Military Training

I have a question.

Does anybody think that the watering down of the tougher parts of military training and discipline in the last 20-40 years have reduced the effectiveness of western trained troops and/or made them softer?

Where does toughening up and instilling discipline end, and unnecessary barstardisation (I think Americans call them "Code Reds") begin?

In my Army Reserve days we had an instructor tell us a story of a new USMC soldier -his mother- and the commandant of the USMC during Korea.

The Marine hated the barbaric bayonet training. His mother began a national letter campaign to have it banned, which was successful. Two years later her son was killed in Korea. She wrote again to the paper who had supported her campaign to ask why - he was supposed to be better trained.

The Commandant of the USMC responded personally. Many Marines including her son had been killed when Chicom forces overan thier positions through sheer weight of numbers, but it could not be understood why the enemy survivors had not been thrown back. There had been an inquiry. It found that the Marines had been unable to match the ferocity and skill of the Chicoms in close quarter combat with the bayonet and many, including her son, died. The USMC were reintroducing the training and ongoing drills immediately.

In a roundabout manner, he had told the woman she was responsible for her own sons death.

One, I'd like to know if the story is true because its bugged me for years, and two, do you think the government has made the military more worried about the civilian publics attitudes to military discipline than the need for it.

[edit on 14-10-2004 by craigandrew]

My personal feeling is that this is made up. The Army quoted this years ago. As for training getting easier, that is definately true. The military is more concerned about cultural, gender, and ethnic sensetivity than actually training anyone. Do not even get me started on the "stress cards"

The Army isn't what it used to be, and it never was. Old Army saying

A flip side of the coin.

Many people seem to blame an acceptance of lesser skills and discipline to make the military more acceptable to general public as a reason why the troops seem to be having such a hard time of it, or in coping with the stress of battle.

What I haven't seen is anybody wondering if a perceived softening of the training and discipline could be responsible for the break down of what a professional modern soldier is supposed to be about.

Some one who is capable of practicing proper fire discipline and not deliberately breaching the rules of war, committing what amounts to human rights abuses such as rape, murder, torture and looting.

I have seen footage of soldiers going into battle listening to heavy metal on head phones while orders are being given, roughing up locals, talking about payback or shooting at anything that moves.

I have seen soldiers swearing back at thier superiors, and officers and NCOs pushing or belting soldiers to get them to listen up.

These were American troops filmed by Australian Journalists. I don't know if people see these things on the news in the USA.

It doesnt take a trained genius to murder or beat up a person. But it does take a disciplined trained soldier to stay in control and focused.

I have friends still in the military and some of what they say is disturbing. There is little or no discipline at all. The problem is not just the lack of training, but the fact that most NCO's are not backed up by their officers. With the current trend of getting rid of peolpe who "screw up" by thinking of alternative solutions and showing initiative, the military is hampering it's own ability to fight and win.

On a more positive note, the G.I's from the 101st Airborne are showing more respect to people in public. I cannot count how many times I have seen younger enlisted soldiers show respect to the civilians in town. They say "thank you" and "sir", they open doors for people. That is a far cry from the way they acted before deployment.

When the Abu Ghraib story came out, I asked my brother if they were ever taught the anything of the Geneva Conventions and he said no. That is on eof the first things that was taught in basic when I was in.

I sometimes wonder if it is a part of dumbing down of society. I like to consider I know my history and I am 36.

I meet people who are 16 or 26 who don't know what happened the decade they were born, let alone what happened in 1969 or 39-45.

A common line I hear here about Americans from other Americans (no offense meant) is that unless America has bought from it or bombed it they don't know anything about most other countries. I dont know if this is true or just your kids (like ours).

It scares me sometimes. We are trusting these people to vote?

Originally posted by craigandrew
A flip side of the coin.

Many people seem to blame an acceptance of lesser skills and discipline to make the military more acceptable to general public as a reason why the troops seem to be having such a hard time of it, or in coping with the stress of battle.

What I haven't seen is anybody wondering if a perceived softening of the training and discipline could be responsible for the break down of what a professional modern soldier is supposed to be about.

Some one who is capable of practicing proper fire discipline and not deliberately breaching the rules of war, committing what amounts to human rights abuses such as rape, murder, torture and looting.

I have seen footage of soldiers going into battle listening to heavy metal on head phones while orders are being given, roughing up locals, talking about payback or shooting at anything that moves.

I have seen soldiers swearing back at thier superiors, and officers and NCOs pushing or belting soldiers to get them to listen up.

These were American troops filmed by Australian Journalists. I don't know if people see these things on the news in the USA.

It doesnt take a trained genius to murder or beat up a person. But it does take a disciplined trained soldier to stay in control and focused.

i agree to a certain extent, but not to any real knowledge of the situation. it seems like our troops would do better to be trained as harshly as thyey had been previously, and given full knowledge of the responsibilities for their actions. they sign the dotted line, they give up who and what they are for a defined period of time, after that, they are human again, but during, they are soldiers and they need the discipline to know that. i say put R. Lee Ermey in their, if he's anything like he plays in films, he'll get it done.

Originally posted by craigandrew


I have seen footage of soldiers going into battle listening to heavy metal on head phones...

