel sorry for this terrorist.) Does anyone really believe the writer at Salon doesn't know this chronology?

-- Randy2063 02:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I revised the article based on my own experience as a former USAF navigator who personally went through it. One again, SERE teaches RESISTANCE to interrogation, not how to interrogate folks. Most of the students are aircrews and obviously have nothing to do with POW's other than potentially becoming one themselves. The things being taught to resist are what US POW's have faced themselves in the past.

Just because some outsider misinterprets something and publishes it, doesn't make it correct. If I were to publish an article stating that the moon is made of green chesse, it doesn't make it so. Once again, the training is primarily for aircrews, survival, evasion, resistance and escape skills, hence it's name. It is not designed for nor used to train Military Police or other folks responsible for guarding enemy POW's. GCW50 19:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You probably should have removed that entire paragraph. As I had said above, "Human Rights" First is not really making the claim that any of the so-called "SERE techniques" led to the death of that prisoner.

They're saying that the guard claimed to have used techniques he supposedly observed at SERE. Then he stopped doing that, and did other things that did kill that fascist.

In other words, those so-called SERE techniques were absolutely irrelevant.

-- Randy2063 20:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Lettering on patch

Does the patch really look like that? The Chinese characters, which I presume should be 虎处 ("tiger place"), are so garbled that they'd be completely illegible without the gloss. Jpatokal 07:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That is a close simile of the patch. I'll put in a photo of the actual patch if would make a difference. The Chinese character simply states tiger, although even it is not corrrectly spelled, it can be read as such. It is in reference to ancient maps where unknown areas would state here are tigers...208.254.130.235 (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

i think the patch looks nice overall, but the fact is, that kanji is SOOOOOO far off there's no way anyone asian would recognize it.

i feel sorry for a brave young lad/lass tortured in vietnam, etc., while his captors are GIGGLING at the patch! it would be like us finding "BREIVE WOERIER" on an enemy's uniform. 67.150.87.90 (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Soooo... what IS the Code of Conduct?

If everything's supposedly based on this, what IS it? Is it super-duper classified? If so, why is there no mention of that in the Code of Conduct section, which is all of 3 sentences by the way? 64.74.213.62 (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The Code of Conduct is the "Fighting man's code". Hardly 3 sentences, it consists of 6 articles and details how one is to act on the battlefield and if, God forbid, one is captured. The Code of Conduct is plainly written in the article, it is not a secret. SERE school is designed to teach the Code of Conduct verbatim to the students and to expand upon the meaning of the words written. The goal of the coarse is to give the students the tools necessary to effectively live by the CoC in very harsh and trying circumstances and then return to the US with dignity and honor. A prime example is:

Article 1: "I am an American. Fighting in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I'm prepared to give my life in their defense."

These are serious words. It tells what you are and who's side you're on "American", What you do.."Fight for our country and way of life", what you're prepared to do, "give my life in their defense." If one is not ready to meet these three statements with utmost sincerety and honesty, they are in the wrong profession. Freedom is not free, for one to voluntarily place their entire being on the line for his fellow man is the greatest gift one can give. This is the lesson taught by SERE school.I55ere (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Survival and Evasion

It's pretty vague, I'd like to round it out a little more. Nearly everyone who walked into SERE had an idea of how they'd stand up to the mental and physical smacking-around. Mostly it was big swagger, "they won't break me, I'm a Marine/SEAL/whatever". The whole point of SERE is that they will get to you somehow, eventually, in a lot less time than you thought and in ways you hadn't anticipated. Knowing that will happen, from experience, and being able to deal with it, and keeping yourself together under duress, resisting interrogation and propaganda exploitation...Christ, how is that not applicable today? This guy does know that the hajjis have kidnapped and captured Americans in the war zone, right? And Hainan Island ring any bells? 76.102.246.107 (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

how about the guy who says "hell yeah, they'll break me" or shouts "STOP!" with the very first slap?

it doesn't take an out-and-out coward to flinch under such circumstances. especially after being told it's "torture" during all the warmup.

what are the %ages of people who wash out, take time to build up resistance, etc etc, vs those that survive a BIT of it (half-hour or w/e) on their first go? and how are the quicker ones VIEWED in the unit afterwards? 67.150.87.90 (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Biased

There should not be a link to an MSNBC Olbermann opinion piece on waterboarding at the end of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.46.46 (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Controversies section

I have reinstated this long-standing section removed by an editor without discussion. Grounds given were that the article is "about the acronym SERE." SERE is indeed an acronym: the subject of the article, however, is the SERE program itself, not its acronym merely. Insufficient and fallacious grounds, therefore, for the section's excision. Wingspeed (talk) 22:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Other Countries don't have SERE?

