Army Strong?
In the summer of 1980, I volunteered to be an Army Drill Sergeant. As a Drill Sergeant candidate, I was sent to Fort McClellan, Alabama the former home of the Women’s Army Corps (WAC). Then it was the home of the Military Police One Station Unit Training (OSUT), Chemical schools Advanced Individual Training (AIT), and a Basic Combat Training (BCT) Brigade. By autumn, I had completed Drill Sergeant School and was returned to my unit, where for the next two and a half years, I moved 14 platoons through BCT.
At the time I began my tour, the Army was experimenting with integrated BCT consisting of males and females in the same company, but in all male or all female platoons. The experiment, for lack of a better term, failed. We returned to gender segregated BCT.
I trained males and females in gender integrated and gender segregated companies. Integrated companies presented unnecessary problems for training cadre. Just a simple example – when we force marched a company, the straggler vehicle would be collecting primarily female trainees. Ultimately the pace of was reduced so that most females could keep up. Before that happened however, there were multiple stress fractures, mostly pelvic, caused by females lengthening stride to keep up. There were other distractions that could have been avoided also. That is the escapades of teenagers, male and female, locked away together in the same barracks for 9 weeks. There was also the problem between some unscrupulous male Drill Sergeants and female trainees. It was not an environment conducive to effective BCT. When we returned to same sex companies, males and females performed better.
Some years after there was a federal advisory commission formed that recommended against gender integrated training below platoon level and that males and females be housed separately, but the recommendations were disregarded. When my son graduated BCT in the 90’s his company was integrated at squad level. I was of the belief then and now that our basic trainees were not put into best possible training environment to learn discipline and basic combat skills. They were not integrated because it was the best training condition; they were integrated to support a social engineering agenda.
Then came Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT). Contrary to popular belief, DADT was not the law that prohibited homosexual service it was federal law passed by Congress that did that. DADT was a Clinton Administration policy to circumvent the law passed by Congress. Under Bill Clinton’s policy, a person entering the service could no longer be asked if they were homosexual (don’t ask) and they could serve as long as they did not declare their homosexuality (don’t tell). The other common myth is that it was a military policy. For the stupid among us, under the Constitution it is Congress that establishes rules for the Armed Forces. But the typical news idiot will always tell you that the “military” policy prohibiting homosexual service was repealed. Although homosexuals have always served, we are a better force now because we have open homosexuality, homosexual marriage and homosexual dependents? I suppose those now serving will have to answer that for you.
Women in Combat Arms, was a discussion even before I left the service. Most of the women I knew were not interested and most of the men did not care as long as the women could me the standards. Combat Arms are now open to women. We were told that there would be no gender accommodations for physical standards…snicker, snicker… I saw a military times article that said there will be a unisex physical fitness standard. Male standards will be lowered. According to the Sergeant Major of the Army this will really increase troop morale. Well SMA, it looks like the participation trophy mentality has made it to the Army. Sorry brother, but maybe I am just an old dinosaur. But I do not recognize the Army you are building.
Now I suppose we have achieved social acceptance. Transgenders will now serve openly. I do not even know what that means. I suppose grooming and uniform standards just went out the window – and who knows what else. Will biological men wear women’s uniforms? Or male uniforms and make-up. Reckon that is why we are getting a unisex physical fitness standard?
Yep, let’s put another progressive administration in charge.
© 2016
Category: Politics
Pendry. I’m glad to see that you’re back. Your absence coincided with the flash floods and some of us wondered whether you and yours were okay.
Well done. I wish I could write like that. Everytime I try to say what you just did I end up screaming at the computer screen.
I admire you fortitude.
My Army son took his Basic Training at Fort McClellan, Oct/Nov of 87.
All male company (48th Inf), female Company Commander.
Don’t know if that made them an integrated company or not.
Did discover one thing from that, though. Instead of a Basic Training Cycle book like we old dinosaurs received, they got a VCR tape of their training/graduation.
