Their first battle: George A. Custer charges into Manassas - We Are The Mighty
MIGHTY HISTORY

Their first battle: George A. Custer charges into Manassas

Famous Maj. Gen. George A. Custer is probably best known for his exploits after the Civil War, but he graduated from West Point in June 1861, arriving in the regular Army just in time to lead cavalrymen in the First Battle of Bull Run that July. Yeah, Custer rode into combat the month after he graduated college.


Their first battle: George A. Custer charges into Manassas

Cadet George A. Custer at West Point in 1859.

(Public domain)

The First Battle of Bull Run, or the First Battle of Manassas as it was known in the South, focused on the railroad intersection at Manassas. The railroads that intersected there were key to Washington’s ability to send troops and supplies south into Virginia in case of an invasion of the South. Both sides knew this and wanted to control the junction.

The South stationed an army there, but those men largely fell back when 30,000 Union troops assembled nearby in June 1861. Just weeks later, the field commander of the Union Army, Gen. Irvin McDowell, proposed using his 30,000 men to further drive back the Confederate defenders and then advance on Richmond. His goal was to capture the Virginia capital, recently selected as the second capital of the Confederacy.

While the Confederate forces under Brig. Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard had fallen back when the Union troops showed up, they were obviously not willing to leave the capital undefended. They had to fight the Union at Manassas Junction.

Custer arrived in Washington D.C. on July 20, 1861, the day before the battle broke out. He had been held on West Point’s campus for disciplinary reasons right after he had graduated from the school as the 34th ranked student in a class of 34. Because of his late start after this detainment, he barely reached D.C. in time for the battle.

He reported to the Adjutant-General’s office and was told that he had been assigned as an officer in the 2nd Cavalry Regiment. (This was an auspicious assignment. Lt. Col. Robert E. Lee had commanded the unit until January 1861.)

But after giving Custer his orders, the adjutant offered to introduce Custer to Lt. Gen. Winfield Scott. At the time, Scott was the Commanding General of the United States Army. Custer gave his assent, and Scott asked Custer if he would rather spend the following weeks training recruits or if he desired “something more active?”

Their first battle: George A. Custer charges into Manassas

A Union artillery battery is overran at the First Battle of Bull Run.

(Sidney King, public domain via Good Free Photos)

Custer said he wanted more active work, and Scott ordered him to procure a horse and report back by 7 p.m. to carry dispatches to McDowell, the field commander. Custer did so, introduced himself to the general and his staff, and then reported to his regiment.

Because of West Point’s detaining him, Scott had managed to ingratiate himself with the Army’s top commander and its top field commander mere hours before its first engagement, a fight he would now ride in. It was a pretty great start for a bottom-of-his-class West Pointer.

But when the actual battle touched off, Custer was present and in the saddle, but did not see serious action. The Union commanders had seven cavalry troops on the field, but largely used them attached to infantry brigades where they would, at most, protect the infantry’s flanks or do a little reconnaissance.

Their first battle: George A. Custer charges into Manassas

Custer, on the right, as a captain after he captured one of his West Point classmates.

(Library of Congress)

Still, he made himself present and provided warnings to commanders, leading to a citation in reports from the battle and impressing George C. McClellan. The battle went badly for the Union, and McDowell was removed from command. That might seem like a problem for the cavalry officer who had just impressed McDowell, but McDowell was replaced by McClellan.

As McClellan re-organized and re-trained the Union military, he kept an eye on Custer who was quickly impressing others, largely through brash actions. During the Peninsula Campaign, he saw a debate about whether it was safe to ford a river and ended the argument by riding into the middle of it and reporting that, yeah, he wasn’t dead. It was probably fine.

His bravado earned him fans, and his connections to top officers got him looked at for commands that a young officer likely wouldn’t have gotten looked at for. In fact, he rose so quickly that he received a brevet promotion to brigadier general of volunteers at the tender age of 23.

MIGHTY TACTICAL

Army to issue newest groin protection to paratroopers

Soldiers at Fort Bragg, North Carolina will soon receive the Army‘s latest attempt at armor protection for the genitals and groin area.

Beginning in late March 2019, Program Executive Office Soldier officials will issue the Blast Pelvic Protector to the 82nd Airborne Division’s 3rd Brigade Combat Team as well as other items in the Army’s new Soldier Protection System such as the Modular Scalable Vest and the Integrated Head Protection System.


The Blast Pelvic Protector resembles a pair of loose-fitting shorts designed to wear over the Army Combat Uniform trousers. The device is intended to replace earlier attempts at groin protection such as the Protective Under Garment, or PUG, and the Protective Over Garment, or POG.

The PUG resembled a pair of snug-fitting boxers.

“They were underwear that had pockets for ballistics to go into,” Lt. Col. Ginger Whitehead, product manager for Soldier Protective Equipment said recently at a media event.

The POG looked like a tactical diaper.

Their first battle: George A. Custer charges into Manassas

The Pelvic Protection System: Tier I Protective Under Garment (PUG) and Tier II Protective Outer Garment (POG).

(US Army photo)

“And then there was an outer garment — it felt like a perpetual wedgie; soldiers hated that,” Whitehead said.

“That’s why we moved to the Blast Pelvic Protector and the cool thing about this is … there is a ballistic insert that can stop certain types of rounds, and the rest of this provides fragmentation protection.”

The new protective device features open sides with two straps on either side that connect with quick-release buckles.

Earlier attempts at protecting the groin and femoral arteries on the Improved Outer Tactical Vest, or IOTV, consisted of triangular flap of soft ballistic material that hung in front of the crotch.

In addition to the pelvic protector, soldiers from 3rd BCT will receive the new Integrated Head Protection System, or IHPS, which will replace the Enhanced Combat Helmet in close combat units.

The new helmet offers the same ballistic protection as the ECH, but doubles the amount of protection against blunt impact or trauma to soldier’s head. Each side of the helmet has rail sections, so soldiers can mount lights and other accessories for operating in low-light conditions.

Equipment officials will also field the Modular Scalable Vest, or MSV, to 3rd BCT soldiers. The MSV weighs about 25 pounds with body armor plates. That’s about a five-pound weight reduction compared to the current IOTV.

This article originally appeared on Military.com. Follow @militarydotcom on Twitter.

MIGHTY FIT

The honest truth about these trendy diets

This time of year, the subject of dieting is very popular with the promise of quick weight loss, but it’s important to carefully choose your weight-loss strategy. Doing so can help you can drop unwanted pounds safely and successfully — and boost your performance. The below info was provided by Ms. Carolyn Zisman, a nutritionist working at the Human Performance Resource Center.


