training versus education
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cavguy
I don't think anyone disagrees with this - but - how do we educationally prepare soldiers for full-spectrum ops?
I, like many others, did not feel that the army provided sufficent grounding in COIN basics prior to 2003 as part of our professional military education, and as a result we committed major avoidable errors in tactical COIN 2003-2004.
I think the answer lies more in professional education versus training, as I look back at my OBC and CCC I realize nearly all of it was training. In line units, only three commanders (two BN and one CO) of mine had any regular sort of formal OPD program.
It may be easy to criticize Galula, but I would submit if more officers had read that book as part of a general military education (alongside all other works), we may have created less problems than we ultimately did in OIF.
Niel
I hate to sound cliche but when GEN Schoomaker was CDR USSOCOM (or CINCSOC back in the day!!) he always admonished that we "train for certainty and educate for uncertainty." The certainty is you have to be able to shoot, move, and communicate in any situation. We need to train and maintain proficiency in all our combat skills (both for US operations in MCO and to be able to impart those skills to friends, partners, and allies when necessary). But operations in an Irregular Warfare environment will always be uncertain and require creative problem solving. So we do not need to focus on training for IW. We need to educate for the possibilities we may face but also realize that we cannot identify every possible threat or complex situation. The "irony" is that I think if we really look critically at our military, particulalry our ground forces (Army and Marines) I think we will find many Officers and NCOs who have had sufficient education and were very adept at problem solving in complex operational environments and have done so since we began operaitons in 2001. They were able to do this because they were tactically and technically proficient, they possessed initiative and sufficient lattitude from their chain of command, and they were mentally agile and creative to solve or assist in solving complex problems. I think we find many of these Officers and NCOs at the Brigade and Regimental level and below. What is always the difficult part is developing and orchestrating an integrated and synchroniched operational campaign that supports strategic aims. Training occurs best in our units. Our PME for officers and NCOs needs to focus more on education and less on training.
From the White House Web site...
Cherry picked from the White House Web site on Defense (got the link from SWJ - thanks!)
Quote:
President Obama and Vice President Biden will invest in a 21st century military to maintain our conventional advantage while increasing our capacity to defeat the threats of tomorrow. They will ensure our troops have the training, equipment and support that they need when they are deployed.
Invest in a 21st Century Military
* Rebuild the Military for 21st Century Tasks: Obama and Biden believe that we must build up our special operations forces, civil affairs, information operations, and other units and capabilities that remain in chronic short supply; invest in foreign language training, cultural awareness, and human intelligence and other needed counterinsurgency and stabilization skill sets; and create a more robust capacity to train, equip, and advise foreign security forces, so that local allies are better prepared to confront mutual threats.
Hopefully that's no more than the campaign rhetoric
that it was carried forward to the WH Web site. I have no quarrel with any of that provided it is done sensibly and as truly needed based on a thorough assessment, is not done automatically mostly as a counterpoint to the predecessor and does not get in the way of full spectrum capability. We need to and can do all those things without going overboard.
I doubt he'll pay much more attention to me than Bush did but I can hope they'll do right instead of just doing something... :wry:
I'm not confused on that...
Nor, I know, did you say I was... :D
However, to clarify...
My goal is better training -- particularly upon entry -- which will give people a thorough grounding in the basics of performance required to survive and to be successful in combat. That training must include a smattering of education because the new career includes subject matter never before acquired or even in many case encountered or considered.
Follow on PME should be mostly education -- but the application of that education in practical exercises at the educational institution constitutes some training as well. Too many years of practical effort have pretty well proven that even purely cognitive skills can be embedded with three practical repetitions of application.
Aside from institutional training and education, continued self-education is required and in the conduct of day to day business and in field exercises, all previous training and education should be put into practice in what the Armed Forces usually call 'training.' As is sometimes said "Everything is training is everything."
Thus the conmingling. ;)
Sam can answer far better than I but I offer two points to consider.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Surferbeetle
Do you have any case studies which discuss costs in terms of time and money for the two models that you would be willing to provide links for?
While I am painfully aware that your parameters have been used by the Army (the other services do so as well but not to as great an extent) for years to justify marginal training that produces a barely acceptable product -- enlisted and officer -- who is sent to a unit which, quality of unit dependent may or may not better prepare him or her for the job. The good folks will also better educate and train themselves (both are required) while the lesser people will not exert the effort to do so (but will continue to be tolerated instead of being encouraged to seek another career). I think two points are in order:
- Individuals and units should not have to do that to the extent they now do.
- Is time/money the proper arbiter or should the arbiters be competence and proficiency to better enable the future survival of self and subordinates to insure successful mission accomplishment (as opposed to a flawed job that has excessive costs in many terms).
