Taking it back to the basics.

SFC Randy Purham — Tue, 17 Dec 2013 11:40:51 -0500

What
does “Take it back to the basics.” really mean? I often hear this phrase of
CSMs in NCOPDs, but what does that mean to today’s NCOs? Let’s think about
this. 2001 – 9-11 happened. 2003 the Invasion to Iraq happened. 2003-2008 was
the surge to support two war-fronts. In the meanwhile, retirements, deaths and
ETS still happened. PVT Joe/Jane Snuffy who came in during 2001-2003 were
essentially shoveled through Basic/AIT to fill “Boots-on-Ground” numbers;
standards and training were relaxed or simply thrown out the window. 2011-2013
they are now SGTs, SSGs and some SFCs – who progressed through the ranks and
filled the shoes of those that died, retired and/or ETSd. Now, the question
remains – in new form – how can the basics be enforced when they were never
taught it?

Response by 1SG Steven Stankovich made Dec 17 at 2013 11:49 AM

1SG Steven Stankovich — Tue, 17 Dec 2013 11:49:17 -0500

<p>I asked this question not too long ago.  Got a few responses...</p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p>https://www.rallypoint.com/questions/2858-what-does-getting-back-to-the-basics-mean-to-you</p><div class="pta-link-card"><div class="pta-link-card-picture"><img src="https://www.rallypoint.com/assets/fb_share_logo.png"></div><div class="pta-link-card-content"><div class="pta-link-card-title"><a href="https://www.rallypoint.com/questions/2858-what-does-getting-back-to-the-basics-mean-to-you" target="_blank">What does "getting back to the basics" mean to you?</a></div><div class="pta-link-card-description">We hear our senior leaders,&nbsp;specifically in the Army, talk about getting back to the "basics."&nbsp; What exactly does that mean to you?&nbsp; I have been in the Army for 23 years and my definiti...</div></div><div style="clear: both;"></div><div class="pta-box-hide"><i class="icon-remove"></i></div></div>

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Dec 17 at 2013 12:09 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Tue, 17 Dec 2013 12:09:27 -0500

When said by senior personnel, it means "we need to start emphasizing this particular standard(s) that I feel is particularly important at this time".

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 17 at 2013 12:47 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 17 Dec 2013 12:47:13 -0500

I like that you asked the question in these terms.

Coming into service in 2004 BDU's were still a thing and were phased after a couople of years. I like to have conversations about this topic in particular because I believe at this juncture there are two mind sets in the military, the "old guard" and "new army". the Old Guard prom my perspective are the Service Members that were active during the Pre 9/11 and New Army exists afterwards. Coming into being during the New Army progression I saw the changes as refocusing attention on pertinent issues, not as lacksidiacial standards. before i get lynched for that please hear me out.

Does discipline derive from pretty boots and a pressed uniform? Or does it spawn for a love of country and unit? when i was a young private i would see the SSG's at the time spend so much effort "correcting" or as i recognized digging into people asses about the most inconsequential things. this used to irritate me becuase instead of reading my reconnasiance manual or developing strong bonds with my fellow scouts we would spend 2+ hours ironing and shining boots that would just get dirty while at the motorpool or ranges. After deployments, I noticed a philosophy change, from whether it be multiple years overseas or just the Old Guard leaving the service, to a train of thought to a work hard and play hard philosophy. since acu's were now a thing we were less inclined to focus our attention on petty details and really get to working and training. then after that, you know what happened? soldiers would hang out more, develop those bonds and more importanly trust that became essential in wayward environments. Not to mention the family that got to see their fathers and mothers for more than maybe an hour per day.

going back to the back to basics question, I feel that there needs to be some kind of consensus between the Old Guard that wants to have all the little discipline things back, ie. shiny boots no tattoos ect... and the New Army where the focus is train to fight(not to say that its wasnt a focus for the old guard, but how much training can you do when you spend all your time prettying up your outfit).

Sorry for any spelling and grammar errors this text box is quite small.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 19 at 2013 12:28 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 Dec 2013 12:28:14 -0500

I absolutely agree with how you stated the way things used to be. I just wish that the top would recognize the shift he army in general has taken a find an appropriate middle ground. I certainly thing that the ACU "pajamas" should be phased out with something more functional and form fitting, but bringing back something that takes a long time to maintain shouldnt be their focus. Maybe taking away the competition between who looks the best and focusing it towards competitions that revolve around competency might help. Good discussion topic though.

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Dec 19 at 2013 11:50 PM

SSG Robert Burns — Thu, 19 Dec 2013 23:50:06 -0500

I think the question is WHY does someone say that? Not just in the Army but in all things, sports, etc. you hear this when people have gotten too complex, doing their own things, or have lost the fundamentals. Something they're doing isn't working like it should. So what do we do? We reset get back to the foundation and start building on it again.

You can't start trying to shoot trick shots on the pool table if you can't hold the pool stick properly.