170
170
0
Today, I may make some people mad. But what I want to address is vitally important.
I have been a drill instructor in a prison boot camp (an adult penitentiary down South) for over six years now. We train and rehabilitate non-violent offenders using a 105-day military style boot camp. Before that, I served for 21 years in the regular Army and worked a gig for Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) anti-terrorism training organization for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
During my military career, I served two tours in South Korea (one of which was retro-actively considered a combat tour because of the unanticipated battle on 23 November 1984), one tour in Germany, two Middle East combat tours, and a total of five and half years as a paratrooper and jumpmaster. I say all this not to spout out my resume, but so that I can assure you that I am absolutely qualified to make the statements I am about to make.
In the last six and a half years since I took on this job, I have been studying to become a drill instructor. Where did I go for my research? The Marine Corps.
I have always been fascinated by the Marines. In fact, I have served alongside them on several occasions. I began reading articles, watching hours and hours of video, and speaking with many Marines (drill instructors and non-drill instructors alike).
Over time, I have become a bit of a self-proclaimed, self-educated expert on Marine training: what they do, how they do it, why they do it, when they do it, etc. In the process of studying their training, I have come to several conclusions. I have also come to several conclusions about the Army, some not so good – some are downright scary.
Here are the things I have learned through my extensive research:
1. The Army runs a softer, “human dignity based” reception and receiving when the recruits arrive. The reception is so weak that it sets a very bad tone for the remainder of not just their training, but for their whole career in the Army. Recruits show up to a firm welcome by the drill sergeants and staff, but it’s not the controlled mayhem of a Marine Corps Recruit Depot (MCRD). In fact, it seems to comfort and reassure soldiers as if to say “calm down and relax, it’s going to be all right.” Now that is all right if that is a message from your mother, but it’s not okay when we are trying to build the next generations of Spartans.
Marine receiving, on the other hand, is a “shock theater” from the minute they get off the bus through their graduation. The mayhem starts when their feet hit the “deck” and it never ever lets up. The discipline and stress is through the roof! The Army reception staff occasionally get perplexed as if to say “silly Private, get over here...shucks, what are you doing?”
In an MCRD, the recruit would be screamed at: ”GET OVER HERE! TOO SLOW, GO BACK! GET OVER HERE! STOP EYEBALLING ME! GET YOUR HEELS TOGETHER! Hey there was something you were supposed to say when told to do something, WHAT WAS IT? RESPOND!…AYE AYE SIR! RESPOND!”
See the difference? Here’s what I always say: weak pick up, weak recruits, strong pick up, strong recruits. That means if you “go in punching,” so to speak, the recruits know you mean business, you are not playing, and you are tougher than they are. You want them to be nearly peeing their pants from fear and stress.
The Army feels we need to treat people with dignity and respect and that people will shut down if screamed at too much. If that were true, the Marines have been doing it wrong since about 1952. That’s around the time that the Smokey bear hat and the structured chaos of boot camp kicked into gear. Don’t get me wrong: the Marines always wrote the book on discipline, but during the 1950’s the MCRDs really stepped up their game.
2. The tone the Army sets in basic training is wrong. The Army trains; the Marines indoctrinate. Do you see the difference? The Marines initiate the recruit into a culture, the Army trains them in tasks. Sure, the Army has core values that are really good. The values make sense and they are motivating, but the Marines ingrain it deeper into a youngster’s soul.
While the Army does change the person’s life, it does not instill the intrinsic values in the same way that the Marines do. Unless you are in an elite Army unit like Infantry, Airborne, Rangers, Special Forces, or Delta, you just don’t have the warrior ethos that the Army claims it builds. If you are a motivated gung-ho individual and you are not in an elite unit, the Army (or at least fellow soldiers) treat you like an oddball. How do I know this? I have spent a total of about 30 years around it, and I have been in Airborne, Infantry, and attached to Special Ops units, as well as regular units. In the Marines, gung-ho motivation is business as usual. You stand out if you aren’t highly motivated.
3. The Marines base their training on indoctrinating the individual into the core values of the Marines. Their training relies heavily on close order drill. They believe that drill instills a sense of teamwork and attention to detail that no other activity can. Drill teaches an individual that there are immediate consequences for an individual’s actions on their group. In other words, when one guy messes up a movement, it doesn’t go unnoticed. That soldier makes his squad look bad, that squad affects the platoon, and so on. Have you ever seen one guy in a formation either doing something late or doing the wrong movement? It sticks out like dog balls!
Now take this concept - that my actions affect the group as a whole - and apply it to war. If I move and am seen by the enemy, I may not just get myself killed, but my whole squad, platoon, company, etc. When you train with that kind of attention to detail, you are disciplined.
The Army conducts impeccable training in close order drill. In fact, the largest source of failure for students at the drill sergeant school is testing of the drill modules. So why does the Army not march as well as the Marines and why is marching not as high a priority in the Army?
4. The Army introduces combat skills earlier than the Marines do. The Army trains more combat tasks in its basic training that the Marines. Now while this may seem like a good idea, it’s really not. Teaching combat tasks before a person is fully indoctrinated in the love of corps and country is a very bad idea. It's like letting a kid who just learned how to drive enter a NASCAR race. The kid may have great skills, coordination, and reflexes, but the reality is that they have only been driving less than a year.
The Marines realize that indoctrination in the love of God, Country, and Corps has priority over learning “nuts and bolts” training. In fact, if a person is properly indoctrinated, they can be taught the other skills too, ultimately mastering them with more zeal than a person who had not been indoctrinated.
Keeping this in mind, the Marines focus on just a few things in boot camp but they drive those few things home. Drill, core values, marksmanship, fighting spirit, physical fitness, and teamwork are really all you learn in Marine Boot Camp. If a recruit masters these, the rest is strictly academic. They learn the more advanced combat skills in a course called Marine Corps Combat Training (MCT).
The Army on the other hand doesn’t get as in-depth with marksmanship, although they do get proficient at shooting, but then focus on assaulting objectives, fire and maneuver, and other combat tasks Marines don’t see until much later. The Army has removed bayonet fighting from basic training based on the rationale that you are not issued a bayonet downrange (slang term for deployed combat area) and no one uses bayonets in combat anymore.
The Marines approach this concept differently. The Marines believe that bayonet drills and bayonet sparring (pugil stick fighting) instill a killer instinct that can be obtained no other way. The Marines then integrate their bayonet fighting into their own indigenous martial art called MCMAP (Marine Corps Martial Arts Program). This fighting system employs the concept of “one mind, any weapon.” A motivated Marine can pick up a shovel and kill the bad guys like Sampson swinging a donkey’s jawbone. Why? Because he is indoctrinated in the art and mentality of a warrior. The Army trains warfare - make no mistake - but it takes the front seat over indoctrination.
5. Everything in Marine Boot Camp is done with speed, intensity, and volume. In Army basic you are required to move very fast, but the tone is different. The Marines “count down” every task in boot camp. That means they say “go” or “ready move” and then you have an allotted amount of time to accomplish the task. If you don’t finish in time, you do it again, and again, and again. I saw more count downs in Airborne School than Army basic training.
I think the reason we don’t do this in the Army as much as the Marines do is because of time constraints. We have much bigger platoons and companies in Army basic training and fewer drill sergeants (or DI if you prefer) than the Marines do. You have somewhere to be and you have more skills to learn and there isn’t enough time to keep putting pants on in less than 30 seconds. But look at it this way: the Marines take a longer period of time (13 weeks in the Marines versus the Army’s 9-10 weeks) to train fewer skills and indoctrinate the mind, body, and soul of the recruit.
This might also explain why we do not spend as much time on drill in Army Basic Training. There are lots of skills to be taught and very little time to do so. Every Army unit I have ever served with has been weak in drill. Sure, we can march from point A to point B, but anything beyond that and we need to rehearse. Why? Because in the Army we do not emphasize drill like we ought to. Drill needs to be on the training schedule like PT or any other task. But we do it in basic training and then we let it go.
