Beavers 'in' the Prairie? Now there's a sight to see...
Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
Senior Research Fellow,
The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
Carleton University
http://marctyrrell.com/
I didn't say the cultures were the same. I said there was a lot of overlap. That is, an understanding of the Quran is the common thread through which soldiers could communicate with locals from Marrakesh to Jakarta. And you can't underestimate the importance of that in a Muslim nation.
Maybe. But then perhaps the focus of a 10-week course that includes language instruction should be on not only learning the basics of a single language, but on absorbing the principle of the importance of learning a foreign language. Maybe the point is to stress the importance of learning the local language--and to put it on par with other military skills. It's not like anyone is going to graduate from a 10-week course with any fluency anyway. The biggest problem facing U.S. forces on the ground is the inability to communicate in any meaningful way with civilians on the battlefield. Perhaps I don't have the ultimate solution, but I know very well what the problem is.
Does that mean requiring one member of the platoon to have a degree causes a debate over the value of a college education in implementing infantry tactics? Does it mean that having 2-3 members of the platoon being Ranger-qualified causes an internal debate over whether all soldiers should be tabbed? And not every soldier is CLS-qualified, right? My point is that there's no issue with having a handful of soldiers in a platoon specially trained and qualified to think or act in a certain way.
No but you can overestimate it. I lived in the Middle East, on the economy for two years and traveled broadly there; lot of myths about the area and the locals are quite adept at using Islam to gain what they want.That's one opinion, many agree with it -- many do not. The issue is will that occur; those attending learning that?...but on absorbing the principle of the importance of learning a foreign language.I think your second point is quite accurate; and I agree -- so why bother? I believe the first point to be incorrect at least if not borderline dangerous; precipitated on one brief experience and aimed at a scenario that may not be repeated in our lifetimes.Maybe the point is to stress the importance of learning the local language--and to put it on par with other military skills. It's not like anyone is going to graduate from a 10-week course with any fluency anyway.We can disagree on that. I'd say the biggest problem is marginal training in basic skills -- which should include dealing with civilians in combat zones of all types, not just FID missions.The biggest problem facing U.S. forces on the ground is the inability to communicate in any meaningful way with civilians on the battlefield. Perhaps I don't have the ultimate solution, but I know very well what the problem is.
I also suggest you may be fighting the last war -- lot of that about...Not really. Lots of platoons do not have that one member requiring a degree and they work as well or better than many who do have that person. A College degree is not required to be quite expert at Infantry tactics.Does that mean requiring one member of the platoon to have a degree causes a debate over the value of a college education in implementing infantry tactics?No but it does usually give rise to Ranger jokes...Does it mean that having 2-3 members of the platoon being Ranger-qualified causes an internal debate over whether all soldiers should be tabbed?
There are also many platoons that do not have 2-3 Rangers or even one. Some of them do better than those Platoons that do have some Rangers. All Rangers, just like every other category of humans, are not equal. I've met some real losers with a tab.I don't disagree with that. I'm just pretty well convinced that the training you suggest will not qualify any soldiers for much of anything -- just as Ranger School does not qualify anyone for much of anything -- and I'm pretty sure based on watching soldiers for some time that such training emphatically will not make them act in a certain way -- that's simply a leadership issue. I also suggest that certain way will be extremely difficult to tailor or orient in a brief course, has rather narrow applicability and may not be required.And not every soldier is CLS-qualified, right? My point is that there's no issue with having a handful of soldiers in a platoon specially trained and qualified to think or act in a certain way.
If extra training time is made available, it would be far better spent giving Soldier -- and Lieutenants -- a better grounding in the basics of the trade.
Yup. What do useful courses (airborne, jumpmaster, HALO, scuba, etc) have in common? They teach a specific skill; generally one geared to a piece of equipment or a specific set of techniques that would be prohibitively expensive or likely result in unnecessary death if the introductory training occurred at the unit. Other courses, like Ranger School and Air Assault exist out of nostalgia and as overpriced and overhyped gut checks (why is it that everyone at "air assault" does about 15,000 overhead claps and a 12-mile road march?). The only thing of training value that Ranger School provides, imo, is a concentrated couple weeks of small unit leader training that should occur at the unit or in OBC, but, for some reason, doesn't. We called it IOBC 2 (well, we called it a lot of things, but that one seems most relevant here).
