Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 61 to 71 of 71

Thread: Courageous Restraint "Hold fire, earn a medal"

  1. #61
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default They aren't necessarily supposed to read those manuals...

    Quote Originally Posted by Ranger94 View Post
    You guys are smart, that is why I and others come here. But how many 11B2P or 3V read FM90-8 in 1998? 1999? Yet, how many of them "fought" on the "Island" of "Cortina"? The FTX's of the '90 never went enough towards the clean up of some missions.
    The 11Bush - 2s that is, most of those guys shouldn't have been expected to read them. An exceptionally sharp kid might have, good for him...

    However, the 11B/19D3-whatevers should have been at least aware of their existence and every 11B4-whatever and every combat arms LT and CPT should have read them. For their Bn Staff Officers and Senior NCOs to not have read them is, IMO, inexcusable.*

    It's not Joe's job to read that stuff; it is Joe's job to screw off as much as he can. It IS the job of those other guys to take care of Joe and lead him to do what's necessary. That means making sure he can do what he has to do. That's done by his Honchos using the knowledge they have gained through training and experience -- and reading unassigned but relevant material -- to get him trained. But you know that...

    The chain of command was given a job it had not trained for. The Doctrine was available but training wise, it was ignored for 25 years. So you've got a very valid complaint on the fact that 1990s era (and personally, I'd go for 1975-2002...) training Army wide was broadly inadequate -- and the responsibility for that lies at the then COL and above level.

    Yeah, the guys in Vernon Parish blew it. So did those around Bicycle Lake. So too did the BCTP guys who trained the Cdrs and Staffs here and there. When victory was declared, they turned off the computers and the lights and no one gave a thought to what came next. Simply put, the Army screwed up, big time...

    We do not train entering officers or enlisted people as well as we should. We never have and while I keep hearing noise about improvements in NCO and Officer training and education, I sure don't see many indications of greater tactical competence in open sources.

    * Though in fairness, given all the furor over FM 3-24, it is obvious a number of the senior people involved in the production committee of that Great American Novel were not as familiar with the older manuals as one had a right to expect. One almost senses in some cases they started writing their 'new' bible, stumbled across the old one and grudgingly said "I guess we oughta put that in there..."

  2. #62
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    However, the 11B/19D3-whatevers should have been at least aware of their existence and every 11B4-whatever and every combat arms LT and CPT should have read them. For their Bn Staff Officers and Senior NCOs to not have read them is, IMO, inexcusable.*
    The 11B/19D3-whatevers in the 2000's were the E4s and E5s of the '90s. Outside of Robin Sage graduates, how many Arty, MP or INF soldiers had "Master of FM90-8" as a bullet comment on a DA 4856 or NCOER? If they did not receive recognition for mastering a manual outside (way outside) their MOS then why would the new senior leaders reward new, lower enlisted?

    The tactics have been refined but the reward system has not.

    In case some missed this.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?...in;cbsCarousel

    "You talk about restraint. What do you mean by that?" Pelley asked.

    "As I told the Marines before we deployed, it's about a three second decision, especially with his personal weapon. The first second is 'Can I?' The next two are 'Should I?' 'What is going to be the effect of my action? Is it going to move the Afghan closer to the government or further away?'" he explained.

    Rewarding Soldiers/Marines for making a 3 second strategic decision? (and it is strategic http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/...c_corporal.htm

    I vote 'Yes'

    And what is the cost?

    "It's frustrating," Quiceno said. "I don't know if anybody really understands the amount of stress that the guys are already starting to feel because of that. You know? Simply just having their hands tied behind your back, if you will."

  3. #63
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Everything is training is everything.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ranger94 View Post
    ...If they did not receive recognition for mastering a manual outside (way outside) their MOS then why would the new senior leaders reward new, lower enlisted?
    The problem is it's not outside their MOS. Not one bit. You're focusing on the wrong level, as I said earlier: "and the responsibility for that lies at the then COL and above level." The fact they were not given training that was 100% applicable to their MOS is borderline criminal but it is not the fault of those then CPTs and below. It was the then COLs and Generals -- it was the Army...
    The tactics have been refined but the reward system has not.
    I'm not sure the tactics have been refined, I see a lot of stuff that'll get people killed, not least guys moving tactically 5 to 20 feet apart when they should be more than that many meters apart.

    In any event, the training doctrine and material existed in the 1975-2002 period, it was just not used. That's a lick on the Army as an institution. There's an adequate reward system in place today -- if it's not being used properly, that, too, is a lick on the Army.
    ...I vote 'Yes'

    And what is the cost?

    "It's frustrating," Quiceno said. "I don't know if anybody really understands the amount of stress that the guys are already starting to feel because of that. You know? Simply just having their hands tied behind your back, if you will."
    So do I. It is harder, no question. Been there and done that -- so I know it can be done and I know that if you put it to the Troops properly, most (less the always with us 10%... ) will understand and do well. However, if the Troops, Army or Marine, feel as if their hands are tied today, then someone, somewhere in the chain of command is not doing their job. I hate to fall back on the annoying and old "It's a leadership problem" bit -- but it is. That, too is not a problem attributable to those now CPTs and below...

    Though they're the ones, as always, that have to fix it. Shouldn't be that way but it generally is.

    All that's why I said in the other comment above that our training does not really seem to have improved...

  4. #64
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    You're focusing on the wrong level, as I said earlier: "and the responsibility for that lies at the then COL and above level." The fact they were not given training that was 100% applicable to their MOS is borderline criminal but it is not the fault of those then CPTs and below. It was the then COLs and Generals -- it was the Army
    My post from 17 May 2010

    "Most of you on this site advocate a new (or at least a redefined) type of war (This includes Gentile). "

    My post from 23 May 2010.

