The Strategic Corporal

[GorTex6]

that the National Guard is an elite fighting force,

There were some elite forces in the guard, but the geriatric fatbastard good ole' boy network disbanded them.

[Fabius Maximus]

Excerpt from
"Militia: the dominant defensive force in 21st Century 4GW?"
by Fabius Maximus.
http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/pdf/fabius_..._militia-1.pdf


Unfortunately there ... is a natural tendency to propose expanding on our strengths rather than addressing our weaknesses, taking us further down a dead end road.

Note recent articles ... describing programs to improve the training of US troops, in the hope that we can win by fielding troops in which – to caricature it – each NCO and officer has the skills of Green Beret.

Imagine a force of multilingual troops, all of whose leaders have a sophisticated understanding of foreign cultures, and ability to not only lead US troops but also navigate within foreign communities – gathering and using intelligence, playing both its elites and common people as an experienced angler does trout.

At some point this becomes a search for the “super soldier serum” familiar to all who read Captain America comic books. ...

We already have some of the best-trained soldiers that America has ever fielded, certainly among the best trained and educated in world history. Is increasing their effectiveness by adding even more intellectual skills the best course, or have passed the point of diminishing returns to training?

However desirable a goal, adding to our strengths detracts attention from critical weaknesses in our current force structure. Seeking to increase our troops training and skills is nice, but the process has severe and perhaps immediate limits.

[Stratiotes]

I guess it depends on how we're defining "strategic corporal." I never thought the idea of making every soldier a green beret as feasible - but I have thought we can teach them some rudimentary knowledge of culture and language in the area where they are going to be assigned prior to sending them there.

They don't have to be fluent but if they can say more than "Tell me where you hid the weapons of mass destruction!" and a few expletives in the native language, it would be quite helpful.

And I'm not even thinking so much in terms of language and culture skills or even physical fitness. I'm thinking more along the lines of being able to think beyond carrying out the letter of his orders and more to carrying out the intent of those orders instead. Rather than blindly following what his Captain says, he should have the ability to know what his Captain's intent was and if following his orders strictly will result in that intent or might backfire in a later situation where his Captain cannot be there to correct him. I know that's a lot to ask too but surely we can do something more than we have in the past toward that end.

[GorTex6]

We wasted our six month train up sitting around at ranges and waiting for ammo to arrive. We were trained by incompetent idiot reservists that were more concerned with "going through the sequences" and "checking the box". What a waste of time and money; we could have had been immersed in cultural communication classes and language training at university level instruction, but instead were fed the same ethnocentric dogma and Jominian hubris. Our scenerios had Killeen's finest ghetto thugs (from a temp agency) acting a COBs(civilians on the battlefield); they had no fuc&ing clue about Iraqi culture nor even gave a rats ass. They just half assed through the day to get a paycheck.

FTA

[Stratiotes]

Gortex,

You confirm what I have suspected for some time. We ask you guys to do a peace-keeping mission but give you only rudimentary or no skills at all suited for that purpose. When it comes to killing and breaking things, I think our training is second to none - but when it comes to creating soldier-diplomats we fall on our faces. I temper what I say since I do not have the first hand experience, I appreciate your passion because it suits an individual that can speak first hand on the matter.

Given that, I gather language and culture skills would be useful to you. Can you elaborate on those a bit and tell us some of the lessons you have learned the hard way? Obviously you cannot go into details of particular operations but if you can be generic and still give enough detail I am interested.

[DDilegge]

We ask you guys to do a peace-keeping mission but give you only rudimentary or no skills at all suited for that purpose.

Not quite true. While I am more familiar with Marine Corps Training, there has been a lot of progress by both the Army and USMC in reference to SASO training. Broad sweeping statements like the one you made do injustice to the efforts by many to train for the complex "Three Block War" scenario.

Don't buy into the hype that all of our military leadership "doesn’t get it" - they do.

Moreover, considering the current op-tempo (deployment rate) I opine that our trainers are doing a damn fine job with minimal time and resources.

Consider that before 9-11 our forces were required to fight two major theater wars simultaneously while also putting out brush fires (Small Wars). There are only so many training hours in a day and only so many resources to replicate real world scenarios... Could they have been doing more prior to Iraq? Probably yes, but the military is adapting as fast as current conditions allow.

[Stratiotes]

Not quite true. While I am more familiar with Marine Corps Training, there has been a lot of progress by both the Army and USMC in reference to SASO training. Broad sweeping statements like the one you made do injustice to the efforts by many to train for the complex "Three Block War" scenario.

Don't buy into the hype that all of our military leadership "doesn’t get it" - they do.

That's good to know - I am glad to be corrected on that issue.

[CPT Holzbach]

Given that, I gather language and culture skills would be useful to you. Can you elaborate on those a bit and tell us some of the lessons you have learned the hard way? Obviously you cannot go into details of particular operations but if you can be generic and still give enough detail I am interested.

I have a few suggestions. First and foremost, you cannot have too much language training. Anyone who has ever had a customer come into their place of work who speaks little to no English understands how aggravating it is when someone you have to work with doesnt speak the local language. Now, imagine that customer has a gun and authority over you. Just makes the situation more exasperating. Terps are a pain in the ass to work with. Some are fantastic, many are not. Either way, the ability to speak the language is a huge advantage that cannot be overstated. It makes the job easier, and impresses the local nationals. Officers should receive intensive training in this, at all levels. Every officer in a leadership position, from platoon leader to division commander, will interact with locals regularly. We dont need to stand around and "supervise" the NCOs training the soldiers. They got it. We should be in language class. However, NCOs, especially those in team leader, squad leader, and platoon sergeant type positions, must also have heavy language instruction. And right out the window must go the old attitude of "I just train soldiers and kill people". Not anymore. For the soldiers, they need language training too, but theirs does not need to be too extensive. The basics of everyday communication are fine. Yes, no, please, thank you, courteous greetings, and common sense phrases that relate to life on a patrol, such as stop or halt, lay down, hands behind your back/on your head, etc. The soldiers wont be the diplomats out there.

