MaybeOriginally Posted by Fuchs
Which priorities? Political, military, both?You got your priorities wrong.
Especially if the peace is being guaranteed by the USTo have a super army is not important.
To maintain peace is important.
On the contrary if there is a war on the go it should be used to test weapon systems and soldiers in battle. To neglect to do this is sheer insanity. This is the only time I could support short tours and that would be to expose as many soldiers as possible to war time conditions and hopefully combat before peace breaks out. Helps to focus a soldiers mind.Accordingly, you DO NOT WANT your officer corps to be combat-experienced!
You mean the politicians screwed up again?A combat-experienced officer corps is a symptom of a national security policy failure!
From a military point of view soldiers must be as best prepared for action as possible in the event of war breaking out. Other wise why have a military?
Even the yanks and the Brits who seem to jump in and out of wars have their challenges and so countries whose armies only spend time on peace keeping duties at best in all honestly should probably be graded 'pathetic' by comparison.
It is clear that in the absence of war there is a tendency for the wrong selection criteria to be used for officer advancement. There is little point in having an army comprising a bunch of 'prancers and dancers' as one US general called them. The question is how to keep the soldiers edge during peacetime.
Again, you got your priorities totally wrong.
You should not wish for being experienced in first aid training when you crashed your car again and your wife lies next to you, bleeding.
You should with to not drive that stupidly and not crash your car in the first place, much less repeatedly.
What you're doing is to propose that every driver should regularly be involved in car crashes, in order to be better prepared for the next tone. That's totally misguided (if not crazy) thinking.
Not quite
Not sure about that... but if I found myself in a car crash with my wife lying bleeding next to me I would certain wish that I was well trained and experienced in more than just first-aid.You should not wish for being experienced in first aid training when you crashed your car again and your wife lies next to you, bleeding.
Where I come from we call it defensive driver training and like soldiering I would not advocate that soldiers do anything stupidly or foolishly. In fact that is (partly) what sergeants are for... to make sure soldiers don't do anything foolish or stupid and to kick ass if they do... and this extends to 2Lts too.You should with to not drive that stupidly and not crash your car in the first place, much less repeatedly.
A person who repeatedly makes the same mistake should not be an officer... nor a soldier for that matter.
Not quite.What you're doing is to propose that every driver should regularly be involved in car crashes, in order to be better prepared for the next tone. That's totally misguided (if not crazy) thinking.
The combat being experienced in Afghanistan is not Stalingrad so it is a low risk high return situation. (Note: my comments on IEDs made in the UK in Afghanistan thread stand, but for the rest (the remaining 25%) of the casualties it is indeed a low intensity war.)
Exposing young officers to combat is the first step, with the second (and more important) being requiring them to actually command in combat (in other words make decisions in a time of high stress). Sure some won't make it but the return on the investment for the military and the country through the experience gained by the majority is worth the sacrifice IMHO.
Take those US forces who have been involved in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you think the military is better prepared for future combat because of the experiences? Of course.
Combat is a soldiers trade and the more he gets (like making love) the better he becomes.
You don't seem to get it because of a tiny field of view on this.
Sure, once you're in a mess you want to be able to reduce its severity.
The wish for this ability is inferior to the wish for not getting into that mess in the first place, though.
For that reason it's a foolish mistake to hope for combat experience. The correct hope is to avoid war.
And there's more than hoping that can be done.
Your tiny angle of view on a military education topic keeps you from considering that in almost all cases preserving peace is superior to "winning" war.
Armed forces of a rationally-led state exist in order to keep that state out of war, not to win wars. Aiming at not getting involved in wars means that the ideal education and experience path for the officer corps cannot lead through wartime experience (save for foolish volunteers who get involved in other's wars).
What you are instead aiming at is a systematically inferior path.
It wasn't long ago I asked you what a military should do (other than attain victory). You responded with me earning a load of disrespect (but yet, never answered my question).
