With the way the Army has been changing in the last 5-10 years, have you seen a decrease in unit pride?

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Jan 2014 08:09:44 -0500

Since I joined the Army, I have noticed that unit pride has sharply decreased. This is not at just one unit I have been to, but across the board. I watched as the Airborne tab above Old Abe and the Soldiers ability to wear jump boots was threatened. Units today tend to show up to work and thats it. Commands attempt to hold events to boost morale, but they almost have to be mandatory to get any participation. I've seen a one of a kind unit that Soldiers can't wait to get out of. There is even an increased lack of pride in unit areas. It seems like its all about the paycheck instead of the willingness to sacrifice. We contract everything out from lawn maint to God knows what else. Maybe they should cut those contracts and use Soldiers like we used to.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 14 at 2014 8:17 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Jan 2014 08:17:18 -0500

I seen soldiers not really getting taught the history of their Unit or the Units overall mission. I believe the NCOs need to instill soldier on these matters so they can have Pride of their Unit, their service and the uniform they wear on a daily bases.

Response by CW5 Sam R. Baker made Mar 9 at 2014 12:46 PM

CW5 Sam R. Baker — Sun, 09 Mar 2014 12:46:44 -0400

First of all, commanders at all levels of the unit with their senior NCO set the mark. That being said, usually it is BDE and lower that are influenced. The company level to battalion is the most important. Personal detail can be interchanged between the leaders and Soldiers. Regardless of the changes in the Army away from days of drunken hail and farewells (all fun of course) the social pressures and norms have changed the very reason people perceive going to unit functions. Soldiers go for two reasons voluntarily; respect for the leadership or it's fun. If neither of those it is pulling teeth and virtually impossible. Therefore when Soldiers do go, it usually reflects good leadership and a fun unit without prejudice and issues where everyone feels the bond.

Response by 1SG Calanski Brunson made Mar 9 at 2014 1:16 PM

1SG Calanski Brunson — Sun, 09 Mar 2014 13:16:50 -0400

In my humble opinion today Soldiers don't know anything about Army history so there is no foundation to begin with. Some Soldiers can't sing the first verse (not talking about the chorus) of the Army Song to save their lives. So how can we get the Soldiers to take pride in their units if they don't understand their history? While todays Soldiers are some of the smartest (book and computer smarts), they would rather sit in front of a computer and play video games all day then hang out with their peers at a unit social event. Its sad but the ugly truth, lets implement Army history training in Basic and AIT. Then when a Soldiers come to a new unit have a right of passage ceremony at the unit level where they explain all the unit history and custom and courtesies and have them complete a task (maybe an 8 mile ruck march with the CSM and 1SG teaching them certain events at certain waypoints). Then its the NCOs hob to explain the importance for going to certain events. I tell my guys the more the CSM and 1SG sees you participating in unit events or volunteering the easier it will be for waivers for promotion or when they go to the board because they see you taking time out of your personal time to support the unit. I remember the first unit had a Military Ball my E-7s paid for my ticket and told me I was going. I had a great time and learn a lot, and ever since then I have always went to every Ball since then. Once I made E-7 I always paid for a Soldiers ticket to the any ball function. The last function my unit had I support 3 Soldiers and they all had a great time.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 22 at 2014 8:19 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 22 Apr 2014 20:19:02 -0400

Absolutely. But it may not entirely be the Soldiers' faults. Once upon a time, before any of us were in the Army (I have yet to see a WWII veteran on RP), elements maneuvered and fought as regiments, with their battalions and companies in close proximity. These elements developed intense espirit de corps that few units today can match. It also helps to be in a specific unit for a significant period of time instead of being kicked around the Army like a pinball.

Under the Brigade Combat Team concept, battalion-sized elements were vomited all over the place with no truly coherent organized structure, leaving a complete mess of a unit with multiple heritages all jammed together. Sure, it made for a mobile, effective, balanced force, but it completely destroyed regimental identities except in some unique cases. When we look at the breakdown of 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division, for example, we find it composed of the following:

1 BN, 5 IN
3 BN, 21 IN
1 BN, 24 IN
5 SQDN, 1 CAV
2 BN, 8 FA
25th Support Battalion
D Company, 52 Infantry
73rd ENG
176 SIG
184 MI

If you can make heads or tails of that mess of units jammed together, I'll give you a cookie. I feel (and I could be dead wrong about this) that this group of units, bearing their own distinct lineages, separates elements at the battalion level (or company level, in the case of poor D Company) rather than drawing them together as a single regiment as seen during WWII and earlier conflicts.

It also doesn't help when some paper-pusher in some office decides to redesignate units for reasons unknowable to the line grunt. In one specific instance, I was present when 1BDE 25ID was re-flagged to 2d SCR. During the casing of the colors, 2d SCR's guidon was (quietly, but especially noticeably to a young grunt) booed. Veteran NCOes from 1/25 took great offense at being redesignated as Cavalry. Especially strong was the argument that we were Infantrymen after all, not Cavalry, and the argument made a lot of sense considering the mission change. In 1/25, we maneuvered with Strykers, dismounted and fought as Infantry. Compare that to 2d SCR's mission where we maneuvered with Strykers, dismounted and...fought...as...Infantry... Oh. Ahem. Seems to be the same mission there. Moving right along!

The change in unit designation, as I stated, was met with fierce (ineffectual) resistance by men proud to have been with the old unit. Even later, after the change, our old 1/25 battalion history was lauded while our new identity as a squadron in 2d SCR was met with disdain and open scorn. It took roughly 24 months and a combat deployment for folks to begin being proud of our unit's identity. Soldiers are, I suppose, a stubborn lot.

Response by SGT Frank Leonardo made Nov 7 at 2014 3:19 PM

SGT Frank Leonardo — Fri, 07 Nov 2014 15:19:20 -0500

I was in 99-06 as I was getting out uniforms were changing to the newer style. No more pressing them out and also boots away from the black spit shine. Both of these had personnel and unit pride in my eyes. Lots of soldiers I know don't like the change and wished the old style was style was still in the Army. I have noticed moral go down in the years since I have been out and keeping in contact with members that are still in and also have retired and gotten out.

Response by MSG John Duchesneau made Jun 20 at 2018 12:19 AM

MSG John Duchesneau — Wed, 20 Jun 2018 00:19:11 -0400

Gee, what's happened in the last 5 to 10 years? The Ops tempo has significantly decreased. Units that served in combat have a lot of pride, morale and comraderie. Units that are training for an "in theater" mission have a sense of purpose and urgency. As more units are reverting to "peacetime" training their soldiers don't have the level of intensity they used to. Trust me - its nothing new. The Army goes to sleep between wars and readiness and morale suffer. I would suggest some demanding but fun training like obstacle courses, simulated combat and weapons qualification. Soldiers like to do soldier things.