The combat shotgun

[Ken White]

Being a good servant of my Queen and country, I'm doing what's asked of me. And, following my commander's intent, we do it with as little harm as is possible.

I'm skipping the majority of your question with this answer - sorry, but it is true from my perspective.

for the bulk of the questions I asked. That's always been considered a stock answer by many who serve...

Though I would suggest consideration of the fact that an Army deciding to do its job "with as little harm as possible" is itself on a slippery slope and may very well have an adaptation problem if confronted with heavy combat.

I'm not arguing against you given your acknowledgement of 'current realities'. It's not a slippery slope ahead of us - it's one were already well into.

So the capability cap exists, and the tasks required of us are unavoidable. I see the question of 'avoidability' as completely academic and theoretical and agree with BW that 'this is a major shortfall for our troops currently'.

We can disagree on that -- if you and Bob's World said perceived shortfall, I'd agree while pointing out that IMO you're both looking for a technical solution to a problem of poor training.

"Avoidability" may academic and theoretical at your level; it is not at all academic for the politicians who make decisions on actions. They need to be a bit smarter -- and it is the job of serving Soldiers to make them smarter...

That said and while I certainly accept your answer to most of my comment, I don't believe that answer addresses this question:

"Umm, are these the same Commanders who cannot be trusted to properly conduct patrol and show presence in such interventions?"

[Chris jM]

Though I would suggest consideration of the fact that an Army deciding to do its job "with as little harm as possible" is itself on a slippery slope and may very well have an adaptation problem if confronted with heavy combat.

You have 100%, whole-hearted endorsement from me in this. As with everything in life, opportunity costs accompany every decision. The route to pop-centric COIN has come at a cost, either consciously made or unwittingly, and the effects will be felt into the future. How much this affects your Army I can only guess at, but my army has effectively shunned anything over low-intensity combat in favor of high-end policing.

We can disagree on that -- if you and Bob's World said perceived shortfall, I'd agree while pointing out that IMO you're both looking for a technical solution to a problem of poor training.

It's a technical solution to a problem of poor training and poor policy. However, due to the shortfalls, there is a capability gap requiring an immediate solution. Fixing training is certainly a worthy course of action, but won't alleviate the immediate need for our soldier's to be able to deploy less lethal effects. Fixing poor policy is another question altogether... I think we're as likely to fix that as a beauty queen is as likely to achieve world peace.

That said and while I certainly accept your answer to most of my comment, I don't believe that answer addresses this question:

"Umm, are these the same Commanders who cannot be trusted to properly conduct patrol and show presence in such interventions?"

I'm trying out this whole manoeuvre warfare thing, targeting your strengths and avoiding your weaknesses. Turns out MW is great on paper but falls apart when employed against an adaptive opponent (this doubles as a response to Slapout's comment, as well!)