Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!



Not ega!

Gunny G's
GLOBE and ANCHOR
Sites & Forums!
By
R.W. "Dick" Gaines
GySgt USMC (Ret.)
1952-72
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED!

That's MARINE
WITH A CAPITAL "M"!

Lately, notice has been taken of several recent news articles regarding the U.S. Army.
First, there was an article a few months ago indicating that the Army has decided to begin requiring all its Soldiers to be both trained and ready to assume duties as basic riflemen. Then, more recently, there was an announcement that the Army Chief Of Staff would require the capitalization of the word "Soldier." These two articles have been e-mailed around, and posted to numerous Marine messageboards/forums with lengthy discussions ensuing. Some Marines have even gone so far as to think that "hey, they're copying us again." But, everybody seems to have an opinion on these topics, and they freely voice their opinions.
George Clark makes some good points on this, below...

"Dick
The words soldier, sailor and airman denote a person who might be a civilian, or the word could also be generic. There are sailors, sailing profesionally and taking cargo ships to all parts of the globe. A soldier is anyone who could be in any military, or even civilian, force. Airmen could be civilian flyers as well as participating in a flight piloted by others. A Marine, however, denotes a person who is a specialized professional in a specialized job. He is a soldier of the sea. No one else can make that claim. There is no civilian word to describe anyone that is a "marine." So, its MARINE! this is my description.
george clark"

In regard to the Every Soldier A Rifleman issue, the Marine Corps has always considered all its Marines riflemen, regardless of specialized duties assigned. "Every Marine A Rifleman" has been the emphasis and focus of all Marine training. Nothing new there for the Marine Corps.

And Marines, who consider and claim MARINE as our title, have been capitalizing the word Marine's first letter M, since, to the best of my recall, the late 1950s, possibly the very early 1960s, when a change was effected to the Marine Corps Personnel Manual (MCPM) requiring this.

Perusing books and other written material dated prior to that time indicates that the majority of writers, Marines included, did not capitalize the word Marine when referring to individual Marines, although there are examples where some few did so. However, there are some present day Marines who believe that "Marine" has always been capitalized. Not so.

Another somewhat related case, though not recent, that might be mentioned here is the Army's adoption of the old service hat, or campaign hat, as worn by Marine Drill instructors (DIs) since the '50s. The Army later began using the service hat for its drill sergeants after having observed Marine Corps recruit training methods. Of course the service hat was originally a U.S. Army item of issue dating back prior to 1900 for some versions of it. It was temporarily discarded by both Army and Marines during WW I, in favor of the garrison/overseas cap and the tin hat helmet. But subsequent to the World War, both Army and Marines returned to the campaign hat.

More recently, the Army provided its Black Beret, once the sole property of one of its elite units, to all soldiers.Conversely, the Marine Corps on the other hand, brought back its campaign hat (service hat) during the 1950s, not issued since 1943, for use by Marine Drill Instructors, and it has been restricted to DIs and Shooters since then.

And Marines are especially fond of pointing out to others that the first letter of Marines must be capitalized. Some of the reasons why this occurred are mentioned in the article below. Certain authorities, it is thought,(dictionaries, style manuals, etc.) later followed suit recognizing the change to the MCPM.

Marines are also apt to be quite vocal regarding various other Marine "firsts."
For instance, the pioneeering of amphibious warfare, close air support, "vertical envelopement," etc.

But, getting back to the subject of the capitalization of  Marine, and Soldier--I don't know if the recent  Army decision will result in  widespread recognition of the Army's capitalization of "Soldier," as was apparently the case with the USMC official capitalization of "Marine," but time will tell.

I personally like the way "Sully" views the matter. Here below, in part, is  from a writing he once posted, and it summarizes his feelings on the ins and outs of this whole topic, and it does so w/o getting into the brouhaha involving  English, grammar, writing styles, and so forth.

