Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 121

Thread: Warrior Ethos

  1. #61
    Council Member CPT Foley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    Sorry, but this strike to the heart of the issue. There is no such thing as "COIN techniques" - 99% of actions performed in COIN are applicable in other forms of warfare. What you are talking about is not something exclusive to something called COIN. It is a means to end, to applied as and when necessary, and within a political context.

    Talking about "armed social work," and "respect for culture" utterly misses the point, of
    a.) Don't let civilians, who are under your protection, come to needless harm, either by your action or ... worse.. inaction, because it will/may negatively impact your military operations.
    b.) Do not do those things that will needlessly create offence, because it will/may negatively impact your military operations.

    Now is statement A or B incorrect?
    Are they actually different from saying "social work" and "respect for culture". I submit that A is not Social work, and B is good behaviour, not respect.
    You are going to have to do things that are not synonymous with "respecting their culture" - killing, searches, etc, so why back yourself into that corner with sloppy semantics?
    I don't think someone referring to COIN techniques would dispute that 99% or maybe 100% of the techniques would be used in other conflicts, e.g., large conventional ops, etc. I'm puzzled that people seem to question premise that the composition and frequency of tactics used in a COIN environment would differ from that of large conventional conflict. Agreed, a lot of the same tactics would be used in both, but it would be a different mix. It's like saying there's no such thing as MOUT because all of the things in MOUT are done in non-MOUT ops. It's a question emphasis. I don't think it's unreasonable to refer to COIN techniques to describe non-kinetic ops, but I agree that there are definitely kinetic elements to COIN.

  2. #62
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Surferbeetle View Post
    ... as a CA-Bubba I can’t work with the locals to bring the local Water Treatment Plant back on line (LOO-Restore Basic Services) or assist with elections (LOO-Conduct Free Election) or work with the local police forces to bring them back on line (LOO-Restore Security) without Infantry-Bubbas doing snap-TCP’s, cordon & knock ops, raids, etc. etc. Simultaneously we need SF-Bubbas training local military forces and Active, Guard, Reserve and CA-Bubbas with professional civilian skills (practiced every day) working with the locals on this problem. This is the essence of Civil Military Operations…CA planners (limited resource) helping GPF forces (larger resource) to work with the local population (largest resource) to stabilize the AO.
    But there is a very important job missing there. Essential services, law enforcement, elections, and defense are important. But what about standing up some shell of a government? If there is no government and no law, then what offices are you filling with your elections and what laws are the police enforcing? Without a local government, who is responsible for maintenance and standards of community property? I don't see any guidance for who is in the lead for standing up a government. State Dept maybe? I don't know. I didn't see any mention of it on this thread or the links provided. It would seem like something related to CMO, but that doesn't answer the question either.

  3. #63
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brandon Friedman View Post
    I'm not going to get sucked into broad-brushing a billion Muslims here. That's absurd. Of course we don't respect men who abuse women or who practice honor killings. But when you walk into a city like, say, Baghdad with the mentality and preconception that the inhabitants are a bunch of wife-beating, 11th century savages, then you're setting yourself up for failure.
    I live amongst Arabs, albeit where they are a minority (20%). Rub shoulders with them everyday, and buy my bread and coffee from them, and talk to them once in a while - usually about football ..Eyuh!. Good folks.. mostly.

    The secret to peaceful co-existence is mostly good behaviour.

    Quote Originally Posted by marct View Post
    Hmm, I'm not sure about the first - 'tis a little too optimistic for me.
    Me too. Yes, you probably have to beat it into Rifleman F*cknuts, and Cpl Doomweeby, via 3 hours of lectures and make it very plain that any transgression will result in sever penalties, but I am strongly against the "they have a point," justification of beliefs that run contrary the values of the organisation you might be in.

