After touring U.S. military facilities this
summer, Representative Steve Buyer (R-IN), chairman of the
Subcommittee on Military Personnel of the House Committee on
National Security, lamented that "Wherever we were, whether it was
on the USS John Kennedy with the Navy or at Army training
centers, there was a general complaint about the product coming out
of basic training. We were left with the impression they are soft,
and basic training is not tough enough. They've weakened the
standards, and we're concerned about it."2
Representative Buyer's comments and
widespread reports in the press that basic training has gone "soft"
should sound a tocsin for policymakers concerned with the
institutional integrity of the armed forces. If left unchecked, the
erosion of rigorous military standards in boot camp will undermine
military discipline, morale, and readiness. Ultimately, both the
fighting capability and the deterrent value of U.S. conventional
forces will be weakened.
Slackened boot camp standards have
highlighted the problems associated with gender-integrated basic
training. With the exception of the Marine Corps, the services have
embraced the dubious practice of mixing male and female recruits
while simultaneously trying to transform them into disciplined
warriors. Army, Navy, and Air Force efforts to "gender norm" basic
training have fostered resentment and undercut respect for uniform
standards. In recent years, recruiting difficulties have placed
additional pressure on military authorities to lower physical
standards and thereby reduce attrition rates.
Women comprise nearly 14 percent of the
armed forces. Recognizing that there are problems associated with
gender-integrated basic training in no way disparages the valuable
role women play in all branches of the armed services. In fact, it
is precisely because women play such a valuable role that these
problems require prompt attention.
In
June 1997, Representative Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) offered an
amendment (H.R. 1559) to the 1998 defense authorization bill that
would have ended gender-integrated basic training for the services.
Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) expressed interest in proposing a
similar amendment. Despite gaining 125 cosponsors, however,
Representative Bartlett's measure lost momentum after
Representative Buyer indicated he wanted to delay the debate over
integrated training for another year. Pending passage of the
defense authorization bill, Congress will appoint an independent
review panel to make policy and legislative recommendations.
Meanwhile, Secretary of Defense William Cohen has appointed a task
force, led by former senator Nancy Kassebaum (R-KS), to study the
impact of gender-integrated basic training.
The
Kassebaum task force report is scheduled for release in December
1997. That it will be objective, however, is open to question. Just
4 of the 11 panel members have military experience. One member,
Deval Patrick, is renowned for his fierce advocacy of race-based
statistical quotas. Appointed assistant attorney general for civil
rights in 1994, Patrick is known to share many of the radical views
held by Lani Guinier, President Bill Clinton's initial nominee for
this position who failed to win Senate confirmation. For his part,
Secretary Cohen seems to have made up his mind on the issue of
gender-integrated basic training. At a press briefing in June, he
asserted that "Based on the visits that I've paid to the various
training centers, I found no compelling reason to change the
current status [of integrated training]."3 After visiting the Great Lakes Naval
Training Center in Illinois in September, Secretary Cohen declared,
"I've found that the way in which gender-integrated training is
handled here is a role model."4
The
Kassebaum task force is unlikely to challenge Secretary Cohen's
preconceived notion that gender-integrated basic training is
working. This would be unfortunate, because there is ample evidence
that gender-integrated basic training not only undermines rigorous
standards, but also creates an environment in which recruits are
vulnerable to sexual misconduct and abuse. Considering the
inability of the Department of Defense to correct these pressing
problems, Congress should exercise its oversight authority and
consider:
-
Unequivocally reaffirming the need
for rigorous standards in basic training. A resolution
spelling out the need for rigorous standards could provide senior
military officers with some measure of insulation to speak more
openly about controversial issues, including problems associated
with gender-integrated basic training and the extent to which
combat billets should be open to women.
-
Directing the services to separate
male and female recruits during basic training.
Congressional action to separate the sexes during basic training
will eliminate the potential for an Aberdeen-like scandal occurring
at boot camp. At the Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland, the Army
recently disciplined 10 soldiers for predatory sexual misconduct,
including rape and improper fraternization with female trainees.
Congressional action to separate the sexes will also reduce the
potential for sexual harassment of recruits by other recruits.
-
Appointing an independent
blue-ribbon commission to conduct a bottom-up review of recruiting
practices. An independent blue-ribbon commission should
examine how recruiting practices can be strengthened to ensure that
attrition rates are not used as an excuse to lower training
standards.
Why Standards
Matter in Military Service
Strict military standards contribute to
military discipline and fighting effectiveness. Standards measure
how well small tactical units contribute to larger formations. The
individual soldier, as the smallest tactical unit, must be
evaluated on this basis. As the Supreme Court repeatedly has ruled,
military organizations necessarily subordinate individual desires
to the common good.5 Without such
subordination, unit cohesion would be impossible. For this reason,
an individual's inability or unwillingness to meet common standards
is incompatible with military service.
