Is the military focusing too much on PT and not enough on individual intelligence?

SGT James Elphick — Tue, 14 Jan 2014 15:49:11 -0500

I recently read an article by a MAJ who is an instructor at West Point (http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/01/08/the_decay_of_the_profession_of_arms) And it struck a chord with me because I remember people begin promoted or considered to be superior soldiers because of the number of push-ups they could do. Rarely, if ever, were soldiers given any mental training or rewarded based on their knowledge (with the exception of a SOM board). Obviously an effective fighting force must be physically fit but are we overdoing it now and making that the main focus because it's easier?

The decay of the profession of arms

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 14 at 2014 3:52 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Jan 2014 15:52:54 -0500

"Obviously an effective fighting force must be physically fit but are we overdoing it now and making that the main focus because it's easier?"

Short answer, Yes

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 14 at 2014 4:30 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Jan 2014 16:30:23 -0500

Unfortunately I have to disagree
with the MAJ. I do not believe that the emphasis on being physically dominate supersedes
being an intelligent leader. Here is my
reason behind my statement. The Army, well Military as a whole is giving you
money and telling you to go to school. On top of that the AAR for DA selection
boards is showing that you will not be promoted past the rank of SSG in the
case of NCOs without a degree or attempting to obtain a degree.

Yes, in the past especially as an
Infantryman I wanted Soldiers that could “hack it” before book smart troops.
After taking a step back after I started my career as a NCO and not just a SPC
team leader I realized I had to have smart Soldiers whether it be
book(Education) or technically(FMs, ARs) to become a better team. Did I have
strong Rangers? Yes but I created the understanding that to be a leader that
Soldiers wanted to follow and learn from you had to be smart/intelligent as
well as be strong.

I am a 300+ 30 year old 11B SFC
with a Bachelors in Business. All of my counseling to my squad leaders show
that they need to pursue education as well as lead physically from the front.
If your Soldiers see you in school they will follow. If your Soldiers see you
in the gym they will follow.

Response by 1SG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 14 at 2014 4:53 PM

1SG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Jan 2014 16:53:41 -0500

I like this article. I think military institutions by their nature must be aware of the risk of suppressing critical thought. However, I doubt the problem is too much PT. Certainly a 300 APFT isn't the only characteristic that makes a good leader. But at the small unit level it is an expression of leadership by example. We've also had a few smart Army generals who also happen to be PT studs. In recent memory I'd say Clarke, Grange, McChrystal, and Petraeus were all generals who personally exemplified cultures of both physical fitness and intellectual rigor, whether you care for them as leaders or not. In the end, it's always a balancing act.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 14 at 2014 8:21 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Jan 2014 20:21:28 -0500

SGT Elphick, thats a loaded question and you might get some very interesting answers. Over all, YES, the military is focusing too much on PT. Through out my career it was both PT and Education; now it’s PT and trying to get back to a fitter Military. For those out there, I do agree have to be physically fit to fight a battle. BUT you also need the mind to see the options available to you and your Soldiers during Combat. Making a “Mistake” on the battle field can cost you lives or your own. So having both a smart and fit Soldier is beneficial to you as a Leader. But the real question is this; Does your unit give your Soldiers the needed time to get the education or is it on “Their time” after work? (OH and by the way, you have to go out to the field and miss some classes).

Response by CPL Jay Strickland made Jan 14 at 2014 8:30 PM

CPL Jay Strickland — Tue, 14 Jan 2014 20:30:15 -0500

I think worse than the PT based promotions were the board babies. I had an E6 that all she did as an E3-E5 was study for the boards, because she made it to Audie Murphy.

Any time I needed to use the Earth Terminal's computer during off hours (emailing homework assignment for civilian university normally) I would have to fix something that had broken and she and her shift were clueless on fixing. For those in signal I am talking about easy tasks such as zooming out a spectrum analyzer.

What made the matter worse was that Earth terminal was likely carrying information related to the Iraq war.

My step dad before he passed away told me boards used to be partly MOS based so I think a return to that may fix the issue with board babies.

