Hard Times For Drill Sergeants
by James Dunnigan
August 21, 2005
Strategy Page
Despite the need for more effective combat training during wartime, the U.S. Army has managed to keep abuses, by overeager instructors, down. Basic training in the U.S. Army has gone through lots of changes in the last two decades. In the 1990s, training was diluted to appease politicians who insisted on men and women going through “boot camp” together. The girls couldn’t keep up with the boys when it came to the physical part of the training, so the training was toned down to the point where it was ineffective. But for the combat troops, who still trained in all-male units (no women were allowed in combat units), “basic” was still as challenging and intense as it needed to be. When September 11, 2001 came around, the issue was still being debated in Congress.
Things didn’t really change until 2003, when the results of the lukewarm basic training for non-combat troops was seen as the main cause of some of these troops getting killed in combat. All of a sudden, basic got more intense. But not more brutal. In 2003, for some 2,600 instructors training about 180,000 troops in boot camp, there were only 86 “founded” (proven) complaints. Last year, for about the same number of troops trained, there were even fewer complaints (76). In other words, about three percent of the drill instructors got into trouble for abuse (verbal, physical, or sexual.) These cases lead to punishment for the drill sergeants involved, which can be as serious as a court martial, dishonorable discharge and prison time.
The drill sergeants are under tremendous pressure to prepare the young men and women they train, for combat. Most of the drill instructors have been to Iraq or Afghanistan, and this makes their urgency even more intense. There are actually more than three percent of the drill sergeants who go over the line. The problem is that they are often encouraged to, since the alternative, just washing out recruits who do not immediately respond, is difficult to justify when it’s so hard getting the recruits in the first place.
Experience has shown that turning civilians into soldiers requires a lot of skill on the part of the instructors. Thus, over the last half century, the army has increased and upgraded the training given to the trainers. Moreover, not all NCOs (Non-Commissioned Officers, or sergeants) are capable of being effective instructors. The selection process has gotten more precise over the decades. But there’s still tremendous turnover in instructors. It’s an exhausting job, which wears out those doing it. So there’s always new instructors coming in, and a certain percentage of these turn out to be inadequate to the task. This, and the pressure to get all the recruits ready for combat, leads to most of the “founded” complaints. The many other complaints, some of them going to Congressional representatives, the Inspector General or the chain of command (officers and senior NCOs) are “unfounded” (no regulations have been broken, but the recruit, undergoing the stress, feels a complaint is in order.) Many of these complaints result in the drill sergeant being talked to about it, or chewed out, but not otherwise punished. The recruit is also talked to, and convinced not to go further with the complaint. Many of the “founded” complaints have to do with unambiguous transgressions (sexual, or physical injuries.) These tend to be punished severely.
Commandos Expand Their Robotic Air Force
by James Dunnigan
SOCOM (Special Operations Command), is getting its own Predator squadron. Normally, a Predator Squadron has twelve MQ-1 Predators assigned to it. The number of troops assigned varies, depending on how intensively the Predators will be used. SOCOM is gearing up for 24/7 operations. That means the Predator squadron will require about 70 pilots, and over 400 support personnel. The SOCOM squadron will have 24 Predators assigned, meaning even more personnel will be required. The squadron won’t deploy as a single unit, but, like other SOCOM squadrons, will be sent off in smaller detachments. Initially, the SOCOM unit will get the MQ-1A, but may receive some of the larger MQ-B Predator models before it receives all of its aircraft.
SOCOM has already been using Predators, operated by regular air force Predator squadrons. The UAVs were used to scout areas where SOCOM commandoes were going to land and operate in. SOCOM AC-130 gunships also used Predators as scouts. Four years ago, AC-130s were equipped with gear that allowed video being transmitted by AC-130s to be viewed onboard AC-130s. SOCOM has also been using over a hundred micro-UAVs (weighing under ten pounds), which are very popular with commandoes in the field.
WARPLANES: UAVs and Aerial Traffic Jams
August 21, 2005: Although there are nearly 500 American UAVs in Iraq, each of them averages only about 20-30 minutes use a day. This is mainly because over 80 percent of the UAVs are of the micro (under ten pounds) variety, and belong to battalions or brigades. When these units are not out on a major operation, their micro-UAVs are kept on the ground. No one’s being greedy, it’s just that the micro-UAVs are neither bullet proof (the terrorists know how dangerous the UAVs are for them, and fire away whenever they spot one), nor indestructible (most are expected to wear out after a few dozen missions). So units with micro-UAVs, use them only when they have to. Replacements, and spare parts, are often hard to come by, and everyone now knows that the UAVs can be a lifesaver in combat. The larger UAVs, like the air force Predator and the army Hunter and Shadow, are in short supply.
But there’s another problem UAVs are encountering; congested air space. Each of the services has different rules, and procedures for dealing with air command and control systems. Most important, is the need to avoid collisions up there. Not just between aircraft (manned or unmanned), but especially between aircraft and projectiles (rockets, missiles, artillery and mortar shells). UAVs present a new problem, because the majority of them (the micro-UAVs) fly close to the ground (from 100-1000 feet) and tend to stay in one area for a long time. While the UAVs are at risk from mortar or artillery shells landing in the area, they are also a danger to helicopters flying in the vicinity. All of the services are seeking a better way to do this, and the most promising solution seems to lie in the new networking and information systems coming into use. But for the moment, keeping the UAVs as safe as possible up there is more art than science.
strategypage.com |
