Reading this I cannot help but think of the post Vietnam changes that swept through the Corps. I remember hearing stories that in the mid-70's if you were a staff NCO you did not step foot in the enlisted barracks at night (I am sure that is quite exaggerated.)

A lot of enlisted that I talk with now have simply called it another case of the Green Weenie Striking Again.

I am taking into consideration that it is the Marine Corps Times...

This is one point that causes some concern for me:

quote:

---

Commanders leading Marine expeditionary forces, major subordinate commands and installations must develop plans to “fight and win” in the barracks with their sergeants major.

---

What the hell is going on? Are people hitting the panic button or is morale that low?

[This message has been edited by Aggies Revenge (edited 9/26/2013 8:57a).]

Interesting.

I saw the whole brief that CMC gave to the GOS. This is in some repsects similar to the reinstitution of tougher standards by Gen Wilson after the end of the draft. I don't think that the barracks are a no-mans land for SNCOs and officers but neglected. The thrust of CMC's message is that the barracks will be constantly under watch on every deck and SNCOs will be in the barracks routinely during and after duty hours. Over the 22 years of my experience the barracks increasingly have become a place populated only by first term enlistees and a few NCOs after working hours and on weekends. So many of the incidents of misconduct that have given the Corps a black eye have taken place in these conditions that Gen Amos sees it as the critical focus of correcting the problems. I sent the CMC's message to a retired SgtMaj who is a friend and his response was that it was long overdue. Furthermore he said that he saw the fingerprints of SgtMaj Barrett on this as much as Gen Amos.

quote:

---

Reading this I cannot help but think of the post Vietnam changes that swept through the Corps. I remember hearing stories that in the mid-70's if you were a staff NCO you did not step foot in the enlisted barracks at night (I am sure that is quite exaggerated.)

---

I was in the Army right after Vietnam and the NCO on duty at night in each barracks was issued a .45 with a full magazine. It was the wild west. A few months before I got to my assignment in Germany a 2nd Lt. went into one of the barracks at night and was shoved into a wall locker and then pushed out of a third floor window. Drug problems were completely out of control. It was the only time in my life I witnessed someone shooting up heroin. The driver of my APC would smoke hash while out on maneuvers.

The problem was due to lowering standards for who could enlist so they could meet the recruiting quotas. I don't know if the Marines are running into this same issue now or if these miscreants are combat veterans that are bored silly in garrison and causing trouble. It would be interesting to know.

[This message has been edited by IDAGG (edited 9/26/2013 7:35p).]

It's definitely not the same environment as the stories of the bad old days of the 1970s. I have heard stories from those that were there in the 1970s that the barracks were a dangerous place after dark and pot was frequently in the air on the back ladderwells. I would not feel the least bit in concerned walking through any BEQ in the Corps at any time of day or night today whether in civies or in uniform. The problems are when there are no duty NCOs, SNCOs or officers touring the barracks regularly.

I also don't think that the conduct problems that the Corps currently faces are due to acceptance of lower "initial quality indicators" such as mental aptitude, medical, academic credential, or even pre-service moral waivers. Over the past decade, even during the really rough recruiting market in 2004-2005, the Corps never lowered its criteria for ASVAB QT/GT (63% IIIA or higher), high school diplomas (95% Tier I and <3% GED), waivers for pre-service drug use, or criminal involvement. To put it in perspective, the new tattoo policy that the Army just instituted this week that is catching headlines was instituted five year ago in the Marine Corps because they could be that selective and still make mission. By all of those metrics we've never had a better composition of first term Marines.

My opinion is that the problems we face can mostly be traced to two trends. Firstly, we used to take for granted that most recruits arrived at boot camp with a basic understanding of the core values of honor, courage, and commitment. The validity of that assumption dissolved over the past three decades along with the nuclear family. Objective values have to be taught to 18 year olds that in generations past had assimilated them by the age of 8. Secondly, the barracks after working hours have become the domain of Marines under the age of 24 without presence of roving firewatch and SNCO duty. Mix these two factors with the increased presence of female Marines in the barracks that was uncommon a generation ago and add some alcohol and it's a recipe for problems. I belive that's what the Commandant is trying to address with the new directives.


[This message has been edited by Ulysses90 (edited 9/27/2013 5:17a).]

It's good to hear that the Marines are not having to lower enlistment standards. In my opinion, once you do that, some of those guys are damaged goods and will always be a problem until booted out of the service. I spoke with some guys at my work who were in the Army in the mid 80s and when they heard my stories they were in disbelief. One of them had spent time as a recruiter during that time and guess what...in the 80s the Army was not granting any waivers, as an example a potential recruit with a DUI would have to get a waiver from a brigadier general in charge of recruiting and at the time it just wasn't done. So, better recruits...better soldiers. Duh I suppose.

quote:

---

Ulysses90 - Objective values have to be taught to 18 year olds that in generations past had assimilated them by the age of 8.

---

By saying that, you actually helped me put something in perspective that I've been seeing at my civilian job. I run the worldwide training program for bringing new hires into our organization. Probably 150+ people per year come through my program. There are some cultural issues here and there with new hires from Asia, Europe, etc. But where I've seen the poorest performance of late is the people that we're hiring in the USA.

Specifically what we're struggling with is the fact that very few genuinely want to excel. So many just want to be able to "Google" the answer in 5 seconds and they don't want to know any more depth to the answer than that. There is no desire to understand why the answer is the answer. And I think the part that I have been missing is a generational thing. I need to chew on it a little longer but you've given me some idea about why we seem to be missing out on training our ADD generation. I think a big part is that my expectation of things that I just expect people to know and expect people to want is completely out of tune. So thanks for making me give that some thought.

quote:

---

IDAGG - So, better recruits...better soldiers. Duh I suppose.

