• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Army Basic Training no longer works

How many warships of nuclear powers has our Navy sunk? None. Our Navy is useless against China since we cannot fire on them without risking nuclear war. Diplomacy doesn't work when you fire all the diplomats.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/24/us/politics/state-department-tillerson.html

We have not been sinking ships since we put the Yamato at the bottom of the sea, this hardly means the Navy is obsolete. We blockaded a nuclear power's (the USSR's) ships in 1962. Don't they teach history anymore?

The Navy projects air-power, both manned and unmanned; under the sea it serves as the USA primary nuclear deterrent. Its very presence keeps shipping lanes open that would otherwise be closed by locals.
 
Last edited:
https://www.stripes.com/news/basic-...army-will-focus-on-discipline-morale-1.510957

More evidence for those who need it that Obama wrecked the military.

Hmmmm...I can see why troops may not be taking the job seriously. How serious is the Army when it lectures on the need for mixed sex infantry units, or transgendered Klingers in the trenches? How serious is it when it can't muster the "unable to deploy" soldiers who are pregnant?

Nothing short of the sobering effect of a ground war in Korea will 'woke' these nitwits.
 
We have not been sinking ships since we put the Yamato at the bottom of the sea, this hardly means the Navy is obsolete. We blockaded a nuclear power's (the USSR's) ships in 1962. Don't they teach history anymore?

The Navy projects air-power, both manned and unmanned; under the sea it serves as the USA primary nuclear deterrent. Its very presence keeps shipping lanes open that would otherwise be closed by locals.

I have great respect for the Navy. I know they agree with me that diplomacy is the best option, especially when it comes to China. Yet Trump is gutting our diplomatic staff while he builds up the military. It's dangerous and foolish.
 
Hmmmm...I can see why troops may not be taking the job seriously. How serious is the Army when it lectures on the need for mixed sex infantry units, or transgendered Klingers in the trenches? How serious is it when it can't muster the "unable to deploy" soldiers who are pregnant?

Nothing short of the sobering effect of a ground war in Korea will 'woke' these nitwits.

I take it you'll lace up a pair of boots and take a spot in the Infantry you took away from a woman who was capable of being a grunt, yeah?
 
I take it you'll lace up a pair of boots and take a spot in the Infantry you took away from a woman who was capable of being a grunt, yeah?

So if we put 12 year olds in the infantry, and I suggested it was daffy your going to provide the same kind of "are you going to replace him" idiocy?

The infantry and front-line combat units have worked without women (or cross-dressing transexuals or open gays) just fine. The decline in morale and indifference to taking their job seriously is likely (in part) due to the fact the military is not taking itself, or its need to be an optimal fighting force. seriously.
 
https://www.stripes.com/news/basic-...army-will-focus-on-discipline-morale-1.510957

More evidence for those who need it that Obama wrecked the military.

More evidence those who never served talk out their 4th point of contact....

The biggest problem the Army has is it takes a city to keep one grunt in the field. The vast majority of soldiers are not fighters (well maybe in a bar) and the mindset of a fighter is 1,000 times different than the civilians who learned how to salute. But the Army doesn't like admitting it is mainly a vast corporation devoted to supply. No, these days they logo everything 'warrior'. They gave the black beret to everyone and even the most REMF soldier wears a uniform developed for body armor he/she will never wear.

I was light infantry, I carried my body weight in crap every day I was in the field. I slept out in the open no matter the weather coz shelter wasn't 'tactical'. I ate crap and slept in brief snatches. There is so much more to being combat ready than a series of classes. Do what you want but you'll never make combat ready soldiers out of REMFs.

No hate in my heart, I'd MUCH rather have a well trained mechanic, doctor, slick driver, logistics specialists than half trained 'warriors' who can't do the job they were hired to do.

The next problem we have is a corporate promotion structure. Ever since the first RIFs (reduction in force) comb outs the path to promotion became much more of a ticket punch and less a real evaluation of leadership skills. Attend the proper schools (and that can be quite the trick when the operational tempo is high so it is who ya blow) and practice for the promotion board. The pyramid to promotion has some soldiers focused far too much on earning the points than being effective leaders for their teams...