In many ways, the degree of importance of Ranger School for Infantry Officers detracted from other training (at least when I was in IOBC, prior to 9/11). IOBC was nothing but a 4-month pre-pre-Ranger. Pre-Ranger was 2 to 3 weeks of the stupidity that one would endure in the first 2 to 3 weeks of Ranger School. Ranger School - at least once you got halfway through Darby phase - was several weeks of what we should have been doing for several months in IOBC, except you got treated like a moron (lots of "smoke" sessions in the first few weeks intended purely to make the most mentally weak people quit). Rather than training Lieutenants themselves, I know a lot of battalion commanders relied on the tab or no-tab screening process (I think this has since subsided a little bit). I think that I would prefer to train my own leaders.
The school provides debatable value as a vetting process. In theory, I don't want a guy who just flat out quits Ranger School because he is tired or cold or hungry. In practice, of course, you get some duds who manage to graduate and some quality leaders who flunk out because they lose in the game of RI roulette. So the vetting value has lots collateral damage if the school is taken too seriously; kind of like a test that gives 20% false positives. Ranger School has since changed - I graduated from the last hard class - hopefully some of the changes have been for the better.
We really don't do the training piece as well as we can. Agree with all you say and would only add that many military skills are cognitive skills -- as is a second (or more) language -- and, once taught, if you don't use it you lose it. That's why the practical effort schools teach skills that are incorporated in training or vice versa.
Schools need to be focused on subjects or tasks that are routinely embedded in all training. Teaching the esoteric and nice to have stuff that cannot or will not be routinely trained and reinforced can offer jobs for people and justify another bureaucracy -- it will rarely if ever contribute to combat capability. It will become just another block to be checked...
I went to Monterey for Farsi, one year course. Went to Iran and used it -- didn't prepare me to talk to the many Arabs and Kurds I interfaced with on that tour. Or with all the Iraniha who wanted to practice their English. Came back to the States and within two years had lost virtually all of the limited language skill I once had.
Yup. I would also add that I am no fan of the "subject matter expert" trend that I began to see before I ETS'd. It seemed that we were sending guys off to school for everything under the sun and they were to be the SME's for the company upon their return (small arms master gunner, combatives, Javelin trainer, various commo courses, etc). It was a delegation of training responsibility from the unit leaders to whomever went off to attend the courses. The end result was leaders who didn't care about being proficient because they didn't need to train their men. And lacking sufficient knowledge themselves, they did worse and worse jobs of supervising training because they had no idea what was going on.
It is one thing to have a duty position or highly technical and critical additional duty with special schooling - jumpmaster, tank or Bradley master gunner, for examples. But small arms master gunner? That was certainly "A" way to quickly disseminate new uniform standards for boresighting, zeroing, and qualifying with the slew of new gadgets that we attached to our weapons. But some units were making this into a quasi-duty position (it may have become the norm since then). Within a span of months, I saw the SMMG go from "the guy who attended the course" to being tasked with company SMMG as an additional duty and a bullet point on an NCOER to the SMMG actually being put in the HQ section along with the Bradley MG. He was responsible for supervising skill level 1 tasks and coordinating training that is about as safe and uncomplicated as it gets (25-meter ranges, qualification, etc). Unsurprisingly, I know of more than one 1SG who had laser aiming devices on their weapons that were never boresighted and often did not even have batteries in them.
is an absolute no-no -- but that's exactly what the SME bit has fostered.
I was at the Armor School when the Master Gunner was invented. A number of us thought it was a terrible idea for all the reasons you cite and pointed out that too many TCs, PLs and Co Cdrs would abrogate their gunnery skills. The civilian educational bureaucracy won that battle on two totally inane points; It was industry 'best practice' and it was akin to the 'Instructor Pilot' of the Aviation community.
Pointing out that civilian best practice was totally not germane and that Tanks weren't helicopters didn't sway them. In fairness, one thing that aided their cause was that the incoming M1 and its high tech goodies ran smack into the tail of McNamara's Project 100,000 and sub standard recruits. Those folks are long gone; today's troops are a whole lot more capable -- but we're still using techniques that were marginal applied to their less competent predecessors.
Old habits die hard...
Our chaotic training system needs to die.
