HAMMER: In that chapter Proud Legions the Doolittle board and their effect on the Army’s ability to create disciplined units able to fight. Officers and NCOs were ‘stripped’ of their power. How are we still feeling the effects of those changes? What tools do we have now to overcome this? Are they effective? Later on in that chapter he states “…the public demanded that the Army be changed to conform with decent, liberal society.” Some could argue that this is going on right now. Is this for the betterment of the Army/Nation? What are the positives/negatives of such movement?

In this chapter Fehrenbach compares the men of the CCF with the men of the US Army/USMC. He writes, “the men of the Inmun Gun and the CCF were peasant boys, tough, inured to hunger and hardship.” He argues that the American military was shifted to conform to the more liberal U.S. society in 1945 by the Doolittle Board writing that “the public demanded that the Army be changed to conform with decent, liberal society.” According to Fehrenbach the changes were as follows:

“The so-called caste system of the Army was modified. Captains, by fiat, suddenly ceased to be gods, and sergeants, the hard-bitten backbone of any army, were told to try to be just some of the boys. Junior officers had a great deal of their power to discipline taken away from them. They could no longer inflict any real punishment, short of formal court martial, nor could they easily reduce ineffective NCOs.”

In my opinion, this board had a great idea to be issued but was ineffective in its use. I believe that the military must shift at least somewhat in order to follow an evolving society especially in order to allow for retention rates. A military that is not effective in adjusting to the times will certainly have a hard time competing for the best officers and NCOs. Not only is this important for retention of the most qualified leaders but also in order to resolve civil-military relationship issues.

In regards to how we still feel these changes, it is now much different to discipline a Soldier in today’s army than it was in the early 20th century. In previous times Soldiers could be corrected using any number of actions to include hazing, physical punishment, or quick reduction of pay. Today, with the exception of limited physical corrections, all of these actions are either illegal or much more difficult to accomplish. Lieutenants can only make recommendations to the Commander for UCMJ punishments who can only do so much at their level. NCOs can no longer correct Soldiers in ridiculous ways which I believe to be moral in most cases, they are extremely limited in what their power which usually almost always extends to the Company Commander. Today almost all serious punishments must be followed by written counselings by leaders. At this point in time these counselings are the most effective tools for army leaders as they can directly extend to punishments that can have a chance of correcting a Soldier to include extra duty or pay reductions. I believe that written counselings are effective and they force leaders to address Soldiers face-to-face about their discretions.

In regards to today’s society affecting the Army I believe that recent policy changes have been good and bad in order to “keep up” with modern culture changes. It is important that we are not using the military as a means to test workplace changes but rather ensuring that everyone regardless of race/orientation/beliefs have a fair shot at succeeding. I do worry that sometimes the Army is quick to make changes in order to alleviate a difficult conflict with legislative and civilian institutions. We must not forget that our profession is unforgiving and our #1 priority of readiness. Especially in terms of standards we must ensure that they are continuing to be met. An example of this being proposing changes to body fat and fitness standards. As the people of the United States continue to lead the way in obese lifestyles, we must ensure that our Army does not fall prey to these transgressions.