    Wilf, I had no idea that you hated 19th century British culture so much !
    I am a product of it! I am a walking talking 1899 public School boy! My wife get irritated when I call here countrymen "The natives," and complains that it is very patronising the use the same tone of voice with the locals, that she has heard me use, when talking to pets!
    Poor girl is a foreigner, so can't understand!
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  4. #64
    Council Member Umar Al-Mokhtār's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Cirenaica
    Posts
    374

    Default Experience really only counts...

    in the election cycle.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brandon Friedman View Post
    By that, I mean it's much easier--with voters back home--for a senator who's a doctor to feasibly oppose a popular health care proposal. Or for a Congressman who served as a maneuver commander to oppose a widely accepted defense policy.
    One would hope, but that is not necessarily the case. Politicians often vote issues after calculating the strategic impact of the vote. Or as contrarian to the opposing party’s vote, regardless as to whether the legislation is a good thing for the people.

    Ken’s experience from historically and actualities of a long life is based on his experiences back with the Constitutional Convention.

    Mine just from both proximity and a politician father who had more faces than one could count.

    Brandon, you hit it on the head with this: “Concern for a politician's re-election is always paramount.” That's it, and not taking a stand that could jeopardize that goal. Consider that most in Congress make nice long winded speeches, to an empty chamber. It puts them on record, but come re-election time they are rarely called on their voting record or their stances. They run a campaign based on the “flavor of the week” issues in order to keep their seat, trusting the short memory and lack of political inquisitiveness of their constituency.

    IMHO the people that routinely participate in this forum have a higher than normal curiosity about the world around them and the events which impact their’s and other’s lives. The vast majority of people, however, tend to live within very narrowly focused world views. Politicians know this, in fact they rely upon it.
    Last edited by Umar Al-Mokhtār; 06-01-2009 at 01:15 PM.
    "What is best in life?" "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women."

  5. #65
    Council Member CPT Foley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marct View Post
    Hi Wilf,



    Totally agree! (Of course, I expand the singular box a little further than you do). Let's add another part of the danger of constantly expanding taxonomies: for every "new" taxon, you need new "experts". Of course, that means that you have to hire new consultants, pay for new research (and translators), and set up new organizational units. Now, I would never say that that was a bureaucrats dream, but...



    I think Lewis Carroll captured this nicely...




    Hmm, I'm not sure about the first - 'tis a little too optimistic for me.

    On the second point, of course you can tell soldiers to respect a culture that they find abhorrent! Of course, telling them to respect it is one thing, getting them to respect it is another. And, if they totally do "respect" it (in the cultural relativity suffering from PMS [Post-Modernist Syndrome ] sense), then you have probably just helped your enemy.

    Somewhat less on the tongue-in-cheek level, this is a problem Anthropologists have been dealing with for a century or so, and the British military has been dealing with for longer. "Respect" should, IMO, always be interpreted in two different, and distinct, ways: a) for the commonality between two people (whatever that may be - it varies), and b) for utilitarian purposes of completing the "mission", whether that be countering an insurgency or getting an ethnography published.



    Wilf, I had no idea that you hated 19th century British culture so much !



    Actually, I would go further - it is outright dangerous simply because it is so semantically loose. One of the worst things I ever saw as a graduate student was another grad student so traumatized by being told she had to "respect" the people she was studying that she ended up having a nervous breakdown. BTW, her fieldwork was with a group that is considered to be "nice" by most people.

    Cheers,

    Marc
    You make a good point. I was a bit sloppy in my description that our Soldiers should respect other cultures. That's not what I meant. They should endeavor to display respect for other cultures because it will contribute toward mission accomplishment and the overall effort. Owen is also correct in that there will certainly be instances where we may have to takes some actions which will be viewed as disrespectful, e.g., searching homes with no males present, ops during Ramadan, etc. The fact that there will be exceptions in no way discredits the approach. The less people we piss off that we don't have to is an important consideration.

