It was that because in war, simple things work best; the more convoluted the processes, the more people involved, the more headquarters involved, the greater the chance for error. Those kinds of errors do not result in production glitches or shortfalls -- they kill people. Unnecessarily.

I think your first point is very accurate and it certainly describes what we have done and some of the logic behind that. It also shows just how badly we have muddied the waters -- but I don't think it answers either of my questions.

Your second item is correct also. It leads to two new questions. Could that mean we should be more selective about who gets what job? For those who have difficulties doing that synthesis, could more pressured, graded practices in the field in simple easily organized TEWTs improve their capabilities?

(As an aside, exercises run in a garrison environment develop sloppy tactical and operational habits)

I understand the imperative of training everyone in the military basics; educating all to do things in a standard way; the importance of teaching methodologies to organize thoughts and efforts; and the statutory requirement of fairness in entry, opportunity and promotions. Recognizing all that, I still believe my two questions are valid. We are doing things the way we do them only because we have chosen that approach. There are others.

I'll again say that my second question in the 04:07 PM post above is more important than the first one. Perhaps I should insert the word 'far' between 'is' and 'more important.'