U.S. military lowers standards

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

I'd like a resolution to this dichotomy.

Good luck! Your dichotomy is interesting, though. I imagine the argument would be that the soldier HAS to have the grenades and auto rifles in a war. Also, they're "under supervision" to some extent.

Mind you I'm not really arguing here for private ownership of military arms, I just firmly believe that military standards are far more important than fulfilling the imperialistic whims of a corrupt and abusive executive branch.

 

[fskimospy]

If anyone wants some good practical reasons not to let criminals and morons into the army this is a good summary of a RAND corporation analysis of the differences between category 1 and category 3 and 4 soldiers' performance.

Slate to the rescue.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
I knew the WMD line was going to confuse people. I'll try a different example.

In most of the United States it is illegal to carry (and sometimes even own) a weapon capable of automatic fire, no matter how intelligent, well trained, or morally upstanding you are. It is usually illegal to possess manufactured personal explosives (ie grenades) no matter how intelligent, well trained, or morally upstanding you are. In most states you can't obtain a concealed weapons permit if you've committed any felony, some gross misdemeanors, been committed for psychiatric evaluation, are under 21, currently on probation or out on bail or have a warrant for your arrest, etc no matter how intelligent, or well trained you are. This usually holds true for your entire life, no matter what changes you make as you mature.

In other words a lot of the people the military is giving a machine gun and a grenade launcher to, then sending into congested urban environments full of innocents, in order to represent our nation and keep us safe and secure, would not be allowed to carry so much as a revolver for personal defence as a private citizen.

I'd like a resolution to this dichotomy. Either someone is safe enough to carry a small personal firearm, or they're not. It's ridiculous to claim they're fine as our first line of defence and international representation with very dangerous arms in a permanently bad situation, but then they're not ok to just try and defend themselves in their own homes.

Well, weapons in the military are a far cry from weapons in the hands of civilians. Military personnel are trained to use the weapons they will be exposed to. Military personnel are under close supervision while using weapons. Military equipment is routinely inspected and categorized so that there are records of where guns and ammo are at any given point. Military personnel need weapons to do their job.

Civilian personnel do not need to obtain advanced training to buy firearms. Civilians, after having purchased a firearm, do not have outside supervision. Civilian firearms are tracked, but after the initial POS, there are few followups to make sure equipment is in working order and accounted for. Civilians do not need guns to do their job.

So there's not really a dichotomy as I see it. It's the same as asking why you aren't allowed to operate a small nuclear reactor to power your house. You may know what you are doing, but the government can't assess the capabilities of every single individual. They do the best they can to pick a minimum standard between what a reasonable person could be expected to be trusted with and test to make sure someone meets minimum requirements in that area. In the case of nuclear power, it's probably best not to trust everyone with the controls of a reactor. In the case of guns, your average civilian doesn't need access to heavy machine guns, so you won't see those in retail.

As far as the felony gun holding thing; I think an honorable discharge from a branch of the armed forces (post felony conviction, not before) should be enough to regain trust, don't you?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
I knew the WMD line was going to confuse people. I'll try a different example.

In most of the United States it is illegal to carry (and sometimes even own) a weapon capable of automatic fire, no matter how intelligent, well trained, or morally upstanding you are. It is usually illegal to possess manufactured personal explosives (ie grenades) no matter how intelligent, well trained, or morally upstanding you are. In most states you can't obtain a concealed weapons permit if you've committed any felony, some gross misdemeanors, been committed for psychiatric evaluation, are under 21, currently on probation or out on bail or have a warrant for your arrest, etc no matter how intelligent, or well trained you are. This usually holds true for your entire life, no matter what changes you make as you mature.

In other words a lot of the people the military is giving a machine gun and a grenade launcher to, then sending into congested urban environments full of innocents, in order to represent our nation and keep us safe and secure, would not be allowed to carry so much as a revolver for personal defence as a private citizen.

I'd like a resolution to this dichotomy. Either someone is safe enough to carry a small personal firearm, or they're not. It's ridiculous to claim they're fine as our first line of defence and international representation with very dangerous arms in a permanently bad situation, but then they're not ok to just try and defend themselves in their own homes.