Added: Re: the 1SGs. Those guys should be the trainers for the Company / Battery / Troop. Theoretically, they're the most experienced guys in the unit. I've seen some that refused to be the chief clerk; refused to be the Cdr's shadow and worked at training troops -- most of those few did a superb job and had good units. Too many are willing to sit and fester. They rarely have good units
Last edited by Ken White; 06-03-2009 at 05:59 PM. Reason: Addendum
While I am a civilian and know little about the "warrior ethos," I've always thought warrior ethos was a spiritual approach to dealing with difficulties in life. I think that perhaps "warrior ethos" developed from the ancient codes of chivalry in medieval Europe. Orders of chivalry in England were the Order of the Garter, Order of the Thistle, and Order of the Bath. A Royal Navy captain or army general was generally admitted into one of those Orders, or given a peerage, elevated to the rank of a lord if he achieved a notable victory. From my understanding, the medals of bravery that General Washington gave during the American Revolution seemed to have come from this European tradition of Orders and medals. Just my thoughts on the possible history and roots of "warrior ethos," at least here in the West.
Naomi
Maybe it's because I come from a combat arms background, or maybe it's because I am a registered cynic but I have never seen the point of all this "warrior" stuff. It reminds of those cheesy corporate motivational posters that one sees around office buildings, an eagle soaring majestically in a clear blue sky with the caption "vision", or a colony of ants building a nest with the caption "teamwork." It may be interesting for about the first fifteen minutes after it goes up but then it just fades into the background and becomes little more than decoration. I don't believe for a second that changing PLDC to the "Warrior Leaders Course" or making Joe memorize the "Warrior Creed" has turned anyone into a warrior. The goal was admirable, model it after the Marine Corps where every Marine is an infantryman first and whatever job second. But the Marine Corps is an entirely different culture from top to bottom. Trying to recreate that culture across the board in the Army is just beating your head against a wall. I don't worry about the Warrior Ethos having a negative effect on the Army simply because I don't really expect it to have any effect at all.
SFC W
While I think I already commented on this thread, though am being crushed at school so badly I won't reread it, last week I bumped into a couple fellow warriors. We recognized each other almost instantly, immediately went into the butt-sniffing routine and became fast friends. Despite never having seen each other before.
I'm still convinced that warriors are rarer than the Army corporate culture recognizes, and that a "real" warrior shares the common viewpoint that war is "fun", enemy contact is nearly erotic in the level of pleasure it produces and that subduing a worthy enemy is so desirable to subsume in importance normal people's desire for food or sex.
And no amount of sloganeering can turn a non-warrior into one. One of the guys I spoke to is convinced that true warrior-hood is a mild form of psychopathy.
I think I get what you're saying. A more politically correct person than myself (in some circles referred to as gun-fearing wussies) might have some issues with the work 'mild' though
Nothing that results in human progress is achieved with unanimous consent. (Christopher Columbus)
All great truth passes through three stages: first it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
(Arthur Schopenhauer)
ONWARD
as Wilf oft reminds us. So, what does "warrior" mean - etymologically speaking ?
Now, this seems pretty straight forward - though so broad as to not provide much specificity (other than to define implicitly a "non-warrior" as "one who does not wage war"). So, the term "warrior" does not distinguish professional vs amateur, lifer vs citizen-soldier, regular vs irregular, uniformed vs non-uniformed, trained vs untrained, organized vs unorganized, authorized vs unauthorized, etc.warrior
1297, from O.N.Fr. werreieor (O.Fr. guerreor) "a warrior, one who wages war," from werreier "wage war," from werre (see war).
Perhaps, we can gain insight by following the bouncing ball to "war":
Using the original meaning in an expansion, we find a "warrior" is "one who wages a bringing into confusion". And, based on most comments above, use of the term "warrior" in the Warrior Ethos has been true to its definition - a cause of confusion.war
late O.E. (c.1050), wyrre, werre, from O.N.Fr. werre "war" (Fr. guerre), from Frank. *werra, from P.Gmc. *werso (cf. O.S. werran, O.H.G. werran, Ger. verwirren "to confuse, perplex"). Cognates suggest the original sense was "to bring into confusion." There was no common Gmc. word for "war" at the dawn of historical times. O.E. had many poetic words for "war" (guš, heašo, hild, wig, all common in personal names), but the usual one to translate L. bellum was gewin "struggle, strife" (related to win). Sp., Port., It. guerra are from the same source; Romanic peoples turned to Gmc. for a word to avoid L. bellum because its form tended to merge with bello- "beautiful." The verb meaning "to make war on" is recorded from 1154. First record of war time is 1387. Warpath (1775) is from N.Amer. Ind., as are war-whoop (1761), war-paint (1826), war-path (1775), and war-dance (1757). War crime first attested 1906. War chest is attested from 1901; now usually fig. War games translates Ger. Kriegspiel (see kriegspiel).
