# human rights in the armed forces



## reg1 (8 Aug 2001)

please let me know if this was hashed out already, i have a fealing it has.    to enyone who can start,what is the quality of the soldier today compaired to the soldier of the old school? i think rca can relate to what i am talking about. please dont get me wrong its a good thing up to a point, but were is the disaplin?           "ubique"


----------



## ender (11 Aug 2001)

well, the quality of spelling has obviously gone down.


----------



## reg1 (11 Aug 2001)

well ender  if you dont have enything good to say you should keep your mouth shut,veteran member or not. i did not join this forum to be insulted.


----------



## RCA (12 Aug 2001)

reg1 - I think that you have just a concreate examplmle of the difference between today and yesterday.

more on this later

Remember all, if your not a gunner, your a target.


----------



## reg1 (12 Aug 2001)

thanks RCA.  A LITTLE RESPECT GOES A LONG WAY         "UBIQUE"


----------



## Master Blaster (12 Aug 2001)

reg1;

You wanted an answer to your question and you got one from ender.  If you didn‘t like it, tough.  Get over it...or, you may try to learn the etiquette of the internet.  When you start a sentence, capitalize the first letter of the first word. The end of a sentence usually ends with a period or a punctuation mark suitable to the intent implied. If you don‘t know how to spell something, look it up.  You‘ll learn something and your professionalism will start to show through.

I never got past the 9th grade (officially) but I watched and learned.  

By becoming more than what you are you grow and when you grow you change into what you want to become become.

You could benefit from doing the same.

Dileas Gu Brath


----------



## ender (13 Aug 2001)

to post an actual response to the message above:

  Human rights in the armed forces exist for a reason.  My unit just sent 20 people on a course and had 10 medically RTU‘d.  (I would elaborate why but I can‘t on a public forum.  It is being dealt with through army channels)  That‘s not on.  If your objective is training, then you train troops, you don‘t break them.
  "Cock" courses on teach you to tune it out, you don‘t learn the skills your unit sent you there to learn.  Then soldiers go back to thier units untrained, unable to take thier place in a section.  Also, it is entirely possible to have a very hard course without going overboard.  Then you weed out the ones you don‘t want without hurting the ones you do.
   I‘m not saying the SHARP and the entire atmosphere of political correctness hasn‘t gone to far: it has.  However, there needs to be legitimate army channels to address abuse.
    A lot of it can go down to leadership.  Most of the young people we are getting today really want to be good soldiers.  It‘s up to the NCO‘s to get them there.


----------



## reg1 (13 Aug 2001)

thank you for your response, i wish things could have started a little differant.


----------



## the patriot (17 Aug 2001)

Ender,

Could you describe at all what the actual abuse was on the course your fellow troops went on?!  Did they PT those 10 troops into the ground when they were injured?!  That is abuse.  Define what behaviour occurred to give me a better sense of what your troops went through.

-the patriot-


----------



## towhey (17 Aug 2001)

Patriot, I think that Ender‘s point is this:

The CF runs courses for one reason:  to train soldiers to develop specific competencies -- whether general military skills, leadership abilities, or specialist technical knowledge, etc.

Courses are not -- or at least should not -- be run to "weed out" perceived weakness.  Nor, should they be run to provide "pay back time" for experienced instructors.

If 10 of 20 candidates are medically washed out of a course, one has to question the skill of the instructors.  Does it mean instruction was poor?  Not necessarily.  But, it should prompt some investigation.

It could be that the candidates were simply unfit -- in fact, given the general state of fitness in Canadian youth today, I‘m sure they were.  In that case, the task for instructors is even more demanding:  how to produce skilled, capable soldiers without hurting them.

At the end of the day, the Army needs skilled, capable soldiers -- not an opportunity to brag in the mess about "how hard" the course was, or "how many people we RTU‘d."

The attitude that no course is a good course unless people get hurt and fail is/was/always has been/always will be simply asinine.

I have seen instructors who were abusive, and who knew it.  I have been abused by instructors on course who were subsequently charged and convicted.  I have seen instructors who were abusive, but didn‘t realize they were -- they were just "doing what had been done to them".  This, particularly, happens a lot on leadership courses.  

