My first Question of the Year

[flyguy06]

With allthis talk about the Chief and the military Ihave a question to open up the new year.

Whats so bad about CAP wanting to mimic the military? As a former cadet, I cantell you thats one of the reaons I joined CAP and when I went on cadet activities including encampments we all liked the military atmosphere.

People have a misconception that if you are military you are some how in a totalirism environment. Thats not true. The military is probably the best place to learn leadership, decision making and stress management.

Whats wrong with stressing a cadet. I will tell you something. handling stress is somethingeverybody needs to know. Think about it, a 17 year old cadet soloing a Cessna 172. 3,000 ft in the air on final approach. All of a sudden his engine fails. The cadet that has never had stress management will flither around, get nerveous start sweating and probably crash. The cadet that has ben trained tohandle stress will calmly openhis POH look at the engine out procedures and land the plane safely.

Yes, when I was in Basic Training, I had Drill Sergeants yelling at me, making do things I didnt think were right or fair (life is not always fair) and the what not, but as I got older I understand the lessons they were trying to teach me. As a youth if someone saidsomthing insulting to me or something I didnt like Iwould probably go off on them, but after having 250 lbs DI's do it and me not being able todo a thing about it, I am able to handle people critisizing me and dont get upset.

So, the lesson can go for cadets and senior members. Now obviously I dont agree with corporal punishment or laying hands on people. Thats not neccessary but whats wrong with teaching dicispline? How will it hurt a cadet to get yelled at every now and then or have to do push ups? WHy is this bad? Someone pleas enlighten me.

[lordmonar]

There is nothing bad about it....we do mimic the military in a lot of ways.

Where it breaks down is that in the military every officer and NCO has legal authroity...that is if you disobey them they can send you to jail.

CAP is a volunteer organization.  We have not authority to enforce our orders or regulations beyond kicking out the individual.  In some limited situations we can force people pay for damage due to negligence but that is it.

The second way that it breaks down is that our rank structure is totally different than the military.  In the military they have just enough officers to fill all of the leadership positions and nothing else (at least in theory  ).  Ergo you very rarely see a lower ranking officer in charge over higher ranking officers.  The military moves the officers around to where they need them.  Non of this happens in CAP.

So with those two major differences any attempt to make CAP more military will meet only limited success. 

[Ned]

My response to your general question is that CAP's military model is a good thing, and has stood us well since we were founded over 60 years ago.

I would also agree that we could improve our military aspect by providing more training and holding members to higher military standards.  But the logisitics of requiring more training for our volunteers is daunting.

From the cadet program perspective, I wholeheartedly agree that appropriate military leadership training indeed helps young people deal with stress and makes them more effective in whatever career they choose.

But we are not very good at defining and implementing the stressful aspects of military training.

For example, your DI during basic training almost certainly had several years of military experience before he went to DI school.  At DI school he spent several months learning about the effects of stress and military discipline on recruits.  After successful completion of DI school, a new DI "OJTs" for several months in a training brigade learining from a more experienced DI.  Then and only then is a new DI unleashed on a recruit alone.

In contrast, CAP personnel working at encampments usually have little or no military experience and have never been to DI school.  If we are lucky, they might have been to one or two encampments before and attended a staff training weekend or two.  If we are unlucky, they are simply acting out their best recollections of what Hollywood told them a DI should act like.  Think "Full Metal Jacket," "Heartbreak Ridge," and "the DI."

Their hearts are certainly in the right place, but they simply don't have the training to be a good DI and impose military stress and discipline in a constructive manner without over-stressing the cadets.

(And actual military experience may not be very helpful, either.  Even if we could get a full fledged MTI to come TDY from Lackland, we would have to understand that she/he has been trained on, and worked with 18-20 year-old recruits.  The typical CAP cadet attending encampment for the first time is more like 13.  And there is a world of difference between a 13 year-old and a 19 year-old when it comes to handling stress and discipline.)

As you might have guessed, this area is of particular interest to me.  If you care (and are still reading at this point), I wrote and article for CadetStuff on this topic. Click here.

Thoughts?

Ned Lee
Director of Cadet Programs, PCR
(Major, Infantry, ARNG (Ret))

[flyguy06]

Good points. I will read your article

[DNall]

There is nothing bad about it....we do mimic the military in a lot of ways.