6. The Marines use a “rebirth system,” so to speak. Marines are not called Marines verbally or in any other way until they have “earned the title.” The Army calls their recruits “soldiers” from day one.
The Marines understand that you are not a full-fledged Marine until you have earned the insignia of the Eagle, Globe, and Anchor (the EGA as Marines call it). This is not done until the very last week in which recruits participate in an event called The Crucible. This is a 56 hour “gut check.” Recruits undergo a hell week, a series of combat team tasks over that 56 hour period on very little food and sleep.
These tasks are not complex. We are not talking about a huge military strategy here. We are talking about moving ammo cans over an obstacle course, evacuating a casualty under fire through the sucking mud, and getting a squad over a distance with obstacles and difficult terrain.
The crucible awards a “badge” or “award”… the EGA. There is a “becoming” associated with graduating Marine Boot Camp. It’s like a caterpillar emerging from a cocoon as a butterfly or in this case, emerging as an elite warrior. This attitude follows the Marine for the rest of his or her life. It is a significant and emotional event that is never ever forgotten. In order to get that similar effect in the Army, you would have to go to Airborne or even Ranger school.
We must find a way to raise the bar in the Army. We must find a way to make the Army an elite concept. It must become more than a catchy slogan “Army Strong” and a way to make money for college. We must return to the Spartan roots that made us great. Because right now? We are not great.
I have been a drill instructor in a prison boot camp (an adult penitentiary down South) for over six years now. We train and rehabilitate non-violent offenders using a 105-day military style boot camp. Before that, I served for 21 years in the regular Army and worked a gig for Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) anti-terrorism training organization for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
During my military career, I served two tours in South Korea (one of which was retro-actively considered a combat tour because of the unanticipated battle on 23 November 1984), one tour in Germany, two Middle East combat tours, and a total of five and half years as a paratrooper and jumpmaster. I say all this not to spout out my resume, but so that I can assure you that I am absolutely qualified to make the statements I am about to make.
In the last six and a half years since I took on this job, I have been studying to become a drill instructor. Where did I go for my research? The Marine Corps.
I have always been fascinated by the Marines. In fact, I have served alongside them on several occasions. I began reading articles, watching hours and hours of video, and speaking with many Marines (drill instructors and non-drill instructors alike).
Over time, I have become a bit of a self-proclaimed, self-educated expert on Marine training: what they do, how they do it, why they do it, when they do it, etc. In the process of studying their training, I have come to several conclusions. I have also come to several conclusions about the Army, some not so good – some are downright scary.
Here are the things I have learned through my extensive research:
1. The Army runs a softer, “human dignity based” reception and receiving when the recruits arrive. The reception is so weak that it sets a very bad tone for the remainder of not just their training, but for their whole career in the Army. Recruits show up to a firm welcome by the drill sergeants and staff, but it’s not the controlled mayhem of a Marine Corps Recruit Depot (MCRD). In fact, it seems to comfort and reassure soldiers as if to say “calm down and relax, it’s going to be all right.” Now that is all right if that is a message from your mother, but it’s not okay when we are trying to build the next generations of Spartans.
Marine receiving, on the other hand, is a “shock theater” from the minute they get off the bus through their graduation. The mayhem starts when their feet hit the “deck” and it never ever lets up. The discipline and stress is through the roof! The Army reception staff occasionally get perplexed as if to say “silly Private, get over here...shucks, what are you doing?”
In an MCRD, the recruit would be screamed at: ”GET OVER HERE! TOO SLOW, GO BACK! GET OVER HERE! STOP EYEBALLING ME! GET YOUR HEELS TOGETHER! Hey there was something you were supposed to say when told to do something, WHAT WAS IT? RESPOND!…AYE AYE SIR! RESPOND!”
See the difference? Here’s what I always say: weak pick up, weak recruits, strong pick up, strong recruits. That means if you “go in punching,” so to speak, the recruits know you mean business, you are not playing, and you are tougher than they are. You want them to be nearly peeing their pants from fear and stress.
The Army feels we need to treat people with dignity and respect and that people will shut down if screamed at too much. If that were true, the Marines have been doing it wrong since about 1952. That’s around the time that the Smokey bear hat and the structured chaos of boot camp kicked into gear. Don’t get me wrong: the Marines always wrote the book on discipline, but during the 1950’s the MCRDs really stepped up their game.
2. The tone the Army sets in basic training is wrong. The Army trains; the Marines indoctrinate. Do you see the difference? The Marines initiate the recruit into a culture, the Army trains them in tasks. Sure, the Army has core values that are really good. The values make sense and they are motivating, but the Marines ingrain it deeper into a youngster’s soul.
While the Army does change the person’s life, it does not instill the intrinsic values in the same way that the Marines do. Unless you are in an elite Army unit like Infantry, Airborne, Rangers, Special Forces, or Delta, you just don’t have the warrior ethos that the Army claims it builds. If you are a motivated gung-ho individual and you are not in an elite unit, the Army (or at least fellow soldiers) treat you like an oddball. How do I know this? I have spent a total of about 30 years around it, and I have been in Airborne, Infantry, and attached to Special Ops units, as well as regular units. In the Marines, gung-ho motivation is business as usual. You stand out if you aren’t highly motivated.
3. The Marines base their training on indoctrinating the individual into the core values of the Marines. Their training relies heavily on close order drill. They believe that drill instills a sense of teamwork and attention to detail that no other activity can. Drill teaches an individual that there are immediate consequences for an individual’s actions on their group. In other words, when one guy messes up a movement, it doesn’t go unnoticed. That soldier makes his squad look bad, that squad affects the platoon, and so on. Have you ever seen one guy in a formation either doing something late or doing the wrong movement? It sticks out like dog balls!
Now take this concept - that my actions affect the group as a whole - and apply it to war. If I move and am seen by the enemy, I may not just get myself killed, but my whole squad, platoon, company, etc. When you train with that kind of attention to detail, you are disciplined.
The Army conducts impeccable training in close order drill. In fact, the largest source of failure for students at the drill sergeant school is testing of the drill modules. So why does the Army not march as well as the Marines and why is marching not as high a priority in the Army?
4. The Army introduces combat skills earlier than the Marines do. The Army trains more combat tasks in its basic training that the Marines. Now while this may seem like a good idea, it’s really not. Teaching combat tasks before a person is fully indoctrinated in the love of corps and country is a very bad idea. It's like letting a kid who just learned how to drive enter a NASCAR race. The kid may have great skills, coordination, and reflexes, but the reality is that they have only been driving less than a year.
The Marines realize that indoctrination in the love of God, Country, and Corps has priority over learning “nuts and bolts” training. In fact, if a person is properly indoctrinated, they can be taught the other skills too, ultimately mastering them with more zeal than a person who had not been indoctrinated.
Keeping this in mind, the Marines focus on just a few things in boot camp but they drive those few things home. Drill, core values, marksmanship, fighting spirit, physical fitness, and teamwork are really all you learn in Marine Boot Camp. If a recruit masters these, the rest is strictly academic. They learn the more advanced combat skills in a course called Marine Corps Combat Training (MCT).
The Army on the other hand doesn’t get as in-depth with marksmanship, although they do get proficient at shooting, but then focus on assaulting objectives, fire and maneuver, and other combat tasks Marines don’t see until much later. The Army has removed bayonet fighting from basic training based on the rationale that you are not issued a bayonet downrange (slang term for deployed combat area) and no one uses bayonets in combat anymore.
The Marines approach this concept differently. The Marines believe that bayonet drills and bayonet sparring (pugil stick fighting) instill a killer instinct that can be obtained no other way. The Marines then integrate their bayonet fighting into their own indigenous martial art called MCMAP (Marine Corps Martial Arts Program). This fighting system employs the concept of “one mind, any weapon.” A motivated Marine can pick up a shovel and kill the bad guys like Sampson swinging a donkey’s jawbone. Why? Because he is indoctrinated in the art and mentality of a warrior. The Army trains warfare - make no mistake - but it takes the front seat over indoctrination.
