Quote Originally Posted by Schmedlap View Post
Are we saying that more/proper training...
a) will reduce the need for so much gear because we won't need it to be effective
as well what little must be taken * and what should be left behind -- and more importantly, decent training will also develop leaders that can and will conduct risk assessments and who will allow (and take) responsibility for tactical decisions that may lessen 'necessary equipment' carried, 'force protection' or 'safety' restrictions to provide better conditions for mission accomplishment.
This is one of those occasions where the connection between the problem identified and the solution suggested isn't completely obvious to me.
Unfortunately, it is also not obvious to many in high places.

I fully understand the political and media pressures on several levels that preclude better training, inhibit the ability of willing commanders to take risks and cause excessive emphasis on force protection.

I also understand that the American people -- as opposed to the political and chattering classes -- are able to discern what's important and make sensible decisions. It is my belief that we can train and operate a great deal more effectively if we stop trying to placate Congress and the media (which we will never really manage to do), stop trying to tap dance on the head of a pin (to convince people how special we are) and just concentrate on doing the job right...


* How much of what now 'must' be taken is a technological substitute for poor training?