I know of at least 3 other nations with SERE schools, so why is this article written like it is only a US military course? Shouldn't the SERE article be about the techniques taught to service members in order for them to SERE enemy forces? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaroopD (talk • contribs) 05:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Other countries do have it but I don't know that they call it by the exact same full name. See SERE.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I know Canada and the UK both call it SERE. Would anyone mind if I started changing the top of the page to reflect that it's a skill taught to service members, not necessarily only an American course? SaroopD (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about Canada but the UK calls it Survive, Evade, Resist, Extract.

The way it's set up now, being separate, would suggest we create a new article for Canada's school. But it's worth considering that we rename this one back to "SERE", and put them all here.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Canada's is Called SERE using the same acronym as the US. It's a course taught at the CF School of Survival and Aeromedical Training in Winnipeg, Manitoba. If it's going to be two different pages I suggest that the title of this page is altered to SERE (US COURSE). SaroopD (talk) 22:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It has the same acronym but the full name seems to be "Survival, Evasion, Resistance, And Escape Flight." If so, that would mean they could each have their names spelled out, as this one is now. There would be no conflict of article titles.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The flight part comes from the fact that it is a flight within a squadron. The course is called SERE.SaroopD (talk) 08:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

But this current article uses the full name for its title even though it is usually called SERE.

I just saw using full names as an easy solution. I don't have a strong opinion on this one way or another.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Rich1vanwinkle (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC) With expanded history focused on US military SERE training, this subject is moot. IF OTHER COUNTRIES ARE DOING SOMETHING DIFFERENT OR HAVE CONTENT OF MERIT, THEY SHOULD HAVE THEIR OWN ARTICLE.

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Not merged due inconclusive results. Merge proposal has been extant for almost six years with no progress; possible relisting?The joy of all things (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

---

I propose that Survive, Evade, Resist, Extract (Extract) be merged into Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (Escape). Both SERE courses are on the same set of skills for different militaries. 'Escape' is a much longer article, 'Extract' could easily form a subheading.

Of course, the argument could be made that the cojoined article should be renamed "SERE." But that, IMHO, is a further discussion. The point here is that these articles work much better as one article. --01:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)Andrewaskew (talk)

If they are merged I think it would have to be under the heading SERE as there is a subtle but important difference in what they are called in the two countries, which is reflected in the different doctrines and training regimes involved. Blackshod (talk) 14:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Blackshod; why should the American title have precedence? SERE should be the article name. 109.155.250.229 (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no objections to the merge, however; the UK one states that it is given to UK Army Personnel. The reason that is at RAF St Mawgan is that it is taught to Pilots and aircrew if they are shot down over enemy territory (RAF, RN and Army Air Corps) so a merged article should reflect this rather than just focusing on Army. If the merger does not go ahead, I can flesh out the UK one, but I would prefer that the US heavy stance on a merged article is removed if the merger goes ahead.The joy of all things (talk) 08:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose I think each article is worth having in its own right and no reason they can't mention each other right in the Lead. The only reason for SERE to have American precedence is volume. A disambiguation notice at the top is certainly appropriate. Buffs (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reference 1 link is dead, looking for alternates

The Ref 1 url is dead, 404. Googling for alternative sources of the same content that is a .mil or .gov source, wanted to discuss what I see. There is a copy of what looks like the exact document on fas.org but I feel to have the same credibility it should be from an official .mil site. I found this, on dtic.mil but am not sure if this is the exact same/proper document http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/130021p.pdfSuper veritas (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070928185104/http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?command=viewone&id=10&database=Unlisted.db to http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?command=viewone&id=10&database=Unlisted%2edb

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Late Returners Club? You Mean Late Arrivals Club!

The only instances of the 'club' you guys refer to on the internet is this page or people who are quoting this page (interestingly including ACTUAL military sources and SERE schools erroneously trusting your work!) however there is no historical example of ANYTHING to do with it. HOWEVER. There is a Late Arrivals Club, which issued certificates and a flying boot, and did everything else you claim the 'Late Returners Club' did. There's historical examples of the boot, certificates, and book references to this club. It might be worthwhile to fix such a blaring error in your article lede! :P 124.190.207.57 (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.gazette.com/articles/training_31846___article.html/cadets_program.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060815124943/http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/dic/mowhoush.asp to http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/dic/mowhoush.asp

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 05:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

"Origin of SERE techniques" appears to be incorrect

I see two points where action should be taken:

- Correct the factual inaccuracy in the "Origin of SERE techniques" section, or
- Downgrade from C-Class on the quality assessment scale

Factual Inaccuracy

This section mistakenly deflects away from Communist China origins and improperly points us toward CIA practices. This current article's "Code of conduct" section states that SERE training is aimed at living up to the Code of Conduct in hostile environments. When Eisenhower created that Code of Conduct with Executive Order 10631 https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/10631.html that order also states:

"All members of the Armed Forces of the United States are expected to measure up to the standards in this Code of Conduct while in combat or in captivity. To ensure achievement of these standards, members of the armed forces liable to capture shall be provided with specific training and instruction designed to equip them to counter and withstand all enemy efforts against them, and shall be fully instructed as to the behavior and obligations expected of them during combat or captivity."

This "Origin" section refers to the Kubark manual published 1963, but the executive order was 1955. Furthermore, the "erroneously" claim links to a nonexistent section in the Brainwashing article. The likely support is the Brainwashing article's paragraph ending with footnote 20, which links to http://palmm.digital.flvc.org/islandora/object/fau%3A32574/datastream/OBJ/view/Communist_interrogation_indoctrination__and_exploitation_of_prisoners_of_war.pdf and claims that 1956 document proves the point.

On the contrary, that 1956 document is the code of conduct training and it's introduced by Eisenhower himself. (Is the 1956 document a fake? There is a rubber stamp naming Lt Col Karl E. Osenlund, and there's a digitized Army register showing same name, same rank, retiring 1957: https://books.google.com/books?id=pPcfAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA407&lpg=PA407&dq=osenlund,+karl&source=bl&ots=Z18-bNL5qi&sig=ACfU3U0nCSU30OtgZICVHo1YKm7swyt_0g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwim9cKK-4HpAhWRPM0KHWmqBSAQ6AEwA3oECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=osenlund%2C%20karl&f=false .) So the 1956 document appears to be the real training pamphlet, and it actually says the opposite of what this section and the Brainwashing article's section says it says. Words were cherry-picked so as to appear to be citing an authoritative source.

Given that this section claims to report the origin of SERE techniques, it seems to me that we should be giving the origin as the same executive order which established the Code of Conduct in the first place. The same Executive Order (a) establishes the Code of Conduct, and (b) requires those subject to capture to receive resistance training. I would suggest quoting the executive order as above, and also linking to the 1956 document as an early exemplar of said training. The CIA and related references (the bulk of the current section) have no place here - regardless of whether there is or is not a later relationship to CIA influence. This section is about origins (and perhaps original intent) not about controversies.

Disclosure: I completed USAFA-based SERE training summer 1976.

Rich1vanwinkle (talk) 02:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC) Among the issues I tried to address in my re-write were the obvious inaccuracies discussed above. If there is any question as to the veracity of the new section, I would be glad to cite NUMEROUS sources confirming this history. I have read several of the sources that would like to suggest that the origins of "resistance training" were CIA based, but they are simply wrong and uninformed. As one who learned RT instruction from some of the "brown shoe boys" (from Stead) and had access to the TS files that served as the basis for this training, I speak from both first-hand and close second-hand sources.

