Ph

otog

rap

hs:

U.S

.Arm

y

By LTG Mark Hertling

he staff sergeant was shaking

his head as he walked toward

me from across the company

orderly room. “Sir,” he said, exas-

perated, “I just met the four new

privates coming to my platoon.

Their eyes are as big as grapefruits,

they look nervous as all get-out,

and I bet none of them will score

higher than 250 on the PT test to-

morrow, which will blow the com-

pany average. Who knows how

they’ll do on the range next week.”

March 2010 n ARMY 61

Sound familiar? I’d say that’s be-cause comments like these are a recur-ring refrain from any noncommis-sioned officer (NCO) who just receivednew soldiers from the training base. Infact, what I described actually hap-pened to me when I was a companycommander in 1981. (At least one ofthose “newbies” recently retired as acommand sergeant major!)

Transforming a civilian into a sol-dier in the short period of time avail-able during initial entry training (IET)is a tough mission, especially giventhe unique skills, attributes and values we need our sol-diers to possess for the current operating environment. Butevery day, drill sergeants and advanced individual train-ing (AIT) platoon sergeants—those individuals who walkthe trail in what has to be the toughest job in our Army—make miracles happen, training more than 35,000 traineesin the basics that our team leaders, NCOs and junior offi-cers will further refine for specific missions once theseyoung soldiers reach their first unit of assignment.

But what’s going on in basic combat training? Beforeoutlining some of the things happening in all IET, it mightbe best to describe the kind of new recruit we’re seeing andhow we’re trying to incorporate the lessons learned fromcontinuous conflict in two separate theaters with the needsof the operational force.

The Millennial GenerationTo best understand why we’re making some changes,

it’s important to first know about our newest generation ofsoldiers. The 18- to 22-year-olds who make up the majorityof our trainees are an interesting lot. Like every generation,they have unique characteristics, significant strengths andsome weaknesses.

The bulk of our recruits were in elementary school whenthe World Trade Center buildings were hit by terrorists.They willingly joined an Army that has been continuouslyat war through their teens; they knew we wanted them asa result of the “Army of One” and “Army Strong” adver-tising campaigns.

These new recruits communicate—and recreate—differ-ently from previous generations as a result of the technol-ogy that is omnipresent in our society. They question or-

ders as American soldiers have always done, but sociolo-gists tell us that they do so not because they are being con-frontational, but because they are interested in improvingthe outcome. They form teams to solve problems in differ-ent ways, probably due to the way they use technology tocommunicate.

The majority of our new soldiers have played with a Wiior PlayStation, but they’ve never fired a weapon. Whilesome have played organized sports, most report a lack ofphysical exercise regimen, and few have ever been in a se-rious physical confrontation such as a fistfight. They havelikely come from a single-parent or divorced household,and only a minority report that they have ever been part ofa formal team, club or group.

Consistent with economic indicators, these men andwomen join the Army for financial reasons. In a recent sur-vey, 57 percent reported that they joined to “provide forthemselves or their families” or to “build the foundationfor a civilian career (for example, earn money for college/learn a useful skill).” Drill sergeants report these “pay-check” soldiers are among the most motivated throughoutthe training cycle. They are less likely to quit because theyfear the financial repercussions, and they are proud ofthemselves for providing for their families.

Some—21 percent—joined the Army “to be challenged/make something of themselves,” and the third-largest groupreported that they joined “for patriotic reasons/because theywant to be a soldier.” In stark contrast to stereotypes aboutthe millennial generation and unflattering media images ofthose filling our ranks, these newest soldiers have some-thing in common: Most of them are responsible young menand women seeking a test or trial that will change theirlives.

From what I have observed, these are the smartest sol-diers we have had in 30 years. They pick up concepts, un-derstand culture, find information and apply it quickly(when given the chance and the mentoring), and “team”better than any group I have ever seen.

62 ARMY n March 2010

LTG Mark Hertling is the deputy commanding general, InitialMilitary Training, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Com-mand. He served as the commander of Multinational Divi-sion-North and the 1st Armored Division during OperationIraqi Freedom from 2007–09.

