11
11
0
A few months back I was conducting a check on Sergeants Time training and was watching Soldiers applying a tourniquet. The training event was supposed to simulate an amputated leg. As I watched, the one soldier would just lay there and the other would place the tourniquet on the others leg. No sense of urgency, no sense of purpose. I looked around and the majority of the crowd were slick sleeve privates, never deployed and the instructor didn't seem like they had ever actually seen an amputation.
So I decided to amp it up a bit and show the soldiers how it was supposed to be done. I grabbed the injured soldiers leg ( a female) and violently pushed it to the side placing my knee on the left side of the groin area to simulate pinching the artery and applied the tourniquet very quickly. They needed to know it had to be done quickly.
Anyhow later that day the commander pulled me into her office and proceeded to say " Ski, I know your old school ( never a good way to start a conversation with me) and I appreciate you wanting to ensure quality training but the way you pushed that soldiers legs apart and knelt in her groin could be misconstrued as unwelcomed sexual contact".
Needless to say the rest of the conversation did not go as she expected. My point is are we too worried about the wrong stuff? Are we so worried about the Soldiers feeling or the impression someone might get that we are willing to sacrifice training?
Yes I am "old school" and damn proud of it, but it was the old school ways that allowed me to survive two wars. I will not sacrifice quality training just to avoid offending someone's sensitive nature.
So I decided to amp it up a bit and show the soldiers how it was supposed to be done. I grabbed the injured soldiers leg ( a female) and violently pushed it to the side placing my knee on the left side of the groin area to simulate pinching the artery and applied the tourniquet very quickly. They needed to know it had to be done quickly.
Anyhow later that day the commander pulled me into her office and proceeded to say " Ski, I know your old school ( never a good way to start a conversation with me) and I appreciate you wanting to ensure quality training but the way you pushed that soldiers legs apart and knelt in her groin could be misconstrued as unwelcomed sexual contact".
Needless to say the rest of the conversation did not go as she expected. My point is are we too worried about the wrong stuff? Are we so worried about the Soldiers feeling or the impression someone might get that we are willing to sacrifice training?
Yes I am "old school" and damn proud of it, but it was the old school ways that allowed me to survive two wars. I will not sacrifice quality training just to avoid offending someone's sensitive nature.
Training
Standards
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 13
0
0
0
Bravo for you SFC Ski! I am dismayed at what I am seeing coming out of initial entry training nowadays. Maybe I am "old school" also but damnit somebody has to teach these young troops.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
First off let me just say that my dad was an "old school" SFC, retired in 98' from the 1 ID, I get the Army and its training methods. I am "new school" and I totally agree with you, I teach SABC in the Air Force and a lot of times people don't take that kind of training seriously, I always have...and when people lose limbs they don't know what to do because they don't train how they fight. I think what you did was right, the only suggestion I could impart is (and you may have done it, just not stated it in the text above) explain to the junior soldiers why you did what you did during or immediately following your instruction so there is no room for missunderstanding, and have them follow your example by having them all copy your actions...so they get the "why". Keep up the good work, who knows, maybe what you impart may save one of their lives someday.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
My only thought about the "lackadaisical attitude" is what level of training was this? Not sure if we still use the crawl, walk, run analogy, but if this was still crawl level training, then no, you don't want to start ramping up the pressure just quite yet. I know you already know this, but crawl level is meant to learn the procedure and basic mechanics of the task. If it was run level training, then yes, it wasn't enough.
As for the "unwanted sexual contact" that, IMHO, is absolute BS in this case. Some Army training is very physical in nature and requires touching to potentially intimate parts of our bodies (ie medical training, combatives, etc). If women want to be in combat arms, then they need to understand that this training is important as it could save their lives one day, and sometimes there really is no way to make it "gender neutral".
As for the "unwanted sexual contact" that, IMHO, is absolute BS in this case. Some Army training is very physical in nature and requires touching to potentially intimate parts of our bodies (ie medical training, combatives, etc). If women want to be in combat arms, then they need to understand that this training is important as it could save their lives one day, and sometimes there really is no way to make it "gender neutral".
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google