Well, weapons in the military are a far cry from weapons in the hands of civilians. Military personnel are trained to use the weapons they will be exposed to. Military personnel are under close supervision while using weapons. Military equipment is routinely inspected and categorized so that there are records of where guns and ammo are at any given point. Military personnel need weapons to do their job.

Civilian personnel do not need to obtain advanced training to buy firearms. Civilians, after having purchased a firearm, do not have outside supervision. Civilian firearms are tracked, but after the initial POS, there are few followups to make sure equipment is in working order and accounted for. Civilians do not need guns to do their job.

So there's not really a dichotomy as I see it. It's the same as asking why you aren't allowed to operate a small nuclear reactor to power your house. You may know what you are doing, but the government can't assess the capabilities of every single individual. They do the best they can to pick a minimum standard between what a reasonable person could be expected to be trusted with and test to make sure someone meets minimum requirements in that area. In the case of nuclear power, it's probably best not to trust everyone with the controls of a reactor. In the case of guns, your average civilian doesn't need access to heavy machine guns, so you won't see those in retail.

As far as the felony gun holding thing; I think an honorable discharge from a branch of the armed forces (post felony conviction, not before) should be enough to regain trust, don't you?

Like I said, it's not really the point of raising this example. I was just showing the disparity in requirements...the military person has (in my opinion) a much greater expectation of responsibility than the citizen, and yet they let absolutely anyone in now. The civilian is put through ridiculous rigours and still never afforded total trust and empowerment. It should really be the other way around, or at least achieve some equality. I'd much rather see a dumb civilian with a revolver than a dumb marine with a 203 in a zone of interspersed combatants and innocents in a strategically vital area.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Like I said, it's not really the point of raising this example. I was just showing the disparity in requirements...the military person has (in my opinion) a much greater expectation of responsibility than the citizen, and yet they let absolutely anyone in now. The civilian is put through ridiculous rigours and still never afforded total trust and empowerment. It should really be the other way around, or at least achieve some equality. I'd much rather see a dumb civilian with a revolver than a dumb marine with a 203 in a zone of interspersed combatants and innocents in a strategically vital area.

That's certainly a good point. While I'd like to believe the military has some fairly stringent requirements regarding when one can engage an enemy (as opposed to just opening fire on a crowd of civilians), there have been several stories out of Iraq about soldiers doing just that (sometimes under orders, sometimes not). I think for the most part Americans would rather have criminals in the military making stupid decisions than a neighbor with a gun collection. At the end of the day, the bad soldier doesn't threaten our immediate surroundings as much as the citizen armed to the teeth (and the recent shooting in Texas is a reminder of why some people are worried about arming the populace to the teeth, good citizen or not).

 

[m1ldslide1]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Let me ask the OP this question:

Who do you want armed with WMDs and responsible not only for the safety of the men and women fighting with him, but the safety and security of our entire nation; a drug addict with a long list of criminal convictions and an IQ of 80, or a college grad with a spotless history of moral and ethical behavior?

The military is ONLY as effective as the men and women who comprise it. Lowest common denominator sets the bar for a units effectiveness. Gone are the days of trench warfare, waves of expendables, and fodder. Combat today is about elitism.

I'm sorry, but do you actually think the grunts have access to WMDs? Maybe you define WMDs differently than I, but I'm fairly certain every Tom, Dick and Harry with a rank and serial number does not have access to them.

Hell, the military is probably a good way to reform some of these criminals. A good friend of mine was a stoner and drug addict through his teen years (no convictions, fortunately). At 18 he dropped the junk, at 19 he joined the army. He returned Friday from his first tour in Iraq. I'm sure that he is considered a valuable asset to his unit, despite his checkered past.

I'm a college grad, always got good grades. When I came out of school, I weighed my options. The military wasn't even on my radar. "Should I join the Army when there is a war actively raging in, not one, but two countries? Gee, let me think..." Sure, the military needs intelligence in its officers, but the boots on the ground have very little thinking to do. Educated people are not volunteering themselves to be meat shields. So you can sit on your high horse and think wistfully about how great it would be if the best and brightest in our country were also certifiably insane enough to want a job that requires being shot at; I'll take whatever we can get.

