Why does the Army appear to have a discipline issue with the lower enlisted ranks?

When you change the standards to fit the person, instead of helping the person change to fit an established standard, this is what happens. This occurs, not only in the military, but in civilian life as well.

This is one of those clickbait conversations that you're better off not participating in because those who do have usually made up their minds already. Alas, like a car crash on the side of the freeway, sometimes we can't help but participate in the chaos.

Let's baseline a bit. The Army is more than 6x the size of the Marine Corps when we include all active and reserve billets across both branches (about 1,348,000 Soldiers vs. 224,500 Marines). This also means that the Army reflects a larger portion of our national population (roughly 0.5%) than the Corps does (less than 0.1%). As such, the Army is exponentially more subject to the impacts of social change than the Marine Corps, and we should all be able to agree that there's an immense wave of social change in this day and age. Add to all of this that the Marine Corps hand-selects candidates based on a mission-specific profile, or those candidates self-select into a known culture of intense discipline; while the Army take a much more broad-stroke approach to filling its wide array of global personnel shortages. The result of these differentiated recruiting efforts is clear as day from boot camp to front-line formations.

The Marines take land, the Army holds land. As a former Army Infantryman, I was always enthralled with the notion that "every Marine is an Infantryman first." That is surely not the case in the Army, but I know now that there's a benefit to that. If you pack a bunch of Harvard graduates into a room, they'll come up with the stock Harvard answer to any question. If you pack a bunch of grunts into a room, they'll do the same (albeit likely with more vulgarity and resultant injuries). But if you diversify that group of people who serves as the filter which all strategic direction and tactical decision making must pass through, you tend to find that greater decisions come from a greater set of experience. This is the argument for a greater National Guard and Reserve force in the Army, and it's reflected at the highest levels of Army command.

Marines say the Army is soft. Soldiers say the Air Force is soft. Airmen complain that the Navy gets better assignments. Sailors are frustrated by the lack of Kenny Loggins music playing throughout their garrisons. These stereotypes have been in place for decades, and they have nothing to do with one service "catering to generational changes" more than another. Our society changes over time, and organizations with more people will naturally adapt their own culture faster to those changes in an effort to maintain the flow of able bodies needed to fight, sustain, and support our war efforts. And – I'm talking to the Army people on the thread now – if our organization is willing to change to meet its mission objectives, why aren't you? The old "do as I say because I had to when I was your rank" style of running Soldiers was effective in a day and age when a high school diploma was your ticket to a successful career and happy life. Recruits these days come with a wealth of knowledge related to information technology (because it's native to them); many come with more college credits completed than the large majority of our senior-enlisted corps, and all of them know that further education and experience is their path to success. They join to learn, grow, and be mentored by some of our nation's finest leaders. They DO NOT join to be yelled at meaninglessly because "that's the way it is."

A lesson I learned commanding Drill Sergeants was the difference between a great trainer (something every NCO should aspire to be) and a mediocre one. If you can't get through a POI without yelling and cursing at your trainees, it's probably you that needs more training rather than them. If you can't address the junior enlisted population without getting frustrated about "the way they are," it's probably you that needs to consider why the world around you is changing at faster rate than you are. This isn't about being soft. It's not about dropping our standards. It's about being adaptable so that you continue to meet YOUR mission with the resources available.

I'll finish with a simple lesson in communication. If you're on a qualification range, it's not the target's job to catch your bullets. You steady, aim, breath, and squeeze to ensure you hit the target as intended. So why do so many senior leaders talk AT their subordinates and expect them to simply get what they're saying? Did you adjust for cultural windage? Did you take socioeconomic environmental factors into account? Did you even remember to load your magazine with thoughtful messaging designed to drive quality outcomes? As a leader, your words can have more power than bullets (we've all experienced the crushing sensation of a tyrannical leader, right?). Why not give the delivery of those words the same, conscious effort that you give when shooting? You might find that if you aim your communications better, they'll tend to hit the target as intended more often than not.

I believe it all starts with basic training. You act like the way you are taught as a child. Boot camp is the same .The Marine Corp is different because you are their for 12 weeks instead of 8. You are also taught Marine Corp History, so you know the standards you have to live up to. You are also learn respect even it they have to do it the hard way. I went thru Boot camp at Parris Island in 59. The Marines had a system whereas if you were a smart ass they put you in Motivation Plt. You were Kept busy from Dawn to dusk. You were so tired you conformed with the Marine corp way. They also had slow learners Plt. And a Plt. for people over weight. The reason these Plts. worked was the fact you would be their as long as it took you to conform. Now I realize today they cant do that because people wouldn't stand for it. The corp would give you a medical or General Discharge. Back in my time the corp owned your butt until the day your enlistment was up. I joined the army after I got discharged from the Marine corp. I asked to go to Army Basic training to see what it was like but they wouldn't let me. In other words the Army wont raise their basic training to 12 wks. A different type of person enlists in the Marine corp than the army. I could go about many reasons. Every Marine is a Rifleman that's why the crossed rifles are on the stripes. The millenniums were raised different But I think they lack respect Semper Fi.