"Please note that I always capitalize "Soldiers," "Sailors," and "Airmen." In my book they deserve the same respect that I pay to my beloved Marines.
Semper Fidelis,
tientsin (Sully)
"
Sully's Website

And I find the above quite reasonable, and I think that best summarizes this topic for me.

Semper Fidelis,
Dick Gaines


References...
Army Times/Oct 20 2003
COS To Soldiers: You're A Soldier First!

The Army’s new chief of staff is tearing a page from the Marine Corps playbook and insisting that every soldier consider himself “a rifleman first.”

“Everybody in the United States Army’s gotta be a soldier first,” Gen. Peter Schoomaker told reporters during an Oct. 7 roundtable meeting with reporters in Washington.

The specialization of jobs in the Army pulled the service away from the notion that every soldier must be grounded in basic combat skills, he said. But Iraq has demonstrated that no matter what a soldier’s military occupational specialty is, he must be able to conduct basic combat tasks in order to defend himself and his unit.

“We’ve dismounted artillerymen in Iraq, and we’ve got them performing ground functions — infantry functions, MP functions,” Schoomaker said. “Everybody’s got to be able to do that … Everybody’s a rifleman first.”

That phrase echoes a Marine motto that has been around since at least World War I — “Every Marine a rifleman.”

Schoomaker’s emphasis on individual combat skills is part of a larger program to infuse the entire Army with a “warrior ethos.” Senior Army leaders are convinced that the focus on technical skills, particularly in the noncombat arms branches, has resulted in a neglect of basic combat skills.

“In our well-intentioned direction of trying to develop very technically competent soldiers in branches of the service, perhaps we lost some of the edge associated with being a soldier,” Lt. Gen. William Wallace, commander of the Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., told reporters Oct. 6.

Service leaders are looking to change the Army’s training and education systems, which have “reinforced the culture where you’re a technician first and a soldier second,” Gen. Kevin Byrnes, head of Army Training and Doctrine Command, told an audience at the Association of the United States Army’s annual meeting in Washington on Oct. 7.

“We’re removing those impediments,” in order to reverse that mindset, he added.

“To be a warrior,” Wallace said, “you’ve got to be able to use your individual weapon. You’ve got to be able to operate in small, lethal teams if called upon to do so. You’ve got to have that mental and physical capability to deal with the enemy regardless of whether you’re a frontline soldier or you’re someone fixing helicopters for a living, because you are a soldier first and a mechanic second.”

Back to basic soldier skills

Leaders are pushing forward with combat-skills training that will be mandatory for all officers and enlisted troops:

*Every soldier will be required to qualify on his or her individual weapon twice a year, Byrnes said. The current Army standard requires soldiers to qualify only once a year, although some commanders have their troops qualify more frequently.

*New recruits will qualify on their individual weapons in basic training and then again in advanced individual training, Byrnes added. Until now, qualification in basic training only was the standard.

*Every soldier, regardless of MOS and unit, will conduct at least one live-fire combat drill a year. For higher headquarters rear-echelon units, it might include reacting to an ambush, Byrnes said.

Top gear, real-world training

The Army embarked on the “warrior ethos” program shortly before Schoomaker became chief Aug. 1, but he has folded it into a larger effort aimed at ensuring “the soldier” takes priority over any other program in the Army. “Humans are more important than hardware,” he said in his Oct. 7 keynote speech at the AUSA meeting.

“The Soldier” is the name given to what Schoomaker said is the most important of the 15 “focus areas” within the Army that he has targeted for immediate action. Putting the soldier first also means making sure no soldier deploys to a combat zone with anything less than the best gear available.

Schoomaker is determined to do away with the practice that sees later-deploying units into a combat theater fielded with gear that’s different — and usually less modern — than what’s issued to the Army’s “first-to-fight” combat units.

Another “focus area” aimed in part at getting all personnel to think of themselves as warriors deals with the Army’s combat training center program.