Strict, well-defined standards also help
minimize friction and reduce confusion when military units operate
under conditions of extreme stress and uncertainty. To make sound
and timely decisions, military commanders must know what their
units are capable of achieving. In the unforgiving crucible of
battle, the commander who has trained his unit to exacting
standards will have an advantage over one who has not. Such an
advantage may spell the difference between victory and defeat,
between life and death.
Standards also facilitate coordination
among the services. In 1986, Congress passed the Department of
Defense Reorganization Act (popularly known as the
Goldwater-Nichols Act) to clarify the chain of command and mandate
that the services do a better job of working together. The
development of joint standards, especially with regard to command,
control, and communications systems, facilitated these
improvements. The same logic applies to U.S. military coordination
with defense allies and partners abroad. Without common standards,
the credibility of such defensive alliances as the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization would founder on the shoals of military
inefficiency.
The
imperative for adhering to military standards that are clear,
uniform, and measurable was self-evident at one time. Sadly, this
no longer is true. The Clinton Administration has shown little
understanding of, or respect for, demanding standards. Instead, it
prefers to view the military as an equal-opportunity federal jobs
program or--even worse--as a laboratory for social
experimentation.
The War Against
Military Standards
The
Clinton Administration's penchant for social experimentation has
unleashed a war against military standards and values. These
assaults have taken various guises. For
example, the Administration has undermined effective military
standards by:
-
Appointing civilian leaders who
view the military as a laboratory for social experimentation
President Clinton's assistant secretary of the Navy,
Barbara Pope, has averred that "We are in the process of weeding
out the white male as the norm. We're about changing the
culture."6
-
Hiring radical consultants
Duke University law professor Madeline Morris, who served
as a special adviser to Secretary of the Army Togo West on gender
integration issues, has written that Communist Party cells and
Alcoholics Anonymous provide possible models for military
cohesion.7 Her appointment to a panel
conducting an Army study of sexual harassment was terminated only
after the press reported her bizarre views.
-
Ignoring comprehensive studies
urging caution with respect to the assignment of women to combat
roles
Casting aside the recommendations of the 1992 Presidential
Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, the
Clinton Administration rescinded the Risk Rule that previously
limited women to serving in billets in which they would not be
exposed to combat hazards. Issued by the Department of Defense in
1988, the Risk Rule was formulated to help standardize the
services' assignment of women to potentially hostile areas.
-
Pressuring senior officers to
endorse gender-integrated basic training and the expansion of
combat billets open to females
With little discussion or debate, the Clinton
Administration has expanded the number of combat billets open to
women dramatically. At the behest of the Administration, the Army
opened more than 40,000 jobs to women. In like manner, the Navy was
pressured to end its restrictions on placing women aboard combat
ships. Instead of engaging in a dialogue about the dangers women
assigned to combat billets may face and the problems associated
with gender-integrated basic training, senior officers have taken
to mouthing "train-as-we-fight" platitudes.
The
sustained assault on military standards has taken a severe toll.
Despite the rosy picture painted by senior military officers,
morale has fallen dramatically in recent years. Experienced pilots
are leaving the Air Force and Navy in droves. Internet chat lines
for service personnel seethe with resentment and frustration.
Mid-level officers publicly express outrage that their senior
leaders have remained silent on controversial issues. In an op-ed
printed earlier this summer in The Washington Times, for example,
one officer asked bluntly, "Is every careerist in uniform so
concerned with his career advancement and his personal ambition
that he can busy himself rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic?"8
Growing numbers of service personnel
believe that military standards have been compromised. In July
1997, the Army's Senior Panel Report, a study ordered in the
aftermath of the Aberdeen Proving Ground scandal, found that 56
percent of the men surveyed "believed that they were expected to
achieve higher standards than the women."9 Gender-based differences are not the
only area in which standards have declined. The same Army study
found that "most comments by enlisted soldiers and junior officers
indicated that their leaders did not maintain fair standards."10
The
erosion of standards has not happened by chance. Clinton
Administration appointees have turned the discussion over the
proper role of women in the military, including the merits of
gender-integrated basic training, into a debate over civil rights.
Advocates of gender-integrated training have forced their opponents
into a defensive crouch, accusing them of wanting to "turn back the
clock." Parroting this argument, senior military officers,
including Army Chief of Staff Gen. Dennis Reimer, have begun to use
the same metaphor.
The
clock metaphor is an unfortunate use of rhetoric and faulty logic.
What is appropriate for civil society is not necessarily
appropriate for the military. As stated by members of the 1992
Presidential Commission, "Civil society protects individual rights,
but the military, which protects civil society, must be governed by
different rules."11 Numerous Supreme
Court decisions have affirmed the special nature of military
society.12 Military rules are designed
to promote unit cohesion, not individual rights.