Low-carb diets

Diets that are typically very low in carbs (less than five percent of calories or 50 grams daily) and high in fat (70–80 percent) can put you into ketosis. This means your body is producing ketones, which uses stored fat (instead of carbs) for energy. Aside from glucose from carbs, ketones from fat are the only fuel your brain can use. You might lose more weight on a moderate-protein, high-fat diet than a typical low-fat one.

Their first battle: George A. Custer charges into Manassas

(U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Todd A. Schaffer)

Additionally, you can lower some risks for heart disease and type two diabetes. These diets also eliminate sugars and sweeteners, and they help you increase your intake of vegetables, omega three-rich seafood, nuts, and seeds. However, keto-type diets eliminate all grains, pastas, breads, beans, starchy vegetables, and nearly all fruit, which are critical sources of fiber, vitamins, and minerals. Carb restriction also might lead to underfueling, hunger, fatigue, depression, irritability, constipation, headaches, and “brain fog,” which can affect your performance. Ketosis might make it harder to meet the extreme physical and mental challenges of your duties, too.

Keto-type diets are also tough to maintain because there are carbs in nearly all foods, including fruits, vegetables, legumes (beans, lentils, and peanuts), dairy products, and grains. Since your body needs to sustain ketosis for weight loss, it might be especially hard in environments with limited food options.

“Caveman” diets

High-protein, moderate-fat diets focus on foods that your hunter-gatherer ancestors ate, including fruits, vegetables, lean meats, fish, nuts and seeds. They’re also high in fiber and low in sodium and refined sugars. In addition, they’re generally healthy and not too hard to follow — whether you’re at home, the mess hall, or eating out.

Since these diets rely heavily on fresh food, it sometimes can take longer to plan meals. Fish and grass-fed meat can be expensive, too. Caveman-type diets also exclude entire food groups—such as whole grains, dairy, and legumes—and increase your risk for nutrient deficiencies. Also, there’s no difference in a high-protein, low-carb diet vs. a reduced-calorie diet for weight loss.

Their first battle: George A. Custer charges into Manassas

Vietnamese chefs teach Sailors assigned to the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70) how to prepare local dishes.

(U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Tom Tonthat)

Carbs are your body’s preferred fuel source, and limiting them can lower your performance. While a low-carb diet is easier to do because you can eat carb-rich, starchy vegetables such as potatoes or squash, there might be times when this isn’t practical, especially if you’re on a mission with MREs or limited produce.

Intermittent fasting

Intermittent fasting (IF) essentially involves skipping meals for partial or full days (12–24 hours), severely restricting calories for several days in a row, or eating under 500 calories on two non-consecutive days.

While some research from animal studies shows that restricted eating might benefit longevity, there’s no evidence that it affects longevity in humans. However, those diagnosed with type two diabetes might be able to manage their blood sugar with IF. Fasting also can be effective with an average weight loss of 7–11 pounds over 10 weeks.

Still, IF can be hard for someone who needs to eat every few hours to sustain energy for physical and mental performance. Some will overeat on non-fasting days, so IF isn’t recommended for those with disordered eating or type one diabetes — or if you take medications that require food.

Weight loss comes down to energy balance: Eat less or move more to burn extra calories. In terms of performance, you need to eat more often to ensure you’re always sufficiently fueled, so fasting can be a challenge.

Cleansing or detoxification

“Detox” diets — also called “cleanses” or “flushes” — claim to help remove toxins from your body, leading to weight loss. Cleanses includes diets, supplements, drinks, laxatives, enemas, or a combination of these strategies.

Non-laxative cleanses or juice fasts can jump-start quick weight loss, but you still need to follow up with a proper approach that is realistic and sustainable. Since your calorie intake is very low on these particular days, it also can affect your physical performance.

Their first battle: George A. Custer charges into Manassas

Fort Monroe’s Staff Sgt. Joshua Spiess prepares a head of garlic while competing for the Armed Forces Chef of the Year.

(U.S. Army photo)

Detox-related weight loss is often only temporary and likely results from water loss. You also might gain weight when you resume normal eating. Extreme low-calorie diets can lower your body’s basal metabolic rate (the number of calories needed to perform basic, life-sustaining functions) as it struggles to preserve energy. Detox diets, which often require some fasting and severely limit protein, also can cause fatigue. They can result in vitamin, mineral, and other essential nutrient deficiencies in the long term, too. And the jury’s still out on whether detox diets actually remove toxins from your body. Depending on the ingredients used, detox diets also can cause cramping, bloating, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and dehydration, so they aren’t recommended for healthy and safe weight loss.

What’s the best way to lose weight and keep it off?

Quick weight loss (more than two pounds per week) can backfire in terms of health and weight maintenance. If you eat too little, your body might use muscle for fuel, instead of carbs (primary fuel) or fat (secondary fuel). Muscle burns more calories than stored fat, so losing muscle can actually slow your metabolism and ultimately make it harder to lose weight and keep it off.

The best approach is one that provides enough fuel — fruit, vegetables, whole grains, low-fat dairy, lean meat, fish, eggs, nuts, and healthy fats — to perform your duties and preserve muscle. Read HPRC’s “Warfighter Nutrition Guide” for tips to maintain your overall health and body weight.

For safe weight loss, make sure you are not causing harm and still have enough physical and mental strength to perform well. Work with your healthcare provider or a registered dietitian to create a healthy eating plan. You also want to make lifestyle changes that include exercise, so you can stay in warrior-athlete shape.

MIGHTY TRENDING

Britain tested its plan to blackout Russia in case of war

British military forces reportedly practiced a cyberattack on Russia on Oct. 6, 2018, to send Moscow into total darkness if Vladimir Putin’s forces attack the West.

Military sources told the Sunday Times that the only other way of hitting Russia back would be to use nuclear weapons.

But cyber weapons reportedly give Britain the best chance of deterring Russia because the West no longer has small battlefield nuclear weapons.


The Sunday Times reported that the test to “turn out the lights” in Moscow – which will give Britain more time to act in the event of war – happened during the UK’s biggest military exercise for a decade.

5,500 British troops took part in the desert exercise in Oman, where troops also practiced other war games to combat Russia’s ground forces.

Their first battle: George A. Custer charges into Manassas

British troops practice section attack drills in Oman, 2001.

The £100m (0.5 million) exercise in the Omani desert reportedly involved 200 armoured vehicles, six naval ships, and eight Typhoon warplanes.