Fortunately, the vast majority of instructors I have seen are hard-working, caring and work damned hard to make sure their students learn what they‘re supposed to learn and develop the competencies they‘re there to develop in a way that maximizes their usefulness to the CF.  Does this mean the coddle troops and run "soft" courses?  No.  It means they‘re smart enough to develop strong, skilled, fit soldiers without killing, hurting or abusing them.

And, for the "Bonafide" counters out there, I‘ve instructed, developed, supervised, and been a candidate on dozens of serials of courses, reg and reserve, including:  GMT, QL2/3 Inf, QL4 Dvr wheel, dvr track, MG, Comms, Recce, JLC/Infantry ISCC, BOT, Pre-RESO, RESO Ph I, II, BIOC Ph III, IV, CFSS, NBCW Offr/Supvr, Unit NBCW, RCMP ERT field trg, Search and Rescue Management, Cliff Rescue Team Leader, Basic Financial Advisor, yada, yada, yada.


----------



## TOW2B (17 Aug 2001)

The major problem with training todays recruit is that they are soft.I can guarentee that they can tell you all of the secret levels in Diablo 2 but have never had a blister in their life.I have trained both Reg and Res recruits and simply put most of what slips through the recruiting centers in a word is JUNK.It saddens me to see the state that the Infantry has been allowed to sink and the other trades are even worse. To quote CSM Don Purdy (USA Ret)" if things don‘t change,yu will have the blood of soldiers on your hands.There is an enemy out there who is determined,and is not concerned about individual feelings or time outs...Be hard on them nowor watch them die or worse RUN." 
‘NUFF SAID.


----------



## Gunner (17 Aug 2001)

I would be very surprised if an instructor on Tommy Aitkens basic military training course didn‘t think the exact same thing about young recruit Tommy as he now feels about the candidates today.

It seems to be a common trait amongst junior NCOs and some senior NCOs to look upon the "next generation" of soldiers as weak and the CFRCs "scrapped the bottom of the barrel" with candidates for this course.  I‘ve been around long enough to realize this isn‘t true.  Luckily the days of course standards being at the whim of an instructor/course WO/course Offr are hopefully gone forever.  The days of kicking people off course because you don‘t like what they look like, don‘t like their attitude, etc are over.

Are standards low today.  Yeah, they probably are but until we (the army) show that we require a soldier to do a task at a certain standard we probably won‘t get it raised.  Standards are based on Fact..not a leaders personal whim.


----------



## towhey (29 Aug 2001)

Gunner:  I agree.

I‘m sure that training standards today are unrealistic.  How can I be so sure?  Because, they‘ve always been unrealistic.

When it comes to training, we‘ve always made it up as we went along.  Is a soldier who can carry a 50kg pack 10 miles in 1.5 hours really more combat-ready than one who can carry a 45kg pack 9 miles in 1 hour?  Or, a 30kg pack 20 miles in 3 hours?  Who knows?

Certainly, I expect that soldiers should be fit.  How fit?  I don‘t know.  The toughest, most combat-experienced soldiers I knew never seemed very fit.  They smoked, were overweight and couldn‘t run fast.  But they were battle-proven and combat-tested.

I also know that there is a tendency among young officers and NCO‘s to take the "granite" philosophy to heart when training recruits and junior leaders.

The "Granite" philosophy????

Here‘s my analogy:  Picture two artists at work.  One is a sculptor who works in Granite.  The other is a sculptor who works with clay.  The Granite sculptor creates art by chiseling away everything that isn‘t a beautiful statue.  The Clay sculptor builds his statue from scratch, using raw materials to create something wonderful from base clay.

Too many military instructors think like Granite sculptors:  they believe their role is to take a platoon of recruits and "weed out" those who aren‘t soldiers.  That, frankly, is a pretty simple one-day job and requires zero instructional skill.

In fact, military instructors should be Clay sculptors.  Their task is to take a platoon of raw recruits and, using ingenuity, creativity, intelligence, skill, knowledge and perseverance, to build soldiers out of them.


----------



## Andyboy (30 Aug 2001)

Towhey, What if you don‘t have enough clay?


