BS: Lower Standards Help Army Recruit More

Subject: RE: BS: Lower Standards Help Army Recruit More
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 11:33 AM

Sounds familiar, Rapaire...but my daughter says that nobody ever yelled at her when she went through Basic at Ft. Jackson a few years ago. She did manage to metamorphose from a slob to a neat freak. I think that the current concept of allowing recruits who don't (or can't, or don't want to) meet standards to resign during training is a good one. That eliminates the need to find some kind of a hole to jam the square pegs into.

Subject: RE: BS: Lower Standards Help Army Recruit More
From: Rapparee
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 09:20 AM

Drill Sergeants are also kinder and gentler. They no longer yell at you when you make a mistake, but instead counsel the recruit and point out the errors.

My platoon sergeant did that, way back in 1963....

"Son, when you are standing on the firing line with a loaded rifle it's best to keep the muzzle pointed downrange. That's down there (pointing), where the targets are. It's not the best procedure to swing the barrel around and point it at your buddies and especially at sergeants. I'd like you to promise me, cross your heart and hope to die, that you won't do that any more, okay? Thanks, I knew you'd understand. BECAUSE IF YOU DIDN'T I'D HAVE YOUR ASS IN THE STOCKADE SO QUICK YOUR BOOTS WOULD BE RUNNING TO CATCH UP WITH YOU, BUT ONLY AFTER I'D KICKED YOUR BUTT SO FAR UP BETWEEN YOUR SHOULDERBLADES YOU'D LOOK LIKE AN UP-SIDE-DOWN LETTER U! AND IF I EVER SEE YOU MAKING SUCH A GODDAMN BONE-HEADED MISTAKE AGAIN YOU'D BETTER START SHITTIN' RIGHT THERE, BECAUSE THERE'LL BE THAT MUCH LESS FOR ME TO KICK OUTA YA!"

See? Right there at the end the Platoon Sergeant showed he cared about the recruit's welfare and good health.

Subject: RE: BS: Lower Standards Help Army Recruit More
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 07:25 AM

As Former Soldier points out, in the US, at least, basic training is also being changed. Drill sergeants now letting overweight soldiers have more to eat. etc.

And sure enough the Army is having less trouble making recruitment and retention goals.

Subject: RE: BS: Lower Standards Help Army Recruit More
From: Dead Horse
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 04:05 PM

During my service with HM Forces, I got the impression that the more famous the regiment, the more gung-ho the men in that regiment,(paras-marines-guardsmen etc.) and the more likely they were to be sent into "action", but the less inteligent those guys seemed to be. Thats the rank & file. The officers were just the opposite. It appeared to me that the stupider the men were, the more brains it took to lead them.
I was in a lowly transport outfit, whos men were largely of a high I.Q.
Our officers tho, thats another story altogether.
Pull up a sand-bag (find yerself a seat) and I'll tell yez a few stories......heh heh.

Subject: RE: BS: Lower Standards Help Army Recruit More
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 12:48 PM

Hehe...true

Subject: RE: BS: Lower Standards Help Army Recruit More
From: Rapparee
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 12:41 PM

Patton was an officer. Sanity's not a requirement there.

Subject: RE: BS: Lower Standards Help Army Recruit More
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 12:40 PM

Yes, doesnt it!

Or for that matter (& to 'redress' the balance somewhat, & so we don't get accused of 'Yank-bashing') Orde Wingate.

Subject: RE: BS: Lower Standards Help Army Recruit More
From: Bert
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 12:31 PM

...you're obviously crazy, and they won't let you fight...

Makes you wonder how Patton got in.

Subject: RE: BS: Lower Standards Help Army Recruit More
From: GUEST,Former Soldier who just does not get it
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 11:53 AM

The problem is Basic Training standards are also being lowered. I think lowering all standards, military and civilian, is why war atrocities in all past and current wars happen more often.

Subject: RE: BS: Lower Standards Help Army Recruit More
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 10:45 AM

Lowered admission standards aren't too important, if the Army washes out the bad 'uns in Basic.

Subject: RE: BS: Lower Standards Help Army Recruit More
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 10:29 AM

Thanks for the explanation guys...I did a quick Google myself before posting that query but hadnt come up with anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Lower Standards Help Army Recruit More
From: Rapparee
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 09:23 AM

When I was activated (NG unit was called up) in 1968 I met quite a few people who I found less than brilliant. Nonetheless, they made decent soldiers. There were some, however, who shouldn't have been either recruited OR drafted: some were drunks, some whoremongers (a term in use among the US military in Korea at the time), some of very low intelligence, and some psychotics. I remember one chap, a VN returnee, who showed pictures of dead Vietnamese the way other guys showed pictures of their wives or girlfriends -- one night on CQ this guy, who was "permanent CQ runner," disturbed me so much I slipped a loaded .45 where I could get it easily (and I wasn't the only CQ who did this).

He should have been helped, but I understand he went on a two week leave and deserted.

Yes, the standards were lower.