Sources told the Sunday Times that in a series of mock battles, the Household Cavalry played the role of an enemy using Russian T-72 tanks.

Britain-Russia tensions are being tested at the moment over the fate of two Russian military intelligence (GRU) agents who Britain accused of poisoning former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in March 2018, and over accusations that Russia is behind a host of global cyberattacks.

On Oct. 4, 2018, British and Dutch intelligence exposed an operation by the GRU to hijack the investigation into the assassination plot against the Skripals.

This article originally appeared on Business Insider. Follow @BusinessInsider on Twitter.

MIGHTY TRENDING

US has been losing simulated war games against Russia & China

In war games simulating a high-end fight against Russia or China, the US often loses, two experienced military war-gamers have revealed.

“In our games, when we fight Russia and China, ‘blue’ gets its ass handed to it,” David Ochmanek, a RAND warfare analyst, explained at the Center for a New American Security on March 7, 2019, Breaking Defense first reported. US forces are typically color-coded blue in these simulations.

“We lose a lot of people. We lose a lot of equipment. We usually fail to achieve our objective of preventing aggression by the adversary,” he said.


US stealth fighters die on the runway

At the outset of these conflicts, all five battlefield domains — land, sea, air, space, and cyberspace — are contested, meaning the US could struggle to achieve the superiority it has enjoyed in the past.

Their first battle: George A. Custer charges into Manassas

An F-35A joint strike fighter crew chief watches his aircraft approach for the first time at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida, July 14, 2011.

(US Air Force photo by Samuel King Jr.)

In these simulated fights, the “red” aggressor force often obliterates US stealth fighters on the runway, sends US warships to the depths, destroys US bases, and takes out critical US military systems.

“In every case I know of, the F-35 rules the sky when it’s in the sky,” Robert Work, a former deputy secretary of defense and an experienced war-gamer, said March 7, 2019. “But it gets killed on the ground in large numbers.”

Neither China nor Russia has developed a fifth-generation fighter as capable as the F-35, but even the best aircraft have to land. That leaves them vulnerable to attack.

US warships are wiped off the board

“Things that sail on the surface of the sea are going to have a hard time,” Ochmanek said.

Aircraft carriers, traditional beacons of American military might, are becoming increasingly vulnerable. They may be hard to kill, but they are significantly less difficult to take out of the fight.

Their first battle: George A. Custer charges into Manassas

USS Enterprise is underway with its strike group in the Atlantic Ocean.

(US Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Harry Andrew D. Gordon)

Naval experts estimate that US aircraft carriers now need to operate at least 1,000 nautical miles from the Chinese mainland to keep out of range of China’s anti-ship missiles, according to USNI News.

US bases burn

“If we went to war in Europe, there would be one Patriot battery moving, and it would go to Ramstein [in Germany]. And that’s it,” Work explained, according to Breaking Defense. “We have 58 Brigade Combat Teams, but we don’t have anything to protect our bases. So what difference does it make?”

Simply put, the US military bases scattered across Europe and the Pacific don’t have the anti-air and missile-defense capabilities required to handle the overwhelming volume of fire they would face in a high-end conflict.

US networks and systems crumble

In a conflict against a near-peer threat, US communications satellites, command-and-control systems, and wireless networks would be crippled.

Their first battle: George A. Custer charges into Manassas

Marines participate in Hatch Mounted Satellite Communication Antenna System training on an MV-22B Osprey at Marine Corps Air Station New River, North Carolina, Feb. 12, 2019.

(U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Gumchol Cho)

“The brain and the nervous system that connects all of these pieces is suppressed, if not shattered,” Ochmanek said of this scenario. Work said the Chinese call this type of attack “system destruction warfare.”

The Chinese would “attack the American battle network at all levels, relentlessly, and they practice it all the time,” Work said. “On our side, whenever we have an exercise, when the red force really destroys our command and control, we stop the exercise and say, ‘let’s restart.'”

A sobering assessment

“These are the things that the war games show over and over and over, so we need a new American way of war without question,” Work stressed.

Their first battle: George A. Custer charges into Manassas

Six High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems conduct a live-fire exercise as part of pre-deployment training at Ft. Bliss, Texas.

(Wisconsin National Guard photo by Staff Sgt. Alex Baum)

Ochmanek and Work have both seen US war games play out undesirably, and their damning observations reflect the findings of an assessment done from fall 2018.

“If the United States had to fight Russia in a Baltic contingency or China in a war over Taiwan, Americans could face a decisive military defeat,” the National Defense Strategy Commission — a bipartisan panel of experts picked by Congress to evaluate the National Defense Strategy — said in a November 2018 report.

The report called attention to the erosion of the US’s military edge by rival powers, namely Russia and China, which have developed a “suite of advanced capabilities heretofore possessed only by the United States.”

The commission concluded the US is “at greater risk than at any time in decades.”

This article originally appeared on Business Insider. Follow @BusinessInsider on Twitter.

Military Life

4 reasons why troops need to be a little salty

Parents tend to teach their kids that kindness is one of the greatest traits a human can exhibit. When those kids eventually join the military, they’ll learn that they need to drop the niceties before too long.

Troops should show a general politeness toward their peers — after all, the military wouldn’t function if everyone was truly spiteful toward one another. We’d never recommend that you treat others like dirt, but every service member must obtain a certain level of saltiness in order to get through their career.


In a way, military life is the reversal of civilian norms. In the military, kindness is negatively received; being assertive and salty is the only way to get what you want. We’re not saying this is bad or good — it’s just the weird life that troops live.

Their first battle: George A. Custer charges into Manassas

That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t help others out.

(Photo by Spc. L’Erin Wynn)

Your kindness will be perceived as weakness

Before any of this gets twisted, kindness isn’t a weakness and showing genuine empathy toward your fellow troop isn’t going to kill you. In fact, showing your brothers- and sisters-in-arms compassion will take you far and may save a life some day.

However, the harsh reality is that there are no brakes on the military train. Slowing down for others and offering a helping hand isn’t always smiled upon. When you pause to help someone who’s stalled, in the eyes of many, there are now two impediments.

It’s not an pleasant circumstance, but that’s how life in the military goes.

Their first battle: George A. Custer charges into Manassas

(Photo by Staff Sgt. R.J. Lannom)

Your kindness will get pushed to the limits

There’s another side to the compassion coin. Offer your help too readily and others will take advantage. One favor leads to three. “Hey, can you get me…” quickly turns into, “you don’t mind, do you?”

In a perfect world, there wouldn’t be any toxic leadership in the military. Everyone would take unit morale into consideration, do their part, and ensure tasks are completed on schedule. Unfortunately, when people find it easier to get someone else to their job, they’ll take that road.

Their first battle: George A. Custer charges into Manassas

But they’re not mutually exclusive in combat situations.

(Photo by Cpl. Darien J. Bjorndal)

Your saltiness will get things done

Aggression and anger are not essential traits of great leaders. A first sergeant who never yells still commands the same respect as a first sergeant who barks at everyone. It is entirely possible to be assertive and state your intentions to others without shouting.

…but most people won’t see it that way. The moment you raise your voice, people listen. If you’re of a lower rank, people will assume you’re ready for a leadership position — in actuality, yelling and true leadership skills are apples and oranges.

Their first battle: George A. Custer charges into Manassas

Troops will rarely give an honest answer if their first sergeant asks them how are they doing, even if it’s meant sincerely.

(U.S. Marine Corps)

Your saltiness won’t ever get questioned

Being nice will cause everyone to question your motives. Other troops will think you’re up to something, trying to work them over. Conversely, there’re almost no repercussions for being a dick to everyone.

The higher your rank, the less people will wonder why you’re grouchy. Everyone just accepts it as normal, everyday life. Niceties at that rank set off alarms in the lower ranks or just confuse everyone.

MIGHTY CULTURE

Why the Air Force is on a mission to fix its uniforms

The U.S. Air Force for months has been working to redesign gear and flight suits used by female pilots after many years of ill-fitting equipment.

But why stop there? It’s also updating current flight suit and gear designs to improve comfort and ease of wear, according to officials working on the project. At the same time, officials want to streamline and expedite the process of shipping these uniforms and support gear anywhere across the world to meet a unit’s requirement.

Since his tenure in the Air Force, Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein has called for improved, better-fitting uniforms — not only for comfort, but also for safety.


“We have women performing in every combat mission, and we owe it to them to have gear that fits, is suited for a woman’s frame and can be [worn] for hours on end,” Goldfein told reporters at a Defense Writers Group in Washington, D.C. last year.

Their first battle: George A. Custer charges into Manassas

Capt. Lauren Kram, assigned to the 13th Bomb Squadron, poses for a portrait on Feb. 19, 2019.

(U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Kayla White)

Officials have been eager to create and field uniforms and flight equipment with better fit and performance, and make them more readily available for female aircrew, said Maj. Saily Rodriguez, the female fitment program manager for the human systems program office.

The problem for decades has been limited sizes, which has resulted in female airmen tailoring their own flight suits, or just wearing a suit too tight or too loose.

Rodriguez and her team have been tasked to “specifically … look at how the female body is shaped,” with a goal of “tailoring that flight suit to be able to accommodate the female shape,” she said in an interview with Military.com Thursday.

The project was launched within the Air Force Lifecycle Management Center, with Rodriguez focused on the female perspective for better-fitted uniforms and gear.

“Everything that touches an aircrew member’s body, we manage in the program office,” she said. That includes everything from flight vests; G-suits, which prevents the loss of consciousness during high levels of acceleration or gravity pressure; helmets; boots; and intricate gear such as bladder relief apparatus.

Their first battle: George A. Custer charges into Manassas

Participants of the Female Flight Equipment Workshop demonstrate the issues women face with the current survival vests at AFWERX Vegas, Las Vegas, Jan. 30, 2019.

(U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Bailee A. Darbasie)


Some improvements have been made already. In November 2018, the service began delivering upgraded Aircrew Mission Extender Devices, also known as AMXDmax, for bladder relief. The device collects urine in a cup for men and a pad for women, and can hold 1.7 quarts of urine, according to the service. The Air Force said it had expected to deliver roughly 2,000 to crews service-wide by the end of this month.

Beyond female flight equipment, the office is gearing up for improved uniforms and devices for all.

“We’re going to be adding on what’s called the ‘combat-ready airman,'” Rodriguez said, “which is going to look at more roles than just aircrew members to ensure that those airmen, men and women, are being outfitted in standardized uniforms as well, that suit their need to be able to properly do their duties they’re assigned.”

Officials are still defining what a ‘combat-ready airman’ is, but the term eventually will “encompass the larger Air Force” beyond aviators, she said. As an example, work has begun on better-fitting vests for female security forces airmen.

“It all comes down to making sure that airmen have gear that they can use and … perform their missions,” Rodriguez said.

Getting uniforms Amazon-quick

On the shipment management side, leaders are using the Battlefield Airmen Rapid Resource Replenishment System, or BARS, a central equipment hub that sorts various gear and can ship the clothing directly to airmen across the globe.

The system was created to quickly field resources to deployed airmen, such as Tactical Air Control Party (TACP) airmen, pararescue and special tactics operations in Air Force Special Operations Command, said Todd Depoy, the special warfare branch chief for the special operations forces and personnel recovery division within Air Force Life Cycle Management Center. Gear ranges from scuba gear to climbing equipment, Depoy said.

Their first battle: George A. Custer charges into Manassas

An HH-60G Pave Hawk helicopter, assigned to the 66th Rescue Squadron, flies during training on Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, Feb. 22, 2018.

(U.S. Air Force photo by Kevin Tanenbaum)

“BARS is a cloud-based software program … with [an additional] inventory control,” Depoy told Military.com. The program has been around a little over a year, he added.

The internal system, created and hosted by Amazon, gives individuals the authority to head to a computer and mark what they need and have it shipped over — with the proper military approvals, Depoy said.

“There is a checkpoint, but if they need something, they can go in and order it, and those items are on the shelf,” he said.

The items are stored and managed by the Air Force at the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Crane, Indiana.

Unlike in years past where it could take months to get gear overseas, it now takes between a few days and a few weeks, depending on the location, Depoy said.

The goal now is to speed up the existing process for men’s gear, and implement a similar one for female flight suits.

“BARS is an existing system, but I’m currently adding our ACC female aviators into the system,” said Shaunn Hummel, the aircrew flight equipment program analyst at Air Combat Command’s A3TO training and operations office.

Lately, Hummel has been working to add female flight suits, jackets, boots and glove to the list of available gear in the system. His job is to work with the Defense Logistics Agency to appropriately stock facilities so airmen can access items via BARS.

In September 2018, ACC made a bulk buy of roughly id=”listicle-2635292502″ million worth of these items, Hummel said.

Their first battle: George A. Custer charges into Manassas

Capt. Christine Durham (left), Pilot Training Next instructor pilot, gives a briefing to her students prior to a training mission at the Armed Forces Reserve Center in Austin, Texas, Feb. 5, 2019.