----------



## towhey (30 Aug 2001)

AndyBoy:  not having enough clay is a real problem, but it‘s a different problem from the one we‘re discussing here.  That said, this particular type of "clay" is intelligent and animate -- if you treat it poorly, it won‘t come back.

Infanteer:  The clay is the same as it‘s always been.  Pontius Pilate complained about the poor quality of the panty-waisted, thin-skinned, weak-kneed recruits he had too.  That today‘s leaders think they‘re exceptionally burdened with "weak" recruits is entirely predictable and just as lame as it was 2000 years ago.

If the instructor isn‘t up to the challenge and can‘t mold the clay, then he/she should pack up his kit and get out of the studio.

Not enough tools and material?  Again, that‘s a different issue from the human rights thread.


----------



## Andyboy (31 Aug 2001)

The problem with glib analogies, Towhey, is they rarely have any basis in reality. 

The absolute bottom line is that not everyone is able, for a variety of reasons, to be an infantry soldier. It is the job of the infantry NCO to train and test their soldiers in the skills and abilities they need to do their job. In our army, the reserves at least, we are neither able to train nor test in any realistic way. Some of the reasons for this are financial, some are political, few, if any have to do with the "way" we "mould".

And please stop trying to compare this issue with something that may or may not have been said 2000 years ago, it‘s kind of ridiculous.


----------



## herbie (31 Aug 2001)

The thing to remember with training is the reason that we are out in the rain or snow digging trenches.  We are training to fight in a " do or die " sitiuation.  Our soldiers must be mentally prepared tor this.  ( as preped as can be without combat experience )  All soldiers must be faced with physically and mentally diffucult situations to teach them how to " adapt and overcome ".  This does not warrant some jackass SR NCO striking or phsycally hurting a trainee.  But maybe the human rights bandwagon has rolled on too far.  An example :  We had a militia soldier in our section for an exersise who said that he would never go to war for Canada or kill the enemyies of this nation in combat.  It was against his " nature "  and he frowned apon those of us who were willing to defend our home. ( you know.. soldiers ).  The point is not that militia bad reg good but rather because of human rights there is nothing to be done about many people in uniform who are not " soldiers ".
Just because some one voleenteers does not mean they have the drive, or motivation to be a professional soldier.  This is where very diffuclt traing comes in.  Those who rise to the challenge stay, those who don‘t " thanks for coming out don‘t let the door hit you in the a@@ on the way out"


----------



## herr_scooter (1 Sep 2001)

Interesting clay metephor however,

The military is composed of people who were raised in Canadian society.  Society changes the military, when the military start‘s to change society...it‘s a bad thing.

I would say however, that the limitations placed on us, have been placed on us by a leadership that is uncomfortable operating in the "human rights era".  While I would argue that an individual has the same human right‘s as when I got in back in 1992.  The same rights are infact implemented in very different ways.  The mistakes that the military has made have lead to a greater deal of public scrutiny of our actions (both in and out of the public eye).  The military must accept the fact that it is a public institution, and accept this public scrutiny.  The most annoying thing is that there has been no public debate over the rights and responsibilities of an individual who elects to serve as a volunteer in the military, and I would argue that such a discussion would be an interesting excercie on this forum.

As for the various stories that have been told about the quality of the soldier‘s we are recruiting, I really don‘t think that the quality has diminished over the years,  we get the same people through the door that we always have.  The big thing that has changed is the way in which we train them to do thier jobs.


----------



## Bill Green (1 Sep 2001)

Whenever people describe the CF as a public institution it reminds me of the post office, VIA Rail, and a host of other government agencies that are employment barrios.

When I think of the CF I think of hard individuals, ready to accept any mission or challenge in any environment at any time.  People outside the military cannot understand an ethos that simply put states "we are the force of last resort of Canada and we cannot fail."  ONly when we send troops into harms way does real understanding come to those outside the military and then it usually is only family members not the "public".

Our best soldiers are not careerists, not guady models and not Rambo want-to-bees.  For the most part great soldiers are like great recruits curious and dedicated to knowing their craft; enthusiastic and cheerful in a mature manner; and dedicated and tough in persevering.

