I would chart it as a rapidly ascending curve, with the x-axis representing percentage of time spent specifically preparing for deployment. My planning cell was mostly fully engaged almost from the start, with the rest of the headquarters gradually being drawn in.Originally Posted by jmm99
a question whose answers everyone one else knows.
When you say a "two-year trainup", was this a part-time effort for everyone - i.e., X hours per week on the trainup; and Y hours per week on "other stuff"; or was it a full-time effort for most everyone ?
As a reader of this thread (surely not a contributor), I need that for context. Thanx.
But, as with every large headquarters, there is always a large slice of your time that must be spent on housekeeping details, taskers to support other units, and things like equipment checks and individual training that don't directly support training in staff skills. You actually never spend more than fifty percent of your time training as a staff until the very end of the train-up.
One decision that was probably a mistake in retrospect involved our big annual CPX with subordinate units. We had one scheduled at about the nine-month mark (i.e., fifteen months shy of deployment). Traditionally it was a conventional scenario, and it was decided to keep that conventional focus rather than try to make it an Afghan-based scenario. Why?
1. Our subordinate units, with only one or two exceptions, were not deploying with us.
2. Deployment schedules were in flux, and we might not have gone, or might have gone later, so no sense in leaning too far forward in the foxhole.
3. It would have been very hard to put together a completely new scenario in time for the exercise.
4. The staff skills honed in a conventional exercise would be just as valuable to us in Afghanistan.
As I said, it was a mistake. It contributed to our concentration on process rather than on product, but never underestimate the inertia of a large organization.
Bookmarks