Friday, April 17, 2015

I know... I know.... Its because he's black... I get it





Army morale low despite 6-year, $287M optimism program



More than half of some 770,000 soldiers are pessimistic about their future in the military and nearly as many are unhappy in their jobs, despite a six-year, $287 million campaign to make troops more optimistic and resilient, findings obtained by USA TODAY show.
Twelve months of data through early 2015 show that 403,564 soldiers, or 52%, scored badly in the area of optimism, agreeing with statements such as "I rarely count on good things happening to me." Forty-eight percent have little satisfaction in or commitment to their jobs.
The results stem from resiliency assessments that soldiers are required to take every year. In 2014, for the first time, the Army pulled data from those assessments to help commanders gauge the psychological and physical health of their troops.

The effort produced startlingly negative results. In addition to low optimism and job satisfaction, more than half reported poor nutrition and sleep, and only 14% said they are eating right and getting enough rest.

The Army began a program of positive psychology in 2009 in the midst of two wars and as suicide and mental illness were on the rise. To measure resiliency the Army created a confidential, online questionnaire that all soldiers, including the National Guard and Reserve, must fill out once a year.
Last year, Army scientists applied formulas to gauge service-wide morale based on the assessments. The results demonstrate that positive psychology "has not had much impact in terms of overall health," says David Rudd, president of the University of Memphis who served on a scientific panel critical of the resiliency program.

The Army offered contradictory responses to the findings obtained by USA TODAY. Sharyn Saunders, chief of the Army Resiliency Directorate that produced the data, initially disavowed the results. "I've sat and looked at your numbers for quite some time and our team can't figure out how your numbers came about," she said in an interview in March.
However, when USA TODAY provided her the supporting Army documents this week, her office acknowledged the data but said the formulas used to produce them were obsolete. "We stand by our previous responses," it said in a statement.

Subsequent to USA TODAY's inquiry, the Army calculated new findings but lowered the threshold for a score to be a positive result. As a consequence, for example, only 9% of 704,000 score poorly in optimism.

The Army said the effort to use the questionnaire results to gauge morale Army-wide is experimental. "We continue to refine our methodologies and threshold values to get the most accurate results possible," it said in the statement.

The Army's effort to use positive psychology to make soldiers more resilient has been controversial since its inception in 2009. A blue-ribbon panel of scientists from the Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academy of Sciences, concluded last year that there is little or no evidence the program prevents mental illness. It argued there was no effort to test its efficacy before the Army embraced it . The panel cited research arguing that, in fact, the program could be harmful if it leaves soldiers with a false sense of resiliency.

The Army disputed the findings, pushing ahead with its positive psychology program that now costs more than $50 million a year. At least 2.45 million soldiers have taken a self-assessment test that is a crucial part of the resiliency program, and 28,000 GIs have been instructed on how to teach other soldiers the curriculum.

"The Army funds this program because the Army values the lives of soldiers and wants to instill skills and competencies that will enhance their connections, relationships and ability to mitigate stressors and exercise help seeking behaviors through their life," says an Army statement released last month.

But the internal data obtained by USA TODAY shows most soldiers today trending in the wrong direction. Two-thirds were borderline or worse for an area called "catastrophic thinking," where poor scores mean the soldier has trouble adapting to change or dwells on the worst possible things happening.




Other results:
-- Forty-eight percent or about 370,000 soldiers showed a lack of commitment to their job or would have chosen another if they had it to do over again. Only 28% felt good about what they do.

-- About 300,000 soldiers or nearly 40% didn't trust their immediate supervisor or fellow soldiers in their unit or didn't feel respected or valued. Thirty-two percent felt good about about bosses and peers.

-- In one positive trend, more than 400,000 soldiers or 53% said they were satisfied or extremely satisfied with their marriage, personal relationship or family. About 240,000 expressed dissatisfaction.

-- For physical fitness, nearly 40% were in good shape, 28% were borderline, and 33% did poorly.
Retired vice admiral Norb Ryan, head of the Military Officers Association of America, and Joyce Raezer, executive of the National Military Family Association, said the results are not surprising. Fourteen years of war and recent decisions to downsize or cut funding for the military have left morale low, they said.

A recent survey by the Military Times and a Navy Retention Study also show troops increasingly unhappy.

Saunders defended the Army resiliency program, known officially as Comprehensive Soldier and Family Fitness, as an effort that has resonated with soldiers."When we talk to soldiers, soldiers tell us about the life changes they've had," she says.


 




Or maybe its not because he's black....  Maybe he didn't spend double trying to figure out what is wrong in the military....  Or maybe its just because he is a bad leader, making bad decisions for the military just like he has for most every other policy he touches....







