-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
The Army getting even softer!
- Thread starter Bighead
- Start date
I'd begun to doubt the veracity of the article, but it was from Wall Street Journal online. Can't find the original link but here's a collegejournal (subsidiary of WSJ) link:
http://www.collegejournal.com/successwork/onjob/20060216-jaffe.html
http://www.collegejournal.com/successwork/onjob/20060216-jaffe.html
red92gt
NFO? no. SNA? not yet. FNG? yep.
So the DI's are going to take it easier on the recruits....Are the Arabs gonna greet them with a smile too? Granted, the Army does need people like no tomorrow, but this is a bad idea...and where will it stop? Third helpings of dessert? Never! Wait, recruitment numbers are dropping...bring on the cake!
Here's some food for thought:
"Boot camp," as we know it today, is a relatively new phenomenon (only the past century or so). Our military has been highly effective for the better part of the past 230 years.
Was our military "weak" in the days before the modern, "in-your-face" boot camp structure? I will not argue that training has always been hard, but the Full Metal Jacket-style boot camp is not as old as our military.
Remember, "boot camp" was much, much different when we fought terrorists at the turn of the 19th century, but we were highly successful back then.
Who is to say that this new approach won't work?
"Boot camp," as we know it today, is a relatively new phenomenon (only the past century or so). Our military has been highly effective for the better part of the past 230 years.
Was our military "weak" in the days before the modern, "in-your-face" boot camp structure? I will not argue that training has always been hard, but the Full Metal Jacket-style boot camp is not as old as our military.
Remember, "boot camp" was much, much different when we fought terrorists at the turn of the 19th century, but we were highly successful back then.
Who is to say that this new approach won't work?
goosegagnon2
Member
By Arabs you mean terrorists right? nice way to throw them all in one bunch, what about the dudes in Southeast Asia? They must be Arabs too, or are they Asians? this maybe a side note, but its something that upsets me. NOT ALL ARABS ARE TERRORISTS AND NOT ALL TERRORISTS ARE ARAB.
red92gt
NFO? no. SNA? not yet. FNG? yep.
Jeez man....didn't mean to offend you, sorry.
I said Arabs because we are in Iraq fighting Arab people. If we were at war with Canada I would have asked about Canadians. To a certain degree you are right, but so am I. I'll say terrorists next time, don't get your panties in a bunch
I said Arabs because we are in Iraq fighting Arab people. If we were at war with Canada I would have asked about Canadians. To a certain degree you are right, but so am I. I'll say terrorists next time, don't get your panties in a bunch
red92gt said:
You’re not even close to being right. We are in Iraq fighting terrorists who happen to be Arabs. Fighting the terrorists with us are Iraqis who are also Arabs. All Arabs are not terrorists. This is a serious problem. People that think like this are the reason that we are having this huge debate over the U.S. Port management purchase.
red92gt
NFO? no. SNA? not yet. FNG? yep.
You know, you're absolutely right. However, I'm 99.9% sure that all of us on this forum understand that not all Arabic people, and not even all Muslims, are terrorists. I use "Arabs" as a general term because a) everyone does, and therefore b) it's widely accepted and understood to mean the people we are actually at war with.
Look guys, I'm sorry. I didn't want to offend anyone and I sure as hell didn't come in here looking to get into fights. Can we maybe settle down a bit and not be so high-strung about things that really aren't worth arguing over?
Look guys, I'm sorry. I didn't want to offend anyone and I sure as hell didn't come in here looking to get into fights. Can we maybe settle down a bit and not be so high-strung about things that really aren't worth arguing over?
goosegagnon2
Member
Any smart person knows the difference, you used the word incorrectly and it needed to be addressed. By some people's standards we are not fighting the "Arabs" ....we are helping them, but that is subjective to the individual and their personal views/ideals/priorities. I'm not mad, just don't be THAT ignorant next time. problem solved.
now back to the army.
hmmm atleast they are not as bad as the air force? hold up...wait.. no I take that back, the Air Force takes care of its people...my b
KBayDog said:
The man has a point. However, I dare say the raw material that was our recruits at the turn of the century was a whole different level of hard when compared to the doughy a$$ed youth that makes up much of the talent pool these days.
