Rob, we already have what you are asking for. There is a very precise system for determining exactly what we should train, how long it will take to train soldiers and units in those tasks, how we can evaluate their expertise, the resources it will require to execute the training, what should be taught in schools and in the field, how long courses should be, how many course should be run, etc ad nauseum. It is a logical system that begins with the publication of the National Security Strategy and ends with the publication of unit taining schedules - briefed in detail at the QTB, submitted in writing 7 weeks prior, approved six weeks prior, posted four weeks out, changes allowed no later than 72 hours before execution. There are provisions for exceptions, waivers, requests for changes, and the like. The manuals and instructions associated with it can be found in training rooms across the Army.

The problem is that to make any significant change to your training program, especially if you are in a schoolhouse, takes about two years, minimum. Commanders, obviously, are not going to wait that long, so changes are made that cannot be resourced - because you are bypassing the system that provides those resources. So, you rob resources from elsewhere. In the end, either other training is shortchanged or maintenance is deferred. It is a vicious cycle that leaves post roads full of potholes, ranges oversubscribed, and us still training recruits in "React to Nuclear Explosion" but not "React to an IED".

In other words, it is extremely difficult to significantly improve training quantity or quality, Army-wide, under the current system. It was designed when the mission was "Enter the continent of Europe..." or "Delay the 3rd Guards Shock Army..." and served its purpose well for four or five decades. Now it is a creaking bureaucratic collossus that, like its evil twin in Alexandria, is the greatest obstacle to improving the quality of our Army today.