The Fallacy of HIC vs COIN

[reed11b]

Sir:

Reed:

In overly simplistic terms, but useful I think, what would be the aggregate percentage dedicated to coin vs Hic? Would it be to focus 70% of our resources and training to coin and the rest hic, or vice versa?

The problem here is that in principle we all agree that we need balance, but when you get down into the details then things becomes much murkier and where debate and discussion over these issues I think is relevant and needed.

gian

That is my point; proper training, unit structure and doctrine is effective across a wide range conflicts, from HIC to IW. I feel that the reason we fail to be effective across broad spectrums is 1) An officer culture (training and promotion system as well)that leads to micromanagement 2) The widespread negative effects of the individual replacement system and 3) a failure to train on how to end combat operations after the enemy surrenders or retreats beyond our AO. Of course the simple answer and the big picture is (as Ken loves to say repeatedly, whether anyone wants to hear it or not) proper training.
The unique aspects to COIN call for better abilities and cooperation w/ USD and USAID, not USD and USAID like skills in the Army.

A couple points on the Individual Replacement System (What is the correct term for this?) that I need to cover. I failed to mention that the COHORT test showed improvement in the skills and retention of the soldiers involved. Yet the Army “waited it out” and never implemented it further. Another effect of the Individual replacement system is that initial training is poor for a professional volunteer Army. I have spent some time in a medical support company and I have noticed that non-combat jobs seem to have a better ability to perform there core duties when they arrive at the unit then combat soldiers. A quick look at AIT lengths will also show a disparity between combat and non-combat MOS’s training time. This is backwards. Our Infantry, artillery and combat vehicle crewmen are the core of the Army and the ones facing the greatest risk. They should be trained to a level were they can be expected to perform there duties with competence and confidence upon arriving at there unit. Confidence is a big part of being able to perform independent action and may help reduce some of the tendency to micromanage in the Army.
I also want to make clear that I am not advocating for a simple regimental system or that soldiers can’t move duty stations. Let’s face it, many young men join the Army to get away from home and look forward to the possibility of travel and adventure. There will always be soldiers that will be willing to travel to get promotions or serve with a better unit. I advocate for slowing it down and not making a move every “X” years mandatory. I also like the concept of rotational readiness, but I know that is a tough sell.
Reed