As the Economy plummeted, the Military tightened its recruitment standards and Congress lowered the enlistment incentives. Re-enlistment bonuses shrank, and Congress decided against more than the legally required pay raises. Senator Webb, a Veteran himself, and normally on the Pro-Troop side of his party put it this way: with the Economy in bad shape, we don't need to pay the Troops more to recruit the numbers we need. He was right of course. The recruiters have been turning away qualified applicants for some time. Only the National Guard is missing its decreased recruiting goals. People are signing up for a job, instead of for the Mission.
And with the process of cutting the force by another 49,000, the Army has an opportunity to weed out bad apples, right? Between the bad economy, the increase in new recruits, and the looming cuts, the Army has to figure out who to fire, and has little incentive to tolerate any misbehavior. This is a good thing, right?
On the heels of bad publicity over DUI's and "Sexual Assaults" and "hazing" and the repeal of DADT, "Zero Tolerance" isn't just a buzzword, but an excuse to toss out the excess, for the least of allegations. In the Sexual Assaults report, an allegation, even if unproven, of inappropriate contact or words, is sufficient to discharge from the military. Innocent until proven guilty isn't applied. There are cases of individuals allegedly slapping someone's butt in a line of Troops, where insufficient evidence exists to prove misconduct, yet the individual was tossed out.
And if that kid celebrates too much on his 21st birthday, and ends up on a report for an "alcohol-related incident," well, the Army didn't need him anyway. If his Squad Leader smells alcohol on his breath at physical fitness training at 5AM, they can both get tossed into the unemployment lines if he doesn't report it. Not for being drunk, not for failing a breathalyzer, but for the smell of alcohol, a subjective test.
A bad joke with nothing but humor intended can lead to an accusation of sexism, racism, or homophobia. A bad joke can lead to being fired.
Now, some will say this is a good thing. Our Troops should be of the best character. They shouldn't be making poor decisions. This means the Military will keep the best, get rid of the rest, and be more competitive. Those with substandard records can be removed from the rolls. But, do we really train Our Troops to be Boy Scouts? Is it their mission to be Choir Boys? What is it that we are asking of them? We ask them to kill bad guys, to risk their lives, to sacrifice time with their families, to go years of their lives living in conditions imprisoned criminals would complain about, with no option of going down to the local pub.
We ask them to take risks. Yet, we have set them up to be thrown out when they take risks and fail, or get caught. I've seen this one play out before. In the drawdown of the 90's, the Military decided to cull the "bad apples." A similar value of "Zero Tolerance" was the policy. And it wasn't just the kid that got the DUI that was tossed. Officers commanding a unit that had too many DUI's were also tossed. No, a Company Commander can not be with all 100-200 Soldiers he commands on weekends as they make a decision to get in that car, or take a cab, but he is held accountable for the decisions of those 21 year old kids, partying on a weekend, after 12 months in combat.
Commanders make decisions on the level of acceptable risk, every single day, for things as mundane as checking the operational readiness of vehicles to training on sliding down a rope out of a helicopter. When zero tolerance means that a training accident can mean him getting tossed out, he accepts less risk. Fast Rope training gets canceled. Too Risky. Nevermind that fastroping onto an objective may save lives in combat. Nevermind that you fight as you train, and should train as you fight. That's just a slogan, not a practice. Nevermind that sweat in peacetime saves blood in combat. If some 19 year old Private fails to wear the proper gloves and burns his hands, it could cost that Officer a good OER. If some Private falls off the rope, it could cost that Officer his career.
"Zero Tolerance" means Troops have to double check every word out of their mouths, less someone get offended. It means Officers take fewer risks. It leads to a "Risk Averse" Officer Corps. And that is precisely what occurred in the 90's. When we went to war, Commanders were telling their Troops they'd bring every one of them back in the same shape they went in. And when those Commanders had to decide between sending those Troops beyond the walls to patrol for the enemy in his territory, or hole up inside the safety of those walls, the Risk Averse Officer chose to keep his Troops inside the "safety of the walls."
"Playing it safe" ceded the area outside the walls to the enemy. The enemy learned he could patrol outside small arms range, set up a mortar tube, and let loose a half dozen rounds at will. The enemy learned that because no one was patrolling the roads on a regular basis, he could dig a hole and stick an IED in it, waiting for a convoy to come by. Playing it safe is dangerous and ineffective.