Where it breaks down is that in the military every officer and NCO has legal authroity...that is if you disobey them they can send you to jail.

CAP is a volunteer organization.  We have not authority to enforce our orders or regulations beyond kicking out the individual.  In some limited situations we can force people pay for damage due to negligence but that is it.[/quote]
That's a horrible argument. How many people in the military are doing just enough to avoid a court martial? Not nearly as many as the civilians out there doing just enough not to get fired, and even that is FAR FAR below average. There's that 80/20 rule - says 10% of any group will suck, 10% will be bad azz, & 80% will be average (percentages vary slightly w/ outside factors). That sucky percentage group in the military are the ones that require the UCMJ to make them do things or for you to follow their orders. It's VERY rare.

Those same people are around in CAP (percentages vary w/ quality & cultural norms we allow). We don't have the UCMJ, not since WWII, but as you mentioned there are a range of disciplinary actions leading up to dismissal. (If we chose to, we could use a contract system to create greater penalties enforcable by law.) Beyond that are legal ramifications, and I wish you wouldn't make light of it. It's a very strong tool in developing good order & discipline to know there are consequences to your actions & that you will be held accountable all the way to the end.

It's true that on AFAM you enjoy a level of protection that's pretty strong. However, if you are not in compliance w/ regs (flagrant violation related to the incident) than there are limits to that coverage (mostly on the criminal side). Also, after the govt settles their case, they can come back on you for a percentage based on your misdeeds.

Now, the other 95% of the time (including corporate missions) you're much more screwed then that. If you aren't in full compliance w/ all rules/regs/etc (including minor & unrelated to the incident) then you WILL be denied coverage, our legal will seek to seperate you from the case with them, they will argue you were in violation of regs & to the greater extent personally to blame for the incident (regardless of what happened), and then they'll settle for the lowest amount they can. You on the other hand will be fried. Anything less than that is VERY bad legal representation, & that is exactly the standard used across teh board by non-profits. Anything different is because they can't/don't need to lay the blame off on someone else, or they're feeling charitable at the moment.

That stuff ain't the UCMJ, but my friend the UCMJ is fair & impartial. This stuff is cut throat self-preservation, and that's what we have legal counsel there to do. You're free to volunteer & you're free to turn in your card & quit. Outside of that you are bound by things that the outside world are not & you can end up sued or in jail - under the right circumstances - for not following those rules.

You don't believe me? I can show you a dozen 19-21yo college fraternity Presidents in the last 15 years that have been sentenced to 5-20 years in prison for minor no injury offenses that occured when they were out of town & had no advanced knowledge of, all because they allowed internal rules to be broken which resulted in criminal violations they had the power to stop, & some prosecutor used the smae kind of rules used against Enron to go after these guys. It's more common than you know.

The second way that it breaks down is that our rank structure is totally different than the military.  In the military they have just enough officers to fill all of the leadership positions and nothing else (at least in theory  ).  Ergo you very rarely see a lower ranking officer in charge over higher ranking officers.  The military moves the officers around to where they need them.  Non of this happens in CAP.

So with those two major differences any attempt to make CAP more military will meet only limited success. 

That's a little true a little not. Certainly all those Lts coming out of flight school aren't in leadership roles for some time. I'd argue most junior officers aren't in that kind of role for quite a while. Then there's staff billets & on & on. Just like CAP, there's a few leadership positions & a lot of slots there to support them &/or develop people toward those ends.

Yeah it's true we can't move people around to fill vacancies. That's not that big a deal. The bigger problem we run into is the military cycles people not just around, but out. Our folks stay on (and advance) after they've surpassed their abilities. That LtCol that's burned out doesn't retire, he takes a break on cruise control while the Sq is commanded by a Lt he can guide/mentor/push around/whatever. So yeah that looks funny to outsiders, but still that's not so big a problem as it gets made out to be. There is a system in the military for higher grades to take orders from lower grades, it's called a chain of command. Our bigger problem is putting unqualified peopl ein positions & then moving their grade to match military appearances. And for that matter, strapping military grades on people that they aren't remotely qualified to hold.



We've clashed on this kind of thing a few times... The point is we don't have to be bound by the UCMJ to be VERY close to how things are done in the military. SDFs do it just fine w/ no more legal authority than we have. It's just about choosing to live in that system & culture, which is just what people in the military are doing - if they don't want to go to work anymore, there are penalties for that, but ultimately the UCMJ can't force them to do anything but make a choice between their obligation & the ramifications for not living up to it. The same is true in CAP, just the terms are different, and I find it useful to have members understand it that way. I certainly don't see how it could hurt.

