Disclaimer: Boot camp in the Corps has changed significantly since I left, so my reflections may not be accurate portrayals of today’s experience. Although I write about some of the negative aspects of boot camp, boot camp was an extremely positive experience for me.
As long as there has been a need for an organized military there has existed some sort of training for its soldiers. The United States Marine Corps is no exception. Traditionally, new recruits would be assigned to a unit, and that unit’s more senior personnel would be responsible for the new recruit’s training. The original reason for the training was to transfer technical knowledge and war-fighting skills. Marine Corps boot camp has added much to the original training. Today, boot camp is used to re-socialize individuals into the military culture, increase patriotism, and transfer war-fighting skills. There are numerous resources that have analyzed and dissected aspects of the culture and structure of boot camp. I would like to explore the recruit’s perspective, which is not very common in the media. (If you are not familiar with boot-camp, I would suggest watching Full Metal Jacket and Major Payne. While neither film does justice to the experience, there are aspects that I feel truly reflect my experience.) The structure in the military is clearly documented. The structure is supposed to be followed by all military personnel. In theory, this structure’s strict rules should lead to a uniformity in the choices made by military members, however this is not necessarily the case in practice.
In the military, the chain of command describes a strict hierarchy that all military personnel must follow. As you gain rank, you also gain responsibility for those with a lower rank than you.Thus, in theory, the hierarchy means that someone is responsible for every person in the chain of command, with many people responsible for the person with the lowest rank.
A Drill Instructor (DI) screamed at the platoon, “In my platoon there are three ways to do things: the official Marine Corps way, my way, and the wrong way. Which way are you going to do things?”
Confused recruits looked around and finally settled on “the Marine Corps way.”
“Wrong! Here we do things my way!” the DI responded.
This one-sided conversation directly contradicts the chain of command. This subversion, while rarely expressed so explicitly, was to characterize many of the interactions we recruits had in boot camp.
The military has a clear set of rules called the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Article 134 of the UCMJ is known as the general article and acts as a catch-all rule that can be used to punish someone for any activity, including activities that are legal in the civilian world. This article gives totalitarian control to those in power. This rule is in stark contrast to our existing civil judicial system, where individuals have to break a law in order to be punished.
The military has a strong desire to produce leaders who take the initiative to solve problems without the need for strict supervision. However, the chain of command, coupled with article 134, creates a scenario in which you never know when you may be doing something that would be disapproved. This creates an interesting dynamic in situations where you may receive orders which cannot be fulfilled legally, but you would be punished if you fail to follow the orders and produce successful outcomes. For the individual, the survival mentality becomes, “take initiative, get results, but don’t get caught.”
The DI addressed me, “Recruit Uehara, we are short X shoe laces, if we don’t have Y shoe laces by tomorrow, you are going to pay.”
I replied, “Sir, this recruit has checked the entire squad bay, there are no extra supplies.”
He responded, “Well, you better shit me some tomorrow then.”
My options were to sneak a Base Exchange (PX) run to buy the needed supplies, steal one from another squad bay, or not have them. I made the illegal PX run and was able to get the supplies, but not without considerable amount of stress. The following day, I was not punished, nor was I questioned about my ability to procure the supplies. I received a slight nod of recognition for achieving the goal.
The scenario above places the ordered person in a difficult position. Every possible choice is likely to lead to a penalty of one sort or another. Thus, the environment encourages recruits to avoid receiving these types of orders or try to break rules without getting caught. One of my fellow recruits managed to sneak through boot-camp without drawing attention to himself, and managed to avoid being placed in such compromising positions. However, the military also does not want individuals who try to hide from responsibility or orders.
As with all rules, there is some sort of remedial action taken to address infractions. For the most part, boot camp is a place where the rod is used more often then the carrot. Many times punishment occurs without an infraction of a rule.
Upon joining my platoon, I learned there was a greeting that all recruits had to memorize. One recruit was asked to recite the greeting. Having just learned of the greeting, he failed. He was instructed to “grab a friend.” Since we didn’t know anyone, he grabbed the closest person to him. His last name started with a “Z” and mine started with a “U,” so I was sent to the quarter deck for punishment. The DI asked him to try again, this time while I did push-ups. He failed again, and another random recruit joined me in getting punished.
There were 15 of us being punished by the time the recruit was able to correctly recite the greeting.
Unfortunately, the scope and magnitude of the punishment often do not match the severity of the infraction.
After completing a rifle reassembly drill, I noticed one of my fellow recruits was having trouble assembling his rifle. A drill instructor started counting down the time we had remaining to get ready for the next training exercise. I stopped to help him, knowing that only seconds remained. We managed to put together his rifle and raced for the squad bay. At the end of the hall, I saw that I only needed 3 seconds to get to my assigned position, and the drill instructor still had 5 seconds to go. To my dismay, the drill instructor deliberately sped the countdown to ensure I would not make it to my position in time.
For not making it to my position, I was punished for an hour and a half. This is particularly ironic, as teamwork, “leave no man behind,” and fairness were all values that the DIs tried to instill in us.
Punishment without rhyme or reason indicates that there are no real rules in boot camp. You can – and will – be punished for no reason. In fact, the rules are just another excuse to punish recruits. Furthermore, the magnitude of the rule violation has no correlation with the magnitude of the punishment, which devalues punishment as a tool to change behavior. This is extremely strange, considering that the military is an institution that is based on rules, and boot camp would be the place where the rules are the most strictly followed as part of the resocialization process. From another perspective, American culture is supposed to hold fairness and justice as core values, yet the military, the organization charged with protecting these values, does not always adhere to them.
During the third phase of recruit training, recruits are placed in charge of many of the core functions of the base for recruits. For example, recruits are tasked with preparing food.
Outside of the chow hall, there was a blue mailbox. New recruits were told to salute blue stickers on vehicles because they are officer vehicles, so the older recruits would tell the new recruits to salute the mailbox as a prank. For the most part, new recruits followed instructions and saluted the mailbox until a DI noticed and came over to scream at the recruits. Although the older recruits were not allowed to teach the new recruits false information, these types of pranks were accepted as the norm.
It is very common to look at institutions such as the military and see it as one monolithic organization. However, to believe the military is completely monolithic would be incorrect. Whether it is the recruit trying to avoid punishment or the drill instructor trying to instill obedience, at every level of the military you will find individuals who bend, break or create rules that subvert the organizational goals. Although all of my examples were related to the military, I believe this is true of all organizations. In any organization there is always a group of people who reject the organizational rules and say, “we’re going to do this my way instead.”