One reason I find it so interesting, Sam, is that it's been such a constant in the Army as an institution. Even going back to the period before the Civil War we find the Army training (when it could...considering that almost 3/4ths of the authorized strength was scattered at small posts throughout the expanding Frontier) for line-against-line Napoleonic conflict. The majority of the skills the troops needed for Indian warfare were learned in the field, while training still focused on European-style warfare. There was no formal effort to retain lessons learned (the majority of what we might now consider doctrinal information came out either in journal articles or privately-published books), and even some moaning about how the constant small-scale warfare detracted from the real business of training men to be soldiers.
It's an interesting situation...and one that doesn't seem to be going away any time soon. That's why I see many more similarities between Vietnam and Iraq on the institutional response side than I do in the field.
Bookmarks