BushII didn't do this, Obama didn't do this. The change in doctrine to a more corporate power point mindset where the documentation trumps the skill set held as the goal... the voracious appetite in everything from TVs to fuel a 'modern' army needs, the ability for an air-conditioned office bound general to direct an infantry squad in real time, the expense of buck rogers whiz bang weapons programs- all seems to work against combat ready, hardened conditioned troops (no matter what is or isn't between their legs)

I can't recall my basic training 'combat training' crap, I will never forget my Advanced Infantry Training at Ft. Puke, but it took a few months under ALICE in my 'real' unit to harden me.

The article reminds me of all the lifer NCOs sitting around smoking and drinking lamenting how far the army had fallen and what we REALLY need to do... :peace
 
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/08/gol...ng-into-the-longest-expansion-in-history.html

Goldman says this may become the longest economic expansion in history
The current expansion has already lasted 95 months, now the third-longest in U.S. history in 33 business cycles going back to 1854, the economists said.
Well, lets say I don't laugh at your cnbc report and take it seriously...just what was the crucial role the 0 man played in his 0 economy that is an, as your article clearly admitted, "economy has never been called robust"?
 
From the article: "Through the past three years, the Army polled more than 27,000 of its noncommissioned officers, warrant officers and officers in the ranks of second lieutenant to colonel, asking them to identify deficiencies they have observed among the service’s newest soldiers."

This is fake news. No one, no one, no one in the military, no veteran, ever asked for or wanted the opinion of a second lieutenant. Never happened.

I find that to be accurate, second lieutenants are the privates of the officer world, second lieutenants are like the specialists of the officer world, enough experience to do their job and supervise some under them but inexperienced enough no one counts on them to lead even when in a leadership position.

The only 2lt's I really respected were those who were former enlisted sergeants and staff sergeants who switched over to officer, while those fresh out of training butterbars are a joke. Captain is the lowest officer rank who's authority I respect, by that pint they atleast have experience in their job.


When I was in the military, I used to love when I never saluted butterbars and they would have me sitting in the sergeant majors office, asking me why I did not salute, I would say he was a butterbar, the sergeant major would laugh and let me off the hook, the captain would do the same.
 
standards were actually lowered during the GW Bush era because of the needed troop levels for his fake wars of choice; go figure ..........

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/jun/04/usa.jamiewilson

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2007/04/12/retired-generals-bush-breaking-army

Bushs War Against the Military - In These Times

Standards were lowered during bush, they stayed low during obama, and actually I have noticed they are going back up under trump. This seems to be a general theme though of wartime vs peacetime, In times of major war standards are relaxed to fill the ranks while in peace they tighten the standards. I know too many people from when I left active duty and joined the texas national guard who have gotten the boot, and keep in mind this is the national guard and not even active duty. After trump won office ranks got purged quickley, some kicked out, others barred from re enlistment, one facing deportation because his resident status was dependant on military service, he was getting booted for failing pt standards, and he never bothered to file for citizenship the entire time he was in.
 
Recruits will undergo bunk inspections, participate in drill and ceremony competitions and face tests on their knowledge of the Army’s history.

Do they not already do this in the Army?

HArdly now, I had that in basic training, in 2009 but I watched things change as I went through the service, they became less prone to doing such things out of fear of punishment, basically xyz commander demands bunk inspections drill and ceremony etc, solier y decides it is too hard and hangs herself, department of the army rains down fire on that tradoc post, crap rolls downhill and not always in the ways of punishment, it an also be experience and training.

Much of this depends on who is commander in chief and who he appoints to the top levels of the military and dod, as they set the directives.


My bct was fairly harsh but the command there allowed rules to slide at fort jackson, my brother the same year got fort sill, and they had cellphones ice cream free time etc, and also could not use forks in the dfac, simply because of one suicide in his bct battallion the cycle before.
 
standards were actually lowered during the GW Bush era because of the needed troop levels for his fake wars of choice; go figure ..........

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/jun/04/usa.jamiewilson

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2007/04/12/retired-generals-bush-breaking-army

Bushs War Against the Military - In These Times

According to my wife the blame goes 40/60 Bush/Obama as to under whos watch the standards and effectiveness of training dropped, but Obama was the last guy in charge so Obama gets his 60% PLUS the failure to fix Bushes 40%.
 
