Warrior Ethos

[Ken White]

I also know a few people of diverse ranks and ages who have the same problem. I have a Sister in Law, former schoolteacher who insists 19 year olds today are equal to 16 year olds of 30 years ago. She may be right but if so, no worries; I've seen a lot of then 16 year olds pass for 18, go to war and do okay -- and I mean do okay in shifting gears up and down the spectrum of combat and that to an extent few have seen recently.

Generally, if you tell people they can do something, they'll do it -- tell them you don't think they can and they'll do that; act as if their attempting to do it makes you nervous and that will make them nervous. Treat 19 year olds like children and they'll continue to act like them. You have to force them to grow up quickly; it is not that hard to do.

Everyone has difficulty transitioning from CQB to seemingly friendly interchanges for information; or, more correctly, that transition ability is not age specific -- it's person specific and some do it better than others. Know your people...

All that is idle comment -- point is; Our training is marginal. If we better trained at initial entry, Officer and Enlisted, we could eliminate a lot of this conjecture. It would be nice if in that training, we treated both as if they were more mature than they may be; people tend to rise to expectations. Do that and we will have no problem with full spectrum operations. The US Army trained for it before, successfully IMO, no reason they cannot do so again. That seems particularly so given the increased quality of troops today versus then...

We do need to stop the excessive PCS and we need to scrap up or out. We also should stop running decent kids off for minor disciplinary infractions. Schmedlap's tour idea is good; a year is a long stint and sending units to different AOs in succeeding rotations during operations like Afghanistan and Iraq is just tactically stupid -- the modular effort is great but there's a time and place.

[reed11b]

I
All that is idle comment -- point is; Our training is marginal. If we better trained at initial entry, Officer and Enlisted, we could eliminate a lot of this conjecture. It would be nice if in that training, we treated both as if they were more mature than they may be; people tend to rise to expectations. Do that and we will have no problem with full spectrum operations. The US Army trained for it before, successfully IMO, no reason they cannot do so again. That seems particularly so given the increased quality of troops today versus then...

We do need to stop the excessive PCS and we need to scrap up or out. We also should stop running decent kids off for minor disciplinary infractions. Schmedlap's tour idea is good; a year is a long stint and sending units to different AOs in succeeding rotations during operations like Afghanistan and Iraq is just tactically stupid -- the modular effort is great but there's a time and place.

Agreed, I also feel that after intial training, most training should be unit based. That "Ranger" example eluded to earlier has always steamed me a bit. Do it as a unit and you get a unit, with the sense of team spirit and cooperation only improved. Do it as individuals and individuals you will get; and individuals make poor soldiers and TEAM members. Just my sleep deprived 2 cents.

Reed

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Wilf,

Very much the point. This is the danger in the "COIN is not Warfare" approach that suggests that "in COIN" you do X and Y, instead of emphasising WHY things are done give an particular circumstance or condition, and this dependant on judgement. You want to provide a broad set of tools and education that is as widely applicable as possible. This is impossible in a culture that has become emotionally dependant fitting warfare into separate boxes.

Excellent post, and you identified the words I have been looking for. Ken also hit the nail on the head in another forum where he discussed the Army's training down fall when it started adapting training methods from industry, which was check the block training on each task. If you put the right hand guard on first you get a no go, if you don't tie a perfect square knot on your pressure dressing you get a no go, and of course both of the requirements were no value added, but everyone had to waste time to learn how to respond like a robot instead of a thinking person. Even Specail Forces adapted this stupid training methodology. Old timers cringed, I wasn't experienced enough at the time to see the danger in the methodology, but I see it clearly now. During that transition period, many of our officers spent more time reading and quoting the latest business books (management fads) than they spent studying war fighting. I can see how we got to the point where we couldn't transition to changing environments well over the years. Hopefully those days are long behind us.

Posted by Reed,

Agreed, I also feel that after intial training, most training should be unit based. That "Ranger" example eluded to earlier has always steamed me a bit. Do it as a unit and you get a unit, with the sense of team spirit and cooperation only improved. Do it as individuals and individuals you will get; and individuals make poor soldiers and TEAM members.

Good point Reed, although I'm not sure what you do with the 50% of the unit that can't make Ranger school, but we do need more very tough unit level training. I still think JRTC and NTC are excellent training venues for units. The Army did good when they stood up these training centers. I haven't been through a rotation in recent years, so I can't speak to their effectiveness now, but it is an excellent concept.