I said this in an earlier post, but again, the targeting class just happened to be the block we were in. All students, regardless of the subjects, were told to watch. Those in doctrine watched it. Those in the SCIF watched it. The morning discussion was used to discuss the speech, rather than the night's reading assignment from the FM's.

I too would be wary of discussing the acting POTUS with a targeting or IO angle, at least in a military classroom. We received no guidance other than go watch, so we only had our personal mindsets for a frame of reference. The discussion the next day tended to focus more on wondering why we had to watch it, rather than discussing policy. When policy did come up, it resorted to usual political sides, with little contribution to the class. We talked about the expected troop drawdown in Iraq, but the increase in A-stan. Those of us potentially heading to MiTTs (or BTTs to be accurate) wondered what happens when "Trainer Violence" takes place after the end of combat ops.

Quote Originally Posted by Schmedlap View Post
As I noted earlier, aside from this being assigned for a targeting class, I'd be curious to know more context - both for why it was assigned and how it was used in the classroom afterward.

...

I'd be curious to hear how the discussion went, to see how well the students avoided getting covered by or slinging it.