I'm quite conversant with the time/cost aspect having managed an Army multi-million buck budget for a number of years and thus learning how the system really works (not!). I also know that our use of those two inhibitors is a smokescreen. We continue to tolerate poor training because we are unwilling -- not unable; unwilling -- to spend what is required and to take the time needed not because we can't afford either, we can -- but simply because we've never done it that way and change is difficult. Every objection Sam lists has been used by many to me over the years -- and, as Sam says, everyone is hogwash.
Don't go making assumptions...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
While I am painfully aware that your parameters have been used by the Army (the other services do so as well but not to as great an extent) for years to justify marginal training that produces a barely acceptable product -- enlisted and officer -- who is sent to a unit which, quality of unit dependent may or may not better prepare him or her for the job.
Ken,
Just because I too have also been subjected to marginal training does not mean that I advocate it my friend. Like it or not however, time and money are measuring sticks, and what I am seriously seeking is a better example of how to do things which addresses these parameters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
The good folks will also better educate and train themselves (both are required) while the lesser people will not exert the effort to do so (but will continue to be tolerated instead of being encouraged to seek another career). I think two points are in order:
- Individuals and units should not have to do that to the extent they now do.
- Is time/money the proper arbiter or should the arbiters be competence and proficiency to better enable the future survival of self and subordinates to insure successful mission accomplishment (as opposed to a flawed job that has excessive costs in many terms).
I'm quite conversant with the time/cost aspect having managed an Army multi-million buck budget for a number of years and thus learning how the system really works (not!). I also know that our use of those two inhibitors is a smokescreen. We continue to tolerate poor training because we are unwilling -- not unable; unwilling -- to spend what is required and to take the time needed not because we can't afford either, we can -- but simply because we've never done it that way and change is difficult. Every objection Sam lists has been used by many to me over the years -- and, as Sam says, everyone is hogwash.
An analogous discussion would be on engineering specifications: performance based versus prescriptive. For military and engineering situations education & experience of the people one works with dictates what route I choose and/or advocate.
My personal vote is always for quality (leaning towards the performance based end of things) education & training...I have spent my money & time on three degrees; and over twenty years of my training time on military themes.
Perhaps we are not so far apart as you may think (internet nuances and all that...) I am seriously looking for a better way to do things.
Best,
Steve
May be a good board for it --a lot folks here can affect that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
reed11b
...How many disillusioned soldiers quit after one or two enlistments because they tired of being treated like children. There is a low ratio of prior service E-5 and below on this board, so this may not be the best sounding board for that info, but my personal experience working with vets suggest the number is higher then it should be.
One can also ask how many disillusioned LTs and CPTs depart...
Poor education and training works its evil from the bottom to the top. You and I talked about the bottom but as you go up, it's sort of telling that the pet song of several AOAC Classes back in my day was "Wasted Days and Wasted Nights." That may have changed and I really hope it has -- but I don't think I want to bet on it just yet.
Some would be amazed at the number of Officers I've met from long ago to recently who went or are going out of their way to avoid Leavenworth or the Pebntagon -- or the number of MSGs I have known and know that have tried or are trying to figure out how to avoid the USASMA. Many will say bad things about those kinds of folks. Possibly correctly -- but I suggest that those attitudes are indicative of a problem. The system forces in one way or another all those things as stepping stones and everyone knows that. Yet, some, a few to be sure, still try to 'escape.'
Been my observation that if you do it right, people fight to be included...
Niel, this should save you...
a trip to Leavenworth's dusty, musty archives to search for Major Gentile's thesis:
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc...c=GetTRDoc.pdf
Also of interest:
http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/awc/awc...s/mcmullen.pdf
Although this gem: “Advocacy or Assessment? The United States Strategic Bombing Survey of Germany and Japan” is proving a tougher nut to crack.
:D
Things are getting better, no question
I finally got a look at most of the basic / OSUT POI and there are a lot of great things going on -- still too short but progress is there. I get mixed reviews on OBC and generally positive stuff on changes to the CA CCC. If we can keep Outcome Based Training integration going all over that Army, that'll help. It's harder for the instructors but that's okay; it does take more time but that's needed in any event -- and it costs no more.
I think most everyone realizes that we cannot go back to pre 2001, it just takes time to shift the bureaucracy and get the nay sayers (who, like the rich, are always with us...) on board. Training is better than ever IMO -- but still needs work...
Speaking as a one time Bn and Bde Intel Sgt, put that young MSG on all the security Manager stuff so you can do the S2 gig properly. He'll get it done and still have time to help with the other (while hating me for suggesting that to you :D).