Basic infantry skills improve our enemies
I'm not a infantry tactics person, but this WoTR article struck a chord:
Quote:
What has been overlooked in the debate over the combat potential of violent extremists is the diffusion of something much more rudimentary and potentially more lethal: basic infantry skills.
This strategy will not change. We do, however, argue that the marginal improvement of tactical prowess in violent non-state groups may lead to outcomes that have strategic implications for global U.S. counter-terrorist and counter-insurgent operations in two other ways.
In sum, improved tactical prowess may open the door for strategic success for these (insurgent / terrorist) groups, despite their continued inability to defeat U.S. forces in conventional battle.
Link:https://warontherocks.com/2018/02/sh...antry-tactics/
I could not readily find a similar thread, although those on IEDs follow the theme.
The authors have many points and even some answers, for example:
Quote:
As a consequence, the U.S. military should stop being one of the best suppliers of tactical instruction to the bad guys.
Is this a response to the problem?
hat tip to WoTR (again) for this article:
Quote:
Army and Marine close combat units have remained at the bottom of their respective service’s resource priority lists. More than 60 years ago,
Field Marshall William Joseph Slim explained the flaws with this approach: “Armies do not win wars by means of a few bodies of super-soldiers but by the average quality of their standard units.” This is why the Close Combat Lethality Task Force is so fundamental for the future of U.S. national security policy.
Link:https://warontherocks.com/2018/03/te...bat-lethality/
