Whither our warriors?
Critics say the lowering of fitness standards to accommodate women has been instrumental in producing an army unsuited for soldiering.

David Pugliese
Ottawa Citizen

Warrior or wimp?

One debate within Canada's military that doesn't go away is the argument that the Armed Forces is becoming a kinder, gentler and ultimately ineffective fighting machine.

In the army itself, some wonder if Canada's soldiers are out of shape and losing their fighting skills, a downhill slide they, wrongly or rightly, link to the introduction of women into combat jobs. Others note that the lessening of fitness standards has to do with changes in Canadian society in which fitness has generally deteriorated. Still others bemoan an increasingly common attitude that military life is just another job and not a profession that includes laying down your life for your country.

Canadian army physical fitness tests are designed to be gender and age neutral. Officers have been reprimanded for yelling at overweight soldiers. Recruits are no longer required to hurl a grenade into a designated target area. Just being able to throw one is enough.

"Training standards have gone down," says Howard Michitsch, a former army major who worked on the program to enlist more women into the Armed Forces. "Are we inherently getting rid of the warrior class? I think we are to a degree."

A master corporal writing from Bosnia several months ago called the large number of physically unfit people in the Armed Forces a public relations disaster. "If the buttons on your uniform are ready to pop off and possibly injure an innocent bystander, drop the bucket of poutine and waddle yourself down to the gym," wrote Master Cpl. D. London in a letter to the military newspaper, the Maple Leaf. "As for the policy, it appears to say that you can get as fat as you want, fail your (fitness) test if you feel like it, but you'll never be kicked out."

Military officials contend Canada's soldiers are fit and better trained than they have been in a long time. Training standards are now clearly laid out and understood. "We believe we've got a good product out there," says army Col. Stephen Appleton. "Can it get better? Absolutely. But it is a good product."

Canadian Alliance defence critic Art Hanger, however, believes training and physical fitness standards have decreased in the last decade because of what he calls "social engineering." Overall standards have been weakened so the military can recruit more women, in particular, he claims.

He is not alone. Surveys of male soldiers conducted during the last couple of years show they think standards have loosened to allow women into combat, something military officials categorically deny. A 1996 report to then-defence minister Doug Young also hinted the changes were linked to women's roles in combat. "Women should be and are eligible to serve in every area of the CF and at all ranks, but training standards must not be lowered further (the army is already one of the mildest training armies in the West) to achieve numerical quotas," states the report.

The outline of basic recruit training standards that Mr. Hanger obtained under the Access to Information Act clearly shows in 1984 the physical fitness test consisted of pushups, chin-ups, sit-ups, rope climbing, scaling a wall unassisted, as well as the ability to carry a wounded comrade. There were different standards for men and women. In 1996, along with a 13-kilometre forced march, standards included pushups, chin-ups, and sit-ups but the numbers required had been dropped for both men and women. Scaling walls and climbing ropes had disappeared.

The army now has one test -- a battle-efficiency test that consists of a 13.5-kilometre forced march while carrying 22.5 kilograms of equipment. That is followed by the "casualty evacuation drill," otherwise known as the fireman's carry.

In 1986, an infantryman had to throw two live fragmentation grenades 20 metres and one grenade had to land within a six-metre circle target. Using a short-range anti-tank weapon, infantrymen had to achieve a minimum of one hit on a stationary tank-sized target from between 150 to 200 metres away.

By 1996, two grenades still had to be thrown, but missing the target didn't mean the recruit would fail the test. Missing the target with an anti-tank weapon or a light mortar also didn't mean failure.

Despite the changes, Col. Appleton says the quality of the army's training is on the rise, although he readily acknowledges there is no way to measure his claim. He says it is important not to set standards so high at the recruit level that young soldiers may be prevented from continuing their careers. "We have to be careful we don't draw that line too soon," explains Col. Appleton, the director of land force readiness. "In some ways, weapons handling and weapons accuracy should not be that line." As soldiers progress, they become experienced in everything from weapons to surviving on the battlefield.

The army's age and gender neutral battle efficiency test, designed to be the same for men and women, is seen as leading-edge by other militaries, which are considering adopting it, says Maj. Kelly Farley, who helps design the army's policy for training and standards. The test is already being used by the Dutch armed forces.

