7
7
0
It's generally accepted that over the last decade of war, we have placed a lot of standards to the side in order to facilitate the war effort. Over the course of the war, there has been a great deal of institutional change and lessons learned. Now, my question(s) are the following;
If, in the course of our war fighting, which is the primary mission for our Armed Forces, we set certain standards aside as being irrelevant to the war effort, and the mission was a success, does that not indicate that those standards may not be needed?
If so, now that the wars are winding down, why would we reinstate those standards? Is that not just ignoring a decades worth of lessons learned? Is it wise to institute standards that we know are obsolete to the actual mission for the sake of "well, we don't have anything else to focus on without a mission"?Should we not be examining our performance over the last decade and creating NEW standards based off of lessons learned and not just rehashing what we just got done discarding as irrelevant or not vital to the mission?
Does the foretold end of the current conflicts HAVE to mean going back to the way things were? Can we not move forward instead of backwards?
If, in the course of our war fighting, which is the primary mission for our Armed Forces, we set certain standards aside as being irrelevant to the war effort, and the mission was a success, does that not indicate that those standards may not be needed?
If so, now that the wars are winding down, why would we reinstate those standards? Is that not just ignoring a decades worth of lessons learned? Is it wise to institute standards that we know are obsolete to the actual mission for the sake of "well, we don't have anything else to focus on without a mission"?Should we not be examining our performance over the last decade and creating NEW standards based off of lessons learned and not just rehashing what we just got done discarding as irrelevant or not vital to the mission?
Does the foretold end of the current conflicts HAVE to mean going back to the way things were? Can we not move forward instead of backwards?
Garrison
Lessons Learned
Experience
Edited 6 y ago
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 4
2
2
0
Let me play devil's advocate here:
Did the absence of the enforcement of some of these standards enable, hinder, or leave unaffected mission success? Especially in the sustainment world, I personally witnessed how forsaking what some call "Old Army" standards led to a complacent, shady, unfit/infirm, and self-satisfied force that would get the job done but never be able to sustain an organization into the future.
Let us look at the standards that have fallen by the wayside. Some of them are obviously relics of a high-readiness/low-combat era followed by pervasive peace time reductions. I'll take the starch & shine disfigurement of battle dress as an example for that. The same goes for the 1950's style haircuts. [Don't get me twisted, I won't change mine but I don't see more hair as being unprofessional.]
However, others are time tested standards that ensure long-term mission success beyond the "get the job done now" approach. A climate of high physical fitness with a focus on good life choices and consistent risk management in garrison creates a resilient and competent fighting force with high survivability.
Did the absence of the enforcement of some of these standards enable, hinder, or leave unaffected mission success? Especially in the sustainment world, I personally witnessed how forsaking what some call "Old Army" standards led to a complacent, shady, unfit/infirm, and self-satisfied force that would get the job done but never be able to sustain an organization into the future.
Let us look at the standards that have fallen by the wayside. Some of them are obviously relics of a high-readiness/low-combat era followed by pervasive peace time reductions. I'll take the starch & shine disfigurement of battle dress as an example for that. The same goes for the 1950's style haircuts. [Don't get me twisted, I won't change mine but I don't see more hair as being unprofessional.]
However, others are time tested standards that ensure long-term mission success beyond the "get the job done now" approach. A climate of high physical fitness with a focus on good life choices and consistent risk management in garrison creates a resilient and competent fighting force with high survivability.
The only thing that separates us from an armed mob or mercenary force is a keen adherence to discipline and tradition which includes appendix-like vestigial things such as drill & ceremony. Part of that is a semi-rigid subculture that forsakes a lot of modern modes of self-expression for a facade of austerity.
---------------------
Let's use the thumb-in-the-eye test. Every standard which is justified with reasoning that would be just as sound if we replaced said standard with "getting a thumb thrust into your eye once a day" should go. Things such as singing, reciting a creed, or marching together have been scientifically proven to build a concept of "us" and thusly pass the thumb-in-the-eye test. Things such as picking up pine cones with your naked butt cheeks while reciting the unit history upon promotion to Sergeant E-5 ... well, not so much.
Let's use the thumb-in-the-eye test. Every standard which is justified with reasoning that would be just as sound if we replaced said standard with "getting a thumb thrust into your eye once a day" should go. Things such as singing, reciting a creed, or marching together have been scientifically proven to build a concept of "us" and thusly pass the thumb-in-the-eye test. Things such as picking up pine cones with your naked butt cheeks while reciting the unit history upon promotion to Sergeant E-5 ... well, not so much.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
The effects of the war over time are an indication that we need to return to the pre-war standards. A mentality of get the job done has crept into today's army and is part of the problem why we couldn't get the job done.<div>The lessons learned are not being thrown away, which is part of the reason for pruning the Army down to just those that were able to get it done in a professional and ethical manner, in a sense, returning to the way it was getting done at the start rather than what it deteriorated into.</div>
(1)
(0)
CW2 Joseph Evans
Re-instating standards we "didn't have time for" is not the same as saying they aren't vital or even necessary. One could conclude that having done without them, the decision to re-instate them is based off lessons learned. 12 years of painful lessons learned resulting in some of the highest rates of criminal behavior executed by uniformed service members since the conclusion of Vietnam... Maybe some of those standards we let slide were more important than we thought.<br>
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
CW2 Joseph Evans
Apparently one of them was "don't rape or sexually assault or harass your fellow Soldiers or subordinates".
(0)
(0)
CW2 Joseph Evans
We were sent to re-build a nation in our image. Now if you want to call what is over there a success, it does not bode well for us stateside...
That being said, you are right, there are politicians on both sides of the aisle that are guilty for our "success" in Iraq and Afghanistan.
That being said, you are right, there are politicians on both sides of the aisle that are guilty for our "success" in Iraq and Afghanistan.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
As we transition our Army into its next phase we are the ones who determine its fate. Should some standards be left in the past and/or adapted to meet future requirements? I for one believe so. But we must also get back to holding ourselves and our soldiers to a higher standard. We have gotten away from the personal responsibility concept. Across the Army we have NCOs afraid to make on the spot corrections for fear of potentially ruining their career. This goes back to standards and discipline being set aside.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google