Ocassionaly they get into trouble and scrapes because they challenge the envelope and status quo.  And then they will carry an injured or wounded mate without thinking of personal sacrifice.

This just isn‘t like any public institution I know of and I think it is because we stress values of loyalty, duty and honour.  And if there is one area in the CF where we need to improve let it first be in celebrating and defining  our very unique culture of the warrior that has been handed off to us from a long thin line of great soldiers.

Reconnaissance with Courage and Integrity


----------



## Andyboy (4 Sep 2001)

I guess there seems to be two streams of thought here. On the one hand we are saying the system is at fault because we are recruiting people who aren‘t prepared (in many ways, not just physically) to be soldiers. On the other hand we are saying we are not preparing these people to be soldiers because the system doesn‘t allow for it. I guess my thought is, why not try to prepare everyone and those who havn‘t met the grade don‘t pass. 

Oh, never mind, that‘s singling people out, and we can‘t have that can we?


----------



## towhey (4 Sep 2001)

AndyBoy:  I don‘t disagree with you that not all people, nor all recruits, are cut out to be soldiers.  I don‘t believe I ever suggested such a thing.  Only, that all instructors are tasked to try and make soldiers of them.

As for my glib analogies... they are based on 14 years in the regular infantry teaching about 2,000 candidates everything from GMT recruit to NBCW, and supervising dozens of NCO and officer instructors.  

The "granite" perspective is all too often a prominent factor in the systemic failure of military training -- and it requires particularly diligent and mission-focused young officers and NCOs to overcome it.  Fortunately, for all of us, such officers and NCOs exist and are often in the right place at the right time.

Cheers,

2e


----------



## Andyboy (4 Sep 2001)

The problem, towhey, is that instructors are given neither the resources, time, or freedom to shape their soldiers. They are restricted by policy makers who have little to no actual experience instructing yet consider themselves experts (obviously, as you pointed out, you are not one of them). Unfortunately the choice often comes down to investing an inordinate amout of time on a few individuals to mold them -or- admitting that they just aren‘t prepared for what we do. The current system is based on everyone being equal at everything which I‘m sure you will agree is ridiculous, it‘s also based on the idea that anyone can do anything, which is also ridiculous.


----------



## ender (5 Sep 2001)

patriot,
The reason why I can‘t elaborate the exact treatment of the troops on that course is because it is a) under investigation by the MP‘s. and b) it would be detrimental to the CF if I were to post it on a public forum.  Suffice to say there was some bad stuff going on, every one who heard about it is disgusted, and it‘s being dealt with through army channels.

There are plenty of good troops out there.  There are plenty of slackers.  If the recruiting centre is screening these people (which, considering the qualitiy of troops we‘ve been getting, they aren‘t) then the units will have to sort them out when they get there.  There should be provisions for getting people out of the army if, say, they have a complete lack of English skills.  Eventually, it all comes down to the character of the unit.


----------



## centurion (5 Sep 2001)

> Originally posted by ender:
> There should be provisions for getting people out of the army if, say, they have a complete lack of English skills.
> 
> ender,
> I‘m sure you meant fluent in either official language.


----------



## the patriot (5 Sep 2001)

Andyboy:

There‘s always Plah-Doh....   

-the patriot-


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Sep 2001)

Take the long view.  In a war crisis, our trainers must be able to turn nearly everyone who isn‘t manifestly unfit into a soldier, and the passing grade won‘t be decided purely on the basis of who is fit for the stresses of combat arms.  (I suppose performance may dictate post-basic trade selection.)  There is a hidden challenge there that we always need to be able to meet, and we test that capability every time a QL2 runs.

I am among those who believe the 16-day QL2 is ridiculously short.  But, with the new Basic Military Qualification (BMQ) and Soldier Qualification (SQ) standards (about 20 training days each?) we will have about 40 training days to work up a basic army soldier.  I haven‘t looked at the standards in detail, but intuitively it seems like it should be enough.


----------



## PTE Fader (5 Sep 2001)

I just got back from my BRT two weeks ago and have been in a vegetation like state since, but I kinda want to know what this thread pertains to.  