Thats taking away from the PSYOP guys job. We don't have 350 watt loud speakers on our trucks for nothing..

Hey didn't they say Norieaga surrendered to US SF outside the Vatican Embassy Panama because the Psy-Ops guys played Metallica thru same speakers 96 hours straight. Apparently he was an opera classic fan.

or The Vaticans Holy Ambassador couldnt take it anymore

One of the Docos on Iraq was called Sound Track to War, by Australian George Gittoes, about what music influenced American troops in Iraq.

The Iraqi thrash metal band was good (scary but good) and the scene of an M1 MBT hurtling through mid town Baghdad traffic at speed, zig zagging in and out between little sedans driven by nervous Iraqis was surreal.

A doco done by a Australian female journalist in Afghanistan detailed some of the back mouthing and other discipline issues amongst US troops there.
After getting the official tour she slipped back with her guide and spoke to local Afghans who said that some of the americans were abusive and naive and put too much faith in what thier Northern Alliance allies were saying, directing them against villages that were tribal rivals and not pro Taliban.
She met a guy who the Northern Alliance had told Americans (on screen) was Taliban and they would deal with him. When she went back a few days later he was having tea at home. It was all just for show to the Americans. Poor buggers (villagers) didnt think it was going on TV I think. Some of the journos make me sick justifying thier stories as helping the very people they put in danger.

The US authorities reported her missing during this (it was on our news) but she showed up a week later safe, somewhere where it was nice and crowded and travelled home with other foreign journalists. She had heard the Americans had posted her missing, rather hopefully she thought.

Discapline as a whole from the family to the school to the military has eroded dramatically.

Originally posted by craigandrew
I have a question.

Does anybody think that the watering down of the tougher parts of military training and discipline in the last 20-40 years have reduced the effectiveness of western trained troops and/or made them softer?

i wouldnt say so but its you opinion.
i think if anything its gotten harder.
i mean the RMC's used to be much like the USMC is today, slightly difrent but the sameish jobs. but now all are comandos and the force is much smaller only 6000 in service. now american and british and western forces train on a quality over quantity idea.

Craigandrew,

My husband is a retired marine after 22 years, yes he said that in the last ten years as a marine active duty he has seen the changes in the way young marines are being trained, he said the corps has gone from one on one combat training to a more sofisticated and computarized corp.

He also thinks that our military has gone softer.

Don't get me wrong, I see benefits as well as negatives in this whole thing.

Units of distinction like the RMs and USMCs ceratinly seem tougher. On balance the RMs tougher, and the USMCs scarier (winks)

But the mainline units and support groups have been bothering me. Instead of giving strength and intellect equal status, its all becoming a focus on tech and corporatisation of the ethos.

The Australian Army at one stage adopted a Corporate Ethos summed up by it's leading Mission Statement..."Serving the Nation'...Do you want fries with that?

Theoretically the Australian Army still trains all personnel to be first and formost Riflemen. A freind still in the Army tells me thats a joke. He said too much is about paperwork and and planning your career progression.

That said our people still do a great job with what they have. Its like a jumper saying "so far so good"

And in the effort to minimise crews the USN and by association several allies are designing ships that are bigger, but crewed with less than 100 people, by highly automating the systems, and putting things like medical support on-line (what does that mean..by video...now your doing a great job there sailor..nobody would ever know you never done surgery before).

Suggestions that crewmen will go from bunk/mess deck arrangement to two-four man staterooms are also a concern.

These raise an issue for me. These ships have been designed on computer and "tested" by Computer simulation using controlled tests on surplus target ships. Unless they are going to shock test a $2 billion dollar DDG-21 to destruction first, how do they know these systems are going to perform as advertised under real duress? All these automated systems are not going to help an undermanned ship survive if they are knocked out.
And I beleive to a degree the more spartan the living conditions of a ship the more resilient the crew. Will the upcoming Generation of DDG-21s crew be up to dealing with say a Sunburn ASCM ripping into it?

I have nothing against new systems aids, but taking a ship bigger than a Burke and cutting its crew by nearly 2/3rds seems to ask for trouble.

Example. A 700 ton missile corvette of the Singapore Navy was run down by a 40,000 ton containership several years ago. She had a reduced crew because of her automated systems but they were still comparable to other similar ships. Crew reductions not slashing. She survived, looked like a burning sinking skateboard but she survived, because her crew were able to take measures. Is a 10,000t automated Zummwalt with 95 "New Navy"crew going to? I'd be happier if they had 180 to cover themselves.

I know people say loosing a ship nowdays is morally less important than saving the crew, but is'nt a sailors best bet to keep the ship alfoat rather than taking to the boats on the open sea? Especially if you got burns, shock and blunt force trauma victims in the raft.

Just because we have the technology doesnt mean we should become dependent upon it.

Remember the Falklands? There were people who said a naval war would never happen and others who said the area defences would get them through without a scratch. HMS Antelope, Ardent, Sheffield, Coventry, RFA Sir Galahad and SS Atlantic Conveyor went to that war and didnt come back.

And not many really beleived 9/11 would happen, or that the US wouold be involved in an extended prolonged ground war either, but on both counts they have been proven wrong.