NationStates Jolt Archive

The Army is now going to politely drill you.

Army tones down drill sergeants
WASHINGTON - Hollywood may have to tone down its portrayal of the military's screaming, in-your-face boot camp drill sergeant. In today's Army, shouting is out and a calmer approach to molding young minds is in, says the head of Pentagon personnel. The Army says it has reduced by nearly 7 percent the number of recruits who wash out in the first six to 12 months of military life.

"Part of it is changing the nature of how it treats people in basic training," David S. Chu, undersecretary for personnel and readiness, said Tuesday.

That means "less shouting at everyone, in essence, which some of you may remember from an earlier generation as being the modus operandi," he said.

The changes started about a year ago, as defense officials looked for ways to make drillmasters more effective, said Lt. Col. Mike Jones, head of Army National Guard recruiting.

He said the old way was to "talk loud, talk often, get their attention" — shock treatment to teach discipline and mold the newly recruited civilian into a soldier.

But trainers found today's generation responded better to instructors who took "a more counseling" type role, Jones said, using strong tactics when needed but keeping them the exception instead of the rule.

The approach has had two positive results, he said: It has lowered attrition among those who go through training each year and has eased one of the greatest fears of recruits — their fear over whether they can make it through basic training.

Other changes aimed at improving graduation rates include such things as letting recruits with injuries or minor medical problems remain in the service, heal, and then go back to training. Before, an injury would have meant discharge, training officials said.

Numbers differ from service to service and depend on what the recruit is being trained for. Those training to be Navy SEALS or other special forces may wash out at the rate of 70 percent. Those training to be truck drivers may have an 80 percent graduation rate.

But Chu said that across all services, generally, some two-thirds of recruits finish their enlistment period — typically three or four years.

Of the third who don't make it, half bomb out in the first six to 12 months, Chu said, adding that the attrition rate is better than most private sector firms.

Keeping a balance in the number flushed out of the service is important. Too many dropouts and you lose people you really want to keep. Too few dropouts, and you are keeping people you should have let go, Chu said.

Both the military and police academies are moving away from harder-edged approaches to training, he said.

"However much it may be satisfying from the shouter's perspective, it really isn't the best way to shape young people for the future," Chu said.

He made the comments as he announced that all active duty services had met their recruiting goals for the budget year ended Sept. 30. The Marine Corps Reserve met its goal and the Air Force Reserve exceeded its goal, but they were exceptions among guard and reserve forces, some of which have seen "heavy use" due to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Chu said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061010/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/nice_drill_sergeants

So what do you guys think?

Uhh.....

Times sure are a' changin'

I think it is good, because whenever I encounter some red-faced moron screaming at people, I feel the urge to either punch him unconscious or slip away quietly, depending on how large he is.
Surely that can't be good for recruitment.

This is good news. My cousin just went to basic for the navy, and he has a few issues with being yelled at...

ETA: no doubt he could deal with being yelled at, and would just swallow it back, but there are much more effective methods to deal with him

Next recruits will want drill sergeants to wipe their little tushies.

Well great, now we'll have a bunch of coddled soilders going into battle! Comon, the only reason any of the militatry branch have boot camp is so that they can break down the person and rebuild him as a soilder, and a efficent killing machine! Yelling and screaming at the new recruits is just part of the process. R. Lee Emery is not going to like this.

The Army says it has reduced by nearly 7 percent the number of recruits who wash out in the first six to 12 months of military life.

I think this is a very bad thing. Those 7% who quit because they didn't like getting yelled at probably didn't belong in the military. I know that if I were still in the Army and you couldn't handle someone being mean to you I probably wouldn't want you in my unit. The Army is in a very emotionally rough business, and you have to be able to handle that.

I was a soccer referee for a long time, socially awkward and embarassingly horrible at all my sports as a kid. I got yelled at all the time. I think it was better for me, because I learned how to deal with irrational people better. Plus it takes a lot to piss me off now.

I think it is good, because whenever I encounter some red-faced moron screaming at people, I feel the urge to either punch him unconscious or slip away quietly, depending on how large he is.
Surely that can't be good for recruitment.

No, but it's about right. As responses go.

*Edit: on page one of General a moment ago, the Korean thread was right above this one - eyes skipped and I misread this one as, "NKorea Has Maggots!"

Well great, now we'll have a bunch of coddled soilders going into battle! Comon, the only reason any of the militatry branch have boot camp is so that they can break down the person and rebuild him as a soilder, and a efficent killing machine! Yelling and screaming at the new recruits is just part of the process. R. Lee Emery is not going to like this.
You know, I never understood this notion that screaming at a person is the only way to make them into a warrior. I know that screaming at my students usually doesn't produce the results that I want.

You know, I never understood this notion that screaming at a person is the only way to make them into a warrior. I know that screaming at my students usually doesn't produce the results that I want.

