| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| Army Now Retaining Good Recruits Not Good Enough To Be Infantry |
| 2006-07-13 |
| The Army has slashed the rate at which young soldiers wash out, allowing it to keep more of the recruits it has struggled to find. That's due largely to changes in how the Army treats enlistees. Gone are the days when trainees run 'til they drop. Soldiers who need counseling get extra attention, not a screaming drill sergeant. The attrition rate within the soldier's first six months plummeted from 18.1% in May 2005 to today's rate of 7.6%. Last year the Army, which supplies most of the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, missed its recruiting goal of 80,000 soldiers; it's on track to meet this year's goal, also 80,000. It made sense to change basic training, because the Army relies more on technology skills than brute strength, said Michael O'Hanlon, a military analyst at the Brookings Institution. "If you're losing good people with those skills because of lack of physical prowess, that's not a good thing." Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty, an Army spokesman at the Pentagon, said the approach began in 2003 and was re-emphasized in 2005, after the Army fell behind its recruiting goals. Soldiers who fail tests are often retrained instead of run out of the Army, he said. "You'll get guys who have never run a mile," Hilferty said of some recruits. "Rather than throw them out, we said, 'Let's change the training so we don't injure them.' " The Army's also made training more relevant to today's fight, said Harvey Perritt, a spokesman for the Army's Training and Doctrine Command at Fort Monroe, Va. Young soldiers spend three weeks in the field compared with three days a few years ago. They get issued an M-16 rifle on their second day, not in the third week as in the past. And they carry it everywhere, from the chow hall to the bathroom. James Martin, an expert on military culture at Bryn Mawr College in Pennsylvania, said the changes make sense but stressed that the Army needs to guard against graduating substandard soldiers. "Will you have people causing you problems later on?" Martin said. "That would occur if you lowered that standard at the end of training period." We used to joke about the Army "ugly man" program. In peacetime, the Army raises its standards far beyond physical fitness, eliminating many valuable individuals who would otherwise excel at their jobs. In wartime, however, they do not have the luxury of eliminating superior personnel just because they aren't perfect. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #16 Lowering standards makes sense in wartime, when the "adventure" component of joining the military goes off the charts. You gotta figure that since less people will be volunteering, thanks to the risk to life and limb, fewer candidates, fit or not, are available to fill vacant slots left by exiting personnel. Short of a draft, or a massive increase in starting salaries ($40,000 per year on top of free housing, food and tax bennies might do it)*, there's no way they're going to get enough highly-fit people to sign up during a time when the odds of getting killed or maimed are about 1 in 50. As long as the pay doesn't make up for the risk of death and the gruelling 12-hours-on, 12-hours-off, 7 days-a-week, can't fraternize with the local women (in Muslim countries), can't drink in-country (in Muslim countries) rules, there will always be a shortage of recruits that meet the military's exacting standards. Again, short of a draft, that is. * Instead of the occasionally-quoted $30,000 number which already factors in the free housing, food and tax bennies. The real pre-tax dollars on this number amount to about $22,000 per year, which is way lower than the $40,000 number I put up. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2006-07-13 22:00 |
| #15 One thing that really impresses me is the American military ethic. On one hand, they are capable of imagining the most horrific things, unlike their forefathers in WWII who were not as worldly. That is, soldiers today fully understand genocide, child slavery, torture and brutality in so many of its forms. And yet, this knowledge has *not* made them evil or brutal. Knowing of monsters does not make you a monster. If anything, the soldiers of today have a keen eye and extraordinary self-control. In WWII, faced with a murderous and treacherous enemy, the military responded with a fearsome brutality. But today, they somehow retain their equanimity, and never stoop to the level of their enemy. It is as if they have transcended acting on hatred. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-07-13 21:52 |
| #14 Each generation of soldier is vastly different from the next, the training needs to flex. Today's troops are much smarter than the recruits of the 70's or 80's. They have a much better grasp of technology than we did. And yup, they need to get into shape and also learn to work outdoors and with weapons. But to say they are not as good as the last generation or as tough is just wrong. They are proving themselves as just as capable as any generation of soldiers ever produced in America. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2006-07-13 21:41 |
