http://usarmyleaders.blogspot.com/2015/06/us-army-total-leadership-human-side-of.html
If you feel that you are running out of tools and options to deal with a situation, then talk to your mentors and leaders to discover new options. I have yet to run into a situation where a smoke session was the ONLY solution. I personally see it as a challenge to expand my creativity (and believe me when I say that I can be pretty creative).
That is one of the real benefits of forums such as these.
From back in my time! You whined You got smoked harder! Ridiculous!
Soldiers, as a microcosm of society, change. As we have entered the video game, computer, and smart phone age, the persons entering the military have a much different life than I did growing up with a party line telephone and three TV stations.
Thusly our style of training has to change would be an initial comment, or does it? I started my military career as a United States Marine. Boot camp in the Marine Corps is a right of passage. When I went through it was prior to the development of the crucible, but it was still a life changing event.
So in answer to your question are we too soft, probably. But can we be too hard, misguided, or directed, likely. There is a balance which must be struck by NCOs in the field and knowing your troops is a first step. For me, as a senior NCO all someone had to do was act as though they were about to utter the word "disappointed" and I would changing course and doing all I could to excel. I did not hear that word, but it would motivate me if I thought it might come. Again, knowing your Soldiers seems quite important.
Two things which were shared with me that served me well. First, the adage, "easy to be hard, hard to be smart." Second, the adage that "people accept starting hard and getting soft, they have trouble with starting soft and getting hard."
Good luck,
My favorite, since my squad leader days, is to make subordinates hand copy portions of regulations, those specifically related to the offense. This does many things all at once. The initial counseling informs them of their failure to meet Army standards. Second, by establishing a very low tolerance for error (hand copying for crying out loud) it breeds attention to the details (I require the use of blue or black ink). Third, failure to meet the standard establishes a pattern of failure to meet the standard, leading quickly to UCMJ or separation. Finally, at least here, I know they have read, and probably memorized, parts of that regulation. Nobody likes to do this, but if they fail, they face separation.
For me, the greatest advantage to this is instead of wasting my time, or my NCOs (who need to be working with the promising leaders) this correction must be done on their own time. It works more often than not. Follow-on and close-out counselings turn out better for both the leader and the led. The correction is accomplished with minimal, but repairable damage to the relationship, and the Soldier (possibly even the leader) comes out that much more knowledgeable.
All that to say there must be new ways with the new restrictions...
Being a SPC, I definitely have an opinion on this: I do not think the Army is being too soft on soldiers. OK so let's say we have SGT #1 and SGT #2. SGT #1 corrects soldiers on the spot and informs them if they will do it again, they will be counseled (or depending on the offense gives a 4856 for the 1st offense) but is polite and treats said individual with respect but expects them to maintain professionalism. SGT #2 sees the same individual make a mistake, screams in their face, and then smokes the shit out of them all while yelling or continuously reprimanding them.
Who is going to get a better product out of their workers? I say SGT #1. SGT #2 may get respect through ruling with an iron fist but the individuals that work for him are only going to do enough work to not make him mad or to get what they want for their own careers (promotion board, soldier of the month). Soldiers working for SGT #1 will work hard because they don't want to be a disappointment and they potentially care about SGT #1 and what he thinks of them not just because they are afraid of him.
It also because an "Us against Him" type of situation. Or soldiers vs. the NCO. It should be a team effort and everyone should be working together not against one another.
Now, not only were we both P.o.ed, but here is where the 1st was wrong in my prof. opinion. Top told ME to apologize for "belittling him in front of his peers" (which did not happen). SSG. Marx had seen this whole event himself as he was the CQ.
Top let him off by giving PV2 Johns a "warning" not to piss me off again. I was informed to write him a conseling statement to the fact and let it go..no AR15 for assault on NCO, disrespect of an NCO , disobedience of a lawful order, negletion of duty, etc, etc.
Now you tell me what is wrong with "Today s Army"?
I have yet to see much of it, not like the "Old School Army".