Maj. Farley denies the fitness test was a result of the push to put women in combat jobs, although, he concedes, they coincided with that program. "There will always be this perception among some folks who see this as pandering to women in combat jobs," he says. "But it has nothing to do with that."

He says the annual test was designed three years ago because of the need for a fitness regimen that better reflected the tasks that soldiers perform, as well as to protect the Canadian Forces from legal challenges that such tests have to be job-related. "We knew women were coming into the combat arms so we wanted to develop a test that was gender neutral," explains Maj. Farley. "The legal perspective was certainly in the back of our minds. We wanted the test to withstand any challenge that was put to us."

Soldiers who don't pass the test are retested until they do. If they consistently fail there may be career ramifications, but troops generally acknowledge it is rare to be thrown out of the military for being unfit.

For those not in the army units, there is the EXPRES test which consists of a shuttle run, sit-ups and pushups based on gender and age. The standard is considered relatively low when compared to the rigours of combat.

Maj. Farley believes the level of army fitness during the decade has improved because of the increase in overseas assignments. "I think a lot of it has to do with Bosnia and that our army is now an army of veterans," he says. "People have an expectation that their professional standards, whether physical or technical, will be challenged not just in a formal way, but an informal way in operations, so they better have their act together."

Mr. Michitsch believes the army's fitness test isn't up to scratch but he stops short of blaming that entirely on the introduction of women into combat jobs. Pushups and pull-ups to build upper body strength, as well as scaling walls and climbing ropes, relate directly to soldiering, he notes. Warfare is highly demanding and high technology has done nothing to lessen the need for absolute fitness and skill. "We carry the same weight load today as Caesar's legions did," says Mr. Michitsch. "Instead of a bronze shield, you have a Kevlar flak jacket. Instead of short sword and spear, you've got a grenade-launching assault rifle."

According to Mr. Michitsch, the military's now-defunct Warrior program held the answer to the army's problems with fitness. Each year, every soldier in the army, without exception, had to complete the physical fitness and weapons skill courses. Depending on their results, they were awarded a badge, either bronze, silver or gold. "You knew exactly who you were dealing with," explains Mr. Michitsch. "If the guy had the badge, that meant you knew his level of qualification and his level of physical fitness and skill."

In particular, the Warrior badge program was a source of pride for many non-combat support troops, since a high standing helped gain them respect from infantry soldiers.

Tougher standards would likely be welcomed if Canada's soldiers ever found themselves in combat. It is not usual for a soldier these days to be carrying up to 45 kilograms of equipment, noted Maj. Richard Eaton writing last year in the Army Doctrine and Training Bulletin. Maj. Eaton also pointed out the consequences of soldiers not being physically fit: During the Falklands War one British army unit, used to travelling by armoured vehicles, was unable to march on foot to one battlefield because they weren't as physically fit as paratroopers and Royal Marine commandos also involved in fighting.

Maj. Eaton, who served with the British army's parachute regiment and the Royal Marines and is now in Canada's military reserves, also questioned the effectiveness of the existing fitness standards. "Canada's infantry battle fitness standards are currently ill-defined," wrote Maj. Eaton. "We must face reality and continue to seek ways to improve our physical standards while refusing to condone physical mediocrity at all levels in the infantry."

Those in the Canadian Forces who have raised questions about dwindling standards and the link to a kinder, more politically correct military, are not alone. Last fall, British army instructors were told to stop swearing at recruits in basic training so they didn't scare potential soldiers away. Two years ago, a former sergeant on the British army's parachute regiment recruiting team warned that many soldiers were overweight and undisciplined.

In the U.S., the army is changing its programs to help overweight and less-fit recruits pass basic training. A new remedial course is being given for obese soldiers who need an easier pace so they don't quit early in training.

Canadian military instructors have also toned down their language to avoid harassment charges. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has made it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to bar a potential recruit because of poor fitness, others say.

Australia is one nation, however, which has acted on concerns about unfit soldiers. Last year, it weeded out almost 700 officers and other ranks for failing to meet army fitness requirements, including being capable of completing a 2.4-kilometre run in less than 12 minutes, a shooting test, overall medical fitness and the readiness to travel overseas within 30 days.

But with Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the desire of the Department of National Defence to avoid controversy, military analysts say such a widespread purge of unfit soldiers is unlikely to happen in this country.

