Are we worried about the wrong stuff

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 Jun 2014 08:06:39 -0400

A few months back I was conducting a check on Sergeants Time training and was watching Soldiers applying a tourniquet. The training event was supposed to simulate an amputated leg. As I watched, the one soldier would just lay there and the other would place the tourniquet on the others leg. No sense of urgency, no sense of purpose. I looked around and the majority of the crowd were slick sleeve privates, never deployed and the instructor didn't seem like they had ever actually seen an amputation.
So I decided to amp it up a bit and show the soldiers how it was supposed to be done. I grabbed the injured soldiers leg ( a female) and violently pushed it to the side placing my knee on the left side of the groin area to simulate pinching the artery and applied the tourniquet very quickly. They needed to know it had to be done quickly.
Anyhow later that day the commander pulled me into her office and proceeded to say " Ski, I know your old school ( never a good way to start a conversation with me) and I appreciate you wanting to ensure quality training but the way you pushed that soldiers legs apart and knelt in her groin could be misconstrued as unwelcomed sexual contact".
Needless to say the rest of the conversation did not go as she expected. My point is are we too worried about the wrong stuff? Are we so worried about the Soldiers feeling or the impression someone might get that we are willing to sacrifice training?
Yes I am "old school" and damn proud of it, but it was the old school ways that allowed me to survive two wars. I will not sacrifice quality training just to avoid offending someone's sensitive nature.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 10 at 2014 9:04 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 Jun 2014 09:04:17 -0400

Great Post SFC Grudzinski !!!

I highly agree with what you are saying, we are beginning to worry about the wrong stuff, training has changed so much from back in the late 80's when I first came in. Back then training i truly believe was too standard. I feel it truly is up to the Seniors, to enforce the standards. Because without standards what truly is left ??? Great Post !!!

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 10 at 2014 10:46 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 Jun 2014 10:46:42 -0400

SFC Grudzinski, I wonder how much of this has to do with the attitude and mentality of the unit conducting the training. I too have seen that kind of "lackadasical" training conducted before and it just doesn't cut it. Before we deployed to Afghanistan, the BN medics gave us an outstanding class on the use of touniquets and we were locked on because of the upcoming deployment. The practical exercises were excellent with one of the medics playing the victim. As soon as the Soldier knelt down next to him the medic starts thrashing around, grabs him and starts screaming "OH GOD! OH IT F***ING HURTS! I'M GONNA DIE! HELP ME!" It took the Soldier (and everyone else) by surprise, but eventually he got the tourniquet on. That is the way the training should be done in my opinion. Good lesson learned and we didn't have any unwelcomed sexual contact issues. Everone understood what was at stake and I think that makes a big difference.

Response by 1SG Alan Bailey made Jun 10 at 2014 10:53 AM

1SG Alan Bailey — Tue, 10 Jun 2014 10:53:18 -0400

I agree 100%, society has gotten so soft and worried about being politically correct it is horriable. SFC Ski if your old school, I must be a dinosaur! But I was always brought up it is better to "Bleed in pease, Than die in war" so if someone gets the feelings hurt, because you are training to the standard, than they are probably in the wrong occupation. We do not work at Wal Mart or McD's, we prepare for combat and it does not matter your gender, a bullet or IED does not care if you male or female! Keep enforcing the standard, noone can touch you as long as you train everyone the same.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 10 at 2014 10:55 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 Jun 2014 10:55:19 -0400

If we had a zero tolerance policy for "unwelcomed sexual contact" you would be on your way to the USDB.

Zero Tolerance is always a bad thing.

Response by SFC Rich Carey made Jun 10 at 2014 11:08 AM

SFC Rich Carey — Tue, 10 Jun 2014 11:08:08 -0400

What's wrong with you? It's just a job, just collecting a pay check.
I am sure that are some of the thoughts from a small group of the Soldiers.
Sounds like it is time to change the conditions. Full battle rattle time ruck time on patrol with some artilley simulators and artifical wounds, let's make it real....

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Jun 10 at 2014 1:56 PM

LTC Paul Labrador — Tue, 10 Jun 2014 13:56:55 -0400

My only thought about the "lackadaisical attitude" is what level of training was this? Not sure if we still use the crawl, walk, run analogy, but if this was still crawl level training, then no, you don't want to start ramping up the pressure just quite yet. I know you already know this, but crawl level is meant to learn the procedure and basic mechanics of the task. If it was run level training, then yes, it wasn't enough.

As for the "unwanted sexual contact" that, IMHO, is absolute BS in this case. Some Army training is very physical in nature and requires touching to potentially intimate parts of our bodies (ie medical training, combatives, etc). If women want to be in combat arms, then they need to understand that this training is important as it could save their lives one day, and sometimes there really is no way to make it "gender neutral".