From what I‘ve read, it seems alot of people have beefs about the quality of the average recruit and the training s/he undergoes to become a basic, untrained soldier.  (sorry if I‘m horribly wrong, but I‘ve only read half the posts on this topic)

From my basic, I can say this (not pertaining to the CF, but to the individuals):

Some of the people on my basic should not have passed, and that they did disturbs me personnally.  Some of my platoon mates had horrible discipline, fittness, and general compitance.  Even though we‘re Comms Reservists, I know that we are still required to achieve a bare minimum of the attributes aforementioned.

On my basic, one fellow‘s fitness level could be described by the phrase "[the other recruit] ran as fast as I could walk."  For Section and even Platoon level tasks, he was narcissistic, either refusing to help or being physically unable to perform them.  His hygiene and general sanitation were deplorable, and from the way he conducted himself, everyone in my platoon had a horrible disdain for him.  
I know I was hoping that the instructors would reem him out, but the WO‘s, Sgt‘s, Mcpl‘s only saw the hygiene aspect and physical of this recruits character.  And so he escaped with a few minor slaps on the wrists; a few verbals and writtens for not showering or shaving, and lots of scorning for not being able to keep up during PT.  
As point man EVERY SINGLE DAY for PT and Marching, I found it absolutly revolting when, after running for 5 minutes, I‘d have to double back, sprint pass laggers like him, and watch as he fell in in front of the platoon.  What was worse, was when I had to do sattelites around the platoon during PT because I was WALKING and keeping infront of them.  Who was right marker?  The recruit I‘m talking about.
What really took the cake wasn‘t that this recruit passed his BRT with full qualifications, but he placed THIRD in my platoon due to incredibly high test scores.  That‘s third highest scoring soldier out of the platoon.
On my BRT, I was top third in my platoon, and I though I‘m a geek as a civvy, I believe I have the potential to be a fine soldier.  This other recruit‘s example is one that irritates me incredibly.  It is for that reason, that I don‘t feel as good about completing my BRT as I thought I would when first set out, and the reason that I will only consider myself a good soldier, IF I pass my JLC‘s.

To my knowledge, the CF has greater control over who goes on thier JLC‘s.  And from what a Corporal who completed his told me; "I‘d rather be doing [BRT] for four months than my JLC‘s.  Your JLC‘s is hardcore, Reg Force Infantry sh*t."   I‘m looking forward to going on mine.


----------



## McG (5 Sep 2001)

> Originally posted by Brad Sallows:
> [qb]I am among those who believe the 16-day QL2 is ridiculously short.  But, with the new Basic Military Qualification (BMQ) and Soldier Qualification (SQ) standards (about 20 training days each?) we will have about 40 training days to work up a basic army soldier.  I haven‘t looked at the standards in detail, but intuitively it seems like it should be enough.[/qb]



I agree whole heartedly.  However, to do this the second course must be designed with the intent to train a soldier to ELOC standard and not leave any related material untaught.


----------



## Andyboy (6 Sep 2001)

Something that we seem to overlook is that todays troops are tomorrows NCOs. I believe that if we don‘t train them well in the very beginning then they will never be well trained.The first course a troop receives does more to shape them than any other, I believe. How many times have we struggled with a troop on a QL3 or QL4 who has been poorly trained on their recruit course? Unfortunately the emphasis seems to be pumping out numbers in the hopes that they will be brought up to the standard at a lateer date, by someone else. I think it does more damage than good, and we would be better served building a solid base from day one and not relying on something that may or may not take place a t a later date. After all, the ones doing the training at a later date may well be the ones who were half trained today.


----------



## Yard Ape (6 Sep 2001)

It is true Andyboy, however the problem is not just the quality of training.  It is also the new troops comming in the door.  The recruiting age has been dropped to 16!!  Sure there is the requirment that a recruit turn 17 within the current calender year, but they are still joining at 16.  We can all think of examples of 17 year olds who made fine soldiers (that is some of us), but the average 17 year old is not ready.  Not physicaly and not mentaly.  Unfortunatly, recruiting looks at the minnimum age and take the below average kid off the street.  The result of this (coupled with the increasingly shorter QL2) is that new soldiers are failling off of QL2 and QL3 courses in record numbers and that the quality of those who make it through is remarkably lower.

