A
New York Times story today discusses the Physical Training and Rehabilitation Program at several posts where basic training is conducted and in particular highlights abuses at Fort Sill. It is a serious story with some terrifying specifics and should be considered by any young person or their parents when thinking about joining the military. But I think it's also important to not blow the incidents up any more than they are or apply too broad a brush to all such units or to all the trainers in the Army.
A civilian spokesman at the fort, Jon Long, said an investigation had substantiated "misbehavior" by a drill sergeant who, soldiers say, kicked a trainee with stitches in his knee. Mr. Long said the sergeant had been suspended and reassigned, along with another drill sergeant who, soldiers complained, had repeatedly awakened injured trainees throughout the night for uniform changes and formations.
As I read this entry to review before posting I realize that it sounds like I am excusing a pattern of abuse and criminal conduct by certain people. I am not - I think this story needs to be highlighted - but I also think we (from the reality-based part of America) need to keep it in the proper context and realize that there are many sides to every story.
Some people on the left consistently get the AWOL figures and their interpretations wrong and it does a disservice to the story there. I fear that this NYT story offers elements so strong that the same thing may happen here. For instance:
A civilian spokesman at the fort, Jon Long, said an investigation had substantiated "misbehavior" by a drill sergeant who, soldiers say, kicked a trainee with stitches in his knee. Mr. Long said the sergeant had been suspended and reassigned, along with another drill sergeant who, soldiers complained, had repeatedly awakened injured trainees throughout the night for uniform changes and formations.
The incidents documented in the story all ring true to me but are probably not indicative of the wider application of discipline, motivation of trainees, or command climate of these units. I never worked directly for a "Rehab Battalion" as we called them at Fort Knox, but saw some trainees sent there and later led some Soldiers that had been processed there. I would say that there is a mixed return on investment for these units but the risk of abuse is high when the leadership is immature or unprepared.
The first thing going wrong here is the absolute necessity to preserve the graduation rate of troops through basic training. Despite the happy talk from the Pentagon, it is darned hard to recruit enough qualified people to fill the ranks as it is. But the job doesn't get any easier for those that must train these new accessions. A barely qualified recruit or one that has waivers for physical or mental conditions is a big challenge for the young man or woman that has to train them. And this is where I think we have to be careful to get it right. As important as it is for the leadership in the Pentagon to remember that troops are not robotic killing machines, but are sons, daughters, mothers, and fathers; it is important for us to remember that the drill sergeants and Rehab Battalion leaders are the same. They are humans with all sorts of pressures. Not all are heroes and I am sure that (despite psychological testing and special training [not all that special]) some psychopaths slip into the ranks. But more likely, the abusers are a young man or woman overwhelmed by a difficult task without the proper resources, environment, or leadership to make the right decision at the time. The pressure is on to `graduate' these trainees at any cost. I remember once at Fort Knox where I served as an instructor on the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, a senior non-commissioned officer told several of us that if we issued a failing grade on a certain task, it was akin to saying that we were incompetent as trainers. As a group - we rejected this but you never know when attitudes like that may carry the day. A few years ago, the officer evaluation forms for the leaders of basic training units and military occupational specialty schools focused on the quality of the troops they produced. Now, the forms concentrate on the numbers. It doesn't help the public confidence when the leaders basically stonewall or stick to the talking points.
The fort commander, Maj. Gen. David C. Ralston, said he was confident that the leadership of the healing program took the correct actions after a thorough investigation. General Ralston said he was pleased with the improvements at Fort Sill, where the success rate was 75 percent, one of the highest for the training centers.
A lot of changes have been made to basic training in order to prevent injuries and to acknowledge different kinds of socialization and cultures. These Rehab Battalions are one feature that aims to save tax dollars and preserve the force. Leadership starts at the top. When the SecDef is shown doing ridiculous exercises and contradicting himself on the nightly news - is it any wonder that we have trouble in the ranks? The Army must be held to account for abuses and failures in leadership and resourcing. There are an awful lot of troops that are not abused and are given an opportunity to succeed. If these recruits aren't being treated properly - they will never succeed. But let's remember that the abusers started somewhere too - they aren't just robots cut from the movie stereotypes - they are of the same flesh that their victims are.