I answered Moderate: Challenge them only enough to see their character, but there are some flavors in between Moderate and Extreme (what's the point in breaking a person's spirit? You might not be able to get them back togther again).
Let me exaplain: I think that training, particularly Basic Training should be as hard as possible on purpose. That is, specifically designed and controlled to test the prospective candidate (soldiers, marines, airmen, guardsmen or sailors) and weed out the ones who can't make it - with retraining available for those who just missed.
I have always felt that Basic Training was too short (8 weeks for me plus in and outprocessing) and should be about 12 weeks long with much more weapons and infantry type training. This would call for teams of Drill Sergeants/Instructors to run the training and evaluate each trainee. Has anyone ever read
Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein? That's the system I envision here
AIT should also be expanded with more emphasis on weapons and combat skills (fire and manuever, patrolling, land navigation, convoy operations, etc.). This is in addition to teaching more of the basic skill set for that MOS. One of the things that used to (and still does) frustrate me is that we get PFC Smith back from AIT, but still have to spend numerous hours training him on what he or she needs to know to function in his or her duty position.
However, Mark, I am curious to know what you mean by
Quote:
|
For the purposes of training, I want that recruit to temporarily lose his basic civil rights, in order for those people to be legally available for the next part.
|
My rights were very restricted during Basic Training and OCS - far beyond what is normal for soldiers in regular units. This was necessary for the purposes of the training, but what else are we talking about here?