| #13 I've always told my Marines that as long as they run a first class PFT I don't give a rat's ass how they look in uniform or how "fat" they are. Also, any senior SNCO or Officer w/half a cranial pulse can see someone's best effort versus sandbagging. OTOH, I've seen some guys who look like their in shape who are physically weak, much of which goes to lack of mental toughness or self discipline to do what it takes to get ahead. I'd rather have fat boys who can pack their gear then some thin-lanky guys who look good in uniform but can't hack it in the field. I disagree w/this "coach" or let's not hurt their little feelings. This whole approach the Army is going to is not good but this has been long in coming, they are just now putting a name to it. My Dad (prior 101st LRRP, early to mid-60s) hates today's Army because of this type of *new & improved ideas*. BTW - I reserve most of this rant for leg outfits. The Rangers/SF lads still seem to maintain the standards from what I've observed. |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2006-07-13 20:52 |
| #12 logisticians. I remember the only one they were afraid to sacrifice to the goddess of P.C. was an NCO who had been a POW in Vietnam twice (escaped, recaptured). He was not only fat, but he was surly, and knew he could get away with damn near anything. It also helped that he was very, very good at his job, and made it a habit to pull officer's ashes out of the fire by "having it done yesterday." |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-07-13 18:55 |
| #11 Sounds like they "don't pack the gear to serve in my beloved Corps." R. Lee Emery |
| Posted by: usmc6743 2006-07-13 17:31 |
| #10 "...gifted logicians..." Did you mean to use "logicians" or were you intending to use logistician? Both are real words, they just have different meanings. Just asking. -M |
| Posted by: Manolo 2006-07-13 17:25 |
| #9 I remember the Army "fat man" and "anti-smoker" programs. Fat man in particular eliminated dozens of guys I knew who were senior NCOs of high skill level. Several such fires crippled their units because they lost individuals who were gifted logicians, master mechanics, computer jocks back when that was a very rare thing, etc. One fat NCO in particular had been given a high commendation for keeping a big chunk of Ft Lewis's supply system operational during a major training cycle. Then promptly discharged even though nobody else had a clue. Within a year, he was pulling down $300k working for a major trucking company, and still fat. Not bad for an ex-E7 in the 1980s. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-07-13 17:19 |
| #8 And don't forget the reason they may be less physically fit -- those video hands are paying off BIG in all the services. Their minds and their hands function extremely well together, better than their minds and feet maybe! |
| Posted by: Sherry 2006-07-13 16:57 |
| #7 Looks like they may have "lowered" the physical requirements, but three weeks in the field and a rifle after three days -- sounds like they increased the mental/emotional requirements. |
| Posted by: Rob Crawford 2006-07-13 16:20 |
| #6 When the need is there, if you are breathing, can walk and talk, you're in. That's Ok for infantry, but for tanks and missile interception, there needs to be some level of cognizance to properly operate systems. Happily, often times those who may not be top rate physically are often more capable from the mental end. |
| Posted by: SOP35/Rat 2006-07-13 16:15 |
| #5 More on Martin: A retired Army Colonel, JimÂ’s military career includes a variety of clinical, research, and management (command), and senior policy assignments. He served three assignments in Europe, including an assignment at Headquarter, 7th Medical Command, and as the Commander of the U.S. Army Medical Research Unit-Europe, an overseas activity of the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research. Jim was the senior social work officer in the Persian Gulf Theater of Operations during the first Gulf War and edited The Gulf War and Mental Health: A Comprehensive Guide (Praeger, 1996). He served in the Pentagon as the Executive Assistant to the Army Deputy Surgeon General for Medical Research and Development and as the medical liaison to the ArmyÂ’s Director of Science and Technology ... |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-07-13 15:54 |
| #4 Martin is a clinical social worker who appears to have done a lot of study of military life issues WRT families and medical care, among other things. He's done a lot a work with DOD on aspects of military training, too. And don't forget that Bryn Mawr shares classes with Haverford and other mainline schools with male students. That said, the real surprise isn't that Bryn Mawr has a female student body, but that it's Main Line. ;-) |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-07-13 15:47 |
| #3 James Martin, an expert on military culture at Bryn Mawr College in Pennsylvania No offence, lotp, tw, db, etc., but why the heck does a girl's school have an expert on military culture on its faculty? Do lot's of the ladies of the Main Line go ROTC? |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-07-13 15:34 |
| #2 If he's sharp minded it's no wonder he prefers the Marines. But tell him that sharp mind only works its best when it's in a sharp body. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-07-13 15:31 |
| #1 One of my boys is non-ambulatory but sharp minded. He would love to serve his country. It seems there would be plenty of ways to do so in the Army (he prefers Marines though) |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-07-13 14:48 |