All Soldiers Will Be Fighters in the New Army

NY Times ^ | September 4, 2003 | ERIC SCHMITT

[Prodigal Son]

FORT MONROE, Va., Sept. 4 — The Army is looking to instill the fighting spirit in some unlikely combatants — its cooks, mechanics and other support troops who are normally far from the front lines.

Unlike the Marine Corps, whose credo is that every marine is first and foremost a rifleman, the Army has too many soldiers who have lost touch with their inner warrior, said Gen. Kevin P. Byrnes, the Army's top training general.

And, he said, it is time the Army borrowed a lesson from the Marines.

"We've become too specialized," said General Byrnes, the head of Training and Doctrine Command here. "Ask a junior enlisted who they are, and they'll tell you, `I'm a mechanic,' not I'm a soldier. We need to change that culturally in the Army."

So beginning next year for soldiers and in three years for officers, the Army plans to formally inculcate what it calls a "warrior ethos" throughout the ranks.

Army officials are not worried about the battle-readiness of their front-line fighting ranks, like infantry and armor troops. But for support troops, many of whom rarely handle a weapon or drill for combat after basic training, the strategy will probably mean more marksmanship practice, tougher physical training and, for officers, more small-unit leadership skills in the field.

The issue of instilling a combat mindset in troops working behind the lines has taken on added resonance since the ambush of an Army supply convoy in Iraq in March that resulted in the deaths of 11 Americans and the capture of Pfc. Jessica D. Lynch and six other soldiers.

Although the soldiers had completed basic training, they were mostly cooks, mechanics and other support personnel who had little or no combat experience.

But Army officials here said that emphasizing a warrior mentality throughout the ranks had been under way for 18 months as leaders in the Pentagon designed a force for the future that would be agile as well as lethal, and prepared to fight on a battlefield, like Iraq, without traditional front lines and rear areas.

Under plans General Byrnes discussed with reporters here, freshly commissioned second lieutenants would take a new six-week basic leadership course after receiving their commission. Eighty percent of that leadership training would take place in the field.

Officers would then go on to training in their specialized areas, like infantry, armor or intelligence, as they do now after they receive their commissions.

General Byrnes said four pilot programs had been conducted at Fort Benning, Ga., to test the concept for officers and proved successful enough that the training for new officers Army-wide would begin in early 2006. Similarly, the warrior mindset will be included in enlisted soldiers' nine-week basic training courses and their speciality training after that, beginning next year. Support troops could be tested on marksmanship twice a year, like infantry soldiers, instead of annually, as they are now.

In some ways that new emphasis has started. Training instructors in Aberdeen, Md., recite the individual citations from Medal of Honor recipients to inspire recruits. Officials here said the new credo for all soldiers is "put the mission first, refuse to accept defeat, never quit and never leave behind a fellow American."

Maj. Gen. Raymond D. Barrett Jr., a top aide to General Byrnes, said the change meant that support troops would still have physical training requirements, but they might include going through obstacle courses under stressful conditions simulating a combat setting.

Or a mechanic might pass a final advanced training course by repairing an armored vehicle damaged during a mock ambush at night and under simulated hostile conditions.

"The question is, do they think they feel like a soldier?" General Barrett said. "This would test them as mechanics, but it would also test their perseverance."

[jwalsh07]

"We've become too specialized," said General Byrnes, the head of Training and Doctrine Command here. "Ask a junior enlisted who they are, and they'll tell you, `I'm a mechanic,' not I'm a soldier. We need to change that culturally in the Army."

So beginning next year for soldiers and in three years for officers, the Army plans to formally inculcate what it calls a "warrior ethos" throughout the ranks.

General Byrnes seems to get it.

[AmericaUnited]

Huh? This makes so much sense it's scary.

[PatrioticAmerican]

So, first we let little girls into the ranks of front line troops, calling them "non-combatants", now we call them "combatants".

This was predicted years ago when the issue was first raised. First, call then "non-combatants" then switch the title. Social experiment concluded: Women are now in combat.

[Hugin]

A reaction to the Jessica Lynch incident?

[Prof Engineer]

And, he said, it is time the Army borrowed a lesson from the Marines.

This is right up yer alley.

[Bogey78O]

'So beginning next year for soldiers and in three years for officers, the Army plans to formally inculcate what it calls a "warrior ethos" throughout the ranks.'

Anyone see the humor there?