Subject: RE: BS: Lower Standards Help Army Recruit More
From: Folkiedave
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 09:19 AM

Heather Wood of the Young Tradition was in the Army. She is one of the few folksingers qualified to drive a tank!

Subject: RE: BS: Lower Standards Help Army Recruit More
From: artbrooks
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 09:12 AM

Nah...most of the people in a gun crew in the '60s and '70s were involved, in one way or another, in pointing the weapon (setting and checking elevation and deflection) or setting fuses. They rotated from one job to another, so had to be able to do everything. Today, of course, it is much more complex because everything is electronic. The ammunition section's job was to (1) pick up 155mm shells at the ammo dump and load them in a truck and (2) take them out of the truck and stack them at the gun positions.

Subject: RE: BS: Lower Standards Help Army Recruit More
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 09:06 AM

They weren't allowed to put the projectiles in the Nug...

Subject: RE: BS: Lower Standards Help Army Recruit More
From: Amergin
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 08:59 AM

"The ones that ended up in my battery were so dumb that we couldn't even put them in a gun crew...they ended up in the ammunition section, moving projectiles from one point to another."-Artbrooks

Odd....I always thought that was what a gun crew did anyways.

Subject: RE: BS: Lower Standards Help Army Recruit More
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 07:59 AM

"it is easy to find locals who will fight over the garbage hauling contract, and gladly clean buildings, wash dishes, and mow lawns for even less than it would cost us in the US"

... as long as check that they are not smuggling in bombs...

Subject: RE: BS: Lower Standards Help Army Recruit More
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 06:56 AM

I was always under the impression that you had to be slightly less intelligent than a cabbage to volutarily sign up for the army anway... but then if they'll accept my sister, they'll take ANY damn fool!

Having said that, I *do* recognise the sacrifices that those who voluntarily signed up and those who were conscripted, made so that I can sit here and tell people my sister is a moron who joined the British Army.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Lower Standards Help Army Recruit More
From: NH Dave
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 01:27 AM

I believe that the US Air Force started out with what they called Project 10,000, and when it served to produce some usable recruites, although not the sharpest knives in the drawer; went on to accept more of these low category recruits. Generally these people were run through training that was designed to get them into occupations that didn't require a lot of heavy thought, and where they could be closely supervised. There are a lot of these jobs in most branches of the service, and if these people could fit in in this niche, everything was golden. What frequently happened was that one of these people was taken from his shop where he had lots of peer support and placed into a position where he was the one man performing his type of work, and he had to do it on his own, whereupon he failed miserably.

When one of our people crashed and burned in this manner, we had him evaluated and learned that he could barely read at the third grade level, while we had him doing work that required using a tech manual written at the ninth grade level. We sent him to remedial reading school, lost his services for nearly three months while he was in school, and it raised his comprehension to about the sixth grade level. We asked him if he wanted to try the school again, and when he agreed, we sent him back for a second time, hoping that he'd finally be able to read his tech manuals and work more safely. Unfortunately he discovered other things going on around the school location, and was kicked out of the school. At that time, we released him to his original outfit as unsuitable, and levied a requirement on them for a smarter person to work with us.

Actually the work we were having him do was running a diesel engined generator, little more complex than keeping one's car working correctly, but he was the one who was supposed to schedule and perform refueling, checking fluid levels in the engine, as well as doing low level repair on failed generators, which is where he failed. His replacement was less challenged and worked out fine with us for the rest of my tour with the unit.

Probably the thing that doomed the project was the AF deciding to farm out dull repetitive tasks to civilian contractors, the same way most businesses farm out their office cleaning to companies that do this as their daily work. The AF's stand was that it made no sense to train young people as electronic technicians and then use them as dishwashers, grounds keepers, or building cleaners, when we could contract this work at less than half the cost of misusing our technicians in this sort of work. Should these outfits go overseas to support a deployment, it is easy to find locals who will fight over the garbage hauling contract, and gladly clean buildings, wash dishes, and mow lawns for even less than it would cost us in the US.

Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Lower Standards Help Army Recruit More
From: GUEST,Former Soldier who just does not get it
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 09:43 PM

This was in the link artbrooks posted:

Passage of the FY 1972 DoD Appropriations Act, which in effect prohibited the use of aptitude quotas, resulted in the termination of P/100000 in 12- 1971.

That is why I was not aware of this project in 1972.

Subject: RE: BS: Lower Standards Help Army Recruit More
From: frogprince
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 09:39 PM

When I went through Navy Boot in 1964, we had a couple of "cat 4" men in the company. The supposed theory, as explained to us, was this:
If the men could not complete training successfully, they would be discharged honorably (I supposed the technical term would have been "general discharge under honorable conditions). If they completed training, they were to be interviewed and given the option of service or discharge. One, at least, completed boot camp with us; so far as I remember, I didn't learn if he went on to active duty. He came across as a decent young man, but he was obviously below the average range.

Subject: RE: BS: Lower Standards Help Army Recruit More
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 09:36 PM

I heard they were used for mine clearing Art... in herds...