---

I saw this really play out in the Texas Army National Guard in the 1990s. We had 4 different eras of soldiers in my unit.

• A few old Vietnam Veterans. Those guys had seen it all and were happy to serve but also ready for retirement.
• A few mid-late 70s/early 80s soldiers (Think Bill Murray - STRIPES era) who were generally less educated and would have been lower quality recruits but I guess the Army must have been hurting in the post-Vietnam era.
• A few mid-late 1980s era, West Germany experienced/Desert Storm Veterans - these were generally the highest caliber soldiers
• Early 1990s recruits who were generally the smartest soldiers, HS graduates, learned quickly, etc.

Now what was crazy was having soldiers from 4 distinct eras/schools of thought/education & experience all in the same unit at the same time.

As a Tank Platoon Leader, I had one Tank Commander who fit each one of these four categories. It was interesting trying to get everybody to perform to a standard.

quote:

---

A few mid-late 70s/early 80s soldiers (Think Bill Murray - STRIPES era) who were generally less educated and would have been lower quality recruits but I guess the Army must have been hurting in the post-Vietnam era.

---

HollywoodBQ: Your quote above got me laughing. For years I told people I know that based on my experiences in the Army, I thought the first half of the movie Stripes was a documentary.

True story: The first day of basic training your get your gear issued etc and then there is a meeting with the drill sergeant about expectations etc. It is also the only day in basic where the drill sergeant is somewhat human. During the meeting he gives a short speech about how if anyone has issues from home they need addressed to come see him. The Army can help you out of situations etc. He then asks how many in the platoon joined because they had legal issues back in their hometown. Six or seven recruits raised their hands (out of 36 if I remember correctly). One guy was literally dodging a vehicular manslaughter charge. I have no way of verifying if they were telling the truth about their legal issues, but that is what they said.

At the time I wondered if these guys were BSing everyone. I soon found out that no, I was surrounded by a bunch of yahoos. I grew up quickly.

[This message has been edited by IDAGG (edited 9/27/2013 8:52a).]

This is a new thing? I thought SDNCO barrack checks and unit level daily checks were a regular normal thing in the military? Did I serve in a bizarro world?

Hollywood, I have to agree with you with this Google generation. While I am not that far removed from them in age, Soldiers today are off in their own world.
For example, my unit is currently deployed to Afghanistan and have been here for close to three months. We recieved an email from our Rear D, that one of my guys abandoned his truck in the woods of some private property. When confronting this PFC (who by the way lied to me (Squad Leader), PSG, and PL in regards to storing his POV) he says he just wants to give it to the man who owns the property. Now this isn't a brand new truck, but still its around $8,000 he can just part with).

Most of the guys in my section have no regards to property or accountability, until I made them sign for all of the BII of an M777A2 howitzer. Now its funny to watch how much they care who borrows what and that it's returned after I read them the cost of each item.

Back to the barracks issue, the battalions that I have been in, required their SDNCO and SDO to check the barracks regulary on their shift. The current battalion I am in requires NCOs (not on duty) to come in on weekends and make checks between 2000 - 0400. Even so, the amount of alcohol and stupidy seen is amazing. Soldier's playing beer pong in common areas, breaking lights, kicking in doors, etc. They just don't seem to care about the trouble they get in. Its especially sad when they realize just how bad an "Other than Honorable" dishcharge is, and by that time it is too late.

quote:

---

Most of the guys in my section have no regards to property or accountability, until I made them sign for all of the BII of an M777A2 howitzer. Now its funny to watch how much they care who borrows what and that it's returned after I read them the cost of each item.

---

Same deal when I was a Tank Platoon Leader. Once my troops "owned" their equipment, they got a whole new attitude.

The property accountability reminds me, when I took over my Battalion's 10 HMMWV Scout Platoon, we only had about 1/2 of the vehicles that were drivable. And the Platoon SGT and the Section Leaders didn't seem to mind. Since you could seat 4 people in a Humvee plus 1 in the turret, as far as they were concerned that would work for up to 25 guys. Then of course we always had guys missing National Guard Drill, etc. So, it wasn't really a problem in their opinion.

So, the first thing I did was hit up the Office Depot in Abilene and bought them out of sticky black letters for a cost of $25-$50 maybe. Then, I assigned the 10 HMMWVs to individual sections/troops. I made them put their names on the windshields of their Humvees. Granted, getting parts in the National Guard was always a problem but it wasn't too long before we had 9/10 of our Humvees ready for action at all times. Another thing I achieved by making them put all 3 names of who was supposed to be in each vehicle on the windshield was, they had to have defined crews for each vehicle.

When I took over the unit from the previous LT (who happened to be a prior enlisted Ranger which really made me surprised at how little discipline he was willing to accept from his Scout Platoon but I guess some people are great doers but not necessarily good leaders), the state of the unit moving out was like a bunch of guys going to the grocery store. Literally, we'd fallout to go get in our vehicles and it was like hey, who are you riding with? And of course we had E6s riding together, we had E6s driving, etc., etc. It didn't take long to correct that behavior but it did take commitment and some uncomfortable conversations to remind these guys that we might be in peacetime today (1998/1999) but that will change at some time in the future. During one of the lectures I gave them in 1998, I told them that we were definitely going back to Iraq at sometime in the next few years. It was almost inevitable. That unit deployed for 1 year to Iraq in 2005. In a way, I feel bad that I wasn't there to deploy with them but, I do feel good that if they had deployed in 1999/2000, they would have been prepared. Because in 1997/1998, they were not.