Please note I'm now treating this topic with the seriousness it deserves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Greyhawk
But that part of the conversation is countered (in media reports and elsewhere) by claims that we're confusing young soldiers with mixed signals, sprinkled with quotes re: "this 'courageous restraint' award will only be given posthumously" then wrapped into the "ROE are getting our troops killed" narrative, and met with exclamations about the "wussification of the military."
I submit we are now as we have for a great many years confusing young soldiers with mixed signals. Mostly because we don't train them adequately but partly because the leadership is often hypocritical and inconsistent -- that mostly the fault of poor selection but also due to inadeqaute training (and education...).
The quotes you cite and the influence you mention of the Limbaughs and other talking heads in this country are due to the poor education proffered by the bureaucracy of this nation...:mad:
The ROE issue is problematic due to a lack of clarity in order to allow loopholes and a lack of candor by DoD in this as many other things. Not only the ROE issue but this unnecessary award kerfuffle could be avoided if they were more forthcoming and rejected reaction for pro active public affairs policies. I hate that 'pro active' phrase -- but here, it's appropriate.
The wussification issue is quite real (but then, I'm really old...) in many senses but certainly not in all. Suburban living trends that way. It was exemplified a few years ago when the Mountain Ranger Camp invited back a bunch of old, retired former Ranger Instructors to view current training. At a sit down afterward, they were asked for their opinions. The generic comment: "...place is full of wusses." The 4th Bn Cdr replied that, yes, the students were soft. The old guys responded "Yeah, them too..."
Quote:
...BECAUSE it can be wrapped into the ROE/'wussification' story line. (Which, btw, can also be blamed on Obama...)
WHAT! He replaced Clinton? Why wasn't I informed...:eek:
I had just gotten clear that it was Clinton and not Carter as I long suspected... :o
Not a new reward, for new type of war
I held fire in '05. Was ridiculed by the team that replaced mine, by my 1SG and had to explain my actions to the XO (Acting CO; CO was on leave). I asked "Sir, if I ordered SPC Joe ####head to shoot, would it have been legal?".
Three days later they came back with a "Yes". If we shot, for 72hours, we would have not known if we were going to Ft. Leavenworth for 30years.
Most of you on this site advocate a new (or at least a redefined) type of war (This includes Gentile). Yet, most of you also fail to advocate for a new type of recognition.
This is a failure of leadership
It's not new. The same sorts of things happened
in Viet Nam and even in Korea. METT-TC. Nothing new in that, either. There have been races between punishments and rewards for showing -- or not showing -- restraint during combat actions for a great many years.
Most notably and within the memory of some, a few people involved at My Lai in Viet Nam refused orders to fire on civilians and / or tried to stop that criminal stupidity; most got in trouble initially and were only later properly vindicated and rewarded.
Warning: Personal Opinion Ahead
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William F. Owen
Just because it is new to some in the US does not make it new. War cannot change. Warfare is changing very slowly and in no way we cannot comprehend.
The failure of leadership is to recognise and explicitly state the above.
I'll agree with WILF as to his statement above, but then drive him to an immediate reply with my follow-on comment:
The nature of war indeed does not change quickly, though TTPs adjust continually to technologies, METT-T, etc. HOWEVER; what I see here is that perhaps leadership is coming to recognize that looking at intervention in the insurgency of some foreign country as warfare is to put it in the wrong category to begin with.
It is not that war or warfare is changing, it is that we are slowly coming to realize that this is far more Military Support to Civil Authorities for a very violent Civil Emergency than it is warfare. Our ROE and Tactical Directives are slowly working us around to the back door on this realization, as we are hard set to be macho warfighters in name, but realizing that macho appoaches simply don't fit.
Were not being overly wussified warfighters, as Ken discussess; instead we are being overly machofied MSCA providers.
Once we properly categorize the nature of our engagement, the logic of the tactical directives begins to fall in place as well.
Okay, WILF, fire away...:)
Heh. Not really. That 'C' wasn't added until
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ranger94
The 'C' was not taught in Army schools until the late '90's.
after the turn of the Century IIRC. Before that, for about 25 years it was METT-T. The The third 'T' was added in the 70s to remind people they had to adapt to the developing foolishness of MDMP. :mad:
I say foolishness because there will not be time to do that in a war of movment. Viet Nam taught the Army some really bad habits and it also was buried so people forgot why we had those bad habits...
When I started, it was just METT but METT there was and those four are the parameters that'll determine based on your interpretation whether you live or die. The added '-TC' is just nice to have stuff, it isn't necessary as are the first four letters.
Only METT was used in Korea and Viet Nam, however, the 'third T problem' existed even without MDMP and though it was not part of the mnemonic at the time. The 'C' problem existed in spades -- thus accusations (accurate) of mass killing of Korean civilians and literally hundreds of incidents in Viet Nam. The new kids in both those war (and even further back, much further. Picture the problem in the Civil War...) had to deal with the same parameters and problems, they just had more aggressive leadership and a little more inclusive training.
Quote:
Pre-deployment training did not include "Shout, Show, Shove, Shoot (to Warn), Shoot (to disable), Shoot (to Kill)" unitl 2004.
For the 'Army' as a whole perhaps and for some units, others units did variations on that theme as far back as 1/82's deployment on OEF 1.5 in 2002. They did it again before going to OIF 2 -- and again before going back to the 'Stan...
Good units have always been better trained than the Army norm and have generally led the institutional army to new techniques.
Quote:
...We are asking new troops to conduct this type of "war". More importantly, Senior officers and NCOs are asking new troops to conduct these types of missions while the tactics are still being defined. (I submit David Kilcullen's 28 Articles from 2006 as example
Same thing occurred in Korea where there were some guerrilla activities and for ten years in Viet Nam with Galula precursor to Kilcullen just as Rex Applegate did for Korea (and WW II...). So none of this is new; it's just new to the people who are doing it now.
That's not a problem, the kids can cope -- it's the more senior types who have trouble adapting. That leads, if those leaders are into overcontrol, to hideound, ill-adapting units...
I'd also suggest the tactics had better be continually being defined -- and redefined and questioned and modified in view of experience. If they are not, the Army with static tactical principles will produce a lot of unnecessary dead bodies.
Quote:
The leaders are timid.
We can agree on that. :cool: (that,too is a VN hangover... :( )
Backing up a bit from the concept and looking at the motivation.
Perhaps this was really just an all points bulletin to encourage commanders to do exactly what most here would advocate is needed to run a successful counter-insurgency.
What the senior commanders in Astan seem to be trying to do is change the paradigm from the battalion sweep in MRAPs to the population-centric fight.
The trick is how to go about doing that, given the units in country come from all different commands and backgrounds. Find what is common to all and tweek it would be one way. Awards fit that bill.
I'm not sure that this was the intent (pure conjecture here) but were I to try to tackle the problem, this might be a method.
Nonetheless, I see a great deal of room for this to go wrong without some further clarification. The level of uncertainty on this forum alone makes one wonder what S-1 is churning out for the citation of the new ARCOM-R medal.