Basic Gone Soft - Page 5

Leozinho · 06-29-2007, 21:32

"Back in 1775, in Tun Tavern, recruiting started for the new Marine Corps. The very first Marine enlistee came in, signed the papers and took an oath. He was then told to go outside and wait for the other enlistees to go through the process. They would assemble later on the front yard.

After a few minutes the second enlistee came out and had a seat on the steps, beside the first. The first man looked at the second and began grumbling, 'Well, it's just not like the Old Corps anymore.'"

(That's an old one, I know.)

There's no doubt that basic training has gotten softer. I'm not apologizing for that.

But amid all the concern about easy drill sergeants, lax entry standards and recruiters signing up gang members, we should talk about the average soldier that enlists in 2007.

Mainly, he enlists knowing he's going to war. That certainty has to have shaped the profile of the typical recruit. (I'm sure plenty of recruits sign up thinking for some reason they won't deploy, but I'm talking about the average recruit. He knew what he was getting into.)

I'm told that my unit used to have guys that before 9-11 never expected to be in a honest-to-God war. It turned out that some of them didn't like it. Well, they aren't in anymore, despite having gone through the last hard class of basic training.

Meanwhile, the some of the folks that enlisted in 2003 are on their 3rd tour to Iraq. To be sure, they probably didn't expect three tours in 5 years, but most of them signed up out of some sort of patriotism, rather than just for a steady job and the GI Bill. And those that sign up this year shouldn't have any illusions about what war is like.

I'm not saying that those that signed up the the last few years should go around a patting themselves on the back, but it's something to think about when we discuss the state of the new recruits.

I think an untenable op temp will do more to change the face of the Army than relaxing basic training ever could. After all, the Nintendo generation is already in the Army and has proven itself. They are the Captains and Majors and senior NCOs. We are on the Xbox360 generation now.

I'm much more worried about the exodus of O-4s that we are said to have than I am about soft basic training.

Mav · 06-29-2007, 21:39

While I joined pre-9/11 (barely), I must say.. Thank you for that post, Leozinho... I don't have much of a leg to stand on among the membership of this board, but I do like to think that many of my peers are patriots.. My buddy, Mick (see my sig), joined specifically to go to war. Not because he was a War Junkie, but because of the men and women serving and that he wanted to support his country. He knew full-well that he was going to war and the risks. And he made the ultimate sacrifice, willingly, and honorably. And that, in itself, takes a strong person, IMO.

So thank you. We newbies are honored

Both by your comment and in serving our country, in a time of war.

Leozinho · 06-29-2007, 21:57

Wait. Don't thank me. I haven't been anywhere, yet. But almost all of the folks I went to basic with in 2003 have.

Also, just to be clear - I'm not painting with a broad brush here. I'm not trying to insinuate that folks that signed up pre-9-11 are inferior or less patriotic than new recruits. I used an anecdote relayed to me to point out that sometimes the good old days weren't so good.

Mav · 06-29-2007, 22:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leozinho

Wait. Don't thank me. I haven't been anywhere, yet. But almost all of the folks I went to basic with have.

Also, just to be clear - I'm not painting with a broad brush here. I'm not trying to insinuate that folks that signed up pre-9-11 are inferior or less patriotic than new recruits. That comment was an anecdote relayed to me that I used to point out that sometimes the good old days weren't so good.

Perfectly clear. The only thing I took your comment to mean was a dedication of honor and respect to the people who took whatever tools were given to them, and made it happen, regardless of the circumstance. Proving that soldiers still soldier on regardless of the circumstance or lack of preparedness.

We may be a hard headed generation, but there are those of us that still take our knocks and learn from those before us such as this fine community, and continue the fight, no matter where we came from, what we know, or what's available. We go out there, and pardon the cliche, but we live: Be all you can be.

That's why I said thanks.

And whether or not you've been anywhere... you're willing to. Ready or not. That's just another example of it.

Scottkimbal · 08-26-2007, 09:29

Am I allowed to request a camp for boot camp? I havent signed the contract yet and I want to make sure that I go through the hardest camp possible. I thought that all the camps were hard. It sounds like Ft. Benning is the hardest. Is that correct, are there harder camps to go through?

**Kyobanim** · 08-26-2007, 09:52

Take what you get and make the best of it; you only get out of it what you put into it. There are no 'hard' or 'easy' posts.

jwt5 · 08-26-2007, 09:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scottkimbal

Am I allowed to request a camp for boot camp? I havent signed the contract yet and I want to make sure that I go through the hardest camp possible. I thought that all the camps were hard. It sounds like Ft. Benning is the hardest. Is that correct, are there harder camps to go through?

Let me help you out. First, in the Army, they're not called camps, they're posts. Ft Benning is an Army post in Georgia.

And no, as far as I know, you can't request where you go for basic. Where you go is determined by your chosen MOS and space available. When I went through Basic in 2002, I was supposed to go to Benning, but they were full, so I was sent to the recently de-femaled Ft. Sill.

Good luck.

Scottkimbal · 08-26-2007, 23:36

Thank you for the insight.

08-27-2007, 11:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwt5

Let me help you out. First, in the Army, they're not called camps, they're posts. Ft Benning is an Army post in Georgia.

So, what makes the difference between Forts, Posts, and Camps

**Pete** · 08-27-2007, 11:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Remington Raidr

So, what makes the difference between Forts, Posts, and Camps

Lets not short the people in blue - they have a base, well more than one.

PSM · 08-27-2007, 11:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete

Lets not short the people in blue - they have a base, well more than one.

My favorite is Los Angeles AFB. There are no runways; not even a heliport.

Pat

**Kyobanim** · 08-27-2007, 12:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Remington Raidr

So, what makes the difference between Forts, Posts, and Camps

1. A fort is a square structure built on the plains to house the Calvary
2. A post is something that is used to hold up the walls of the fort
3. A camp is the space inside the fort where the tents are put up for the Cavalry to sleep in.

Hope that clears things up.

jwt5 · 08-27-2007, 14:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kyobanim

1. A fort is a square structure built on the plains to house the Calvary
2. A post is something that is used to hold up the walls of the fort
3. A camp is the space inside the fort where the tents are put up for the Cavalry to sleep in.

Hope that clears things up.

LoL! Good stuff!

As far as the original question, I think it just has to do with who 'owns' said installation. For the Marine's the garrison is a Camp, the Army it's called a Post, and the AF call their's a Base.

SF_BHT · 08-27-2007, 15:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by PSM

My favorite is Los Angeles AFB. There are no runways; not even a heliport.

Pat

I hope they can at least hang a picture of a AC (Plane/Helo) on the wall. I bet they have models on their desk also.

**Pete** · 08-27-2007, 16:06

Next thing ya' know somebody will want to know how many Trucks are on Ft. Bragg.

Should I run for the bunker now?