The deterrence and diplomatic theories that you peruse have all but been proven to be a failure by more than one Western nation. It's one thing to deter an attack against one's State and entirely another set of rules to deter or stop an attack against another State.
Do you then propose we train all our soldiers in some sort of diplomatic gaming vs marksmanship and combat ? Heh, we could then do away with politicians and everybody would simply join the ranks
Hmmm, who exactly has a narrow view ?
If you want to blend in, take the bus
If you are talking about the benefits and value of exposing a young platoon commander to combat then yes I am focussing on a very small (but important) aspect of the whole.
I suggest it is rather the politicians who screw up and start wars and when that happens the military is more or less left to sort out the mess. It is up to the military to prepare itself for this eventuality.Sure, once you're in a mess you want to be able to reduce its severity.
The wish for this ability is inferior to the wish for not getting into that mess in the first place, though.
On the contrary I suggest it is foolish for a military not to prepare fully for the day when the politicians land them in a real shooting war. The nation will never forgive the military if after the millions/billions/trillions/zillions spent on it in peacetime they collapse like a wet paper bag when the shooting starts.For that reason it's a foolish mistake to hope for combat experience. The correct hope is to avoid war.
And there's more than hoping that can be done.
If junior officers can be exposed to combat then it is valuable. If officers at every command level can be exposed to combat then it is valuable. All this is preparation of the officer for higher command. If there is no combat situation available then how to simulate it?
There are things a soldier can influence or control and there are others over which he has none. I was taught to prepare for the 'worst case scenario'. If we are to be sent to war then the least we can do is give a good account of ourselves.Your tiny angle of view on a military education topic keeps you from considering that in almost all cases preserving peace is superior to "winning" war.
The politicians make all these decisions and not the military. The military tends to be left to pick up the pieces. Would-be aggressors should take one look at the military that should convince them not to try and push their luck.Armed forces of a rationally-led state exist in order to keep that state out of war, not to win wars. Aiming at not getting involved in wars means that the ideal education and experience path for the officer corps cannot lead through wartime experience (save for foolish volunteers who get involved in other's wars).
What you are instead aiming at is a systematically inferior path.
So when the politicians screw up (which is certain) then you need your military to have a deterrent effect
Deterrence was proved to be a failure?
I suspect our survival of the Cold War, the history of Switzerland and Sweden as well as a lot of other examples beg to differ.
Victory as commonly defined is often a form of failure. The harm done to the own country by warfare is often greater than the harm done by not going to war (if there's any of the latter at all).
(The foolishness of the 2002-2011 Iraq conflict is a good example: pretty much nothing was gained but the busting of a few stupid fantasies. Thousands died, ten thousands were crippled, trillions of dollars were spent - for no real gain.)
The military shall -in the event of war- achieve the minimal net damage outcome for the country, with political efforts to the same end in parallel.
The mission for the government as a whole is to avoid damage altogether, to maximise the benefits of the population. The details are tricky from a philosophical point of view, but it's quite obvious that in our age you cannot really be better off with "winning" a war of choice than choosing not to go to it. You don't get to annex fertile lands or gold mines any more these days, not even oil fields.
This leaves wars of necessity, which again are only meeting the criteria if they're the least terrible alternative. To choose a more terrible alternative than a less terrible one is folly/incompetence, thus you gotta choose the least terrible (again, determining this is tricky detail stuff). Obviously, if the least terrible alternative is the only one that should be used, war can only be the way to go if it's the least terrible way to go.
After all, war is a terrible alternative, thus it's in the context "of war or not war" pointless to cover the "most beneficial" line of argument that applies to many peacetime policy outcomes.
So what's the military's purpose in peacetime?
Support the policy in its quest for good outcomes by making war and sovereignty violations less likely. This can be pursued by putting a hefty risk premium on all foreign aggressions. This risk premium is the visible and widely known probability that an aggression would fail to overcome the resistance (at costs that appear to be acceptable to the aggressor's top decisionmakers).