And let me just say that I am in no way attacking anyone who joins the armed services. Everyone in the service is important, from the four stars down to the PFCs, and I, like most Americans, appreciate the commitment you make to defending this country. My point is that there is a limited amount of brainpower in the general population, and a limited amount of that goes into the service. I would rather the brains were coming up with the strategy, not blindly obeying orders on the ground.

I would rather no one blindly obey orders...that's a recipe for disaster as soon as you get an incompetent as an NCO or higher (which is even more likely with lowered requirements).

I think many of you still see the military as it was in WWII, with a bunch of grunts lining up and marching. Modern military actions are far more about small unit engagements, and require vastly superior abilities.

It's not that a grunt actually carries a WMD, but there are very low people in some very critical positions which do relate to WMD deployment and operations. 5 months after getting out of boot camp, while still an E4, I ended up being alone on watch one night when no officer could be quickly located. I was stationed at COMNAVSURFLANT...that's the commander of the atlantic surface forces for those that don't speak military. Our watch was manning the communication lines between the various flag commands. We had a direct line not only to SUBLANT (think nuclear missile fleet), but also up to Washington (in case our direct uplink currently called COMUSFLTCOM was down). On that particular night what is now COMUSFLTCOM was down, at least communication wise. That means that until an appropriate responding party was located I was the highest point of contact for the Atlantic forces outside of DC. Let me reiterate that...an E4, 5 months out of bootcamp, was as high up the chain of command for the atlantic forces as you could go without contacting DC directly. Now, granted, it's not like I could personally launch an attack or anything, but there's still a certain amount of power and responsibility that came with that position. Who do you want on watch, the stupid criminal, or intelligent good guy?

In general you can probably think of many other instances where a very low ranking person could be faced with an extraordinary responsibility...a situation where dozens, hundreds, or thousands of lives could be compromised by their actions (or lack thereof). Who do you want there? Personally I want intelligent, capable, 'good' people holding positions of responsibility. Let the criminals rot, or die homeless, or work at BK. The military is no place for slouches and derelicts.

I like this post, and couldn't agree more on the premise. I keep thinking about the nature of modern warfare, where small groups do almost all of their fighting on city streets, surrounded by civilians. It seems that only people meeting the highest ethical, psychological, and moral standards would be able to maintain composure day after day in that kind of environment. It seems that any chance of success in this conflict depends on these soldiers and their ability to not only win the battles, but to minimize the collateral damage that breeds ever more terrorists.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Like I said, it's not really the point of raising this example. I was just showing the disparity in requirements...the military person has (in my opinion) a much greater expectation of responsibility than the citizen, and yet they let absolutely anyone in now. The civilian is put through ridiculous rigours and still never afforded total trust and empowerment. It should really be the other way around, or at least achieve some equality. I'd much rather see a dumb civilian with a revolver than a dumb marine with a 203 in a zone of interspersed combatants and innocents in a strategically vital area.

That's certainly a good point. While I'd like to believe the military has some fairly stringent requirements regarding when one can engage an enemy (as opposed to just opening fire on a crowd of civilians), there have been several stories out of Iraq about soldiers doing just that (sometimes under orders, sometimes not). I think for the most part Americans would rather have criminals in the military making stupid decisions than a neighbor with a gun collection. At the end of the day, the bad soldier doesn't threaten our immediate surroundings as much as the citizen armed to the teeth (and the recent shooting in Texas is a reminder of why some people are worried about arming the populace to the teeth, good citizen or not).

That's because the average American isn't very intelligent, and can't see past his own immediate surroundings and selfishness.

The man in Texas killed two criminals, now it's over. The bad soldier could spark international war, never mind costing the lives of dozens or hundreds initially. Individually such a response is unlikely, but multiplied repeatedly it's a very real threat to our position in the world community.

 

[Arglebargle]

We are not just talking recruiting on the edge here. If you are really interested, you can find loads of drill instructors complaining bitterly that the training methods in basic are being dumbed down, and they are being pressured to pass recruits that should flunk out. These people are being passed on into the military even though the drill instructors are pretty convinced they will end up getting some of their fellow soldiers killed due to their ineptitude.