[Natural Law]

As one who spent time in combat arms in Vietnam and time in a technical MOS afterward I can attest to the severe drop off in warrior ethos in the army in rear echelon (REMF) troops. The current move is long over due. Not since the end of the Korean conflict have we had a sustained traditional battle-line conflict. This should just be the beginning, there are many functions like cook, mechanic (reporter like Al Gore) that can and should be done by civilian contractors.

[joesnuffy]

back door Waccowitch (Dacowits) mooove...

Disband and cut off tax payers dollars to this wacco bunch of bovine tyranical gynosaurus femanazis NOW - imo

DACOWITS

[Congressman Billybob]

Everyone in the Army has to be able to fight.

In December, 1945, my uncle, Col. Arthur Parker, was 30 miles behind the German lines, in charge of a support unit that contained cooks, truck drivers and the like, in a small town in Belgium. Then, the Germans began the Battle of the Bulge.

Within two days, the Germans reached that crossroads in the center of Belgium. Then Col. Parker and his cooks and truck drivers held that town for three days, until the German attack could be broken and thrown back. That town is now known as Parker's Crossroads, and there's a statue there of Col. Parker.

After the war, he returned to Alabama, and became for the balance of his life what he had been before the war, a hard-working dirt farmer.

Yes, everyone who wears the uniform has to be able to fight. Sometimes the fate of wars and nations rests on that simple base.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "We Are Running for Congress -- Maybe," discussion thread on FR.

[BigBadBrian]

Yep. If we don't want a Lynch fiasco to happen again, we need to rethink on where they can serve.

[Dane]

In Hillary's army the motto will be "the person pointing that gun at you is your friend, you have no need for a gun".

[Cobra64]

This should just be the beginning, there are many functions like cook, mechanic (reporter like Al Gore) that can and should be done by civilian contractors.

Yup. Let the contractors do the non-combatant light lifting. Why run cook, mechanic, clerk types, etc through combat training; and then assign them to peeling potatoes, ladling soup, changing HumVee oil and shuffling papers?

[Cobra64]

Different era, different war strategies.

[Southack]

"Why run cook, mechanic, clerk types, etc through combat training; and then assign them to peeling potatoes, ladling soup, changing HumVee oil and shuffling papers?"

Not that I'm taking sides, but there is an answer for your question.

Army grunts working REMF jobs don't get in the way of combat troops like civilian contractors can, are more expendable (lets face unpleasant facts) than civilian contractors, and are cheaper. Your Army grunt in REMF draws roughly the same salary in Iraq and Afghanistan as he does in the U.S., but convincing a civilian contractor to leave the U.S. and go to work near the front lines in battle areas costs bucks.

That being said, it might still be a good idea to replace grunts with contractors.

But understand that it's going to cost money, that you can't move the contractors on forced marches (sometimes necessary in evolving combat), and that the civilian contractors are going to engage in civilian activities that might not be entirely conducive to conducting a fighting war.

[Prodigal Son]

Yep. If we don't want a Lynch fiasco to happen again, we need to rethink on where they can serve.

I don't know if you saw any of the footage of the soldiers who were captured in their 'interviews' by al Jazeera. One was asked the question "Why did you come here?" to which the soldier answered "I came here to fix broke stuff". The soldier went on to say "If nobody bothered him, he wouldn't bother anybody".

I don't want to bust on the soldier. Lord knows that was said under duress but I would point out the soldier was male, not female.

[niteowl77]

An exemplary man, your uncle; it is amazing how many brave and capable men are hidden in plain sight after they come home. I was told stories of cooks and clerks and AA units holding fast in NW Europe, because some individual (regardless of rank) showed the ability to lead, and the people around them at least knew how to use their weapons. It's probably too much to say that the Army is going to make everyone in it into warriors, but there is no reason they can not be better soldiers. If nothing else, it will increase their chances of completing their missions and surviving same.

My son marveled at the people going through BCT who did not have one clue about weapons, and he was disappointed that he was not really trained on the M9, M2, etc., because he was just going to be an "electrician." Well, the "electrician" now experiences mortar and RPG fire at his current Iraq address. I think he'd prefer to have the Army err on the side of too much training, rather than not enough.

[Dedbone]

This should just be the beginning, there are many functions like cook, mechanic (reporter like Al Gore) that can and should be done by civilian contractors.

As a civilian would you work for E-3 wages?

[Cobra64]

Thanks for the clarification. I was just thinking about the "balance of talent" difference between contractor weenies versus trained combatants. Your response make a lot of sense once it's been explained. Again, thanks.

[Natural Law]

I probably wouldn't but there are international catering companies from places like India that would jump at the chance. I would also venture to say that private companies could provide the services in a far more cost effective manner.