# Why has the Army gotten SOFT?



## Chevy (Mar 7, 2012)

There has been a lot of scrutiny around the Army (as well as other branches) due to recent events and policy changes around the Armed Forces. Often I am told by Vets and other service members that have racked up their fair share of years that this 'New Army" is way to soft and soldiers do not know how good they have it. I have my own personal opinions but I am curious to hear from the Vets and also other Senior NCOs and Officers on how they view this so-called "New Army."


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 7, 2012)

It's BS, people will always say it used to be harder.


----------



## Chevy (Mar 7, 2012)

Yeah I'm sure until I retire or take that dirt nap I will be told by someone that their time in the military was harder.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 7, 2012)

cback0220 said:


> It's BS, people will always say it used to be harder.


I still think the current crop has it better then the guys/gals who soldiered on during the Carter and Clinton administrations.
I think the Combat Arms guys are as hard as ever, probably harder and smarter.
The support folks leaving the wire are hard now, they had some glaring issues early on, but (for the most part) those were/are being addressed.
The FOBBITs have become weaker, hopefully that will change.

That said, we will see who is truely dedicated to their Teammates, and who is in it for other reasons.
Mid-level and lower NCO's have never seen a peacetime/do more with less budget, but that will soon change.
The same goes with the Officer Corps, O-4 and below don't know what a Garrison/Peacetime Army is about.
NG and Reserves will do better with a lower ops tempo.

I think the training is better, and probably harder because the VN generation did not have NTC/JRTC as a train up.  
I think the 80's leaders are better overall because today's generation has a microscope over their heads, and a jury filled with hind site.

The big question in my mind is will the DoD accept a smaller, harder force; or will be keep size at the expense of readiness.  My vote is option 2.


----------



## KBAR-04 (Mar 7, 2012)

While things are easier now in some ways, we have the most combat experienced Army that we've had in generations.


----------



## Chevy (Mar 7, 2012)

The big question in my mind is will the DoD accept a smaller, harder force; or will be keep size at the expense of readiness. My vote is option 2.[/quote]


SWOT you hit some key points we do have the luxury of going to NTC and having these fancy simulators that allow us to get as close to combat before going. After being in country for a while it is a bit of an adjustment to return to "garrison life." I think they will try for a smaller more versatile force.


----------



## goon175 (Mar 7, 2012)

I think our military is a reflection of our nation at large. America in general has gotten soft, and I think the army is just reflecting that right now. I think our senior leadership realized change needs to happen, I'm just not sure their definition of what needs to change and what mine is are the same thing.


----------



## AWP (Mar 7, 2012)

KBAR-04 said:


> While things are easier now in some ways, we have the most combat experienced Army that we've had in generations.


 
I totally agree, but have we learned the right lessons? I don't think we have. Combat tested Infantry, Armor, Artillery, and Aviation units are worthless if their support elements fail. Our guys who kill for a living are some of the finest our country's produced, but their leadership and support elements are lacking IMO. We've convinced ourselves that huge PX'es, Burger King's, "low battle rhythm days," reflective belts, our broken contracting system, etc. are how to fight a war and win. We've raised a generation where everyone is a "warrior" and the expectation is that cold Rip-its and hot Pizza Hut are guaranteed.

In addition to goon's points above, I think we're soft because deep down too many of us WANT to be soft. We're taking the easy wrong over the difficult right.


----------



## Chevy (Mar 8, 2012)

We're taking the easy wrong over the difficult right.[/quote]

I see it everyday!


----------



## Chevy (Mar 8, 2012)

America in general has gotten soft. 

I agree, it seems that we as Americans feel as is we are entitled to wealth and success. We complain that other nationalities come to our country and take our jobs. These are the same jobs that many Americans think that they are too good to perform. Nowadays its all about get rich quick, who cares if I do not have a degree Mark Zuckerberg dropped out of Harvard and he is rich now. Well yeah lucky for him but not everyone can have a good idea fiary that actually pans out. Bottom line is we have to get back to working and striving for the American Dream and quit taking the east wrong over the difficult right as Freefalling said.