Advocates of putting women in combat and
maintaining gender-integrated boot camp often cite the racial
integration of the armed forces as precedent. This approach is
fundamentally flawed. Restrictions preventing women from serving in
infantry, armor, and artillery units in no way are comparable to
odious discrimination based on race. Despite the fact that skin
color, unlike gender, has no bearing on a unit's military
potential, proponents of gender-integrated basic training and women
in combat have appropriated civil rights terminology to mute
concerns over their potential costs to military cohesion and
readiness. Until recently, this strategy has been highly
successful. But evidence of the damaging effects of slackened
standards, especially in basic training, has become so overwhelming
that it cannot be ignored.
The Impact of
Slackened Basic Training Standards on the Armed Forces
The
Clinton Administration's frontal attack against military standards
has undermined basic training. Specifically, integrated basic
training has lowered standards, engendered resentment, and
undermined morale. At the Great Lakes Naval Training Center, for
example:
-
Recruits are shown a video telling
them that "physically, anybody can make it through boot
camp."13 The
"anybody-can-make-it" mentality is harmful because it devalues the
prestige associated with completing basic training.
-
Recruits no longer drill with
rifles.14 Until 1996, the
Navy believed having recruits drill with weapons was an excellent
way to instill discipline. Having executed an about-face, the Navy
now claims that drilling with rifles is anachronistic.
-
Recruits are issued a "blue card"
to deal with stress.15
Recruits are encouraged to hand their card to a trainer if they
feel discouraged.
The
Navy is not alone in allowing standards to slacken. The Army, too,
has developed a kinder, gentler boot camp:
-
Recruits no longer run wearing
combat boots. Studies have shown that female recruits
suffer stress fractures more readily than male recruits.16 The Army's response has been to
substitute jogging apparel for combat boots.
-
Drill instructors are warned to
avoid verbally stressing their recruits.17 With this prohibition, drill
instructors have been stripped of a time-tested technique for
instilling discipline and inculcating mental toughness in their
recruits.
-
Basic combat skills are receiving
less emphasis. According to a 1997 report by the Army
Inspector General, "There is no clearly articulated or enforced
standard for soldierization skills to graduate from Initial Entry
Training [IET]."18
The
softening of boot camp standards has not passed unnoticed. A
growing number of personnel, especially among the more junior
ranks, have expressed grave concerns that boot camp has become less
demanding than it should be. As one Army noncommissioned officer
has commented, "There's less discipline across the board. They
[recruits] come through an easier boot camp, and arrive at a duty
station where their rooms aren't inspected."19 Expressing similar disappointment, an
Army warrant officer asserted that "Basic training is too soft
these days. Soldiers are reporting to advanced individual training
and their next duty assignments with attitudes, no military bearing
and less military knowledge than before."20
Alarming evidence of dissatisfaction with
basic training also comes from another highly credible source: the
recruits themselves. "I expected basic training to be tough, like
the movies. This is more like summer camp," lamented an Army
recruit at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.21 At Fort Benning, Georgia, another
recruit voiced similar concerns about boot camp: "This year I think
it's getting soft, and it shouldn't. It's like these drill
sergeants, and you can just tell, they are trying not to lose their
rank."22
Similar problems have surfaced with the
Air Force's six-week recruit training program. In August 1997,
discussing declining morale in their branch of the service, a focus
group of Air Force pilots voiced a strong sentiment in favor of
toughened basic training.23 Only
recently has the Air Force reintroduced the bivouac to basic
training. Until last year, according to the chief of training
analysis, physical training was so slack that trainees actually
were being "deconditioned."24 The idea
to toughen the obstacle course came from recruits who felt they
were not being challenged sufficiently.25
The
decline in boot camp standards has been brought about by several
factors, chief among them the integration of female recruits into
basic training. With the exception of the Marine Corps, all the
services have embraced integrated basic training, a decision that
has put downward pressure on physical standards. The desire to
avoid the appearance of double standards has fostered gender
norming, or grading on a curve. At Army basic training, for
example, Individual Proficiency Tests (IPTs) measuring non-physical
skills, such as map reading and first aid, have been given added
weight to reduce the attrition rate of female recruits.26 The Army is not alone in redefining
standards. The Navy, for example, has redefined its
stretcher-bearing requirement from two to four personnel to
accommodate the fact that female sailors generally have less
upper-body strength.27
Physical differences between male and
female recruits cannot be papered over in all cases, however. When
Representative Buyer visited Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, he found
that "women were not passing the hand grenade toss, so they changed
the standards." As a result, there was "one standard for men and a
lower standard for women."28 The
inability to throw a hand grenade effectively is not a moot
question. In World War II, for example, women in the Soviet armed
forces (who sometimes served in combat roles because of the high
number of casualties on the Eastern Front) were killed because they
lacked the upper body strength to toss hand grenades a sufficient
distance.29
Beyond the problems associated with double
standards and gender norming, mixing male and female recruits in
basic training has lead to a Pandora's box of sexual tensions.
