Courageous Restraint "Hold fire, earn a medal"

[Ken White]

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.

[Ranger94]

in Viet Nam and even in Korea. METT-TC. Nothing new in that, either.

The 'C' was not taught in Army schools until the late '90's.

Pre-deployment training did not include "Shout, Show, Shove, Shoot (to Warn), Shoot (to disable), Shoot (to Kill)" unitl 2004.

Aurguments for/against "Strategic Corporal", "4GW" "COIN" etc are irrelevant. 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

As for the charges that the new troops need a "medal for being timid", I counter with the reality that every Battalion/Brigade CO forces every patrol to drive the MRAP. All these "leaders" can quote FM3-24 yet fail to see how a big metal box seperates us from the local population.

The leaders are timid.

[Ken White]

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.

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.

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.

...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.

The leaders are timid.

We can agree on that. (that,too is a VN hangover... )

[Schmedlap]

Pre-deployment training did not include "Shout, Show, Shove, Shoot (to Warn), Shoot (to disable), Shoot (to Kill)" unitl 2004.

It did the for Balkans rotations prior to 9/11 and it was incorporated into our new ROE while in Iraq in 2003, soon after we began the occupation. In fact, most of us with Balkans deployments under our belts (vast majority of NCO's in my unit and a few of us O's) simply fell back upon the peacekeeping ROE and instructed our Soldiers to abide by it. If not incorporated into OIF pre-deployment training until 2004, well, that seems about as early as it could have been. Most units replacing us in late 2003 weren't really sure what to expect. But they got the same ROE brief that we did when they RIP/TOA'd. And, really, the "five S" rule isn't all that complicated.

As for "new"ness, I still remember my NCOs lecturing their men often in 2003: "we're going to pick our fights carefully. You piss these people off today and they'll be shooting RPGs at you tomorrow. Our job is to identify the dickheads and let everyone else just do their thing so we don't make more enemies." That's about what I would have told them at the time, but I didn't even need to. It was almost common sense. Today it's new math that our senior leaders have apparently just discovered in the past couple of years or so.