I imagine your not trying to totally desensitize them...

I imagine your not trying to totally desensitize them...
They're junior high school students, they're desensitzed enough as it is. :D

They're junior high school students, they're desensitzed enough as it is. :D

I believe it was cartoonist Dan Piraro who suggested that all middle school students be shipped off to sea until they're midway through their high school career. Probably wasn't the first. I'm all for it.

I believe this is a step in the right direction.

It is true that any military organization wants soldiers in their ranks that will follow orders. But if these soldiers get 'broken down and rebuilt' into totally de-sensitized killing machines, they will lose the perspective nessecary to distinguish the difference between; an order, and a war-crime.

This was a perfectly sensible strategy in the carpet-bombing days of WWI and WWII. But on the modern urban battlefield, where the media is everywhere, and so are innocent civilians. You want a soldier who can distinguish between friend and foe. A soldier who will know when NOT to pull the trigger.

With 'smart' weapons, should come 'smart' soldiers.

Think of the film 'The Running Man'. As the story unfolds, Arnold Schwarzenegger's character was ordered to fire upon a 'mob of armed militants'. Upon closer inspection, our hero notices that they are not armed, but are carring pickets in peaceful protest. He questions orders, and the 'KILLING-MACHINES' who are his squad; politely proceed to pound the crap out of him, gun down the innocent civilians, and pin the blame on Arnie!

Now, who would you rather have watching YOUR back?

I believe this is a step in the right direction.

It is true that any military organization wants soldiers in their ranks that will follow orders. But if these soldiers get 'broken down and rebuilt' into totally de-sensitized killing machines, they will lose the perspective nessecary to distinguish the difference between; an order, and a war-crime.

The purpose of yelling at privates isn't to make them into "desensitized killing machines" it's to get them used to handling excessive amounts of stress. If you can't handle a drill sergeant yelling at you you probably aren't going to be able to handle the stress of combat.

I don't know where you people get the idea that the US military tries to turn people into inhuman killing machines. I spent 4 years in the US Army as a cavalry scout, and they weren't trying to do to us what you're suggesting.

Also, the US military doesn't want people who will mindlessly follow orders. They want people who can follow orders, but are able to come up with their own course of action if things change or in the absence of orders. As the old Army saying goes "adapt and overcome".

Anyway, stop watching so much TV.

They want people who can follow orders, but are able to come up with their own course of action if things change or in the absence of orders. As the old Army saying goes "adapt and overcome".

So... basically, we're in agreement.

I was not suggesting that the military IS trying to do anything. I was suggesting what it should try to do.

But what leads me to my belief are numerous news reports throughout the ages, where supposed 'allies' were killed unnessecarily.

Watch more TV.

The Army is now going to politely drill you.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061010/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/nice_drill_sergeants

So what do you guys think?

Well, I do think some of the extreme cases need to be done away with, but this is too far.

I think it is good, because whenever I encounter some red-faced moron screaming at people, I feel the urge to either punch him unconscious or slip away quietly, depending on how large he is.
Surely that can't be good for recruitment.

DI's usually aren't morons.

Well great, now we'll have a bunch of coddled soilders going into battle! Comon, the only reason any of the militatry branch have boot camp is so that they can break down the person and rebuild him as a soilder, and a efficent killing machine! Yelling and screaming at the new recruits is just part of the process. R. Lee Emery is not going to like this.

Indeed.

I think this is a very bad thing. Those 7% who quit because they didn't like getting yelled at probably didn't belong in the military. I know that if I were still in the Army and you couldn't handle someone being mean to you I probably wouldn't want you in my unit. The Army is in a very emotionally rough business, and you have to be able to handle that.

Exactly my thoughts. I havent been through the process (I'm asthmatic), but I know quite a bit about it from formal and informal study, and from my many friends and acquaintances who have been through the military.

You know, I never understood this notion that screaming at a person is the only way to make them into a warrior. I know that screaming at my students usually doesn't produce the results that I want.

Well, the purpose and nature basic training process is quite different from a Jr. High ESL class. Basic training is supposed to be an intentionally traumatic experience, designed to produce a sort of "capture-bonding" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture-bonding). An ESL class shouldn't be traumatic at all.

I imagine your not trying to totally desensitize them...

Well, in part. Building essential esprit de corps and unit cohesion are big parts. Breaking down and remolding the individual is uaually a big part as well.

I believe it was cartoonist Dan Piraro who suggested that all middle school students be shipped off to sea until they're midway through their high school career. Probably wasn't the first. I'm all for it.

Sort of like the description of the ink drop theory of Airborne operations I read a while back. You air drop a bunch of teenagers with guns, explosives, and lots of training; and no adult supervision, all over your target and let them go to town...

I think this is a very bad thing. Those 7% who quit because they didn't like getting yelled at probably didn't belong in the military. I know that if I were still in the Army and you couldn't handle someone being mean to you I probably wouldn't want you in my unit. The Army is in a very emotionally rough business, and you have to be able to handle that.
Why would you want to make a very difficult experience (being away from family, learning how to kill people, even being in violent war-zones) even more harrowing? the argument that having people be irrational and mean to you will somehow better equip you for other difficulties is lame. It just makes a difficult job a lot less pleasant. Why wouldn't you want to support your soldiers, and judge them on genuine grounds rather than how easily they can be personally ridiculed or worn down from verbal abuse?

The purpose of yelling at privates isn't to make them into "desensitized killing machines" it's to get them used to handling excessive amounts of stress. If you can't handle a drill sergeant yelling at you you probably aren't going to be able to handle the stress of combat.

I don't know where you people get the idea that the US military tries to turn people into inhuman killing machines. I spent 4 years in the US Army as a cavalry scout, and they weren't trying to do to us what you're suggesting.

Also, the US military doesn't want people who will mindlessly follow orders. They want people who can follow orders, but are able to come up with their own course of action if things change or in the absence of orders. As the old Army saying goes "adapt and overcome".

Anyway, stop watching so much TV.

Indeed. And, as I said above, it also builds esprit de corps and unit cohesion. Everyone's been through the same (usually mildly traumatic) experience - and it's not just the yelling, it's the shaved head, the uniform, etc. etc. That means everyone has a shared experience that civilians don't have that puts them apart and builds a team. Disallowing yelling make that less effective. (The Navy discontinued it's "Stress Card" experiment in the '90s, in part, for similar reasons.)

Why would you want to make a very difficult experience (being away from family, learning how to kill people, even being in violent war-zones) even more harrowing? the argument that having people be irrational and mean to you will somehow better equip you for other difficulties is lame. It just makes a difficult job a lot less pleasant. Why wouldn't you want to support your soldiers, and judge them on genuine grounds rather than how easily they can be personally ridiculed or worn down from verbal abuse?

Because the shared experience of having a DI get all up in you face and yelling at you produces a much stronger bond than happy fun summer camp.

Well, the purpose and nature basic training process is quite different from a Jr. High ESL class. Basic training is supposed to be an intentionally traumatic experience, designed to produce a sort of "capture-bonding" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture-bonding). An ESL class shouldn't be traumatic at all.
I COULD make a joke, but I'm pretty sure you've already thought of them all. ;)

(The Navy discontinued it's "Stress Card" experiment in the '90s, in part, for similar reasons.)
Don't tell me you fell for THAT old urban legend!
http://www.snopes.com/military/stress.htm

Because the shared experience of having a DI get all up in you face and yelling at you produces a much stronger bond than happy fun summer camp.
But do we REALLY need that? As opposed to the mentoring mentioned in the article? Especially as it seems the recruits are responding better to it?

This is why I'm going to the Marines.

Generally, your drill sergeant is supposed to be an ass hole. It both prepares you to deal with stress, and builds comradery. Asking someone nicely is not the proper way to motivate someone, especially when it comes to physical activity.

I imagine if my football coach asked us nicely to go out and run a few miles I'd tell him to fuck off. When he's running behind me yelling obsenities about how maybe we should just forfeit the next game it's a different story.

The military is about thinking on your feet, hesitation gets people killed. A calm environment is not what recruits need, it's all about being capable of bringing order to chaos.

Edit: Oh yes, and all this "the recruits are responding better" crap, of course they're going to respond better now. When they're getting shot at it'll be a different story. Just like football, a nice coach loses you games, an ass hole wins you games. Sure you'll have a few walk offs, but they didn't belong on the team anyways.

The "Listen up you maggots!" (to quote NERVUN) approach is based on Machiavellian principles of loyalty-- the idea that the soldiers must fear and respect their commander, and must know that he is the alpha male of the pack. While there is certainly some value and basis to that model, it brings up the question of how much you want to emphasize independent thought in the military. Nowadays, military units tend towards the small-- patrols of a handful of soldiers, or small convoys, or fighters, and so on. Back in the day, commanders would have a very large chunk of soldiers under their immediate command, and they had to be able to get all those soldiers to do whatever they wanted. Hence, discipline and the chain of command were the most important thing. But when you have very small detachments of troops, and they're often in situations which require instant action without time for consultation with superiors, independence is a good trait.

Don't tell me you fell for THAT old urban legend!
http://www.snopes.com/military/stress.htm

No indeed. I know that the stress cards weren't what they morphed into in the UL. But that was indeed part of the reason they were discontinued:

For a few years during the 1990s, the US Navy did issue "stress cards" to new recruits, but they weren't the "Get out of jail free" coupons military lore has since turned them into. Rather, these cards listed names and phone numbers of resources the newcomers could contact "if things pile[d] up." The cards were strictly for informational purposes: they informed recruits of available support services.

Navy trainers began reporting that some of the recruits had taken to raising their cards while being disciplined, as a way of signalling for time out. It's unclear whether any of those enduring basic training really thought that was the purpose of the cards or whether this was just standard armed forces jackassing, but the Navy took no chances and got rid of the cards.


Because the shared experience of having a DI get all up in you face and yelling at you produces a much stronger bond than happy fun summer camp.But do we REALLY need that? As opposed to the mentoring mentioned in the article? Especially as it seems the recruits are responding better to it?

Well, as I said above, there have been some very excessive cases. But overall, it's quite effective, especially when carried out properly.

Johnsilvania:
The military is about thinking on your feet, hesitation gets people killed. A calm environment is not what recruits need, it's all about being capable of bringing order to chaos.

How's this for a solution? Give the Sergeants a reason to shout. Have the sounds of war (Explosions, gunfire, riccochet's, and screams) piped in through loudspeakers all over bootcamp at irregular intervals. You could even toss a couple of flashbangs in once in a while. This would better simulate a war-like environment than a big nasty sergeant, I should think...

This is why I'm going to the Marines.

Generally, your drill sergeant is supposed to be an ass hole. It both prepares you to deal with stress, and builds comradery. Asking someone nicely is not the proper way to motivate someone, especially when it comes to physical activity.

I imagine if my football coach asked us nicely to go out and run a few miles I'd tell him to fuck off. When he's running behind me yelling obsenities about how maybe we should just forfeit the next game it's a different story.

The military is about thinking on your feet, hesitation gets people killed. A calm environment is not what recruits need, it's all about being capable of bringing order to chaos.I still don't get how someone pretending to be mean to you (and clearly, the recruits know that it's all an inflated show) builds respect, comeraderie or stradegies to deal with stress. Basically, it's just emotional and mental manipulation, which is dubiously effective, and recruits know this.
Again, what is the connection between the stress felt on a warfront, and that of your seargent shouting at you because your shoes are not shiny enough, or because you were 20 seconds late for something? It seems like a pathetic show. It has nothing to do with being relaxed about rules or not enforcing discipline; just the exagerated shows with all the shouting seem positively embarrasing. I know that if I was a recruit I wouldn't respect a system that was irrational or contrived in any way.

How's this for a solution? Give the Sergeants a reason to shout. Have the sounds of war (Explosions, gunfire, riccochet's, and screams) piped in through loudspeakers all over bootcamp at irregular intervals. You could even toss a couple of flashbangs in once in a while. This would better simulate a war-like environment than a big nasty sergeant, I should think...
Better yet: The sounds could be real. We just have to have boot camp in Fallujah.

At any rate, I would have a very hard time taking the drill sergeants seriously.

How's this for a solution? Give the Sergeants a reason to shout. Have the sounds of war (Explosions, gunfire, riccochet's, and screams) piped in through loudspeakers all over bootcamp at irregular intervals. You could even toss a couple of flashbangs in once in a while. This would better simulate a war-like environment than a big nasty sergeant, I should think...
Transcendant Pilgrims is online now Report PostToo expensive to do all day, that's what drills are for.

I still don't get how someone pretending to be mean to you (and clearly, the recruits know that it's all an inflated show) builds respect, comeraderie or stradegies to deal with stress. Basically, it's just emotional and mental manipulation, which is dubiously effective, and recruits know this.
Again, what is the connection between the stress felt on a warfront, and that of your seargent shouting at you because your shoes are not shiny enough, or because you were 20 seconds late for something? It seems like a pathetic show. It has nothing to do with being relaxed about rules or not enforcing discipline; just the exagerated shows with all the shouting seem positively embarrasing. I know that if I was a recruit I wouldn't respect a system that was irrational or contrived in any way.For starters, discipline starts small. In every aspect of life discipline matters, and when you're getting shot at, it matters even more. Second of all, comradery is a funny thing, the worse the ordeal, the more those enduring with you become like your brothers. It's hard to explain, but if you've ever played any competitive sports you should know what I'm talking about.

Better yet: The sounds could be real. We just have to have boot camp in Fallujah.

At any rate, I would have a very hard time taking the drill sergeants seriously.Problem is that's basically what they're doing nowadays. They go straight from a slightly more regimented civilian life to Iraq.

How's this for a solution? Give the Sergeants a reason to shout. Have the sounds of war (Explosions, gunfire, riccochet's, and screams) piped in through loudspeakers all over bootcamp at irregular intervals. You could even toss a couple of flashbangs in once in a while. This would better simulate a war-like environment than a big nasty sergeant, I should think...

This is already standard fare for parts of basic training and selection courses for more advanced training. The US Navy SEALs' "Hell Week" is one fairly extreme example, based, in part, on re-creating an experience similar to the first several days of a Normandy style full scale amphibious invasion.

I still don't get how someone pretending to be mean to you (and clearly, the recruits know that it's all an inflated show) builds respect, comeraderie or stradegies to deal with stress. Basically, it's just emotional and mental manipulation, which is dubiously effective, and recruits know this.
Again, what is the connection between the stress felt on a warfront, and that of your seargent shouting at you because your shoes are not shiny enough, or because you were 20 seconds late for something? It seems like a pathetic show. It has nothing to do with being relaxed about rules or not enforcing discipline; just the exagerated shows with all the shouting seem positively embarrasing. I know that if I was a recruit I wouldn't respect a system that was irrational or contrived in any way.

It's not irrational. As I've been saying, it's a calculated traumatization with several important aims.

It's all about finding a happy medium. I mean, you can't make military training a democratic thing, so much is obvious. And you want your recruits to have a general mental stability in case they do encounter stressful situations.

But shouting at people is unnecessary and sometimes counterproductive. One should still treat recruits with dignity and a modicum of respect. If you don't, not only will you lose potential recruits, but some of those that do stay may end up with various emotional or attitude problems. And especially today, when one needs a soldier that can switch from being a battlehardened warrior to your friendly neighbourhood policeman and back in seconds, you shouldn't be aiming to produce aggressive or disturbed people.

Perhaps some of you might be more pleased if the DI's were to hold the recruits hands through training. Or perhaps make a nice glass of warm milk and read a bedtime story for them. If your pansy ass can't handle someone yelling at you for a few weeks, you'll surely piss and shit your underoos the first time a bullet comes zinging by your head:sniper:or a mortar round comes screaming into your bunker. In that case you don't belong in our military. You want sing alongs and warm milk, go to summer camp:fluffle:, you want to be a warrior who defends our nations citizens and the rights we have here, then suck it up and take a bit of yelling. Everything in boot camp is designed to make a warrior out of you so you'll be able to handle combat. They don't make mindless killing machines, you've watched far too many movies. Some of the best friends I have, served in the military and are just as gentle and easy going as anyone else. Go ask anyone who has served if they'd rather a DI had talked sweet and easy to them or toughened them up for the stress of combat. The answers will amaze you.

-snip-
Firstly, excellent first post. I congratulate you. ;)

Secondly, I presume you're American. In that case you'd be aware that your military has some very serious issues with dealing with foreign civilians in a way that establishes trust and commitment to mutual goals. Whether or not yelling is the issue there, training certainly is.

And thirdly, I hope you're aware that there are quite a few Western militaries which do value the dignity of recruits and which pledge to not so much impose as to educate. For example, the German Bundeswehr has the concept of Innere Führung (http://www.bmvg.de/portal/a/bmvg/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLt4w3MrUASUGY5vqRMDFfj_zcVP2g1Dx9b_0A_YLciHJHR0VFAJJDChM!/delta/base64xml/L2dJQSEvUUt3QS80SVVFLzZfOV8yQjQ!?yw_contentURL=%2FC1256F1200608B1B%2FW2686BW2672INFOEN%2Fcontent.jsp ) ("Internal Leadership") and not only did the world not end, but at least training-wise the German military seems to be acceptable, even though it lacks money to be good at anything else. :p

The wussification of America continues.....:rolleyes:

It's all about finding a happy medium. I mean, you can't make military training a democratic thing, so much is obvious. And you want your recruits to have a general mental stability in case they do encounter stressful situations.

Indeed there is a happy medium. As I said above, there have been some cases of excessivly harsh training in the US military (the Ribbon Creek Incident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribbon_Creek_Incident)is an outstanding, although old example - a drunken DI at Parris Island ended up drowning 6 recruits in a run through a creek intended as punishment). For that reason, military leaders in US are no longer formally permitted to use "wall-to-wall" counselling" (physical punishments ranging from a mild slap up to severe beatings), althought it still occurs. In basic training now, as far as I know, this pretty much holds true. However, in certain units, it's winked at, depending on the circumstances, as long as it does not get out of hand. (Oh, boy! That can of worms is opened all the way up!)

But shouting at people is unnecessary and sometimes counterproductive. One should still treat recruits with dignity and a modicum of respect. If you don't, not only will you lose potential recruits, but some of those that do stay may end up with various emotional or attitude problems.

That depends on a number of factors, such as national culture, military culture, the inended level of traumatization, and so on.

And especially today, when one needs a soldier that can switch from being a battlehardened warrior to your friendly neighbourhood policeman and back in seconds, you shouldn't be aiming to produce aggressive or disturbed people.

A big scary DI yelling all up in your face should not produce enough trauma to significantly disturb someone.

And the agressiveness is built in elsewhere.

Secondly, I presume you're American. In that case you'd be aware that your military has some very serious issues with dealing with foreign civilians in a way that establishes trust and commitment to mutual goals. Whether or not yelling is the issue there, training certainly is.

I certainly agree with the sentiments there. That's one reason I have noted several times whrn the topic of military reforms in the US comes up, the need to greatly expand on the civil affairs units. General training does need to be addressed as well.

But, again, the big scary DI all up in your face isn't going to make solidiers and Marines any worse in this regard.

And thirdly, I hope you're aware that there are quite a few Western militaries which do value the dignity of recruits and which pledge to not so much impose as to educate. For example, the German Bundeswehr has the concept of Innere Führung (http://www.bmvg.de/portal/a/bmvg/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLt4w3MrUASUGY5vqRMDFfj_zcVP2g1Dx9b_0A_YLciHJHR0VFAJJDChM!/delta/base64xml/L2dJQSEvUUt3QS80SVVFLzZfOV8yQjQ!?yw_contentURL=%2FC1256F1200608B1B%2FW2686BW2672INFOEN%2Fcontent.jsp ) ("Internal Leadership") and not only did the world not end, but at least training-wise the German military seems to be acceptable, even though it lacks money to be good at anything else. :p

And this is the (two-part) key, IMHO: 1) evolutionary changes and 2) differences in national military cultures.

For the first, the US military has certainly evolved away from a rather free-for-all attitude towards discipline to a more restrained attitude. Personally, I think the in your face shock treatment still does have a place in both basic training and discipline. Physical punishments can have their place as well, in a very limited set of circumstances, with acertain degree of restraint be shown.

For the second, every military does things there way. For example, the Army of the Republic of Korea sanctions quite rough physical discipline (I've been told by more than one person that anyone brought before a disciplinary board can be expected to leave on a stretcher or on ice). The US is in-between, but currently leans rather towards the Europeans.

Personally, I think the in your face shock treatment still does have a place in both basic training and discipline. Physical punishments can have their place as well, in a very limited set of circumstances, with acertain degree of restraint be shown.
Well, I guess that depends on the sort of people you get. I know for a fact that I don't respond well to such things, and they would probably stop me from signing up in the first place.

But then, I'm not really soldier material anyways.

R. Lee Emery is not going to like this.
Interesting coupla bits of trivia I found the other day about him.
Apparently (don't know if it's true) after FMJ came out, the army changed it's policy and Drill Sargeants were no longer allowed to speak of the recruits family.

Two other (definitely true this time) trivia:
Emery was only to be a consultant on FMJ, but told Kubrick he should be in the role he then made famous. To audition, they filmed him yelling abuse and insults non-stop, without pausing or repeating himself for fifteen minutes, the whole time he was being pelted with tennis balls and oranges.
Kubrick was still a bit unsure. Emery went up to him and while Kubrick (who was sitting) was telling him of his hesitancy to have Emery (a non-actor) play such a major role, Emery barked an order at Kubrick to stand up. Kubrick did so immediately without hesitation (and if you know what Kubrick was like, this is nothing short of miraculous).
That sealed it for Kubrick.

Also, nearly all of Emery's lines were ad-libbed - an extremely rare thing in a Kubrick movie.

Yeah, FMJ is one of my favourite movies. Howd ya guessed?

Other changes aimed at improving graduation rates include such things as letting recruits with injuries or minor medical problems remain in the service, heal, and then go back to training. Before, an injury would have meant discharge, training officials said.
How ridiculous that a minor injury would have you discharged previously.
Where's the logic in that?
To train someone for 3 years, say, and then kick them out a couple of weeks before graduation cause they've pulled a muscle in their back. Great going, USAF!
I would hazard that this alone is responsible for most of the improvement in pass rates.

Well, I guess that depends on the sort of people you get.

Always true.

I know for a fact that I don't respond well to such things,

I'm not so sure. Remember, as I've been saying all along, one of the main purposes is building esprit de corps through a mildly traumatising experience.

and they would probably stop me from signing up in the first place.

But then, I'm not really soldier material anyways.



Interesting coupla bits of trivia I found the other day about him.
Apparently (don't know if it's true) after FMJ came out, the army changed it's policy and Drill Sargeants were no longer allowed to speak of the recruits family.

Are you sure you aren't thinking of the flap over Heartbreak Ridge, wher the USMC came out and said their DIs don't use such language?

Two other (definitely true this time) trivia:
Emery was only to be a consultant on FMJ, but told Kubrick he should be in the role he then made famous. To audition, they filmed him yelling abuse and insults non-stop, without pausing or repeating himself for fifteen minutes, the whole time he was being pelted with tennis balls and oranges.
Kubrick was still a bit unsure. Emery went up to him and while Kubrick (who was sitting) was telling him of his hesitancy to have Emery (a non-actor) play such a major role, Emery barked an order at Kubrick to stand up. Kubrick did so immediately without hesitation (and if you know what Kubrick was like, this is nothing short of miraculous).
That sealed it for Kubrick.

Also, nearly all of Emery's lines were ad-libbed - an extremely rare thing in a Kubrick movie.

Yeah, FMJ is one of my favourite movies. Howd ya guessed?

Yep. Knew all that. It is a good movie indeed.

How ridiculous that a minor injury would have you discharged previously.
Where's the logic in that?
To train someone for 3 years, say, and then kick them out a couple of weeks before graduation cause they've pulled a muscle in their back. Great going, USAF!
I would hazard that this alone is responsible for most of the improvement in pass rates.

Err... nobody spends 3 years in basic training. The USMC's basic training, the longest in the US, is 13 weeks.

And it's serious injuries that cause a flunk, not pulled minor stuff muscles. It's more your broken limbs and so on. And even then it's my understanding that recycling due to injuries has been standard for quite a long time - I know it was when my college friend Q. was recycled when he broke his leg in basic back in 1990. Although they may be refering to extending the number of recycles one can undergo?

This whole "calm drill instructor" thing I don't understand. I just don't get it. If I understand correctly, a DI's job is to tear an individual down to the point of being nothing and then rebuild them as a part of a unit. The idea is to destroy whatever person was there before and then create a new one in the mold of the military. This whole nicey-nice thing doesn't cut it. Hell, if I were looking to do that, I would make things a lot more difficult. I would look for every weakness a person had, exploit it, and turn that recruit into a shell of his/her former self. Once this is accomplished, the rebuilding begins. I don't care how mean and nasty I have to be in the beginning.

And frankly, I almost wonder about one other thing. If they take it to the extreme of destroying people to rebuild them as soldiers, why not take it even farther than that and get the soldiers to distance themselves from everything back home? When tye say that their only family is in the Army or Marines, they would mean it completely. There would be no need to ban family visits and such; soldiers would have no desire to see them. Maybe it's for PR reasons that the military doesn't do this. I am sure they could do it if recruiting weren't an issue.

Are you sure you aren't thinking of the flap over Heartbreak Ridge, wher the USMC came out and said their DIs don't use such language?
Well, that's why I said apparently true.




Err... nobody spends 3 years in basic training. The USMC's basic training, the longest in the US, is 13 weeks.
I misread the article. It went from talking about training to enlistment period. I missed that bit.
I thought 3 years was a bit long for training, even for the elite units.

Though the Gurkas, I was told by a mate who was in the army, take about that long. No idea if it's true, but it would explain why they're so damn good.

Great, now soldiers are going to go into the battlefield and not be used to superior officers shouting orders at them. Which is probably going to happen a lot, one assumes that most battlefields are rather loud places.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/What.jpg
WHAT?
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/No.jpg
NO!
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/Ah.jpg
AAAAH!

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/What.jpg
WHAT?
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/No.jpg
NO!
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/Ah.jpg
AAAAH!

Congratulations on winning the thread sir, your prize is in the mail.

Congratulations on winning the thread sir, your prize is in the mail.
Hooray!
http://www.section.at/img/smiley/mail.gif

Well great, now we'll have a bunch of coddled soilders going into battle! Comon, the only reason any of the militatry branch have boot camp is so that they can break down the person and rebuild him as a soilder, and a efficent killing machine! Yelling and screaming at the new recruits is just part of the process. R. Lee Emery is not going to like this.

Lucky for him he was in the Marine corps.

Secondly, I presume you're American. In that case you'd be aware that your military has some very serious issues with dealing with foreign civilians in a way that establishes trust and commitment to mutual goals. Whether or not yelling is the issue there, training certainly is.

You're quite right that training is the issue here. Yelling certainly has nothing to do with it, xenophobia is a very ingrained cultural thing here. I'm not sure how we deal with that, but we need to. As the story goes, in Kosovo US troops drive around in Humvees bristling with weaponry while the European troops are having coffee in the local cafés. We're just not well suited to occupation or peacekeeping.

So... basically, we're in agreement.

I was not suggesting that the military IS trying to do anything. I was suggesting what it should try to do.

But what leads me to my belief are numerous news reports throughout the ages, where supposed 'allies' were killed unnessecarily.

Watch more TV.

When local civilians are killed needlessly it's a product of poor enforcement of the ROE and xenophobia. Its certainly not because someone was mean to them for a couple of months. When allied troops are killed it's due to poor ROE training and poor vehicle recognition training.

Why would you want to make a very difficult experience (being away from family, learning how to kill people, even being in violent war-zones) even more harrowing?

The reason I want basic training to be more difficult is because if you can't handle that you're not going to be able to handle the stresses involved when people shoot at you. Also, if you don't know, your NCO's don't treat you like that after basic training. When you're in your actual unit they treat you with respect (until you screw up, but after your punishment they treat you well again.)

the argument that having people be irrational and mean to you will somehow better equip you for other difficulties is lame.

It may be lame, but it's true. When you're in basic training you learn to ignore the parts of what he's saying and pick out the pertinent information. You get to the point where you can completely ignore the fact that he's yelling at you, and take what you need so you can get your job done. What this translates to is that you can generally ignore what is stressing you out and act calmly and decisively when you need to. I was in Iraq from Apr 03 until March 04, so I know what I'm talking about.

It just makes a difficult job a lot less pleasant. Why wouldn't you want to support your soldiers, and judge them on genuine grounds rather than how easily they can be personally ridiculed or worn down from verbal abuse? They are judged on genuine grounds. One of these grounds is tolerance for stress. If a big scary man yelling at you stresses you out too much, combat is going to be much more than you can handle.

Wallonochia:
If a big scary man yelling at you stresses you out too much, combat is going to be much more than you can handle.

It is not a question of a big scary man stressing you out. It should be whether or not you can handle a combat situation (Which is NOT THE SAME). This is the same logic as what was used in witch-hunts...

"Well, witches float right? So lets attempt to drown her. If she lives, she should be killed for practicing witchcraft. If she dies, well... We're delivering her to God a little early..."


Some of the individuals who failed basic training because they could not cope with their screaming DI's, might be the most effective soldiers you've ever seen.

I contend that they should simulate war experiences, rather than trying to break down individuals. The military should embrace it's soldiers individuality, rather than throw em' all into a melting pot to produce die-cast-die-hard-semper-fi-mofo's.

I'm not saying that boot camp should be easy. It should be hard as hell, these people are going to war after all. But the current system of CO's brainwashing their troops with harsh language and shared (Traumatic) experiences is wrong. It turns them into a Tightly knit unit of soldiers who hate their CO's, but who will unerringly obey them.

You can produce an effective soldier without abusing them verbally, or mentally.

The current movies make the military look boring. That's because the movies are boring. That's because they use shitty actors, producers, and directors.
A good Quinten Tarintino or Walter Hill war movie (w/ no holds bared) would increase recruitment! .;)

Well, either way, you'll be sent out to war and you'll have to fend for yourself!

WEeeeeeee!!!!111

The point of having "in your face screaming" drill seargeants was to prepare them for battle. The point was was to toughen them up for when real bullets were actually flying over their head, and to weed out the weaklings who would endanger their fellow soldiers. Now they're telling them to soften them up? To not weed out the weaklings? To make them think that war is nothing? Bullshit.

How does having a sergeant scream at, and demean you, 'toughen you up' against bullets?

They are currently weeding out people who don't stand for abuse. Not those who are poor soldiers.

This is stupid. What do they think? Do they think this is going to be a common scenario:

Wow...
I can't believe this. An IED just went off. We heard their was increased insurgent activity...but...
Goddammit! If the military had just bought body armor! Jim wouldn't be dead, and I'd still have my hand...
Wait...where are my hands? WHERE ARE MY HANDS?
Oh well...calm down. Remember what your drill instructor told you...
Yeah, ol' sergeant brown. What did he say? Oh, right.
"If yah ever lose yer limbs in combat, just remember yew was injaued fightin' for a country tha' coddl's iis recruits!"


Anyway. Coddling them isn't going to help them. They need to know that they can and will die.

Originally Posted by OP article
Other changes aimed at improving graduation rates include such things as letting recruits with injuries or minor medical problems remain in the service, heal, and then go back to training. Before, an injury would have meant discharge, training officials said.



my son just returned from fort benning,as far as the yelling and such(i saw the dvd of his training..was a lot of yelling and chaos,but i think thats the point of it,to inure them to a barrage of noise and mayhem)

he said it was annoying but he understood the point of it,and became accustomed to it.

as far as recycling,he went during the dead of summer,at one of the most notorious bootcamps(probably the hardest next to paris island and 1 or 2 others)and this is the report i recieved:

1.some couldnt take the yelling and chaos and focus on the task at hand,so they just quit(probably the point again)
2.some could not take the heat(110 degrees at 8:00 am,99% humidity)the shouting and endless drills,and dropped out.
3.some had to recycle due to spider/snake bites...or injuries recieved during training.(broken bones,etc.)
4.and others ,like my kid...passed out from heat stroke(had a core body temp slightly over 104 degrees)and had to be packed in ice,medivaced and then rehydrated.
he was in the hospital for 4 days(was pissed he missed the .50 cal shooting)and it was up to his d/i whether or not he would recycle,based on his previous behaviour,work ethic,aptitude for learning,etc.
i talked with his d/i after the graduation,he was not a moron by any stretch.
but the man was scary.

some say kids know it is a show...but that guy was no joke and if he was all up in my face and told me to jump..i would say how high sir!
and i am no kid
so i dont think that is a valid arguement.

they are preparing these kids for chaotic situations with alot of orders being shouted,and this prepares them some.
i think it would be unwise to change that part(i watched the dvd),and at first they(the recruits are all flustered and running around like twits)by the end they were moving like a machine.

my 2 cents