Quote Originally Posted by SWJED
....Of course there are exceptions (Military Review is but one example) and I detect a trend towards professional journals and official concept and doctrine writers "telling it like it is". Nothing like being in a fight of your life to get people thinking along a reality-based line.
I think that is what is so frustrating to those of us in the small community that has been deeply immersed in the reality of small wars since long before OEF/OIF - that it takes this extreme of an event to trigger modes of thought in the conventional army that is focused on operational realities rather than ideals and preconceived notions.

...I have to confess feeling outright anger when reading some of these more recent articles - even those written clearly and concisely - when they are presenting fundamentals as if the author experienced an epiphany. Which, to be fair, may actually be happening - but only because they've never been presented the true fundamentals in a professional setting pre-war.

And, although we are fortunate that many are now "getting it" - especially at the tactical and operational levels - there are still too many at the key decision-making levels who do not....and who still focus on technological solutions to many problems. Or focus on quantitative as opposed to qualitative answers. On the other hand, I admire those who continually fight against the use of "statistics" to define ops and work to provide more meaningful assessments.

Of course, the same problems exist in national LE in their continuing struggle to define how they approach the GWOT. In my perception, they are far more heavily burdened with the evil of statistics that inhibit effective ops.

I guess I'm rambling a bit, and I'll stop here. In many ways this topic is very near to me, but I don't want to discuss views on current training and ops in too much detail on an open board.