[RiverAux]

SDFs do it just fine w/ no more legal authority than we have.

They have the full authority of law behind them in their state military codes.  From talking with SDF members on SDF boards it appears that they usually chose not to use it though and instead just kick out members causing problems rather than prosecuting them and sending them to jail.  But they COULD do it if they wanted. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

I have commanded units in the RealMilitary and in the SDF.  UCMJ actions were the last resort, and ONLY for flagrant violations.  I would rather use administrative/unofficial  corrective actions than initiate an Article 15 action.

The soldier who is chronically late for formations... Have his NCO do some wall-to-wall counseling, require him to document the purchase of an alarm clock.  Make him call at certain times to make sure he is on track in preparing for formation, and generally make his life more miserable than it would be if he were a responsible person.  Life will also be more miserable for his NCO, which will give the NCO incentive to accelerate the soldier's rehabilitation.

The soldier who takes off for 3 days without authority... THAT's the one you schedule an Article 15 for.

The officer who must rely on the UCMJ for obedience is a poor leader, and will not be effective in combat.

[floridacyclist]

I'm not sure what the problem is; once you get past the fact that CAP's authority structure is based on position rather than rank, it's pretty straightforward. If someone in charge of you tells you to do something, as long as it is not illegal, immoral, or overly dangerous, you do it. It doesn't really matter if you are a Maj and he is a Lt, he is still in charge. If I disagree, I tell him why and he respects my judgement enough to listen to me, but in the end I do what I'm told.

I would expect the same kind of compliance from my subordinates and would do my best not to give them orders that they would have issues with. For those who can't follow garden-variety orders, there would be some counseling about the importance of everyone rowing in the same direction followed by some enforced time off if the behavior wasn't corrected. Involuntary seperation would be an absolute last resort and would be preced by much discussion of exactly what the member wanted from CAP and what (s)he was willing to give in return.

It is said that folks can volunteer to join and volunteer to leave, but in the meantime they should follow orders. While that is true, a commander that doesn't consider the needs of his people when issuing orders will discover just how lonely leadership can be....especially after the rest of the group volunteer to leave.

Back to the original question, I personally prefer the more military approach. It is more cut and dried with less leeway for personality conflicts and politics. If we are using a military approach to following orders, I pretty much know what is expected of me and simply git 'r done. When noone is clearly in charge, it gets confusing and easy to step on the wrong toes.

I'm sure there is an ideal somewhere there in the middle between Captain Bligh and Mr Rogers

[RiverAux]

How will it hurt a cadet to get yelled at every now and then or have to do push ups? WHy is this bad?

I think Ned said it best....our folks just do not have the training to be able to administer that sort of program, especially since most of the time CAP units operate very independently with very little oversight.  Since it is not easy to keep tabs on how programs are being implemented on a day to day basis it is easier to not allow that sort of thing. 

Besides, all we're doing is giving cadets a taste of what military life involves.  Once they're old enough they can join ROTC or enlist and get the real thing. 

[bosshawk]

You folks might pay attention to what Ned has said and what he may say in the future.  I happen to know him and have seen him at work in lots of scenarios.  His signature block is very modest: ask him in PM what his other qualifications are.  You, too, will be impressed.

[capchiro]

The reality of the situation is that CAP regulations define hazing and it would appear that "stressing" a cadet would very likely fall within the hazing area.  We work with a wide range of cadets, male and female, aged 12-21.  Some are in good physical shape, some not.  Our program is part-time and is a much lower priority than school for these cadets.  If they choose to go into the military as a profession, they will be trained and stressed to the delight of the active duty military.  Until then we need to stay within our boundries and attempt to motivate and encourage our cadets to reach the goals and potentials they have at the time we have them.  Our program is an excellent program and we have had many unqualified successes.  Many past cadets have been and are great military/civilian leaders.  With that said, it would appear to this old dog that we are trying to take ourselves way too seriously and may possibly jeopradize the best youth/cadet program in the world for an attempt to become more military and possibly become more active in ES, when in reality, ground teams and searches will become less utilized as ELT's become more coupled with GPS, etc.  If there is a need for a "hard core" ground team/emergency services group of senior and/or older cadets, then perhaps they could form new squadrons that emphasize such.  A squadron can not do "all" things really well.  If I have a great cadet program going, should I risk that to start putting a lot of attention to ES to the detriment of the cadets that are doing well and need my attention? No one stops a new squadron from starting and if you want to emphasize one part of the program more than another, go for it.  There is room in the current program for all of us, just don't expect those of us that have a good program going to change our program to meet your expectations.  Somehow, I turn out good cadets without hazing them.. As usual, jmho. 