The service’s so-called “dirt” combat training centers include the National Training Center, Fort Irwin, Calif., the Joint Readiness Training Center, Fort Polk, La., and the Combat Maneuver Training Center, Hohenfels, Germany. The CTC program also includes the Battle Command Training Program, which puts division and corps headquarters through rigorous simulation exercises called “Warfighters.”

The CTC program has received much of the credit for the Army’s successful performances in the Iraq wars of 1991 and 2003 and Afghanistan in 2002. But it originally was designed to train units how to fight the Soviet-style armies. Now, Schoomaker and other senior leaders say, the CTCs must change faster than usual to prepare soldiers for the operations they likely are to face in the near future.

“These combat training centers are the main cultural drivers in the Army,” Schoomaker told the AUSA audience. “How we train there dictates how people think when they get on the real battlefield,” he later told reporters.

Schoomaker noted that at the NTC in particular, the Opposing Force was designed to replicate a regimented, easy-to-predict Soviet-style threat. “Today, we are fighting a different kind of enemy, and we’ve got to be prepared to fight and win in different kind of terrain, under different conditions than we have in the past,” he said.

Units now arrive at the training centers under relatively benign conditions and are given time to prepare for their “battles” against the opposing force before moving into the maneuver “box” where the real force-on-force fighting occurs.

“We now have to look at perhaps having to fight our way into the training centers and fight our way out,” Schoomaker told the reporters.

Schoomaker and other senior Army leaders also are keen to increase the participation of the other services at the combat training centers. “They must be more joint,” the chief said.

Mix-’n’-match units

The new chief also wants an Army that is more “modular,” meaning one composed of units that can be mixed and matched without tearing apart other units, as occurs now. He explained the concept using an analogy.

“If you only got paid in $100 bills, and you want to go buy a can of snuff down at the Quik-Stop, and it costs you $3.75 … what do you get back? A big old pocketful of change.

“Then you go to the supermarket and now you’re going to buy your groceries.” But the groceries cost more than the change you have in your pocket. “So what do you do? You spend another $100 bill. And what do you get back? More change.

“And you do this until you spend all your hundreds, and then you’ve got a bunch of change. And now you try to aggregate this change into something that’s meaningful, and it doesn’t work. And that’s quite frankly a little bit of the condition that we’re in.”

The point Schoomaker was making is that every time the Army deploys a brigade combat team of armor or infantry, it must augment it with pieces of other units — MPs, aviation and artillery, for instance. Eventually, the service finds it has deployed all of its brigades, but still has lots of pieces of units left over, sitting all but useless at home station.

Schoomaker thinks the Army can get more out of its current force by redesigning it. Most divisions have three ground maneuver brigades. But Schoomaker wants to create five maneuver brigades within each division, without increasing the number of soldiers in the division. The first two divisions to return from Iraq, 3rd Infantry Division (Mechanized) and the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), will be the guinea pigs in this experiment, with their division commanders leading the redesign.

“I asked them, ‘Could you make yourself into five maneuver brigades, out of the three that you’ve got, and could you make each of those five at least as capable as each of the original three?’” Schoomaker told reporters.

“ ‘And if we gave you the right technologies, could you become one-and-a-half times more capable?’”

The chief said that the Army is not prejudging the issues. “These are just questions,” he said. But, “I believe in my heart that each of those five brigades can be as effective as the current one,” if equipped with the right technologies.

Staying together in the fight

Schoomaker also said he was trying to change the Army’s policy relating to battalion and brigade-level changes of command in combat theaters. Until now, the Army has insisted on enforcing the two-year command tours, with no accommodation made for the fact that a unit might be in combat. Thus, a battalion commander might leave his unit halfway through its one-year tour in Iraq because his two-year command is up and the Army wants him to attend the War College in Carlisle, Pa.

This policy has infuriated many in the Army, especially the outgoing commanders, who feel it forces them to abandon their troops just when their soldiers need them most.

