daftandbarmy said:
I dunno, I've always been impressed by the quality of the 'kids' coming through these days. Thinking back to the 'good old days' when I joined, I find them smarter, more responsible, more worldly and more professionally committed in many ways than me and my peers ever were.
Of course, as a result, it's the leadership that has to step up their game to work with these people, rarely the other way around.
I'm getting stale-dated now, but I agree with daftandbarmy here. When I joined the Militia in 1974, I served with some soldiers who were borderline illiterate (yes, even in the GTA!) and at least three I can think of who were either mildly retarded or had very low IQs. Then when I transferred to the Regular Army in 1982, and started Regtl duty, I found some of the same kind of people. I don't think these people would even get through the CFRC today.
Contrary to what some people fondly think about the "good old days" (whenever those where...), I don't think that in the kind of Army we have, and considering the kind of missions the Army must be able to do, that there is much room any more for people who can't even finish high school. IMHO in an Army as small as ours every soldier should be a potential NCO, and that is how he should be recruited, trained, and treated. If he has no potential, give him one engagement and then do not "re-up". The old idea that we need a bunch of old soldiers around to run kitshops, work in messes, or in trade pioneers, or hide in QM, is a relic of the past.
That said, I am in full agreement with the idea that this is really a leadership and training challenge. Our Army (like every Army in history) has always had to work with what it got. Just for historical perspective, look at the very low medical and physical condition of many British Army recruits in WWI and WWII: many barely made the physical, largely due to the bad social conditions that so many of them came from.
As far as "working with the clay", my grandfather served in the British Regular Army before, during and after WWI. Although Britain had already had free public education for many years, there was such a high percentage of troopers who were functionally illiterate that the Regiment conducted school classes as part of stables routine. Army school certificates were required for promotion up the ranks. The British Army (hardly a liberal "social laboratory"...) realized that the "clay" was weak and did something about it. Our Army can, too, if senior leadership is actually willing to accept that a problem exists.