When you have too many politicians get involved and adding to those crying babies --that's why.

Perhaps you could elaborate a little more. When I was PV2/PFC, it was parade rest for anyone above me, which in short was everyone. My team and squad leaders were SGT or SSG rank who were always addressed by rank (just "Sergeant" instead of Staff Sergeant like USMC) or rank/name. The first time I ever called a NCO by a nickname was 7 months into a 12 month deployment, by then there was plenty of mutual respect. What I noticed in my final Army months was much of it depended on unit. Infantry units have more respect for their combat experienced NCOs than non-infantry units, in general.

This is just from my general experiences. One problem with the Army is not the Army itself it's the civilian leadership using the Army as a testbed for every type of social experiment in society. If a politician wants to get some social agenda pushed through one of the first things they do is force some new regulatons on the Army. Sometimes it's good but many times it doesn't work well in a military environment. The Army was the first to intergrate, even before the country did. The Army was first to bring women into previously all male jobs. Whenever you hear in the news is now doing this or that it means the Army is doing it. There seems to be a hands of policy when it comes to the Marines. It's similar to the difference between Infantry and and Admin clerks. The social ethos is very different. Women and gays were never openly a part of the Infantry, but they have been in the ranks of admin/finance/medic even before the "Don't ask, don't tell". policy. This just some of the reasons that I believe there seems to be a lack of discipline in the Army. The Army reflects what is going on in general society, while the Marines are somewhat insulated from society. Just my opinion.

In my experience the level of discipline depends on the unit and it's atmosphere and command climate.
There were units that were very well disciplined across the board with a long history of superior performance, professionalism and esprit de corps, reading recent articles that level of professionalism lives on in those outfits.
There were others that required a great deal of effort to instill and maintain discipline where you felt like you were trying to turn a battleship with a row boat. They had a long running history of poor performance and underachievement. Again they pop up in articles that highlight training accidents with root causes being failure to enforce basic policy and procedures, misconduct and gross indiscipline.
Again my opinion is that with the long war rather than understanding that good discipline and enforcement of actual standards (not the FM 22- because-I-said-so standards) promotes attention to detail and esprit de corps; folks started feeling sorry for the Soldiers and letting little things slide which in turn degraded basic discipline. I'm also not a fan of the new promotion system and changes to NCOES. The old Resident NCO academies while draconian pains in the buttocks, instilled a sense of pride in accomplishment and drilled home basic leadership techniques and traits . We see the difference nearly daily here on RP with SGTs asking questions about things that used to be drilled home in the old Primary Leadership Development Course that morphed into PLC then to WLC.
My recommendation would be to bring back the resident NCOES courses, ditch the on line learning; resume the train, select, promote model which was effective but more costly.

They just don't make them like they used to. At Bragg we had the highest regard for authority and respected the rank, if not the man. I was told by a major that I don't have to salute the man, just the rank.

Yes, I was a Coast Guard Chief, and I have seen the lack of discipline in the lower rates. It has much to do with the way they are raised at home (i.e., mommy or daddy's best- friend- syndrome). In addition, it has a lot to do with their generation and schools. Examples: This generation was not raised like us. They are a little lost, feeling there is no future for them. So, they want everything now. In addition, schools are very one-sided, the teachers and professors teach only one political view with no debate. I solved my problem with these kids, and it was very simple. First, they are under contract and can't quit, so they have to work for you. Next, UCMJ spells out the consequences of disrespect. Moreover, I as their boss could keep them on the job until it got done. Finally, all it took was a simple talk to bring them around--something mommy or daddy, unfortunately, did not do. One way or another, these young men and women came around with great results. I hope this help; it worked for me.

In this context, are we using "Discipline" to mean "Perform their duties correctly and completely, even if nobody's looking", or are we using it to mean "Sufficiently cow tow and quake before anyone with a higher rank on their shirt"?
Actual leaders know only one of those is a definition of Discipline.
Sadly...we've all known those who aren't quite clear on which one it is.