Training Soldiers for the Indecency of War

Tuesday’s court martial conviction of Army Sgt. Delmar G. Simpson on 43 counts of rape and other sexual misconduct with female trainees has caused many to question whether men and women should be in the same basic training units. But for the military, a more immediate question is being raised about the need for and purpose of a fundamental fixture of American military culture: the drill sergeant.

In days past, when millions of Americans were military veterans and conscription was a fact of life, the role of drill sergeants was well known. But today, what most people know about drill sergeants’ demeanor and behavior is largely restricted to what they’ve seen in movies.

The recent scandals have caused many to ask why the military subjects its recruits, even those in noncombat occupations, to a rough indoctrination. Why do we invest one individual with such power over another? What is the value of establishing a strong superior-to-subordinate relationship when the risks of abuse are so high? The answer is simple: Nearly everything done in the armed forces relates to the battlefield and its unnatural, morally offensive character. Survival in battle and success on the battlefield demands cohesive organizations and special personal relationships. Drill sergeants develop both.

Civil War Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman observed, “War is hell.” The armed forces must take young Americans and prepare them for the inhumanity of battle. The young people who volunteer for the military are above average in comparison with their contemporaries by any objective measure. Nearly all are high school graduates; most are athletic or academic leaders. The great majority come from solid moral and ethical backgrounds. Thus the institutional dilemma: preparing these decent young Americans to do something that society considers to be inhumane. They must be taught to intentionally kill or wound other human beings, on a large scale, with premeditation and without hesitation. Additionally, there may come times when soldiers will be asked to intentionally risk their own death or injury, a more acceptable act, but still unnatural and unreasonable.

Soldiers are prepared for these extraordinary conditions and moments by drill sergeants. Drill sergeants quickly convince trainees that the drill sergeants’ are the only rules that apply. During basic training, a drill sergeant will control every aspect of a trainee’s life, from when the trainee gets up, eats, writes letters home and goes to bed to what the trainee wears and what he or she does. There is no deviation. The directions of the drill sergeant will be followed precisely, and woe to any trainee who fails to do so. There is no discussion. What the drill sergeant says goes. And therein lies the danger.

The battlefield, Henry Kissinger noted, is a poor place for improvisation. Units and soldiers have to be trained and conditioned to do what they are told when they are told to do it. When they are ordered to pull triggers sending steady streams of deadly bullets at the enemy, they must do so. When they push buttons sending rockets far down range or missiles into the sky chasing airplanes, they do so knowing that people on the other end likely will die. But despite the incivility of war, American soldiers are expected to remember that they remain civilized men and women, and when the time comes for the killing to stop it must stop--immediately. This ability, to retain the values of civilized behavior even when doing uncivilized things, is embedded in soldiers by drill sergeants.

Most drill sergeants have exceptional professional skill and personal integrity. Those few who have abused their authority and taken advantage of new recruits for personal or sexual favors will be identified and dealt with legally and appropriately. The Army leadership is wholly committed to this. But the Army also must make a serious effort to ascertain how abuses such as those at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., and Ft. Leonard Wood, Mo., escaped the attention of the chain of command for so long. This will require a reevaluation of the Army’s expectations of its unit leaders.

In its efforts to treat young soldiers as responsible adults, capable of making mature decisions and meeting acceptable standards of behavior and living, the Army has been removing the chain of command from the billets. Unit commanders were discouraged from inspecting barracks, walking the halls to establish a presence, ensuring that rooms and common areas were kept clean. In some instances, there may have been convenient confusion over the policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Although the distinctions are clear to lawyers and senior leaders, at the unit level what the Army would and would not accept regarding personal relationships may have become unclear.

The chain of command, officers and senior sergeants, must always have their antennae tuned to the signals of abuse of power and unacceptable behavior. Drill sergeants serve a vital function. But in the wake of Aberdeen, Army leaders must move decisively to recapture a fundamental trust that has been eroded.