When DADT was repealed, it changed nothing. By and large, we already knew who the homosexuals were among us, so when they could legally come out to us, the majority of the time our response was ‘no shit sherlock’. We got on with our day and it did not effect the mission in the slightest.
With women getting into combat arms, the military has decided to find a baseline of physical effort necessary to the specific MOS at hand. That does not mean they are lowering the standards, it means they are finally creating one. Reference the USMC Times last week, where they showed not a single female has met the bench mark yet, and many males who under the old system would have gone to the fleet and been subpar performers, are now failing as well and NOT going to pollute combat arms. The Army is doing the same thing. In theory it WILL make the military a more effective fighting force.
The only issue I have now is the transgender thing. The hormone therapy alone for them will make them non-deployable and therefore worthless to the military. Not to mention the issues of uniform and appearance or even PT regs. How long is it going to be until some hungover and out of shape PVT decides on the day of the APFT that he is no feeling like a female and scores a 300 on what should have been a failing male score?
ETC ad nauseum. End of Rant.
Addendum: For all of you who do not know the current SMA, I have had the privilege of serving with him in every stage of my Army career, and he is an out-fucking-standing Soldier and leader. I would go back to war with him in a heartbeat.
Remember that over 200 women met 0300 standards during the study period.
It does look like the Marines have raised standards. On the Army side, we haven’t raised standards per se, because we never really had an MOS specific physical standard (except for SF, divers, etc).
The best thing to come out of this is that every Soldier will not only have to meet entry standards based on their desired MOS, but they will have to pass each and every physical task to graduate from AIT/OSUT. It’s interesting to see that some of the ‘pogue’ MOSs actually have some high physical standards- mechanics have a lot of heavy lifts, as do engineers and truck drivers.
“The hormone therapy alone for them will make them non-deployable and therefore worthless to the military.”
To put that into some perspective….it is easier and cheaper to maintain a diabetic than a truly transgendered (or transvestite that opts for hormones but not the actual surgery)
Shouldn’t that be next? I mean thousands of patriots suffer from diabetes, but are currently discriminated against serving their country. (sarcasm)
For years, the refrain has been “DoD needs to reduce personnel costs, healthcare alone is eating the budget” now it comes out that transgenders will cost between $40,000-50,000. Isn’t that going to eat up the personnel budget?
Meanwhile, I still can’t get LASIK.
Humor aside, being a type 2 diabetic poses enough of a logistics challenge in the civilian world; how much more so in theater?
The biggest risk in diabetes Type 1 or 2 is patient compliance.
What patient compliance?
Not checking glucose, following dietary guideline, maintaining weight or using meds properly.
Every complication of diabetes (blindness/kidney disease/cardiovascular dz/neuropathy/stroke etc) is a result of inadequate glucose control and patient compliance is the number one reason for out of control glucose. Control the glucose and there will be no damage to other systems.
It was a rhetorical question. Didn’t know I’d need the /sarc tag 🙂
sorry…answering questions like that is a reflex
..and what of the cost and recovery time for the many follow-on surgical tweaks and tucks(reduction of cartilaginous and bony prominences, implants, epilation, etc) necessary to maintain a transgendered member on their journey to self-actualization?
You say that DADT was an administration policy designed to circumvent a law barring homosexual service. How do you explain this? http://legisworks.org/GPO/STATUTE-107-Pg1547.pdf
Section 571 is pretty clear that DADT was also passed by Congress and signed into law via the NDAA. Yes, it was later implemented as a DoD Directive, but it was definitely a statutory action that caused it, like it or not.
The House passed it 273-135 (Yea: 223-D, 50-R; Nay: 15-D, 120-R; Not Voting: 19-D, 5-R, 1-I). The Senate passed it 77-22 (Yea: 51-D, 26-R; Nay: 4-D, 18-R; Not Voting: 1-D).
