Can we train our troops better and actually eliminate the bad apples?

It will pass in time. A lot of soldiers and NCOs don't really know of a peace time Army. I speck to others and tell them how the Army was before war. I came in 2000. The military as a whole has changed. Units have always been training for a deployment. Now we are going back to a large scale war fight in the way we train. We are getting away from primarily focusing on an urban fight. So many are going to be our of their confront zone. It in time it will correct itself. I just think it is a factor we have to deal with as the wars are nearly at an end.

"One bad apple don't spoil the whole bunch girl."

https://youtu.be/rxGhQyRc9eo

First a spark, then a fire. Line leaders need to be the spark. Recent combat vets should have priority selection to become instructors--they have credibility and can relate why we need to know something that can save our lives, save our buddies, save our unit and perhaps not only the host nation, but our own

I had to train close before getting out with a reserve unit I joined and re-classed from 11B to 35M, had just gotten done with a deployment as 35M and had a bunch of NCO's who were senior but wouldn't relinquish training doctrine and would just teach old FMs all drill to about 30% of the unit most who were just the people who couldn't get valid excuse to get out of it. This is what I was told by other units as the norm.

The 80/20 Rule (Pareto Principle) applies here. In this case, 20% of your work will be dedicated to training the 80% of the personnel. Of the final 20%, half won't ever need it and the other half will never get it. So, in essence, you don't have to worry about 10%, they already get it. But the other 10% takes up all of your energy. Is it worth it? You decide.

My answer says it is. An Army Colonel I worked for had a great story. When he was in Basic Training (as a prior enlisted), he had a fella that wasn't too good on the final shooting day. He said 80% of the troops scored the necessary points to pass within the first hour. The rest were all over the place. There was one soldier, that was not able to get his score, so all three of the instructors traded off going through the motions with this young man. They were there until almost sun-down methodically going through the numbers.

The instructors put in their "all" to help this soldier and of course the young private put in his all. After all, he was good at everything else he did. He wanted to win. A few minutes before sun-down, when he finally qualified, they all walked away happy. What was most remarkable, according to this wise before his time O6, was how content the drill instructors felt. They all worked in concert to help this young man succeed. All four of were determined.

On to the bad apples. It's those ones that don't want to succeed, or care less about the outcome that need to make a bigger decision. You can't help them if they don't want to be helped.

Until there is an overhaul on trust, ethics and what it means to be a leader my honest answer is, no. Not enough of the leaders that bend rules and give favors were weeded out. Integrity is a lost concept and is explained off as miscommunication or absent mindedness. I long for the days that leaders know their soldiers and place their needs above their own is applied consistently. Just one day where senior leadership mentors junior leaders into better NCOs without rash judgment or stigma. The mindset that if you're not exactly like me you shouldn't progress needs to go, however; many new soldiers need to be willing to accept their role as well. They need to want to put in the work to be a leader and be a part of that change, not succumb to the mentality they hated.