Morale: Too Fat To Fight


March 3, 2018: The U.S. Army is once more reforming its basic training program to deal with complaints from unit commanders that too many of the new soldiers they were receiving were unable to perform adequately. The most common complaints were new troops who were undisciplined, physically unfit, lacked basic military skills that basic is supposed to impart and generally unsuited for military service. These calls for training reforms have been a common event since peacetime conscription was introduced after World War II. During the period of peacetime conscription parents, politicians and unhappy conscripts complained that that training was too dangerous or misguided in some other way and the army made changes. Then the changes proved to be the cause of unprepared troops who could not perform well in combat or got themselves killed and the army was called on to implement more effective training. After conscription ended in the early 1970s the problem gradually got worse because fewer politicians had any personal experience with basic training or military life but were called on by special interest groups or popular movements that saw military training as something other than a program to produce effective soldiers. In the last decade, as most American combat forces in Iraq and Afghanistan came home, there were calls to make a lot of changes in recruiting and training and were, from a military sense, counterproductive. It has gotten so bad that the problems have to be addressed.

In peacetime a classic trigger for calls to change basic and combat training in general are training accidents that get troops killed. When these become a big news item commanders brace themselves for the usual flood of demands from media and politicians that something be done. Often the result is to forbid dangerous training activities and subtly let it be known that any officer associated with a fatal training accident can expect problems with their next promotion. Worse are situations where the politicians demand changes that have more to do cultural changes than death or injury during training and result in the same insistence that something be done or else.

This happens despite so many recent wartime experiences that prove once more that strenuous (and often dangerous) training saves you even more casualties in combat. This is nothing new. For thousands of years experienced combat troops have known that, "the more you sweat in peace, the less you bleed in war." During World War II the U.S. Army surveyed the troops to see what they thought about their training, leadership, and a host of other items. One of the more surprising things to come out of these surveys was the feeling among combat troops that their training wasn't tough enough. World War II "basic" was generally quite intense, more severe than anything recruits experienced since the 1940s. But actual combat quickly revealed that even more intensity in that training would have been a big, often life-saving, help.

During wartime the troops get better. Practice and experience definitely have an effect. But during peacetime something worse happens. Not only does the lack of practice make the troops less ready to survive actual combat but the commanders have a vested interest in denying that there is anything wrong. The rot sets in rather quickly after a war has ended. Training for combat is not only a lot of work but it's also dangerous. Realistic training means some of the troops are going to get hurt or killed. This is a political no-no, at least in democracies. At the same time, a democracy demands accountability from its elected officials. If the taxpayers are going to fork over billions a year for defense they want to be reassured that the money is buying real, kick ass, combat power. That often results in unpleasant truths being hidden or just ignored.

When American troops entered combat in large numbers during the 2003 Iraq invasion, it quickly became clear that many troops were not ready. The reason for this was simple but generally ignored by the media and politicians. It all began in the 1990s, when basic training was changed from a conditioning process that turned undisciplined civilians into disciplined soldiers into something far less. Discipline is essential for military operations. In life and death situations, failure to act promptly and efficiently when ordered to will get you, and others, killed.

This destruction of basic training was not done on purpose but to accommodate the decision in the early 1990s to integrate men and women in basic training. For decades male and female recruits got their basic separately. By putting them together it became obvious that the women could not compete physically and psychologically with the men. But a new policy, pushed by many in Congress, declared that men and women were equal on the battlefield and should take the same basic training. When the military found this did not work, they (with the exception of the Marines, who resisted the political pressure and continued separate training) lowered the standards to suit the weakest women. Much of the yelling and verbal abuse delivered by drill sergeants was also eliminated, for while it turned the men into disciplined soldiers, it encouraged too many women to quit. After all, women did not join the army with any thought of combat but for a job. Most of the men did not get combat assignments either but everyone was aware that in a tight situation the non-combat soldiers might actually have to use their rifles, and the place to make that point was basic training. In effect, 1990s basic became the old, but kinder and gentler, female version that taught you how to wear a uniform, march in formation, and provided some familiarization with basic infantry weapons.

