Corrective Training vs Punishment

[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.