Subject: RE: BS: Lower Standards Help Army Recruit More
From: GUEST,Former Soldier that just does not get it
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 09:35 PM

I also found this:

"Project 100,000," a Great Society program launched in 1966, attempted to enhance the opportunities of underprivileged youths from poverty-stricken urban areas by offering more lenient military entrance requirements. It largely failed. Although more than 350,000 men enlisted under Project 100,000 during the remainder of the war, 41 percent were African American and 40 percent drew combat assignments. Casualty rates among these soldiers were twice those of other entry categories. Few Project 100,000 inductees received training that would aid their military advancement or create better opportunities for civilian life.

None of the recruits I was involved with got in under this program. I think it must have been used more in the 1960s since I never was informed of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Lower Standards Help Army Recruit More
From: artbrooks
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 09:09 PM

Nope. I'm not sure what the final figure was, but it was a very well known program at the time. A very brief web search came up with this article.

Subject: RE: BS: Lower Standards Help Army Recruit More
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 08:52 PM

One HUNDRED thousand?

Has to be a typo, Art, surely?

Subject: RE: BS: Lower Standards Help Army Recruit More
From: GUEST,Guest Former Soldier who just does not get i
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 08:38 PM

artbrooks,

I never heard of the 100,000+ Cat 4 recruits.

Subject: RE: BS: Lower Standards Help Army Recruit More
From: artbrooks
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 07:25 PM

GUEST-Former Soldier: then I suppose that you weren't one of the recruiters involved in "The President's 100,000," which involved 100,000+ Category 4 individuals being recruited and (mostly) shipped to Vietnam. The ones that ended up in my battery were so dumb that we couldn't even put them in a gun crew...they ended up in the ammunition section, moving projectiles from one point to another.

Subject: RE: BS: Lower Standards Help Army Recruit More
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 04:44 PM

If I recall correctly, this was the essence of Yossarian's bind in Joseph Heller's novel, Catch 22. If you love the adrenalin rush and are totally oblivious to danger, you're obviously crazy, and they won't let you fight. If you are greatly concerned about the possibility of getting your butt shot off, you're normal, and they ship you directly to the front lines.

That's the catch.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Lower Standards Help Army Recruit More
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 04:14 PM

*LOL* D.H.!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Lower Standards Help Army Recruit More
From: Dead Horse
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 03:24 PM

When I joined the army (British) the Recruiting Sgt asked a sh*t load of questions, like "Are you afraid of heights?""Confined spaces?""Excessive noise?""High Speeds?" etc.
Then he said "If you were shut inside a Chieftan Tank doing 70mph towards a 500ft cliff with a dozen natives bashing on the outside with sledge hammers, would you be scared?" "Hell yes" was my answer.
"Sign here mate, you're normal" he said. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Lower Standards Help Army Recruit More
From: Amos
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 03:17 PM

YEah -- for HUMINT candidates.

Actually it is not at all unusual for someone young and bent out of shape and riddled with "moral problems" to turn around in basic training, or deployment, and discover some values based on real brotherhood, interdependence, and survival importance, and become a self-respecting guy with moral fiber -- maybe with a lot of luggage still present under the surface, but fit for civilian life if the stress doesn't get too bad.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Lower Standards Help Army Recruit More
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 12:09 PM

Is it true that they're doing recruiting posters in Braille?

Subject: RE: BS: Lower Standards Help Army Recruit More
From: Sorcha
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 11:59 AM

My brother has been moaning about this for years. LONG before Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Lower Standards Help Army Recruit More
From: GUEST,Former Soldier who just does not get it
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 11:53 AM

Mick,

I was in a special program after graduating with Honors out of Army AIT where I served as an Assistant Recruiter in my hometown. We DID NOT lower the standards and turned many guys down for all the reasons given above. This was during the Viet Nam War in 1972.

I would agree that certain unethical recruiters might bend the rules to meet their quotas, but I never knew of across-the-board lowering of standards while I served as an Assistant Recruiter.

Subject: RE: BS: Lower Standards Help Army Recruit More
From: Big Mick
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 11:31 AM

Nothing new about this. Did the same during 'Nam, I imagine during all wars.

We need to be done with this mess.

Mick

Subject: BS: Lower Standards Help Army Recruit More
From: GUEST,Former Soldier who just does not get it
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 11:17 AM

Lower Standards Help Army Recruit More from AP

The U.S. Army recruited more than 2,600 soldiers under new lower aptitude standards this year, helping the service beat its goal of 80,000 recruits in the throes of an unpopular war and mounting casualties

About 17 percent of the first-time recruits, or about 13,600, were accepted under waivers for various medical, moral or criminal problems, including misdemeanor arrests or drunk driving. That is a slight increase from last year, the Army said.

Of those accepted under waivers, more than half were for "moral" reasons, mostly misdemeanor arrests. Thirty-eight percent were for medical reasons and 7 percent were drug and alcohol problems, including those who may have failed a drug test or acknowledged they had used drugs.


Well, I guess it does not matter since they will end up in Iraq as cannon fodder anyway…Sigh