Schoomaker is sympathetic to those who feel the policy should be changed, and has told the units preparing to deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan that he does not want midtour changes of command. Staying with a unit until it redeploys is “a fundamental role of leadership,” he told reporters.

Staff writer Matthew Cox contributed to this report.


Tuesday, December 23, 2003
Soldier – and that’s with a capital ‘S’


By Charlie Coon, Stars and Stripes
European edition, Monday, December 22, 2003

It’s Soldier, not soldier.

Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker has decreed that all command information products, including base newspapers, capitalize the word “soldier” from now on.

“The change gives Soldiers the respect and importance they’ve always deserved, especially now in their fight against global terrorism,” stated an October directive from Office of the Chief of Public Affairs, Department of the Army.

Schoomaker also has ordered his wordsmiths to ask the editors of Webster’s dictionary and the Associated Press Stylebook to make the change as well. Webster’s and the AP Stylebook are the reference books used by most newspapers, including Stars and Stripes.

“We’ve contacted the AP folks and they said they will consider it,” said Master Sgt. Jon Connor, chief of Army newspapers. “But if the change comes out it won’t be in the next book.”

Phone calls last week to Schoomaker’s public affairs office were not returned.

While military officials may be able to order public affairs personnel to change their releases, they do not have any command over the English language, according to those who would allow the change of “soldier” to “Soldier” in the dictionary.

“I don’t see how he could do that,” said Jim Lowe, an editor at Merriam-Webster in Springfield, Mass. “The word (soldier) is already established in the language. It’s a generic word.

“He can capitalize it if he wants to give it emphasis and make it stand out in text. As far as the dictionary is concerned, it’s still a generic word. I don’t think one person’s use of it will change anything in the dictionary.”

However, the word “Marine” is capitalized by both the AP and Webster’s when referring to a member of the United States Marine Corps.

Merriam’s Lowe didn’t seem to know why.

The Chicago Manual of Style by the University of Chicago Press does not capitalize Marine. A receptionist there said no editors or professors were available to answer why the Chicago manual did not capitalize Marine.

The University of Minnesota style manual also does not capitalize Marine. The person there who could answer the question was not at work on Friday, according to her answering machine.

Webster’s and AP capitalize neither “sailor” when referring to a member of the U.S. Navy nor “airman” when referring to a member of the U.S. Air Force.

However, the Air Force is getting into the style act, too.

Effective Jan. 1, all Air Force public affairs products will require courtesy titles when referring to someone for the second time, different from AP style.

For example, U.S. Air Forces in Europe Commander Gen. Robert H. Foglesong will no longer be “Foglesong” on second reference. He will be “Gen. Foglesong.”

“As a [public affairs] professional, you hold enormous power and affect people’s attitudes with the way you communicate to people inside and outside the Air Force,” wrote Brig. Gen. Fred Roggero, the Air Force’s public affairs boss, in a letter explaining the change.

Dr. Mario Garcia, president of Tampa-based Garcia Media and an authority on newspaper design, noted that Webster’s and AP both capitalize Web and Internet.

Garcia said some of his colleagues believe that capitalizing words other than proper nouns and the first words of sentences makes the English language more confusing.

As for Garcia’s own opinion: “Right now, I’d say that out of respect for the important work these people do, I’d have nothing against capitalizing the word to attach more importance to them,” he wrote in an e-mail to Stars and Stripes.

Added Lowe: “Maybe if the Army came up with another word — Armyist — maybe that would be capitalized.”

© 2003 Stars and Stripes. All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer / Web Notice
Site Design by LaserNet, LLC.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
R.W. "Dick" Gaines
GySgt USMC (Ret.)
1952-72
Gunny G's GLOBE and ANCHOR Sites & Forums
https://www.angelfire.com/ca/dickg/sites.html
GyG's Old Salt Marines Tavern~Interactive~
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069





eXTReMe Tracker