Don't Dumb Down the Army

DESPITE claims to the contrary by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the Army is facing a manpower crisis. The evidence can be found in two separate reports released last month — one commissioned by the Pentagon, the other by Congressional Democrats — and in this simple fact: last year the Army accepted its least qualified pool in a decade.

The Army inducted both more recruits without high school diplomas and more youths scoring in the lowest category of the Army's aptitude test, so-called Category IV recruits.

Welcoming more such recruits into the military has obvious appeal at a time when recruitment numbers are slipping, while manpower needs remain acute. But the adoption of lower standards to fill the ranks is shortsighted and imprudent. Moreover, continuing or expanding this policy would be a mistake for the Army and for the recruits themselves. Pentagon officials should know this better than anyone: their previous experiments with lower standards were clear failures.

Four decades ago, during the Vietnam War, Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara created Project 100,000, a program intended to help the approximately 300,000 men who annually failed the Armed Forces Qualification Test for reasons of aptitude. The idea behind Mr. McNamara's scheme was that the military would annually absorb 100,000 of the country's "subterranean poor" — people who would otherwise be rejected.

Using a variety of "educational and medical techniques," the Pentagon would "salvage" these Category IV recruits first for military careers and later for more productive roles in society. Project 100,000 recruits — known as New Standards Men — would then return to civilian life with new skills and aptitudes that would allow them to "reverse the downward spiral of human decay."

Mr. McNamara further concluded that the best way to demonstrate that the induction of New Standards Men...

Dumbing down?

Almost all general material and instructions are set deliberately at a functional grade level (6th or 7th). That is because tasks must be simple so people can perform the tasks under great stress and or lack of sleep.

As far back as WWII it was determined that a small unit leader with a 20 point IQ difference over his men was generally less effective that someone closer in IQ.

Smarter troops do seem to initially have a modest edge in survival but that is a time sensitive and short lived edge. Mere survival is a teacher in and of itself and there is a great deal of luck involved (being in the right or wrong place at the right or wrong time).

Soldiers are allowed to retake the ASVAB before and after they get in to achieve a better score. They do so in many cases if they want a specific school or option and they need a higher score to apply for it. Now how is it possible to increase their personal scores? Because the ASVAB measures knowledge and abilities which can be and are improved.

Our Public Education system stinks and that is why many people have lower scores today. However once the military adds discipline to their lives their levels of performance to include academics do increase.

Nothing improves ability and motivation quite like the sure knowledge someone wants to kill you. This creates tremendous motivation to improve and learn.

Finally just like in "real life" not all peoples potential for success can be measured by their academic performance or on paper. There are plenty of very successful people who get that way on their innate courage and determination not as a result of graduating from Drugs R Us High or Hate America University.

In the NCO and Officer Corps many Officers and Sgts were not quite as bright as the likes of Jimmy Carter or Clintoon. However they were loved and respected by their men and as Leaders without question would lay down their lives for those men.

More than one Sgt has said to his Lt or Captain "Sir we know you will keep as many of us alive as possible" It is both a horrific statement and at the same time demostrates the hollow nature of the conferal of many two bit degrees or academic awards.

There are plenty of God Fearing, decent hard, working and strong willed Americans who don't serve in the Military but in fact serve the American people everyday of their lives. The builders and makers of things. Folks who in fact are the backbone and grit of out nation most of whom hold no "Degree" and likely would not ace the ASVAB.

There are far too many codependent educated idiots holding senior rank in the Military, elected
Oaf ficials and private or government functionaries for anyone to seriously argue that score results and paper degrees are the best criterion upon which accurate predictions of success and effectiveness can be based.

In almost all cases it is Joe and Jane Six Pack that still gets the job done and does so in good order.

W

Good post, and another issue is that sometimes what appears to be low IQ is actually just poor reading skills rather than an inability to think and solve problems. People who don't understand all the questions on the aptitude test are not going to score well, but if the Army can improve their reading skills then their test scores and job performance will improve significantly. The Army should be looking for good material--people who are physically strong, motivated, and patriotic and do not have any serious mental deficiency. They don't have to be great students but they need to be motivated to learn and improve.

I was in line in a liquor about 2 months ago and a female Army recruiter came in in uniform looking for recruits. As I stood in line she was asking if I'd ever thought about joining the Army. After I told her I was retired Air Force I asked how things were going. I don't know how long she's been recruiting but she said she's never seen it this slow. After our chat she moved on to the next guy in line who told her he was kind of interested but he had two felonies. She asked what they were for because she could work with some things. I left shaking my head. I couldn't believe the Army would ever consider a guy with two felonies. I guess times have changed.

Perhaps they are reflecting that much of what is defined as a "Felony" today is nonsense. At my one home in N Az a few teenage boys (of course) set off cherry bombs in the curbside rural style mail box of girl one of them was enamored with. Multiple felonies, explosives charges, terrorism were among the charges. Three other High school boys hot rodded around the football field tearing it up one night. Similar Charges Felony Vandalism blah blah blah. Being a dumb a$$ed kid is now a felony when it is really nothing more than being a dumb a$$ed kid. The problem is with us as adults and the inability/unwillingness to see that. Yes someone could have lost an eye but they didn't and someone might have got run over at midnight when the kids tore up the football field but they didn't. Installing a couple hundred or so mailbox posts for seniors in the community would have got old real quick for the first group of clowns and spending the next year working for the high school grounds keeper for our "Born to be wild" hotrodders crew would have served everyone far better than covering these kids with paper and "anger aggression managment classes"

W

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.