Ductus_Exemplo
New member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2010
- Messages
- 9
- Reaction score
- 3
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Hopefully they are not doing this **** with infantry basic.
I am 24 years old, I am todays youth, and this scares me.
There is no "infantry basic".
There's only one Basic Training for everyone. it's Basic Combat Training (not "Boot Camp", by the way; that would be the Marines).
After a ten-week Basic Combat Training program, soldiers go to AIT- Advanced Individual Training. Depending on what their MOS (job) is going to be in the army, this can last anywhere from a couple of weeks to many months.
Infantry AIT training is the shortest one.
Most of them just do 14 weeks of training at one base, which includes BCT and AIT.
Whereas, say, mechanics will go to a different base and do another ten weeks of training there.
It's so nice when people who don't have a clue what they're talking about decide to throw in their opinions anyway, though.
I mean, seriously. Why let that stop you?
Okay there, Leonidas. :lol:
The consequence of having an all-volunteer army is that you have to entice people to join, and then treat them like human beings.
Luckily, if they get dropped to any units that have any actual expectation of seeing any combat they'll probably be fixed pretty quickly by people who actually know how to train warfighters. Either way they're in for a big surprise.
Hopefully they are not doing this **** with infantry basic. The purpose of boot camp is to train you to be a soldier so that you can train for war. Not to coddle you, not speak softly to you, not to allow you 8 hours of sleep, and to have cellphones while in basic. If you can't handle a little yelling, hard exercises, name calling,lack of sleep, no luxuries and a restricted diet then you have no business in the military. Even if they are training pogs(pronounced pōgs, acronym for persons other than grunt, non-combat soldiers,non-infantry. civilians in solders clothing) they should train them to be soldiers not civilians. If the military wants civilians then they should hire civilians instead of wasting money sending them through basic training. This is why the top military officials who make these changes should always have infantry combat experience. I bet it was some stupid pog or heck maybe even someone with no military experience what so ever.That command sergeant major in the video a pog, hopefully she had nothing to do with the changes.
The bottom line is, if we get soft, we are not properly preparing our fighting men and women for the rigors of war. Which may corrolate to more of them coming home in body bags.
The bottom line is, if we get soft, we are not properly preparing our fighting men and women for the rigors of war. Whichmayabsolutely 100% is guaranteed to corrolate to more of them coming home in body bags.
Damn you kids and your rock music! :lol:
This is nothing more than chronological snobbery.
You don't need to dehumanize someone (nor have a dehumanization competition with your avowed enemy) in order to train them to fight. Sorry.
actually to a good extent you do. if i can recommend an excellent piece on this, Col Grossmans' 'On Killing' discusses (as i recall) at some length the need to dehumanize the enemy in order to be able to kill him.
At Fort Knox, cadets still use good old fashioned pay phones.
I was lucky to get a call once every two weeks, on a Sunday. In the final month, he was allowed to call a bit more frequently.
I'm entirely familiar with the idea of viewing the enemy as less than human. I was talking about treating our own soldiers as less than human.
Except those that ARE out there currently serving our country bravely are exactly in this age range you imply are "weak."I would argue that its not even our nations youth, but most of its middle aged adults who seem to think that war should be clean and neat. I believe this is starting in our nations schools and being reinforced throughout American society. We need to toughen up people.
I am 24 years old, I am todays youth, and this scares me.
Here is what I am reading--people that are to ***** themselves to actually join bitching about it, or old timers that didn't have to rely on advanced technology to keep us out of harms way bitching about it, not taking in account that more people commit suicide in the military than actually die in combat.
I might be joining up early next year and nobody I have talked to think it is to soft at all. Also good one cpwill, guarantees they come home in body bags huh?
I'm not sure that claim is accurate ("more people commit suicide in the military than actually die in combat"), but it is undeniable that warfare has become infinitely less dangerous for our troops than it has been in previous generations.
Look at the casualty rates for this current war, compared to those of Vietnam or WWII.
And before those wars, they didn't even have antibiotics, and many troops died of infections or contagion, as well as battle wounds.
The army is a changing and evolving entity, but no less an effective one than in previous generations.
More effective, I would say.
We have our current "enemy" outclassed in every way imaginable.
Who cares if they're more blood-thirsty, more vicious, or more mentally screwed up than our troops?
They're basically a bunch of illiterate, malnourished cavemen trying to fight us with the equivalent of rocks and sticks.
We don't need to beat and brainwash our troops in order for our troops to kick their asses. They're nothing.
We don't have a clear objective, though. That's the hindrance over there.
Short of killing every Afghan citizen, I don't see much of a way to eradicate the insurgency.
They want us out of their damn country, and they're not going to stop wanting that, or stop fighting for it, until every last one of them is dead or until they've driven us out... in short, they're acting exactly as patriotic Americans would if the situation were reversed, except they're among the poorest people on the planet, living under the most primitive conditions imaginable, whereas we're the wealthiest and most powerful nation on the planet, and so I imagine our "insurgency", in the event of a foreign occupation, would be a good bit swifter and more effective than theirs is.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?