Student soldiers carrying M16 rifles instacked position at the side of a building

prepare for building entry and clearingwhile an instructor gives advice.

U.S

.Arm

y

On the downside, however, most of our trainees arriveat basic combat training (BCT) or one-station unit training(OSUT) in the poorest physical shape we have ever seenamong “draft-aged youth.” This is not because of poor re-cruiting; our friends in Recruiting Command are gettingsome of the very best from our society. This trend is a di-rect result of the current abysmal physical conditioningand nutrition habits of Americans in general; our soldierssimply represent the society from which they come.

A study on our arrival statistics completed at one of ourArmy training centers mirrors the shape of our society.At that site, about 20 percent of arriving males and 5

percent of arriving females were obese. Another trend alsoshows some disturbing facts: In 2000, about 4 percent ofmales and 12 percent of females could not pass the 1-1-1diagnostic test (one minute of push-ups, one minute of sit-ups, and a 1-mile run). By 2006, these numbers had grownto about 22 percent of males and 40 percent of females, us-ing the same standards.

The increased body weight and poorconditioning also result in greater in-juries during initial training. Femoralneck stress fractures—a very seriousinjury—were rare in 1998, with onlythree occurrences for males and six forfemales in an entire year at one of ourtraining sites. By 2008, there were 30males and 49 females who had experi-enced this malady at the same site.

We are also seeing recruits from a so-ciety that is increasingly removed fromthe values and standards of disciplinethat we claim as an important part of

our professional ethos. While our trainees will learn to recitethe seven Army Values, the Soldier’s Creed and the WarriorEthos soon after arriving, we realize that the complete incul-cation of these values and elements of character requires bet-ter shared definitions of these cultural norms and a lifetimeof experience in the profession of arms.

These positive and negative characteristics, statistics,and trends are causing us to take a different approach tohow (and what) we teach; the ways we begin the inculca-tion of values and emphasize discipline; and the way weconduct a physical-training program that will help soldiersreach higher readiness levels while minimizing the risk ofinjuries as they prepare to join their operational units.

Lessons from Combat and the Operational ForceIn more than eight years of continuous combat, we have

relearned what we must emphasize in training. Consider-ing the unique type of conflict we’re in (and which we’ll bein for the foreseeable future), we have also discovered new

tasks that some of our soldiers needfor survival on the battlefield as wellas what they will need in order to dealwith the trauma they will have experi-enced upon return from deployment.

Unfortunately, the focus on tried-and-true tasks and the addition of newones causes a time problem. Withoutthe elimination of tasks that are nolonger relevant or that require exces-sive time or resources with which togain proficiency, or the transferring ofthose that are more appropriatelytaught and trained at the first unit ofassignment with unit teammates, wehave difficulty training those tasksthat make up the basics for today’ssoldier. The issue is this: We haveabout 660 hours available for trainingcritical tasks in the BCT program of in-struction, yet we have more than 780

66 ARMY n March 2010

SPC Glenn Robertson, in charge of radiocommunications for 4th Platoon, Company

A, 2nd Battalion, 47th Infantry Regiment,calls in a nine-line medevac during atraining mission at Fort Benning, Ga.

SFC GabrielLopez, a drillsergeant with

Company F, 2ndBattalion, 39th

Infantry Regiment,makes sure all

soldiers areaccounted for

during thecompany’s march

to the bayonetassault course at

Fort Jackson, S.C.

Suza

nne

Kap

pler

/Fo

rtJa

ckso

nLe

ader

U.S

.Arm

y

hours worth of training tasks and requirements. Trying totrain more skills without refining or eliminating others willonly contribute to continued poor training, ignorance of thecritical basics that every soldier needs to know, or addi-tional “task paralysis.” For that reason, we recently con-ducted a top-to-bottom review of the entire BCT programof instruction.

In line with the planning for that review, we also wantedinput from the field, so we sent out a survey to more than220,000 officers and NCOs asking them about our “prod-uct” and about the newly arrived soldiers. Given the com-bat experience of our force, we specifically asked combat-experienced officers and NCOs what tasks we should trainand what tasks we should refine or eliminate in the con-strained time period of IET.

