"Warfare skills eroding as Army fights insurgents"

[jonSlack]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nat...home-headlines

The Army's vice chief of staff, Gen. Richard Cody, recently told reporters that there is growing concern that the Army's skills are eroding and that if the war in Iraq continues at current levels, the United States could eventually have "an army that can only fight a counterinsurgency." Cody is broadly responsible for manning, equipping and training the force.

That uncertainty is what worries the Army. Young sergeants and captains, the next generation of Army combat leaders, know only counterinsurgency operations and, between deployments to Iraq, are not getting time away to study and practice high-intensity combat, Cody said.

If SGTs and CPTs are adapting and learning how to wage a counterinsurgency how are their skills eroding?

I do not think that the ability to wage high-instensity warfare should be the only the metric of skill within the Army.

[marct]

If SGTs and CPTs are adapting and learning how to wage a counterinsurgency how are their skills eroding?

I do not think that the ability to wage high-instensity warfare should be the only the metric of skill within the Army.

I would agree with you, but the problem is institutional in nature. Ever since WWII, the US army has concentrated on state vs. state warfare and most of the training systems and tasks that construct its professional career ladders have reflected this. Counter insurgency warfare is, by its very nature, opposed to the skill set of set piece combat, so expertise in COIN will inevitably be perceived as non-expertise in "real" combat skills. At least, Gen. Cody isn't talking about cavalry winning the war...

Marc

[aktarian]

If SGTs and CPTs are adapting and learning how to wage a counterinsurgency how are their skills eroding?

I do not think that the ability to wage high-instensity warfare should be the only the metric of skill within the Army.

But I don't think it's possible to have force skilled both in conventional warfare and unconventional warfare. Unless you earmark part of your force for each mission but that causes whole new set of problems.

[marct]

But I don't think it's possible to have force skilled both in conventional warfare and unconventional warfare. Unless you earmark part of your force for each mission but that causes whole new set of problems.

Tell me about it! Take a look at the Canadian Forces where the split was between Peace Keeping training and combat training. That "little incident" in Somalia certainly shows some of the problems with trying to shift troops between different roles!

Marc

[Steve Blair]

Interesting comment on the army's focus. They never seemed to care that the skillsets needed for small wars were eroding or disappearing during the Fulda Gap era. Gen Cody used a poor choice of words. I wouldn't say the skills are eroding - rather they are shifting to reflect the new style of warfare the army is facing.

[Merv Benson]

A more accurate description of what is happening is that the troops are gaining experience and being "battle hardened" in the skills needed for the combat they are facing. Since we do not have enough troops to choose either or, the ones we have, must adapt to the war we have.

Leaders have to be able to prepare their troops for the battle they are facing and if more conventional battles appear on the horizon, the leaders will get the troops ready to deal with it. It is a little like a defensive coordinator in football preparing one week for an option oriented ground game and the next week facing a high powered passing attack. In both cases he has to adapt and get his team ready for the attack they are facing that week.

[aktarian]

A more accurate description of what is happening is that the troops are gaining experience and being "battle hardened" in the skills needed for the combat they are facing. Since we do not have enough troops to choose either or, the ones we have, must adapt to the war we have.

Leaders have to be able to prepare their troops for the battle they are facing and if more conventional battles appear on the horizon, the leaders will get the troops ready to deal with it. It is a little like a defensive coordinator in football preparing one week for an option oriented ground game and the next week facing a high powered passing attack. In both cases he has to adapt and get his team ready for the attack they are facing that week.

I disagree. The problem with these options is that they are often at odds and what works in one type of war dosn't in others.

In conventional wars military has to be prepared to fight short, intense and high tempo wars (e.g. 6 day war, Yom Kippur war, ODS....). In unconventional wars military has to be prepared to fight long, drawn out wars where most of the time there is little action overall.

In conventional war bringing massive firepower is mandatory. In unconventioanl wars it's likely to be counter productive.