Quote Originally Posted by Brandon Friedman View Post
...And you can't underestimate the importance of that in a Muslim nation.
No but you can overestimate it. I lived in the Middle East, on the economy for two years and traveled broadly there; lot of myths about the area and the locals are quite adept at using Islam to gain what they want.
...but on absorbing the principle of the importance of learning a foreign language.
That's one opinion, many agree with it -- many do not. The issue is will that occur; those attending learning that?
Maybe the point is to stress the importance of learning the local language--and to put it on par with other military skills. It's not like anyone is going to graduate from a 10-week course with any fluency anyway.
I think your second point is quite accurate; and I agree -- so why bother? I believe the first point to be incorrect at least if not borderline dangerous; precipitated on one brief experience and aimed at a scenario that may not be repeated in our lifetimes.
The biggest problem facing U.S. forces on the ground is the inability to communicate in any meaningful way with civilians on the battlefield. Perhaps I don't have the ultimate solution, but I know very well what the problem is.
We can disagree on that. I'd say the biggest problem is marginal training in basic skills -- which should include dealing with civilians in combat zones of all types, not just FID missions.

I also suggest you may be fighting the last war -- lot of that about...
Does that mean requiring one member of the platoon to have a degree causes a debate over the value of a college education in implementing infantry tactics?
Not really. Lots of platoons do not have that one member requiring a degree and they work as well or better than many who do have that person. A College degree is not required to be quite expert at Infantry tactics.
Does it mean that having 2-3 members of the platoon being Ranger-qualified causes an internal debate over whether all soldiers should be tabbed?
No but it does usually give rise to Ranger jokes...

There are also many platoons that do not have 2-3 Rangers or even one. Some of them do better than those Platoons that do have some Rangers. All Rangers, just like every other category of humans, are not equal. I've met some real losers with a tab.
And not every soldier is CLS-qualified, right? My point is that there's no issue with having a handful of soldiers in a platoon specially trained and qualified to think or act in a certain way.
I don't disagree with that. I'm just pretty well convinced that the training you suggest will not qualify any soldiers for much of anything -- just as Ranger School does not qualify anyone for much of anything -- and I'm pretty sure based on watching soldiers for some time that such training emphatically will not make them act in a certain way -- that's simply a leadership issue. I also suggest that certain way will be extremely difficult to tailor or orient in a brief course, has rather narrow applicability and may not be required.

If extra training time is made available, it would be far better spent giving Soldier -- and Lieutenants -- a better grounding in the basics of the trade.