W e received more than 32,000 responses from NCOsand officers in the active Army, National Guard andArmy Reserve. Many of the respondents provided

additional insights—suggestions, some rather interestingcommentary and pretty candid thoughts—that gave usmore than 10,000 pages of ideas.

The respondents stated that the most important skillsthey wanted their soldiers to know upon arrival from basictraining were the handling, firing and maintaining of theirindividual weapons; the application of combat casualtycare; the preparation of the mind and body for the mentaland physical demands of deployment and combat; themaintenance of situational awareness (“Every Soldier is aSensor”); voice communication skills; and map readingand land navigation skills.

Survey respondents also provided interesting feedbackon which tasks and skills they thought we should elimi-

nate either because they were no longer relevant in today’senvironment or because they would be more appropriatelytrained within the first unit of assignment after the unithad conducted a mission-essential task list analysis.

While most respondents thought our current balance ofmuscular and aerobic training is sufficient, a significantnumber were unaware of an Army regulation stating thatsoldiers reporting directly from IET with minimum Armyphysical fitness test (APFT) levels and excessive body fathave until the end of their first year to attain APFT andheight/weight standards. While everyone wanted theirsoldiers to report in better shape, most realized that the 10weeks of BCT plus the additional conditioning conductedin AIT will still require shared effort with our brothers andsisters in the operational force. One NCO even stated thatalthough he wanted to prepare his new soldiers for thephysical demands of the mountains of Afghanistan, heknew that would be hard to do at the Sand Hill trainingarea of Fort Benning, Ga.

Many respondents requested additional combatives,with many commenting that we should get away from“grappling” and get to more relevant fighting techniques.Interestingly, more than 30 percent said that we should re-place bayonet training with pugil training. A large numberof leaders said they wanted to know more about the sol-diers they were receiving from IET—more informationthan “passed the APFT; qualified with the weapons; at-tended required training.”

While this is only a snapshot of the survey input, com-bining this data with the operational lessons from multipletheaters and commanders allowed us to contribute to amore complete and much-needed review of how we trainnew soldiers.

68 ARMY n March 2010

A drill sergeantwith the 194th

Armored Brigadeinstructs soldiers

in training.

U.S

. Arm

y

What’s ChangingWith a better understanding of the current generation of

soldiers we’re training—and of the requirement to incor-porate effects of combat lessons linked to the demands ofthe current operational environment and from the opera-tional force—we are incorporating changes into basic com-bat training.

To best improve the physical conditioning of the averagetrainee while best preparing that soldier for the first unit ofassignment without causing physical damage, the ArmyPhysical Fitness School has expanded the program of stan-dardized physical training based on an extensive scientificstudy we have recently completed.

The recent publication of training circular 3-22.20, whichoutlines new ways to conduct physical readiness training,also provides detailed programs and specific instructionsfor drill sergeants, platoon sergeants and IET cadre as theytrain their charges, and as we all walk the very fine line be-tween physical improvement linked to stress and physicalinjury linked to overstress.

Fort Benning has helped us revise the basic rifle marks-manship and the advanced rifle marksmanship (ARM)

strategies and programs. All soldiers will fire more ammu-nition than ever before during stressful combat-like peri-ods as we continue to adapt and adjust the training basedon what we have learned from our combat experience. Forexample, during qualification, soldiers going into the In-fantry military occupational specialty (MOS) will qualifywith advanced optics and M4s (the weapon that the greatmajority of them will have in their first unit); soldiers go-ing into all other MOSs will qualify with the basic Armyweapon, the M16A2. All soldiers will fire more roundsthan before during ARM, with the Infantry OSUT soldiersperforming additional tasks. The focus will be on all sol-diers being confident, comfortable, familiar and qualifiedwith their personal weapon.

The Maneuver Center of Excellence at Fort Benning hasalso taken on a review of Army combatives and will likelyincrease emphasis on fighting skills that are more relevantto combat situations. In addition, we have already revisedthe pugil and bayonet training periods of instruction, elim-inating the Bayonet Assault Course for a more active pugilfighting course and applying the skills of “fighting with aweapon” to replace some of the more outdated bayonetmovements.