This change in basic training had a profound effect that no one wanted to admit. The army got around the most obvious damage by establishing two separate training tracks; combat and support. Only about ten percent of troops are in combat jobs and out of preference, these jobs are nearly all male. So the training for combat, which all of these recruits requested and volunteered for, remained pretty rugged and effective. It became easier to spot the combat troops, they were in better physical shape, behaved in a more disciplined manner. The 90 percent of support troops were about 14 percent female and most went through the less rigorous mixed gender training. After 2001 all training got more realistic and strenuous but after 2008 it went back to pre-2001 standards with even less emphasis on dealing with combat and more time spent learning how to be more sensitive.

Throughout all this it remained true that the support troops were much less disciplined and required much more supervision. This meant, among other things, that officers often did supervisory tasks that NCOs used to handle. And the men going into combat jobs, in effect, did basic over, the old fashioned way, when they were given their additional training for specific jobs (infantry, artillery, tanks). But the rest of the troops were less soldiers and more like civilians. It became harder to keep the troops on the straight and narrow.

As a result, all services liberally used "administrative discharge" (they literally fired troublesome soldiers) to get rid of most ill-disciplined troops or those who simply could not come to terms with being in the military. But this made it more difficult to keep units up to strength. Commanders were encouraged to fire fewer troops and, in effect, put up with many of their young men and women who had not been convinced by basic training lite that they were now in the military.

It got worse. The shrinking budgets in the 1990s generated a situation where more money could be put into developing new weapons, keeping unneeded bases open, upgrading barracks and family housing, funding the needs of single parents, or training. Something had to give and it was training, which was needed more than ever. But then, the loss would only be noticed if we went to war and American politicians were very much against any American casualties. Can't have a real war without someone getting killed, so training costs were cut. There was less money for using tanks, aircraft, or ships. Fewer spare parts were bought (a lot of spares were needed if you used equipment a lot). There was another reason for reducing training, doing it energetically tended to get troops killed or injured. This was more of a problem now that so many recruits were getting eight weeks of coed camp instead of basic training. So combat training for non-combat troops was avoided.

When there was a military operation, like Kosovo, units worldwide were stripped of competent troops and working equipment to fill the need. While much was said about having armed forces that could fight two wars at once, it turned out that the U.S. was barely able to support a few months of air operations over the Balkans. And the subsequent occupation of Kosovo with ground units left far more units elsewhere incapable of combat operations.

All that began to change after September 11, 2001, and the change accelerated after 2003. The combat deficiencies of non-combat troops became painfully obvious during the advance into Iraq. But now the trend is to back off on training and go back to getting the troops less ready for combat, so that we can repeat the same cycle again and again. What goes around comes around, it surely does. But after 2008 the military was ordered back to the 1990s and basic training lost track of the basics. Less emphasis was placed on physical fitness of recruits, meaning many graduated unable to pass the physical fitness test they would be taking after basic. Given the growing number of recruits who were overweight and out of shape this became a major complaint among unit commanders, second only to the lack of discipline. There was also a noticeable lack of combat skills. All of these items has been sacrificed to accommodate mixed gender basic training and more classroom instruction. That is being changed. The current Secretary of Defense is a combat veteran and led troops in combat. His predecessor had no military experience at all and that had become increasingly common since 1990s. It was the same with many senior civilian jobs in the Department of Defense and that meant proposed changes that decreased combat readiness had fewer people available to even point out the problems.

Another problem that began to show up in the late 1990s was the growing number of potential recruits would could not be accepted because they were too fat, too unfit in general, had drug problems or a criminal record. Ironically China, with its rapidly growing economy, had the same problems. China had introduced strict population controls in the late 1970s resulting in an extraordinary number of only children. The boys in particular were spoiled by parents and grandparents and when it came time for military service a growing number were too fat, two unfit and generally not worth trying to train. Similar problems in Russia where a plunging birth rate and growing use of drugs and other illegal behavior made many young men unfit for service. Military historians understand that the countries that can best deal with these issues will have a much more effective military.




Help Keep Us From Drying Up

We need your help! Our subscription base has slowly been dwindling.

Each month we count on your contributions. You can support us in the following ways:

  1. Make sure you spread the word about us. Two ways to do that are to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
  2. Subscribe to our daily newsletter. We’ll send the news to your email box, and you don’t have to come to the site unless you want to read columns or see photos.
  3. You can contribute to the health of StrategyPage.
Subscribe   Contribute   Close