5. Everything in Marine Boot Camp is done with speed, intensity, and volume. In Army basic you are required to move very fast, but the tone is different. The Marines “count down” every task in boot camp. That means they say “go” or “ready move” and then you have an allotted amount of time to accomplish the task. If you don’t finish in time, you do it again, and again, and again. I saw more count downs in Airborne School than Army basic training.
I think the reason we don’t do this in the Army as much as the Marines do is because of time constraints. We have much bigger platoons and companies in Army basic training and fewer drill sergeants (or DI if you prefer) than the Marines do. You have somewhere to be and you have more skills to learn and there isn’t enough time to keep putting pants on in less than 30 seconds. But look at it this way: the Marines take a longer period of time (13 weeks in the Marines versus the Army’s 9-10 weeks) to train fewer skills and indoctrinate the mind, body, and soul of the recruit.
This might also explain why we do not spend as much time on drill in Army Basic Training. There are lots of skills to be taught and very little time to do so. Every Army unit I have ever served with has been weak in drill. Sure, we can march from point A to point B, but anything beyond that and we need to rehearse. Why? Because in the Army we do not emphasize drill like we ought to. Drill needs to be on the training schedule like PT or any other task. But we do it in basic training and then we let it go.
6. The Marines use a “rebirth system,” so to speak. Marines are not called Marines verbally or in any other way until they have “earned the title.” The Army calls their recruits “soldiers” from day one.
The Marines understand that you are not a full-fledged Marine until you have earned the insignia of the Eagle, Globe, and Anchor (the EGA as Marines call it). This is not done until the very last week in which recruits participate in an event called The Crucible. This is a 56 hour “gut check.” Recruits undergo a hell week, a series of combat team tasks over that 56 hour period on very little food and sleep.
These tasks are not complex. We are not talking about a huge military strategy here. We are talking about moving ammo cans over an obstacle course, evacuating a casualty under fire through the sucking mud, and getting a squad over a distance with obstacles and difficult terrain.
The crucible awards a “badge” or “award”… the EGA. There is a “becoming” associated with graduating Marine Boot Camp. It’s like a caterpillar emerging from a cocoon as a butterfly or in this case, emerging as an elite warrior. This attitude follows the Marine for the rest of his or her life. It is a significant and emotional event that is never ever forgotten. In order to get that similar effect in the Army, you would have to go to Airborne or even Ranger school.
We must find a way to raise the bar in the Army. We must find a way to make the Army an elite concept. It must become more than a catchy slogan “Army Strong” and a way to make money for college. We must return to the Spartan roots that made us great. Because right now? We are not great.
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 147
There is always room in the Army to tighten up just like in any other service. I've been a student of Army schools on numerous occasions and was impressed by the professionalism, engagement and intellect of the Army officers I was learning along side with. I also served in both Iraq and Afghanistan along side them, and depended on them numerous occasions. I was never let down. This is "my Army" too...and I'm just as proud of their service as I am the fellow Marines I serve with. I for one would like to see them tighten up on the discipline (in this case entry level training) and on the weight standards. The rest will/would fall into place. Nothing but respect for them though...they are our brothers, and I'd share a foxhole with any of them any time, any place, as I know they'd have my back as I would have theirs in a firefight. Just look at the population of the Medal of Honor recipients and numerable successes, up to and including the capture of Saddaam Hussein. I've got nothing but respect for our fellow green warriors.
(4)
(0)
SPC Cesar Freytes
The Marines have a disciplinary problem, that's why the Japanese want them out of Okinawa, rape and assault to minor children for you army asses that want to be Marines JOIN THE FRINKING MARINES. I Don't get it
(0)
(0)
Why is this a better way to train? What are the statistics to back it up. How many more % marines get out or stay in after their first enlistment. What is the cost of training a soldier vs. a Marine? How does that make them more effective on today's battle field where most combat is fought at a distance with jets, tanks, artillery, and Multiple Launch Rocket systems? The perception that they think they are better doesn't make them better. They are trained for their job which is small arms combat, as are Special Forces, Delta and Rangers. But if you need a electronics technician to fix communications systems during the mother of all battles or a highly skilled interpreter to translate Arabic and decode the hidden meaning in a terrorist transmission that will save many civilian lives, you don't want an ground pounder who can say Sir Yes Sir. You want a technically trained expert who stayed in the Army for multiple years to hone their craft and increase their knowledge.
(4)
(0)
SSG Lon Watson
You've missed my point entirely. It's not about cost, technology, or equipment. It's about an ethos!
(0)
(0)
CPL Clyde Willis
SSG Lon Watson I think you missed the point. It has to be about the cost. Also, what about the other statistics? Have you seen them?
(0)
(0)
SSG Lon Watson Having served first as a Marine, then as a soldier, I'm with you all the way on this one. A couple of things I'd sharpen to a finer point, though:
first, the Army 9-10 weeks and the Marine Corps 13 weeks are not exactly accomplishing the same thing. The Marine Corps 13 weeks results in every Marine being a basic Infantryman, and future MOS training comes on top of that, so I would argue the point about the luxury of time. Army Infantry OSUT is 13 weeks. I'd relate it to that instead of just a plain-jane 10 week boot camp. Time is of the essence for EVERYTHING in Marine Corps Basic training. Also, who told you that Marine Recruits get 30 seconds to put on their pants (Trousers)?? Hell, if they had given me 30 seconds to put on my trousers, I could have slept another 20 seconds!
first, the Army 9-10 weeks and the Marine Corps 13 weeks are not exactly accomplishing the same thing. The Marine Corps 13 weeks results in every Marine being a basic Infantryman, and future MOS training comes on top of that, so I would argue the point about the luxury of time. Army Infantry OSUT is 13 weeks. I'd relate it to that instead of just a plain-jane 10 week boot camp. Time is of the essence for EVERYTHING in Marine Corps Basic training. Also, who told you that Marine Recruits get 30 seconds to put on their pants (Trousers)?? Hell, if they had given me 30 seconds to put on my trousers, I could have slept another 20 seconds!
(4)
(0)
Cpl D L Parker
Hell, if they had given me 30 seconds to put on my trousers, I could have slept another 20 seconds!...GOOD ONE :-D
(1)
(0)
GySgt (Join to see)
Marine Boot camp does not create basic Infantrymen - it creates basically trained Marines with a smidge of the basics on Infantry common skills. When a Marine goes to the School of Infantry the first (roughly) two weeks are the complete Basic Infantryman skills package creating 0300 Marines and then the remainder of the school is learning their specific MOS (0311, etc). But I am picking up what you are putting down - and just thought to add to your post.
(1)
(0)
SGT Richard H.
GySgt (Join to see) - I definitely understand where you're coming from, and I was always aware that Marines that would actually serve in an Infantry unit would go on to an MOS Specific school...however, my records jacket still calls my primary MOS 0300 (my duty MOS was 6531). This may well have changed to some degree since I went to basic almost 33 years ago (before they called the Pendleton phase "crucible"), but I'm sure the USMC philosophy of "everyone's a grunt first" hasn't changed.
At any rate, the point of my post was to relate it to the army, which has a format of a 13 week OSUT (one station unit training) for Infantry which is 8 weeks of basic and the remainder of Infantry skills training. I didn't go to Army basic or AIT, but I can tell you that coming from a USMC aviation MOS going to the Army as an 11B, my "new guy" Infantry skills were at least equal to most guys I ran across who were coming out of Army Infantry OSUT.