T he medical community has also learned much duringrecent operations; as a result we are revising the Tacti-cal Combat Casualty Care Course with BCT (what

used to be called Combat Lifesaver). Extensive combat ex-perience helped us revise our training program, and wehave adapted the most critical tasks, especially those re-lated to stopping the kind of hemorrhage we find in themost traumatic injuries on the battlefield.

We are studying the best ways to train soldiers by con-necting them to digital devices and applications. Given theplethora of handheld information systems and the varietyof applications that could be adapted to tasks we train re-peatedly, we believe that these relatively simple and inex-pensive devices can help train and reduce the time to gainmastery in some of the more unique requirements withinbasic and advanced individual training.

West Point’s Army Center of Excellence for the Profes-sional Military Ethic—the Army’s proponent for values andethics training—is helping us find new ways to improve the

precision and rigor in training theArmy’s values. In the past we have depended on PowerPoint and drillsergeants’ war stories to help the incul-cation of values, but in the future wewill incorporate new techniques forpassing these most critical aspects ofour profession to our newest members.

We have already begun sending se-lected drill sergeants and most AITplatoon sergeants to resiliency train-ing at the University of Pennsylvania(a program that will soon exist at FortJackson, S.C.). We will begin setting a

70 ARMY n March 2010

Army Chief of StaffGEN George W.

Casey Jr. ad-dresses soldiers

with Company C,1st Battalion, 19thInfantry Regiment,

198th InfantryBrigade, during a

break in training atFort Benning.

PVT Jesse Black,Company A, 2nd

Battalion, 47thInfantry Regiment,

leads soldiers alonga patrol route at

Fort Benning, Ga.

U.S

. Arm

y

U.S

. Arm

y

baseline with new trainees within thefirst few days of BCT on the ArmyChief of Staff’s program of compre-hensive soldier fitness by issuing theglobal assessment tool; new traineeswill also see instruction on sustain-ment and enhanced resilience train-ing. These initiatives will certainlycontribute to all aspects of a new sol-dier’s strength.

With the Army’s Digital TrainingManagement System, we are develop-ing techniques to provide critical in-formation about graduates of BCT andAIT directly to the commanders at thefirst unit of assignment and beyond.This will help transfer relevant train-ing information as well as importantinformation about soldier dependents.

A long with the review of the pro-gram of instruction for basic com-bat training, we’ve also reviewed

and revised the warrior tasks and bat-tle drills. Using the directive to “trainfewer tasks, well,” we’ve made thesetasks more specific and relevant toeach individual soldier—of all ranksand MOSs—and it’s clear that continu-ous training of these tasks is a sharedresponsibility with leaders in opera-tional units. There is also an additional“task” linked to a soldier’s require-ment to train toward adaptability, which incorporates mea-sures of growth and cultural and operational environmentawareness. We have placed these new tasks and drills onthe Army Training Network to help eliminate any confu-sion about the standards. Now, when a soldier recites theSoldier’s Creed and states that he is “proficient in the war-rior tasks and drills,” there is the capacity to put substancebehind the statement.

What Stays the SameIntroducing and training our soldiers in the basic tasks,

while providing them with the fire of our culture, is theprimary job of all the U.S. Army professionals who are partof the generating force and the training base. Our creden-

tials are established by the actions of the soldier-graduateof our initial entry training.

Before soldiers leave the training base, we must also en-sure that they possess the trait of adaptability. We must en-sure that they know their training has only begun and thatwhen they reach their first unit of assignment, they mustquickly become part of their new team, understand and trainto the new specific mission they are given, and contribute tothe unit. We will remain synchronized with the operationalArmy, training the basic tasks and skills our soldiers need asthey prepare to deploy as part of a larger unit for their opera-tional missions. Providing the best soldier from the generat-ing force to the operating force, in support of Army force gen-eration, is driving these changes in basic combat training. M

72 ARMY n March 2010

Drill Sergeant Wayne Scarpullasalutes during the 2nd Battalion,

39th Infantry Regimentgraduation formation in April

2009 at Fort Jackson.

U.S

. Arm

y