.Reclaiming Army Standards
When I was in Afghanistan, one of my finest soldiers--a PFC machine gunner--was without a high school diploma. In his case, however, it was irrelevant to the mission we had to accomplish. He was professional, competent, and certainly on track to become a great leader. And now, seven years later, he’s a seasoned E-6 squad leader on his way to taking over an infantry platoon.
But the fact that this successful soldier was allowed to enlist with a GED doesn’t mean that it should be the norm--and it doesn't mean that his level of maturity was typical, either.
In reality, the Army is in the midst of a disturbing trend that threatens not only our immediate goals in the current conflicts, but, more importantly, the long term health of the organization. The fact is, while the Army has been lowering its entrance standards with regard to education, physical fitness, and crime since the end of the Cold War, that process has accelerated since the invasion of Iraq. And this is something that the incoming Army Secretary should address.
The numbers are shocking when you actually see the scope of the issue:
Dr. Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer, points out that in 1992 98 percent of recruits had a high school diploma. By 2004, that number had fallen to 86 percent. In 2007, only 79 percent of Army recruits had completed high school. Whereas nearly everyone in the Army had a diploma 15 years earlier, by 2007, fewer than four out five soldiers did.
In terms of maintaining a professional force, the numbers of "conduct" waivers are even more troubling. For felonies or serious misdemeanors (or three minor misdemeanors), the Army granted entrance waivers to 4.6 percent of its recruits in 2004. That number had more than doubled to 11 percent at the end of 2007. And in the first half of 2008, the number ballooned to 13 percent. To put it starkly, this means that one out of every eight Army recruits now has a criminal record.
To see how far physical fitness standards have fallen, just look at this photo. It's bad, but it's not necessarily that soldier's fault. It's a problem with the senior leadership who have allowed the Army to not only recruit this kid, but also to fail in enforcing proper physical fitness standards. Imagine if the soldier's FOB were mortared and a buddy had to carry him out of the line of fire. Not easy.
But with physical fitness standards, the Army isn't just turning a blind a eye to similar lapses. In this challenging recruiting environment, the Army is actually beginning an effort to justify enlisting heavier recruits under the guise of bringing in "football types." According to the Christian Science Monitor:
Now, if I thought for one second that the Army was lowering entrance standards in order to make the organization more professional, I'd support it. But they're not. This is merely an issue of needing warm bodies to fill out deploying units. The Army wasn't meeting its recruiting goals, so it simply lowered entrance standards as a way of expanding the pool of qualified applicants. And, as John D. Hutson, a retired rear admiral and dean of the Franklin Pierce Law Center, said in 2007, "The across-the-board lowering of the standards is buying problems in the future."
In truth, anybody can build a million-man Army. Just look at Saddam. But doing so is not the point. If the idea is that all we need are bodies, then we should re-institute the draft. However, if a professional, specialized force is what we want, then we need to go back to the basics--and that means re-implementing the standards that sharpened the Army between Vietnam and the invasion of Iraq. And once they're re-instituted, the Army needs to stick with them. They were there for a reason.
However, at the same time, we should consider that the Army isn't lowering standards simply because they feel like it. They're doing it because of the strain placed on the organization by a government that's chosen to fight two major conflicts simultaneously. Therefore, policymakers bear as much guilt as anyone in causing this situation. That's why those same elected officials need to understand that when the Army can no longer enlist enough high-quality recruits to meet the mission, then they need to re-evaluate exactly what the mission should be. If prime candidates aren't showing up at recruiting stations, it's for a reason.
It's not that there shouldn't be exceptions--there should be. Many outstanding soldiers--like my machine gunner in Afghanistan--don't have high school diplomas, just as many soldiers made some exceedingly poor decisions in tangling with the law in their younger days. And still others are both overweight and integral to their units at the same time. But it's a matter of how many exceptions the Army is going to grant and how they're going to be administered. And right now, the numbers are far too high and the standards far too low.
I have no idea who the next Army Secretary will be, but I would hope that he or she would make it a priority to take a long, hard look at not only how standards have slipped over the past eight years, but how they can be raised once again. We have to stop the slow bleed. The security of the nation depends on it.
Military.com
h/t Jason
But the fact that this successful soldier was allowed to enlist with a GED doesn’t mean that it should be the norm--and it doesn't mean that his level of maturity was typical, either.
