I had the opportunity to spend a few days this last week at Fort Benning, Georgia. It is now the U.S. Army’s Maneuver Center but has been known as “The Home of the Infantry” even longer. I went ostensibly because of my Nephew’s graduation from Infantry One Station Unit Training (OSUT). However, I traveled early specifically because I had additional objectives in mind. It was a perfect excuse for me to at least briefly observe training first hand and engage some of the training cadre. My time was short so my impressions below are admittedly not scientific or comprehensive. Still, I spent a great part of my professional career quickly assessing the capabilities and status of individuals and units. Therefore, I have reasonably strong confidence in the accuracy of these snapshot assessments. While there, I met with OSUT Drill Sergeants, Officer Candidate School (OCS) Tactical Officers (TACs) and even members of the 1st SFAB.
I will start by enthusiastically and shamelessly plugging the National Infantry Museum (NIM) that is located just outside one of the Post’s gates just off Victory Drive. I actually visited the NIM twice. The first time by myself and the second time with my Nephew and his family. It is an impressive and ultra-modern historical facility and is open and free to the public. There is everything one would expect from a museum focused on the Infantry. Like small arms and support weapons displays – including never fielded experimental items – broken down by era. Likewise, uniforms and field gear. Touch screens accompany many displays and provide background and context on the history of the individual exhibits. For those that appreciate the art of scale modeling, as I do, there are a number of examples displayed throughout the museum including several impressive professionally built dioramas of battle scenes. If I had more time, I would have gone through a couple more times. The NIM alone is worth the side trip if you happen to be in the area.
On my second visit to the NIM, I had one of my better Forrest Gump moments. That is I was in the right place at the right time. By sheer coincidence, it happened that the 1st SFAB had their official activation ceremony on the parade field behind the museum mid-day on Thursday. I cannot tell you who was in the reviewing stand on the far side of the field or who spoke at the ceremony. I observed the event from the second level observation windows of the NIM. I had a great view – but no sound! Two things stuck out immediately about the unit formation. First, as to be expected, it is much smaller than a standard modern maneuver Brigade. Second, it is a combined arms and multifunctional organization. There were infantry, artillery, engineer, combat support and combat service support company guidons on display.
SSD has already reported on their revised beret color. In person, it is dark brown as the pic he posted most recently showed. No mistaking it for the SF green or Ranger tan berets. Likewise, the revised patch is more distinct than the earlier version. I talked in passing to a handful of the younger SFAB NCOs after the ceremony. They were all combat vets – as were most of the NCOs and Officers I saw from the unit. Not to say there were not some without combat patches, but they were few in number compared to those with combat experience. To a man, they were eager to get on with their upcoming deployment. In short, they seemed sharp, disciplined, motivated and ready to take on their mission. As I have said on this site before, I have concerns about meeting their long-term personnel sustainment needs or if the Army can find enough talent to stand up six SFABs total. However, I do believe the mission is valid and, based on everything I have seen and read, I am convinced this first unit is well prepared to tackle this critical assignment.
I had hoped to spend some quality time with the Black Hats at Airborne School but had only limited success. I observed training for the students in ground week for a couple of hours. Specifically the aircraft exit drills on the 34’ Towers. Not much has changed in this phase of the school since WWII or when I went through decades ago. No surprise, the mechanics of jumping out of a fixed wing aircraft in flight or the physics of how a parachute canopy functions have not really needed to evolve much over the years. Consequently, although the students were wearing ACHs rather than steel pots or camouflaged ACUs rather than OD green fatigues, the drills looked exactly the same. The tempo of the drills and the student to instructor ratio was such that I did not get to talk with the Black Hats there. They were simply too busy for me to feel comfortable interrupting their rhythm. I had intended to go out to Fryar Drop Zone on Wednesday. The Cadre Drop Zone Safeties usually have down time between aircraft sorties and I knew that was my best opportunity. However, it drizzled rain all that day and I unfortunately did not have the option of rescheduling.