12 comments:

  1. I just love this paragraph:
    "The Army funds this program because the Army values the lives of soldiers and wants to instill skills and competencies that will enhance their connections, relationships and ability to mitigate stressors and exercise help seeking behaviors through their life," says an Army statement released last month.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Or maybe years of endless deployments without a clear mission has taken a toll.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't disagree with you Rick... I have often said that the way that this country engages with the world needs to change quite dramatically but saying that makes me an... isolationist... and of course and extremists and a winger....

      My only question is, other than attempting to alter the character of Americas military into something other than a fighting machine, what has this president done to, in any way, alter our mission or engagement with the other countries of the planet... except to cosy up to Iran and throw our allies under the bus?

      Delete
    2. Rand Paul also agrees with you ric.

      Delete
    3. To TS The alternation of our military was a plan began by Donald Rumsfeld, to make us leaner and meaner. God can't you guys remember anything past a couple years back. Leaner and meaner also means more deployments per soldier when you look at the scope of our military engagement with the world over the last decade and a half. I think probably TS (and this can't be prescribed to only one president) is our change in policy from take and hold, to winning hearts and minds. We try to build the peace before and during the hostilities therefore our troops don't get to fight the way that they were trained but have so many rules of engagement that they are utterly at risk and we utterly fail at our missions. I don't think who the commander in chief is really matters all that much as the control of the military effectively falls under the commanding generals more then the chief executive. The president may order them to battle but the generals conduct the war not the president. Not since Lincoln anyway. For example we got so deeply involved in Vietnam not because Johnson per se but because Westmorland and LeMay told him with this many more troops or this many more planes or this much more time or build this base, we can win. He gave them what they asked for and they were wrong.

      to William Yes he does but I still won't vote for him although if I were to vote republican he would be on my short list.

      Delete
    4. You are no doubt correct in some respects Rick… I have a lot of issues with the direction this country was pushed under Bush.. no doubt more similarly but more subtly under Bush Sr. and Clinton. Under the cover of war the establishment has been able to destroy or seriously erode much personal freedom we have long taken for granted. I would certainly appear that most policies put in place by Bush jr have been kept or strengthened by Obama… something we should all be concerned about.

      My problem is not with military readiness where troops are moved, resized and reequipped. You and I are much too far down the food chain to know the unknown in that respect. It is the change in military leadership and the changes in character that bother me. Commanders loosing commands because of an affair that is already publically know… really? Troops practicing in US urban environments with troops in civvies to ‘blend in’… just what theatre is our military practicing for… China, the Middle East… Africa? Removing Chaplin’s from their post because of a government shutdown… how petty. Forcing females into the combat arms when they as females generally don’t have the strength to carry the gear normally carried into battle. These are disruptive and disturbing and makes me wonder just what we are trying to create here… The only good thing, if we are indeed trying to turn our military might inward, is the distrust the enlisted ranks have for their commanders…..

      The military, under our fading and tattered constitution was put under civilian command for a reason. I disagree most completely with your assessment of Vietnam and in fact all conflicts after WWII. There is not a military general worth his/her salt that does not want unequivocal success of their given mission...In war that is absolute capitulation and surrender of the enemy. Whether we bombed Hanoi or turned MacArthur loose on China or continued to Bagdad in DS1, these were decisions from the office of the President, the president’s appointed advisors and his Secretary of Defence .

      Those generals in Vietnam may have wanted more power to prosecute the war but make no mistake, withdrawing from the top of the embassy was not how any general planned it and lets be real here… we could have completely flattened north Vietnam. Do you honestly believe that a commander on the ground would have waited until 1972 to take the fight to the enemy? Had it not been for Kissinger, we wouldn’t have even done that.

      Delete
    5. Of course we did not want to pull out of Vietnam with that climactic helicopter scene. But again, we have to look at how things actually were versus how we wanted them to be. By most accounts I have read, we did indeed have a chance to turn the tide late in the war, but by then, it had become so unpopular at home that the country had said enough is enough. Nixon's personal failures certainly didn't help matters any.

      A small segment of this country still wants to be perpetually at war under a misguided belief it will keep us "safe", whatever that means. For all of our overwhelming military strength, we seemingly had no goal in Afghanistan, and clearly had no goal in invading Iraq. Killing Osama would have given us a reason to go there, accomplish a goal and leave. I see nothing else we have gotten out of being there. My long winded point is that, wait for it, context matters. The context was that somebody needed to pay after we got attacked on 9/11. Going into Afghanistan was something people initially backed. Staying there endlessly, with no measurable goal, has been a disaster.

      I agree the Obama has been every bit the war monger that Bush was and because we have drones, it is becoming disturbing how easy it has gotten to assassinate people we deem undesirable. These are acts of war, IMO, and it doesn't seem like there is much oversight. Further, what passes for oversight is really nothing more than political vendetta. History if full of stories of empires that have fallen from being perpetually at war. I don't like the path we are on and no, I don't consider it weakness or isolationist to deeply question our military actions.

