Quote Originally Posted by Sargent View Post
Pardon me for straying into military bureaucratic heresy, but what is the point of METLs that are irrelevant to the war at hand?

I know it would be great to be able to maintain conventional warfare capabilities at the highest levels while simultaneously deploying to and fighting in conflicts that require other skills and tasks, but absent a large influx of people and funds or a fundamental change in the basic properties of physics regarding time and space this can't happen. Something will have to give. It seems reasonable that commanders should ditch those requirements that do not serve current needs given the realities of resources and constraints. It seems strange to expect otherwise.

Thus far, I haven't read anything here that explains why METL training is essential, except that it's been the norm up until now, and nobody wants to change the status quo. I understand the fear of being caught unprepared for an HIC, but then some change must be made. If the HIC requirements are the most important, are untouchables, then Iraq is untenable. There's just no way around this.
METL=Mission Essential Task List

If they are doing it right, a METL for COIN differs from a METL for a conventional fight in a matter of degrees. That said basic METL like "react to contact", "search and attack" as modified into cordon and search/knock, etc etc still play a very large role in how we set up our training. Look on METL as a focusing mechanism for trainers and leaders.

Tom