(U.S. Air Force photo by Sean M. Worrell)

“We’re working with DLA to try and decrease the lead time and increase productivity for the manufacturing of these suits,” Hummel said April 16, 2019. Female flight suits “are not manufactured all the time until there is a consistent demand of them.”

Hummel explained there are 110 different flight suits — between the “women” category, for curvier women, and the “misses” category, for those with slimmer builds — and they also have different zipper configurations.

Zippers have been a problem for men as well as women. Very tall or very short airmen may find their zippers ill-placed to relieve themselves conveniently, the service said in a recent release.

“We’re making sure we’re using data … to assess what are the sizes we need to get women outfitted” by cross-referencing stockpiles through the various offices, Rodriguez added.

Right now, the teams are working together to get more feedback on how the programs are working, and what else could be done to improve standard gear to keep pilots and aircrew safe in flight.

The service has held several collaborative “Female Flight Equipment Workshops,” the release said.

Rodriguez said it wants more airmen speaking up.

“We have an effort underway looking at how we can streamline feedback from the user … so that we can use it when we’re looking for improvements in the future,” she said.

This article originally appeared on Military.com. Follow @militarydotcom on Twitter.

MIGHTY TRENDING

Saudi Arabia just threatened Canada with a 9/11-style attack

Saudi Arabia’s state media on Aug 6, 2018, tweeted a graphic appearing to show an Air Canada airliner heading toward the Toronto skyline in a way that recalled the September 11, 2001, terrorist hijackings of airliners that struck the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.

The graphic warned of “Sticking one’s nose where it doesn’t belong!” and included the text: “As the Arabic saying goes: ‘He who interferes with what doesn’t concern him finds what doesn’t please him.'”


Last week, Global Affairs Canada tweeted that it was “gravely concerned” about a new wave of arrests in the kingdom targeting women’s rights activists and urged their immediate release. Saudi Arabia has expelled Canada’s ambassador and frozen all new trade and investment with Ottawa in response to the criticism.

Fifteen of the 19 hijackers in the September 11 attacks were Saudi citizens. The organizer, Osama bin Laden, came from a prominent Saudi family and still has family there, including a son who the bin Ladens say is looking to “avenge” his father.

The tweet came from @Infographic_ksa, an account that had just hours earlier tweeted another graphic titled “Death to the dictator” featuring an image of the supreme leader of Iran, Saudi Arabia’s main regional rival.

Saudi Arabia has long stood accused of funding radical Muslim Imams around the world and spreading a violent ideology called Wahhabism. Under the leadership of its new young ruler, Mohammad bin Salman, Saudi Arabia has undertaken several sweeping reforms looking to reduce the funding for and spread of radical ideology as well as to elevate human rights.

But a surge of arrests appearing to target prominent women’s rights activists who previously campaigned to abolish Saudi Arabia’s ban on driving for women has caused international alarm and prompted the tweet from Canada.

The Saudi account deleted the tweet featuring the graphic with the plane and later reuploaded one without the airliner pictured.

This article originally appeared on Business Insider. Follow @BusinessInsider on Twitter.

popular

8 of the most terrifying Vietnam War booby traps

Contrary to popular belief, neither the North Vietnamese Army nor Viet Cong guerrillas could match the U.S. forces toe-to-toe during the Vietnam War — either in skill or of firepower. What they could do is hamper the Americans’ ability to pursue them in a retreat. One of the ways they did that was by using creative methods to rig booby traps to injure or kill U.S. troops.


Related: 17 wild facts about the Vietnam War

 

Their first battle: George A. Custer charges into Manassas

They were often marked by the Viet Cong using broken bushes, palm leaves, or certain alignments of sticks, such as a rectangle or tripod. The retreating Vietnamese would fashion traps from crude spikes, grenades, wires, and even memorabilia.

1. Punji Sticks

These are traps made with sharpened bamboo stakes, often smeared with urine, feces, or another substance that would cause infection in the victim. The VC would dig a hole and put the sticks in the bottom, then cover it with a thin frame. The victim would put his foot through the cover and fall on the spikes below.

Their first battle: George A. Custer charges into Manassas

A more insidious trap featured spears  pointed downward so victims would be injured only when they tried to pull out of the trap.

2. Snake Pits

Yes, this is exactly what it sounds like. Viet Cong guerrillas would often carried Bamboo Pit Vipers in their packs to (hopefully) kill anyone who searches through them. They would also tie the deadly snakes to bamboo and hide them throughout their tunnel complexes. When the Bamboo was released, so was the snake – right onto the enemy.

Their first battle: George A. Custer charges into Manassas
Sweet dreams.

The snakes were nicknamed “three-step snakes,” because three steps was all you could make before the venom kills you. U.S. “tunnel rats” had to be specially trained to navigate and disarm these traps.

3. Grenade-In-A-Can

Their first battle: George A. Custer charges into Manassas

Two cans were mounted on trees along either side of a path. The safety pins on the grenades are removed and the explosives are put into cans, which hold down the striker levers. The tripwire was then tied to each grenade. When the wire was tripped, the grenades were pulled out of the cans to detonate instantly. This could also be done with one can and a stake.

4. Flag Bombs

The NVA and VC loved to fly flags and they knew U.S. troops loved to capture enemy flags. So when they were forced to leave a base or location, they often rigged the flags with an explosive of some kind, so when US troops started to take down the flag, it would set off the charge.

Their first battle: George A. Custer charges into Manassas

See Also: 13 photos of US troops with enemy flags

In fact, any attempt to move the pole or flag set off the booby trap. This is similar to a “keepsake, lose hand” trap, where the NVA would intentionally rig anything a U.S. troop would consider a war trophy with an explosive.

5. Cartridge Trap

This trap was an awful one because it was very difficult to detect. A cartridge – a round of ammunition – would be set into a piece of bamboo and lowered into a shallow hole in the ground. At the bottom of the bamboo was a board and a nail.

Their first battle: George A. Custer charges into Manassas

The regular weight of someone walking on the cartridge would drive the nail into the primer, turning the nail into a firing pin and firing the bullet upward through the unsuspecting victim’s foot.

6. Bamboo Whip

Another sharpened bamboo trap, the whip consisted of spikes over a long bamboo pole. The pole was pulled back into an arc using a catch attached to a tripwire. When the wire is tripped, the catch gives out and sent foot-long spikes into a trooper’s chest at a hundred miles an hour.