  6. #66
    Council Member MikeF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    1,177

    Default Interesting Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Schmedlap View Post
    But there is a very important job missing there. Essential services, law enforcement, elections, and defense are important. But what about standing up some shell of a government? If there is no government and no law, then what offices are you filling with your elections and what laws are the police enforcing? Without a local government, who is responsible for maintenance and standards of community property? I don't see any guidance for who is in the lead for standing up a government. State Dept maybe? I don't know. I didn't see any mention of it on this thread or the links provided. It would seem like something related to CMO, but that doesn't answer the question either.
    Schmedlap hits on a very important point- one that I've been studying intensely for nearly the last two years. What do we do when there is no functioning government or the populace rejects the current government? There is no silver bullet answer here, and both Iraq and Afghanistan can arguably placed in this category. Unfortunately, we will probably find that we can either do nothing, or we will have to occupy for several generations in the hopes that an American military presence can provide enough security over time to allow the subtle,slow shift towards stability and acceptance of a national government.

    Going back to the earlier discussion on the use of violence and soldier behavior in COIN, I had a Brigade Commander sum up our ethos with the following quote,

    "Treat everyone with dignity and respect, but be prepared to kill them."

    I would submit that actively pursuing, tracking down irreconciliables and killing them IS mutually exclusive to acting like a jackass and behaving ignorantly and disrespectfully to the populace. It is simply a matter of discipline and professionalism. Personally, I found acting politely and intermingling with the populace can be the best form of intelligence collection even if one is forced to use coercive population control measures to provide intitial security.

    Teddy Roosevelt said we should "walk softly and carry a big stick." I think his words are still valid.

    Ken would probably sum it up with METT-TC. There is a time to bring the love, and a time to bring the hate. A commander must discern which COA is valid given the particular environment. Regardless, one can still act in a manner of professionalism and discipline.

    Ultimately, the true battle is between the host nation and its' people. It has nothing to do with us. We can either assist, arbitrate, or get in the way. When we forget that COIN/IW is warfare, then I would submit that is dangerous. I've observed too many units that drive down the road instead of manuevering/bounding b/c they felt all they were doing was conducting "non-lethal" operations. I could never understand why they did not realize the enemy did not care what their mission was.

    CPT Foley- I wrote an essay a while back on the conditions I observed in the DRV back in late 2006 as a small town descended into anarchy. You may want to take a look at it to determine how you would engage this situation in order to stop the violence and provide security. At the time, I determined an indirect or soft approach was not feasible given the total collapse of the government. It speaks more to what Wilf (Mr. Owen) is referring to as to the necessity of the use of violence to secure the populace.

    With all of that said, I've gotta get back to my thesis writing. Please feel free to dissect and refute anything I've said.

    v/r

    Mike
    Last edited by MikeF; 06-01-2009 at 04:30 PM.

  7. #67
    Council Member Hacksaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Lansing, KS
    Posts
    361

    Default In Re:

    Disclaimor first

    I'd like to clarify that my brief telling of the history behind the "Warrior" creed was meant to be informative rather than an endorsement... my only endorsement is that I thought the cumulative effect of the changes that resulted from the TF Soldier (to include the Warrior Creed) was positive....

    Brandon... Rakasson (probably spelled that wrong, but what the hell)... Ironically it was the Deputy Commander that led TF Soldier...

    WILF... In the end you are right (mostly)... however right or wrong - a Soldier does what a Soldier does out of necessity... sometimes that is non-kinetic operations to better secure the population that leads to improved intel to either kill or capture...

    CPT Foley... there is nothing like a cocksure company grade officer (that's a compliment), but judging from your comments I'm thinking you are close to moving into the next phase of your career... and I can offer no better advise than to say the first rule is to understand you don't really understand anything... that can't lead to paralysis until you do reach that mythical situational awareness, only that there is value in considering that others may be right even when their views are in direct conflict with your own...

    which brings us full circle... has the changes of TF Soldier (to include the Warrior Ethos) worked???

    I think largely yes... while not a perfect set of solutions and open to improvements... and I have no idea whether non-combat arms Soldiers are more warrior-like in disposition... I do know that Soldiers, regardless of rank and specialty are far better prepared to achieve their mission in a hostile environment - and I think it insignificant that we use the term Warrior in a creed....