I did get to spend two early mornings with the TACs at OCS during their 0545 PT sessions. It was my first formal exposure to some of the newer PT techniques that the Army is transitioning towards. For old timers, the most obvious difference is that PT is a lot quieter than it used to be. Not any “in cadence…exercise” involved in the new system. There were still traditional pushups as well as a number of variations, pullups, dips, fireman’s carries and tire rolls. In short, it was not as exotic or unfamiliar as I might have expected. In fact, it just looked a lot more like the small team / individualized PT I had seen and practiced for years in SF units. Of course that means it was quite different from the centralized and regimented system I had experienced in line infantry units way back when. I do not know if this system will ultimately result in better overall physical conditioning. I do suspect that it will generate fewer long-term joint issues than the old system routinely produced. In any case, by the end of those hour plus drills I observed, it seemed obvious that the OCS Candidates were getting a good workout.
I, of course, spoke to my Nephew quite a bit about his experiences in OSUT. I also talked to a number of his compadres. They were all sharp, disciplined, respectful, and showed appropriate pride in their uniforms – as one would expect of newly minted infantrymen. It would be fair to say that they seemed a hell of a lot more professional than my peers and I were at the same point in 1975. However, since the new guys did not have any real frame of reference, it was the Drill Sergeants that I was most interested in surveying. During the week, I spoke one on one with four different Drills, one from E Co, and three from C Co, 54th Infantry (OSUT). As one would expect, they were an impressive bunch of leaders and trainers. All had CIBs, some with multiple tours, all were airborne and one had his Ranger Tab. They certainly compared favorably with the Vietnam veteran Drill Sergeants that trained me.
I will summarize what we discussed beyond exchanging war stories. They were generally comfortable with the product that they were putting out to the force. They emphasized to me that they had already incorporated portions of the 2016, TC 3-22.9: Rifle and Carbine, during the Basic Rifle Marksmanship (BRM) portion of OSUT. In fact, Drill Sergeants were required to rotate through a formal marksmanship program on post specifically to learn how to train what was in the TC. They saw that as a significant positive and thought as a result that BRM was much improved from just a couple of years ago. Still, we all agreed that the new guys did not really know their ass from a hole in the ground yet – but they had proven to be trainable. However, we also agreed that they were no more clueless than we had all been at their age and level of training.
A generation in the Army is about six years. You can tell because every six years or so some young promotable Sergeant, Staff Sergeant or First Lieutenant will write a letter to the Army Times bemoaning the supposed FACT that today’s entry level soldiers are no longer as well trained, disciplined, patriotic or professional as they were when he or she came in. Of course, the “grizzled veteran” is oblivious to the fact that someone said exactly the same thing about him when he was a cherry soldier. After observing this cycle a few times, it becomes predictable and humorous. Often the alarm is raised because someone saw a ragbag or two at some airport. And, of course, that in turns means all new soldiers are ragbags. If you think an occasional disheveled soldier is a new phenomenon you must not have passed through an airport in the 70s, 80s, 90s or 2000s.
But, the alarmist will say, the standards have obviously been lowered! Standards change all the time. True, not all changes produce the intended results. In that case, standards will be readjusted yet again. Rigidly adhering to the old techniques because that “is how it has always been done” is even more counterproductive and ultimately dysfunctional than experimenting with change. The new PT routine I mentioned above is one example that may or may not be perfectly successful but will likely at least reduce rates of injury over time. But, but…the minimum standards are too low. This argument is entirely subjective so it is a little harder to refute. Most professional soldiers believe in demanding and achieving the highest practical standards – individually and collectively. I do. But do not fall into this trap. You will notice that the guy who can run fast always thinks the minimum run times should be shortened. If he is less confident about his upper body strength, he will argue just as energetically against raising the pushup standards.
Likewise, the guy who readily shoots expert thinks “marksman” is too low a standard. Alternatively, the guy who is already bilingual or learns languages easily always thinks 2/2 should be the minimum entry-level score for SF soldiers. I for one would not have gotten into SF if that had been the minimum standard. Each and every one of us have probably been in a situation where we were eternally grateful that the minimum passing standard was no higher than it was. My observations at Fort Benning led me to conclude that the minimum standards are being strictly enforced and that those new infantrymen, soldiers seeking those silver wings and candidates reaching for a commission are, in fact, doing far better than the minimums.
Let us talk about symbols. Are hats or beret colors important to you? Probably not. Ask any Green Beret and he will tell you that it is not the hat that makes the man and therefore the beret is not that important. He will be sincere when he says that, but just try to take that piece of felt away from him and suddenly it is important. Symbols in the military are significant and powerful. They are magic. But they only have as much magic power as we infuse them with – sometimes even including baptism with the blood of heroes. I thought of that magic as I pinned my Nephew’s infantry blue cord on his ASUs on Thursday morning. Symbols like that cord, or jump wings and jump boots, or tabs, or combat patches can simultaneously mean nothing…and everything.
I personally appreciate the passion that symbols evoke – often manifested in the comments on this site. I was in when GEN(R) Rogers took away the Airborne maroon beret and GEN(R) “Sly” Meyers gave it back a few years later. Paratroopers had complained about the beret until it was no longer authorized – then they wanted it back. Now it would be all but impossible to take it away from them again. GEN(R) Shinseki wanted to harness that symbolic power when he made the decision about issuing the black beret. I respect him and think he was well intentioned. Unfortunately, it has not worked. The Army has never managed to infuse the black beret with any magic. If it went away tomorrow, it is not likely that there would be much of a fight to keep it. However, those kids at OSUT did not know all of that history or drama and seemed genuinely proud to be wearing their berets. As a side note, I admit that I had not noticed before that the generic blue Army flash is a good match in color to that infantry blue cord.
Everyone I observed and talked to at Fort Benning gave me confidence in the future. These young people and their instructors are ably carrying on the traditions of selfless service the American people expect. The Army is sound and the Republic is not in any jeopardy with them – ever vigilant – on the parapets. They are at least as capable and motivated as those that served in my formative years and on par with every generation of soldiers I have served with since. Bottom line, they ARE as well trained, disciplined, patriotic and professional as we “old timers” like to think we were. My Nephew starts Jump School on Monday.
LTC Terry Baldwin, US Army (Ret) served on active duty from 1975-2011 in various Infantry and Special Forces assignments. SSD is blessed to have him as both reader and contributor.
Tags: LTC Terry Baldwin
Every generation thinks that the ones coming after it are disastrously worse than they were, and idolizes the generation before them as being the “last of the real men…”. This is a pretty common feature throughout history–Vegetius was making hay on that very premise.
You can take this feature of the human condition as a comfort, looking at the world around you. It is a fact.
The problem comes when you realize that for some of the past generations, this syndrome had the disturbing feature of actually being right. At some point during the fall of the Roman Empire, Vegetius and his ilk were actually, provably-beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt correct, or the Roman Empire would still be with us in a politically continuous form…
The trick is, I suppose, to recognize when the doom-sayers are actually right about this stuff, and then get the hell out out of the way when the entire shaky edifice of civilization comes crumbling down around you. And, too, to recognize that sometimes, just sometimes, the doom-sayers are partially correct, and it would do to listen to them and try to undo some of the things they’re pointing out.
Thanks for the update. I appreciate your objectivity and balanced perspective. And definitely a trip down memory lane…Best of luck to your nephew! He has an exciting journey ahead of him.
LTC Baldwin – Thanks for the excellent report. I am wondering, as a fellow alumni of the Ft Benning School for Boys, what were your observations on female integration in our beloved Infantry? Thanks again, I always enjoy your insights.
Old SF Guy,
Good question. The short answer is the OSUT Battalion that I visited has not been involved in female integration into infantry MOSs to date. Therefore, neither they nor I have direct knowledge of the current effort.
However, I can speak to my personal and professional experience in some 36 years with the integration of women into what had been traditionally male jobs. I was a Pathfinder in an Aviation Battalion in 1978 when the Women’s Army Corps or WACs disbanded and the women transitioned into Combat Service Support positions (CSS). Several young women came to the Battalion as helicopter maintainers and were in the maintenance company. Frankly, since they were maintainers, I did not have any real interaction with them at the time and had no objective basis to judge. I do vividly recall the howls from some quarters that declared the sky was falling and that any presence of women on the battlefield in any capacity ensured our defeat. Apparently, girl cooties would jinx us.
At the same time, West Point and eventually all the military schools like VMI integrated. Again, gender desegregation would supposedly bring down the institutions and end life as we knew it. The latter was indeed true, the former was not. There is some historical irony in that the opponents of racial desegregation made the exact same arguments against Truman’s integration order in 1948. My Father, who was a draftee 1951-53, saw some of that drama while he was serving. In both cases, integration happened, the world did not end, and the Armed Services moved on.
There was something of a lull in the integration process during the 80s. A few more job fields opened up from time to time but there were no major shifts. However, in 1984-85 I attended integrated OCS at Fort Benning. After my time as a Pathfinder, I had returned to line infantry units and had little visibility on what women – or men – were doing in CSS units. Notwithstanding that I had married one in 1979. OCS gave me a new perspective. The women did all the events with the males: PT, ranges, roadmarches, land navigation, field exercises and leadership. Long story short, by the end of that 14 weeks I had more professional confidence in some of those women then I did some of my male peers. Watching the integrated OCS class this last week I got the same impression.
Women were authorized to be utility helicopter pilots sometime in the 90s – I do not recall the exact time line. Then attack aviation and fighter pilots some time later. Again, each time it was a “drastic change” that was going to doom us all. But it did not. Today, most people still wearing the uniform are unaware there ever was any drama. During 10 years of GWOT I received fast mover and gunship support many times from female pilots. The gender of the pilot made no difference, and usually I did not even know until afterwards. Likewise, we started using women in an ad hoc fashion in what became known as female engagement teams. Not to mention gender integrated CA and Psyops teams or individual female intelligence analysts attached down to the ODA level. To a man, pun intended, they did a great job.
I have not personally met any of the women who have passed Ranger School. I did meet and work with a couple of Sapper Leader Course graduates in Iraq 2010-11. Both sharp officers and capable engineers. I have no doubt that if women can meet those standards then they can pass OSUT. A number already have. I know that this latest change is scary for some and maddening for others. There are probably people already screaming at their computer screens telling me how wrong I am. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, I predict that in a couple of years people will forget this was even a thing. Just like they did all those other times before.
I always like to remind people that Audie Murphy, at 5’4” and 120 pounds, was at first considered too scrawny and weak to serve in the infantry. I will have no concerns as long as all the OSUT trainees meet minimum established physical standards. On the other hand, the one area – not related to gender – that always concerns me is ASVAB waivers. I know how devastating McNamara’s 100,000 CAT IVs were to the Army in Vietnam. I went through Basic and Infantry AIT (OSUT had not been invented yet) with too many of those sub-par individuals. Some could not even read or comprehend the cartoon manuals the Army produced in those days. It was the mid-to-late 80s before we got rid of them. Then we lowered standards in the mid-2000s to put some of the same CAT IVs in the ranks again. If you ask me whether I would rather go into combat with a sharp infantry soldier CAT I-II or a CAT IV… I will always take the former without regard for the gender.
TLB
Sir – Thanks. In spite of my callsign I came up a bit later than yourself. As a matter of fact you were my company commander at SFAS late 90’s (or was it SUT phase around 2000?). So I am not that old but sometimes feeling it these days. My basic position – if women can meet “the standard” then they deserve to be there or in any unit for that matter. Anyway, tremendous amount of respect for your service and contribution to this site. DOL.
Old SF Guy,
F Company, STAR / SUT or Phase II as we called it then and Phase IV, Robin Sage 2000-2001. Good times.
It sounds like we are in agreement on the issue of female integration. Thanks.
TLB
Respectfully, this is the problem with the O5 and above level “getting a lay of the land.” No one is going to give you an accurate impression; they’re putting on their best show. No one is going to spill their guts to a retired guy about how the female E3 is always in bed with whomever.
There is a large contingent of E-X’s who don’t care for females because their young and biased. There’s another however that see the bulldroppings first hand.
Well done article! Thanks for the insight, and the depth of information. Spot on the black beret. It’s been a failure from the onset and we are far enough removed from the Shinski era that it should be able to go without recriminations. Now for everyone else with the recent spate of beret fetishes, that’s a story for another day.
I wonder, if the Army had authorized distinctive unit flashes as opposed to the blue flash, would the black beret have been better accepted?
But thats another issue, excellent article MR Baldwin
Thanks for an excellent update. makes me homesick for Fort Beginning.
The black beret should fade away if & when the Army adopts the next service uniform. However, I still do not understand why the Army has changed uniforms so many times in the last 17 years. I also think the has lost the value and usefulness of OD Green too.
The timing on this article is somewhat ironic, considering the following article on the changes coming to BCT was released on Military.com two days ago:
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/02/09/low-discipline-new-soldiers-prompts-army-redesign-basic-training.html
I suppose the 27,000 NCO and officers polled prior to developing these changes just lacked the proper perspective on things that LTC Baldwin’s article highlights.
Steve,
Fortunately, Infantry OSUT gives the Drill Sergeants several more weeks to instill discipline than BCT does. I do not discount what those NCOs and Officers observed and if they think more of this or less of that will help so be it.
Although I did not mention it because it was not applicable to OSUT, Drill Sergeants are returning to AIT as well to address similar concerns. That has also been in the works for a while.
Unfortunately, BCT has been prone to short term expansion and contraction of the POI for years. I am all for increasing the length of training, but that is not what we are talking about here. In this case BCT will still be 10 weeks as I understand it but some priorities have changed.
If you do more of this you must do less of that. There are practical trade offs and tough choices. Entry level training is just that. At some point the troops go to “real” units and naturally continue to be professionally polished by those NCOs and Officers.
I would also bet you that in a couple of years after a different survey some of the things being curtailed now like land navigation will be reemphasized. The natural circle of life at a school house.
TLB
As usual very well done Sir.
Wish we could have linked up during your visit. I do think it is much more challenging to be a leader in today’s Army. PC is real, the schedule is too full and dictated by echelons much higher than it should be. Individual leaders can overcome but it gets harder and harder and doesn’t need to be.
The Army’s problems aren’t where the rubber meets the road. Those stalwart volunteers will always do their best.
While I agree with much of your comments about women there are some real potential pitfalls to integration. If standards remain the same there won’t be a problem but in my experience standards don’t remain the same. We change them or eliminate them to further gender integration and then say the standards are the same. For instance we had a minimum number of pullups in airborne school in the day. The woman standard was lower but no one ever explained why women have to drive a chute less than men. Today there is no pullup requirement. It’s a flexed arm hang that has a variety of ways to circumvent it judged on a “case by case basis”. Again, do we not need to pull up on the risers? BTW, was that old five pullup standard too high? (Rhetorical questions)
I also commanded a coed unit. There are definitive and different group dynamic issues in coed units that can highly detract from the mission. Had the unit been an Infantry company the unit’s ability to complete missions would have been impacted. Administrative units just don’t operate at the razor’s edge where resources and people are not stressed in a wide variety of ways and potentially to the breaking point.
You mentioned a phenomena where the Army has accepted CAT IV troops under great need. The problem is the Army does other things like this when there is a great need and all too often that recent need is PC driven.
In any case the Army will overcome. It always has but it won’t always be successful and sometimes that price will be one that is too high to pay. The combat performance of the 507th Maintenance Company comes to mind. That fiasco caused the creation of the soldier’s creed and a re emphasis on training combat skills in support MOS’s. An effort that has been largely watered down and never took. (You don’t change an organization’s culture from the bottom up and the enhanced training only addressed new troops.) Was there no need then or no need now? (Again. rhetorical question.) We’ll be on this track until the next 507th Maintenance Company.
It likely won’t lose the war but it will get people killed that didn’t need to die. The Army will issue medals and create heroes hoping the real shortcomings don’t see the light of day…
Love your comments on the Infantry museum. It truly is a treasure. Also glad to hear Drill Sgt’s are getting some enhanced marksmanship training. That will pay dividends to new soldiers and the Army in general when they report back to line units.
Look forward to your next insights.
Will,
It has been my experience that there are fewer problems when we treat all soldiers the same. When we treat them differently it creates – or at least exacerbates – problems. The example of OCS is the best one I personally encountered where men and women were treated essentially the same by the cadre and the POI.
Soldiers tend to meet the expectations of their leaders. If expectations are high they will rise to the challenge. If expectations are low then the opposite happens. Likewise if we have different expectations of our male and female soldiers we should not be surprised we get different outcomes. That discrepancy in treatment also creates more than a perception that leaders are arbitrary, biased, and unfair based on gender.
As you rightly point out, one of the reasons that training fails to achieve our objective is that we tend to target the new priorities at initial entry soldiers. It is not the new PFCs job to train his or her leaders.
Again, you are spot on. To effectively “bring combat skills” up in a support unit for example it is necessary to focus on the NCOs and junior officers. Get some training support from a local infantry unit or elsewhere and take those “soft skill” leaders to the field and the range without their solders. Once the unit leadership has been trained they can pass those skills to their soldiers.
As I have said before, it enhances a leaders credibility (and confidence) when they can deliver the training to their own soldiers. Unfortunately we rarely do it the right way. It is easier to throw it back on the schoolhouse – and then bitch about how the new soldiers are not trained exactly the way the unit would like.
The Army, as an institution, has a poor track record of making decisions under stress. Every time recruiting or graduation numbers slip there is a knee jerk reaction to lower standards. That is true of the Q-Course and Ranger School as much as it is BCT or OSUT. That is an institutional problem not a training or soldier problem.
TLB
Will,
I relooked this and realized I had not directly addressed your comments about gender dynamics. I recognize that women are different than men. No two men are alike either. All soldiers need to be treated like individuals with value. At this point we have dealt fairly well with religious, ethnic and racial differences in the ranks. The challenge today with gender is much the same. A great deal of the problem with gender integration IMHO is not the women themselves but rather how male leaders react to those women.
I came into a different Army than today. There were enormous problems with race relations in 1975. I’m talking about white guys and black guys knifing each other in the barracks on a regular basis dysfunctional. Endemic animosity that was exacerbated by mostly white leaders who did not know how to deal effectively with soldiers that did not look like them.
In many case they made the same mistake as male leaders often make with female soldiers today. They choose to act like black soldiers were fundamentally different from white soldiers and had to be treated differently. The more they did that the worse the problem got. Strong teams cannot be built unless everyone on the roster is treated with uniform fairness.
“Special” treatment and accommodation help to perpetuate a form of well intentioned but still insidious segregation that serves to prevent full integration. It took a while and a great deal of education and OJT but eventually we figured out how to teach leaders to deal fairly with all the males in their unit – despite individual differences.
To be clear, we have not eliminated racial animosity, racism, or other bigotry; but we have found a way to minimize the impacts on unit cohesion, team work and combat effectiveness. We have not yet done as well with female integration. However, the solutions and the principles are much the same. Strong leadership, as usual, is the best answer.
TLB
I appreciate your role in helping solve the problems of the 80s and 70s Army. That being said, black and white male soldiers are identical with the exception of skin tone. Women and men are fundamentally physically different. Testosterone levels, strength-to-weight ratios, injury rates, and other physical differences remain.
It’s not a matter of “treating them all the same”. It inevitably results in lowered standards. Even when the Army says the “standard is the standard” they lowered it before it became a problem, reduced the standard overall, or set the females up for success in other smaller ways. The open letter from the SF NCO about SFAS illustrates that.
