Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Training for Full Spectrum Operations

  1. #1
    Small Wars Journal SWJED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Largo, Florida
    Posts
    3,989

    Default Training for Full Spectrum Operations

    Training for Full Spectrum Operations

    The Army has released FM 7-0: Training for Full Spectrum Operations:

    The operational concept requires the Army to be ready to conduct simultaneous offense, defense, and stability or civil support operations anywhere along the spectrum of conflict, from General War to Stable Peace.

    FM 7-0 is designed to help develop an expeditionary Army, comprised of Soldiers and Civilians experienced and knowledgeable enough to be comfortable with operating anywhere along the spectrum of conflict in any type of operation, under any conditions.

    Its principles and concepts are intended to produce agile leaders, who can rapidly and easily adapt to changing, ambiguous situations.

    The manual’s four chapters address the breadth and depth of Army training concepts – “the what" of Army training. The web-based Army Training Network will address – “the how” of Army training. It will provide examples of concepts in FM 7-0; training lessons, examples, and best practices for implementing the 7-0 concepts; and solutions to training challenges. The 2008 version of Field Manual 7-0 is the 3rd edition of the Army’s training management doctrine. Previous editions were published in 1988 as FM 25-100, Training the Force, and in 2002 as FM 7-0, Training the Force. However, this is the first version to be completely synchronized with our capstone operations manual.
    FM 7-0 Download

    FM 7-0 Information Paper

    FM 7-0 Media Package

  2. #2
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Part spectrum training for full spectrum operations?

    Cross posted from the SWJ Blog.

    The Information Paper says several things on which the FM does not appear to follow through:

    "Change the Army mindset. . . no return to pre-9-11 focus on offense and defense in MCO."

    "What has not changed is that we’re still a standards-based force; however, we must think, train, and educate differently to develop agile leaders and an expeditionary force"

    In the first case, the FM largely is a pre 9-11 regurgitation. It does offer changes but they are in verbiage and not really so much in training practice. I could not find a single mention of Outcome Based Training. A sad and unbelievable omission. Fortunately, Fort Jackson appears to be ahead of CAC; see "Outcomes-Based warrior Training".

    Outcome Based Training emphasizes the development of the individual based on operational expectations; tangible skills, intangible attributes and relatedness of tasks which results in Soldiers, leaders and units who have learned to teach themselves, are able to solve problems as individuals and teams, have realized an increase in intangible attributes and mastery of basic skills.

    The FM itself is not the incremental change I had hoped for. I would have like a radical change to the training environment but since I know the Army doesn't do radical I hoped for an incremental change. Didn't really get it. To be sure there are some changes but most add to the training burden...

    It seems to me to be an overly wordy document, i think it is too long and has too many redundancies and thus will not be read and used as it should be.

    I do not think the FM places nearly enough emphasis on the fostering of initiative and acceptance of innovative solutions by subordinates. For example, Paragraph 2-3 states the Commander is the units primary training manger (true) and primary trainer (wrong) -- he cannot be and that phrasing sends a message that he should strive to do so, thus encouraging micromanagement and deterring delegation and the fostering of initiative. Words are important....

    Paragraph 2-42 states "Army training is performed to standard." Having been around at the birth of tasks, conditions and standards as a training regimen and having disagreed vehemently with the concept at the time -- it is a good process for training a hastily mobilized, draftee based Army, it is totally inadequate process for a professional force with higher standards -- and having watched the Army and the process for the subsequent 33 years I remain convinced it is not a good training system.

    However, I am glad to note the Army has finally acknowledged that conditions for conduct of a task can vary widely. Now if they'll just realize that the standard can also vary depending on external parameters. That's unfair; most realize that -- should have said if the Army will just acknowledge that...
    Last edited by Ken White; 12-21-2008 at 01:55 AM. Reason: Added Link. Sorry for omitting initially.

  3. #3
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Sierra Vista, AZ
    Posts
    175

    Default summary

    Basically, the Army has codified that everybody has to be able to do everything. Leaders and Commanders must train their Soldiers to do it all, but assume risk in the things they cannot train on (is that a paradox?).

    (I did like that video games are now a doctrinal means of training. I self-developed with a lot of "Halo" as a cadet, which is now within the regs.)

    That said, this FM serves as a good introduction to training, especially for new company grade officers or junior NCO's, but does not really explain how we will accomplish a T in everything. It is what to do, not how.
    "What do you think this is, some kind of encounter group?"
    - Harry Callahan, The Enforcer.

  4. #4
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default That's always been true

    Quote Originally Posted by patmc View Post
    Basically, the Army has codified that everybody has to be able to do everything...
    This is just one of the few times when the Army has acknowledged the true and necessary requirement.
    ...Leaders and Commanders must train their Soldiers to do it all, but assume risk in the things they cannot train on (is that a paradox?).
    Nope, not a paradox just reality; nothing new in that, really. It's just that in the past -- and most particularly from 1980-2003 -- the requirement was simply ignored in hopes it would go away. It did not.

    It won't.
    That said, this FM serves as a good introduction to training, especially for new company grade officers or junior NCO's, but does not really explain how we will accomplish a T in everything. It is what to do, not how.
    More to follow to help you sort out what to emphasize and how to train; plus more from DA on which units are to train for what missions (MCO, Mid Intensity, Low Intensity). That is to say, the Army will be trained to do it all but not all soldiers will train to do it all. If you get a mission switch, you'll get time to train for the new mission. Not enough, there's never enough time...

