Quote Originally Posted by Sargent View Post

To reiterate, my point is that I don't buy the knee-jerk "We're not training to METLs and this is a tragedy" line that doesn't acknowledge the realities of the current operational situation. If the pre-existing METLs need to be the priority, then the current operational requirements must be changed. If they are not, then we must simply be prepared to let them go and retrain to them when things change. To argue that we can do both simultaneously is not supported by reality.

Cheers,
Jill
The Army is headed down this path. I'm involved in staffing some documents related to it.

Units will have a core METL, or CMETL, which is their default training tasks. When identified for potential deployment or given the international security situation, it will transition to a Deployment METL, or DMETL, which may or may not be similar to the CMETL.

So BDE X trains its CMETL in absence of guidance. The Army/Joint Staff identifieds a potential need for a X number of BCTs to deploy and conduct COIN within the next 12 months. Those units are issued a DMETL and given specific training resources to meet the DMETL standards. The DMETL may not be related at all to the CMETL.

So BDE X, a HBCT, trains its CMETL, comes on orders (actual or warning), gets a DMETL to train for. That could be COIN, FID, SSO, etc.

Or, the chief of staff orders x percent of the army to train a HIC DMETL, x percent a COIN DMETL, and x percent a stability DMETL, which shift based off of the likely operating environments. As units "lifecycle", the army maintains a balanced percentage of forces ready for anticipated commitments. A BCT could transition entirely to an advisory force for its lifecycle, for example.

It does presuppose a certian amount of knowledge of likely future commitments.