Their first battle: George A. Custer charges into Manassas

7. The Mace

Another tripwire trap, the Mace may have been the worst of all Vietnam War booby traps. Once the wire was triggered, a 24-inch metal or wooden ball with spikes welded onto it, weighing 40 pounds or more, would swing down from a tree, sending anyone in its path straight to Valhalla.

8. Tiger Traps

A tiger trap was similar to the mace, in that a tripwire would undo the catch on a rope. Only instead of a swinging ball, the death from above took the form of an man-sized plank weighted with bricks and full of barbed metal spikes quickly falling to earth on someone’s forehead.

MIGHTY TRENDING

Afghan parliament’s first session of the year ends in fist fight

A fight broke out during the first session of Afghanistan’s new parliament after disagreement on the election of a speaker.

Online video showed lawmakers fighting on May 19, 2019, over the seating of businessman Mir Rahman Rahmani as the speaker of the lower house of parliament, known as the Wolesi Jirga. The body was meeting for the first time since controversial elections held last year.

Rahmani received 123 votes the previous day to defeat challenger Kamal Nasir Osuli, who had 55 votes, for the speaker’s post.


But Rahmani was one vote short of the simple majority of 124 votes in the 247-seat Wolesi Jirga that is needed to secure the speakership.

Rahmani’s supporters declared him the the new speaker and insisted he take the post.

Afghanistan Parliament Knife Fight Kamal Nasir Osoli د ولسي جرګی د پارلمان د تیری ورځی جنګ

www.youtube.com

“He has secured a majority of the votes and one vote is not an issue, so he is our new chairman,” said Nahid Farid, a lawmaker from the western city of Herat.

But opponents of Rahmani — the father of Ajmal Rahmani, a wealthy businessman known in the Afghan capital for selling bulletproof vehicles to Kabul’s elite — refused to let him sit in the speaker’s chair.

“We will never accept the new speaker and there must be a reelection with new candidates,” said Mariam Sama, a parliament deputy from Kabul.

Ramazan Bashardost, a deputy from Kabul, told Tolo News that the controversy over the new speaker could be resolved through legitimate means but lawmakers “are not willing to address the issue through legal channels.”

The results of the Oct. 20, 2018 parliamentary elections were officially finalized this month after months of technical and organizational problems.

This article originally appeared on Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Follow @RFERL on Twitter.

MIGHTY HISTORY

Did you know these 31 presidents served in the military before becoming commander in chief?

Serving in the military is not a requirement in order to become President of the United States. However, a surprising number of former presidents — 31 of them — served time in military ranks — in wars from colonial times, all the way up to Vietnam. That includes short stints, as well as those who put in decades, and enlisted and officers alike. Take a look at these past commanders in chief and their stints serving our country, before they did so from the very top of the chain of command. 

  1. George Washington, 1752 to 1799

By the age of 23, George Washington earned a spot as commander of all troops living in Virginia. And at the start of the Revolutionary War, he was named Major General and Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army. In 1789 he was elected as the country’s first president, unanimously, in 1797. He continued with his military service, then in the U.S. Army, where he was named Lieutenant General, until his death in 1799.

  1. Thomas Jefferson, 1770-1779

Before his term as the second president, Thomas Jefferson spent nine years in the Colonial/Continental Army. Jefferson was also a colonel in the Virginia Militia until he was promoted to commander of the Albermarle County Militia in 1775.

  1. James Madison, 1775

Another member of the Virginia Militia was the nation’s third president, James Madison. He was commissioned as the colonel of the Orange County Militia in 1775, but his health prevented him from going directly to battle in the Revolutionary War. Instead, he remained an acting officer, before leaving the military for politics. 

  1. James Monroe, 1775-1778

Known as the last U.S. President who fought in the Revolutionary War, James Monroe joined the Continental Army in 1775. He served as a lieutenant under Captain William Washington. Taking part in the Battle of Trenton, Monroe nearly died from a severed artery. George Washington himself awarded him for bravery, promoting him to captain. He eventually became a lieutenant colonel but left the military to study law under Thomas Jefferson. 

  1. Andrew Jackson

As a pre-teen, Andrew Jackson helped deliver letters during the Revolutionary War and was eventually held captive by the British. (Yes, really.) He later served in the U.S. Volunteer Army, the Tennessee Militia, and as a major general in the U.S. Army. He earned this rank during the War of 1812, where he was nicknamed “Old Hickory” for his toughness. 

  1. William Henry Harrison, 1812,1814

Former president William Henry Harrison earned a gold medal for his work in the war of 1812. After first serving as a major general for the Kentucky Militia, he commanded the Army of the Northwest, before resigning in 1814. 

  1. John Tyler, 1813

John Tyler has a unique military experience in that it was short, and that he served in a little-known militia, known as the Charles City Rifles. Tyler was a captain in this Virginia militia until he dissolved it two months later. 

  1. James K. Polk, 1821

Future president James K. Polk jumpstarted his political career as a colonel in the Tennessee Militia. However short, it was labeled wildly successful, as he helped lead a mission to extend the U.S. territory into the west as part of the Mexican-American War. 

  1. Zachary Taylor, 1808-1849

Zachary Taylor is said to have always wanted a military career. He fought in the War of 1812, the Black Hawk War, and the Second Seminole War. He earned the rank of major general in the Mexican-American War. His efforts named him as a national hero, and the title of U.S. President. 

  1. Millard Fillmore

Former president Millard Fillmore actually fulfilled his military involvement after he was the president. He joined the Union Continentals as a major. The unit was made of men over the age of 45 and who resided from Upstate New York. 

  1. Franklin Pierce, 1846-1848

Yet another president to serve in the Mexican-American War, Franklin Pierce began his career in the New Hampshire Militia. He earned the rank of brigadier general until he was thrown from his horse and received substantial injuries that required him to resign. 

  1. James Buchanan

James Buchanan was the final president to serve in the War of 1812. He is also the only Commander-in-Chief who was enlisted. Buchanan was a private within the Pennsylvania Militia until 1814. 

  1. Abraham Lincoln, 1832

Before his stint as one of the most popular U.S. presidents, Abraham Lincoln joined the Illinois Militia in 1832. He served during the Black Hawk War. 

  1. Andrew Johnson

Under Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson was named military governor in Tennessee in 1862. He was later promoted to brigadier general of the U.S. Army, a role he held until 1865. 

  1. Ulysses S. Grant

Ulysses S. Grant is the first president to attend a U.S. Service academy, having graduated from West Point. To date, he is regarded as one of the most recognized military members in the country. Grant served in the Mexican-American War, the Civil War, and stood as a general until 1869. 

  1. Rutherford B. Hayes, 1861-1865

Achieving the rank of major general, Rutherford B. Hayes fought in the Civil War. He was elected to Congress while still serving in the U.S. Army, despite not having campaigned. 

  1. James A. Garfield

During the Civil War, James A. Garfield joined the Army as a lieutenant colonel, eventually earning the rank of major general. At the time, he was the youngest to achieve this title. Like his predecessor, he was elected to a federal office without having campaigned. 

  1. Chester A. Arthur, 1858-1863

Former president Chester A. Arthur started in the New York Militia, where he eventually became a brigadier general. Though he found in the Civil War, he avoided the battlefield, citing family that fought for the Confederacy. 

  1. Benjamin Harrison, 1862-1865

During the Civil War, Benjamin Harrison joined the U.S. Army as a recruiter for volunteers in Indiana. Grandson of William Henry Harrison, he was named brevet brigadier general of volunteers by Thomas Jefferson. 

  1. William McKinley, 1861-1865

Fighting for the Union in the Civil War, William McKinley served for four years. He was named brevet major, but resigned at the close of the war. 

  1. Theodore Roosevelt

One of the legacies that Theodore Roosevelt leaves behind is his interest in military strategy and naval theory. Already working in politics, he actually left his career in 1898 in order to schedule a volunteer cavalry, the Rough Riders, to help efforts in the Spanish-American War. He was named colonel, before leaving to rejoin his political career. 

  1. Harry S. Truman, 1919-1945

Harry S. Truman was denied entrance to West Point after failing his eye exam. He later memorized the test in order to gain access to the Missouri National Guard. He earned the rank of colonel and fought in World War I. 

  1. Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1915-1948

Another West Point graduate, Dwight D. Eisenhower graduated as a second lieutenant. He fought in both World Wars, making it to the rank of a 5-star Army General in 1944. He retired in order to run for president.

  1. John F. Kennedy, 1941-1945

John F. Kennedy served in WWII as a lieutenant in the Navy. He earned a Purple Heart, among other awards for his efforts, before leaving due to ongoing injuries. 

  1. Lyndon B. Johnson, 1941-1944

Serving one year of active duty, future president Lyndon B. Johnson joined the Navy as a lieutenant commander after the attack on Pearl Harbor. He then served as a commander of the Navy Reserve, before finishing his stint in 1964.

  1. Richard M. Nixon

Another Navy officer was Richard Nixon. He served in the South Pacific as an active duty officer, and then, as a commander in the Navy Reserve. He was released in 1966. 

  1. Gerald R. Ford, Jr. 

Gerald Ford joined the Navy after the attack on Pearl Harbor. He served until 1946 in the Navy Reserve until 1946. During his time, he served in the Pacific Theater during WWII and the Athletic Department in the Navy’s pre-flight school in California. 

  1. Jimmy Carter, 1946-1953

Yet another Navy officer, Jimmy Carter joined the military during WWII. He worked on ships, underwater on a submarine, and helped create nuclear-powered vessels as a lieutenant. He resigned from his post in 1953. 

  1. Ronald Reagan , 1940-1945

Former President Ronald Reagan joined the Army as an officer during WWII, like many of his predecessors. Because of his eyesight, Reagan was not allowed to fight in combat. He was then assigned to the Army Air Corps First Motion Picture Unit where he helped make training videos and even appeared in some. Reagan left the Army as a captain. 

  1. George H.W. Bush, 1942-1944

The day he turned 18, George H.W. Bush joined the Navy. He was named their youngest pilot to-date, where he ended up going on 58 combat missions during WWII. His plane was hit with enemy fire, earning him an award at the rank of a lieutenant. 

  1. George W. Bush, 1968-1973

The son of George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush joined the Texas Air National Guard during Vietnam. He served five years, achieving the rank of first lieutenant. 

MIGHTY FIT

This is the single best exercise to improve your brain function

According to the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, the average U.S. resident’s IQ falls between 80 to 119. Those men and women who make up the “gifted” demographic average the IQ between 130 to 145. The Intelligence Quotient is measured by taking someone’s mental age (the age at which they operate) and divide it by their chronological age (the age that they actually are).

Then, multiply that number by 100. So, let’s do some math as an example. If your mental age is 14, but your chronological age is 10, divide 10/14. This equals 1.4. Now, multiply 1.4 by 100. You should get 140. If not, then you need to go back to fourth grade.

So, what the hell does that have to do with this article? Well, since not many of us call ourselves “gifted,” we can boost our brain functions by increasing this type of exercise we do in our daily lifestyles.


We can boost our brain’s function by including aerobic exercises in our workout.

New York University Neuroscientist Dr. Wendy Suzuki recommends implementing aerobic exercise at least three or four times a week to boost brain function.

With this newfound information, gaining this important increase depends on your starting point. If you’re a couch potato, you need to up your activity to at least three or four times a week to achieve positive effects. If you’re quite active already, you might have to increase your activity more to maximize the brain function boost.

Dr. Suzuki also recommends exercise in the early morning hours because all the brain’s neurotransmitters are firing. This comes at a perfect time as most American start work or school later in the morning — so their performance will be increased in time for their day.

In contrast, many Americans work out in the evening to relieve stress after a long day’s work. By switching a few of their work-outs to morning aerobic sessions, they can start to make an immediate change in their brainpower.

MIGHTY CULTURE

The “Shark Attack” was part of an outdated and costly training doctrine

Earlier this month, Fort Benning’s United States Army Infantry School (USAIS) announced its plan to retire the “shark attack”, an approach unleashed on fresh recruits during their first moments at basic combat training. Headlines and critics would have you believe that the Army’s decision to eliminate this tactic from the basic training experience represents a move to make the training ‘nicer,’ ‘easier’ or ‘softer’ on recruits. But the truth is that the “shark attack” is outdated, ineffective and likely does more harm than good in the long run; Its retirement is long overdue.

The “shark attack” is a purposeful stress-inducing attack on a single recruit that is carried out by several drill sergeants. It is typically marked by intense yelling, the issuing of contradicting commands and verbal denigration and is designed to assess the trainee’s ability to handle stress. According to Command Sergeant Major Robert K. Fortenberry, Command Sergeant Major for USAIS, the “shark attack” was designed to create a “chaotic environment that centered around applying physical exertion under stress.”