Advocates of gender-integrated training are quick to point out that
evidence of widespread sexual abuse at the Army's Aberdeen base did
not involve basic training. These advocates conveniently ignore
evidence of similar abuse at other Army training installations,
such as Fort Leonard Wood and Fort Jackson, South Carolina.30 Abuses have been documented at Air
Force and Navy basic training installations as well. During the
past three years, no fewer than eight male instructors have been
disciplined at Lackland Air Force base in San Antonio, Texas.31
Although it has received far less public
attention, trainee-on-trainee sexual harassment remains a serious
problem. In a comprehensive survey, the Army's Senior Review Panel
found that 42 percent of sexual harassment incidences involved
trainees who had harassed other trainees.32 Another byproduct of gender-integrated
training, such harassment clearly undermines the purpose of basic
training.
Still another problem born of
gender-integrated training involves consensual sex among trainees.
For example, the Army Inspector General found that "[m]any in the
chain of command at one installation believe it unrealistic to stop
IET [Initial Entry Training] trainee-trainee consensual sex. The
most common reason given for this was the COC [chain of command]
inability to provide adequate oversight in the barracks, given the
high frequency of such incidents."33
At
some installations, local commanders have interpreted
gender-integrated training to mean gender-integrated living
accommodations. In early 1996, one brigade commander "issued a
policy letter requiring female trainees' living quarters be
integrated into platoon areas with their male platoon members."
Predictably, this arrangement led to problems: "Many in the chain
of command cite movement of females to the male living areas as
being a primary cause for trainee-trainee SH/SM [sexual harassment
and sexual misconduct] incidents."34
Inculcating military discipline is
difficult enough without interjecting a sexual dynamic into basic
training. Females are "sort of a distraction," observed one Army
private, who added, "There's a lot of flirting."35 In an effort to prevent sexual abuse
and harassment, the Navy and Air Force issue a "Bill of Rights" to
recruits as they enter basic training. Such efforts, though
well-intentioned, are likely to fail. As Senator Dan Coats (R-IN)
observed during congressional hearings last February, "Sexuality is
one of the most basic of all human instincts.... I find it hard to
believe that we can ever create an atmosphere, particularly in the
military, where we do not add to this tension rather than reduce
this tension, particularly if we are following a course of full
integration in almost every military activity."36
The
Army's initial experiment with gender-integrated training lasted
from 1977 to 1982. The experiment ended after it became apparent
that male recruits were not being challenged sufficiently and women
were suffering too many stress fractures. In 1982, a spokesman for
the Army's Training and Doctrine Command said the decision to halt
integrated training was made "to facilitate the Army's toughening
goals and enhance the soldierization process."37 A company commander experienced with
gender-integrated training had this to say about the initial
experiment: "It had to be done. It's better to try to do something,
and find out it didn't work, than never to try it at all."38
Apparently suffering from institutional
amnesia, the Army learned little from this experience. According to
a 1996 General Accounting Office report, the "Army has no records
of those programs or their results to compare with those on its
current program and results."39 And
the chief of staff of the Army, in testimony before the Senate
Armed Services Committee, has admitted that more recent studies
examining gender-integrated training are inconclusive: "Some of the
reports that I have seen said the performance of female soldiers
improves in the gender-integrated training. Others have said no, it
causes a problem."40
Despite charges and countercharges of
methodological bias in various studies, this much remains certain:
The Army's return to integrated training in the 1990s was not based
on any compelling evidence that the previous experiment had added
to the rigor of boot camp or tangibly enhanced national security.
Instead, the push to revive a failed experiment was driven by
political pressures generated outside the military. This result is
most regrettable, especially because there exists a reasonable
alternative to gender-integrated training that has a proven track
record of success.
Combining Rigor
with Common Sense:
The Marine Corps' Approach to Boot Camp
Unlike the other services, the Marine
Corps has resisted the pressure to integrate its basic training.
Male and female recruits are kept separate during all phases of
boot camp. Male drill instructors are responsible for male
recruits; female drill instructors are responsible for female
recruits. As retired Maj. Gen. Jarvis Lynch has stressed, "Marine
leaders know that the Corps must continue to successfully defend
its recruit training position, for reasons as obvious as they are
crucial. Anything less means the end of the Marine Corps as the
nation knows it."41
The
Marine Corps' commonsense decision to keep the sexes apart during
basic training has concrete advantages over gender-integrated
training. Specifically, it:
-
Eliminates the potential for
predatory sexual abuse of female recruits by male drill
instructors.