    Now I'm done
    Hacksaw
    Say hello to my 2 x 4

  8. #68
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hacksaw View Post
    WILF... In the end you are right (mostly)... however right or wrong - a Soldier does what a Soldier does out of necessity... sometimes that is non-kinetic operations to better secure the population that leads to improved intel to either kill or capture...
    Sir, I am in complete agreement and defer to your wisdom, good looks, alleged sexual prowess, and impeccable dress sense!

    ...turning to the right and falling out....
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  9. #69
    Council Member Hacksaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Lansing, KS
    Posts
    361

    Default In Re:

    Well takes one to know one... fell out after posting
    Hacksaw
    Say hello to my 2 x 4

  10. #70
    Council Member CPT Foley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hacksaw View Post
    Disclaimor first

    I'd like to clarify that my brief telling of the history behind the "Warrior" creed was meant to be informative rather than an endorsement... my only endorsement is that I thought the cumulative effect of the changes that resulted from the TF Soldier (to include the Warrior Creed) was positive....

    Brandon... Rakasson (probably spelled that wrong, but what the hell)... Ironically it was the Deputy Commander that led TF Soldier...

    WILF... In the end you are right (mostly)... however right or wrong - a Soldier does what a Soldier does out of necessity... sometimes that is non-kinetic operations to better secure the population that leads to improved intel to either kill or capture...

    CPT Foley... there is nothing like a cocksure company grade officer (that's a compliment), but judging from your comments I'm thinking you are close to moving into the next phase of your career... and I can offer no better advise than to say the first rule is to understand you don't really understand anything... that can't lead to paralysis until you do reach that mythical situational awareness, only that there is value in considering that others may be right even when their views are in direct conflict with your own...

    which brings us full circle... has the changes of TF Soldier (to include the Warrior Ethos) worked???

    I think largely yes... while not a perfect set of solutions and open to improvements... and I have no idea whether non-combat arms Soldiers are more warrior-like in disposition... I do know that Soldiers, regardless of rank and specialty are far better prepared to achieve their mission in a hostile environment - and I think it insignificant that we use the term Warrior in a creed....

    Now I'm done
    I will try to keep an open mind.

    I found the article I referenced in my opening post. He makes his case much better than I.

    http://usacac.army.mil/CAC/milreview...c05/aylwin.pdf

  11. #71
    Council Member jenniferro10's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    26

    Default somebody over at Leavenworth was reading your mind...

    Maimonides: "Consider this, those of you who are engaged in investigation, if you choose to seek truth. Cast aside passion, accepted thought, and the inclination toward what you used to esteem, and you shall not be lead into error."

  12. #72
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jenniferro10 View Post
    Totally brilliant! You know, I think I may just use that in my class this fall !

    As an FYI - here's one of the other ones
    http://nerds.unl.edu/pages/preser/se...abertooth.html
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  13. #73
    Council Member CPT Foley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jenniferro10 View Post
    It is clever. "Quest for Fire" meets "Who Moved My Cheese."

  14. #74
    Council Member Surferbeetle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,111

    Default Governance and Rule of Law References

    Quote Originally Posted by Schmedlap View Post
    But there is a very important job missing there. Essential services, law enforcement, elections, and defense are important. But what about standing up some shell of a government? If there is no government and no law, then what offices are you filling with your elections and what laws are the police enforcing? Without a local government, who is responsible for maintenance and standards of community property? I don't see any guidance for who is in the lead for standing up a government. State Dept maybe? I don't know. I didn't see any mention of it on this thread or the links provided. It would seem like something related to CMO, but that doesn't answer the question either.
    FM 1-04, Legal Support to the Operational Army (Distribution Unlimited) gives some background on the JAG's role with respect to your question. Civil Affairs Rule of Law and Governance Teams (Appendix E) are staffed by Functional Specialists (including lawyers - although the JAG Corps always brawls for those bodies) in these areas. Many/most of the CAT-A's are staffed by generalists (Army, Marine, & Navy)

    With respect to Civilian Functional Specialists FM 3-07 Stability and Support Operations (Distribution Unlimited), Appendix F speaks to PRT's and their role in Governance (Paragraphs F5, F6, & F7).

    Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone by Rajiv Chandrasekaran. Haven't read it myself, but it may provide you some more insight on the CPA days...or not.

    Gun toting diplomats ? From the US Army's Special Operations Recruiting Battalion Webpage:

    The remaining 96 percent of the Army’s Civil Affairs Forces are found in four Civil Affairs Commands, subordinate brigades and battalions in the Army Reserve. They provide a prime source of nation-building skills. These reserve-component Civil Affairs units include Soldiers with training and experience in public administration, public safety, public health, legal systems, labor management, public welfare, public finance, public education, civil defense, public works and utilities, public communications, public transportation, logistics, food and agricultural services, economics, property control, cultural affairs, civil information, and managing dislocated persons.
    Last edited by Surferbeetle; 06-02-2009 at 04:23 AM. Reason: Links
    Sapere Aude

  15. #75
    Council Member Brandon Friedman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Umar Al-Mokhtār View Post
    IMHO the people that routinely participate in this forum have a higher than normal curiosity about the world around them and the events which impact their’s and other’s lives. The vast majority of people, however, tend to live within very narrowly focused world views. Politicians know this, in fact they rely upon it.
    They do. That’s why it’s important for people like us--with our experience and military values--to actively involve ourselves in the political process. If you’re not willing to do that, then you’re conceding control of American defense policy to the people like you’ve described.

    Quote Originally Posted by jenniferro10 View Post
    That's a good piece. Part of the problem with inflexible leadership is that military leaders are never evaluated by their subordinates. So they’re never accountable to the troops they lead. I think this would help:

    I've never understood why officers are officially evaluated primarily by their superiors, when it's their subordinates who really know whether or not they're effective. I've always wondered why the Army doesn't implement an evaluation program much like those administered in colleges and universities around the country--teacher evaluations. At the end of each semester, the professor leaves the room, the TA passes out the Scantron questionnaire forms with the extra sheet for comments, and the students fill them out anonymously. Then the forms go to the Dean. Why doesn't the military evaluate PLs, COs, and BCs like this? But instead of every soldier filling out the form, it would be answered by, say, only subordinate NCOs and officers.

    I typed up my own forms and did this for one of my platoons at the end of my time, and it was the best, most honest feedback I ever received in the Army. If similar questionnaires on the other PLs had been passed up to my commander and the BC, they would've been able to better compare the effectiveness of their PLs.
    To go along with that, Schmedlap also suggested peer reviews. This way, leaders who weren’t responsive to changing conditions would eventually be outed by their subordinates and, hopefully, not promoted into critical positions like the ones we’re talking about.

  16. #76
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    Surferbeetle,

    You provided some good info in that last post. Now my question is, where are those people? Where were they? If we have people tasked for the purpose of standing up a government, are they doing it? Were they trying in 2003? Were they even in theater? Are they now?

    Assuming that we have properly identified the skill sets necessary to do this, and tasked the job appropriately (at least on paper), do we have nearly enough of these people to do the task that they have purportedly been given?

    Somewhat related point - I think the real crux of the issue regarding whether we need to "train Soldiers for COIN" and also "train Soldiers for high-intensity operations" rather than "training them to operate across the full spectrum" is a debate that completely misses the point. The real crux of the issue is not just one of whether you can pack in a certain amount of knowledge and skills into one brain. Rather, it is a question of whether you can expect the average 19-year-old Soldier to adjust his mental and emotional state on the fly to operate across the full spectrum of operations. The average 19-year-old rifleman is intelligent, resourceful, and creative. He can learn the skills and apply the knowledge. But 19-year-old riflemen are generally not emotionally mature. They have a difficult time transitioning from close-quarters combat, where the interaction is an exchange of deadly force, to face-to-face non-lethal engagements where the interaction is an exchange of information. The real question should be, can we expect most Soldiers to operate effectively in this environment? (I think the answer is yes, but....) If so, for how long? If deployments were 4 to 6 months in length and units maintained a habitual relationship with their AOR (meaning you deploy to location X, redeploy and maintain dialed in to what is occurring in location X, then deploy again to location X, and so on) and we kept Soldiers at their duty stations for 5 or 6 years, rather than 3, then we would see much better results and there would be no more wondering about the counterproductive distraction known as the Nagl-Gentile debate.

