Posted on 07/17/2021 5:47:56 AM PDT by Kaslin
Why do ‘Shark treatment’ (or shock treatment as it was once known) on those attending Army Basic Training? Why scream at new recruits getting off a bus? Why have them crawl through sawdust pits or do pushups in the snow in the middle of the night? The U.S. Army recently decided to end the practice “towards a kinder, gentler start.” But that's a wrong-headed approach.
For starters, trainees are not soldiers; there are four tests each individual must pass in order to earn that title.
Each trainee must qualify (achieve a minimum score) with a rifle. The M-16 rifle was in use when I enlisted. Today, it is the M-4 rifle. They must pass an Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT or simply, PT test) which has changed a number of times over the years. (When I enlisted in 1974, there were five APFT events. Each event had to be passed with a minimum of 60 points: Pushups, Sit Ups, Horizontal Ladder, One-Mile Run, and the Dodge, Run, and Jump.)
They also must pass the Skill Qualification Test (SQT) which tests basic soldier skills. The latter includes testing a trainee’s ability to disassemble and reassemble a rifle, communicate, maneuver on foot, read a map, conduct first aid, and operate on the battlefield where nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons are used.
When I first enlisted, trainees were familiarized in basic weapons such as the bayonet, crew-served machinegun, an anti-armor missile, and several types of hand grenades. In addition, Basic Training included familiarization in General Orders, the Rules of War, Geneva Conventions, field sanitation, hygiene, the use of cover and concealment, camouflage techniques, to move as a member of a dismounted squad, to suppress enemy fire, and other important combat skills. Yet these were not tested, per se. A trainee merely attended the training and, at some point during it demonstrated an understanding of what had been taught.
The hardest test was proving to their Drill Sergeants they were willing and able to be a soldier. One might wonder how they measured that. It is a fair question.
In the typical workplace, individuals demonstrate by their actions their character, work ethic, ability, and willingness to do the job they were hired to do, and to be responsible in their duties.
A Drill Sergeant must assess whether a trainee will defend our nation during combat. And they may later be deployed with those same troops. A soldier must stand and fight, and not run or surrender while they still have the ability to fight.
The Army is not some fast food joint. Flipping burgers is not the same as fighting and perhaps dying in meat grinders, battles with names like Hamburger Hill, The Frozen Chosen, Gettysburg, Belleau Woods, Khe Sanh, Guadalcanal, Salvo Island, the Ploesti oil fields, Operation Red Wing, and hundreds of other air, land, and sea battles anyone with a fair sense of America’s military history could name.
America wants its military to fight and win. We rightfully expect our troops to be highly trained, well equipped, expertly led, and cared for humanely. Yet no one can guarantee they will return unharmed.
What a Drill Sergeant owes each trainee is what I call a soldier’s chance.
They must instill discipline within them, train them to fight effectively, and ensure they will follow their oath to defend our nation against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, and obey the orders of those appointed over them.
That's why I say continue shark treatment. You want every soldier to be able to follow their training during those moments of extreme stress, to give them the best chance to fight, win, and survive on the modern battlefield when the bullets and bombs are flying in every direction, and when the enemy is trying to take their lives and freedom.
How does a Drill Sergeant measure a trainee’s willingness and ability to do those things under fire on a battlefield without placing them under extreme stress and training them while they are being subjected to it? You can roll out all the studies, research papers, and surveys authored by Generals, Admirals, and PhDs you want, but they all become kindling for a campfire at first contact with the enemy. A Drill Sergeant measures it by training troops under pressure and ensuring they perform. How does a Drill Sergeant measure a trainee’s willingness and ability to do those things under fire on a battlefield without placing them under extreme stress and training them while they are being subjected to it? You can roll out all the studies, research papers, and surveys authored by Generals, Admirals, and PhDs you want, but they all become kindling for a campfire at first contact with the enemy. A Drill Sergeant measures it by training troops under pressure and ensuring they perform.
Do ‘Shark treatment’ because trainees enlist to take a soldier’s chance.
“They also must pass the Skill Qualification Test (SQT) which tests basic soldier skills. The latter includes testing a trainee’s ability to disassemble and reassemble a rifle, communicate, maneuver on foot, read a map, conduct first aid, and operate on the battlefield where nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons are used.”
Good Times! I miss Army Life every day. :) (I’m NOT re-enlisting though, LOL!)
What a shame that we’ve come to this pansy-@ss approach to training new recruits. Plan accordingly, Civilians!
No way man! drill sargents and company commanders are just dicks on power trips! Now,, instead, If everybody would just play nice, the world would be awwwesome. Theres enough waves for everyone, if we just share.
Sorry, Tim, today's Military is woke. You and I rightfully fear that today's soldierettes
are not going to be up to the task.
I can just see some Pvt stand up and want to have a “conversation” with his/her/it’s Sgt about the orders handed down from Top to assault a target.
Ten or twenty years ago, Pvt would have his/her/it’s azz stomped into a puddle of mud and walked dry. These days, I believe that “conversation” would actually happen… with a medal awarded to the Pvt for his/her/it’s bravery for speaking up for the collective.
I hope that was sarcasm because a system of training recruits that developed over 6000 years of military history is not to be toyed with lightly. The modern age has forgotten how to respect the wisdom of the ancients.
I dont fear anyone who has to be politly asked to please get up and make your bed. Im scared of the guy who jumps out of bed at the first yell, makes his bed and is dressed and ready to punch your lights out in 5 minutes, DAY OR NIGHT!.
It was pure sarcasm. I sometimes forget in todays PC world CNN has been braodcasting sarcasm as news for decades. People often can no longer tell the diff.
We used to give sharks the shark treatment. A bullet in the head or a deep long gash in the guts.
It worked well and kept the population under control, unlike today.
We get a lot of GOPe trolls here.
The Army no longer seeks to produce war fighters. The aim is now to produce members of a house full of female cats.
No crew-served machineguns or anti-armor missiles or map reading when I was at basic. And only threw one hand grenade........
A new slogan for a U.S. Army I once knew:
Get woke, get smoked.
5.56mm
Bkmk
Didn't this start some years back with recruits having a number of "Time Outs" if they got too stressed about some training or other?
I still recall being woke up at zero-dark-thirty the first morning (1975) with trash cans being thrown down the center of the barrack. I was bummed but not shocked. Then it was weeks of the DI in the face of some recruit or all. This was Navy boot. I saw at the time the Marines had it much worse. The Marine Recruit Depot (San Diego) was a fence away and they had an ambulance following their recruits as they ran them into the ground.
The harsh treatment, repetitive physical training, and even the relentless marching has a simple concept behind it: It forces you to embrace team/unit cohesion and let go (forget?) about your own individual wants and needs. Nothing is more important than your unit or shipmates, as it should be.
This is a great, systematic critique of what our pussified, academic, Marxist class has done to our military. But one of the unfortunate casualties is the way those Marxists have crippled other people's use of speech--even sensible, honorable military men such as the writer. Dude! Subject and verb have to agree--remember?
We teach others in everything we say or write. So ALL of us must show the necessary b*lls to reflect reality in our every utterance, even in our grammar. I submit to you that a society that doesn't dare distinguish between "one" and "many" in speech or writing for fear of distinguishing between the sexes is almost cowardly enough to put girls in the Army. Oh, wait, it already did.
Many in government and its media don't get the joke. Jokes are to laugh at. Putting a female human being anywhere near combat, or near training for combat, is a joke. Or a crime. Combat is between males, or else it involves a criminal act. We must not let our speech put a lace curtain around this obvious reality.
Great article. Army enlistees should not have an easy time of it because battle is not easy.
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.