Their first battle: George A. Custer charges into Manassas

Sgts. 1st Class Alec Donahoe and Todd Owen, drill sergeants with the Mississippi National Guard Recruiting and Retention Battalion, motivate a warrior in the Recruit Sustainment Program during a “shark attack” Oct. 7, 2017, in Senatobia. (U.S. National Guard photo by Staff Sgt. Scott Tynes)

In a video articulating the new USAIS approach, CSM Fortenberry explains that this weeding-out technique is outmoded due in large part to the fact that we have an all-volunteer force. In other words, volunteer recruits likely already have attributes favorable for military service and don’t need to be thinned by the extreme technique which was used to “establish dominance and authority using intimidation and fear to weed out the weak of heart.”

In truth, Army basic training techniques haven’t evolved much since the 1970s and in some cases since the early 20th century. The majority of the core training techniques are designed to reinforce blind obedience and reactiveness to commands. While making sure soldiers are able to follow orders is critical, modern warfare requires soldiers who are adept at, say, reading the mood of a marketplace in a foreign city versus going “over the top” or charging machine gun emplacements.

The Army Vision for 2028, which was announced in June of this year and is co-authored by Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley and Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, then Secretary of the Army, outlines a stark evolution of the U.S. Army’s battle stance. In addition to increasing the Army to 500,000 soldiers, the memo outlines the increased use of “autonomous systems, artificial intelligence and robotics” on a battle stage of “high-intensity conflict, with emphasis on operating in dense urban terrain, electronically degraded environments, and under constant surveillance.”

Getting rid of the “shark attack” is, in fact, just one way the Army is modernizing its approach to preparing a modern fighting force. The retooling of infantry One Station Unit Training, or OSUT, also serves as the introduction of a new program dubbed ‘The First 100 Yards.’ According to CSM Fortenberry, the program builds a “critical foundation” by “professionally introducing the soldiers to the spirit of our great branch” and introducing drill sergeants as “leaders willing to share in the hardship.” The goal of The First 100 Yards is to “develop teamwork, identify informal leadership, establish trust, and build esprit de corps,” explained Fortenberry.

But removing the “shark attack” isn’t just about modernizing training, but removing the vestiges of the hand-me-down era of training that was preoccupied with spitting out bonafide soldiers as quickly as possible. Late last year, USAIS announced its plans to extend OSUT from 14 to 22 weeks. The extension is intended to give recruits more exposure to weapons systems and small-unit and individual skills in a less pressurized, hurried training environment.

But the OSUT extension is also a nod to how the military has had to evolve to accommodate the level of preparedness of incoming would-be soldiers. In a press release around the announcement of the new 22-week OSUT program, Colonel Dave Voorhies, 198th Infantry Brigade commander said the extension is geared toward establishing “firmer training fundamentals: marksmanship, physical training, land navigation, the ability to medicate, combat lifesaver skills, combat water survival, Soldier discipline, and more.” The extended OSUT allows for more time for soldiers to get up to Army standards while adequately preparing them for a faced-paced, technologically advanced battlefield.

Attrition among recruits is a perennial problem for initial training facilities like USAIS. According to recent reports, attrition rates across the Army training centers fall somewhere around 12-15%, a number that comes at a huge price tag. A study of Army retention published in 2020 by the Rand Corporation, suggests that the total sunk cost for a single enlistment — including outlays for training, wages, and other benefits given to recruits — is roughly ,000. This equates to a loss of roughly 0 million dollars annually.

According to a January report from Stars and Stripes, attrition rates of extended OSUT courses have fallen to below 6%, and on average, posted higher fitness scores than those from the 14-week course.

Training centers like USAIS also have to contend with new reports that link post-traumatic stress and anxiety to the heavy-handed methods often used in basic training, especially tactics like the “shark attack.” And while the induction of stress and anxiety into training scenarios has always been seen as a crucial element to preparedness, methods like the “shark attack” may not have that effect, especially on a green volunteer looking to serve their country. In fact, it “betrays the innate trust between teammates,” said CSM Fortenberry. “And worse — betrays the crucial bond of trust with our leaders.”

Their first battle: George A. Custer charges into Manassas

U.S. Army Drill Sergeant Sgt 1st Class. Aleman assigned to Foxtrot 1st Battalion 34th Infantry Regiment participates in the “Shark Attack” or fear stage of the discipline process, as trainees arrive to the First day of Basic Combat Training on 12 June 2017 at Fort Jackson, SC. (U.S. Army photo by Spc. Darius Davis/Released).

That breakdown of trust may prove to stick with soldiers long after they have left the training world. According to the American Institute of Stress, basic training environments which teach soldiers ’emotional numbing’ may in fact be unknowingly laying the foundation for PTSD. “Emotional numbing,” it states, “allows for the person to put aside feelings and do whatever it takes to survive or help others survive.” While this is, at face value, a positive trait for a soldier to have on the battlefield, it’s often that it remains as the mode of dealing with any stressors.

“Later such numbing may include a sense of not really being a person, feelings of not fitting in, that no one can understand, feeling or being told that one has no emotions, and not being able to feel emotions in situations calling for intimacy, tenderness, sexuality or grief. Efforts to avoid thoughts or feelings associated with the trauma may include isolating, substance abuse (drugs, alcohol, food, cigarettes), and other compulsive behaviors,” the report states.

Essentially, the “shark attack” may be a cornerstone of a training approach that has been pre-conditioning soldiers to manage their military-related stress through ‘mental numbing.’ This ‘mental numbing’ may then lead soldiers to suppress subsequent feelings of stress that arise from combat scenarios which could exacerbate the effects of COS — Combat Operational Stress — and lead to permanent patterns of PTSD. In short, there is no basic ‘un-training.’

Interestingly, the rate of PTSD among veterans since Vietnam has been fairly consistent. According to information from the Veterans Administration, roughly 15% of Vietnam veterans were diagnosed with PTSD resulting from combat service. That number was slightly lower in the Gulf War at 12%. For OIF and OEF, the amount of service-connected PTSD ranges from 11-20% year to year. There are a multitude of factors that contribute to PTSD. Further, the three aforementioned wars were markedly different in just about every aspect. That said, they all shared a common trait: the basic training doctrine.

Without further study into the relationship of the “shark attack” style training in basic training units and its long term effects on PTSD, it’s impossible to know if the two are connected. What is certain, however, is that the new approach ushered in by USAIS is a positive one, if only because it does away with the outdated training modules of a long-extinct type of warfare and refocuses on the needs of today’s soldiers to fight today’s battles.

This article originally appeared on SOFREP. Follow @sofrepofficial on Twitter.


Do Not Sell My Personal Information