Downgrade C-Class Assessment

@WP:MILHIST coordinators:

1. The C-Class assessment was awarded, if I understand the revisions correctly, on 6 January 2009: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASurvival%2C_Evasion%2C_Resistance_and_Escape&diff=prev&oldid=262456807

2. The inaccurate section was added later, March 2012: https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py?name=ElijahBosley&page=Survival%2C_Evasion%2C_Resistance_and_Escape&server=enwiki&max=

This current talk page includes a separate discussion concerning article accuracy, which existed prior to awarding the C-Class assessment, so concerns to that point were sufficiently resolved. The C-Class assessment checklist as of January 2009 noted B-1 (referencing and citation) criterion not met, and B-2 (coverage and accuracy) criterion met. That's why I am now suggesting that, based on the section added in March 2012, the "coverage and accuracy" criterion is no longer met.

My specific concern is that the "Origins of SERE techniques" section appears to be strongly biased and based on later scandals. If the current section were titled "Origins of later scandals" the title would at least match the content. The sources point to relevant documents but misstate those documents' conclusions to support the biased interpretation. Given the lack of any discussion of this concern, on either this page or the section's author's talk page, I'm flagging this to the Military History project to assess the misinformation/disinformation.

Edward Barnard (talk) 18:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Rich1vanwinkle (talk) 02:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC) Since the prior article was full of inaccuracies, had poor content relevancy, lacked proper citation and sourcing, focused on a false controversy, and was missing substantial relevant material, I decided to re-write it from top to bottom. Instead of downgrading from C-Class, I'm striving for a B-Class upgrade. You help would be appreciated. RVW

Use of "Blog" content ("Curriculum")

Rich1vanwinkle (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC) Reference to https://enlistspecialforces.wordpress.com/sf-training-pipeline/sf-sere-school/... This content is not opinion and is consistent with other sources. I have used it because of context and reliability.

Notes re ====False claims of "SERE" credentials and ties====

Rich1vanwinkle (talk) 22:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC) Thanks for the help in "proofing" and improving... (whoever you are). This section has inherent bias... as a former SERE and RT instructor, I hate to be tied to the despicable psychologists and intelligence group who clearly jumped ship to make some BIG $$.

I have never met Capt. Kearns, but became suspicious when I saw a picture of his patch and scroll (Facebook)...

Mystery patches for non-existent units.

The patch ("Special Survival Training Program") was clearly amateurish and appears to be one-of-a-kind. It does not represent any official US military group. The scroll ("Special Survival Instructor") is even more absurd... and reflects the clear intention to misrepresent his qualifications. USAF "survival instructors" or "SERE Specialists" have completed some of the most rigorous and demanding training the military offers. That Capt. Kearns was involved in RT for JPRA (as an "Intelligence Officer" in the Air Force doesn't make him anything close to a "Special Survival Instructor" or SERE Specialist.

My suspicions grew when I saw a picture of Capt. Kearns at his "retirement"...

Kearns during retirement "ceremony" with insignia and beret

The picture shows with him wearing a maroon beret. I was confused… a “Master SERE Instructor” (as Capt. Kearns claims to be) would be wearing a pewter-green beret (and the prestigious USAF SERE beret badge) along with his hard earned AETC "Master Instructor" badge. In the USAF, maroon berets are worn by either para-rescue or combat controllers. Kearns was neither. I will say openly, that he is a fraud.

Later, I saw another picture of him in a different beret (Army) and realized that he wore whatever he wanted regardless of his qualifications for doing so. More research revealed that Kearns is of doubtful integrity. (He's also appears to be wearing a Master Parachutist insignia, and while he is clearly an avid "jumper", there is no claim that I could find that he ever went to any school that would qualify him to wear the pin. (I've met very few Airborne qualified personnel who didn't want to say how and when they earned it).

In social media and marketing sites, Kearns claims LOTs of training and credentials - but never anything that would qualify him as SERE, Master Instructor, or Airborne qualified. It seems that he was likely involved with Jessen and Mitchell, but I can't show evidence of such.

Finish of re-write

Rich1vanwinkle (talk) 16:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC) Having completed a re-write of the article, I hope this is seen as a significant improvement. Let's keep making it better! Goals:

1. Corrections!!!
2. Clear, concise, and complete...
3. Added content - emphasis on training
4. Re-structuring
5. Change of focus - somewhat
6. Removed out-dated material

I think there is need for a better historical sequence article regarding our remarkable turn to torture. The continuing work of the ACLU (and others) to gather documentation and information has provided much more detail.