  5. #5
    Council Member ODB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    278

    Default Had to do some research first

    I came across this little tidbit:
    http://www.ausa.org/publications/arm...nts/Steele.pdf

    1st thing that struck me:
    Outcomes-based training—training that
    emphasizes end product over lockstep linear process and stresses flexibility
    and adaptability among trainers
    Based on this:
    Ken White: I do not think the FM places nearly enough emphasis on the fostering of initiative and acceptance of innovative solutions by subordinates. For example, Paragraph 2-3 states the Commander is the units primary training manger (true) and primary trainer (wrong) -- he cannot be and that phrasing sends a message that he should strive to do so, thus encouraging micromanagement and deterring delegation and the fostering of initiative. Words are important....
    How much flexibilty will the trainer have? Can we change enough to get to where we need to go or will we continue to sink further down the micromnagement cess pool?

    One of the single best changes IMO too bad it took us this long to get there.
    Weapons handling is a basic combat training fundamental today. BCT soldiers are issued a weapon within three days of arrival, and it stays with them throughout their training, teaching them weapon accountability, clearing
    procedures and how to avoid negligent discharges. It’s called “weapons immersion.”
    Then as we continue along again the word commanders......
    Col. Currey explained outcomes-based training (OBT) to his fellow trainers by writing: “OBT is often best understood as commanders being allowed to be flexible and adaptive. When they determine the proper outcome, they can reverse-engineer the process to achieve the desired outcome. In the raditionally restrictive initial entry training environment, many regulations and limited resources stopped junior leaders from pursuing a higher level of training. The mental intangibles delineated in the five established outcomes require leaders to engage soldiers thoroughly.
    Now back to leaders in general.
    “One size does not fit all in training. Hence, junior leaders need to vary techniques to realize the best, most effective results. Leaders may have to try new ideas to see what works—being flexible until the best outcome is achieved.”
    So which is it? This is what I always thought was squad training, derrived by the squad leader based on strengths and weaknesses. Amazing what a little imagination can do in training. I'll take it if we are truely going to try an incorporate this throughout. My only fear is that with the state of the Army today how effective can we be at this? Perhaps 5-10 years down the road when these new recruits move into positions of influence.

    The five main “desired outcomes” (goals) of BCT assert that each graduate
    is:
    1. A proud team member, possessing the character and commitment to live
    the Army Values and Warrior Ethos.

    2. Confident, adaptable, mentally agile and accountable for [his or her]
    own actions.
    Impress the hell out of me if this one is true, someone taking responsibility, in today's age.......

    3. Physically, mentally, spiritually and emotionally ready to fight as a
    ground combatant.
    They just don't have to be physically fit or within any kind of height/weight standard.

    4. A master of critical combat skills and proficient in basic soldier skills in all environments.
    Would these be the warrior tasks? What environments?

    5. Self-disciplined, willing and an adaptive thinker, capable of solving
    problems commensurate with position and experience.
    Hope I'm not being over critical, I like the thought behind it, but also can be dangerous in the wrong hands. I'm with Ken on the old task, conditions, and standards. Was kinda funny how the conditions rarely if ever changed. I just have a hard time believing this soldiers are truly being pushed to new limits they didn't know they had.
    ODB

    Exchange with an Iraqi soldier during FID:

    Why did you not clear your corner?

    Because we are on a base and it is secure.

  6. #6
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Oops...

    Quote Originally Posted by ODB View Post
    I came across this little tidbit:...
    I goofed and didn't put the in link to the article you found when I cross posted here. Sorry. Fixed now.
    How much flexibilty will the trainer have? Can we change enough to get to where we need to go or will we continue to sink further down the micromnagement cess pool?
    Change is never easy. Change in an Army is never ever even close to easy...

    We'll see; all we can do is hope.
    So which is it? This is what I always thought was squad training, derrived by the squad leader based on strengths and weaknesses. Amazing what a little imagination can do in training. I'll take it if we are truely going to try an incorporate this throughout. My only fear is that with the state of the Army today how effective can we be at this? Perhaps 5-10 years down the road when these new recruits move into positions of influence.
    I don't see any real difference in what they're saying. Lots of folks use 'leaders' and 'commanders' almost interchangeably.

    You're right on the last item. This is starting change at the bottom and letting it grow into the system -- as you know, this system doesn't change much from the top down...
    Hope I'm not being over critical, I like the thought behind it, but also can be dangerous in the wrong hands...
    True, Outcome Based Training isn't the gold standard. It has good and bad points and it can be misused. Hopefully, we'll get it right and since most people want to do what's right, it should offer a big improvement over todays marginal at best processes.[quote]I just have a hard time believing this soldiers are truly being pushed to new limits they didn't know they had.[/quoter]Ain't no doubt that would really be different, wouldn't it?

    It's long overdue, the kids can do a lot more than we ask of them. Let's hope it takes and spreads.

Similar Threads

  1. Nation-Building Elevated
    By SWJED in forum Government Agencies & Officials
    Replies: 97
    Last Post: 01-30-2010, 01:35 AM
  2. MCOs and SSOs in the 2008 edition of FM 3-0 Operations
    By Norfolk in forum Doctrine & TTPs
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 03-17-2008, 12:15 AM
  3. Replies: 54
    Last Post: 01-26-2008, 07:29 AM
  4. Disarming the Local Population
    By CSC2005 in forum Doctrine & TTPs
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 08-08-2006, 01:10 PM
  5. Training for Small Wars
    By SWJED in forum RFIs & Members' Projects
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-02-2005, 06:50 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •