Training for Full Spectrum Operations
Training for Full Spectrum Operations
The Army has released FM 7-0: Training for Full Spectrum Operations:
Quote:
The operational concept requires the Army to be ready to conduct simultaneous offense, defense, and stability or civil support operations anywhere along the spectrum of conflict, from General War to Stable Peace.
FM 7-0 is designed to help develop an expeditionary Army, comprised of Soldiers and Civilians experienced and knowledgeable enough to be comfortable with operating anywhere along the spectrum of conflict in any type of operation, under any conditions.
Its principles and concepts are intended to produce agile leaders, who can rapidly and easily adapt to changing, ambiguous situations.
The manual’s four chapters address the breadth and depth of Army training concepts – “the what" of Army training. The web-based Army Training Network will address – “the how” of Army training. It will provide examples of concepts in FM 7-0; training lessons, examples, and best practices for implementing the 7-0 concepts; and solutions to training challenges. The 2008 version of Field Manual 7-0 is the 3rd edition of the Army’s training management doctrine. Previous editions were published in 1988 as FM 25-100, Training the Force, and in 2002 as FM 7-0, Training the Force. However, this is the first version to be completely synchronized with our capstone operations manual.
FM 7-0 Download
FM 7-0 Information Paper
FM 7-0 Media Package
Part spectrum training for full spectrum operations?
Cross posted from the SWJ Blog.
The Information Paper says several things on which the FM does not appear to follow through:
"Change the Army mindset. . . no return to pre-9-11 focus on offense and defense in MCO."
"What has not changed is that we’re still a standards-based force; however, we must think, train, and educate differently to develop agile leaders and an expeditionary force"
In the first case, the FM largely is a pre 9-11 regurgitation. It does offer changes but they are in verbiage and not really so much in training practice. I could not find a single mention of Outcome Based Training. A sad and unbelievable omission. Fortunately, Fort Jackson appears to be ahead of CAC; see "Outcomes-Based warrior Training".
Outcome Based Training emphasizes the development of the individual based on operational expectations; tangible skills, intangible attributes and relatedness of tasks which results in Soldiers, leaders and units who have learned to teach themselves, are able to solve problems as individuals and teams, have realized an increase in intangible attributes and mastery of basic skills.
The FM itself is not the incremental change I had hoped for. I would have like a radical change to the training environment but since I know the Army doesn't do radical I hoped for an incremental change. Didn't really get it. To be sure there are some changes but most add to the training burden...
It seems to me to be an overly wordy document, i think it is too long and has too many redundancies and thus will not be read and used as it should be.
I do not think the FM places nearly enough emphasis on the fostering of initiative and acceptance of innovative solutions by subordinates. For example, Paragraph 2-3 states the Commander is the units primary training manger (true) and primary trainer (wrong) -- he cannot be and that phrasing sends a message that he should strive to do so, thus encouraging micromanagement and deterring delegation and the fostering of initiative. Words are important....
Paragraph 2-42 states "Army training is performed to standard." Having been around at the birth of tasks, conditions and standards as a training regimen and having disagreed vehemently with the concept at the time -- it is a good process for training a hastily mobilized, draftee based Army, it is totally inadequate process for a professional force with higher standards -- and having watched the Army and the process for the subsequent 33 years I remain convinced it is not a good training system.
However, I am glad to note the Army has finally acknowledged that conditions for conduct of a task can vary widely. Now if they'll just realize that the standard can also vary depending on external parameters. That's unfair; most realize that -- should have said if the Army will just acknowledge that...
Had to do some research first
I came across this little tidbit:
http://www.ausa.org/publications/arm...nts/Steele.pdf
1st thing that struck me:
Quote:
Outcomes-based training—training that
emphasizes end product over lockstep linear process and stresses flexibility
and adaptability among trainers
Based on this:
Quote:
Ken White: I do not think the FM places nearly enough emphasis on the fostering of initiative and acceptance of innovative solutions by subordinates. For example, Paragraph 2-3 states the Commander is the units primary training manger (true) and primary trainer (wrong) -- he cannot be and that phrasing sends a message that he should strive to do so, thus encouraging micromanagement and deterring delegation and the fostering of initiative. Words are important....
How much flexibilty will the trainer have? Can we change enough to get to where we need to go or will we continue to sink further down the micromnagement cess pool?
One of the single best changes IMO too bad it took us this long to get there.
Quote:
Weapons handling is a basic combat training fundamental today. BCT soldiers are issued a weapon within three days of arrival, and it stays with them throughout their training, teaching them weapon accountability, clearing
procedures and how to avoid negligent discharges. It’s called “weapons immersion.”
Then as we continue along again the word commanders......
Quote:
Col. Currey explained outcomes-based training (OBT) to his fellow trainers by writing: “OBT is often best understood as commanders being allowed to be flexible and adaptive. When they determine the proper outcome, they can reverse-engineer the process to achieve the desired outcome. In the raditionally restrictive initial entry training environment, many regulations and limited resources stopped junior leaders from pursuing a higher level of training. The mental intangibles delineated in the five established outcomes require leaders to engage soldiers thoroughly.
Now back to leaders in general.
Quote:
“One size does not fit all in training. Hence, junior leaders need to vary techniques to realize the best, most effective results. Leaders may have to try new ideas to see what works—being flexible until the best outcome is achieved.”
So which is it? This is what I always thought was squad training, derrived by the squad leader based on strengths and weaknesses. Amazing what a little imagination can do in training. I'll take it if we are truely going to try an incorporate this throughout. My only fear is that with the state of the Army today how effective can we be at this? Perhaps 5-10 years down the road when these new recruits move into positions of influence.
Quote:
The five main “desired outcomes” (goals) of BCT assert that each graduate
is:
1. A proud team member, possessing the character and commitment to live
the Army Values and Warrior Ethos.
2. Confident, adaptable, mentally agile and accountable for [his or her]
own actions.
Impress the hell out of me if this one is true, someone taking responsibility, in today's age.......
Quote:
3. Physically, mentally, spiritually and emotionally ready to fight as a
ground combatant.
They just don't have to be physically fit or within any kind of height/weight standard.
Quote:
4. A master of critical combat skills and proficient in basic soldier skills in all environments.
Would these be the warrior tasks? What environments?
Quote:
5. Self-disciplined, willing and an adaptive thinker, capable of solving
problems commensurate with position and experience.
Hope I'm not being over critical, I like the thought behind it, but also can be dangerous in the wrong hands. I'm with Ken on the old task, conditions, and standards. Was kinda funny how the conditions rarely if ever changed. I just have a hard time believing this soldiers are truly being pushed to new limits they didn't know they had.
