JMA....great comments.
My only substantive comments would be:
1) The training must get better. And yes, it certainly should be better for enlisted as well. I don't subscribe to the peacetime v. wartime issue. We are warfighting organizations - scrimping is lazy, wrong, and inexcusable. I see no room for compromise. I know I'm in the minority with that, but I don't see it as an issue where any of us should give ground. I hear you about taking people under your wing and so forth. One thing I've noticed in our military is that many times it's the LTs (NCOs too) that are squared away that get the least mentorship. Another wrong answer.
2) Platoon Sergeants are indeed vital to the development of a young officer. However, I see it too often where Platoon Sergeants get tired of mentoring the officer, as well as all the other people in the platoon. How can you blame him? It is terribly frustrating to see people come in, over and over, without proper training. And, in today's military, too many of our schoolhouses are doing horribly bad at training, so the burden is worse. We are all going to pay a terrible price if these types of issues are not addressed, soon.
3) Regarding Wanat. If I remember correctly, the Army came out and said that X was done poorly, Y was selected inappropriately, Z signs of attack were ignored, etc. The company commander did not get on site until a day prior to the attack, I believe. I don't believe the BN Cdr or similar (BN XO, S3, etc) were on the ground at all prior to the attack. From my reading the Army said the ground force commander, which would be the platoon leader, was primarily responsible for the shortcomings that lead to some bad things happening. I totally agree - except that we should not be doing that to LTs, knowing the dearth of training and knowledge we bestow upon them before hitting the force and joining the fight. We took a situation that would be challenging for a seasoned company commander and handed it to a LT, knowing we don't train LTs appropriately. To me that's negligence.
Anyway, once again...no beef with your comments. They are excellent. My beef is with the system that continues to settle for what it knows to be inadequate because we've been lucky to fight, of recent memory, a 3rd rate Army in Iraq - and too often we thump our chest as a result. Then when we are challenged by the so-called hybrid, irregular threats, we struggle to find solutions. Still, we thump our chest as a result. I don't look down on our military and our capabilities. But the hubris I witness at times is disturbing.
And lastly, if we are to develop that 'brain in combat' it must start with training. To do otherwise is to deprive ourselves of critical lessons and robbing ourselves of time spent being "full mission capable". To me that is just not acceptable for a fighting organization.
Bookmarks