Changes to Basic Training

The Army is overhauling its "Basic Combat Training," according to this article in Army Times.

Some things are good, some are bad, but most of all I think the focus is too narrow. To me, basic training is more about indoctrination than learning anything. In a little more than two months, drill sergeants are responsible for:

1. Getting mostly sedentary kids physically fit
2. Teaching them how to fight (combatives)
3. Teaching how to fire a weapon
4. Teaching how to move as a unit in garrison (drill & ceremony), and
5. Teaching how to move as a unit in the field (infantry tactics).

It's no easy task. This generation of recruits has grown up in homes that have eaten more fast food and junk food than ever before, in schools that do less physical exercise, and on playgrounds where conflict is more severly punished. It's almost like society conspires against recruits.

Plus, there's always the balance between Army past, present, and future. Though drill & ceremony is not as relevant as it was in Civil War days, it's an Army trademark. You can't be a soldier and not know "left shoulder arms." That's the Army's past.

Then there's the immediate needs of the Army, such as battle drills, load-carrying endurance, IED recognition, and first aid skills. They took out bayonet training to make more room for these things.

But there's still the question of the Army's future. In the past 20 years, we've shifted from Cold War style to counter-insurgency style battlefield tactics. The relative battlefield value of tanks and jet fighters has decreased; infantry and military police has increased.

What kind of war we will face in the future is anyone's guess, but considering how dynamic our military actions have been, I think it makes more sense to provide a broader approach to basic training. Then, if tactics change in the future, we'll have a better idea how to handle what comes up.