Corrective Training vs Punishment

[Cavguy]

Scott Andrew Ewing's article on "smoke sessions" is thought provoking and damning. Should set off some riots in the NCO corps.

My first reaction was negative, and then I re-read the article and had to give credit - the author has done his homework and made his case well, whether we fully agree with the practical effect of his conclusion. I will be interested to see the reactions in the NCO Corps. I thought the relation to COIN was a small stretch, but the overall paper is concise and well argued.

Just as comanders are responsible for the climate in their units,
so the Army as an institution is responsible for the moral climate it fosters.
In this article, I will outline some of the contradictions and ambiguities
in Army regulations (ARs) and field manuals (FMs) that make it difficult for
leaders to understand the distinction between corrective training and punishment.

I will argue that ARs, case law, the Office of the Inspector General,
and higher-echelon commanders have, nonetheless, made it clear that such
a distinction exists and must be respected. Failure to recognize and respect
this distinction can and often does lead to illegal abuses of authority. These
abuses of authority within the Army’s ranks, and the cultural undercurrents
that condone these patterns of behavior, cripple efforts to wage an effective
counterinsurgency (COIN) campaign by fostering a mentality of paternalistic
tyranny rather than good stewardship. The moral implications of this mentality
are neither consistent nor compatible with counterinsurgency doctrine,

.... an NCO who orders a Soldier to perform duties that are tantamount to punishment is giving an unlawful order.

...

My view is that commanders and NCOs are in some sense victims of a system that is highly resistant to change. I understand that it is difficult within the system to go against accepted cultural norms, but that is precisely why Army culture needs to be fundamentally changed and such changes subsequently supported at all levels.

There are three correlates with the assertions I have made thus far:

*The U.S. Army is culturally handicapped in its ability to occupy Iraq in a humane manner. The systemic acceptance of such illegal practices as “smoke
sessions” is part of a mind-set that has crippled our attempts to implement effective counterinsurgency campaigns.

*The regulations surrounding corrective training, punishment, and “smoke sessions” are confusing and need to be rewritten.

*The problem must first be fully understood by high-ranking officers. To this end, the Army ought to investigate this matter in a substantive way, and encourage Soldiers to candidly testify about these practices without fear of reprisal or prosecution.

[reed11b]

Fantastic Article! Thank you for the link. I don't agree with it 100% but I think his main point is correct. I would also add that micro-management leads to reduced soldier initiative and moral. Worst I ever saw was a Quartermaster SM have a soldier hold a sign saying "No sunglasses may be worn on the head in chow hall" from an infantry unit. Did he have the right to tell the soldier to take them off his head? Yes, but not to initiate humiliation punishment for a soldier not in his unit while deployed in theatre! Nothing like CSM's in combat with nothing better to do then enforce uniform policy. How much was that uniform inspector paid compared to the soldier he corrected? I better step of my soapbox and take a tranquilizer.
Reed

[120mm]

I've never been a big fan of externally applied discipline, or motivation.

Frankly, nothing beats internal discipline/motivation, and I believe the job of each and every leader is to develop that internal discipline/motivation in their subordinates.

Peer pressure and leading by example are two very good ways to do this, as is finding and developing an individuals' strengths, and putting them in a position to maximize those strengths in a way that benefits the organization.

I just departed a Reserve unit where I was "counselled" and "disciplined" as an O-5, for nonperformance, while I repeatedly attempted to leave the unit because I simply didn't have the time to contribute in the way they wanted me to.

I am now an extremely high performing member of another Reserve unit, doing the exact same thing I was supposed to do at the last unit. The primary difference is that the current chain of command listened to what I was saying, and was willing to work with me.

I like to refer to it as the "Dennis Rodman Effect". If you have a square peg, you can do everything you can to get it to fit in that round hole, or you can find a square hole it fits in.

Unfortunately, there is a strong tendency in the military to attack the square pegs because they are not round, and then whine and bitch (or lie) because there is nothing to fill the square holes with.

edited to add: Humiliation and inappropriate forms of punishment can contribute to soldiers "taking it out on" the population in a COIN fight. The example of the article of "smoking" soldiers for missing formation is counterproductive.

[William F. Owen]

The most effective form of "external" discipline I ever saw, was by a CSM I had the honour to serve with who, if you were dressed improperly, for example, said "Go and change into civilian clothes. You can't be trusted to wear the uniform properly." On another occasion, when a soldier couldn't keep up on a not very demanding march, he assigned the man two men to help him carry his Bergen. - and they were to do so, whenever a tactical move was in progress. In fact, his whole attitude was to exclude men who could not perform. Shame, not humiliation, was and is the key. Men very much feared being excluded. I used the same basic approach when I was an NCO, and it worked. Boots not clean? Go and get your training shoes.

