Admitting Failure - TAC

[Granite_State]

Sgt. Thomas X. Hammes knew that, unlike some bad Hollywood movie, the band of thieves, social misfits, even murderers under his leadership would not transform into perfect Marines through some magic formula of tough love and fatherly motivation. Half the men in his platoon needed a swift kick out of the service, not more time in it.

“We kind of got the worst of the guys at the time,” said Hammes. “Probably the worst in the history of the Marine Corps.”

The year was 1976. Young T.X. Hammes was a platoon leader at one of the most inglorious times in the Corps’ proud tradition. The Vietnam War had just decimated the nation’s Armed Forces, the draft was gone, and the fabled Third Battalion, 3rd Marines was being infused with new recruits brought in under dramatically reduced standards.

“All the other units dumped their problems on us,” Hammes said, recalling the junkies and drunkards, the frequent attacks on officers, even riots. “All that came together primarily because we went to low-quality recruiting. You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear now matter how hard you try.”

For Hammes, now a retired colonel, and others with long memories, today’s military looks a lot like that of 1976. Even more alarming, contrary to predictions that the Army is breaking under the strain of protracted war, most experts say it can continue operating as is—though it will resemble no military we might recognize or be proud of.

Didn't know T.X. Hammes was a mustang...

http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_06_02/article1.html

[Ski]

I enjoyed that article.

[William F. Owen]

TX has some real horror stories of this period. I just sat with my mouth open when he told me some of the really shocking ones, and I'd really like to know what turned things around in the Corps over the next 20 years.

The British Army has real problems with delinquency but nothing on the scale that TX told me about.

[Tom Odom]

the Army was in the same shape.

the answers: enforced standards by a resurrected NCO Corps

plus a shift in public view of the military and a White House (Reagan) committed to defense

[Bill Moore]

When you're in the ranks as a junior Soldier you don't necessarily see all the changes taking place around you on a day to day basis, but after a few years it was very clear that the quality of the Army improved significantly by the mid to late 80s, discipline, training, equipment, morale, etc. I agree that leadership was the major factor, both at the Officer and NCO level, but there had to be numerous other factors that contributed to it.

If there was a multidisciplinary study (economic, political, social, anthropology, military, technology, history, etc.) comparing the Army that went into Vietnam and the Army that came out of Vietnam to the Army that went into the fight after 9/11 to where we're at now would we see any parallels? Two different fights, many differences in the level of support for the troops at home, etc. From my readings, we sent a darn good Army into Vietnam in the early to mid 60s, but we brought home a demoralized Army at the end of the war complete with serious discipline problems that extended into the early 80s. One must be careful with over generalizations, because the Army back then also had great officers, NCOs, and junior enlisted, but their image was tarred by the undisciplined elements in their ranks.

We realized we still had problems from the strategic to tactical level after Urgent Fury, but sent and returned a good Army in tact from Just Cause and Desert Storm. We started the fight with a great Army after 9/11. Where are we now? In almost all aspects I think we're better, except for recruiting, which over time will undermine all the other aspects that we have improved, training, discipline, morale, transformation (equipment and task organization), or ability to fight at the tactical level. One would an expect an Army to get better at the fight they're in over time as more and more lessons get incorporated into our training.

While I don't see the Army Hammes is referring to on a day to day basis, I have to assume that there are serious problems brewing in the ranks based on discussions I have friends in the conventional army. More and more time spent on UCMJ, and stories that I won't repeat here. Yet when I run into a conventional patrol somewhere in OIF, or see conventional Soldiers training back home, I see professionals, so there is disconnect between Hamme's comments and what I personally see on a day to day basis.

The important questions are how did we get there (I think we all have very strong hunches), and how do we fix it? What officer lowered the standards? What office has the authority to raise them again?

[Ken White]

The pre-Viet Nam Army (and Marines) had far lower 'standards' in prior history, education tattoos, and test scores than did the Army or Marines of June, 2008. Officers and NCOs had to wrestle with cases of "indiscipline" on a frequent basis. Some could be handled simply without even an Article 15, others took that, a few took more and an occasional person had to be Chaptered out, that was difficult and hard to do. What wasn't that hard was doing ones job overall, you just had to watch and take care of people. It was notable that good units with competent leaders and commanders had fewer problems than did others.

The Marines and Army that went to Viet Nam were competent -- not great but competent -- standards had been raised a bit and the Marines and Army had only slightly more disciplinary problems there (combat does that...) than did units in the states. It was notable that good units with competent leaders and commanders had fewer problems than did others.

As Viet Nam rolled along, the Army (cannot speak to the Marines there) and some really flawed personnel and unit rotation problems destroyed any semblance of unit cohesion; most units had a turnover of over 30% a month. Recruiting standards went still lower (wars tend to do that). There was a notable decline in combat capability and a massive increase in disciplinary problems. Still, it was notable that good units with competent leaders and commanders had fewer problems than did others.

At the tail end of Viet Nam and due to cessation of the draft, recruiting standards were dropped to the point there might as well have been none. The dregs of society came in and created major disciplinary problems through out the Army. It was notable that good units with competent leaders and commanders had fewer problems than did others.

I retired in '77 beacuse the Army was starting to pull out of its malaise, things were looking up and standards were way up, higher than they'd ever been. I then worked as a civilian in or near the Army until '95. Had three sons in during most of that time, two for one hitch, the middle one stayed in. Based on what I saw as Shy Meyer moved the Recruiting station out to the suburbs and college towns in the late 70s, rate of indiscipline went way down. Kid was a problem, you just ran him out of the Army, it was quick and easy. Article 15s and / or Courts Martial would get you tossed (and I sure am glad with my couple of each I predated that idea... ). Yet it was notable that good units with competent leaders and commanders had fewer problems than did others.

So here we are today and from what I hear, the kids are doing great, most behave and a few get in trouble as 19 year olds can often do -- in uniform or out. From all I can discern, it's notable that good units with competent leaders and commanders had fewer problems than do others.

So things go in cycles -- but some basics don't change.