Response by MSG Mitch Dowler made Jan 14 at 2014 11:09 PM

MSG Mitch Dowler — Tue, 14 Jan 2014 23:09:11 -0500

I retired after 20 years of service with 70% disabled rating from the VA. Several of my injuries were PT related. Several common sense practices such as knowing your limitations were verboten in the Army I served in. If you did always push the physical fitness boundaries of your body you were not considered as effective a leader as you could be. There is always that expectation to go slightly beyond what is possible. I also served those twenty years in the Signal Corps in what should be a highly technical field. Training beyond what was need to install, operate and keep the systems running was not encourage or provided for. It was rote practices and step by step by the TM without understanding the theory behind it. I believe it was partly based on a fear that the more high level of training also made the soldiers much more marketable to corporate America and endangered retention.

"The way of the warrior is the two-fold way of pen and sword."
Miyamoto Musashi

Response by LTJG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 15 at 2014 3:11 AM

LTJG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 15 Jan 2014 03:11:19 -0500

WE need BOTH!

Fitness and health can be improved with a small effort each day (e.g. 1-2 hours). There are 24 hours in a day, and if we can’t figure out how to educate and improve the knowledge base of our military in the remaining 22-23 hours then perhaps we should just throw in the towel.

Also, a person’s individual intelligence CAN NOT grow. Only their experience and/or education can. IQ is set in place by genetics.

IF we want to improve the average individual intelligence of our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines, then we need to change our recruiting tactics and criteria. IF we want to have a more “Educated” force, well that is different all together.

Even still, you can get all the PT you need in 1-2 hours a day. Seriously, we don’t just PT for 1-2 hours and then spend the next 22-23 hours ignoring intellectual, psychological, and/or educational growth and development. To pretend that we are working out 8-10 hours a day 7 days a week and NOTHING else is occurring is quite false.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 15 at 2014 2:16 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 15 Jan 2014 14:16:21 -0500

It should also be noted that it takes a lot more than intelligence and education to make someone a good soldier/leader. Work ethic goes a lot farther than either of those traits.

Response by CW2 Geoff Lachance made Jan 15 at 2014 8:35 PM

CW2 Geoff Lachance — Wed, 15 Jan 2014 20:35:18 -0500

It's been 18 years since I was in, but at that time - being technically and tactically proficient and being physically fit was all part of the duty day! If soldiers are falling behind on their soldiers skills then that problem falls directly on their immediate supervisor. You never are completely trained in any task! Now if what you folks are saying is that the primary focus is on PT, then I see a future military of brainless jocks! I cannot believe this is the norm! Sure hoping it's not anyway! Soldiers need to be physically fit but better be real good at shooting, moving and communicating along with all the other survival and soldier skills that he/she will need to stay alive and in the fight!

Train, Train, Train!!!

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 15 at 2014 9:43 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 15 Jan 2014 21:43:52 -0500

Judgment. That is what is lacking. It's not about intelligence.

Judgment takes time to develop. It comes from things that aren't happening very much right now. You have to listen. Not just to the words, but to the thought process. Hear not just what is said, but what isn't said, and why. You have to think. Thinking is not memorization. The majority of people I encounter memorize the regs for two reasons: to enforce them (read: exert power over others) and to recite them (read: appear smart). In truth, the regs show you how the Army thinks. You have to learn. Be a sponge. Want to learn. Don't make the same mistake twice. Try to learn from everything that happens. This is the "training" to develop judgment.

We don't develop leaders with judgment because while junior leaders are developing judgment, they make mistakes, they ask "why," they challenge the status quo, they develop their own paths...and as a consequence get told you're wrong, sit down, shut up, do what I said, etc. And they lose confidence and focus on the things that consistently get rewarded: high APFT scores, briefs that look just like everyone else's, grooming, and other easy to measure, but totally hollow OER/NCOER bullets. They stop listening, thinking, and learning so the judgment never develops.