At any rate, the point of my post was to relate it to the army, which has a format of a 13 week OSUT (one station unit training) for Infantry which is 8 weeks of basic and the remainder of Infantry skills training. I didn't go to Army basic or AIT, but I can tell you that coming from a USMC aviation MOS going to the Army as an 11B, my "new guy" Infantry skills were at least equal to most guys I ran across who were coming out of Army Infantry OSUT.
(3)
(0)
The Marine Corps breaks you down as an individual, to build you up as part of a team. This process makes you no less or more important than the lowest member of the team.
The Corps instills a sense of confidence and invisibility in every Marine. You are trained to believe there is nothing you can't achieve or accomplish, no matter how difficult the situation. You adapt, improvise, and overcome!
It doesn't mattet if we are the best or if anyone else thinks we sre the best; we know and believe we are the best and will accept any challenge.
There is something special about the title, United States Marine!
The Corps instills a sense of confidence and invisibility in every Marine. You are trained to believe there is nothing you can't achieve or accomplish, no matter how difficult the situation. You adapt, improvise, and overcome!
It doesn't mattet if we are the best or if anyone else thinks we sre the best; we know and believe we are the best and will accept any challenge.
There is something special about the title, United States Marine!
(4)
(0)
Sgt (Join to see)
Sgt Joe LaBranche Joe, the good thing is that the title is forever. Once a Marine, Always a Marine.
(0)
(0)
I have been out of the military too many years to add to this discussion about the Army. But back in the '50s & 60s we Marines did not have a very high opinion of the National Guard. However a few years ago I was a volunteer fitness trainer working with the Wounded Warriors Program for the VA . All of the guys were in the National Guard and we had them try a new program that included a Green Diet, Cardio Exercise and Spirituality to combat PTSD, and Chronic Depression. I really had a lot of respect for these guys who had served multiple tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Some had serious issues. And they all thought the VA recommended Green Diet was cruel and unusual punishment. I think they enjoyed having a Trainer who was much older than they were and we built a pretty good repoire .. They nicknamed me "The Ole Sarge" and I think this program did help but I was not privy to their quesionaires or physical exams. This program was designed by Stanford Medical University and used by the VA in Palo Alto and in Minneapolis... The results have been favorable because the VA wants to get some PTSD patients off medications. And this program was a substitute because some medications had advers side effects including suicide or mixing the meds with alcohol...
(4)
(0)
No disrespect to the army, but I did not enjoy working with them, they tended to be slovenly and lazy. Working with the Royal Marines was a pleasure, very professional and incredibly fit.
(4)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Seems funny, I trained with Marine's and a few of them are exactly like you describe the army, I tend not to lump a people into one category because of a few. In Afghanistan I worked with some outstanding Marines, Air Force and Navy along with a lot of NATO troops being in a Liaison team. I would never disrespect any of the service because of a couple of bad apples.
(1)
(0)
SPC(P) Jay Heenan
Sgt Nick Marshall
"...No disrespect to the Army, but I did not enjoy working with them, they tended to be slovenly and lazy..."
You just grouped all Soldiers into a "slovenly and lazy" group, but you preface your statement by saying, "No disrespect to the army". How is anyone able to deduct anything other than disrespect?
"...No disrespect to the Army, but I did not enjoy working with them, they tended to be slovenly and lazy..."
You just grouped all Soldiers into a "slovenly and lazy" group, but you preface your statement by saying, "No disrespect to the army". How is anyone able to deduct anything other than disrespect?
(2)
(0)
Sgt Nick Marshall
SPC(P) Jay Heenan - I only with a few units, I'm sure it didnt represent the Army as an entirety, (at least I hope not!)
(0)
(0)
Interesting read indeed. Why did you join the Army? You clearly have a love affair with the Marines...I am not saying it is a bad thing, but you wrote this big article (as a U.S. Soldier) talking about how the Marines are better. Maybe this is part of the reason you think that we are "Army wrong". I was stationed on MCB, and I promise that there are plenty of 'ate up' Marines as well. Personally, I think that you are being part of the problem and not the solution to your own posting.
(4)
(0)
SGT Matthew Einsla
SFC Derrick Graves - Really, I met so many former marines in the Army. If they loved it so much they wouldn't have left in the first place.
(1)
(0)
SFC Derrick Graves
Sgt (Verify To See) - Lame excuse to avoid the truth. That's a typical a response I would expect from a member of an organization where most of the members are insecure and have to lash out to make others acknowledge their identity.
(0)
(0)
SPC(P) Jay Heenan
Sgt Richard Buckner SFC Derrick Graves
Gentlemen, we are all brothers and sisters! Poking fun at other services is okay, let's not make it personal.
Gentlemen, we are all brothers and sisters! Poking fun at other services is okay, let's not make it personal.
(0)
(0)
SFC Derrick Graves
Sgt (Verify To See) - I also did my 20 and have nothing to be ashamed of either. I see you still suffer from that egotism just like that Colonel. But make no mistake the Army will endure like it always has despite the lip service from a few insecure folks
(0)
(0)
When you’re wounded and that Dustoff bird is coming in, I’ll bet you don’t care how well that medic coming down the hoist and the crewchief running can march. Or how tough the reception station was on those two warrant officers up front. Beal, 1SG. 4/421 Med Co (AA)
(3)
(0)
So you're asking why the Army can't make EVERY non-combat MOS like every Marine?
The same reasons as always: time and money. This really can't be an issue you're having, right? I mean, you see where our budgets are going, and the fact remains that nobody asks the Human Resources Specialist or Paralegal to walk a combat patrol anymore than I'd ask an 11B to process court martial proceedings. Does every MOS need to be proficient with basic Soldier skills and tasks? Of course, but the entire USMC is built around expeditionary warfare, whereas, we have a Corps within the Army (XVIII Airborne) for that purpose, and within the legacy divisions of that formation, I defy you to show a lack of discipline, tactical and technical expertise and esprit de corps.
And our special operations capabilities AND capacity are far larger, which we manage to achieve despite your assertion that our initial entry system is flawed.
Next question.
The same reasons as always: time and money. This really can't be an issue you're having, right? I mean, you see where our budgets are going, and the fact remains that nobody asks the Human Resources Specialist or Paralegal to walk a combat patrol anymore than I'd ask an 11B to process court martial proceedings. Does every MOS need to be proficient with basic Soldier skills and tasks? Of course, but the entire USMC is built around expeditionary warfare, whereas, we have a Corps within the Army (XVIII Airborne) for that purpose, and within the legacy divisions of that formation, I defy you to show a lack of discipline, tactical and technical expertise and esprit de corps.
And our special operations capabilities AND capacity are far larger, which we manage to achieve despite your assertion that our initial entry system is flawed.
Next question.
(3)
(0)
SSG Lon Watson
No sir you've missed my point. I'm not talking about the combat skills of the clerks or support personnel. I'm talking about discipline. There is little or no discipline in support units/personnel. In the Marines corps and admin clerk has a high level of bearing and discipline. And the marines DO NOT start off with higher caliber applicants. They mold marines in a fiery furnace. Our mentality in the army is different. Changing our mentality costs nothing.
(0)
(0)
SFC Marcus Belt
SSG Lon Watson - Your information is faulty: we let candidates into the Army with waivers that wouldn't be accepted into the Marines. Higher caliber? I won't day that because some, no, MOST (!) of those Soldiers go on to do their jobs admirably and honorably.
"...mold Marines in a fiery furnace..." Right. So your argument is that we need to make Basic suck more so that I get a bunch of brainwashed primates (with opposable thumbs and M4s) who are incapable of thinking independently?
Maybe I'm biased, as I AM a part of the Airborne and SOF communities, and am an alum of the 82d Airborne, but I don't need Soldiers who can't think. I train and expect Soldiers to be able to know and understand their operational environments and be able to deal with the political implications of our actions.
We have to train Soldiers for chess, not checkers, and you're talking about a perceived lack of "hooah" among support MOSs?
C'mon man. Those days are over.