Public Law 103-160, Section 654, Title 10
Excluded homosexuals from service
don’t ask don’t tell was a Clinton policy circumventing the law that passed both houses of congress with veto proof majorities – that allowed homosexual service as long as no one asked and they didn’t tell
The last paragraph in that section codified the administration’s policy regarding questioning and enlistment documents. It’s titled “Sense of Congress.” The policy didn’t “circumvent” anything for very long. Congress was well aware of what the administration wanted to do, and all parties communicated about this frequently. You should watch the HBO documentary “The Strange History of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
HBO?
The same bunch that has Bill Maher?
No thanks!
Good call. We don’t want any actual facts clouding our judgment in the discussion.
With the liberal bias that that network has, I do not trust their facts.
Be as condescending as you like.
Looks like we found Lars a teammate for the Dutch Rudder competition. ..
the National Defense Authorization Act is the public law, passed by Congress, that barred homosexuals from service.
‘Don’t Ask Dont’t Tell’ was the DoD policy (Department of Defense Directive 1304.26) that acknowledged the law but stated that recruiters and commanders could not ask individuals about their sexual preference.
http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/dodd/corres/pdf/d130426wch1_122193/d130426p.pdf
The NDAA is law, the DoD Directive is simply DoD’s method for implementing the law, developed by the civilian politically appointed leadership of DoD. It included Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and Don’t Pursue. The Don’t Pursue element outlined what constituted credible cause for a commander to pursue an investigation into someone’s sexuality.
Service members separated under DADT were rarely separated because the unit investigated them, they were separated because of their actions or statements. This created a situation in which claiming to be gay was a quick way out of the Army, which artificially inflated the numbers of chapters under this provision
SecDef stated that he was going to lift the ban on transgenders if “it didn’t show an adverse impact on readiness and performance”.
That’s a pretty low bar.
Why not make decisions on what will positively impact readiness and performance and increase the effectiveness of our military?
I guess that’s too much to ask for.
In the Army, not doing your Annual AT level-1 online course impacts your readiness because you can’t deploy without it done.
Ash Carter is just presenting whatever his boss tells him to present.
and why do it by completely bypassing the House Armed Services Committee and other persons of relative significance before issuing this edict?
They are rushing this because Obama wants his legacy and doesn’t want to be remembered only for pushing through Obamacare, among other disasters.
If women are not lining up in droves for BCT, it’s because they are not interested in getting their shit shot to shit.
That is as plainly as I can put it.
If they can’t fill the open slots for women in BCT, does that mean that the testing scores are going to be ignored or altered so that there is only one place they can go to fill an idiotic quota?
Look, when I signed up, I did not do it so that I could sit on my ass while other people were being shot at. Considering everything many years later, yes, I was better off where I was, although if it had been a wider-spread war, e.g., WWII, I might have found myself at the ends of the earth. Women being deployed overseas did happen during WWII, but things were different then. When I was in the Navy, women did not get training in weapons of any kind unless they were trying to qualify for a specific award.
I think it would make much more sense to ensure that women are now trained in the use of weapons, including artillery, as a means of defense rather than aiming at acquiring a badge of some kind. Things are different now, and they face different dangers than we did in the 1960s.
There aren’t any quotas. The SecDef and Service Secretaries have been adamant about that.
Women in all of the services go to the same BCT as their male counterparts, although the USMC still does it separately. I can’t speak for the Navy and USAF, but in the Army and USMC Basic Training includes combat skills- women in the Marines actually go to 4 weeks of infantry training following basic as do all male Marines (Infantry Marines go to a longer 8 week course).
Women in both ground services are now eligible to enlist for all MOSs, to include Artillery, Infantry, Armor, Cavalry, and Combat Engineer, as well as Special Operations IF THEY MEET ENTRY STANDARDS. They must also meet graduation standards. Entry and graduation standards are all gender neutral- in the Army’s case, these are based on job requirements, not on a gender normed PT score.
Not a lot of women have joined the Infantry or Armor (the Army has had women in Field Artillery and Engineers for several years), but not a lot of women join the Army or Marine Corps anyway- the military is about 14.5% women, while the Army is about 13% and the Marines about 7%. The Navy and Air Force have higher percentages. This is due more to why people join the military in the first place than anything else. Women (and some minorities) tend to look for an MOS that they perceive will help them after the service, so relatively few join the Army and Marine Corps.