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 10 at 2014 2:32 PM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 Jun 2014 14:32:12 -0400

First off let me just say that my dad was an "old school" SFC, retired in 98' from the 1 ID, I get the Army and its training methods. I am "new school" and I totally agree with you, I teach SABC in the Air Force and a lot of times people don't take that kind of training seriously, I always have...and when people lose limbs they don't know what to do because they don't train how they fight. I think what you did was right, the only suggestion I could impart is (and you may have done it, just not stated it in the text above) explain to the junior soldiers why you did what you did during or immediately following your instruction so there is no room for missunderstanding, and have them follow your example by having them all copy your actions...so they get the "why". Keep up the good work, who knows, maybe what you impart may save one of their lives someday.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 10 at 2014 2:45 PM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 Jun 2014 14:45:30 -0400

I'm not sure about the army but in the navy we have done at least 5 different sexual assault trainings in the last year. Everyone is probably pretty sensitive to the whole thing. We ( the navy) have had alot of sexual assault cases. I am absolutely not saying what you did was sexual assault. I just think it on the front of everyone's mind. The commander just needs to understand how it works in the field. Procedures are procedures. SOP's! if it doesn't say to do it quickly then you should do something about the SOP.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 10 at 2014 3:03 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 Jun 2014 15:03:09 -0400

Bravo for you SFC Ski! I am dismayed at what I am seeing coming out of initial entry training nowadays. Maybe I am "old school" also but damnit somebody has to teach these young troops.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 10 at 2014 3:41 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 Jun 2014 15:41:08 -0400

Bring back old school! I'm not going to say a preliminary convo with the test subject letting them know what would happen before being in front of the group would be the SHARP appropriate answer. But we are all incredibly worried about offending someone or doing something that could be misconstrued as something else that we lose sight of what we are here for. I doubt anyone would be concerned about SHARP down range if first aid was needed in a life or death situation. We train as we fight and right now with everything else we are worried about we can't.

Response by LCpl Steve Wininger made Jun 10 at 2014 7:03 PM

LCpl Steve Wininger — Tue, 10 Jun 2014 19:03:55 -0400

Good point SFC Grudzinski. The reason for training is to simulate real life experience. I am sure in a real life situation she no one would construe it as sexual misconduct.

Your story is a good case for the need to go back to old school in military training.

Response by CMDCM Gene Treants made Jun 11 at 2014 1:00 PM

CMDCM Gene Treants — Wed, 11 Jun 2014 13:00:35 -0400

SFC Grudzinski,

Train as we fight is the only way to make sure our troops can survive in battle conditions. WHen we built USS Anzio (CG-68) in Pascagoula, MS, I became intimately familiar with every inch of her. I crawled through bilges and walked through every compartment as a part of my own personal indoctrination to our ship.

Once we got to sea and began training in earnest, I was a part of the Damage Control Training Team (DCTT). Our job was to train the crew to respond to emergency situations. you see a ship is not able to call the fire department in case of a fire, but the crew is the fire department. The same goes for flooding, battle damage, first aid, etc. If there is an emergency situation, we created it and then trained our crew to handle it.

We started slowly, many were just out of training schools and not up to speed in the real world. Eventually we worked up to Battle Drills where we would simulate damage in more than one place at the same time. Fires in two or more places, flooding in another, personnel casualties all over the place (usually the team leaders were taken out first).

Typical fire fighting scenarios always required using CHARGED firehoses. Firehoses filled with seawater are much heavier and harder to maneuver and drag around the ship, over and thru hatches and doorways. Spaces that were supposed to be on fire were filled with SMOKE. Yes we generated smoke to make it harder to see and standard practice is to kill electrical power to the space so it was DARK! IF Firefighting Teams showed up to an Electronics Space with charged firehoses, they flunked - only CO2 in those spaces.

And of course we always did two or more drills at the same time to cause as much confusion as possible.

Once the shooting starts most plans go away. I brought much personal knowledge from my tour on USS Nashville (LPD-13). We also had the same type Training Team. The day we were doing Landing ops from the flight deck and boat deck then had a fire break out in the Aft Line Handling Room (just above the Boat Deck). We had to fight this fire and maintain our operations.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 19 at 2014 8:43 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 19 Jul 2014 20:43:06 -0400

If being old school is a crime in todays army, then I'm right there with you. Guilty as charged.

I firmly believe that we're focused on the wrong stuff. The Army is so afraid of hurting people's feelings and discrimination accusations that we're no longer able to effectively train which will, in turn, lead to us not being an effective force. We've gone soft.