Army Community - Army Discussions - Army Times

Capt. Josh Gibbs: In recruit-coddling Army, lower standards are starting to show

I recently took a trip to Columbia, S.C., to visit a friend who was graduating from basic training at Fort Jackson, the Army’s largest initial entry training center.

According to its Web site, Fort Jackson provides basic combat training for half of all soldiers. But the new soldiers I saw did not look or act like professional troops.

After nine weeks of rigorous military training, those young men and women should have been molded into the type of professional soldier this country has come to expect. But I saw little to no military bearing during even the most routine of formations. I saw uniforms worn with almost no regard to regulations. I saw no pride in what should have been a life-changing event for these young adults.

Army Times reported in October that the services had reached their fiscal 2006 recruiting goals, but compromises had to be made, especially by the Army.

For example, nearly 39 percent of Army recruits scored in the two lowest categories on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery, the military’s entrance exam. That’s up from 27 percent in 2003.

And only 81 percent of the Army’s recruits in fiscal 2006 were high school graduates, the service’s worst showing in two decades.

I asked my friend to let me in on some of the good and bad points of Army basic training. Surprisingly, she had more negative comments about her recent experience than positive, and these were not complaints of early mornings or sore muscles.

She told me about rampant theft in her squad bay. Despite the fact that her platoon was in its ninth week of training, she said it still struggled with the most basic of disciplines, such as not moving or speaking in formation. She told me how these infractions went either unpunished or were confronted with a soft hand rather than an iron fist. She said this truly felt like the “kinder, gentler Army” with less yelling and less overall stress.

Such coddling of enlistees does them a disservice and fails to prepare them for the harsh realities of combat.

The major problem with the new low-stress basic training is that recruits seem to feel that they don’t have to do anything they don’t want to do without fear of punishment.

Contrast this with leatherneck standards.

Marine Corps basic training instills an immediate obedience to orders through close-order drill and constant supervision. It is a process in which mistakes incur the verbal wrath of drill instructors, who serve to correct a recruit’s shortcomings. Over time, a recruit learns to obey orders without hesitation, and it is this Pavlovian response that allows us to be successful in battle. Decisions are made quickly, and orders are carried out without question.

Marine recruiters reached their goals without the painful compromises the Army found necessary.

If soldiers lack basic discipline, the Army cannot successfully meet our nation’s worldwide commitments. By lowering its standards, the Army has essentially told recruiters that it has no faith in their ability to enlist quality applicants. We should provide them with the tools they need to meet continually high standards. We should not be forced to lower basic training standards to make it more appealing.

Recruiting is a numbers game. Unfortunately, this means that recruits going through basic training are fully aware that they are hot commodities: They know the Army needs them more than they need the Army.

Drill sergeants have been stripped of their role as heavy-handed parental figures who not only weed out those who cannot handle the stress of basic training but also provide an opportunity for more motivated recruits to prove themselves as leaders. With the “kinder, gentler Army,” there is no reason to try any harder than minimum requirements, so those with leadership ability have no incentive to step forward.

The fact that lowering military entrance standards is necessary should be worrisome to all. The battlefield is an unforgiving environment, and we should be training troops to adapt. At a time when our military is stretched thin and public support for the ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan is losing momentum, the discipline and training of our military is critical.

Has the Army forgotten that it is supposed to be training men and women to deal with the stress of combat? How will these products of eggshell training handle the sights and sounds of battle?

Ascribing to the motto “fight like you train,” the Army is training soldiers for a pillow fight, not a war.