So if we put 12 year olds in the infantry, and I suggested it was daffy your going to provide the same kind of "are you going to replace him" idiocy? The infantry and front-line combat units have worked without women (or cross-dressing transexuals or open gays) just fine. The decline in morale and indifference to taking their job seriously is likely (in part) due to the fact the military is not taking itself, or its need to be an optimal fighting force. seriously.

Why do I get the feeling you have never risked so much as a paper cut in uniformed service to your nation? You damned sure never humped ALICE. What the COMBAT units do is serious, be it with gays, TS/TG or bigoted white guys (remember the infantry did quite well without the niggra serving)

One big problem with the military is now loud mouths can sit in Camp Couch and wail about the services, but since it is now a choice rather than duty all able bodied men should feel HONORED to take up they can now duck away. Now the Military has trouble bribing people to serve. Whine all you want about who enlists but the fact remains unlike so many whiners they at least take the oath... :peace
 
HArdly now, I had that in basic training, in 2009 but I watched things change as I went through the service, they became less prone to doing such things out of fear of punishment, basically xyz commander demands bunk inspections drill and ceremony etc, solier y decides it is too hard and hangs herself, department of the army rains down fire on that tradoc post, crap rolls downhill and not always in the ways of punishment, it an also be experience and training.

Much of this depends on who is commander in chief and who he appoints to the top levels of the military and dod, as they set the directives.


My bct was fairly harsh but the command there allowed rules to slide at fort jackson, my brother the same year got fort sill, and they had cellphones ice cream free time etc, and also could not use forks in the dfac, simply because of one suicide in his bct battallion the cycle before.

Yeppers, and it is pretty fascinating to look and see who does and who does not know that much.
 
Why do I get the feeling you have never risked so much as a paper cut in uniformed service to your nation? You damned sure never humped ALICE. What the COMBAT units do is serious, be it with gays, TS/TG or bigoted white guys (remember the infantry did quite well without the niggra serving)

One big problem with the military is now loud mouths can sit in Camp Couch and wail about the services, but since it is now a choice rather than duty all able bodied men should feel HONORED to take up they can now duck away. Now the Military has trouble bribing people to serve. Whine all you want about who enlists but the fact remains unlike so many whiners they at least take the oath... :peace

Not a shock given how the military has been so often abused and mismanaged. We are going to get our asses handed to us one day, likely soonish.
 
Obama Bin Laden was more concerned with making sure all recruits were happy with their gender identity.

For those who still cant see what a piss poor evaluator Obama is I dont know what to say....he is all about the optics....looking good....doing good he cares much less about.
 
Thank you for the article. Your conclusions are BS.... Training evolves as threats evolve.

There is no excuse for a nation that spends all told about $1 trillion a year on defense but cant manage to do Army Basic Training to even the most minimal standards....that is how you end up thinking that you have an Army ready to defend you when you dont. You dont want to see what happens after that.
 
Recruits will undergo bunk inspections, participate in drill and ceremony competitions and face tests on their knowledge of the Army’s history.

Do they not already do this in the Army?

Back before our INTELLIGENTSIA completely failed they often did. Hopefully we get back to some quality before the next fight but given how bad our systems are and given how bad our leaders are dont count on it. The fact that we according to some 6-7 $Trillion in the ME while abusing our military and thus discouraging service sure does not help matters.
 
Calling bull**** because my nephew was reporting deficiencies in these areas as far back as 2005 when he deployed to Iraq.
Nice try laying it all on Obama, but it's not going to work.

A guy who is in charge for 8 years is 100% responsible for what he hands over unless he made efforts that were rebuffed by Congress to fix things. Obama rarely was up to that much work, and was not here, so it is all on him. When did you ever hear Obama sounding the alarm?
 
When did that whole "an Army of ONE" concept start getting splashed across our screens?
Oh wait, it was around 2004 if I remember correctly... so it must have been Obama's fault!

So, like I said, my nephew got home from his first deployment in Iraq long before Obama was even running for office and was complaining about basic, talking about lackluster recruits who "weren't squared away", talking about how "stress cards were ***** cards", and the like...long before Obama entered the picture.

He doesn't like Obama, but I doubt he would blame Obama for these issues.
I think I'll take his word for it.
 