That may be no fool-proof method, not 100% reliable - but then again only fools look for such methods in a world of mortals.
To consider a combat-experienced officer corps the way to go, the best scenario, equals the wish for a country's involvement in warfare in at least a 20 year intervals. That's a wish for a periodic failure of the government to keep the country out of a great mess.
It's not even close to a good idea.
Last edited by Fuchs; 10-03-2011 at 07:33 PM.
Sandhurst on the BBC
The BBC has recently broadcast a series on the RMA Sandhurst.
It is a three part series and can be seen here
For those not residing in the UK you will have to find a UK proxy server to use. For those don't know how to do that just ask your average 12 year old he'll know.
This current series can be compared to a 1975 BBC Panorama broadcast on Sandhurst.
In addition there is a two part series on officer training in the Royal Marines circa 1989
Together with the AOSB videos - AOSB Briefing and the AOSB Main Board - one will get a fair idea of how the Brits approach the selection and training of their officers.
Most militaries have to prepare in times of peace. This makes for a process where the assessment of how an officer will perform under combat conditions based on guesswork, supposition and wishful thinking. Actual exposure to combat takes the guesswork out of it.
What I'm saying is that if a nation finds itself at war then its military would be negligent if it does not ensure that the maximum number of young officers get exposed to combat and given the opportunity to command troops in combat.
There is a tendency for those who have not been exposed to combat to underplay the development benefit and value of the combat experience. You learn a lot about yourself and war through combat experience... especially if you bleed a bit in the process.
@Fuchs
While I think that you are right with your priorities and Switzerland is a very good example for maintaining a credible defense which resulted in more than a century peace.
However, if a country is forced into war this opportunity should be used to assess peactime training and procedures to the gratest exent. Do not enforce the opportunity but use ist when it occured.
He (appeared to) hope for the effect, thus hoped for the opportunity, thus in my opinion hoped for a grave national security policy failure.
I sincerely doubt that a nuclear deterrent will hold much water today and your Neutral Nations "cookie cutter" approach will work with any of the current NATO nations. But, you already knew that.
I’ve read your blog (at your invitation) and it seems much of this text is but regurgitation.
I would tend to agree with you there but as JMA pointed out, the trained military officers and NCOs did not decide their fate, rather defended their oaths and positions. Without their training they would have all suffered needless death. That would be what you conclude as precluding foolishness and a few stupid fantasies ? What sort of training would have prepared them for a decision to go to war ? Running to the Canadian border ?
Very easy to say… Based on your broad military experience and vision ?
In supporting the current administration I don’t see the choices you are providing. This thread is about professional military education. What exactly would senior officers and NCOs do once the administration has declared war ?
That statement means exactly what ?
Why periodic failure ? What do the Swiss and Swedes do right this second that makes you think their system is better ? Begging for and wasting humanitarian funds and deciding how and who should be eligible to be killed in Africa with little to no experience ? It's a great way to collect insurance premiums, but not for me.
If you want to blend in, take the bus
Its good to throw ideas around even if based on your misinterpretation of what I am saying. (In the process I learn to express myself better)
If through the failure of the politicians the opportunity for combat experience becomes possible the military should seize the opportunity with both hands.
Is Germany making the most of the opportunity on offer in Afghanistan in this regard?
Last edited by JMA; 10-04-2011 at 02:21 PM.
I understood you from the start... But then, experience does actually do that to most of us
If you want to blend in, take the bus
A new word for me today. I think I didn't need this one in many years of English conversations so far...but it might come handy next time I discuss with/against you.regurgitation
Based on logic.
Feel free to provide an example in which my statement is in your opinion wrong and justify your opinion about the wrongness in that case.
A falsifiable statement is about the best contribution that you can get in a discussion. Falsify it to prove that it's wrong - if not, it will be upheld.
Besides; don't try strawman arguments ("cookie cutter") on me. I should have established a reputation that I don't respond to rhetoric dirty tricks nicely by now.
Feel free to duel me on the level of logic.