The most extreme example I ever heard of, was apparently the same CSM, actually sent two men on leave. "Go home. You're useless." I am not saying this is a complete cure, but it worked in a volunteer Army. I only ever saw this approach once, and IMO, it worked.

[Ken White]

First, it's cyclical. Every war brings an increase in such events. By 1958, the practice was dying down in the Army; Viet Nam brought it back. Transition to the All Volunteer Force dropped it, the Gulf War and the movement of many Ranger qualified NCOs to even non-airborne units from Ranger units (where the practice has a life of its own) increased it. Hopefully, it'll again subside. It does need some local control.

Second; it's needed to an extent -- but sensibly. Officers do not need to do everything and a lot of stuff doesn't rise to the Article 15 level -- particularly when you're going to throw out perfectly good soldiers or Marines (or Sailors or Airmen; even Coasties...) who have a couple. I kept a kid in the barracks for 75 days once, totally illegal but it kept a good troop from getting a career ending Court Martial. So you need to have the capability and it doesn't need to be too finely delineated. That said, it does need careful watching by the senior NCOs and Officers in the Chain of Command. Make no mistake, either they know it happens and are ignoring it -- unless it gets out of hand or to prevent it from getting there -- or they shouldn't have their ranks...

Thirdly, the institution should acknowledge the practice (not codify it) and train the junior NCOs about what's acceptable and what is not (Noting that Congress passes the laws and is responsible for a lot of regulatory word smithing -- they're the ones that took NCOs out of the picture legally...).

We made a bad mistake in 1776 when Washington hired Von Steuben -- the Indian method of training Braves was far better, mentoring and no hectoring.

Still, combat does take a certain toughness and a certain amount of harassment in training is desirable; one should be careful not to eliminate everything, just pare the excesses -- which do occur -- and train people better.

A general comment on his article, I don't disagree with much of it and do agree that he cites some incidents that were overboard. However, his conclusions

"●●The U.S. Army is culturally handicapped in its
ability to occupy Iraq in a humane manner. The systemic
acceptance of such illegal practices as “smoke
sessions” is part of a mind-set that has crippled our
attempts to implement effective counterinsurgency
campaigns.
●● The regulations surrounding corrective training,
punishment, and “smoke sessions” are confusing
and need to be rewritten.
●●The problem must first be fully understood
by high-ranking officers. To this end, the Army
ought to investigate this matter in a substantive
way, and encourage Soldiers to candidly testify
about these practices without fear of reprisal or
prosecution."

are, IMO, overkill. He's, it seems, taken a personal hangup and elevated to a massive diatribe. As to his conclusion themselves:

I have no doubt that the first has some validity but my suspicion the effect described is a significant overstatement.

I strongly disagree with the second; the army doesn't need idle and unnecessary harassment -- it needs more bureaucracy even less.

I disagree with the third; He's cited a problem (and at GREAT length, I might add...) -- good for him . However he's elevating it way out of proportion. All that's required is common sense, an acknowledgment of what's need, training -- and supervision.

[Anthony Hoh]

I read the article and agree with other comments that it is well written and researched.
That said IMO the article itself is misguided. I got the impression that the author felt NCO's run smoke sessions on a whim outside thier inherent authority or justification. Looking at the time he spent in service (listed in the notes on the article, I think it was a four year enlistment) I doubt he got that far in the ranks, I dont say that as a slight, I say that to highlight the limited perspective one Soldier gets in one unit for four years. Is the line between on the spot corrections/ additional training blurry... sure. But I have never run a smoke session because I was bored or though it was funny, or out of an obligation to generations of Soldiers before me. I do it to maintain discipline and ultimately because I care for the troops in my charge. (sorry ,if that sounds dramatic but from my foxhole it is true). Giving a physical challenge to my Soldiers in lieu of UCMJ is a lot like correcting my own children. I don’t want to do it, I love and care for them both, but it is necessary for their development, and in my mind looks out more for their welfare in both cases.

For example:

You have a young Soldier E-1/E-4 who leaves his weapon at a training site. Should I recommend UCMJ punishment? Okay, he is 21 married with two kids, what am I signing him up for? He loses pay, so he can’t meet financial obligations without the embarrassing process of AER and ACS loans and grants. Not to mention the time lost by his Squad Leader and PSG in Trial Defense Service appt's., loan application forms, and “special time" with the Commander and 1SG. The Soldier also loses time with his family as he performs extra duty.