Secondly, as far as culture goes, its the same story. What kills me is that this is not hard or time consuming to teach. Whats hard is the bizarre array of tribes and clans and families and imams and sheiks and loyalties that need to be understood. Knock yourself out, S-2! But culture is NOT HARD. Especially for the soldiers. For them, its far more about what they DONT do than what they do. DONT stare at women or ever touch them for any reason short of saving life and limb. DONT show the soles of your feet. DONT let the search dog go through the room with the Koran in it. DONT make the "ok" hand gesture or call someone over by curling your finger, etc etc. Whats more needed for them, is NCOs who will stomp their guts out for breaking the basic rules of courtesy. It absolutly cannot be tolerated. And the officers cannot tolerate it in themselves or their NCOs. The soldiers will follow your example and mirror your contempt. If the soldiers understand that they should act in Iraq almost like they would have acted in 1950s America, that helps a lot. A formal, courteous society. Culture is easy to understand. Oh, and leaders should have to eat the local food before they ever deploy. They should be introduced to chi (sweet tea), which actually quite a lot of guys end up really liking, and they should be made to eat Iraqi food as well. Now its also important to understand that the Iraqis know that we are Americans and come from a very different culture. They dont expect us to act like honorary Iraqis or something. Thats why what you DONT do is so imprtant. Just dont insult anyone; make no new enemies. But your still the guest in their country, and basic courtesy will be shown to you and expected from you.

And third, an understanding of the concept of insurgency is crucial. I had to tell my platoon, a mortar platoon, on several occasions (especially after one of my guys got killed), that no, shelling Zone 23 with HE and WP will NOT accomplish anything. The people will not give us information. We cannot bully the people into complying. Passive support of insurgents is still support for insurgents, but just keeping your mouth shut or claiming ignorance is not illegal. If soldiers have a basic understanding of what kind of fight their going into, it will help just as much as knowing some of the language and understanding the culture.

[Stu-6]

CPT Holzbach comments are right on the money. As an enlisted infantry solider I was with the first group of US troops to go into Bosnia, training in peacekeeping was superficial, and language and cultural training was nonexistent. There were only a handful enlisted troops of in the entire company that had any real understand of the history and culture of the region and the only reason we did is because we had dug up a few books on the subject on our on initiative. The really sad part about that was there were a lot of soldiers who would have been really interested if anyone had carried enough to try to teach them.

[NDD]

I have a few suggestions. First and foremost, you cannot have too much language training. Anyone who has ever had a customer come into their place of work who speaks little to no English understands how aggravating it is when someone you have to work with doesnt speak the local language. Now, imagine that customer has a gun and authority over you. Just makes the situation more exasperating. Terps are a pain in the ass to work with. Some are fantastic, many are not. Either way, the ability to speak the language is a huge advantage that cannot be overstated. It makes the job easier, and impresses the local nationals. Officers should receive intensive training in this, at all levels. Every officer in a leadership position, from platoon leader to division commander, will interact with locals regularly. We dont need to stand around and "supervise" the NCOs training the soldiers. They got it. We should be in language class. However, NCOs, especially those in team leader, squad leader, and platoon sergeant type positions, must also have heavy language instruction. And right out the window must go the old attitude of "I just train soldiers and kill people". Not anymore. For the soldiers, they need language training too, but theirs does not need to be too extensive. The basics of everyday communication are fine. Yes, no, please, thank you, courteous greetings, and common sense phrases that relate to life on a patrol, such as stop or halt, lay down, hands behind your back/on your head, etc. The soldiers wont be the diplomats out there.

Secondly, as far as culture goes, its the same story. What kills me is that this is not hard or time consuming to teach. Whats hard is the bizarre array of tribes and clans and families and imams and sheiks and loyalties that need to be understood. Knock yourself out, S-2! But culture is NOT HARD. Especially for the soldiers. For them, its far more about what they DONT do than what they do. DONT stare at women or ever touch them for any reason short of saving life and limb. DONT show the soles of your feet. DONT let the search dog go through the room with the Koran in it. DONT make the "ok" hand gesture or call someone over by curling your finger, etc etc. Whats more needed for them, is NCOs who will stomp their guts out for breaking the basic rules of courtesy. It absolutly cannot be tolerated. And the officers cannot tolerate it in themselves or their NCOs. The soldiers will follow your example and mirror your contempt. If the soldiers understand that they should act in Iraq almost like they would have acted in 1950s America, that helps a lot. A formal, courteous society. Culture is easy to understand. Oh, and leaders should have to eat the local food before they ever deploy. They should be introduced to chi (sweet tea), which actually quite a lot of guys end up really liking, and they should be made to eat Iraqi food as well. Now its also important to understand that the Iraqis know that we are Americans and come from a very different culture. They dont expect us to act like honorary Iraqis or something. Thats why what you DONT do is so imprtant. Just dont insult anyone; make no new enemies. But your still the guest in their country, and basic courtesy will be shown to you and expected from you.

And third, an understanding of the concept of insurgency is crucial. I had to tell my platoon, a mortar platoon, on several occasions (especially after one of my guys got killed), that no, shelling Zone 23 with HE and WP will NOT accomplish anything. The people will not give us information. We cannot bully the people into complying. Passive support of insurgents is still support for insurgents, but just keeping your mouth shut or claiming ignorance is not illegal. If soldiers have a basic understanding of what kind of fight their going into, it will help just as much as knowing some of the language and understanding the culture.

Here ya go Sir:
The Dark Side

Come on over...