"...mold Marines in a fiery furnace..." Right. So your argument is that we need to make Basic suck more so that I get a bunch of brainwashed primates (with opposable thumbs and M4s) who are incapable of thinking independently?
Maybe I'm biased, as I AM a part of the Airborne and SOF communities, and am an alum of the 82d Airborne, but I don't need Soldiers who can't think. I train and expect Soldiers to be able to know and understand their operational environments and be able to deal with the political implications of our actions.
We have to train Soldiers for chess, not checkers, and you're talking about a perceived lack of "hooah" among support MOSs?
C'mon man. Those days are over.
(0)
(0)
I'm glad to see that someone has recognized the Army has become "One Big Social Experiment" by Civilians and Politicians through the eyes of someone from the outside looking in!!!
(3)
(0)
you nailed it! Every Marine is a rifleman. A soldier is defined by the MOS it seems.
(3)
(0)
CPO (Join to see)
You know what, I have read all the comments, and was not going to make one due to my being in the Navy, and no big dog in this fight. I do how ever understand some as I am in a part of the Navy that has some warrior spirit and Esprit decor, and we get that from Marines as we are attached to them all the time, and we have gunny cadre in all NMCB's Battalions, and they run the Military Tactic side of our training.This is why we are set up like Marines as in Company, Platoons, SQD's and Fire teams and take pride in that Marine ethos every where we go. We even separate ourselves from what we call the fleet side Navy and the Navy fights with us all the time about our Marine Corps attitude. I think if the Navy has their way and takes that Marine style from us we will not be the same US Navy Seabees we have been for over 75 years. I did not mean to rant but I understand when you sya that you can always say you are a Marine when asked, because I always say I am a Seabee not I was in the Navy, I take pride in my community, as I know we have pride about being a little different from other Sailors. When fleet support guys come to us they say I didn't join the Navy to be in the Marines, because what we do is some what in line with that warrior pride, they ether end up becoming like us and take back to the fleet, or they hate us and get out of Navy, or go back pissed off, but I will put money on the fact that their military bearing has changed some what. I will also say we do kind of indoctrinate them into that Seabee sprite and attitude, that some what comes form the Marine Cadres that train us.
(0)
(0)
You have an idea of what some of the training is but you missed a lot. Combat training for Marines starts almost right away. You have hand to hand dills. Used to be called line training and now it's the martial arts training. Pugil Stick fighting that simulates bayonet fighting is one of the first platoon on platoon events we do. We also learn to rappel form a tower and a hell hole. There is the obstacle course and confidence course. There are classes on first-aid, weapons, fortified positions, land nav., and history. There is guard duty, general orders, code of conduct and they must all be memorized. Some of this may be what you call indoctrination but a lot of it applies to all services. It is just not taught until other services get to a school after basic. There is so much training and it is constantly GO, GO, GO, because that is the only way to learn it all in 3 months. Like you said it is not just teaching it is indoctrination.
(3)
(0)
SSG Lon Watson
No I agree you guys learn combat tasks, but the army teaches the advanced stuff too early. Stuff you guys get at MCT. And they do it at the expense of the basics. I think you guys train a lower number of tasks, but you master those few tasks. The army tries to make you jack of all trades in 9 weeks.
(0)
(0)
SSG Lon Watson
Did you miss the part of the article where I mention that stuff? But it’s still indoctrination not training tasks. The problem in the arm is we don’t spend enough time endoctrinating.
(0)
(0)
US Army BCT 1973 @ Fort Dix, NJ. I don't remember how long basic was back then but some of the stuff I saw and experienced as a troop soundly contradicts what you're saying. Maybe things got "softer" years later. But we averaged one or two AWOLs per week. And I pitied your ass if you were captured and returned to duty. Yeah son, they put their hands on you! No love taps here, bro
(3)
(0)
Great read, I have worked with Marines, Navy and Airforce. I have noticed in all branches there are some flaws. Very interesting read I would have never looked at it from that point of view. Love all my brothers and sisters in all branches. One team one fight.
(3)
(0)
SSG Lon Watson - I waited to form my thoughts before responding to your post, but I think you bring up some great points yet discount others. First, let me tell you where I'm coming from on all this. I joined the Army in 1999. I attended basic training at "Relaxin' Jackson" that summer. My BCT platoon was made of mainly split-option reservists. While my memory has been messed up due to my accident in Iraq during my first deployment there as part of 1 Brigade Combat Team of the 101st Airborne Division in early 2003, I remember two things about my time in basic training.
The first thing I remember are the fire ants. Those little bastards were every where! In fact, I really don't remember not seeing one anywhere we went. One time, our Drill SGTs came out to inspect that our canteens were full of water and because several members of platoon had canteens that weren't totally topped off as instructed, we all ended up doing push ups. I remember looking down at my hands that were then covered with these small, painful jerks.
The second thing I remember is SSG Moran. He was our platoon's senior Drill Sergeant. He, like you, was involved in several deployments and like you, felt the need to instill the basics into us. Yes, he followed the doctrine as given to him but it seemed like our Platoon did everything differently. He, and the other drill sergeants in the platoon, were hard but fair. Completing a task was not only expected but demanded. If you failed to complete the task, you went to the end of the line and did it again. This went for everything. From marksmanship to shinning boots to making bed; nothing was done until they said it was done. It sucked at the time but through out my short 8.5 years in the Army, I remained thankful for this because I took to the units I was assigned and thankfully, I was always part of an effective team every where I went.
Yes, I can agree that my experience and the way I took it was not the norm. Yes, I agree that there are some much needed improvements needed not just in the Army but across the DoD when it comes to training. But I think the biggest the hurdle we as a collective face is this notion of a "new Army" or "today's Army". Just do a quick search on here. You'll see post after post after post asking "what is wrong with today's Army". To which my answer is and will remain this. The Army is a reflection of it's leadership; from the ones that wear stars to the ones that wear chevrons, the culture of the military is placed in our hands. We, the leaders, are the ones that shape "today's Army". We are the standard, the backbone of our beloved Army. The standards change if and only when we allow them to change.
The first thing I remember are the fire ants. Those little bastards were every where! In fact, I really don't remember not seeing one anywhere we went. One time, our Drill SGTs came out to inspect that our canteens were full of water and because several members of platoon had canteens that weren't totally topped off as instructed, we all ended up doing push ups. I remember looking down at my hands that were then covered with these small, painful jerks.
The second thing I remember is SSG Moran. He was our platoon's senior Drill Sergeant. He, like you, was involved in several deployments and like you, felt the need to instill the basics into us. Yes, he followed the doctrine as given to him but it seemed like our Platoon did everything differently. He, and the other drill sergeants in the platoon, were hard but fair. Completing a task was not only expected but demanded. If you failed to complete the task, you went to the end of the line and did it again. This went for everything. From marksmanship to shinning boots to making bed; nothing was done until they said it was done. It sucked at the time but through out my short 8.5 years in the Army, I remained thankful for this because I took to the units I was assigned and thankfully, I was always part of an effective team every where I went.
Yes, I can agree that my experience and the way I took it was not the norm. Yes, I agree that there are some much needed improvements needed not just in the Army but across the DoD when it comes to training. But I think the biggest the hurdle we as a collective face is this notion of a "new Army" or "today's Army". Just do a quick search on here. You'll see post after post after post asking "what is wrong with today's Army". To which my answer is and will remain this. The Army is a reflection of it's leadership; from the ones that wear stars to the ones that wear chevrons, the culture of the military is placed in our hands. We, the leaders, are the ones that shape "today's Army". We are the standard, the backbone of our beloved Army. The standards change if and only when we allow them to change.
(3)
(0)
Some things I agree with you on, basic training being one of them. But I would point all of the services take the short route to basic training and AIT. When we send soldiers or marines to 8-10-12-14 weeks of Basic then send them to three weeks of AIT, what did we create? A problem in the making. What is the quality of a truck driver who learns nothing but a 2.5 ton truck for four weeks?
Or 5 week artillery school. We preach safety, we pay lip service to maintenance, then are flabbergasted with our piss poor results.
I remember reading that the British basic training is 6 months long, they belong to a regiment their whole career. The Army plays some sort of game with regiments, here wear a crest, you belong to this regiment (what is that about anyways?). We have some real regiments, but by and large we don't have that, so do away with it once and for all.
Yes the Corp has a lot of pride, no doubt about it, but what is the incidence of offenses off post? Divorce factors, Anger management issues, UCMJ problems, how many BCD's are issued in the Corps?. Those are also indicators, and not good ones. Being treated like a subservient turd is not what a lot of people like for years on end. Not that Army doesn't have its own issues, because we do. The Corps does something right, and I am sure there are affair number behind that anchor globe and eagle who wish they had it a little better than how they are being treated then or now.
Or 5 week artillery school. We preach safety, we pay lip service to maintenance, then are flabbergasted with our piss poor results.
I remember reading that the British basic training is 6 months long, they belong to a regiment their whole career. The Army plays some sort of game with regiments, here wear a crest, you belong to this regiment (what is that about anyways?). We have some real regiments, but by and large we don't have that, so do away with it once and for all.
Yes the Corp has a lot of pride, no doubt about it, but what is the incidence of offenses off post? Divorce factors, Anger management issues, UCMJ problems, how many BCD's are issued in the Corps?. Those are also indicators, and not good ones. Being treated like a subservient turd is not what a lot of people like for years on end. Not that Army doesn't have its own issues, because we do. The Corps does something right, and I am sure there are affair number behind that anchor globe and eagle who wish they had it a little better than how they are being treated then or now.
(3)
(0)
ok I'm getting pummelled, but if you read the points you'll see what I was saying. This is corrective action....nothing more. Watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNn9H1LR2Tw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNn9H1LR2Tw
(3)
(0)
SSG Lon Watson
Marine Corps Receiving Vs Army Reception
http://futurejarheads.org/ Marine Corps Receiving VS Army Reception.. Just some differences in the way things are done between the two branches
(1)
(0)
SPC(P) Jay Heenan
SSG Lon Watson
Hahaha, LOVED the Marine DS part, it reminded me of my basic and AIT when I went through way back in '87, only I used to get slapped and kicked.
Hahaha, LOVED the Marine DS part, it reminded me of my basic and AIT when I went through way back in '87, only I used to get slapped and kicked.
(0)
(0)
Shouldn't this discussion be elsewhere? Honestly what does it have to do with the Marines?!!
(3)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
SSG (Join to see) - It just seems odd that an Army guy would whine about the Army's training and elevate Marine training, and not put their constructive critique in an Army forum where the audience would most benefit from the critique.
(1)
(0)
SFC Derrick Graves
As I said in my earlier comment the author didn't have the courage to bring these criticisms to the Army leadership during his supposedly 21 years in the Army. Makes me question what kind of values this guy had when he was on active duty. But as a retired veteran myself I'm going to wish him well and hopes he enjoys that retirement check he earned from the United States Army!
(2)
(0)
I agree with everything you said. I don't understand why the Army has gone so soft. It was starting down that path when I was in the Army in the 80's but nothing like it is now. It's a shame.
(2)
(0)
SSG Eric Blue
The rumor going around about THAT when I was PV2 Blue was that Gen Eric Shinseki, the Army Chief Of Staff at the time, was butt-hurt about how hard things were for him when he came through. The rumor was that HE changed it to the direction in which it's now going. Again, a rumor. Not sure how true it was or is.
(0)
(0)
I am 87 years old, retired Army. I was a young 18 year old Army corporal in November and December 1950 with a Squad of Draftees all older than me when my Platoon was selected to join up with a Regimental Combat Team to go help the Marines who were surrounded by the what seemed like the whole damned Chinese Army. Guess who came to the rescue of those supermen Marines, us poorly trained, misguided, stumblebum United States Army Riff Raff of young NCOs and elderly Draftees, that's who. If I remember right 800 Marines and 2000 Army were killed at the Chosin. The Marines were evacuated out of the Chosin 10 Dec 1950, my unit departed at 1100 hours Christmas Eve 24 Dec 1950. We held back the Chinese until everyone else had left. Admittedly we were not ready for combat when we got to Korea but those of us who survived were well versed in the art of War when we left.
(2)
(0)
Good day Gentleman, great post to SSG Watson very detailed! As many have commented every Branch has its objective. Marines are harden-up because there job is to take the beaches and secure way for the rest etc, so it's obvious that they need a special Psychological push mentally and physically. Army as well has many tasks in hand. Some have said that is why we have several units that are prepared for such tasks so ultimately we can't expect truck drivers or communication personal to have the same drive that a Marine will have taking a beach etc. Maybe the post missed out on the difference of what other branches do as a whole to be as one but we have a great and solid Force that cannot be beaten by no other. God Bless America
(2)
(0)
I probably shouldn't respond because I have to admit that I quit reading this nonsense diatribe less than 1/4 of the way through it. I had to quit reading because I was laughing too hard after this wannabe started babbling about elite units and included Infantry.
Bottom line, yes, the US Army training and overall ethos isn't as tough as the Marine Corps. Does that hurt the mission capability of either service? - no it does not. Does it make a difference in how the services go about accomplishing their mission? - almost certainly it does.
There are far more differences between the Marine Corps and the Army besides just the stress level of USMC Reception and training -- and those differences provide the nation with two DIFFERENT military services which are NOT interchangeable, never have been interchangeable, never were meant to be interchangeable, and (hopefully) never will be interchangeable.
Should the Army attempt to mimic the Marine Corps? Hell No! There is no more reason for the Army to mimic the Marine Corps than there would be for the entire Marine Corps to adopt Scout Sniper School plus BUD/S as the training standard for MOS 0311
Bottom line, yes, the US Army training and overall ethos isn't as tough as the Marine Corps. Does that hurt the mission capability of either service? - no it does not. Does it make a difference in how the services go about accomplishing their mission? - almost certainly it does.
There are far more differences between the Marine Corps and the Army besides just the stress level of USMC Reception and training -- and those differences provide the nation with two DIFFERENT military services which are NOT interchangeable, never have been interchangeable, never were meant to be interchangeable, and (hopefully) never will be interchangeable.
Should the Army attempt to mimic the Marine Corps? Hell No! There is no more reason for the Army to mimic the Marine Corps than there would be for the entire Marine Corps to adopt Scout Sniper School plus BUD/S as the training standard for MOS 0311
(2)
(0)
SSG Lon Watson
I’ll tell you what master sergeant I’ll give you more respect than you gave me. First I’m not a wannabe. Not at all. I don’t need to justify my resume to you. But again with respect, you missed the point. Not a little bit, but a lot. So it’s a bad idea to raise standards, quit being pusses, and spartan up the regular army? It would cost nothing, zero to raise the bar. And unless you served in a Ranger battalion, SF The Unit you have no room to talk down to me. Especially when all I’m trying to do is raise awareness to the low standards. Good day MSG!
(0)
(0)
SPC Oscar TorresPlata
SSG Lon Watson I believe SSG Watson that by writing your post all you will do is get difference of opinion! Ultimately the Pentagon has think tanks that are prepared for such matter. Best regards.
(0)
(0)
There is a reason why we advertise and wear moto gear when we retire or get out. Love for the Corps from day one
All of boot camp is a emphasis on team.....there is no I.
All of boot camp is a emphasis on team.....there is no I.
(2)
(0)
Sounds like to me you should have transferred to the Marines if you admire them so much. And to educate you a little bit the Army used to be like that, don't really know when they got soft but you are right, and shorten your comment not many people want to read a book here
(2)
(0)
As a Marine. Ft Benning OSUT is not basic training. The next guy tapped out which says something about his attention to detail. The comment about money needs to include the value of a life. I enlisted in 1965 while still in high school. Went to Parris Island just after graduation. I decided on the Marines because I knew I would be drafted and sent to Vietnam. I wanted the best training to survive. After 9 years and 2 tours I got out and went into the reserves. 1977 gas prices skyrocketed so I transfered to the National Guard 6 blocks from my house. as a SSgt. Getting out was the worst mistake of my life but enlisting was the best.
(2)
(0)
I was in the army for 7 years as a crypto linguist/signal intelligence. Right after basic training but before AIT I went to language school for a year with members of all branches. Then our AIT was all together too. I formed close friendships with a good number of service members in other branches, and I've got nothing but love for the unique culture each branch has cultivated. The marines are more disciplined- no question about that. But the draw back to that culture, in my opinion and experience, is that they cannot draw and retain the high number of technically proficient individuals the other branches need.
That isn't to say all marines are unintelligent. That is to say that many people with high level technical skills will not choose to live that life. That is why the marines are the FEW... God bless the marines, but I'm proud of my service as a support MOS in the army. We worked magic without all the hoopla.
That isn't to say all marines are unintelligent. That is to say that many people with high level technical skills will not choose to live that life. That is why the marines are the FEW... God bless the marines, but I'm proud of my service as a support MOS in the army. We worked magic without all the hoopla.
(2)
(0)
Having been an Australian Army Recruit Instructor (RI) and a Royal Australian Air Force Military Skills Instructor (MSI) I can only say shock and awe in the first couple of days works! The one comment that will always stay in my mind was from an Air Force recruit after Marching out of training “I thought it would be harder” that was after Air Force tried the soft gentle approach for a year. From day one the Australian Military teachs stress relation and that you can handle it. We always believed as Instructors that Recruit Training will set the Soldier, Sailor and Airman up for the rest of their career. Train hard, fight easy. Instilling the brotherhood mentality is a much lost ideal in the modern world of Combat.
(2)
(0)
I went through basic training in 1989 at Ft Dix NJ. Reading your opinions about how “soft” Army basic is compared to the Marines (whom I might add I have the highest respect for) kind of bothered me. I was never treated “softly”. To this day I still remember the phrase “are you eyeballin me soldier!” We females did everything the male soldiers did, and in many ways were held to higher standards because we were “females”. We had to prove everything. Yes, there were weaker ones. Anyone who has been through basic knows the drill. The weak link causes punishment for all so DONT be the weak link. All I know is, there was nothing softer about my time. But then again that was a long time ago. I respect your opinion.
(2)
(0)
To agree I believe in this shock treatment,but demeaning new recruits and making them feel less then a snake in the grass can also have reverse affects..I saw two Soldiers At Ft Jackson Commit Suicide because of this ..The background of People isn't known when u meet these Soldiers or Future Marines..No we can't treat them like Babies but Just saying there has to be a line drawn somewhere..
(2)
(0)
You Took The Words Right Out Of My Mouth, Well Done. Our Next enemy either ISIS or the Chinese are trained very differently than we are. They are trained to Kill and take orders. If we attack a hill and have 75% casualties we fell we did not accomplish our mission. They did if they took the hill ! We take Air Superiority as granted, maybe in the near future, China will have it. Then what? Remember in the beginning of World War 2 Japan kicked our ass. You have to be mentally and physically tough to win the next war...................Semper Fi
(2)
(0)
I think your post is fairly accurate. I was an Infantry Soldier for many years. From my perspective, the Marines do a great job instilling the warrior spirit in basic training. The Army, even in the Infantry do not. That being said, individual units (from division level down to the squad) can and frequently do produce high quality soldiers who have that same warrior spirit. It begins with standards being standards in the go to war units. They are not easy to achieve, nor are they compromised to accommodate those who cannot hack it. Basic training is just that, BASIC. The proof is in the pudding, though. Our soldiers have accomplished incredible exploits on the battlefield these many years of war. In Afghanistan and Iraq, those who have faced our soldiers have suffered. Being Army Strong is not just about being hyper motivated coming out of initial entry training, it's about taking the fight to the enemy and breaking him. Our Army soldiers have been doing that job admirably for 15 years straight.
(2)
(0)
I agree also on a different matter regarding the Marines and the US Army-Why did the Army spend several millions in research to determining that the ACU was the best camo pattern and then in a matter of a very few years decides to change to a pattern that is very similar to the Marine camo pattern. In this case I feel a little sorry for the Officers who now have to purchase the new patter uniform. Another example-currently the Army is researching what the best sidearm should be and is proposing spending 300 million in R&D yet the Marines are driving on will probably use a weapon that is currently in production. I hate to say it but I'm sure there are other examples though as retired Army I hate to hand it to the Marines!!
(2)
(0)
You've made some great points. Personally I attended some JROTC summer bootcamps that I thought were harder then Army BCT. In my JROTC camps I had rangers, airborne, green beret and navy seal instructors. I was in the Raider company which is the high school version of rangers. The navy seals weighed us down in web gear and unexpectedly pushed us into a lake from speeding boats where we had to use the quick releases to get the gear off and re surface, the green berets took us out into the forrest where we learned to ID edible plants and bugs, made shelters with our ponchos and slept in them for 2 days while doing obstacle courses and leadership courses during the day. In JROTC we did the entire obstacle courses in BCT they skipped obstacles deemed "to dangerous" or restricted how high you could go on some obstacles. The Army needs to toughen up it's sad that I received harder training in high school then the real Army. In high school I ruck marched at a forced pace with a ruck so heavy I had to roll over on my belly to stand up. In BCT my ruck was 40 pounds and not much bigger then a backpack. The slowest person was placed at the head of our marches and those who couldn't keep up were thrown in the back of a truck. I LOVE the U.S. Army and the brother/sisterhood but I have only seen the standards become more and more lax and generations of "entitled" soldiers joining the ranks thinking they have the "right" to question everything.
(2)
(0)
My friend, I think you're looking at this wrong. I'm pretty sure this is a numbers game. The Army has huge numbers in budgeting and personnel compared to the Marines. This means they can afford a lot more in terms of billets/positions, equipment, responsibility, which leads to "compromises" in quality, because of the fact that is that the Army needs more personnel to man, train, and equip those positions, equipment, and responsibility. If you notice, the Marine Corps does not create it's own organic medical and religious personnel; in fact, if you look at our boating capacity, Marines only really operate AAVs, LAVs, and Zodiacs. Other amphibious personnel carriers are typically ran by either the Navy (for the most part) or in some instances the Army. This is because the Marine Corps can't afford to do so, both by budgeting, Title 10 authorities, and the like. The "brilliance in the basics" standpoint from square one for Marines is due to numbers; we are not allotted the same amount of personnel, so we do with what we got, and we start with the recruit. Because we can't afford to throw all the Corps' money and training into personnel, we indoctrinate to weed out those who can't hack it.
Take a look at the US Army's overall mission:
"The Army’s mission is to fight and win our Nation’s wars by providing prompt, sustained land dominance across the full range of military operations and spectrum of conflict in support of combatant commanders. We do this by:
•Executing Title 10 and Title 32 United States Code directives, to include organizing, equipping, and training forces for the conduct of prompt and sustained combat operations on land.
•Accomplishing missions assigned by the President, Secretary of Defense and combatant commanders, and Transforming for the future."
IOT provide SUSTAINED combat operations on land, it becomes a numbers game. The Marine Corps cannot conduct long-term sustained operations effectively; we're not built that way. We work best in the operational/tactical realm, not the strategic. We can be utilized in the strategic realm, but usually in the initial portions of a conflict; while in recent wars, this hasn't been the case, it's how it's supposed to go. That's where the United States needs Marines; at the bleeding edge front line. The training we get keeps that edge. Now while it'd help, it is simply unnecessary for regular Army personnel that're conducting long term engagements. Not every Soldier is going to be cut out for front line combat activities, SOF engagements, or extremely specialized missions; this is why there's a regular Army. Why hold them to that higher standard when there's no operational necessity to do so? Those who want to pursue those higher tiers that are more than encouraged to do so, and standards at those units are exceptionally high, even compared to the Marines. The Rangers, for example, will "Release For Standards" anyone who doesn't meet the Ranger standard back into conventional Army. The Marine Corps will separate personnel from the Corps who can't meet the standard, but nowhere near with the quickness the 75th Ranger Regiment does; Marines will take months, Rangers in a day or two MAX.