    "Quote:
    Originally Posted by Schmedlap View Post
    Reminds me of people claiming that our small unit leaders "don't get COIN" or "need to learn COIN" when, in fact, it was the person making the assertion who just finally came around to understanding what COIN is.
    You just described the turn-a-round of leadership for Gen. Odierno and the re-writting of history of Col. Gentile"

    I understand that Col and Gen. need to be held accountable. I am not sure this site does.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    In any event, the training doctrine and material existed in the 1975-2002 period, it was just not used. That's a lick on the Army as an institution.
    I agree and that is why the reward system (and Awards count for promotion points) should be revised.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    There's an adequate reward system in place today -- if it's not being used properly, that, too, is a lick on the Army.
    Funny, I was walking in Crystal City underground today and two friends of mine spotted me and asked why I had a stern look on my face. I did not even realize that I did it or the reason.

    I looked back and I saw an E8 that did not have a combat patch. In 9years of a nation at war we still promote to the senior ranks those that do not have combat experience. ( NOTE: HRC may add Promotion Points for combat experience in June 2011)

  5. #65
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default What was his MOS?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ranger94 View Post
    I looked back and I saw an E8 that did not have a combat patch. In 9years of a nation at war we still promote to the senior ranks those that do not have combat experience. ( NOTE: HRC may add Promotion Points for combat experience in June 2011)
    Believe it or not, there a few that are almost totally CONUS bound, nothing for them to do overseas. Makes little sense to send them over anyway, all they're likely to do is hassle people or get someone killed. Takes all kinds...

    FWIW, I rarely wore any of my right arm patches, merit badges or the CIB unless in formation when I was supposed to do so. Usually just had my wings on...

    Combat experience used to be considered -- then after 1975, we didn't have any combat for a long time so it got dropped. Now it's back, better late than never. We can agree the personnel system is in really bad shape and too slow to modernize...

  6. #66
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ranger94 View Post
    "Most of you on this site advocate a new (or at least a redefined) type of war (This includes Gentile). "
    We do? News to me. Maybe some, but I would contest "most." - and why? War is war.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  7. #67
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    The problem is it's not outside their MOS. Not one bit.
    The quote below and supporting article seems to suggest that soldiers train on MOS specific mission and then, later in the year, train on FM3-24. So is "train like we fight" no longer valid.

    "Under the Force Generation model, brigade-sized elements should conduct two maneuver exercises before heading back to a combat zone. One concentrates on basic skills and the unit’s general mission, with the other focusing on a rehearsal of the tasks the unit will face in an upcoming deployment."

    http://www.stripes.com/news/gao-army...cking-1.111964

    Two missions, one soldier. Leaders that can function in that environment should be rewarded.
    Last edited by Ranger94; 07-27-2010 at 03:56 AM.

  8. #68
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    We do? News to me. Maybe some, but I would contest "most." - and why? War is war.
    So most on this site reject FM 3-24? Most on this site reject elevating Sustainment Operations to the level of Offense and Defense Operations?

    Look at the spectrum of operations as a line drawn left to right. On the far left is Total war (slightly to the right is Nuclear War) to the far, far right is "Broken Window Policing".

    Along that line, where is FM 3-24?

    How fast are junior leaders being asked to jump from the middle right side of the line (FM3-24) to the middle left side of the line (FM7-8)? You have Three seconds to answer

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    War is war.
    Go back to Schmedlap's quote from 05-18-2010. If war is war and training is training and "COIN is not new" then why did I have to justify my actions?
    Last edited by Ranger94; 07-27-2010 at 03:59 AM.

  9. #69
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ranger94 View Post
    So most on this site reject FM 3-24? Most on this site reject elevating Sustainment Operations to the level of Offense and Defense Operations?
    War is war. War does not change. It remains the same. Warfare evolves - and usually does so slowly.

    Armies should train to fight. What does "sustain" actually mean? The base level requirement for last 160 years has been to be able to do combat and security operations against both regular and irregular forces. That will not change. Almost no weapon or tactic the US/NATO forces encountered in Iraq or A'Stan was new.

    If you were training the right way in 1985, you should be still doing the same training today.

    To quote you, Ranger 94 "This is a failure of leadership." If you haven't been trained when to shoot and when not to, you were badly trained. My Army suffered the exact same problem in the 1970's with Ulster ROE. ROE are to support the policy. You are an instrument of Policy.
    Last edited by William F. Owen; 07-27-2010 at 05:29 AM.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  10. #70
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default I'd put FM 3-24 in the MSCA category

    Quote Originally Posted by Ranger94 View Post
    So most on this site reject FM 3-24? Most on this site reject elevating Sustainment Operations to the level of Offense and Defense Operations?

    Look at the spectrum of operations as a line drawn left to right. On the far left is Total war (slightly to the right is Nuclear War) to the far, far right is "Broken Window Policing".

    Along that line, where is FM 3-24?

    How fast are junior leaders being asked to jump from the middle right side of the line (FM3-24) to the middle left side of the line (FM7-8)? You have Three seconds to answer



    Go back to Schmedlap's quote from 05-18-2010. If war is war and training is training and "COIN is not new" then why did I have to justify my actions?


    But then I think it might be the first FM for this broad area of military activity (currently a couple of directives are out there)

    http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/pdf-files/...uthorities.pdf


    I think the military needs to DETER-DEFEAT and do MSCA; and that COIN falls under MSCA.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  11. #71
    Council Member Red Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Currently based in the US.
    Posts
    335

    Default Update from Theatre

    Now we have ROE that tell us when we are allowed to open fire, and a somewhat more nebulous 'Courageous Restraint' telling us when we should open fire; the boys on the ground are confused I hear that they have retermed 'Courageous Restraint' as 'Command Cowardice'; read into that what you will.
    RR

    "War is an option of difficulties"

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •