warpedskydiver 0 #51 February 1, 2008 Your opinion is one that I share also. No matter what the MOS, someday you may have to fight like infantry. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GQ_jumper 4 #52 February 1, 2008 "Stress card!!! Stress card!!!" Dan (and others with direct experience) - do you think that Basic/AIT in today's Army does an adequate job in preparing troops for the stress of combat? How well are you seeing new soldiers manage the situation? Quote Well I don't know that stress cards were actually ever used, i've never seen or heard of em, only stories and rumors. As for how basic training is nowadays, no idea either, the last time I had to deal with soldiers just out of basic was in '02. The last time I got a new batch of privates to work with they seemed to be pretty good, and listening to them they went through basically the same basic I went through. Back them they ere still big with Drill and Ceremony and all the little things that people picture when they think of the military and basic training. Our combat training was more geared towards teh last war, Viet Nam, so we did a lot of patrolling in the woods. From what I've heard they have geared basic more towards the combat we are seeing nowadays, basically it just evolved to reflect the modern battlefield. I also heard that there is far less emphasis on marching, formations, and all the little toy soldier things than there was before, so that's ahuge plus. As for preparing people for the stress of combat, that's an individual issue, some people are just naturally calm and relaxed and some people can never handle it no matter how hard you train. You can teach a boxer to be the best striker in the world, but if he's afraid of getting punched back there's no amount of training that can fix that, you gotta get him in the ring and get him used to it.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #53 February 1, 2008 Quote Quote If one asserts that low morale (the independent variable) correlates with increased suicide rate (a dependent variable), one would reasonably expect to observe a decrease in *re*-enlistment rates (another dependent variable). As we know, re-enlistment rates, however, have been “remarkably” high over the last few years, most notably among those soldiers deployed in combat areas. Before drawing any conclusions you might want to check on the increases in re-enlistment bonuses the Pentagon is having to pay to get the high re-enlistment rates. stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA013058 shows that bonuses ahev a measurable, statistically significant effect. Sounds like a (potentially) very interesting case study for historical comparison: Title : Effect of the Variable Reenlistment Bonus on Reenlistment Rates: Empirical Results for FY 1971, Corporate Author : RAND CORP SANTA MONICA CALIF Personal Author(s) : Enns, John H. Report Date : JUN 1975 Abstract: The report is a preliminary study affirming that the variable reenlistment bonus is an effective policy tool for increasing first-term reenlistment rates. In all three regression models of supply, for the Army, Navy, and Air Force, the estimated coefficient measuring the marginal response of the reenlistment rate to bonus awards proved positive, substantial, and statistically significant. There is some evidence that subgroups of the first-term enlisted force (classified by education, mental ability, and race) differ in their response to bonus awards, and that the response varies across DoD occupational groups. The results of this study are tentative in nature. The data used pertain to a single year, FY 71; because reenlistment behavior during this year was affected by the Vietnam conflict and the draft, future work with additional year group data is necessary. Unfortunately full-text does not appear to be available. ... at first, I wondered how valid is a comparison based on data from a conscript ('draft') military versus an all-volunteer military. Somewhat, yes sure ... but significantly less than certain I would publish w/out caveats. Poked around a lil’ more via Google Scholar ... & what emerges over time was more interesting (to me at least) ... A study that examined re-enlistment rates from FY1981 similarly also found that re-enlistment rates correlate positively with bonuses and higher pay level, more so for soldiers in combat operations: The Effect of Pay and Retention Bonuses on Quit Rates in the U.S. Army, Hyder Lakhani, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 41, No. 3 (Apr., 1988), pp. 430-438. (The full text article is only available if one has access via subscription; if any one wants to double check my analysis, PM me w/an email addy & I’ll send over the full-text file for ‘educational purposes’.) A study which looked at men who enlisted in the Army's infantry from FY1974 to FY1984 found that among 11 parameters, include 7 exogenous ones (i.e., things/change outside of the military’s control, such unemployment) that pay grade and bonuses correlate positively w/re-enlistment rates: Estimating Dynamic Models of Quit Behavior: The Case of Military Reenlistment, Thomas Daula, Robert Moffitt, Journal of Labor Economics, Vol. 13, No. 3 (Jul., 1995), pp. 499-523. (Ditto w/r/t full text.) A study of re-enlistment rates FY1996-FY1999 found that re-enlistment correlated positively to two or fewer “non-hostile” deployments across the services and positively to two or fewer “hostile” deployments for those in the Army or Marine Corps but negatively for those in the Navy or Air Force. Curious. More than two “hostile” deployments significantly decreased re-enlistment rates across the services. Serving Away from Home How Deployments Influence Reenlistment, James Hosek, Mark Totten, RAND report, 2002. (Full text available through DTIC.) A study of reenlistments from FY1990 - FY2000, found that pay and bonuses has significant impact on retention across the majority of occupations ("MOS") for those with less than 10 years of service. After 10 years of service, bonuses did not correlate significantly with re-enlistment: A Model of Reenlistment Behavior: Estimates of the Effects of Army's Selective Reenlistment Bonus on Retention by Occupation, Hogan, Paul F.; Espinosa, Javier ; Mackin, Patrick C. ; Greenston, Peter M., Jun 2005. (Full text available through DTIC.) What one ends up with – via albeit a cursory meta-analysis – is that the positive relationship between bonuses and re-enlistment is well known – semi-quantitatively – and well-established over more than 3 decades under very different situations (draft/volunteer, Cold-War/Peace Dividend) and suggests a known baseline for estimating/anticipating re-enlistment rates and the impact of bonuses. Other factors that have been shown to correlate positively w/re-enlistment rates include higher pay grade, increases in retirement pay, number of dependents, and higher unemployment in the civilian economy. Speculative hypothesis: What the meta-analysis *also* suggests is that the remarkably high level of re-enlistment observed among soldiers serving in combat during OEF/OIF is historically exceptional and may not be explained by the usual factors present over the last 30 years, i.e., it's unlikely to be due to bonuses alone. Conclusion: So far, the counter-test case (of the original correlation) that I asserted has not been demonstrated to be invalid. VR/Marg ... Just see [idrankwhat] & [lawrocket]'s new sig lines Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #54 February 2, 2008 Thanks, Dan... I appreciate it. I remember the quote "You always train for the LAST war" and wondered if training had caught up.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #55 February 2, 2008 Quote"Stress card!!! Stress card!!!" Dan (and others with direct experience) - do you think that Basic/AIT in today's Army does an adequate job in preparing troops for the stress of combat? How well are you seeing new soldiers manage the situation? basic training has changed significantly in the last few years... the training itself is much better imo (i deal with alot of soldiers at the AIT level and beyond) however the over all quality of recruits is going down. For the most part those who can are finding 'better' options, and many of the 'best and brightest' are accepting positions outside the military, ofc many are also returning as contractors where the reward for the risk is higher.. stress itself is an entirely different aspect. one i dont think you can really teach in the short course of basic and (most) AIT (particularly while focusing on a highly technical field).. the fact that the recruits are coming from 'less stressful' upbringing means many of the common military situation and circumstances are unfamiliar.. unknowns always increase stress levels____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GQ_jumper 4 #56 February 2, 2008 Thanks, Dan... I appreciate it. I remember the quote "You always train for the LAST war" and wondered if training had caught up.Quote From what I understand the training has ver much caught up to where we are finding ourselves today, it's not as simple as it used to be where there were the bad guys in different uniforms and us in our uniforms, it's a whole different ball game and those of us that were brought up with the old mindset had to learn on the fly after 9-11. I think th Army has moved in a great direction with what it is teaching the new guys. But like Zen said, you can't teach someone to deal with stress, I'm only 26 and I'm already seeing a huge gap between myself and the 18-20 year olds coming in. You don't see the tough corn-fed country boys nearly as much as you used to, it's a shame. I'm kindof glad I'm getting ready to step out of the operational inventory for a few years, hopefully things willturn around and the military will grow some balls and return the privilige of getting to put a boot in someone's ass back to the instructors so hey can toughen up the new kids and make their mental toughness match the training they possessHistory does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #57 February 2, 2008 QuoteQuote"Stress card!!! Stress card!!!" Dan (and others with direct experience) - do you think that Basic/AIT in today's Army does an adequate job in preparing troops for the stress of combat? How well are you seeing new soldiers manage the situation? basic training has changed significantly in the last few years... the training itself is much better imo (i deal with alot of soldiers at the AIT level and beyond) however the over all quality of recruits is going down. For the most part those who can are finding 'better' options, and many of the 'best and brightest' are accepting positions outside the military, ofc many are also returning as contractors where the reward for the risk is higher..Quote Thanks, Zen... I appreciate the insight on how the new troops are, coming out of training. Do you see the new training as helping them handle the increased stress, or would you say it's roughly the same? As one of those contractors mentioned (but not in the sandbox), there's definitely a 'reward vs. risk' scale... but, to be honest, the pay isn't as good as a lot of people think it is. Quotestress itself is an entirely different aspect. one i dont think you can really teach in the short course of basic and (most) AIT (particularly while focusing on a highly technical field).. the fact that the recruits are coming from 'less stressful' upbringing means many of the common military situation and circumstances are unfamiliar.. unknowns always increase stress levels Another question, here - would something like the USMC's "Gauntlet" (I *think* that's what it's called) help in weeding out those that can't handle the pressure, do you think?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #58 February 2, 2008 Thanks, Dan - I'd appreciate your comments on my response to Zen, above, about the "Gauntlet" if you would.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #59 February 2, 2008 I'm one of those contractors too... but we are increasingly hiring more and more and often doing a good bit of what should be the soldiers jobs... IMO Marine Corps style training could work, but it is unlikely to produce the volume of recruits required, nor should every single job field need that level of intense stress specific training if the 'system' works as designed.. the fact we are using the US military in a role (nation building and police action vs actual warfighting) that it was never intended or designed for is causing a great deal of the additional stressors.. Op Tempo is HUGE... count me in the "Erik was Right" group... its a good damn thing he pretty much told Rumsfeld to get bent about the early planned draw downs or we'd be in alot more trouble... atm the military is doing the best with what it has, and adapting to the changing environment in the current conflict. But IMO this model is not sustainable, and in many ways we are creating soldiers that are '1 layer deep' and have a limited understanding of the "why's and wherefore's" of what their complete job is and its(their) part in the modern battlefield... while this isn't a problem now it will certainly show if/when we face a 'peer fighting force' without some significant retraining/retooling.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 3 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
nerdgirl 0 #53 February 1, 2008 Quote Quote If one asserts that low morale (the independent variable) correlates with increased suicide rate (a dependent variable), one would reasonably expect to observe a decrease in *re*-enlistment rates (another dependent variable). As we know, re-enlistment rates, however, have been “remarkably” high over the last few years, most notably among those soldiers deployed in combat areas. Before drawing any conclusions you might want to check on the increases in re-enlistment bonuses the Pentagon is having to pay to get the high re-enlistment rates. stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA013058 shows that bonuses ahev a measurable, statistically significant effect. Sounds like a (potentially) very interesting case study for historical comparison: Title : Effect of the Variable Reenlistment Bonus on Reenlistment Rates: Empirical Results for FY 1971, Corporate Author : RAND CORP SANTA MONICA CALIF Personal Author(s) : Enns, John H. Report Date : JUN 1975 Abstract: The report is a preliminary study affirming that the variable reenlistment bonus is an effective policy tool for increasing first-term reenlistment rates. In all three regression models of supply, for the Army, Navy, and Air Force, the estimated coefficient measuring the marginal response of the reenlistment rate to bonus awards proved positive, substantial, and statistically significant. There is some evidence that subgroups of the first-term enlisted force (classified by education, mental ability, and race) differ in their response to bonus awards, and that the response varies across DoD occupational groups. The results of this study are tentative in nature. The data used pertain to a single year, FY 71; because reenlistment behavior during this year was affected by the Vietnam conflict and the draft, future work with additional year group data is necessary. Unfortunately full-text does not appear to be available. ... at first, I wondered how valid is a comparison based on data from a conscript ('draft') military versus an all-volunteer military. Somewhat, yes sure ... but significantly less than certain I would publish w/out caveats. Poked around a lil’ more via Google Scholar ... & what emerges over time was more interesting (to me at least) ... A study that examined re-enlistment rates from FY1981 similarly also found that re-enlistment rates correlate positively with bonuses and higher pay level, more so for soldiers in combat operations: The Effect of Pay and Retention Bonuses on Quit Rates in the U.S. Army, Hyder Lakhani, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 41, No. 3 (Apr., 1988), pp. 430-438. (The full text article is only available if one has access via subscription; if any one wants to double check my analysis, PM me w/an email addy & I’ll send over the full-text file for ‘educational purposes’.) A study which looked at men who enlisted in the Army's infantry from FY1974 to FY1984 found that among 11 parameters, include 7 exogenous ones (i.e., things/change outside of the military’s control, such unemployment) that pay grade and bonuses correlate positively w/re-enlistment rates: Estimating Dynamic Models of Quit Behavior: The Case of Military Reenlistment, Thomas Daula, Robert Moffitt, Journal of Labor Economics, Vol. 13, No. 3 (Jul., 1995), pp. 499-523. (Ditto w/r/t full text.) A study of re-enlistment rates FY1996-FY1999 found that re-enlistment correlated positively to two or fewer “non-hostile” deployments across the services and positively to two or fewer “hostile” deployments for those in the Army or Marine Corps but negatively for those in the Navy or Air Force. Curious. More than two “hostile” deployments significantly decreased re-enlistment rates across the services. Serving Away from Home How Deployments Influence Reenlistment, James Hosek, Mark Totten, RAND report, 2002. (Full text available through DTIC.) A study of reenlistments from FY1990 - FY2000, found that pay and bonuses has significant impact on retention across the majority of occupations ("MOS") for those with less than 10 years of service. After 10 years of service, bonuses did not correlate significantly with re-enlistment: A Model of Reenlistment Behavior: Estimates of the Effects of Army's Selective Reenlistment Bonus on Retention by Occupation, Hogan, Paul F.; Espinosa, Javier ; Mackin, Patrick C. ; Greenston, Peter M., Jun 2005. (Full text available through DTIC.) What one ends up with – via albeit a cursory meta-analysis – is that the positive relationship between bonuses and re-enlistment is well known – semi-quantitatively – and well-established over more than 3 decades under very different situations (draft/volunteer, Cold-War/Peace Dividend) and suggests a known baseline for estimating/anticipating re-enlistment rates and the impact of bonuses. Other factors that have been shown to correlate positively w/re-enlistment rates include higher pay grade, increases in retirement pay, number of dependents, and higher unemployment in the civilian economy. Speculative hypothesis: What the meta-analysis *also* suggests is that the remarkably high level of re-enlistment observed among soldiers serving in combat during OEF/OIF is historically exceptional and may not be explained by the usual factors present over the last 30 years, i.e., it's unlikely to be due to bonuses alone. Conclusion: So far, the counter-test case (of the original correlation) that I asserted has not been demonstrated to be invalid. VR/Marg ... Just see [idrankwhat] & [lawrocket]'s new sig lines Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #54 February 2, 2008 Thanks, Dan... I appreciate it. I remember the quote "You always train for the LAST war" and wondered if training had caught up.