Raise the minimum age back to 17 (at the least), higher the exceptional applicant (not the average) at minimum age, and increase the time dedicated to training.  Only these steps will corect the problem.

   Yard Ape


----------



## PTE Fader (6 Sep 2001)

I‘m not too sure I agree with that whole age debate.  Again looking back to my basic, there were 4 16 year olds in my platoon, 3 of which finished top third.  They were fit physically, and prepared mentally better than some of the older troops.  Myself, I‘m 17, and I was one of the top troops in the platoon; I consider myself a very well rounded fellow.

What I want to know, is how long are QL2‘s in other trades?  Mine was just under 8 weeks, consisting of 6 weeks of BRT, and a week and a half of LET.  I heard that Infantry QL2‘s are only 6 weeks or something, since they‘re supposidly not trained on the C9 or something.


----------



## Yard Ape (6 Sep 2001)

Everyone in the Canadian Forces has the same QL2.  The only difference is if you are reg or reserve.  The QL2 for a reservist is 16 days + SHARP.  At the moment there is no common course specific to the army.  QL3 is when courses become specific to trade.

16 days is not enough time to mold a soldier.   

I stand by my 16 is too young statment.  Physically and mentaly the average 16 year old is not ready.  I saw courses this summer were the average candidate was 17.  In a situation like that it is not surprising that a 16 year old can excel.  But how does that 16 year old perform when compared to what is required on a battlefield?


----------



## Gunner (6 Sep 2001)

Canadians as young as 16 have been allowed to join the CF for many years.  When I joined you had to be 17 by July 1st.  Was I a model soldier?  Probably not (and RCA can attest to that), however, I started early and stayed with it and now almost 20 years later I‘m not sure if I would have joined if I had to wait until I was 18.  

Some 16 year olds will be excellent soldiers (see Pte Faders post above) and some won‘t. Some 18 year olds will be excellent soldiers and some won‘t.  The same will be said for every age.  It‘s a moot arguement at best and we need (especially in the Reserves) as many people as we can get irregardless of their age.


----------



## PTE Fader (6 Sep 2001)

Actually, Yard Ape‘s got a point with that argument about 16 year olds being immature, the fellow i described in detail above was 17, and in addition to the lackings he had, he spent $800 dollars on Game Boy and Game Boy accesories!  
Actually, Yard Ape‘s got a point with that argument about 16 year olds being immature, the fellow i described in detail above was 17, and in addition to the lackings he had, he spent $800 dollars on Game Boy and Game Boy accesories!  

Some of the younger recruits were some what immature; one of them found it really hilarious to do halting procedures to a fire piquet in the field with noise discipline in effect.  But I have to admit, some of the older recruits were equally bad.  Personally, I found it pretty disgusting when some of the older recruits stumbled from going town on the dot at 12:00, bragging about how they banged hookers, smoked pot, and got absolutly hammered.
It‘s kinda hypocritical of me to say that since I got a little bit drunk at the JR‘s mess on occasion, but I was ===>a little bit <====more reserved in my conduct.  A 28 year old fellow came in shouting about how he got into a threesome with two complete strangers, bragging about how many condoms he used, how pissed drunk he was, etc. etc.
Another example, was a 19 year old who openly boasted at the end of the course "I didn‘t do a single section job the time I was here.  Hell, I don‘t even know how I got in!  I smoked 6 bongs before the drug test!"

It‘s true, alot of us younglings have the added disadvantage of immaturity; but that‘s just one weakness that we could potentially have.  Everyone has them, be they 16, 19, 28, or 44.  But we all also have strengths; I guess it‘s a hard equilibrium to achieve such that the strengths equal or exceed the  weaknesses.

BTW, my
Some of the younger recruits were some what immature; one of them found it really hilarious to do halting procedures to a fire piquet in the field with noise discipline in effect.  But I have to admit, some of the older recruits were equally bad.  Personally, I found it pretty disgusting when some of the older recruits stumbled from going town on the dot at 12:00, bragging about how they banged hookers, smoked pot, and got absolutly hammered.
It‘s kinda hypocritical of me to say that since I got a little bit drunk at the JR‘s mess on occasion, but I was ===>a little bit <====more reserved in my conduct.  A 28 year old fellow came in shouting about how he got into a threesome with two complete strangers, bragging about how many condoms he used, how pissed drunk he was, etc. etc.
Another example, was a 19 year old who openly boasted at the end of the course "I didn‘t do a single section job the time I was here.  Hell, I don‘t even know how I got in!  I smoked 6 bongs before the drug test!"