KBay, in your honest opinion as a prior enlisted Marine do you think this softer bootcamp has a chance in hell of producing more effective warriors?
DocT said:
I really don't know.
However, I firmly believe in the "transformation" process.
I've said it before, so here's the "Reader's Digest" version: Boot camp - no matter what the service - is not designed to create a warrior ready to go directly into battle the day he graduates. No matter how "hard" boot camp is made, six to thirteen weeks simply cannot undo 18 to 30 years of civilian indoctrination and lifestyle. The noncommissioned officers and petty officers at boot camp plant the seeds, and begin the process of developing people physically and mentally for service. (By the way, for those who think that boot camp is soley designed to train someone for war, riddle me this: Why do recruits get eight hours of sleep a night? Why do they get three squares a day? Why do they get at least one shower a day? Why do they spend hours upon hours each day in an academic classroom? Hmm....)
Boot camp creates a basically indoctrinated enlisted man or woman who meets the minimum standards for that service. They are then sent to follow-on training for their MOS to learn the minimum technical skills required to begin their primary duties. During this time, as we all know, they are in a blurry area between the boot camp and the "real" military environments. They are given some freedom, but a short rope. Also, protocols are in place to continually develop the military bearing, leadership skills, physical fitness, etc. that they started to learn in boot camp. Noncommissioned officers/petty officers generally lead the technical training and the further basic military development. (The difference here is that some people have a steeper learning curve than others - grunts have a few weeks, whereas some MOSs have upwards of a year.)
After advanced training, they are generally sent to their units, where they apply their trade under the close supervision of the noncommissioned officers/petty officers. Both their technical and basic military skills are honed by these professionals. In a few years, of course, the "boot" becomes the NCO/PO, and continues the circle. (*Cue sappy music.)
That's an oversimplified explanation, for sure. There are plenty of variables along the way, but it pretty much works that way in all of the services. My opinion? Time, experience, and education create successful warriors. If that were not the case, there would be no need for experienced NCOs/POs. If boot camp were the end-all, be-all of warfighter production, one could graduate from boot camp, be frocked as a sergeant and lead his men into battle, right?
I feel that a strong NCO/PO corps creates warriors at all levels of training and development. They start the process at boot camp and continue it throughout the various levels of training. I'm sure I am not in the minority with that opinion. If a strong NCO/PO corps is the key, why aren't all NCOs/POs trained to be drill instructors? If that kind of leadership creates successful warfighters, then it stands to reason that that kind of leadership should be practiced throughout the military, from Parris Island to the office of the JCS. Right?
(I'm almost done...bear with me...) Will this "softer" approach work in the long run? Maybe. Maybe not. How will the Army NCOs deal with the "new" soldiers? Who knows. Only time will tell.
(While I'm at it, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the British Royal Marines. There is little to no screaming and yelling in their indoctrination, yet nobody will say that they are not an effective fighting force.)
However, we all need to re-evaluate our way of thinking if we only want an "in-your-face" boot camp because "that's they way it's always been done."
USMCBebop
SergeantLieutenant
Dumbing down of society
I remember one of the Marines who were taken hostage during the Iranian Crisis saying that his Iranian Captors were amateur when it came to intimidating them compared to their Boot Camp DIs.
Sure, it [softer Army Basic] might work, but having these "softer recruits" in a real war will be the only test and I fear the discipline they'll fail to receive will be their downfall. (I hope I'm wrong.)
Good point, but with the dumbing down of society (i.e. schools letting kids pass to get their "grad numbers" up, or parents being their kids' "friends" instead of authority figures, or "Me! Me! Me!"), the odds aren't very good.KBayDog said:
I remember one of the Marines who were taken hostage during the Iranian Crisis saying that his Iranian Captors were amateur when it came to intimidating them compared to their Boot Camp DIs.
Sure, it [softer Army Basic] might work, but having these "softer recruits" in a real war will be the only test and I fear the discipline they'll fail to receive will be their downfall. (I hope I'm wrong.)