I'm frustrated as hell about the C/2-508 Infantry video

[jmowreader]

At http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46vYZFU1Dew you can see one of the more infamous YouTubes of recent days.

Here's the deal: 2-508 Infantry deployed to Afghanistan. When they got back, one of the squad leaders' fathers visited his son at Fort Bragg, saw the atrocious state of the barracks, photographed it and made a shocking YouTube video from the pictures.

Here's why I'm frustrated: How long has it been since 2-508 Infantry had a sergeant major? I was a Repair and Utilities NCO for several years. I never SAW a barracks that bad, because I had pride in my barracks and my first sergeant and sergeant major were always right there to make damn sure I did. We kept our barracks up. We painted. The R&U guy kept the plumbing in as good repair as he could--the things I saw were ALL self-help items--and we didn't live like fucking pigs. It doesn't cost all that much to maintain a barracks, unless you let the fucking thing fall apart. The shit in this video doesn't happen in six months--I saw things that took years to develop.

What you are looking at, in this video, is an example of 1960s Barracks Building Boom architecture that no one maintains.

The first thing that needs to happen is they need to fire the first sergeant. Then they need to bust that sergeant major down to private. And THEN they need one grade-A R&U party.

[DS1]

1. Wasn't it a 15 month deployment?

Someone should have been running routine maintenance in that place while they were gone.

But you're right, the command I was in would never even dream of letting us live in a place like that, or let it get even remotely close to that bad. Weekly inspections were vigorous, and it was up to the Police Sgt. to have damaged stuff fixed before the next one.

We'd be living in shelter halves before we were allowed back in there. Personally, I'd prefer the shelter half.

[Squatch]

2. Don't forget the officers in charge:

Health and Welfare inspections are not only for uncovering drugs and other contraband. They are also useful in determining the living conditions of the soldiers. The CO CDR should have been well aware of the problems in these barracks.

[jmowreader]

3. You wouldn't have had to go to a full-scale H&W inspection

Just walking down the hallway and stopping in a few troops' rooms on "other official business" will show you a lot.

US Army Europe got rid of "barracks inspections" when I was there. The logic was, if you wouldn't do something to a married soldier you shouldn't do it to a single soldier. I agree with this--there is no earthly reason why I have to do open wall locker inspections of the single troops when the married troops don't have to suffer that indignity. OTOH, if you're even a halfass NCO you will go to each of your soldiers' living quarters on occasion to see what their conditions are like. "Hey, if you're not doing anything tonight how about we hook up at your place and work on load plans for the next exercise?"

[Squatch]

4. Sometimes, doing a formal H&W carries a little more official weight

when problems are uncovered. Having an official document of inspection findings vs just some captain's random observations will get the facilities assholes off their butts...especially if you get the Div or Corps chains of command involved.

Besides, a formal H&W inspection would ensure that any collateral evidence gathered (drugs, etc) would be admissable in a military court.

[Squatch]

5. Another point: re married vs non-married soldiers

If a soldier occupies government housing (or if he occupies civilian housing directly being paid for by the gov't), then the commander can inspect those living quarters under the scope of a normal H&W inspection. However, the inspection must be executed uniformly: the scope of the inspection must be determined before hand (just search under the bed, wall locker, etc). Any evidence found outside that scope (where an expectation of privacy exists) is not admissable.