-
Reduces the risk of misconduct
among trainees. As explained by Secretary of the Navy John
H. Dalton, keeping the sexes apart "gives new and vulnerable
recruits the opportunity to focus on Marine standards of behavior
without the unwanted stress of gender differences they would face
in a gender-integrated boot camp."42
-
Provides female drill instructors
as positive role models for female recruits. "As soon as
they get off the bus, we give them someone they want to be like,"
explained Lt. Col. Angie Salinas, commander of the female 4th
Recruit Training Battalion.43 As Gen.
Charles Krulak, commandant of the Marine Corps, emphasized last
April,
I've talked to women down at recruit
training and they said in no uncertain terms we want to look up to
a role model that we can identify with. We want to look up and see
the battalion commander is a woman. We want to see the drill
instructor that they someday want to be, to be a woman. We'll see
enough guys in the next four years or 40.44
Promoting High
Standards, Not Sexual Tensions
Free
from the pitfalls associated with gender-integrated training, the
Marine Corps recently undertook major reforms to enhance the
quality of its basic training. In October 1996, under the
commandant's direction, an extra week was added to the existing
12-week program. "This is not about making things easier,"
according to Gen. Krulak. "This is making things
tougher--physically, mentally and morally."45 To this end, the Marines also added a
grueling 54-hour exercise--called the Crucible--as a capstone to
basic training. This exercise involves a series of challenging
obstacles designed to foster teamwork and determination under
conditions of stress, including food and sleep deprivation.
Numerous outside observers have commented
favorably on the Crucible's success in enhancing the rigor of basic
training. Such reforms would have been impossible if the Marines
had adopted gender-integrated training. The Marines simply have
recognized the obvious: Transforming civilians into disciplined
military personnel is complicated enough without injecting a sexual
dynamic into the equation.
Marine Private Sara Turner offers a
revealing perspective on the contrast between Army and Marine basic
training. First, she enlisted in the Army and went through
gender-integrated training. Then, after completing her obligation
to the Army, she joined the Marine Corps. In comparing the two
experiences, she asserted that, during Army basic training, there
was "more tension between males and females. In your free time
you'll be trying to get your gear all high and tight, and sometimes
you'll get unwanted attention, men wanting to talk to you."46 At Parris Island, one of the Marine
Corps' two boot camps, she found the standards higher and the
situation a "lot better."47
Despite its recent success in making boot
camp more demanding, the Marine Corps knows it cannot afford to
take its well-earned reputation for exacting standards for granted.
As one retired general officer recalled after the Vietnam War,
[T]he Corps registered rates of
courts-martial, unauthorized absences, and outright desertions
unprecedented in its own history, and, in most cases, three to four
times those plaguing the U.S. Army. Violence and crime at recruit
depots and other installations escalated; in some cases, officers
ventured out only in pairs or groups and only in daylight.48
The
painful consequences associated with a breakdown in military order
remain within the living memory of many senior-level Marines.
Today, threats to good order and
discipline come not from the bitter aftermath of military defeat,
but from those who would impose a politically correct agenda on the
military. In the aftermath of the Kelly Flinn scandal,
Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) introduced legislation that
would have swept aside prohibitions against fraternization among
consenting adults. The services also remain under relentless
pressure to tear down the last remaining barriers that prevent
women from serving in combat arms billets, regardless of the
dangers to unit cohesion. Madeline Morris, the secretary of the
Army's former adviser on gender issues, has argued that "It seems
improbable that we will see a full transition in the gender and
sexual norms in the military as long as rules remain excluding
women from a range of combat positions."49
The
Marine Corps' recent success in strengthening recruit training
demonstrates the value of maintaining rigorous standards rather
than trying to paper over physiological differences between the
sexes. The commonsense approach of keeping male and female recruits
apart has complemented efforts to improve basic training for both
sexes. Moreover, there is no evidence that female graduates
consider themselves disadvantaged because they missed the
experience of gender-integrated training.
The Recruiting
Challenge
The
Marine Corps' small size has given it an advantage with respect to
strengthening its basic training. Simply put, the Marine Corps can
afford a higher attrition rate than the other services. In the
Army, Air Force, and Navy, recruiting difficulties and the pressure
to lower attrition rates have worked at cross-purposes with the
incentive to maintain high standards in boot camp. Unless action is
taken, these negative trends will become only worse.
Today, the military faces the daunting
task of incorporating a generation of recruits steeped in moral
relativism and "me-first" individualism. Many of the so-called
Generation Xers believe ethical standards are contingent on
circumstances or simply a matter of personal preference. Commenting
on the strengths and weaknesses of recruits in the 1990s, a retired
Marine Corps sergeant major observed that "recruits are smarter
today--they run rings around what we were able to do, on average.