Partially I would think, the Ossie model would put many of them out of a job. The Ossie's undertook a major restructuring in the early 90's late 80's. A big portion of their reductions concerned the elimination of redundant staff officers and general officers. They were plagued with elaborate HQ's such as we are that commanded no troops etc.

They axed the superfluous positions, re assessed their mission, relocated their military facilities, and got on with soldiering, sailing and flying.

The first one is the no-run in combat boots bullshit. (this has to be considered gender neutral) I guess we are suppose to go into combat in sneakers. If the combat boot is not good enough to run in just maybe it's time to get something different.

Next if everyone remembers , instead of the 13 km we did the 3.1 km run for Warrior. That is until a couple of soldiers (reservists) got hurt doing it and it was determined by the treasury board that they we not covered and therefore shit out of luck for compensation. That's why it disappeared. Can you imagine something so ludicrous as a military fitness test no being covered compensation wise.

Next, in the reserves, units cannot do organized sports unless it is specifically authorized by the unit CO otherwise if they get hurt (whether they are on Class A or not) they are not covered. See comments above. The forces have become so liability conscious, it dictates everything and that is why we are in the position we are in now.

Lastly as an aside and maybe because I am a 40 something" herbie, I find that the 13 km is not easy and is very demanding physically. Just ask my feet afterwards.

As you indicated 'Next if everyone remembers, instead of the 13 km we did the 3.1 km run for Warrior. That is until a couple of soldiers (reservists) got hurt doing it and it was determined by the treasury board that they we not covered and therefore shit out of luck for compensation. That's why it disappeared. Can you imagine something so ludicrous as a military fitness test no being covered compensation wise.'

RCA, we have an entire system of bureaucracy devoted to just such a machine. if we got rid of the excess of CFLA's, JAG's, D Min's, Associate D Min�s, we might get somewhere, especially with the dollar savings.

To put those dollars back into the three basic elements of doing our job, then we will all benefit. As for me, I am at the point were the little wheel is harder to turn each day, that piece of cheese is getting more bitter tasting, and I am thinking of finding a new treadmill far from the palace.

We have created a system of accountability that is ludicrous, distorted and simply out of control.

What we see unfolding will prove my words and worse, be the demise of the CF we know today.

During CFE days - the old sgt that was able to drink in the Gasthauf all night and snap n' snarl all day to get things done. Was that our Warrior of yester year?

Our forefathers in Korea? For the most part unemployed soldiers that were not able to fit into society after being demobilized after WWII. Was that our Warrior of yester year?

Our forefathers in WWII? The vast majority citizen soldiers answer the call to duty. The whole scale gutting of "Regular Force" soldiers who were incompetent (PPCLI - Italy Campaign). Was that our Warrior of yester year?

Our forefathers in WWI? Farmboys looking for great adventure and a chance to see Europe? Stuck in the rigours trench warfare where alcohol was used to boost the courage of the men so they would follow the officers over the wall? Was that our Warrior of yester year?

What is your definition of Canada's Warrior? I say to you it is simply a romantic version of what we deem the past to be as we navigate through the struggles of today. You seem to think everything was perfect in the "old days" and it wasn't.

Moving to another track of the above article is the nonsense that trg standards are lowering. We might not like them but there is now a central body (AIDAS I think) that governs trg and sets common standards.

With comments like "Last fall, British army instructors were told to stop swearing at recruits in basic training" and "Those in the Canadian Forces who have raised questions about dwindling standards and the link to a kinder, more politically correct military" gives the wrong perception.

Who amongst us has not seen some MCpl or Sgt get right in a candidate's face and start screaming at him. (I did myself before I knew better) and we consider it training. It any other circle it would be considered verbal harassment and I for one am not sorry to see the abuse of candidates go by the wayside. The only reason we did is because we could and that was how we were trained.

You show me an instructor screaming at his students and I'll show you someone losing control. All you NCOs out there know the definition of leadership - the art of motivating people through the dent of your personality. Screaming and yelling isn't motivating anyone, just making them afraid of you. Sure they will do whatever you want but only while you are around. Would you trust those who are afraid of you to cover your back when the chips are down - care to put your life on the line.