On a more serious note, we can alter the definition a bit to define a "warrior" as "one who participates in the confusion that we call war". There is more than a bit of CvC in that - perhaps a Jungian ancestral memory of his ancestors' use of the P.Gmc. *werso. So, while we correctly think of our word "war" as coming immediately from the Romance, as in Foch, Des Principles de la Guerre; it ultimately goes back to the Proto-Germanic concept of a state of confusion.
Do we do better by bringing in the word "win" (the descendent of the medieval Germanic translation of bellum):
Here we have some reality; whether "win or lose" (in our modern sense") - or to reach a settlement viewed as an acceptable result (this one for you, Ken), the result involves a precedent "struggle" (as in CvC's wrestling contest). So, "one who paticipates in that confusion that we call war" could be fairly termed a "winner" - but not necessarily a WINNER.win (v.)
fusion of O.E. winnan "struggle for, work at, strive, fight," and gewinnan "to gain or succeed by struggling, to win," both from P.Gmc. *wenwanan (cf. O.S. winnan, O.N. vinna, O.Fris. winna, Du. winnen "to gain, win," Dan. vinde "to win," O.H.G. winnan "to strive, struggle, fight," Ger. gewinnen "to gain, win," Goth. gawinnen "to suffer, toil"). Perhaps related to wish, or from PIE *van- "overcome, conquer." Sense of "to be victorious" is recorded from c.1300. The noun in O.E. meant "labor, strife, conflict;" modern sense of "a victory in a game or contest" is first attested 1862, from the verb. Breadwinner (see bread) preserves the sense of "toil" in O.E. winnan. Phrase you can't win them all (1954) first attested in Raymond Chandler.
The more acceptable alternative for "warrior" (from the above comments) is "soldier":
The soldier of the 1300s could have been a mercenary (many were); but the revival of the term (in Latin, harkening back to the paid legions) was mainly due to the formation of regular, standing units because of the Hundred Years' War - e.g., the French ordinance companies.soldier (n.)
c.1300, from O.Fr. soudier "one who serves in the army for pay," from M.L. soldarius "a soldier" (cf. It. soldato and Fr. soldat "soldier," which is borrowed from It.), lit. "one having pay," from L.L. soldum, from acc. of L. solidus, a Roman gold coin (see solidus). The verb meaning "to serve as a soldier" is first recorded 1647; to soldier on "persist doggedly" is attested from 1954.
Therein lies the problem with the etymology of the "Warrior Ethos" - it broadly encompasses too many categories: professional vs amateur, lifer vs citizen-soldier, regular vs irregular, uniformed vs non-uniformed, trained vs untrained, organized vs unorganized, authorized vs unauthorized, etc.
This is a problem not only in military ethics, but also in the Laws of Wars defining the regular combatant and the irregular combatant. Which is my interest in the question.
------------------------
I do have a question that perhaps Hacksaw or someone can answer.
What particular warrior ethos or creed was targeted as the model for the Warrior's Creed ?
Todd and I bnriefly discussed this topic last pool season - he thought North American Indian and the people who fought them (but then that's his focus in history).
Hard to put together an ethos, creed, culture, etc. unless you identify the model.
Well to my mind that nails the lid on the coffin of the idea of Warriors. The requisites are courage and determination, not a lack of empathy, or an inability to be able to tell right from wrong.
I can't get my head around why anyone would wish to be called a Warrior - because that's the implied purpose - "I am a Warrior." - especially when the kid next to you in the fire fight is some 19-year-old 57E or 92G, and is returning fire, and filling magazines same as you.
When we call tanks "Broom broom boxes," perhaps we can call soldiers "Bang Bang men," - and that day may not be far off.....