Their problems are moral problems: lying, cheating, and stealing,
and the very fact of being committed. We find that to get young
people to dedicate themselves to a cause is difficult sometimes."50 The Army Inspector General found that
"some trainees expressed beliefs about sexual mores that are in
contravention with Army policy."51
In a
positive development, the services in varying degrees have begun to
reemphasize core values. The Marine Corps, for example, now
distributes "core value cards" to all recruits, and the Army is
studying the feasibility of issuing its own "values card." But
these cards will amount to nothing but empty symbolism unless the
values are explained, demonstrated, and reinforced by force of
habit. Martial virtues cannot be instilled in the absence of
discipline, and discipline cannot be inculcated, let alone
measured, in the absence of exacting standards.
The
responsibility for this crucial task lies with the drill
instructor, the natural role model for every recruit. No other
individual wields nearly as much power to inculcate martial values.
For many recruits, especially those coming from broken homes or
permissive school systems, boot camp may represent their first
sustained encounter with an authority figure. The consequences of a
boot camp grown soft extend far beyond the recruit depot and drill
field. As noted military sociologist Charles Moskos of Northwestern
University puts it, "What we're ending up with is a kinder, gentler
drill sergeant who is trying to keep attrition down. And kinder,
gentler drill instructors are not necessarily creating the kind of
force you want to go to war."52
Notwithstanding this danger, the Air
Force, Navy, and Army are concerned that raising physical standards
in boot camp will affect both attrition rates and recruiting
efforts in an adverse manner. Even though the military has shrunk
dramatically in recent years, it still requires a large annual
influx of recruits. In 1997, for example, the armed services
required nearly 180,000 new recruits to replenish their ranks.
Several factors, including expanded
employment opportunities in the private sector, have conspired to
make recruiting more difficult. In varying degrees, the services
have sought to attract recruits by touting financial benefits.
Recruiting Web sites, for example, trumpet enlistment bonuses and
money for college. This emphasis on financial incentives will prove
counterproductive for two reasons. First, although Congress always
should seek appropriate pay and benefits for military personnel,
the government never will be able to match salaries offered in the
private sector. Second, the emphasis on financial inducements
crowds out more traditional incentives to join the military, such
as appeals to patriotism and sacrifice. The Army's Senior Review
Panel found that "Many leaders and soldiers expressed concern that
the Army is becoming more like a civilian job than a profession.
Individual rights and privacy concerns, they say, are beginning to
receive priority over the core values espoused by the Army."53
Efforts to restore rigorous standards may
raise attrition rates, at least in the short term, but this is a
small price to pay considering the alternative cost of allowing
slackened standards to remain in place. Military service remains a
privilege, not an entitlement. Not every Generation Xer who wants
to enlist is capable of serving in the armed forces, and failure to
meet physical standards in no way reflects on the moral worth of an
individual. Clearly, there are many ways for citizens to serve
their country apart from military service.
Why
Congressional Oversight Is Necessary
The
military's inability to rectify recruiting difficulties merits
prompt congressional attention. With cuts in the defense budget of
40 percent in real terms since the mid-1980s, the subsequent
downsizing has placed military personnel under intense pressure.
And with promotions becoming increasingly competitive, strains of
careerism have surfaced. Recent Army focus groups have revealed
concern over what is being called a "zero-defects mentality."54 With rare exceptions, senior military
officers have been reluctant to speak out against the relentless
push by outsiders to impose a politically correct agenda on the
military. These leaders bear partial responsibility for the erosion
of challenging standards and the accompanying decline of the
warrior spirit.
The
present Administration has politicized the military to an
unprecedented degree. Fearing reprisal, senior officers generally
refrain from voicing opinions about controversial issues. As one
commentator put it, "negative comments about integration are
considered 'career killers.'"55 Under
pressure from the White House, the Department of Defense rescinded
the Risk Rule virtually without protest by senior military
officers. Few active duty officers have spoken out against
draconian force structure cuts. Former secretary of the Navy James
Webb recently asked, "And who among the leadership has been willing
to bet his reputation and his career on the need to preserve the
Navy force structure?"56
When
senior officers do speak out about controversial issues, they are
subject to blistering criticism. In congressional testimony last
February, for example, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Dennis J. Reimer
tentatively suggested that Congress reexamine sex-integrated
training. He was promptly accused by Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton
(D-DC) of wanting to return the military to the "dark ages."57
In
the present political climate, the military forces appear incapable
of taking appropriate measures to restore rigor and common sense to
basic training. For example, after a recent Army survey revealed
widespread sexual harassment in the ranks, the Army recommended
adding a week of "human relations" classes to basic training.58 The Army's Senior Review Panel Report
recommended that the Army "incorporate ethics and human relations
training in recruiting and IET cadre courses, to include
professionally facilitated sensitivity training."59 Such internally generated reforms will
have only a marginal impact unless Congress takes corrective
action.
