Is the Army going Softee or adapting???

[Hardball]

By Tom Vanden Brook, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — 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."

Posted 7/12/2006 11:57 PM ET

[kingoftheforest]

???

So we are lowering the standars for the people who are protecting our country?

I thought that a certain amount of motovation was required to be a soldier. If you are unable to run 1 mile at 18 years old when most people join, I see that as a serious problem. This is part of the pussification of America, now well have fat lazy army "privates". I thought that role was held for officers?

[bigred389]

I see it as adapting.

While physical fitness in America's youth has gone down, the % of those willing to volunteer probably hasn't gone up.

"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.' "

I wouldn't necessarily call that a lack of motivation, I'd say it's not being fully ready for the rigors of training. But if somebody has the balls to stick with the program, I wouldn't say they're soft, at least not mentally. While it is a problem, I think the Army is simply adapting to the circumstances as best it can without actually lowering physical standards...unless they're actually lowering PFT standards.

[kingoftheforest]

I understand what you are saying, but when I graduated highschool we were required to be able to run a mile in under 12 minutes (you couldn't walk it but it wasn't impossible either). So I don't understand why the military shouldn't have higher standards. Maybe we should go further back and see why 18 year old kids can't run a mile. Do you really think it's right that a 18 year old American can't run a mile. One thats not crippled or disabled. And lets face it even kids in the special olympics can run a mile. I see this not only as a problem with American Military but a problem with our whole system of standars and values.

We keep moving towards hindering the great so that the weak inefficient or lazy don't get thier feeling hurt. Soldiers are supposed to be preparing for war, I think more than feelings get hurt in those.

I guess I am trying to say that the military lessening qualification standars and what they expect is a direct reflection of where our society is moving. I personaly think it's a poor direction.

[bigred389]

Exactly, as long as they meet standards eventually, who cares?

And it's not even just about the raw PT score numbers, IMO. I've got a lot of good friends who have gone through Marine OCS. A lot of them have been DQed for injuries sustained during training. Decades ago, they probably would've been called pussies for breaking an ankle or whatever. Let me tell you, all of them are the most physically fit individuals I've ever met...they regularly max their PFT, and do it with ease. But modern living has made it impossible for them to train for the parts of OCS that sports don't cover...like obstacle courses, running in trails with 50 pound packs or whatever.

They're busting their asses. I assure you of that.
PFC Schmuckatelli may have come in with 22% body fat but if he's sucking it up b/c he wants to serve his country as a Marine, and is willing to go through the extra "loving care" his DIs will give him, I respect that.

His experience is personally nastier and uglier than that of the natural gazelles, but he's also proving himself to be mentally tough to stick it out. And I think it says a lot about someone's character, which is what'll define someone's actions in the moment of truth right?

But hell, I agree with you that the real way to fix this issue is to look at what they're doing BEFORE they enlist. Fitness in schools is a joke. You cripple kids early, it makes it that much harder for them when they finally try to push beyond.