A guy who is in charge for 8 years is 100% responsible for what he hands over unless he made efforts that we rebuffed by Congress to fix things. Obama really was up to that much work, so it is all on him. When did you ever hear Obama sounding the alarm?

Perfect! Considering the fact that ANYTHING and EVERYTHING he submitted TO Congress WAS 100 percent rebuffed by the process of 100 percent obstructionism, you just proved my point for me and destroyed your own argument.

If Obama was in favor of curing cancer, Mitch McConnell and his party accused him of being against a man's freedom to have cancer if he wanted it.
If he was in favor of brushing one's teeth twice a day, they accused him of attacking the sugar industry.
 
There's a lot of problems with the Army's new wave of recruits. Part of it is poor levels of discipline with new recruits, but to put all the blame on that is missing the bigger point.

The Army has three main problems that I've observed. The first is the way promotions work. Too often I've seen people, who aren't bad soldiers or bad people necessarily, get their stripes, even when it's patently clear they aren't really fit to be leaders. But because they say the right things at the board or are good at PT, CSM's and First Sergeants assume they're all squared away, and as a result you have teams and squads that are run by people who don't really have the necessary skills to lead others. But once you get E-5, suddenly everything's untouchable. "Check down, not up" is probably the most toxic saying I've heard around my unit.

Second is PT. The Army sucks at PT. If it's not ultra-repetitive PRT sessions that leave everyone demotivated and annoyed, it's bone grinding bull**** like constant ruck marches. Rucking is a vital light infantry skill but's absolutely terrible on the body, especially when it's announced abruptly and without warning the day before PT. Add in that a lot of new soldiers don't know how to set up their rucks properly, so they end up hauling **** on their spine for miles and people wonder why we have so many muscular skeletal injuries. More annoying at a lower level is that so many units insist on never doing PT below the platoon level, but this is incredibly counterproductive. Part of being an NCO is knowing your soldiers strengths and weaknesses. It's a lot harder to tell how your soldiers are doing when everyone's bunched together in a company formation. And yet we have this incredibly stupid mentality that "Our PT isn't enough to get you fit." Bull****. We have an hour every morning dedicated to this crap, are you really telling me we can't get a good workout in? It's nonsense, but because we either do half assed bull**** that doesn't work out anything, or we do retarded PRT sessions that get incredibly repetitive and stupid, it ends up being true. You wanna fix this, then start having PT conducted at lower levels and hold NCO's, especially team and squad leaders, responsible for the physical fitness levels of their soldiers. Obviously there are things they can't control like diet, but they still should have a bigger role in that then it currently is.

And lastly, the disconnect between senior leadership and lower levels is absolutely ridiculous. Nobody in my chain of command seems to be able to track how many hoops we have to jump through just to dispatch a god damn vehicle, which ends up taking days on average, and of course this information only comes down at the last ****ing minute. Too many command teams have no idea what happens at the lower level, and too many times junior enlisted have no idea what the **** they're doing or for what end their doing it towards. Too many command teams I've seen on Fort Hood alone are only concerned with checking the boxes rather than actually finding out what's going on. And it's a shame, because a lot of times those commanders and First Sergeants mean well, but there's an almost systematic problem with it comes with information dispersion between battalions and their lower echelons. Maybe's it just my unit, but that's what bothers me a lot.

Anywho, just my 0.02 cents.

Really Great Post.

tyvm
 
More evidence you're just posting hyper-partisan hackish nonsense.

The military is the military.
If they believe things have gone bad within their ranks, it's their fault and their fault alone.

Nothing to do with Obama. :roll:

The POTUS doesn't have anything to do with daily practices and conduct.

Stop posting moronic nonsense.

WOW, what a terrible post.

I am a little surprised that it comes from U.
 
Perfect! Considering the fact that ANYTHING and EVERYTHING he submitted TO Congress WAS 100 percent rebuffed by the process of 100 percent obstructionism, you just proved my point for me and destroyed your own argument.

If Obama was in favor of curing cancer, Mitch McConnell and his party accused him of being against a man's freedom to have cancer if he wanted it.
If he was in favor of brushing one's teeth twice a day, they accused him of attacking the sugar industry.

Obama and McCain.....look at what they have done to us........

Notice how you cant point to where Obama notified us of how bad our military is now.
 
Back
Top Bottom