Rp logo flat shadow
Command Post What is this?
Posted on Feb 16, 2016
SSG Lon Watson
152K
839
330
170
170
0
Avatar feed
Responses: 147
Votes
  • Newest
  • Oldest
  • Votes
MSgt Roger Settlemyer
2
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)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
CPT Kurk Harris
2
2
0
Edited 9 y ago
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)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
CSM Thomas McGarry
2
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)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SSG Jane Doe
2
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)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SSgt Signals Intelligence Analyst
2
2
0
Edited >1 y ago
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.
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
PO3 Donald Murphy
2
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)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
GySgt Joe Strong
2
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)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SFC Derrick Graves
2
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)
Comment
(0)
SSG Lon Watson
SSG Lon Watson
>1 y
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)
Reply
(0)
SSG Lon Watson
SSG Lon Watson
>1 y
I don’t write for them, I write for Rally Point.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
Capt Walter Miller
2
2
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
(2)
Comment
(0)
SSG Lon Watson
SSG Lon Watson
>1 y
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)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SFC(P) Platoon Sergeant
2
2
0
Bull S__T!!!
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.