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #55 February 2, 2008 Quote"Stress card!!! Stress card!!!" Dan (and others with direct experience) - do you think that Basic/AIT in today's Army does an adequate job in preparing troops for the stress of combat? How well are you seeing new soldiers manage the situation? basic training has changed significantly in the last few years... the training itself is much better imo (i deal with alot of soldiers at the AIT level and beyond) however the over all quality of recruits is going down. For the most part those who can are finding 'better' options, and many of the 'best and brightest' are accepting positions outside the military, ofc many are also returning as contractors where the reward for the risk is higher.. stress itself is an entirely different aspect. one i dont think you can really teach in the short course of basic and (most) AIT (particularly while focusing on a highly technical field).. the fact that the recruits are coming from 'less stressful' upbringing means many of the common military situation and circumstances are unfamiliar.. unknowns always increase stress levels____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GQ_jumper 4 #56 February 2, 2008 Thanks, Dan... I appreciate it. I remember the quote "You always train for the LAST war" and wondered if training had caught up.Quote From what I understand the training has ver much caught up to where we are finding ourselves today, it's not as simple as it used to be where there were the bad guys in different uniforms and us in our uniforms, it's a whole different ball game and those of us that were brought up with the old mindset had to learn on the fly after 9-11. I think th Army has moved in a great direction with what it is teaching the new guys. But like Zen said, you can't teach someone to deal with stress, I'm only 26 and I'm already seeing a huge gap between myself and the 18-20 year olds coming in. You don't see the tough corn-fed country boys nearly as much as you used to, it's a shame. I'm kindof glad I'm getting ready to step out of the operational inventory for a few years, hopefully things willturn around and the military will grow some balls and return the privilige of getting to put a boot in someone's ass back to the instructors so hey can toughen up the new kids and make their mental toughness match the training they possessHistory does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #57 February 2, 2008 QuoteQuote"Stress card!!! Stress card!!!" Dan (and others with direct experience) - do you think that Basic/AIT in today's Army does an adequate job in preparing troops for the stress of combat? How well are you seeing new soldiers manage the situation? basic training has changed significantly in the last few years... the training itself is much better imo (i deal with alot of soldiers at the AIT level and beyond) however the over all quality of recruits is going down. For the most part those who can are finding 'better' options, and many of the 'best and brightest' are accepting positions outside the military, ofc many are also returning as contractors where the reward for the risk is higher..Quote Thanks, Zen... I appreciate the insight on how the new troops are, coming out of training. Do you see the new training as helping them handle the increased stress, or would you say it's roughly the same? As one of those contractors mentioned (but not in the sandbox), there's definitely a 'reward vs. risk' scale... but, to be honest, the pay isn't as good as a lot of people think it is. Quotestress itself is an entirely different aspect. one i dont think you can really teach in the short course of basic and (most) AIT (particularly while focusing on a highly technical field).. the fact that the recruits are coming from 'less stressful' upbringing means many of the common military situation and circumstances are unfamiliar.. unknowns always increase stress levels Another question, here - would something like the USMC's "Gauntlet" (I *think* that's what it's called) help in weeding out those that can't handle the pressure, do you think?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #58 February 2, 2008 Thanks, Dan - I'd appreciate your comments on my response to Zen, above, about the "Gauntlet" if you would.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #59 February 2, 2008 I'm one of those contractors too... but we are increasingly hiring more and more and often doing a good bit of what should be the soldiers jobs... IMO Marine Corps style training could work, but it is unlikely to produce the volume of recruits required, nor should every single job field need that level of intense stress specific training if the 'system' works as designed.. the fact we are using the US military in a role (nation building and police action vs actual warfighting) that it was never intended or designed for is causing a great deal of the additional stressors.. Op Tempo is HUGE... count me in the "Erik was Right" group... its a good damn thing he pretty much told Rumsfeld to get bent about the early planned draw downs or we'd be in alot more trouble... atm the military is doing the best with what it has, and adapting to the changing environment in the current conflict. But IMO this model is not sustainable, and in many ways we are creating soldiers that are '1 layer deep' and have a limited understanding of the "why's and wherefore's" of what their complete job is and its(their) part in the modern battlefield... while this isn't a problem now it will certainly show if/when we face a 'peer fighting force' without some significant retraining/retooling.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 3 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
