Winning: Bad Boys Make Better Soldiers

Strategy Page ^ | May 12, 2008 | Jim Dunnigan

[billorites]

Recently, there were a number of media stories about how the U.S. Army has been recruiting more men with criminal records. When pressed about this, the army released a report showing that recruits let in via "moral waivers" made better combat soldiers. That is, they got promoted faster, re-enlisted at a higher rate, got more awards for valor and were noted for superior combat performance. They were also better educated, and more likely to talk back. A slightly higher percentage of them got punished for that.

All this is nothing new. It was noted as far back as World War II, when detailed records of troop performance were first compiled and analyzed. A disproportionate number of troops that excelled in combat, also had disciplinary problems when off the battlefield. The conventional wisdom was that someone with a "taste for combat" also lacked respect for authority. Research since World War II has shown that risk-taking behavior is the basis of brave acts, as well as criminal ones, drug use, and addiction to things like gambling and dangerous sports.

The U.S. Army has, for the last sixty years, turned down most recruits with a criminal record. The reason was that, since an army (especially in peacetime) depended on discipline to function, anyone who broke the law had already demonstrated problems with following orders. Before September 11, 2001, the army found that 27 percent of recruits with criminal records (and given a "moral waiver" to enlist), didn't finish their enlistment because of misconduct (refusing to obey orders, or just a bad attitude). This was twice the rate of troops who did not need a moral waiver. Back then, less than four percent of recruits got moral waivers. That usually required references from teachers, clergy or employers attesting to how the applicant had shaped up, and was worthy of acceptance. But since 2004, the percentage of recruit getting in with moral waivers has tripled to 13 percent. Yet there has not been a noticeable decline in troops quality. There is still a higher percentage of moral waiver recruits getting discharged early, but not double the rate of those without moral waivers.

The army has found ways to lower its traditional admission standards, yet still get people who can perform well in a professional force. This is not just the case with those who do poorly on written tests, or did not finish high school. It's especially the case with those allowed in on waivers. The most common items waived are medical conditions, criminal records or drug use, in that order. Last year, most of the moral waivers were for juvenile offenses. Less than one percent (511) of last years recruits (80,407) received moral waivers for adult criminal records. Keep in mind that the numbers were talking about here are small, and that the negative impact of recruits with moral waivers is basically non-existent.

Most waivers are for medical problems. For example, many urban recruits have asthma problems. If the recruit is headed for a job that does not require the kind of physical effort that low grade asthma would interfere with, a waiver would be granted. If a prospect has a low grade (no felonies) criminal record, and appears to have moved on from that sort of thing, a waiver is possible. Same with prior drug use. Prospects are made aware of the regular, unannounced, drug tests for troops on active duty. Asking for testimonials from responsible adults helps deal with those seeking moral waivers. The army also has new psychological tests that indicate those that have put their bad behavior behind them, and which haven't.

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

You are in good company.Thank you for your service.

[COBOL2Java]

My brother was one of those troubles “yutes” and got into a couple scrapes with the law as a teen. The judge at his sentencing gave him a choice: jail or the Navy. He chose the latter. Turned out to be the best thing that ever happened to him. He spent the next 20 years a Squid, retiring as a CPO. During that time he got his Associates, Bachelors and Masters degrees.

[Nevadan]

“General Lee was called “Old Granny”, if I recall correctly.
/johnny

That is true, but it was very early in the war - before he was given command of the Army of Northern Virginia, and, before the CSA found out what a great combat field commander-strategist he was. He was never called that after the Battles of the Seven Days or the Battle ofChancellorsville.

[Dogfaced Soldier]

The concept of bad-boys making better combat soldiers is a good story line but not in line with my experience and not backed up by studies. One extensive study of decorated soldiers in WWII completed by researchers at Cornell and Georgia Tech divided a population of combat decorated heroes into eager heroes and reluctant heroes.

These are the general characteristics of each type that the authors reported. They are not typically that associated with “bad boys”:

General Characteristics of “Reluctant Heroes”:

Works well with others
Makes friends easily
Sociable
Less self-centered
Less self-confident
Respectful of authority

General Characteristics of Eager Heroes:

Self-disciplined
Resourceful
Self-confident
Adventurous
Flexible
Risk-Taker

For those who would argue that the general characteristics of the “eager heroes” could be equated to “bad boys” then the study went on to predict potentially identifying characteristics for “eager hero” types at both the high school level and from basic training. I'll leave it to the reader to determine if the profile fits a “bad boy”:

Potentially Identifying Characteristics in
High School Seniors:
High school leader
High energy
Athlete
Not necessarily exceptional grades

Potentially Identifying Characteristics in
Basic Training:
Competitive and highly involved
Applies self physically
Frequent volunteer
Intelligent risk taker
Possibly a grand stander

[alarm rider]

Maybe “bad boys” make better soldiers, but in my experience they make crappy Airmen.

And yeah, I expect the usual crud about the USAF, but matters not, you need a person of good character that you can depend on in a technical situation.

[yarddog]

Now that you mention it, the most decorated soldier of WWI was Seargent York. He was a consiencious objector and devout Christian.

[Dogfaced Soldier]

Although it was before my time, the most decorated soldier in WWII was Audie Murphy, I believe. He was the quintessential good-boy, at least as portrayed by Hollywood. Don’t know what he was like in real life.

[yarddog]

I once discussed Murphy with a girl from Hunt county Texas which is roughly where he was from. I think his Father died at an early age and he had to sort of support the family including siblings.

I think he had a tough childhood but as you say was known as a good kid.

Actually Sargent York probably had a similar upbringing, poor Southern rural family, but good people.

[Griddlee]

“Take me to the Brig! I want to see the real Marines!”-—Chesty Puller