I have been repeatedly criticized for down playing PT, but I'll ask you this: why didn't we achieve a lasting peace in Iraq? Why are we at a crossroads for the umpteenth time in Afghanistan? Why did it take a decade to find Osama Bin Laden? Is anyone saying "because our Soldiers are only marginally passing the APFT" or "because we are not trained on our weapon systems" or "because we let Soldiers grow their hair too long." I haven't heard that.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 18 at 2014 1:30 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 18 Jan 2014 13:30:14 -0500

One thing I have seen during my time in the military is that we do nothing in moderation. The pendulum never hangs in the middle. So, my simple answer to your question is yes. However, that does not mean I agree with the author of your article. I really believe that some of his thoughts are the true decay of the profession of arms. Below is an example:

"I had a cadet wear one such reflective belt indoors while giving a class presentation -- when I asked him about it, he told me he had knee surgery and the regulation permitted no deviation from wearing the belt. If that isn't a clear indicator of the willful suspension of judgment for the sake of nonsensical bureaucratic rules, I'm not sure what is. "

My assumption is he is proposing that the cadet should not have put on the PT belt as it made no sense since he was indoors. Picking and choosing the rules that we want to follow presents the exact reason that we have had many senior leaders relieved of command. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with the rules; however, that does not mean you do not follow them. The better course of action would be to teach the future leader the proper way to address changing rules. Disregarding the small rules will eventually lead to disregarding the big rules as those individuals gain power and authority. We need our leaders to learn how to operate within the limits of the law rather than violating those laws they swore to uphold.

Response by Cpl Ray Fernandez made Jan 18 at 2014 1:44 PM

Cpl Ray Fernandez — Sat, 18 Jan 2014 13:44:24 -0500

I think the physical is emphasized because it is the easiest variable to examine and base it off of personal effort. Technical skill and knowledge are more determined by evaluations and reviews of the unit. In most cases it would seem that if someone is placed on a meritorious board, someone within the unit would have had to determine that the person nominated for the board is highly skilled and proficient at their MOS. When you have a mixture of service members with different MOSs it's harder to directly compare proficiencies. So in that case rifle qualifications, physical fitness tests, and other factors that are common to the branch are used. I'm not saying it's perfect but how can you quantify intelligence and proficiency when you have different ways to measure it. I was a radio technician, and I was in a tank battalion so how you compare the skill to repair electronics to loading a tank round, driving a tank, or firing a tank gun and keep things fair?

The other extreme I've seen is that there were some Marines I came across that had all the Marine Corps knowledge and could answer any board question, yet when it came down to technical proficiency they could not perform their MOS as required, but looked good, and could answer obscure questions about Marine Corps history.

Sgt Elphick brings up a good question about making it the focus because it's easier. My question is how do we fix the problem and improve the promotion system to improve the weight of intelligence compared to the physical?

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 21 at 2014 7:26 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 21 Apr 2014 19:26:21 -0400

Short version, SGT. No, the military doesn't focus too much on PT. But it also doesn't seem to focus enough on other areas of training. We seem to get lost in 350-1 and other annual training requirements and sometimes fail at getting quality MOS related training as a result of last minute annual training, safety stand downs, battalion/brigade/division inspections, and R&U/SGM Detail. It's a constant uphill battle, it feels like, for leadership to seize and successfully execute quality training opportunities that aren't marked off on a battalion/brigade calendar. Just my 2 cents.

Response by SFC Randy Purham made Apr 21 at 2014 10:44 PM

SFC Randy Purham — Mon, 21 Apr 2014 22:44:54 -0400

James,

I will go out on a limb and say Yes! The military has turned its focus on being Physical versus mental and it has gone extremely awry. Most people nowadays are mentally weak and can't handle the harsh realities of life so they run to the gym as an escape mechanism. Schooling and deep-dive discussions are the thing of the past because they are considered "time wasters". Sharing knowledge, experience and having a conversation of substance or of intelligence will get you looked at funny because its deemed unrelated to everyone's mindset. I can go on and on with the lacking of individual intelligence that is becoming more prevalent in our services, but I will digress for now. Thanks for your posting.