- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 50
Critics say the lowering of fitness standards to accommodate women has
been instrumental in producing an army unsuited for soldiering.
a journalist
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.
Whither our warriors?
Critics say the lowering of fitness standards to accommodate women
has been
instrumental in producing an army unsuited for soldiering.David
a journalist
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.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.
been instrumental in producing an army unsuited for soldiering.
a journalist
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.
Whither our warriors?
Critics say the lowering of fitness standards to accommodate women
has been
instrumental in producing an army unsuited for soldiering.David
a journalist
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.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.