Fuchs,
Sie sind ein Botschafter für Deutschland hier bei SWJ und ich bin ein fur Amerika ja?
Die Welt ändert sich, und die zeit kommt gleich, das Deutschland mehr tun muss als Sie jezt tut. Hoffentlich, als Amerika sich ändert, wird auch Deutschland sich ändern. Ich hoffe das Deutschland auf die Europäer aufpassen kann wie Amerika das getan habe (oder velicht besser).
http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/...helSharp_0.pdf
Ich lese was hier geschrieben wird, und ich denke daran. Manchmal ist es quatsch, aber dann was ich schreibe ist auch manchmal quatsch.
Trotzdem, Krieg ist etwas ganz anders als was normalerweise ist, und ich glaube das mann muss Krieg erleben um zu es besser zu verstehen.
Der Botschafter und der Jager haben und brauchen Geduld.
Sapere Aude
With the exception of your blog, there is nothing in US Military doctrine to support the above statement. It does however sound nice and presumes an ideal outcome. The common soldier is taught to fight until there is a cessation of hostilities. That is, there is nothing about minimal damage. Since it is the politicians that send the soldier to war I would have to assume they agreed to and understood the outcome. The soldier is however solely responsible to be prepared for that day and return victorious. Such preparation can only be achieved through professional training and exposure.
Now that our enemy is content with mass casualty production our administration has taken off the kid gloves. If you ever read or listened to General Franks and most of our administration you'd quickly note there is no military-related concern over damage.
Just for the record, I did not distort, exaggerate nor misrepresent your argument regarding the Neutral Nations. I did however question whether their use of deterrence (way back when) is the best approach for today's NATO forces. The playing field has changed and our enemy no longer plays by the rules.
You established much more than that well before I came along. Your text in post 144 is a good example
If you want to blend in, take the bus
You really thought telling a German to assume at a soldier's point of view and ignore the political point of view is a good idea?
As if soldiers are merely executing policy, and should not be bothered by what's responsible or desirable in regard to policy? Not bother about right or wrong of their mission? To a German?
Did you really think this through?
If you didn't think so; why your resistance to look at the issue from a political point of view, with the military merely being a tool and not the part of society that one identifies with or cares most about?
Besides; I don't care about whether something is supported by U.S. military doctrine or not. It's not the benchmark for correctness or anywhere close to it. The same applies to all other doctrine nationalities.
I suspect that an objective look at Switzerland would show that it wasn't just their "credible defense" that allowed for peace. For example, it's quite often convenient (for a number of reasons) for belligerent powers to have a "neutral zone" where they can conduct business (and if you doubt this, look at the activities of the OSS and other groups in Switzerland during World War II as well as the banking habits of certain other powers during that same conflict).
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
Well, I’m 50% Swiss German (and my mother Malaysian) so that could be the problem with both my resistance to politics and perhaps Germans !
Jetz isch färtig luschtig
The German soldiers I know that were in Afghanistan were not at all happy with Germany’s politicians. Until just recently they couldn’t return fire before reciting some kind of “UN, stop or I’ll shoot” and some of their Tornados took off from Bahgram unarmed !?!? This passive political policy could not have been good for German soldiers. Somewhere between the American and German versions lies a great start for politically driven war
Certainly as professional soldiers we are morally responsible and many are in fact bothered by their missions and responsibilities. There is a very fine line where a soldier decides that policy is not for him. Professional officer and NCO training indeed covers sound moral judgment, use of force and extent. That is also too easy to say sitting in Washington or Berlin while that individual is in a fire fight for his life or being chased by an African with a machete. If the military never left our shores I couldn’t agree more with your opinion, but we have yet to create a deterrent (military or political) that has influenced our enemy to “sit this one out”. In the end, we are in fact just a tool in the President’s kit bag.
It's too easy to say you don't care about doctrine and unfortunately, without it, I am certain there would be a lot more destruction and far fewer professional soldiers.
If you want to blend in, take the bus
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks