A Soft Core Marine Corps?

[Pete0331]

Who is responsible for modifying boot camp training regulations? I don't think it is Mothers of America. I don't see media pressure having any real effect on a DI's job. If this is the case, something is very wrong. Civilians should not have a say on this.

One of the prices that we pay for living in a civilian Republic.

Civilians lead the Armed Forces. Senators and such are influenced by special interest groups to change policy.
Mothers of America is such a special interest group.

If a couple of Senators tell a General that there will be a congressional investigation into the training practices of MCRD you can bet they will change SOP's so that they don't have to risk loosing their pension or promotion.

Commdog, I will answer your post when I have more time.

[BR34]

Profile up, Devildame.

[devildame]

Is is soft core to use asterisks instead of the words you really want to use? Is it soft core "to be courteous and respectful" - refraining from profanity while venting frustrations? I guess boot camp will be like day camp if it keeps getting easier, as young Marines describe it compared 60s, 70s, 80s bootcamp. I know there are many with strong opinions about females in the Marine Corps- how do you think it is in the 4th Battalion?

[Pete0331]

Is is soft core to use asterisks instead of the words you really want to use? Is it soft core "to be courteous and respectful" - refraining from profanity while venting frustrations? I guess boot camp will be like day camp if it keeps getting easier, as young Marines describe it compared 60s, 70s, 80s bootcamp. I know there are many with strong opinions about females in the Marine Corps- how do you think it is in the 4th Battalion?

No, this is a public site.
I participate on this site with the mentality that whatever I post is going to be public knowledge.
If I were to comment on the same issues privately I would use more colorful language.

[Pete0331]

You do not earn respect by hitting someone, period. Good leaders do not have to resort to physical violence to be effective.

We are talking about the use of physical punishment in Boot Camp and a training tool, not as a disciplinary measure to be used Corps wide.

SERE school is different, if you get captured you can expect the enemy to resort to voilence to break you, but that is not the purpose of boot camp.

That is the purpose of Boot Camp.
Boot Camp is there to break the old social identity that you had and to instate the identity the USMC needs you to have.

I have no problem with instructors using violence in SERE school, but Drill Instructors have a different role than SERE instructors. DI's are meant to teach you how to be a good Marine and how to survive in combat. I feel that the best way to do this is to use non-violent tactics, and the Commandant agrees.

Boot Camp isn't there to teach you how to survive in combat.
That is what ITB/MCT is for.

Also understand that GO's are under a significant amount of political pressure.

What I am about to type might anger a few Marines on here, but my inention is not to offend anyone. Let's compare today's Corps with the Corps during the Vietnam era. I'm big with military history, and I find it interesting to see how the Corps has changed over the years. During Vietnam, it was common for DI's to hit recruits, today it is not (at least not as much). Ignore the draft, as it is DI's responsibility to make good Marines. From what I have read, quite a few Marines were an embarrassment to the high standards of the Corps. I am talking about drugs, rape, crime, etc. Today the Corps is a lot cleaner, leadership is much better, Marines are generally more disciplined. Why is this? Could there be a direct relationship between the way DI's train their recruits and the way they perform in the fleet/combat? (Not all Marines during the Vietnam era were a disgrace, but there were a significant number more than there is in the present day).

The logical fallacies in this statement make me want to explode.

You cannot compare the two time periods and not comment on how the draftee component effects the equation.
You also didn't comment on how the amount of training that Marines received in that time frame was much less compared to now.

By your example the reason that there were war atrocities during Vietnam was because recruits may have been physically beaten in training.
It is not that simple.

The DI's I had who never laid a finger on us never had a problem establishing authority. We knew they were in charge and we never had the urge to challenge that authority.

Anecdotal evidence doesn't prove a claim without other sources.

Physical punishment also teaches physical aggression.
Males are more receptive to this then females, due to biological and social role differences.

I could go further but I'll save my thesis on psychology in the military for another time.

[RLeon]

IMO the Marines have gotten "softer", not in training and doctrine but softer in the way of attitude and mentality. When it comes to warfighting and the perception of war our society in general has gotten soft over the last 233 years, so our military reflects this.

It shouldn't be this way, and it wouldn't if our leaders would keep to our long standing traditions and standards, but sadly over time these erode as well. When we enforce our long standing standards and traditions we neutralize the effect society has on the military.

With the advancement of technology and our political status things will change. Heck I don't even see the Marine Corps being a "marine corps" much longer. It's evolving into a multi-puropse military branch, loosing it's maritime character and Naval traditions.

One thing for sure, I beleive that no matter what, the Marines will always have Esprit d'Corps, and the tales of the Barbary Wars, Belleau Wood and the Frozen Chosin will live on.

I hope.

[BR34]

Is is soft core to use asterisks instead of the words you really want to use? Is it soft core "to be courteous and respectful" - refraining from profanity while venting frustrations? I guess boot camp will be like day camp if it keeps getting easier, as young Marines describe it compared 60s, 70s, 80s bootcamp. I know there are many with strong opinions about females in the Marine Corps- how do you think it is in the 4th Battalion?

It's a filter on this site that automatically blocks certain words. Go ahead, try it.

[DocGreek]

34....it appears that SOME new Members haven't checked out ALL of the Forums!! If they want to "speak thier mind", they should go to Chesty's Hooch!! AND....the opinion of a WM is welcome, and respected...BUT, is thier Marine Corps the same as a man's?? Just wondered.....DOC

[commdog7]

We are talking about the use of physical punishment in Boot Camp and a training tool, not as a disciplinary measure to be used Corps wide.

That is the purpose of Boot Camp.
Boot Camp is there to break the old social identity that you had and to instate the identity the USMC needs you to have.

Boot Camp isn't there to teach you how to survive in combat.
That is what ITB/MCT is for.

Also understand that GO's are under a significant amount of political pressure.

The logical fallacies in this statement make me want to explode.

You cannot compare the two time periods and not comment on how the draftee component effects the equation.
You also didn't comment on how the amount of training that Marines received in that time frame was much less compared to now.

By your example the reason that there were war atrocities during Vietnam was because recruits may have been physically beaten in training.
It is not that simple.

Anecdotal evidence doesn't prove a claim without other sources.

Physical punishment also teaches physical aggression.
Males are more receptive to this then females, due to biological and social role differences.

I could go further but I'll save my thesis on psychology in the military for another time.

You got a little ****ed off when I compared present day recruit training to that of the Vietnam era training. My point was to argue the perception that the Corps is getting "soft". Most Marines on here want to compare recruit training now and what it will be like in the future by reviewing the past. In the Vietnam era, it was common for DI's to hit recruits, now it is not, and this whole idea of "softer" training leads some to believe the Corps will be even "softer" in the future. So lets compare the present day Corps to that of the Vietnam era. It is not entirely fair to state that hitting recruits is the only reason why the Corps high standards are tarnished, but I believe the training has a direct reflection on the quality of the Marine.

Vietnam era= Corps had a lot of problems with drugs, crime, etc. Present day= a much cleaner Corps. Vietnam era= DI's commonly struck recruits. Present day= DI's use less violence.

So how is the Corps getting "softer" if we are actually developing a much better reputation, and we can still pull our weight in combat? Training is different now and so is the Corps- all for the better in my opinion.

You stated that physical punishment provokes physical aggression. It is possible that this physical punishment may have resulted in physical aggression in situations unrelated to combat, such as criminal activity? Maybe there is a relationship between recruit training and the mindset of Marines in the fleet.

You familiar with 'The Art of War'? In order to train warriors, a leader must first establish authority. You may think that hitting is a form of establishing dominance, but it also carries negative implications- such as the loss of respect. Quarter-decking, mind games, etc. these are what DI's utilize today to establish authority, and it works. The DI's who never touched a recruit in my platoon had absolute authority. As recruits, none of us dared to challenge that authority, that is why they were so successful in training us. The techniques they used did not negative impacts, in fact, they actually built respect.

DI's do train us for combat. They develop the combat mindset by yelling playing impossible-to-win games. DI's train us on a basic level, but MCT/ITB train us for more advanced combat tactic.

[commdog7]

In response to others, females in the Corps are trained the same as the males and are expected to perform just as well as their male counterparts in all aspects of Marine life. The Corps is actually harder for females due in large part to the sterotype in which we face. But deep down, we are warriors and maintain a desire to kill terrorists, Rah!

As for looking back 233 years a coming to the conclusion that the Corps is softer than ever before, I highly disagree. During both the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, standardized training was not available. In fact, military personnel were quite undisciplined and often fled for their lives when engaged with the enemy. If a militia showed up to battle with a strength of 500, it was likely that less than 100 would stay for the fight once the bullets started flying. During the Spanish-American War and the Mexican War the troops slowly began to get more disciplined. It wasn't until the early 1900's when boot camp took on the task of training new recruits. We saw little fighting in WW1, but WW2 was known as the greatest generation because military personnel were both good citizens and outstanding fighters. During the Korean War, the quality of the military slowly started to tumble, and by the Vietnam War, the quality of the Corps was in pretty bad condition. We have recovered from that, and now during the Iraq War, we are a decent/respectable service.

The reason I have spent my time typing this is to demonstrate that the Corps is not "softer" than ever before. The sad reality is we are actually of higher quality than the past, with the exception of WW2. So, are we 'soft'? I think not!

[DocGreek]

COMMDOG7...Where did you get your info about Viet Nam Era Marines being criminal, dope smoking, and obviously...ignorant azzholes?? I see that you're 21...lots of life experiences in The Corps, HUH? Are you an 0311, and how much combat experience do you have?? What leadership role do you have now...in Cuba? HABLAS ESPANOL? You've given out a lot of negative statements about USMC Veterans, NOT a good idea!!.....PLEASE stay away from what happened during the Viet Nam war....you weren't there...I was, AND I KNOW!! Only compare the USMC history, from the late 70's and today...PLEASE!!....DOC

[commdog7]

COMMDOG7...Where did you get your info about Viet Nam Era Marines being criminal, dope smoking, and obviously...ignorant azzholes?? I see that you're 21...lots of life experiences in The Corps, HUH? Are you an 0311, and how much combat experience do you have?? What leadership role do you have now...in Cuba? HABLAS ESPANOL? You've given out a lot of negative statements about USMC Veterans, NOT a good idea!!.....PLEASE stay away from what happened during the Viet Nam war....you weren't there...I was, AND I KNOW!! Only compare the USMC history, from the late 70's and today...PLEASE!!....DOC

My intention was not to offend anyone, I was mapping changes in Marine Corps history. I happen to study American Military History as part of my degree program, I have read plenty of books on all wars in U.S. history. Vietnam was a dark spot for the Corps, I even heard Commandant General Hagee himself say it during a speech (he was in the Corps during the Vietnam era). He talked about how much the Corps had to clean itself up after Vietnam, get all the druggies/criminals out of the Corps. From what I have read in books (most of them written by Vietnam vets), the Commandant's statements were quite accurate.

I'm not saying that all Marines during the Vietnam era were druggies/criminals, most of them were squared away. But there was a significantly higher number of low-quality Marines during that time than there is today. Deny it if you want, but I do not believe that everything I have learned about Vietnam is a lie. History isn't always bright and shiny, no matter how much we wish it were.

[Gunner 0313]

I guess if it was in a book it must be true and gives an accurate depiction of everything that went on. Oh boy !

This thread should have been put in the Hooch.

[temarti]

The Marines today are certainly smarter, I believe Wookie made that point. Would that lead to a perception that they are not as hard, who knows. There is also the difference in generations, the link below explains a lot on how the "millinials" think and act.

You can't expect a whole generation to act like ones prior, my Marine Corps generation (Nintendo -90s) did not act like the ones who went in during the beginning of the (80s). Remember the "Clinton Corps" comment about anyone who came in after 92. We will continue to hear those comparisons as long as the Marine Corps exist.

This is a good video that explains a lot, I can see it in my 12 year old, when I look at what they deal with and how they approach problems it is totally different then my philosophies, my other two are 8 and 4, so as long as they have been alive they have not known a time we were not involved in a war. Their generation will be completely different then the young Marines today.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n3475200.shtml

[DocGreek]

BOOKS???? HHHMMMMMM...why do you THINK "people" write books?? Do you think that "Platoon" was an accurate portrayal of Viet Nam military operations?? SHOCK VALUE!!! Show me ten negative accounts of an incedent...and I'll show you at least as many positive ones!! Be careful...please......DOC