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 8, 2012)

Everyone likes to think that they were in the last "hard" course/school/war/whatever.  Our Army is "soft" after ten years of persistent warfare?   ummmm.... ok.....

There are some aspects of our Army that have been allowed to gradually atrophy over time because there has been a war on.  We'll see some course correction on that now that it looks like we'll have some time on our hands.  But what is going to happen- and what always happens- is that we will *over*-correct.  You can already see it, in things like the the new(er) PT standards that are coming out.  When facing uncertainty, people who lack vision and foresight always fall back on what they are comfortable with.  That is almost always something simple and quantifiable, to give the illusion of progress and effectiveness, and is always something squarely inside their comfort zone.  Lack of discipline?  Surely what is needed is a crackdown on DUIs.  Too many suicides?  What we REALLY need is more cultural sensitivity training.  Chubby troops?  Make the run on the PT four miles, screw what fitness professionals and our own study say!

Being "harder" is good, but being "smart" is better, especially in the kinds of warfare we're engaged in now.  The return to a peacetime, garrison mindset is extremely difficult for our military and for our nation, I hope that we adopt a "smart" approach instead of the "hard" one it looks like we're heading towards.


----------



## Chevy (Mar 8, 2012)

\When facing uncertainty, people who lack vision and foresight always fall back on what they are comfortable with. That is almost always something simple and quantifiable, to give the illusion of progress and effectiveness, and is always something squarely inside their comfort zone. Lack of discipline? Surely what is needed is a crackdown on DUIs. Too many suicides? What we REALLY need is more cultural sensitivity training. Chubby troops? Make the run on the PT four miles, screw what fitness professionals and our own study say!

Those are some good points. The SMA is trying to implement a four mile run and 12-mile ruck march, I'm just trying to figure out if this a move to truly prepare soldiers for combat fitness or an excuse to help reduce the number of troops in the Army. But thats another subject. The cultural sensitivity training could be beneficial, especially given recent incidents that has also contributed to suicides in country and in garrison as well.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 8, 2012)

Chevy said:


> \When facing uncertainty, people who lack vision and foresight always fall back on what they are comfortable with. That is almost always something simple and quantifiable, to give the illusion of progress and effectiveness, and is always something squarely inside their comfort zone. Lack of discipline? Surely what is needed is a crackdown on DUIs. Too many suicides? What we REALLY need is more cultural sensitivity training. Chubby troops? Make the run on the PT four miles, screw what fitness professionals and our own study say!
> 
> Those are some good points. The SMA is trying to implement a* four mile run and 12-mile ruck march,* I'm just trying to figure out if this a move to truly prepare soldiers for combat fitness or an excuse to help reduce the number of troops in the Army. But thats another subject. The cultural sensitivity training could be beneficial, especially given recent incidents that has also contributed to suicides in country and in garrison as well.


 
4 mile run?  WTFO!
12 mile ruck, again WTFO!

What the run/ruck combination will do is eliminate folks who are partially broken, and eliminate them in a way that the Army doesn't have to pay for breaking them.


----------



## Chevy (Mar 8, 2012)

SOWT said:


> 4 mile run? WTFO!
> 12 mile ruck, again WTFO!
> 
> 
> Yeah he pretty much said the broad jump and the shuttle sprint were good exercise but he doesn't think they should be implemented, that's when he came out and said the 4 mile run will test endurance etc etc. Yeah the 12-mile ruck thing got me too. Our leadership just told us to be prepared for some major changes.


----------



## Etype (Mar 11, 2012)

To answer the original question-
1. Our civilian leadership.
2. Military leadership working closely with politicians and becoming part of the group think.


----------



## Chevy (Mar 12, 2012)

1. Our civilian leadership.
2. Military leadership working closely with politicians and becoming part of the group think.[/quote]


Good points.


----------



## RetPara (Mar 12, 2012)

You think things are fucked up now...  Shit....  Things REALLY HAVE GONE TO FUCK ALL HELL since we had to turn in our Trapdoor Springfields....  Damn kids... you don't know what hard is......


----------



## Chevy (Mar 12, 2012)

RetPara said:


> You think things are fucked up now... Shit.... Things REALLY HAVE GONE TO FUCK ALL HELL since we had to turn in our Trapdoor Springfields.... Damn kids... you don't know what hard is......


 

Lol. Trapdoor Springfields, that thing is quadruple my age.


----------



## Etype (Mar 12, 2012)

Group think is poison.  If you were a blind man, you wouldn't be able to differentiate between civilian leadership and a general.  They use the same catch phrases, the same talking points, have the same ideas...


----------



## AWP (Mar 12, 2012)

RetPara said:


> You think things are fucked up now... Shit.... Things REALLY HAVE GONE TO FUCK ALL HELL since we had to turn in our Trapdoor Springfields.... Damn kids... you don't know what hard is......


 
I know, right? Copper casings that wouldn't extract so you're out there with a pocketknife while the Natives are all "Pew, pew, pew" with their repeating Winchesters.

Simpler times...


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Mar 12, 2012)

Came in right after 9/11, the difference really came around 05-06 when we saw Iraq was not going to be as open shut as we thought. Standards got dropped, people got promoted that should not have, and schools got put off due to deployments. The Army decided to reinvent the wheel, instead of realizing that the problem was not resolvable with a new policy or power point class. At a time when we needed better trained soldiers from BCT/OSUT, we got less trained, less disciplined soldiers. When we need more range time, we spent that time learning new gadgets that were limited in application. When we had inadequate marksmanship, we ordered optic to make it easier to shoot, vs taking the time to properly teach soldiers how to shoot.

I would say the biggest advances that we have seen in the Army has been in the medical treatment of trauma, and the electronic countermeasures technology. Small unit tactics have gone to shit, maneuver warfare has gone to shit, marksmanship has gone to shit, logistics are pretty well completely outsourced, etc, etc.

NCO: I have seen some NCO progress through the ranks based on the fact that they attended soldier/NCO of the month boards while the others were out training or conducting missions. I have seen NCO’s fail in their duties and responsibilities and pass the buck down to a younger NCO or in some cases even a jr enlisted soldier. How in the hell is a E5 with less than 3 yrs service ready to lead a team, how is an E6 with less than 6 yrs in ready to be an SL/PSG? Are you fucking kidding me? 4.5 mths in OSUT, 6 months with a in a new unit, 18 mth deployment, 9-12 mth redeployment home and recovery, and now that soldier is ready to lead a team in combat? WTF? On top of that, no professional training b/c his NCOES's have all been waved. Range school? Nah, fuck that I have already been to combat, beside why spend 4 mths of my life in Ranger school when I could be having fun... I have heard that way too many times.

Officers: Need I say more? Career risk adverse policy makers who are normally completely out of touch with any form of reality of the battle field or operational area. Passing the buck on to anyone else, no taking responsibility for any type of a command decision, fail to act, leave it up to the next unit releaving us, etc. Fucking get real, how in the hell can you have any format of leadership if you won't make a move unless your next hirer up says go? Only thing I have every seen an officer intrested in, is what is going help him get his next "that a boy" for his OER, so that he can make that next rank. I only know of one officer who truly through his career away for his soldiers during this past decade of war, and they booted him so quick it was not even funny (LTC Allen West, US Army 4thID Retired, Congressman from FL).

Is this a blanket statement for the Army as a whole? No! I think there has also been extraordinary people who have & do serve in the “New Army” and I would never wish to take anything away from those who have gone that extra mile, made that extra effort or took that hit for their people. But the vast majority is ate up like soup sandwich.

Combat seasoned Army? Yes very much so, however, those combat seasoned soldiers who have learned all that good stuff tend to be the one’s calling it quits after 1 to 2 enlistments. The bottom feeders are the ones that I have seen who fight to rank up and stay in, only deploying to get a tax free reenlistment bonus. Or worse the ones who stay in because they have found the best way to sham and refuse to deploy, etc.