The way to do things is through leadership - a dying art. You tell your recruits that you are going on a 13 km ruck march. Then you get out front and lead away. You constantly move back and forth up and down tell line motivating your troops to keep together as a team and you bring them in together. To keep up this leadership through example and these troops will follow you any where.

For you screamers out there I always found it more effective to speak softly in a recruit's ear from behind then to scream in his face. I have been around a long time and trained a lot of troops and not once have I ever been accused of harassment or abuse. I always followed the simple rule to treat everyone equally and as human beings. I was the top detachment commander in my unit for a number off years, and I didn't get there by being a screamer.

And lastly, if you are always screaming and swearing at your people, how do they know when you are really serious pissed of with them??

Whither Our Warriors, I think this term has a lot to do with the immediate than any belief of glory past, other than the Guns, kidding.

All righty, just a recap. I have never been a proponent of physical nor verbal abuse. I do not use vulgarity, it does have a place with some people, however to each their own.

A leader, acting as a leader, within the legal moral parameters of his authority should never worry about legal and ethical challenges if they are doing their job properly.

We have reached an acute level of mediocrity that will only capitulate into mind numbing levels if we don�t get a grip on it.

The days of some section commander grabbing his troops and doing a surprise ruck march or run are gone. In the majority of those cases this was nothing more than a form of abuse by a weak individual to put his troops in line so that they knew who was boss.

However, to be afraid of organizing a sport or activity during a unit level ex because of potential ramifications, that is absurd, and that is were we are. We see the Cooper Test popping up here and there with field units, highly controversial, especially when a unit unofficially uses it to evaluate troops. Sorry folks there are set standards. How about the small unit that has a couple old dogs from CFE era who can run forever, does this mean that the less speedy are weak, they would have you think so. What about those of the Borne era, first mistake you�re a leg, second you can�t hump as hard, fast or as long as they can, means your weak, right. What about the field support units who have to prove that they can run, train and compete harder than the grunt units.

So go look at the field units that still do this stuff, look at their down rates and types of injuries. How is it with a set doctrine, we have so called leaders doing these things and literally getting away with damaging troops.

My point to ponder is, we have created a system that stifles honest leaders out of fear of maybe doing the wrong thing and we have individuals who still do it wrong but get away with it.

The world we live in today is alot more complex then the world we use to live. The idea that one can operate without legal advise is ludicrous. Morals, ethics and legal issues are all good professional development training (or do you propose professional development is afternoon drinks at a curry luncheon?). How is this a level of mediocrity?

Standards are just that, a standard. It is used to evaluate oneself or the group against what everyone should be capable of doing. What the army has had to deal with is no set standard in the past (except for whoever is the highest rank). No the current standard is not adequate however the army is also raising that standard in the next little while. But I'm sure you will complain about that standard as well.

How can you say that we have a system that stifles honest leaders out of fear of doing something wrong? Based on what? Who does things wrong and get away with it?

Once again 2 Charlie your lips are flapping but you are not making any sense. Do you have any other proof besides your ability to type on a computer?

The Scott Taylor's of the world come and go, but those busting their hump are usually in for the long haul.

Get off your chair pad and talk to some troops, in fact talk to a bunch of NCM's. Ask them what they think, and not just the ones under your control. Then maybe talk to a couple of reservists pulling Class B and C callout. You indicate Army of the West, well lucky you, there are a lot of them you can talk to.

Also ask these reservists why they are not so willing to go on call outs overseas, you might not like the truth. Don't talk to the career reserve staff officers, talk to the Cpl's and MCpls, and Snr NCO's who have been doing it for a couple of years.

Then once you have done that talk to someone in releases and get an idea of the stats, and if you are lucky, ask someone or two or three why they are getting out.

As for the comments of those doing it right and those doing it wrong, at my end it refs to the ticket system. You are employed in various capacities to literally punch your ticket, you sign off your various tests or evals and get promoted accordingly. The majority of this work is staff related. If you can do this with out making a mistake you will do good, it may involve a command slot, but even there you are dealing with ensuring the admin is good to go.

Amazing how many new CO's walk into a unit and find little probs that were missed in the BOI, and they have to deal with it before their BOI. Then you have the CO who utilizes his own standard to assess his troops, such as the Coopers test, and ranks his troops accordingly for unit meriting. If you don't have a prob with that then maybe you have had one to many curry ups at the mess. It's good to see a firm line on enforcement WRT failures in the CofC, but it had to happen, we could not keep hiding the Vaviers of the forces, we do however have the Labbe' but that is another story on its own.