Senior military and civilian leaders in
the Army who are opposed to congressional action argue that the
incidents at Aberdeen were only an "aberration." Yet the Army
Senior Review Panel found widespread sexual harassment at basic
training among men and women.60 And,
as noted earlier, sexual misconduct and predatory sexual abuse by
drill instructors have been found at several training
installations.
According to the Army, the answer is
leadership. Defining predatory sexual abuse and harassment as a
"leadership deficiency," however, begs the question of why
leadership broke down in the first place. Moreover, the Army first
publicized regulations against sexual harassment in 1981. The
services all announced "zero tolerance" of sexual harassment in the
aftermath of the Tailhook scandal. "Since then," as the Army's
Senior Review Panel Report observes, "numerous policy memoranda by
the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, and the Army
Chief of Staff have emphasized that sexual harassment will not be
tolerated and that successful mission accomplishment can only be
achieved in an environment of mutual respect, dignity, and fair
treatment."61 Despite such unequivocal
policy statements, recruits have been abused by drill instructors
and have engaged in sexual misconduct with other trainees.
Instead of fixating on "leadership" as a
panacea, the military forces should consider the gender-integrated
environments within which they expect their leaders to perform. As
James Webb has observed, "No edict from above will ever eliminate
sexual activity when men and women are thrust together at close
quarters."62 This fact explains not
only the problems in basic training, but also the high pregnancy
rates aboard Navy ships.
Gen.
Reimer has testified that "We have committed ourselves to providing
an environment that is free of sexual harassment and free of the
conditions that would spawn sexual misconduct."63 Forcing the sexes together at basic
training, however, is very much at odds with the logic of Reimer's
assertion. As Webb argues, the "sexual jealousies, courtship
rituals, and favoritism that are the hallmarks of romantic
relationships are inevitable when males and females are brought
into close quarters in isolated, intense environments."64
The
Army has provided no convincing reason to believe that stressing
leadership and human relations training will be any more effective
today than it was in the past. It certainly did nothing to prevent
the abuses at Aberdeen from happening. The reluctance of senior
military officers to admit that there are problems associated with
the mixing of male and female recruits demands congressional
action. A resolution reaffirming the need for rigorous standards in
basic training, for example, could give senior officers who
otherwise would remain silent a voice in the debate over
gender-integrated training while forcing the Clinton Administration
to correct this deeply flawed policy.
Restoring
Rigorous Standards to Basic Training: An Action Plan
Historically, the military has found it
difficult to preserve its institutional integrity during periods
between major conflicts. In the age of political correctness, this
challenge has become acute. Force structure cuts, a frantic
operational tempo, and relentless attempts to demilitarize the
military have taken a severe toll on morale, readiness, and the
military's attempt to retain quality personnel. In addressing these
negative trends, Congress should take corrective action to reverse
the erosion of boot camp standards. Specifically, Congress should
consider:
- Unequivocally
reaffirming the imperative for rigorous standards in basic
training
A congressional resolution should stress three related points.
First, the primary purpose of basic training is to transform
civilians into disciplined soldiers. As the 1992 Presidential
Commission found, "The key question in preparing to win and survive
is not what is best for the individual, but what is best for the
unit and the military as a whole."65
Second, basic training is not a laboratory for social
experimentation. Third, basic training provides the first and best
opportunity to instill recruits with a deep and abiding respect for
common standards.
A congressional resolution reaffirming the
need for rigorous standards would achieve several positive
purposes. It would help clarify to the American people how boot
camp affects the character, morale, readiness, and credibility of
the U.S. armed forces. Moreover, it would help shield military
officers responsible for training and educating military personnel
from invasive attacks by the proponents of political correctness.
As it stands now, the military finds itself speaking from a
defensive crouch on a wide range of issues. The continued silence
of senior officers in the face of attacks by the politically
correct will engender resentment from more junior officers and
enlisted personnel who believe their leaders have fallen prey to
careerism.
Finally, such a resolution would help
refocus the military on the importance of recapturing its warrior
ethos. Earlier this summer, a comprehensive Army survey revealed
that a mere one-third of female soldiers and 57 percent of male
soldiers agreed with the assertion that "The main focus of the Army
should be warfighting."66 To be
successful, all organizations--military or civilian, large or
small, public or private--must share not only common experience,
but also a strong sense of common purpose.