I can go on a bit more, but I know about 90% of the above is going to piss off a few already, so I will stop here…


----------



## goon175 (Mar 12, 2012)

I can't disagree that some of our best and brightest call it quits after 1-2 enlistments, as they get fed up with what they see once they start reaching higher levels. A LOT of good guys that I know called it quits because of certain CSM's/1SG's, and the Army is worse off for having lost that kind of talent, in my opinion.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 12, 2012)

Coming from my limited knowledge and experience I can attest at least on the schoolhouse side coming from a Senior Military College that the Army over-calculated starting with accessions group 2011 which I was originally a part of, I became part of 2012 when LDAC was deferred for me and I graduated late.  When I got on campus we had 55 four year scholarship winners, which was unheard of, 2012 was 50.  

Yet the class that is the problem is the accessions group of 2013...the current MSIII class at VMI is 187 strong and I think is at 170 contracted with the other 17 fighting through waivers.  The Colonel, wants to send all 187 to camp which will blow whatever record out of the water.  Of those 187 I'd say at least 150 are from VMI and partnership schools take up the rest.  

So my point is if the Army over-calculated big time at VMI they over-calculated everywhere so either the scores at Camp are going to have to be set higher or many people that attained four year scholarships at regular colleges are going to be sent to IRR.  

A friend of mine currently in Afghanistan told me he was getting out, his reason: not a single senior officer around him had mentored him.  He also had a walk on water OER like most do.  So that's the complaint and reason why a good artillery officer will be getting out as soon as his commitment is up.


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 13, 2012)

ThunderHorse said:


> ...
> 
> A friend of mine currently in Afghanistan told me he was getting out, his reason: not a single senior officer around him had mentored him. He also had a walk on water OER like most do. So that's the complaint and reason why a good artillery officer will be getting out as soon as his commitment is up.


 
I've said before that one of the fundamental failings of our officer system is that for many, the first time they are told that they matter, that they're doing a good job, that what they do is important, and that they should stay in, is when they are standing in front of the brigade commander's desk asking him to sign their REFRAD paperwork. By then it's too late. For the most part, "mentorship" is a myth in the officers' corps. What little mentorship I did see, looked a lot like cronyism. When it does happen the way it is supposed to, it's great for everyone involved. But it has been my experience that it's mostly lip service.


----------



## AWP (Mar 13, 2012)

Re: mentorship from the two posts above

I could not agree more. There was very little in OCS and none in my unit. When I was looking for a new home (the Guard works a bit differently than the AD side) it was the same thing over and over again.

It was discouraging enough I dropped my papers for the ING and never really looked back.


----------



## Chevy (Mar 19, 2012)

JAB said:


> Came in right after 9/11, the difference really came around 05-06 when we saw Iraq was not going to be as open shut as we thought. Standards got dropped, people got promoted that should not have, and schools got put off due to deployments. The Army decided to reinvent the wheel, instead of realizing that the problem was not resolvable with a new policy or power point class. At a time when we needed better trained soldiers from BCT/OSUT, we got less trained, less disciplined soldiers.
> 
> I can go on a bit more, but I know about 90% of the above is going to piss off a few already, so I will stop here…


 

No I really do think you should go on some more. Maybe thats what the ppl need to hear. Sometimes the truth piss ppl off because it applies to them. You mad a lot of good points, an raised some interesting questions.


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 19, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> It was discouraging enough I dropped my papers for the ING and never really looked back.



I just did the same, I am now in the ING as well.


----------



## KBAR-04 (Mar 28, 2012)

I have to agree to some extent. I retired as a field grade officer but not from the typical line...prior enlisted and I was a reservist recalled to active duty after 9/11, after having spent 11 years active. I really didnt care about playing the political game and the funny thing was, my seniors respected that and I did better than my political peers..yes Ive seen all the stupid games mediocre officers played. I understand a good bit of it, if you are a career officer, we have an up or out system...something that needs to be changed in my opinion. When master's degrees and PME count more than combat experience and leadership abilities..well you see where this goes.


----------