It‘s true, alot of us younglings have the added disadvantage of immaturity; but that‘s just one weakness that we could potentially have.  Everyone has them, be they 16, 19, 28, or 44.  But we all also have strengths; I guess it‘s a hard equilibrium to achieve such that the strengths equal or exceed the  weaknesses.

BTW, Yard Ape, how do you mean QL2‘s are only 16 days?  I mean, what qualifications are met with your QL2‘s?


----------



## Yard Ape (7 Sep 2001)

PTE Fader, have a look here: 16 Day QL2!?!*

  :fifty:  Yard Ape


----------



## beamer (27 Sep 2001)

Where there is a large number of people in the middle ranks that are very near retirement, and realize there are no extensions or promotions in thier future, they simply put in time until they are done. There is a large number of the soldiers that are simply "putting in time" and they are the ones training the new reqruits. Soft reqruits.....or worn out ready to  retire peacekeepers/teachers


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Oct 2001)

Age smage, some can do it young some can‘t. Same goes for older people. I lied about my age and joined at fifteen. Got caught when I went reg, had to fess up and promise not to do it again! Still doin it at 48 years young. The youngest, decorated US infanteer in WWll was 12, lied about his age, got in, fought hard, combat infantry badge & got wounded. That‘s when they found out his age. Congress reinstated his VA benefits when they mustered him out. Britian had boy soldiers for generations. Started out at 10 and 11 carring the drums and standards into battle and grew up to be RSM‘s and Generals in a proud, strict and effective army. The kid from the ghetto at a young age is probably more ready, physically and mentally, to be a soldier than the silver spooned university frat boy 10 years his senior. People are diverse, with different traits and upbringing. Age has nothing to do with it. You got it or you don‘t. Don‘t waste any more air time with this unarguable point.


----------



## armybuck041 (12 Nov 2001)

It is up to the leaders to deal with these problems. One of the biggest problems in the reserves is maturity. Never mind the soldiers but how about the leaders???(here goes the flame war) I sit back and watch every year here at CTC, the reserves show up in the summer, and the people who were on trades training the previous year are now the leaders. All to often there is a ridiculous amount of yelling and screaming, not because the soldier is ****ed up (like the staff says), but rather the leaders are often confused and incompetent and feel that this is a good way to hide it. I used to listen to the staff joke about who was putting his/her troops through the wringer, as though it was a game. Listen too me good here: You cannot develop the skills to lead troops at home or abroad in 2 summers. But yet the PR continues to do this. I am proud of the fact that I do not need to yell, scream and threaten my soldiers in order to get them to work. But yet year after year I see instructers from the PR treat their students like a bunch of children with ADHD. If you verbally abuse your troops in order to complete a simple task you WILL be in trouble when something serious comes up. Come down off the power trips a little bit boys and girls. You will never gain an ounce of respect in this manner. I learned this years ago from a true competent leader, who was calm in all but the most gravest situations, which in turn gave us confidence. Leading troop should be an honour, why not start acting accordingly.

Firm, Fair, and Friendly

not this figgin: "Do as I say and not as I do" attitude i‘ve been seeing lately.

Then you might actually start retaining people in your units.


----------



## Gunner (12 Nov 2001)

Armybucks...

I‘m surprised by your comments about this happening at CTC.  Of all the schools, CTC has the best infrastructure and the most permanent staff.  They should be able to "stamp out" any abuse of authority that occurs.  It‘s been a number of years since I instructed at AC/NC level but I didn‘t witness the type of scenarios you are indicating. 

What leaders are developed in two years (two summers)?  Only Ph II and III officers I suppose.  I would hope they are the ones not doing the yelling.

Where do the Reserves learn the yelling and screaming techniques?  To be sure it is perpetuated by a lack of experience, but since most have been influenced by the Reg F, could that be the source of the behavious?


----------