The two ground combat services have fewer jobs that would be considered non combat, and since the Marines have a very small sustainment capacity they have even fewer non combat jobs.
That said, a very small percentage of elegible Americans serve in the military in the first place.
Be all you can be. Be a civilian. Loves me some DD-214.
Back in the day, we all knew who the gay boys and girls were, and guess what? No one much gave a shit. Show up on time, do your job, be professional, and what occurs after hours behind closed doors between consenting adults is no one’s business.
Why this perfectly sensible arrangement changed mystifies me.
It simply made it possible to be openly gay and still serve. Now troops don’t have to hide their relationships, whereas before it could be considered cause for the command to launch an investigation.
The Road March really is a make or break issue. A few years ago I worked the Brigade SOY competition and a female won the NCO portion (she was the only female competing). She was a crackerjack troop-did very well before the board, aced the land nav and IWQ, but she was well behind the last male on the march (at least a half an hour). Trying to make this work with actual infantry units is going to be a disaster.
I can almost predict what’s going to happen. This new “military” will take a bad beating when it has it’s first real head on contest of arms. Alot of KIA’s and WIA’s, but the government and media will cover this up and declare it a success. This will continue with many deaths until we suffer a defeat that cannot be covered up. By this time the really important part of winning may be too late to address.
Deaths?
IN case you haven’t paid attention, MANY WOMEN HAVE DIED IN COMBAT ENVIRONMENTS ALREADY, Toots. Likewise, many have already been wounded and disabled.
I don’t know what makes you think it would be something new.
But, that is without them being in Combat Arms.
I think his point would have read better if he had said “even more” deaths than before women filled combat arms roles.
Two decades ago, when we saw these changes in the Navy, we brought this issue up. The newer Sailors were expected to be coddled/babied, and those of us that thought old school when it came to discipline and respect were vilified. We argued that the new philosophy was going to result in an un-necessary loss of life she we come to an actual force on force, ala World War II, battle on the high seas.
Then we had the drawdown of the 1990s, where COs shifted to a “war for bodies”. This called for more spoiling and codling at the expense of holding Sailors accountable for their actions, and accountable for doing what they were supposed to do.
I had even gotten on a PO3’s case for telling a Seaman, who had asked him for what to do with his LES, to “just throw it away.”
Many of these coddled Sailors are now in senior enlisted positions. When I read an article of yet another senior Navy NCO being relieved of responsibility, I don’t express surprise.
I’ve been seeing this same thing creep in with the Army over the past few years. I’ve been eligible to transfer to the retired reserve for a while now. Perhaps, after I submit my retirement packet, I might be more vocal about the fact that I wouldn’t be comfortable with combat deploying with many of the younger Soldiers that we’re expected to coddle vice subjecting them to old school/combat arms style leadership… Which, like what happened in the Navy two decades ago… Is being blamed for “creating a hostile environment”.
“Yep, let’s put another progressive administration in charge.”
It’s that last sentence that is the most troubling to me, J.D., when I consider how so many, even here at TAH, seem hell-bent on handing this election to Hillary Clinton because they’re unhappy with Donald Trump’s flaws.
Those folks who insist they’re not going to vote at all or they’re going to vote third party need to think about the further destruction that awaits our military under another rainbow Democrat administration. Both Bill and Hillary long ago demonstrated their hostility to our military.
You may find Trump a poor candidate, as I do, but you can damned well bet he is our only hope for turning around this systematic destruction of our military.
TBH, Poe, I don’t see a hair’s-breadth of difference between what Clinton will do and what Trump will do. I think we as a nation and a military are screwed no matter which one “wins” in November.
Good grief, man! If you honestly can’t discern that much difference between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton when it comes to these lunatic liberal social engineering programs, then you are beyond persuading.
Not a hair’s-breadth of difference, huh? That is absolutely, fricking, stunning, Eden. I really don’t know how to respond to that. Had you said you don’t like Trump or he’s not up to the job, I could deal with that.