- Directing the
services to separate male and female recruits during basic
training. A congressional resolution tailored to the above
criteria would provide a useful point of departure for policymakers
seeking to protect the integrity of the armed forces. To be
effective, however, it must be backed by legislation that ends the
experiment in gender-integrated basic training.
Evidence of predatory sexual abuse at
Aberdeen Proving Ground triggered the congressional interest in
rethinking the value of gender-integrated training. In June 1997,
Representative Bartlett's amendment to the 1998 defense
authorization bill directed the services to keep male and female
recruits apart during basic training. This amendment quickly gained
125 cosponsors before being derailed. Senator Byrd indicated strong
interest in championing a similar measure in the Senate. Congress
should consider reviving this approach when it reconvenes in
January 1998.
- Appointing an
independent blue-ribbon commission to conduct a bottom-up review of
recruiting practices
Separating male and female recruits is a necessary step toward
restoring rigor to basic training. It must be supported by concrete
measures to strengthen recruiting practices; otherwise, attrition
rates will place downward pressure on efforts to maintain high
standards. As noted by former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen.
John Shalikashvili in his farewell address, the armed services are
experiencing difficulties reaching their recruiting goals.
Recruiting problems today extend beyond mere numbers. Efforts to
imbue the military with a warfighting ethos suffer to the extent
that recruits continue to consider military service "just another
job," an opinion that surveys have indicated is shared by a growing
number of enlistees.
Past studies have examined recruiting
problems in a piecemeal fashion. This approach no longer will
suffice. A comprehensive review of recruiting practices is long
overdue. Moreover, such a study demands the objectivity of an
outside panel of experts, preferably with extensive military
experience. As an additional assurance of objectivity, Congress
should specify that the House, Senate, and White House appoint
equal numbers of members to the panel.
In assessing the recruiting practices of
the current forces, a congressionally
mandated panel should address three crucial questions:
-
Why has the number of male
enlistees fallen so dramatically?
-
What is the proper mix of
incentives to attract recruits from a broad socioeconomic
spectrum?
-
What screening measures are
necessary to increase the likelihood that recruits will make it
through their first enlistment period without washing out?
If
this bottom-up review uncovers funding shortfalls, Congress should
act swiftly to ensure that recruiters have sufficient funds to meet
their recruiting goals. Additional expenditures at the front end of
the recruiting process will more than pay for themselves by raising
future retention rates.
Conclusion
Wartime defeats invariably take their toll
on a military's institutional integrity. Commenting on the
breakdown of discipline during the latter stages of the Vietnam
War, noted military strategist and Los Angeles Times
syndicated columnist Harry Summers, Jr., warned that "Although most
Americans were not aware of it, the military had disintegrated to
the point where the security of the nation was imperiled. Racial
confrontations were widespread, drugs rings had taken over entire
units, indiscipline was endemic. Lying and false reports were
commonplace."67
Summers further noted that Congress played
a key role in restoring the military's institutional integrity
after Vietnam: "New rules from Congress enabled commanders to
immediately get rid of misfits and malcontents and a 'back to
basics' movement swept the military. Discipline was tightened,
hands-on training emphasized, the Non-Commissioned Officers Corps
was revitalized with rigorous new standards, and professionalism
was stressed at all levels."68 The
resulting back-to-basics focus on warfighting prompted doctrinal
reforms and boosted morale. Collectively, these improvements
provided the United States with the ground forces capable of
evicting Iraq's army from Kuwait in 1991.
Even
though the problems facing the military today are of a different
nature, they are no less serious. Cumulatively, the lack of
strategic direction from the White House, a frenetic operational
tempo, and invasive attacks from the politically correct have
undercut the morale of the armed forces. If left unchecked, the
slide toward even softer standards in basic training will have a
corrosive impact on the military as a whole.
Basic training should provide a
foundational experience for recruits. This common tie assumes
special importance when one considers the wide range of
occupational specialties within the armed forces. The Army alone
has 240 different occupational specialties. Unless recruits attend
the same school or receive an assignment to the same unit after
boot camp, basic training provides the only common bond they share
with other members of their service. For this reason, basic
training plays a crucial role in shaping the values of each of the
country's armed services.
Recruits in basic training today will
provide the enlisted leadership of the armed forces for the next
two decades. Congress must act now to ensure that their training
standards are demanding, measurable, and uniform. As one Army
private put it, "If basic training was tougher, we'd end up with
better soldiers."69 Congress also must
do its part to ensure that Aberdeen-type abuses never happen in
basic training.
Failure to protect the integrity of the
armed forces will undermine the effectiveness of U.S. conventional
forces. As Representative Bartlett warns, "Dead and maimed airmen,
soldiers and sailors, grieving families and a weakened military is
the price that our nation pays when leaders make political
correctness a priority over national security."70