-
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
Wall Street Journal Article on Army Boot Camp Changes...
- Thread starter Benson
- Start date
I would think that supporting the war means more warfighters, not lambs to the slaughter. I am by no means a "50% attrition is a job half done" guy, but the training techniques the Army is embracing are 180 out from what they need.
I thought they were going to learn from the Jessica Lynch fiasco where a support element got their asses handed to them by initiating better combat training. Unfortunately, they appear be filling billets with bodies, not with warriors. An old saying goes something like,"Better 1 lion than 100 jackals." Take it from the Persians who faced the Spartans at Thermoplae, quality is much better than quantity.
My favorite quote from the article,"Col. Daly says one of the 14 company commanders he oversees is a "gung-ho combat arms officer, who right now is just killing me." That gung-ho combat arms officer is probably the only one of his officers who has a pair. He definitely has more than the company commander giving his recruits an extra half hour of beauty sleep.
Initial training is supposed to be hard, supposed to be an ordeal. If you showed up to boot camp or OCS and they handed you your eagle, globe, and anchor the first day, would it mean as much? Would you hold its standards and traditions in high regard? No, because they would no longer deserve that regard. The Army is pissing away a long, proud history with these changes to its training.
I thought they were going to learn from the Jessica Lynch fiasco where a support element got their asses handed to them by initiating better combat training. Unfortunately, they appear be filling billets with bodies, not with warriors. An old saying goes something like,"Better 1 lion than 100 jackals." Take it from the Persians who faced the Spartans at Thermoplae, quality is much better than quantity.
My favorite quote from the article,"Col. Daly says one of the 14 company commanders he oversees is a "gung-ho combat arms officer, who right now is just killing me." That gung-ho combat arms officer is probably the only one of his officers who has a pair. He definitely has more than the company commander giving his recruits an extra half hour of beauty sleep.
Initial training is supposed to be hard, supposed to be an ordeal. If you showed up to boot camp or OCS and they handed you your eagle, globe, and anchor the first day, would it mean as much? Would you hold its standards and traditions in high regard? No, because they would no longer deserve that regard. The Army is pissing away a long, proud history with these changes to its training.
I'll repeat what I've said on two other boards.
Somebody senior to the two CO's quoted in the article needs to go onto amazon, buy two copies of Fehrenbach's "This Kind of War" (The Korean War history) and ship them to Ft Wood.
Ferenbach was an Army CPT during the Korean war and details what happens when soft soldiers meet the hard realities of war.
And we haven't even stopped fighting!
Somebody senior to the two CO's quoted in the article needs to go onto amazon, buy two copies of Fehrenbach's "This Kind of War" (The Korean War history) and ship them to Ft Wood.
Ferenbach was an Army CPT during the Korean war and details what happens when soft soldiers meet the hard realities of war.
And we haven't even stopped fighting!
By making basic training easier and promising fat recruits..er "privates"...cake in the chowhall with plenty of time to eat it is just going to attract more ass to the army. The problem was that army was already attracting terrible recruits...now it's just going to get worse.
Thisguy
Pain-in-the-dick
Another part of the army's problem is that their numbers are far greater than the Navy's. I know on the Officer side the Navy commissions roughly 3,000 a year, whereas the army commissions something crazy like 12,000 a year.
The problem is two-fold I guess. They have the most slots to fill, and they're the least attractive option due to the prospect of being sent to Iraq for a year straigght. Anyone read that blurb about the Army taking more high school dropouts?
The problem is two-fold I guess. They have the most slots to fill, and they're the least attractive option due to the prospect of being sent to Iraq for a year straigght. Anyone read that blurb about the Army taking more high school dropouts?
I have a gut feeling that this approach may backfire from a recruiting standpoint. Every service has those who enlist simply for a paycheck, college money, etc. - for these types, an easier basic training package is attractive. Some people have a lot to offer the military, but have no desire to be on the front lines. That's okay - there is a place for them in our military, and we need them. We do not need two million grunts.
However, I would bet that the vast majority of those looking to enlist into the military - even those who know they are not cut out to be in the trenches - do so with the expectation of physically and mentally demanding training. Most have had relatively easy lives up to the point that they raise their right hands, and they freely enlist knowing that they are in for tough training. Maybe they feel they want to challenge themselves, or they want to prove themselves to somebody, or they know that hard training creates a good product. In any event, they want boot camp to be tough! This new approach (which seems geared towards putting bodies on the battlefield, not necessarily recruiting), while attractive to some potential recruits, might drive away many motivated young men and women who do not want to be associated with a "soft" Army. This could end up hurting the Army in the long run.
(Maybe some of these same men and women, who are looking for a challenge, will help our numbers by considering the Navy or Marine Corps? Maybe not - but I can dream, can't I?
)
However, I would bet that the vast majority of those looking to enlist into the military - even those who know they are not cut out to be in the trenches - do so with the expectation of physically and mentally demanding training. Most have had relatively easy lives up to the point that they raise their right hands, and they freely enlist knowing that they are in for tough training. Maybe they feel they want to challenge themselves, or they want to prove themselves to somebody, or they know that hard training creates a good product. In any event, they want boot camp to be tough! This new approach (which seems geared towards putting bodies on the battlefield, not necessarily recruiting), while attractive to some potential recruits, might drive away many motivated young men and women who do not want to be associated with a "soft" Army. This could end up hurting the Army in the long run.
(Maybe some of these same men and women, who are looking for a challenge, will help our numbers by considering the Navy or Marine Corps? Maybe not - but I can dream, can't I?
)
Thisguy
Pain-in-the-dick
Benson said:
That's their own fvcking fault. Seriously, where do these guys (and girls) think they're going? Summer camp? The recruiters need to beat it into their head that they need to show up in shape. Anyone who has been to OCS and seen people roll at the in-prt or get shin splints from running during week 2 knows what I'm talking about.
"They consulted sociologists and psychiatrists and even flew in MTV's senior vice president of strategy and planning, in search of fresh ideas for motivating today's youth. "
MTV is all that is wrong with America.
I'm sure the Army will pull through somehow.
MTV is all that is wrong with America.
I'm sure the Army will pull through somehow.
Thisguy said:
I agree with you to a point - they do need to show up "in shape," whatever that happens to be for that particular service. To show up out of shape is to set yourself up for injury, failure, or both.
HOWEVER - There is a world of difference between "OCS" and "recruit training/basic training," regardless of the service. Generally, OCS is designed to screen and evaluate potential officers. You are expected to meet and exceed the standards for that service upon entry.
Recruit training/basic training is just that - BASIC training. It is designed to take a typical American teenager and turn him/her into a basic Marine, Sailor, Soldier, etc., not a poster-boy officer. You are trained to meet the minimum standards for service - not to max out the PFT/PRT/etc. For example, the minimum standards for a male Marine recruit to ship to MCRD PISC or SD are: two pull-ups, 44 crunches, and 1.5 miles in 13:30. It sounds weak, but it is the baseline by which all training starts. By the end of boot camp, you have been trained to do three pull-ups, 50 crunches, and a 28:00 three-mile run - the MINIMUM STANDARDS to be a Marine.