Or, should I disassemble his weapon, giving one piece to each NCO in the platoon. The Soldier accepts a physical challenge from each NCO as he reassembles his weapon piece by piece, painful...yes, but he won’t forget his weapon again, plus it still serves as a reminder to other Soldiers who witness that proper accountability for equipment is important.

If I received UCMJ every time I stepped on my own crank while growing up in the Army I would probably still have not received a pay check (16 years later), and might find the need to extend my term of service to complete my extra duty! I needed discipline.

Thankfully I had NCO's who smoked the ever living crap out of me, when I screwed up. As I went to the promotion board for SSG I had no blemishes on my records of recorded UCMJ proceedings.

Soon technology will not be able to overcome the soft underbelly of the Nintendo generation

Somebody needs to give responsible tough love, if you don’t have the cajones to do it, or that hurts your sense of morality/justice then kindly step aside.

[Uboat509]

This article does a pretty good job of highlighting a significant problem the Army has. Unfortunately, it is not the one the author was trying to highlight. It is the annoying tendency of the Army to misidentify a problem or to overreact to a problem. In this article it is an issue of,there are individuals abusing a given system so therefore the solution must be to change the system. That way the few individuals who are abusing the system can no longer abuse it nor can the majority who were not abusing it use it either. This is a particular pet peeve of mine. This is why we have clearing barrels outside of all of out buildings in Iraq and Afghanistan, because it is easier to to simply take the bullets away then to ensure that our soldiers can safely carry a weapon (warrior ethos my @#$).

This article may be well argued from a legal stand-point, as far as what reg says what but it does little to deal with the realities of day to day operations. First, "smoke sessions" work. They can be an extremely effective tool. The author never even addresses that fact, preferring to reference a few egregious examples of abuse of the system in a transparent attempt to paint the whole system as corrupt. Is this tool appropriate for every situation? Of course not. There are no one size fits all solutions out there, and we all know that but there are plenty of situations out there where it is appropriate, such as the example Anthony pointed out. There is also what I take to be an elitist undertone throughout this article. There is an implication that NCOs are either too prone to abuse to be able use this system effectively or are too uneducated (I found this statement to be particularly offensive, If smoke sessions are to be prohibited, they should be prohibited explicitly, using the vernacular of the enlisted Soldiers to whom these issues are relevant. "You gots to dumb it down for them enlisted guys or they won't git it.") Bottom line, NCOs are expected to keep order and discipline but they need effective tools to do so and "you do what I tell you or I'm going to go run and get an officer," is not one of those tools.

SFC W

[JAG Major]

I read the article and agree with other comments that it is well written and researched.
That said IMO the article itself is misguided. I got the impression that the author felt NCO's run smoke sessions on a whim outside thier inherent authority or justification. Looking at the time he spent in service (listed in the notes on the article, I think it was a four year enlistment) I doubt he got that far in the ranks, I dont say that as a slight, I say that to highlight the limited perspective one Soldier gets in one unit for four years. Is the line between on the spot corrections/ additional training blurry... sure. But I have never run a smoke session because I was bored or though it was funny, or out of an obligation to generations of Soldiers before me. I do it to maintain discipline and ultimately because I care for the troops in my charge. (sorry ,if that sounds dramatic but from my foxhole it is true). Giving a physical challenge to my Soldiers in lieu of UCMJ is a lot like correcting my own children. I don’t want to do it, I love and care for them both, but it is necessary for their development, and in my mind looks out more for their welfare in both cases.

For example:

You have a young Soldier E-1/E-4 who leaves his weapon at a training site. Should I recommend UCMJ punishment? Okay, he is 21 married with two kids, what am I signing him up for? He loses pay, so he can’t meet financial obligations without the embarrassing process of AER and ACS loans and grants. Not to mention the time lost by his Squad Leader and PSG in Trial Defense Service appt's., loan application forms, and “special time" with the Commander and 1SG. The Soldier also loses time with his family as he performs extra duty.

Or, should I disassemble his weapon, giving one piece to each NCO in the platoon. The Soldier accepts a physical challenge from each NCO as he reassembles his weapon piece by piece, painful...yes, but he won’t forget his weapon again, plus it still serves as a reminder to other Soldiers who witness that proper accountability for equipment is important.

If I received UCMJ every time I stepped on my own crank while growing up in the Army I would probably still have not received a pay check (16 years later), and might find the need to extend my term of service to complete my extra duty! I needed discipline.

