METL=Mission Essential Task List

If they are doing it right, a METL for COIN differs from a METL for a conventional fight in a matter of degrees. That said basic METL like "react to contact", "search and attack" as modified into cordon and search/knock, etc etc still play a very large role in how we set up our training. Look on METL as a focusing mechanism for trainers and leaders.
I understand the acronym.

I'm not making an argument that the training for COIN and LIC cannot have value to conventional warfare/HIC. Rather, I am challenging the assumptions made in this thread, namely that the failure of units to train to the pre-existing METLs is, on its own, a problem.

There is no doubt that units such as those in the field artillery are not able to maintain the same degree of competency as they did in pre-OIF days. Even those that are deploying in an artillery capacity are not operating as they have traditionally trained to - eg, they emplace on a FOB, they don't practice moving around, they are there as independent batteries, etc. Furthermore, the battalion and regimental echelon headquarters elements are not deploying, and therefore are neither training much nor gaining operational experience -- not to mention the fact that most don't have anywhere near the full complement of staff officers. Add in personnel flux -- standard rotations, individual augments to deployments, etc. There are arty captains who, because they came into Marine Corps at the start of OIF, have never done any artillery work in the fleet. It will be interesting to see what will be done with them after OIF. Will they be retrained in artillery? And how will they make up for missing the lieutenant level work experience? An arty lt. will work in a number of areas in the battery to learn all of the parts of the job -- FO, FDO, LNO, etc. This is at the extreme end of the spectrum, but even infantry units will see some degradation in their relevant HIC skills.

I joke with my husband that, due to his deployment and combat experience, he may be the first arty officer ever able to lat. move INTO the infantry. (Back in the 90s -- and probably previously -- many combat arms officers had to move into other MOS's like logistics in order to stay in the Marine Corps, because there were not enough jobs for them to stay on in their combat arms specialty.) On the other hand, if they are going to rebuild the arty, they'll need all the officers who are competent to stick around.

To reiterate, my point is that I don't buy the knee-jerk "We're not training to METLs and this is a tragedy" line that doesn't acknowledge the realities of the current operational situation. If the pre-existing METLs need to be the priority, then the current operational requirements must be changed. If they are not, then we must simply be prepared to let them go and retrain to them when things change. To argue that we can do both simultaneously is not supported by reality.

Cheers,
Jill