      Delete
    6. The reason we have never ‘won’ a war since WWII is that we haven’t had a compelling reason to enter any of them in the first place. When I say compelling I mean something so significant in importance that we are willing to kill women, children and old men to stop a threat to our ‘real’ security.

      As I said to Rick, our reasons for entering and escalating the conflict in Vietnam was not terribly compelling other than picking up the flag that France dropped. I don’t think that people in the US were ever ‘onside’ and even though I joined the military during that time, knowing I might go there, I, other than false bravado, saw no reason for us to be there. Hell, Australia had a far more compelling reason to confront a communist threat yet they followed us and really only because of commitments under SEATO.

      With respect to how it ended… again I ask, do you think that any commander worth their salt, watching the high casualty rate would want to do anything other than take it to the enemy. Given the escalation in 1965… a good general would have been taking pot shots at Hanoi long before ’72. Point is… the war was political and fought by politicians and not generals… and all because we had no business there in the first place. If our purpose was to ‘save’ the south from the North.. we should have entered not as some kind of coach/police force but with an ultimatum to the north… ‘Stop or Die’ and if we couldn’t do that… we really weren’t serious.

      Yes Max, context matters… If it was Osama we wanted, we should have gone there, taken care of business and gotten out… Problem is, there is compelling evidence that Osama was in our sights and we (the British as I understand it) were told to stand down… Perhaps military presence in the region has always been the reason and the loss of life is merely the cost of doing business… I can guarantee that you won’t see change in direction under either democratic or republican leadership… not one that is healthy for our nation and our people anyway…

      Delete

  3. TS has provided some statistical evidence designed in my view to show the current administration in a poor light. The views of TS are quite rightly his to publish if he so desires. It would have been better if the survey and the article had included the views of serving personnel rather than responses to questions we are not shown. For example, we have no idea of the wording of the questions, the notes, if any, or the preparation given before the surveys were completed. In other words, there is so much in this post which gives rise to a suspicion of political bias rather than a genuine desire to encourage constructive debate.

    So, what was my own experience during the twenty years I was a member of the armed services and in regular contact with our American Allies?. Firstly we had so much in common we could be truly described as brothers. We ALL bitched about the quality of the chow, the quality of the beer, the brass who we considered to be useless and the irregular hours we worked and the lousy pay and conditions. For any ex military types who read this; I am sure you see your own experiences replicated in my words. ALL SERVICEMEN of whatever nation, are only happy when they are bitching. Show me a happy serviceman and I think of the nearest straight jacket. In the same way, if I see a Republican or a Democrat content with the policies of the opposing party, I also consider the need for the aforementioned straight jacket.

    Finally TS. other than denigrating your Commander in Chief, what is your point?

    Cheers from Aussie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why do I post such a scurrilous smear?
      Other than the fact that this president commissioned the study on why his troops have such low morale and the study revelled…

      Other than the fact that this president has done more to change the character of the troops up to and including denigrating the belief systems that carry many of them through hard times…. And might I add, locking military Chaplin’s out of their assigned posts during the government shutdown.

      Other than the fact that this president has worked tirelessly to change the leadership of the armed forces both in numbers and character for political rather military than any other…

      Other that the facts that several retired military commanders have said that this president is deliberately weakening US military capability based on their considerable knowledge of real world soldiering…

      Then there is the story of General Carter Ham… oops… theirs that Benghazi stuff again..

      Other than the fact that suicide in the armed forces is higher than at any other time in history including WWII and Vietnam… no other reason.

      The glue that holds a military machine together is RESPECT. All this is simply lost on the Obama Administration. They don’t even know enough to know it is an extremely dangerous game they are playing. The security of the country is at stake. Regardless of the ‘soldiers aren’t happy unless they are bitching’ mantra, regardless of my issues of chow and hours etc, I had every confidence that my leaders were knowledgeable and capable not some political appointees of change but military leaders with experience and dedication to the mission of defending the US and its allies.

      With respect to the content and quality of the questions asked, this is THE PRESIDENTS OWN STUDY administered by his own cadre.... sorry if the revelations of this study that show this current administration in a poor were gathered by same... They just happen to underline a feeling I have about this man’s ability to lead the military or anything else for that matter.... Sorry if you feel calling out a particularly bad president is somehow dishonourable, I am sorry but presidents, unlike queens do not get a pass and being that I am ex-military, I now have the right to speak out about these policies whereas active duty people are not allowed to have openly political views so interviews just might be pointless.

      As far is whether the article related to this study is bias or not… I can guarantee that if there was any good news in it, Salon would have already run a ‘happy, happy, joy, joy’ article touting this president’s unfailing successes….

      Delete
    2. K,
      The Navy study, questions as requested.

      Delete
    3. Sorry for the deplorable state of the comments above... I seriously need a proof reader as it all made quite good sense when I posted it....

      Delete