mnealtx 0 #57 February 2, 2008 QuoteQuote"Stress card!!! Stress card!!!" Dan (and others with direct experience) - do you think that Basic/AIT in today's Army does an adequate job in preparing troops for the stress of combat? How well are you seeing new soldiers manage the situation? basic training has changed significantly in the last few years... the training itself is much better imo (i deal with alot of soldiers at the AIT level and beyond) however the over all quality of recruits is going down. For the most part those who can are finding 'better' options, and many of the 'best and brightest' are accepting positions outside the military, ofc many are also returning as contractors where the reward for the risk is higher..Quote Thanks, Zen... I appreciate the insight on how the new troops are, coming out of training. Do you see the new training as helping them handle the increased stress, or would you say it's roughly the same? As one of those contractors mentioned (but not in the sandbox), there's definitely a 'reward vs. risk' scale... but, to be honest, the pay isn't as good as a lot of people think it is. Quotestress itself is an entirely different aspect. one i dont think you can really teach in the short course of basic and (most) AIT (particularly while focusing on a highly technical field).. the fact that the recruits are coming from 'less stressful' upbringing means many of the common military situation and circumstances are unfamiliar.. unknowns always increase stress levels Another question, here - would something like the USMC's "Gauntlet" (I *think* that's what it's called) help in weeding out those that can't handle the pressure, do you think?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #58 February 2, 2008 Thanks, Dan - I'd appreciate your comments on my response to Zen, above, about the "Gauntlet" if you would.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #59 February 2, 2008 I'm one of those contractors too... but we are increasingly hiring more and more and often doing a good bit of what should be the soldiers jobs... IMO Marine Corps style training could work, but it is unlikely to produce the volume of recruits required, nor should every single job field need that level of intense stress specific training if the 'system' works as designed.. the fact we are using the US military in a role (nation building and police action vs actual warfighting) that it was never intended or designed for is causing a great deal of the additional stressors.. Op Tempo is HUGE... count me in the "Erik was Right" group... its a good damn thing he pretty much told Rumsfeld to get bent about the early planned draw downs or we'd be in alot more trouble... atm the military is doing the best with what it has, and adapting to the changing environment in the current conflict. But IMO this model is not sustainable, and in many ways we are creating soldiers that are '1 layer deep' and have a limited understanding of the "why's and wherefore's" of what their complete job is and its(their) part in the modern battlefield... while this isn't a problem now it will certainly show if/when we face a 'peer fighting force' without some significant retraining/retooling.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 3 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
mnealtx 0 #58 February 2, 2008 Thanks, Dan - I'd appreciate your comments on my response to Zen, above, about the "Gauntlet" if you would.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #59 February 2, 2008 I'm one of those contractors too... but we are increasingly hiring more and more and often doing a good bit of what should be the soldiers jobs... IMO Marine Corps style training could work, but it is unlikely to produce the volume of recruits required, nor should every single job field need that level of intense stress specific training if the 'system' works as designed.. the fact we are using the US military in a role (nation building and police action vs actual warfighting) that it was never intended or designed for is causing a great deal of the additional stressors.. Op Tempo is HUGE... count me in the "Erik was Right" group... its a good damn thing he pretty much told Rumsfeld to get bent about the early planned draw downs or we'd be in alot more trouble... atm the military is doing the best with what it has, and adapting to the changing environment in the current conflict. But IMO this model is not sustainable, and in many ways we are creating soldiers that are '1 layer deep' and have a limited understanding of the "why's and wherefore's" of what their complete job is and its(their) part in the modern battlefield... while this isn't a problem now it will certainly show if/when we face a 'peer fighting force' without some significant retraining/retooling.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