Do you know when I figured out the Petreaus Plan would work? It wasn't when the fatalities started falling in August 2007. It was while they were rising in May, June, and July, before the full "Surge" had even arrived. I knew it would work, because the cause of death was shifting from "IED" and Indirect Fire, to Small Arms Fire. It told me that General Petraeus was pushing the Troops into the enemy's lair. The Risk Averse Officers got a kick in the pants and were told to close with and destroy the enemy. Sure, they went and drank chai, and asked the locals, "What door do we need to kick in, to kill or capture the bad guys?"
When you decide to go patrol, to go find the enemy's lair, to kick that door to hell open, and take out the bad guys, the enemy isn't going to take that lying down. They're going to fight back. They're going to get off a lucky shot and kill some of your men from time to time. We pay Our Warriors to take Risks. Taking Risks saves lives and wins wars.
General Patton is known as a great General, not because he played it safe. He's known for the battles he won, taking risks. His audacity won.
And when Our Warriors return from battle, they will still take risks. Sometimes that risk is going to cost them. Combat Veterans are not Boy Scouts.
So, this business about "Zero Tolerance" will make a difference. The competitive will make rank and keep their uniforms. The competitive will be those that avoided the risk of combat, that had the time to go to Professional Development Schools, that had time Stateside to attend College, that got medals for processing the most pieces of papers. The Risk Averse that know how to brownnose their Evaluator will look better on paper, than the Warrior that tells his risk-averse Lieutenant to sit his college educated butt down in the chair, and see how a Warrior takes out the local War Lord in his lair.
On paper, it will look like we have a more professional, better educated Military. We will have weeded out those Commanders who couldn't convince their Troops not to drink and drive, or those that risked injury in training. Accidental deaths will go down. We will have weeded out the Risk-taking Warriors and promoted the Risk Averse Choir Boys. And it won't be until the next war that we learn again that taking risks saves lives. It won't be until the Economy booms again that we learn that the smallest mistake doesn't mean the Military should give up on a young Troop.
But this is also the voice of experience, of someone that came into an Army where NCO's mentored Troops to become NCO's, and understood the value of the lessons learned when a risk taken meant painful results. I grew up in an Army where 18-21 year olds were known to make mistakes, when it was okay to make them feel the pain of those mistakes, when Basic Training instilled discipline. I grew up in an Army that took care of the Troops, instead of coddling their feelings. And I saw the Army purge the ranks of those NCO's that had learned valuable lessons through those mistakes. I saw the Risk Averse Officers deny necessary training as too risky. And I was still in the Army when I saw those Risk Averse Officers deny patrols that would have prevented the Mortars and IEDs.
During my generation, it was common for a Platoon Sergeant to chew out, to cuss out a young Private or Buck Sergeant loud enough for the whole company to hear, send him out for a day of "grass drills" or lowcrawling, and then close the door and quietly explain to the young butterbar how stupid he was, or join the other Platoon Sergeants in stories of how they had down much worse when they were Privates. It wasn't uncommon for a Grizzly Old First Sergeant to sit his Captain down and explain that his 20 plus years of experience dealing with Privates trumped that college degree in psychology. But that experience has been quickly leaving the military over the last 3 years.
Many of those E7's today often don't have the 14-16 years of experience mine did. When they tired of the political correctness, they retired, and the E7's of today often have 8-10 years, just enough to be great E6's, but they were checking the blocks, getting the schools and keeping their noses brown. They'll be happy to see the last of the dinosaurs leave. They'll be happy to see the crusty old coffee-drinking, cigarette smoking, door-kicking Warriors get out of their path to E8. It's the new Army and there's no room for the politically incorrect risktakers. There's no room for those grizzly old NCO's that aren't afraid to tell an Officer he's wrong.
But you know, when it comes time to teach a Squad of young Infantry Privates how to react to an ambush, or to lead them out of an ambush, it really doesn't matter if that Staff Sergeant blew a 1.01 or not two years ago on the side of the road in New York, or not. It is about whether he has the balls and command presence to order a base of fire, and a counter assault. It isn't about whether he can coddle the scared young Private to put his head up far enough to aim at the enemy. It is about whether he can put his boot far enough up that Private's butt that the Private realizes it is far safer to move into the enemy's line of fire than hide under that Staff Sergeant's shadow.
Before we ask Our Troops to be Choir Boys, we should ask our selves, how effective Choir Boys are at kicking in doors. Before we strip Our Warriors of their uniforms for excesses on their weekends, we should ask whether or not we do the same of our politicians, doctors, teachers, and UAW members.
Stumble It!
