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.