IT is part of the same desperate desire for warm bodies. But passing folks who should have flunked out is even more dangerous that taking chances on people you wouldn't normally.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Arglebargle
We are not just talking recruiting on the edge here. If you are really interested, you can find loads of drill sergeants complaining bitterly that the training methods in basic are being dumbed down, and they are being pressured to pass recruits that should flunk out. These people are being passed on into the Army even though the drill sergeants are pretty convinced they will end up getting some of their fellow soldiers killed due to their ineptitude.

IT is part of the same desperate desire for warm bodies. But passing folks who should have flunked out is even more dangerous that taking chances on people you wouldn't normally.

fixed. The Army is lowering its standards. Over the past few years the Marine Corps has actually toughened up its recruit training. They have wanted to do it for years but congress kept holding them back, too many worried mothers sending letters to congressmen. But after 9/11, the whiney senators backed off.

I dont kow about the Navy, but the Air Force definetly has its highest level of recruits ever. Coast Guard is pretty high too.

Overall, todays military is the smartest, most well trained, and best equipped military in the known history of warfare.

Also note that just because the military accepts you, doesnt mean you will make it through training, it just means they are giving you a chance. Approx 35% drop out of basic alone. With another 15-20% within the next 6 months. You gotta recruit a lot when you have to factor in wash out rates.

 

[ranmaniac]

There's as many private military contractors in Iraq as there are US soldiers. This is a result of not having a draft, and Bush failing to build a coalition like they did in the 1991 Gulf War, so they build a coalition of billing corporations instead.

Good video of Jeremy Scahill, who wrote the NYT bestseller, "Blackwater, The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army"

http://youtube.com/watch?v=EPd3ZzrjGzw

 

[piasabird]

Yet they kick you out for smoking one joint.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Train
fixed. The Army is lowering its standards. Over the past few years the Marine Corps has actually toughened up its recruit training. They have wanted to do it for years but congress kept holding them back, too many worried mothers sending letters to congressmen. But after 9/11, the whiney senators backed off.

I dont kow about the Navy, but the Air Force definetly has its highest level of recruits ever. Coast Guard is pretty high too.

Overall, todays military is the smartest, most well trained, and best equipped military in the known history of warfare.

Also note that just because the military accepts you, doesnt mean you will make it through training, it just means they are giving you a chance. Approx 35% drop out of basic alone. With another 15-20% within the next 6 months. You gotta recruit a lot when you have to factor in wash out rates.

I like the idea of the Army allowing "various" people in... it's a good place for many people (who otherwise would have been a waste of skin) to get a 2nd chance and excel. I appreciate the idea of a military that's willing to accept all sorts... there's something very democratic about it.

On the other hand the training should not compromise quality. Yes, give most an opportunity, but train hard and keep expectations high. And in my reasonably educated opinion, the training is better than ever.

The Lessons Learned are being filtered into the school houses and often supercede doctrine in some areas. Gone are the days of going nutzo on kids in BCT because they have a spot on their boot. Gone are the days of making a platoon pick blades of grass out of rock piles for half a day. There's still suffering and discipline, but it's different... there's more meaning and training attached to the routines and consequences.

People going through BCT today spend 300%-400% more time on range and doing battle drills than they did 10-15 years ago. Things like buddy team rushes and convoy live fire weren't even considered 5 or 6 years ago. "Every Soldier is a Sensor" concepts and all that stuff is creating a more aware and capable soldier. BCT has even added a week to include more training.

I can tell you firsthand that the 96Bs coming out of Huachuca are the most hi-speed and well-trained intel soldiers we've ever had. It's really quite impressive. There is no doubt in my mind that the Army is cranking out the best trained and most capable soldiers it ever has. So I don't worry too much about who they accept... I'm a lot more concerned about what comes out, and so far it's pretty damn good.

 

[Siddhartha]

Make it easy, or easier, to get in and use the DIs and boot camp to weed them out.

I hope people lives are not ruined because they do not make it.