Seeing female soldiers take advantage of their sex for preferential treatment does not help anyone. You can’t remove the female/male sexual dynamic that is inherent to the sexes.
Further, the SHARP program has been weaponized to a degree that males leaders are afraid of their female subordinates. When the advice given by mentors is to not be in the same room alone, someone has gone terribly wrong.
Sir, totally agree on expecting and treating all soldiers the same. I lived that principle to the best of my ability.
The problem is while we can treat all soldiers the same, some will use institutional chinks in the system to benefit themselves placing leaders in almost untenable positions. Here’s the other dilemma. You often can’t tell which soldiers will game the system until they are in the position of not meeting a standard. Again, the leader should continue to treat everyone the same but the counter reaction (different than expecting less) is that leaders don’t personally hold that same unique category of soldiers to the same standard for fear of being accused of targeting that group with the impact that can have on one’s career as well as having to devote resources to counter a false charge.
A personal example is I commanded a unit where a minority soldier made the case to EO that I was targeting him for not meeting a standard because I was racist. My written response and testimony showed a standard wasn’t being met justifying the evaluation comment and that I also happened to be a minority officer. Other leaders who may not have chosen to take resources from other command responsibilities (time is a resource), risk losing such a case and having it reflect as racism or aren’t from a minority group themselves may not even make the effort. Is one eval really worth it when you have dozens of other competing tasks some of which are much more important? As leaders we are first responsible to the group. We want everyone performing inside a band of excellence but there’s a trade off if one focuses on individuals vs. units. (I’m certain you know all of this, just trying to help the casual reader following).
I’ve seen that happen also. leaders relying on the nameless “Institution” to eventually enforce some strict objective standard and keep those not meeting the standard to meet it. I remember a time where my commander pulled me aside and said, “Will, you’re a demanding and very fair leader but if enough mud is thrown at the wall something is going to stick.” Sadly I had to be less demanding (while maintaining minimum standards) with certain soldiers to ensure I survived, the same way the entire leader development institution treated a certain group. I don’t think that message was not lost on our charges. Troops are smart and I fear they took those lessons to the field.
Maybe someday we can talk in person and I can be more detailed in my explanation and experiences. The bottom line is the changing/lowering of standards doesn’t happen over night. It’s a slow process that eventually has 2md & 3rd order effects.
BM, excellent points.
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/02/11/marine-corps-quietly-drops-major-obstacle-female-infantry-officers.html
Thanks for sharing.
CLASSIC example of changing or lowering standards and then calling them the same to facilitate gender integration.
This one has the often added phenomenon of “does it really represent combat” with no discussion of why a standard that has been in effect for years if not decades doesn’t reflect current requirements.
Will, BM,
All valid points. But what you are clearly talking about is institutional cowardice. Just because the institution and some leaders are uncomfortable or have been uncomfortable dealing with race or gender issues is in no way a reflection of the character or capabilities of those groups of soldiers.
BM, you said that “black and white male soldiers are identical with the exception of skin tone.” I agree. But the point is, that is not what some white leaders believed in the 50s, 60s and even 70s. It was pretty blatant discrimination, as I witnessed myself.
It wasn’t black soldier that needed to change, it was the system. They had never needed to be held to a different, a.k.a. lower standard than their white counterparts. In fact, they were perfectly capable of meeting the same standard.
I’m simply suggesting that women could and would do a lot better if the institution – and some male leaders – would stop “protecting” them and get out of their way. I happen to think a fair number of women would meet the current standards if we would break the habit of making “special accommodations” for them.
Instead, as Joe mentioned above, we are overly concerned about who is sleeping with whom. Who cares? I never spent much time worrying about how often my male soldiers were getting laid. Why would I make a point of tracking my female soldiers sexual activity? If and when it somehow truly affects “good order and discipline” within a unit then deal with it accordingly.
Will, you are right, soldiers will “game” the system. They always have. But if they get over on the system it is because we let them. The “values” and “standards” of an organization only exist in as much as leaders have the courage to enforce them. It sounds like you have fought the good fight. Thank you for that. Great Discussion!
TLB