Sitting around and doing it the old boy way, not in my world. I prefer that a decision is made based upon an individuals level of expertise/knowledge and the chain of command supporting it. Not assessing it for legal merit and potential implications. That in itself indicates that we do not have faith in out chain of command, especially our Jnr O's and Jnr/Snr NCO's.

The mediocrity starts there, if an individual is willing to take the time to have a decision analyzed before implementing it, than we have almost rendered that person impotent. If you don't agree than don't bother going onto a battle field, cause I don't have faith in you to get your troops home.

Some one else mentioned The Art of War, maybe pick up a copy and read it a couple of times. Then come back.

I work with troops everyday and the problems most of them have are pretty minor compared to what you seem to think is wrong. There will always be problems thats why we should discuss them in an open and logical manner.

There are lots of Reservists serving overseas right now. In Bosnia there are over 250 serving with Op PALLADIUM. That is close to the maximum 20% mandated by the CDS. If we had some type of legislation enacted this figure could probably much higher.

CO's BOI not covering every detail? Come on are you naive enough to think a BOI is the exact picture of what a unit is? It's simply a macro view of the unit.

Vanier was caught, charged, convicted and sentenced. He was reduced in rank, fined and his career ruined. What more do you want the CF to do to him. Kick him out? Was the crime that severe?

You complain about a lack of opportunity for initiative and ability to "grow" however I would say the jr leader of today has more experience then his predecessor did. Have you never been overseas on a mission? Every mission we have been on has been based on MCpl/Sgt or Lt/Capt being capable and independent thinkers in order to succeed. We never had that level of experience in the 80s.

I'm not the War Diary police and really you can say whatever you like. I am concerned with the number of young impressionable members we have in this forum that are subjected to your negative attitude. I hope you are not in the military any more and if you are you have been relegated to some flunky staff job because if your leading troops I shudder to think what you are doing to them.

I would never state that women have dropped the physical standards, I think the standards should have been kept the same as they were in 1986. If women couldn't do it, they would try until they could instead of lowering standards. They should have kept the standards where they were where they were. I am sure women would make it, and if they didn't, it is NOT a matter of gender discrimitation, it is simply the duties of the jobs.

The difference in lenght between the Reserve and Reg F crse crse is due to the fact that our crses must fit into the summer to accomadate the nature of our recruiuts (ie studends) whereas the Reg F does not have the same time restarints. (Also for your info the QL2 portion you will be doing is exactly the same as the Reg F one.)

Don't take this personally but people will not take your criticism seriuosly until you have actually had the experience of what you are being critical of.

When you complete QL2/3 (and I know you will ) you have all the basic skills to be a good infanteer. It will then be up to you to develope them.

--------------------

Fideliter

--------------------

Too expand our rhetoric between us. I am not trying to state there is a plot. My point at it's basic presntation is remiss to reiterate. How do we expect legitimate change in the CF, when the top echelons have not changed pers wise dramatically in ten years.

We basically have the same people with the same concepts and the same operating principals in charge. we have a society asking for change in how we do business. I feel that the change is only half truths and as has been evidenced only short lived in most cases.

We have a group of new upstart leaders, but many are of the influence of the current HQ principes, so I am of the opinion that real change will not happen within the CF for a time to come.

Your opinion is that current QL3s are producing substandard soldiers, but in what areas are they substandard? Although physical training standards may have been reduced, or dropped outright in the case of the ruckmarch; there is much more to being a good soldier than just being fit.

What about weapons handling skills and marksmanship? Have these been on the decline as well? Have personal fieldcraft suffered terribly also?

Is it not likely that the rise in educational standard in general between soldiers of the past and those of today may give today's recruits greater ability to learn and understand their trade? Especially in fields such as tactics?

With a better understanding of their trade, and perhaps some initiative, these soldiers may be able to better deal with situations for which they are not trained for, such as those that they may encounter on peacekeeping operations.

--------------------

Fideliter

--------------------

--------------------

It's all good

--------------------

There telling me wainright, i'm not sure if it's the same thing, but either way it should be alot of fun.