Thankfully I had NCO's who smoked the ever living crap out of me, when I screwed up. As I went to the promotion board for SSG I had no blemishes on my records of recorded UCMJ proceedings.

Soon technology will not be able to overcome the soft underbelly of the Nintendo generation

Somebody needs to give responsible tough love, if you don’t have the cajones to do it, or that hurts your sense of morality/justice then kindly step aside.

The Military Justice system, when properly applied, gives a great deal of latitude to the commander in determining the proper punishment, without depriving the Soldier of his due process. In the example about the Soldier who leaves his weapon at a training site, the commander could come up with a form of corrective training that is genuinely intended to improve the Soldier’s performance without appearing punitive.

An example of corrective training versus punishment is: you have a Soldier who is continually late to formation. Having him pitch a tent in front of the orderly room for a month so that he is accounted for is punishment. Having him report to the 1SG’s office 15 minutes before formation is corrective training. Having him do push-ups is pretty much worthless. If you were the Soldier, which would get your attention without souring your view towards the unit?

I had a 1SG in Saudi who needed to have his vehicles cleaned. Whenever Soldiers committed misconduct of any type, he would punish them by having them clean the vehicles all day. When I explained the whole punishment/corrective training distinction to him, he explained that the Soldier, by committing an alleged offense, showed inattention to detail. “That’s why I’m correctively training him by having him detail the trucks.”

In addition or instead of corrective training, the commander could issue a local letter of reprimand. It would stay in the Soldier’s file until he PCS’s, and might effectively get his attention without affecting his permanent record. If he decides to administer an Article 15, he could suspend the punishment, so that the Soldier does not lose pay or rank until/unless he steps on it again. Or he could impose an Article 15 with no punishment (except the Article 15 itself). If the Soldier is an E4 with no previous Article 15’s, he can get one freebie that no board will ever see.

Although I am sympathetic to Soldiers whose minor misconduct causes financial problems due to being married with kids, I don’t like to see two Soldiers commit the same offense only to have the married one get a break because of the second order effects. I would not want to be the commander who “correctively trains” the first Soldier who leaves a weapon at a training site, then has to punish another Soldier who leaves his weapon at a training site after the Brigade commander locks down the unit trying to track down the weapon.

Although commanders and NCO’s often think that they are doing a Soldier a favor by punishing him “off the record,” this creates a potential for a lot of abuse. Before a Soldier can receive a company grade Article 15 or greater, he receives the benefit of counsel. If the charges cannot be substantiated, the TDS attorney can likely prevent the Soldier from receiving the punishment. Also, before receiving an Article 15, a Soldier can present witnesses on his behalf, make a statement, or turn down the Article 15. Additionally, he can appeal whatever punishment is given. If a first line supervisor decides to mete out punishment as he sees fit, he really isn’t doing anyone a favor.
MAJ White, ILE student, Fort Belvoir

[reed11b]

First, it's cyclical. Every war brings an increase in such events. By 1958, the practice was dying down in the Army; Viet Nam brought it back. Transition to the All Volunteer Force dropped it, the Gulf War and the movement of many Ranger qualified NCOs to even non-airborne units from Ranger units (where the practice has a life of its own) increased it. Hopefully, it'll again subside. It does need some local control.

Ironically my experience is exactly the opposite. During peace-time, the wannabe Rangers and wound-too-tight-around-the-axles NCO’s overused “smoking” and public humiliation for minor infringements on regs. During war-time, the wannabes were not so gung-ho to harass a soldier w/ a loaded weapon and the wound-tight-around-the-axles NCO’s were either in hot water w/ command or had been sent home. I wonder if a focus on actual leadership ability for promotion to sergeant would help. Knowing weapon’s ranges and weights and nomenclatures are important, but that should be a requirement for promotion to E-2/3/4 not to NCO. Just a thought,
Reed

[Ken White]

Ironically my experience is exactly the opposite. During peace-time, the wannabe Rangers and wound-too-tight-around-the-axles NCO’s overused “smoking” and public humiliation for minor infringements on regs. During war-time, the wannabes were not so gung-ho to harass a soldier w/ a loaded weapon and the wound-tight-around-the-axles NCO’s were either in hot water w/ command or had been sent home.

The post Viet Nam period was a long peacetime spell where a lot of bad habits grew and DS/DS wasn't long enough to break the cycle.

Consider also that given a war, there's less time -- and tolerance -- for mundane BS. I've never seen good NCOs back down from squaring away a troop who needed it regardless of said troops weapons possession. Or said troop's attitude...