  17. #77
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Schmedlap View Post
    Somewhat related point - I think the real crux of the issue regarding whether we need to "train Soldiers for COIN" and also "train Soldiers for high-intensity operations" rather than "training them to operate across the full spectrum" is a debate that completely misses the point. The real crux of the issue is not just one of whether you can pack in a certain amount of knowledge and skills into one brain. Rather, it is a question of whether you can expect the average 19-year-old Soldier to adjust his mental and emotional state on the fly to operate across the full spectrum of operations.
    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.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  18. #78
    Council Member Brandon Friedman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Schmedlap View Post
    Somewhat related point - I think the real crux of the issue regarding whether we need to "train Soldiers for COIN" and also "train Soldiers for high-intensity operations" rather than "training them to operate across the full spectrum" is a debate that completely misses the point. The real crux of the issue is not just one of whether you can pack in a certain amount of knowledge and skills into one brain. Rather, it is a question of whether you can expect the average 19-year-old Soldier to adjust his mental and emotional state on the fly to operate across the full spectrum of operations. The average 19-year-old rifleman is intelligent, resourceful, and creative. He can learn the skills and apply the knowledge. But 19-year-old riflemen are generally not emotionally mature. They have a difficult time transitioning from close-quarters combat, where the interaction is an exchange of deadly force, to face-to-face non-lethal engagements where the interaction is an exchange of information. The real question should be, can we expect most Soldiers to operate effectively in this environment? (I think the answer is yes, but....) If so, for how long? If deployments were 4 to 6 months in length and units maintained a habitual relationship with their AOR (meaning you deploy to location X, redeploy and maintain dialed in to what is occurring in location X, then deploy again to location X, and so on) and we kept Soldiers at their duty stations for 5 or 6 years, rather than 3, then we would see much better results and there would be no more wondering about the counterproductive distraction known as the Nagl-Gentile debate.
    This is spot on. One solution I've kicked around would be to focus unit training on kinetic, force-on-force engagements--as we've always done. At the same time, create a 10-week, stateside, permanent, counterinsurgent course focused on basic language instruction, customs, regional negotiation tactics, etc.

    You send all junior combat arms officers through the course after OBC and you send E-4s and above when you can get them there. One of the primary purposes of Ranger School is that you train these guys from across the Army, and then sprinkle them evenly throughout combat units, so that no infantry platoon is without at least one or two Ranger-qualified soldiers. These soldiers, then, are supposed to be the ones who pass on mental toughness, confidence, and expertise (the ability to march while sleeping, I guess?).

    By setting up a course like this, you wouldn't have to spend time training every young soldier on the tenets of COIN while he's just trying to learn how to fight and how to use the 240 and the ANCD (if we still use those). Let the leaders in each platoon handle the counterinsurgency. (Because realistically, how often do 19-year-old riflemen need to interact and exchange information? That's a job for NCOs and officers and, fortunately, with the exception of maybe checkpoints, there's usually an E-5 or above present in most situations.) This way, COIN becomes ingrained in combat units, while they focus their unit training on shooting, moving, communicating, and fighting.

    This would be expensive and excessively time-consuming, but when nature builds a better mousetrap, you have to become a better mouse. We have to be able to do both.

  19. #79
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default I know an almost 80 year old ex-rifleman who isn't emotionally mature...

    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.

  20. #80
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Okay. Scenario, some time after the year 2015:

    Quote Originally Posted by Brandon Friedman View Post
    At the same time, create a 10-week, stateside, permanent, counterinsurgent course focused on basic language instruction, customs, regional negotiation tactics, etc.
    What language? Whose customs?

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
  •