But to say there’s no difference?
Learned helplessness is understandable, it happens when somethings sucks long enough. As military men and women however, we should rise above that and continue to seek the opportunity to resist by any means at our disposal even if it is the lesser of two choices that will continue to make us uncomfortable.
Clinton is an known value in this equation. At least a different candidate holds a possibility for some degree of change. But as it looks right now there will be only two choices and voting for a third party candidate or staying home is a defacto vote for the known enemy of anyone that does not support the current administration’s policies.
You’ve hit the key as far as I’m concerned: Clinton is a known value. I know she’ll be bad but I have a pretty good idea of how bad. But Trump? Who the hell knows? Yeah, it’s possible he could be better – but he could also be much worse. It’s the devil you know, versus the crass, infantile loose cannon you don’t know.
Touche’! Believe me, I have no intention of voting for Clinton under any circumstances. However, I truly do not believe we will be one whit better off if Trump wins, and I can’t in good conscience vote for him, either.
Much worse? Exactly what could he do besides at his worst continue the current policies and create a stalemate when he tries to overstep his authority?
I’m seriously asking under the authority of a president, what would he do worse?
I’ve been thinking about it differently. I’ve been thinking about what I would like to see happen not just for myself but for working Americans, allies, students, military, etc. Things I have seen while not the worst case scenario, have nonetheless become worse in the last 8 years. I’m kinda tired of thinking, well…it could be worse. With that perspective I just don’t see any of that doing anything but continuing to erode. I think just about anybody including Trump would stop ignoring these erosions. Of course I could be wrong, but if anyone is putting on a bigger facade it appears to be Clinton, phony accents and all.
Hell, I say give the job to the first politician they can find that can pass a lie detector test….but that’s not going to happen.lol
Agreed!
I damn sure don’t want more of the same. While I’m not really a gambling man, I think we just have to take a chance with Trump. He wasn’t my pick to begin with either. I know what Clinton is going to bring to the table and we can’t have more of the same thing. At least with Trump there is a chance of something different.
How can this be a choice to have to contemplate? Especially with conservatives!
Poe, how do we know that there’s any difference? We know what Trump *says* in the campaign. He’s said the opposite many times in the past. I don’t believe for one second that he actually “saw the light” and changed his beliefs. I’m fully convinced that he’s doing nothing but saying what he believes “conservatives” want to hear, and once he’s actually in office, he’ll revert to what he’s said in the past.
Oh, and for the record, “I am no man!”
Eden, Mailclerk just gave you a major difference: How a leader treats subordinates is a major indicator of character and in spite of Democrats believing that character doesn’t count, you and I both know it does.
Trump could easily have been a snotty little rich kid who grew up to be a nasty boss. Instead, those who knew him as a kid and those who have known him as a boss say he’s a friendly, likable person and a good man to work for.
Don’t believe the TV persona.
I just thought of another reason for a female voter especially to consider, Eden:
Do you really want to return a teen-molesting, probable rapist to the position of power that Bill Clinton will have if the voters reinstall him in the White House? Never mind that he won’t be the president; that won’t matter a whit to that pervert as he’ll still have the very best predator’s perch. Of course Hillary could just get rid of him by flying him down to Lolita Island on AF-1.
Think we’ll have to worry about sexual molestation of girls and women in a Trump administration?
Eden,
Look at how each of the two treats subordinates. This is a very good indicator of character.
No one is saying the Trump detail of the Secreet Service is a punishment tour.
Look at what has been credibly said about how Hillary treats “the little people”. Look at hoe many people in a position to know it first hand are speaking up about it. This has been going on for -decades-.
You do -not- want someone like that in the freaking Oval Office, with the power to -pardon- her hatchet-minions, and a belief that it is -OK- to abuse people.
Mailclerk, thanks for reminding us of that. I just may do some supportive research and use that as the basis for an essay on why voters like Eden, who profess to see no difference between the two candidates, should vote for Trump.