Good job Rich1vanwinkle. I still see duplicative information on U.S. Air Force SERE Specialists in the "History - USAF Survival Instructors/SERE Specialists" (second paragraph) and "U.S. Military SERE/Survival Schools and Courses - Air Force" (first paragraph) sections. The information only needs to be discussed once. --McChizzle (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Rich1vanwinkle (talk) 03:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC) Thanks... well taken. I'll work on it soon.

"General Survival" > "Military Survival"

"General Survival" is a worthwhile addition/edit... except for some needless redundancy and needed positioning. Since this article is about SERE, I thought it important to make the content relate to SERE. As in the prior section, "Combat Survival", the fact that all military personnel receive some training foundational to, but not inherently part of SERE training is a given (as in reading and writing). But the additional specificity of general survival training common in the US military is relevant.

Revision 1009555316 by Nic T R

I have undone the revision... Removing relevant content without an explanation is (at best) inappropriate. If there is soemthing you don't like about the content (accuracy, etc.) then you need to explain. I appreciate the interest and desire to improve the content. The revision is not an improvement. RVW — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich1vanwinkle (talk • contribs) 19:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• The article editing behavior appears to be abusive of privileges and disruptive to the integrity of the resource. Maybe someone is seeking attention, albeit in an irresponsible manner. The subject matter certainly demands the respect of editorial oversight for such instances. Xin Jing (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect Image

The image accompanying the caption, "The seven Mercury astronauts during USAF survival training in 1960" is out of context for this article. Xin Jing (talk) 05:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Erroneous Conflation of "SERE Techniques" with "Detainee" Interrogation/Torture

It is an unfortunate reality that almost none of the folks who edit Wikipedia content bother to use the talk page to support their edit. Of course, that is because most edits are either improper for purpose, content, format, or concept.

I appreciate those who make minor edits for correction or clarity and those need no comment. But if you wish to re-write a section or completely change the content of a section it would be polite, thoughtful, courteous, and appropriate to explain the need and details.

Those who keep insisting on ignoring the facts, the evidence, and the relativity or materiality of their edits regarding “torture” and SERE should use some other forum to express their opinions. No matter how much one may oppose torture (no one more than I do), it is simply absurd to continue misstating the apparent and established facts – There has not been any claim (that I can find) by any person who has any credentials as a “SERE Instructor” who instructed anyone in “how to” use torture techniques. Actual US military SERE instructors were asked to do so and REFUSED. Wannabe SERE instructors who actually were military intelligence interrogators used the SERE claim to hide who they actually were.

Thus, when someone from Gitmo says that some guy told them they were SERE and “taught” them “enhanced interrogation techniques”, that is hearsay - or more accurately, incorrect and misleading hearsay. So, either come up with a name of some SERE Instructor who has any public credential supporting that claim who participated in the teaching of torture or the actual torture of someone or quit making these edits.

Again, this is an article about SERE training. If someone misuses that training, then add that to the “SERE abuses and scandals” section. But offer more that hearsay cites to support such. Thanks, RVW — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich1vanwinkle (talk • contribs) 03:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The entire "Erroneous Conflation of "SERE Techniques" with "Detainee" Interrogation/Torture"? is difficult to read and comes across as an editorial or blog post, not something especially relevant to the topic. I think it should be removed, or whoever wrote it should significantly touch it up. 76.119.114.192 (talk) 03:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Hey. Alexa

Hey. Alexa 88.201.6.52 (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey. Aliexa

I. Love you 88.201.6.52 (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Information given during interrogation

We are not given service numbers anymore. We use our social security number as our unique number. Service numbers haven’t been a thing for a long time. 69.72.113.45 (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Waterboarding

Under SERE abuse and scandals, the second point asserts that waterboarding at USN Schools was discontinued in 2007. Then immediately following that states "However, waterboarding at SERE was reinstated in 2018 and is still incorporated into the training today." The given citation(111) though provides nothing stating anything about waterboarding being reinstated. 57.140.28.27 (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)