In reality, the Army is in the midst of a disturbing trend that threatens not only our immediate goals in the current conflicts, but, more importantly, the long term health of the organization. The fact is, while the Army has been lowering its entrance standards with regard to education, physical fitness, and crime since the end of the Cold War, that process has accelerated since the invasion of Iraq. And this is something that the incoming Army Secretary should address.
The numbers are shocking when you actually see the scope of the issue:
Dr. Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer, points out that in 1992 98 percent of recruits had a high school diploma. By 2004, that number had fallen to 86 percent. In 2007, only 79 percent of Army recruits had completed high school. Whereas nearly everyone in the Army had a diploma 15 years earlier, by 2007, fewer than four out five soldiers did.
In terms of maintaining a professional force, the numbers of "conduct" waivers are even more troubling. For felonies or serious misdemeanors (or three minor misdemeanors), the Army granted entrance waivers to 4.6 percent of its recruits in 2004. That number had more than doubled to 11 percent at the end of 2007. And in the first half of 2008, the number ballooned to 13 percent. To put it starkly, this means that one out of every eight Army recruits now has a criminal record.
To see how far physical fitness standards have fallen, just look at this photo. It's bad, but it's not necessarily that soldier's fault. It's a problem with the senior leadership who have allowed the Army to not only recruit this kid, but also to fail in enforcing proper physical fitness standards. Imagine if the soldier's FOB were mortared and a buddy had to carry him out of the line of fire. Not easy.
But with physical fitness standards, the Army isn't just turning a blind a eye to similar lapses. In this challenging recruiting environment, the Army is actually beginning an effort to justify enlisting heavier recruits under the guise of bringing in "football types." According to the Christian Science Monitor:
The waistlines of America's youth are expanding, shrinking the pool of those eligible to join the US military. But an Army program is giving overweight enlistees a second chance – and helping the military with its own expansion.The article goes on to note:
The recently-introduced waiver program allows enlistees who don't qualify for the military because of their weight a chance to shape up after joining. So far, the program has helped the Army make its recruiting goals in what remains a tight recruiting market.
The point is to get the football-player kinda kids. It's not to get the couch-potato kids," says Beth Asch, a senior economist at the Rand Corporation who studies military recruiting.And that oversight is the problem. This sort of policy is ripe for abuse and could lead to a heavier, slower, and less healthy force. Therefore, the temptation shouldn't be placed in front of overworked recruiters.
The Army program is a "sensible move," says Ms. Asch, but to remain effective it must have oversight.
Now, if I thought for one second that the Army was lowering entrance standards in order to make the organization more professional, I'd support it. But they're not. This is merely an issue of needing warm bodies to fill out deploying units. The Army wasn't meeting its recruiting goals, so it simply lowered entrance standards as a way of expanding the pool of qualified applicants. And, as John D. Hutson, a retired rear admiral and dean of the Franklin Pierce Law Center, said in 2007, "The across-the-board lowering of the standards is buying problems in the future."
In truth, anybody can build a million-man Army. Just look at Saddam. But doing so is not the point. If the idea is that all we need are bodies, then we should re-institute the draft. However, if a professional, specialized force is what we want, then we need to go back to the basics--and that means re-implementing the standards that sharpened the Army between Vietnam and the invasion of Iraq. And once they're re-instituted, the Army needs to stick with them. They were there for a reason.
However, at the same time, we should consider that the Army isn't lowering standards simply because they feel like it. They're doing it because of the strain placed on the organization by a government that's chosen to fight two major conflicts simultaneously. Therefore, policymakers bear as much guilt as anyone in causing this situation. That's why those same elected officials need to understand that when the Army can no longer enlist enough high-quality recruits to meet the mission, then they need to re-evaluate exactly what the mission should be. If prime candidates aren't showing up at recruiting stations, it's for a reason.
It's not that there shouldn't be exceptions--there should be. Many outstanding soldiers--like my machine gunner in Afghanistan--don't have high school diplomas, just as many soldiers made some exceedingly poor decisions in tangling with the law in their younger days. And still others are both overweight and integral to their units at the same time. But it's a matter of how many exceptions the Army is going to grant and how they're going to be administered. And right now, the numbers are far too high and the standards far too low.
I have no idea who the next Army Secretary will be, but I would hope that he or she would make it a priority to take a long, hard look at not only how standards have slipped over the past eight years, but how they can be raised once again. We have to stop the slow bleed. The security of the nation depends on it.
Military.com
h/t Jason
posted by madtom at 9:36 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home