As far as uniforms go, give em two choices. Either tree or rock.
This is all so confusing. So someone tell me… who is going to make the sandwiches now?
YES!!! You, sir, win the Internet today
cis-gendered white males will be in charge of sandwich making.
They’re the only minority left.
No, no, Stacy. Sandwich making is the job of PH2. I told her so and she agrees.
BTW, here’s hoping for a safe and happy Independence Day to all who love America as I do.
Trump is going to have a hell of a time cleaning house and putting people in to unfuck our military. It’s almost as if Obama is trying his damnedest to fuck it up as much as possible before he leaves.
Never attribute to malice what incompetence will explain.
He is like Gomer Pyle’s slower cousin Goober, with less class.
So, if a Soldier became a transgender female, does that mean he (she/ze/zir) would no longer have to shave? Asking for a friend.
As far as I am concerned, the only item that truly matters in this election is the fact that the next president will fill the late Justice Scalia’s seat on the Supreme Court. Nothing else matters. It is quite likely that the next president will have to fill two seats if, as I hope, Ginsburg croaks. That’s how I separate Big Mouth from Wide Load. He may or may not nominate a conservative to the court but Wide Load certainly will not. And if you thought things were bad under the black-robed social engineers over the past several years, wait until they are a majority bloc on the court. That’s the only reason I will vote for Trump. And I most certainly will.
The next two appointed to the Court will decide the direction of this country possibly for decades. Most don’t understand how important is that choice.
Bingo. It is the only reason for me to vote for Trump also. The Supreme Court appointees made in the next administration will be more important than anything else Trump does – or doesn’t – do. And there will be at least two appointed in the next four years.
I first enlisted in 1991. I re-enlisted in 2007 and had to go through basic training again. I remember having a panic attack on zero day the second time around because “holy shit this sucked at 18 its going to be even worse at 35”. I was wrong. It was a complete piece of piss. It was so easy it made my stomach churn. We were bused everywhere (no forced marches), little yelling, no smoke sessions, and failure was not punished by anything more than a slight frown. We had people falling out on the first ruck march (5K) within sight of the barracks. And this was a “Hollywood” ruck. Weapon, IBA (no plates), and ruck with your summer weight sleeping bag, two pairs of socks, and three t-shirts. And yet people still stopped, tossed their bags into the back of the little red truck and waited on the side of the road for the bus to come pick them up. And the finial 20k? It’s a sad testament to the state of BCT when a 25-year-old man is one of the top five finishers and half the “class” drops out or doesn’t even participate and yet still graduates. “Back in my day” I did the low crawl through the hot sands of Ft Leonard Wood, and then set out with boots full of sand on the 20K. 10K into it my feet were shredded. I admit, I quit. I stopped. I climbed up in the back of the truck and took my boots off. Grossed out all the broke dicks back there too. That lasted right up until SFC Rodriquez found out I was back there. He walked up to the back of the truck and asked me just what the fuck I thought I was doing. I pointed to my bleeding feet and he muttered something about me being a dumbass for not changing my boots and socks. I really thought that was going to be the end of it. But it wasn’t. He told me to change my fucking socks, grab my spare pair of boots out… Read more »
Yeah I’m sure those from 1960 boot camp had it harder than 1980 boot camp. Those from 1940 boot camp had it harder than 1960 boot camp. Lets just be thankful we weren’t in the Roman Legions. You know their boot camp was the worst.
Greek hoplites thought the Romans had it easy. The Mamelukes looked down on all of ’em.
I remember when the ‘integrated’ BCT came in. I was in the last cycle of the Vietnam era BCT (which was probably ‘way pussified in the viewpoint of my older friends) and my wife-to-be went through one of the first gender-mixed cycles of the new ‘mixed’ BCT, during which she got engaged to a fellow trainee – and when we saw a LAW rocket in a military museum she had no idea what it was. Never saw a .45, never fired an M60, never saw a .50… they essentially adapted WAC BCT and added guys. But apparently true love had a chance to blossom so it was all good.