[flyguy06]

There is nothing bad about it....we do mimic the military in a lot of ways.

Where it breaks down is that in the military every officer and NCO has legal authroity...that is if you disobey them they can send you to jail.

CAP is a volunteer organization.  We have not authority to enforce our orders or regulations beyond kicking out the individual.  In some limited situations we can force people pay for damage due to negligence but that is it.

That's a horrible argument. How many people in the military are doing just enough to avoid a court martial? Not nearly as many as the civilians out there doing just enough not to get fired, and even that is FAR FAR below average. There's that 80/20 rule - says 10% of any group will suck, 10% will be bad azz, & 80% will be average (percentages vary slightly w/ outside factors). That sucky percentage group in the military are the ones that require the UCMJ to make them do things or for you to follow their orders. It's VERY rare.

Those same people are around in CAP (percentages vary w/ quality & cultural norms we allow). We don't have the UCMJ, not since WWII, but as you mentioned there are a range of disciplinary actions leading up to dismissal. (If we chose to, we could use a contract system to create greater penalties enforcable by law.) Beyond that are legal ramifications, and I wish you wouldn't make light of it. It's a very strong tool in developing good order & discipline to know there are consequences to your actions & that you will be held accountable all the way to the end.

It's true that on AFAM you enjoy a level of protection that's pretty strong. However, if you are not in compliance w/ regs (flagrant violation related to the incident) than there are limits to that coverage (mostly on the criminal side). Also, after the govt settles their case, they can come back on you for a percentage based on your misdeeds.

Now, the other 95% of the time (including corporate missions) you're much more screwed then that. If you aren't in full compliance w/ all rules/regs/etc (including minor & unrelated to the incident) then you WILL be denied coverage, our legal will seek to seperate you from the case with them, they will argue you were in violation of regs & to the greater extent personally to blame for the incident (regardless of what happened), and then they'll settle for the lowest amount they can. You on the other hand will be fried. Anything less than that is VERY bad legal representation, & that is exactly the standard used across teh board by non-profits. Anything different is because they can't/don't need to lay the blame off on someone else, or they're feeling charitable at the moment.

That stuff ain't the UCMJ, but my friend the UCMJ is fair & impartial. This stuff is cut throat self-preservation, and that's what we have legal counsel there to do. You're free to volunteer & you're free to turn in your card & quit. Outside of that you are bound by things that the outside world are not & you can end up sued or in jail - under the right circumstances - for not following those rules.

You don't believe me? I can show you a dozen 19-21yo college fraternity Presidents in the last 15 years that have been sentenced to 5-20 years in prison for minor no injury offenses that occured when they were out of town & had no advanced knowledge of, all because they allowed internal rules to be broken which resulted in criminal violations they had the power to stop, & some prosecutor used the smae kind of rules used against Enron to go after these guys. It's more common than you know.

The second way that it breaks down is that our rank structure is totally different than the military.  In the military they have just enough officers to fill all of the leadership positions and nothing else (at least in theory  ).  Ergo you very rarely see a lower ranking officer in charge over higher ranking officers.  The military moves the officers around to where they need them.  Non of this happens in CAP.

So with those two major differences any attempt to make CAP more military will meet only limited success. 

That's a little true a little not. Certainly all those Lts coming out of flight school aren't in leadership roles for some time. I'd argue most junior officers aren't in that kind of role for quite a while. Then there's staff billets & on & on. Just like CAP, there's a few leadership positions & a lot of slots there to support them &/or develop people toward those ends.

Yeah it's true we can't move people around to fill vacancies. That's not that big a deal. The bigger problem we run into is the military cycles people not just around, but out. Our folks stay on (and advance) after they've surpassed their abilities. That LtCol that's burned out doesn't retire, he takes a break on cruise control while the Sq is commanded by a Lt he can guide/mentor/push around/whatever. So yeah that looks funny to outsiders, but still that's not so big a problem as it gets made out to be. There is a system in the military for higher grades to take orders from lower grades, it's called a chain of command. Our bigger problem is putting unqualified peopl ein positions & then moving their grade to match military appearances. And for that matter, strapping military grades on people that they aren't remotely qualified to hold.



We've clashed on this kind of thing a few times... The point is we don't have to be bound by the UCMJ to be VERY close to how things are done in the military. SDFs do it just fine w/ no more legal authority than we have. It's just about choosing to live in that system & culture, which is just what people in the military are doing - if they don't want to go to work anymore, there are penalties for that, but ultimately the UCMJ can't force them to do anything but make a choice between their obligation & the ramifications for not living up to it. The same is true in CAP, just the terms are different, and I find it useful to have members understand it that way. I certainly don't see how it could hurt.
[/quote]

I am not suggesting violating the rules. I am suggesting changing the rules. So, what are we spposed to do? Continue to run this Boy Scout type operation (No Offense to the BSA, I used to be one myself).

[flyguy06]

The reality of the situation is that CAP regulations define hazing and it would appear that "stressing" a cadet would very likely fall within the hazing area.  We work with a wide range of cadets, male and female, aged 12-21.  Some are in good physical shape, some not.  Our program is part-time and is a much lower priority than school for these cadets.  If they choose to go into the military as a profession, they will be trained and stressed to the delight of the active duty military.  Until then we need to stay within our boundries and attempt to motivate and encourage our cadets to reach the goals and potentials they have at the time we have them.  Our program is an excellent program and we have had many unqualified successes.  Many past cadets have been and are great military/civilian leaders.  With that said, it would appear to this old dog that we are trying to take ourselves way too seriously and may possibly jeopradize the best youth/cadet program in the world for an attempt to become more military and possibly become more active in ES, when in reality, ground teams and searches will become less utilized as ELT's become more coupled with GPS, etc.  If there is a need for a "hard core" ground team/emergency services group of senior and/or older cadets, then perhaps they could form new squadrons that emphasize such.  A squadron can not do "all" things really well.  If I have a great cadet program going, should I risk that to start putting a lot of attention to ES to the detriment of the cadets that are doing well and need my attention? No one stops a new squadron from starting and if you want to emphasize one part of the program more than another, go for it.  There is room in the current program for all of us, just don't expect those of us that have a good program going to change our program to meet your expectations.  Somehow, I turn out good cadets without hazing them.. As usual, jmho. 

I just know what the cadet progam did for me. I am not suggesting training cadets to be soldiers. No way is that appropriate. I am suggesting challenging them mentally and physically. Not coddling them like children. You are right we do have a range of cadets ages 12-21. Which I thik was another mistake to lower the age. I dont consider cadets to be children. Children dont go out on search and rescue missions where they may find a crash site that may contain dead folks. It takes a mature individual to handle something like that. It takes traning. A child doesnt have the mental capacity to deal with that. A well trained disciplined cadet just may. Also, a lot of these 16-20 year old cadets like to wear the buzz cuts and when they are in uniform, they rae mistaken for military members. It may not be done on purpose but thats the fact. So, they need to carry themselves as such.

I dont think making the cadet program more military will jeperdize the cadet program. I think it will only enhance it. Again, and Ihate to sound like an old WWII guy, but it worked back inthe day ther eis no reason it cannot work today. Infact, its probably needed more today than it was 60 years ago. Most cadets I talk to want that hardcore training. They join CAP because hey believe it is psudo-military and when they find out its a psudo BSA they leave. thats why our attrition rate is so high.  Cadets want to be challenged.

I agree that hazing is wrong. But the reasonhazing started is because we, as Senior members failed to mentor senior cadets and teach them how to lead. We simply said "Ok, you are a cadet officer, go do your thing" We didnt show them how to lead. We didnt show them how to correct negative behavior. They learned it off the war movies which is incorrect. What I find in many units is that they are so busy worrying about ES they let the CP fall to the wasteside or recruit a "CAP mom" to run it and she is usually just there to support her cadet. We ned deicated young Senior Members that have cadet experience to run the cadet program. They have been there and they know how it is done.

I am young so please tell me why this is a bad idea?