At this point you're probably thinking I'm missing your initial point in regards to quality Soldiers; what I'm trying to get to you is that this is a numbers game in regards to training quality Soldiers to meet personnel requirements which the Army has a lot of to meet. This becomes a balancing act of how effectively should the Army train/indoctrinate their Soldiers (the more intense, the higher the attrition rate) vice not being able to meet those manning requirements which sets long term engagements up for failure. What I'd start looking at, instead of comparing Marines to Soldiers, is not just giving Soldiers the tools of the trade but more of the wisdom to utilize them effectively. Making Soldiers more "Marine-like" isn't going to help anyone. The Army needs quality Soldiers, but this can't be done by making them Marines. You can build a better culture. Take away the coddling. Hold Soldier initiates to higher standards of conduct. Develop their confidence in their actions and decision making, while under stress. Teach them how to "make a decision uphill", if it ever comes to that. Ingrain within them the importance of the title they hold and how they fit into the greater Army puzzle.
Take a look at the US Army's overall mission:
"The Army’s mission is to fight and win our Nation’s wars by providing prompt, sustained land dominance across the full range of military operations and spectrum of conflict in support of combatant commanders. We do this by:
•Executing Title 10 and Title 32 United States Code directives, to include organizing, equipping, and training forces for the conduct of prompt and sustained combat operations on land.
•Accomplishing missions assigned by the President, Secretary of Defense and combatant commanders, and Transforming for the future."
IOT provide SUSTAINED combat operations on land, it becomes a numbers game. The Marine Corps cannot conduct long-term sustained operations effectively; we're not built that way. We work best in the operational/tactical realm, not the strategic. We can be utilized in the strategic realm, but usually in the initial portions of a conflict; while in recent wars, this hasn't been the case, it's how it's supposed to go. That's where the United States needs Marines; at the bleeding edge front line. The training we get keeps that edge. Now while it'd help, it is simply unnecessary for regular Army personnel that're conducting long term engagements. Not every Soldier is going to be cut out for front line combat activities, SOF engagements, or extremely specialized missions; this is why there's a regular Army. Why hold them to that higher standard when there's no operational necessity to do so? Those who want to pursue those higher tiers that are more than encouraged to do so, and standards at those units are exceptionally high, even compared to the Marines. The Rangers, for example, will "Release For Standards" anyone who doesn't meet the Ranger standard back into conventional Army. The Marine Corps will separate personnel from the Corps who can't meet the standard, but nowhere near with the quickness the 75th Ranger Regiment does; Marines will take months, Rangers in a day or two MAX.
At this point you're probably thinking I'm missing your initial point in regards to quality Soldiers; what I'm trying to get to you is that this is a numbers game in regards to training quality Soldiers to meet personnel requirements which the Army has a lot of to meet. This becomes a balancing act of how effectively should the Army train/indoctrinate their Soldiers (the more intense, the higher the attrition rate) vice not being able to meet those manning requirements which sets long term engagements up for failure. What I'd start looking at, instead of comparing Marines to Soldiers, is not just giving Soldiers the tools of the trade but more of the wisdom to utilize them effectively. Making Soldiers more "Marine-like" isn't going to help anyone. The Army needs quality Soldiers, but this can't be done by making them Marines. You can build a better culture. Take away the coddling. Hold Soldier initiates to higher standards of conduct. Develop their confidence in their actions and decision making, while under stress. Teach them how to "make a decision uphill", if it ever comes to that. Ingrain within them the importance of the title they hold and how they fit into the greater Army puzzle.
(2)
(0)
The answer is obvious. We are a volunteer military. And while the Marines have never had recruiting problems/shortages, the other branches have. This is why USAF "grunts" are in combat now, females serving on submarines and kinder/gentler Army boot camp. Because people just aren't joining. Enlistment ages are expanded, tatoo's, etc. All because no one's joining. Were the Marines to experience manning shortfalls, then their talking heads and bean counters would board-room some changes. For now, the Dogs have no shortage of folk wanting to don the Khaki and Green and as the commercial says "be the ones running towards the gunfire and danger."
(2)
(0)
In another thread, I have made very much the same arguments. It has been said the measure of how smart someone is ; is how much they agree with you. By that criterion: SSG Lon Watson is a very smart man.
(2)
(0)
To the author I will say you are qualified to give your opinion but whether your qualified to make those statements is debatable. I'm curious to know why you didn't use a forum like AUSA, ARS (Army Retirement Services), etc., to voice your criticisms through the senior leadership up to the current SMA Daniel Dailey in order to address your perceptions and maybe affect some change if you were really concerned about today's soldier's in the Army. I'm retired and served from 1980 - 2000 and one thing I never forgot as a leader is the NCO CREED which has one the following excerpts: "I will be loyal to those with whom I serve; seniors, peers, and subordinates alike". You appear to be very hypocritical with this post considering your comments about your history with the Army. Posting these issues (which applies to all branches) on a social media site looks a bit self serving to me and benefits no one but you and your ulterior motives. I don't see the correlation between your duties as a prison boot camp drill sergeant and what's occurring in the basic training with the current Army. But since you were negligent and bias with your dissertation I feel it's my duty to enlighten the RallyPoint readers with some additional information of fact. As the largest of America's Armed Forces the Army also has a large amount of responsibilities with one of them being to train Marines (i.e, military police, combat engineers, armor, satellite communications, ranger training, airborne/air assault, military free fall, etc) which is something you failed to mention in your blog. How can you make comments about the current basic training in the Army (which is 9 weeks compared to 8 weeks in the 1980's) when you haven't even gone thru the current curriculum that today's recruits must pass. One thing I realized about the Army of today is that it's different then when I came in 1980, but today's soldier's are technical and tactically proficient and have proven it with 16 years of combat experience in the War on Terror. To you and your supporters basic training is one element of the game, winning wars is part of our fame which we continue to reign supreme as an Army Team!
(2)
(0)
SSG Lon Watson
Well since you retired in 2000 I don't know how much you know about modern warfare. Also I really don't think you can speak for my motives unless you and God are homeboys. I write for Rally Point, my editor picks where my articles go, not me. And prison boot camp has A LOT of similarities to training troops for battle. And since I've done both I am qualified to comment. I'm also a published author and resercher and a SME on recruit training pipelines. I lead a consortium of 500 drill sergeants and drill instructors who report their frustrations to me frequently. I'm sounding an alarm, not being disloyal. Is it disloyal to wake up sleeping people in a burning building?
(0)
(0)
Concur. At PI the whole thing and for the whole time is - WTF are you doing here? WHY ON EARTH do you think -you- could EVER be a United States Marine?
We graduated on a Monday morning. The previous Saturday I saw a DI in another platoon in our series choking a recruit - with his own crutch.
It made me shudder.
Walt
We graduated on a Monday morning. The previous Saturday I saw a DI in another platoon in our series choking a recruit - with his own crutch.
It made me shudder.
Walt
(2)
(0)
SSG Lon Watson
Now I don't condone choking, but I get the idea. I was teaching BNCOC, OBC, and AIT at Ft Sam Houston, TX in 2002. The sex scandals with recruits blew by mind. A girl would say she was having sex with her drill sergeant and of course the DS would deny it. Then the girl would describe the inside of said drill sergeants house or apartment to the minute detail. Something she could only do if she'd been there. One girl described tattoos on the DS's body. Crazy.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next