 

[maluckey]

People going through BCT today spend 300%-400% more time on range and doing battle drills than they did 10-15 years ago. Things like buddy team rushes and convoy live fire weren't even considered 5 or 6 years ago. "Every Soldier is a Sensor" concepts and all that stuff is creating a more aware and capable soldier. BCT has even added a week to include more training.

I can't speak for 96B Basic Training, but buddy team rushes, First Aid, and convoy live fire was part 19D-D3 training in 1989 when I went to basic. Also included was OP/LP setup and operation, team assault, defensive fields of fire setup, Land Nav, Enemy ID, Table 8 qualification, BRM, enemy vehicle defeat classes, and tactical radio ops. Once at the unit we added Squad assault Live Fire etc to the long list of things required.

What I hear you are saying is that nowadays, Line units can get more out of non-combat MOS than ever before. I'd have to agree. Gone are the days when I got spooked by seeing a non-combat MOS witha weapon. Nowadays, most every soldiers is capable enough to fight into or out of most situations, regardless of their specialty.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: maluckey

People going through BCT today spend 300%-400% more time on range and doing battle drills than they did 10-15 years ago. Things like buddy team rushes and convoy live fire weren't even considered 5 or 6 years ago. "Every Soldier is a Sensor" concepts and all that stuff is creating a more aware and capable soldier. BCT has even added a week to include more training.

I can't speak for 96B Basic Training, but buddy team rushes, First Aid, and convoy live fire was part 19D-D3 training in 1989 when I went to basic. Also included was OP/LP setup and operation, team assault, defensive fields of fire setup, Land Nav, Enemy ID, Table 8 qualification, BRM, enemy vehicle defeat classes, and tactical radio ops. Once at the unit we added Squad assault Live Fire etc to the long list of things required.

What I hear you are saying is that nowadays, Line units can get more out of non-combat MOS than ever before. I'd have to agree. Gone are the days when I got spooked by seeing a non-combat MOS witha weapon. Nowadays, most every soldiers is capable enough to fight into or out of most situations, regardless of their specialty.

Maybe there was a sprinkling of those... I based the assertion on the fact that the BCT BNs at Leonardwood and Jackson only created those ranges within the past 5-6 years. Reflexive-fire ranges (where soldiers double tap from the low ready at different color/shape targets) as well as MOUT training are also new there.

I would say yeah though, the "soft" MOS soldiers are much much better than they used to be. They have to be based on the type of warfare we engage in today. If you go to Iraq as a cook, there's a real good chance you won't be doing much cooking.

 

[Arglebargle]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Arglebargle
We are not just talking recruiting on the edge here. If you are really interested, you can find loads of drill sergeants complaining bitterly that the training methods in basic are being dumbed down, and they are being pressured to pass recruits that should flunk out. These people are being passed on into the Army even though the drill sergeants are pretty convinced they will end up getting some of their fellow soldiers killed due to their ineptitude.

IT is part of the same desperate desire for warm bodies. But passing folks who should have flunked out is even more dangerous that taking chances on people you wouldn't normally.

fixed. The Army is lowering its standards. Over the past few years the Marine Corps has actually toughened up its recruit training. They have wanted to do it for years but congress kept holding them back, too many worried mothers sending letters to congressmen. But after 9/11, the whiney senators backed off.

I dont kow about the Navy, but the Air Force definetly has its highest level of recruits ever. Coast Guard is pretty high too.

Overall, todays military is the smartest, most well trained, and best equipped military in the known history of warfare.

Also note that just because the military accepts you, doesnt mean you will make it through training, it just means they are giving you a chance. Approx 35% drop out of basic alone. With another 15-20% within the next 6 months. You gotta recruit a lot when you have to factor in wash out rates.

Coming from an all Army family, it pains me to agree with you. But it is true, the Marines have managed to maintain (or raise) their standards. They are definitely not broken, like the Army. The Army is still passing on soldiers that should get bounced. And the continuous deployment is kicking the stuffing out of equipment. That's another bill that will be coming due.

 

[ahurtt]

Makes sense to me. . .why do we want our best and brightest and most productive members of our society going off to get themselves blown up in the desert? Let the shit roll downhill.