Army Overhauls Basic Training to Toughen 'Softer' Gamer Generation

I saw this with my soldiers during our last tour in Afghanistan. I'm of the generation when console games came out (Coleco Vision, Commador 64). I rarely stayed in the house, always out running around, and not coming home till dark (or when mom yelled across the neighborhood). You rarely saw obese and lazy kids, but today that's all you see (another reason why PT failures is up so much). All my soldiers could think and talk about was Halo and other games. In their off time, all they did was play it. Now don't get me wrong, I play MW2 here and there on the weekends to relax, but I still go to the gym every morning, but
it was like pulling teeth to get them to do PT on their own. The others who are around my age felt it was a no-brainer to go out running or whatever to pass the time. The younger soldiers have more of an aggressive and disrespectful attitude these days, which I believe is from a lack of social skills due to sitting in the house all damn day. But on the upside, you'd be amazed how quickly that attitude is put in check after they do push-ups till muscle failure. :)
If you look at other Army's of the world, their soldiers are considerably more fit, more disciplined, and more focused. Many have attributed this to the lack of technology they are exposed to, where as the U.S.'s younger soldiers are filled to the rim with gadgets; iTouch, xbox360's, psp's, laptops and many other items. We need our soldiers to once again be feared and respected for their abilities and courage. Most soldiers today (marines are exempt from this) would be cut down in the event of a hand to hand fight with the enemy, because they don't have the mentality that is required. Another thing I saw when I was at boot camp, is that soldiers today give up to easy in the face of adversity and hardship. So many kids were faking injuries and claiming to be suicidal just to get out. Its just so disappointing to see what the latest generation has to succumb to.

@Rathidragon: There is a place for everything. Use of technology is great for destroying infrastructure and killing from afar. But eventually, you will have to send in soldiers to secure areas, identify remains, gather information and perform other tasks that we simply don't have a substitute for. We would be doing these soldiers a great disservice by not addressing their weaknesses (physical training and discipline). Personally, I tend to agree with xcapelife's assessment regarding today's generation. Young american's today are more technically savvy, but also lead a more sedentary lifestyle.

I don't want to sound too inflammatory, but your examples are off the mark. You're trying to address tactical issues (soldier's combat readiness) with the use of strategic assets (aircraft carriers and missiles). The Art of War is not required reading during basic, although FM 7-21.13, The Soldier’s Guide is.

Cheers!

Rathidragon, yes, I'm fully aware of what is going on with China. Getting off the original subject...I do agree with you in some aspects, that foreign goverments and individuals who attack the U.S. by means of cyberterrorism, are a huge threat...but that threat is handled in a different manner; ground troops are not going to solve that. That would be a better task left to the current generation rather than ground fighting.
Your next comment, that I'm judging an entire generation based on a fraction. There have been MANY reports showing a decline in many areas in regards to children and young adults who spend a large portion of their time indoors playing video games. The top hitters are health, education and social skills. Plus, you'd be amazed how big of a population of twenty-something adults are in the Military, so I in response, no I'm not judging a generation based on a few.
Next, no I am not required, but yes, I have read Sun Tzu's 'Art of War'. I remember a quote stating, "Leadership allows you to make good plans because of your perception, foresight, emotional intelligence and objectivity. It allows you to implement your plans because of your control of your troops." What that tells me, that if our future leaders of today cannot gain the mindset and skills of a warrior, then how are they going to protect our country and way of life? I can honestly say that I fear our nation will never again (unless things change) see a Patton, Schwarzkoft, Jackson, Lee, Truman, Grant, or Bliss.
Lastly, yes I know what a UAV is (my civilian job deals specifically with them). And YES...I know (probably more than you ever will) what China has in their defense arsenal...
So, next time, maybe stick to the story and what others write. Might keep you from looking silly.

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying to eliminate ground troops all together, you can't truly secure an area without them. It just seems to me that the article is blaming young adults instead of the leaders of those young adults that should have been more rigid. I agree with the new training program, I don't agree with discriminating against people based on age. I just hope that isn't prominent in the military.

I love this part of the article "Part of the shift is intended to train a new generation of soldiers whose experience with fighting is usually limited to video games." I guess I was suppose to be picking fights when I was growing up instead of studying? For that I'm sorry. Where exactly did previous generations get fighting experience? Was school just one big dog pile 30 years ago?

Joining the military is not always something that is planned for you your entire life. I think it has a lot to do with the current economy, that's a guaranteed paycheck and why workout before joining when you can workout there?

@xcapelife
MANY reports by whom?
I'm sorry that you have fear in your heart but I have faith that the new generation will answer the call if needed. We're not exactly at war with another sovereign nation at the moment and I believe that would change a lot of young adults behavior. Why don't you become the next Patton, Schwarzkoft, Jackson, Lee, Truman, Grant, or Bliss? Perhaps you can shed light on why that isn't happening.

@zgryfx
Let me explain why I'm addressing tactical issues with the use of strategic assets. The article says they are tech savvy so my question is are we using these people and their skill sets correctly?

To quote Sun Tzu
"Thus the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy's plans; the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy's forces; the next in order is to attack the enemy's army in the field; and the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities."

With proper counter intelligence (using technology) we should be able to stop just about anything (mainly major engagements with the exception of lone-wolf types) What if someone grows up learning a bow and arrow, becomes an expert, then joins their military and their military says "sorry we only use swords". That seems like a failure on the leadership to recognize special skill sets and potential.

You use tactical issues to protect strategic assets. Well trained soldiers standing on the deck of a carrier is not going to stop a missile but hackers might. Even better would be to deny them access to launch the missiles in the first place. I just hope we have a program like that already otherwise we are just preparing for a dog pile.

The entire article is a moot point if US bases, cities, and troops get nuked. Where do I report for training in that event? No, seriously I really want to know in case I have to because it seems likely that if we go to war with another sovereign nation there will be an exchange of nukes. (Hopefully not but to be unprepared is to be dead)

LOL. Good. I hope the Afghans steam roll your asses. Them are some real soldiers that have been fighting for generations.