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
You wrote, "What particular warrior ethos or creed was targeted as the model for the Warrior's Creed ?"
To be honest, I'm not sure... work was done at Benning while I was positioned in VA, but if I were to guess... determination and courage (with an edge) were without doubt the qualities they thought the term embodied... Important to note that the lead sled dog was a pretty edgy guy with the nickname "The Freak"
I do think it is important to note (one last time) that the warrior creed was not the only change implemented by TF Soldier... I don't think anyone thought a creed and some naming conventions were the solution... PLDC does not equal the Warrior Leader Course... it was changed - conducted almost entirely in the field...all newly promoted LTs attend BOLC II... Field training for all regardless of branch before arriving at their Branch course...
IET changed also...
We can debate whether enough has been done, but it is unfair to characterize the Army's response as new jingle and naming convention...
Reed... The Army approach was to try to a specific level and that the remaining training was supposed to be completed at the unit... that works until the Army is at war and Soldiers are in combat within a week of arriving at the unit... hence adding and focusing on warrior tasks as paramount in IET...
Although I'm sure it sounds to the contrary, I'm not a TRADOC apologist... but it appears that most of the comments on this thread are based on "dated" experiences... is TRADOC bloated - probably but not to the extent anyone here may recall, the same can be said about CAC and the Branch Schools... most of that fat was trimmed long ago... they've been replaced by contractors and DACs...
I'll shut up now
Live well and row
Hacksaw
Say hello to my 2 x 4
thanks for the response. You should shut up less often.
Soldier vs warrior (with warrior being the broader category - "one who wages war") is not merely a matter of semantics; but has possible legal implications in defining regular and irregular combatants.
Here are some words that could be associated with
- regular combatants (e.g., those clearly under GC III (GPW), Art. 4 et seq.): professional, regular, uniformed, trained, organized, authorized, disciplined ....
and with
- irregular combatants (e.g., those not clearly under GC III (GPW), Art. 4 et seq.): amateur, irregular, non-uniformed, untrained, unorganized, unauthorized, undisciplined ....
These same concepts also enter into formation of ROEs and targeting decisions (that is, is the rule based on the status of the target - easy to determine for regular combatants; difficult for irregular combatants - or on the conduct of the target, as in the SROEs absent a designated hostile force).
What the Army intended to create with its Warrior Ethos concept is not very clear from its "Information Statements" on the Soldier's Creed and the Warrior Ethos. As to the latter:
So, based on what the Army says, the model is what the Army (its soldiers) have done in past wars, from the RW to the present. Taken in that sense, it has nothing to do with the "Noble Savage" (ala Rousseau) or the warriors of that genre (whether Shaka or Crazy Horse).What is it?
The Warrior Ethos is a set of principles by which every Soldier lives. In a broader sense, the Warrior Ethos is a way of life that applies to our personal and professional lives as well. They define who we are and who we aspire to become.
....
Why is this important to the Army?
These principles bind us to those who served before us. The Warrior Ethos was present at Cowpens, Lundy’s Lane, Chapultepec, Little Round Top, San Juan Hill, Montfaucon, Krinkelt, Chipyong-ni, Dak To and Iraq. By adhering and holding fast to these principles, our Soldiers will maintain this ethos for those who will come after us.
What the Army seems to be driving at may be inferred from this:
If one uses Brian Linn's terminology (from Echo of Battle - which I just read and will have to re-read, following COL Gentile's advice) - Heroes and Managers - the Warrior Ethos may be an expression of the Heroic concept vs the Managerial Concept (as in the bolded quote).... every Soldier is a leader, responsible for what happens in his or her presence regardless of rank. They will value learning and adaptability at every level, particularly as it contributes to initiative: creating situations for an adversary, rather than reacting to them. They will learn that the Army’s culture is one of selfless service, a warrior culture rather than a corporate one.
(IMO) It strikes me that whatever time was spent on the Warrior Ethos could have been better spent in distinguishing between regular and irregular combatants and the means and methods to be used re: each category.
-------------------------
You actually carry that 2x4 around all the time ? That would put you into the "Warrior Class" ala Rousseau
Last edited by jmm99; 06-04-2009 at 08:32 PM. Reason: added some a word from Ken - and its opposite
I believe you are right regarding the time spent on the Warrior Ethos... to be honest I don't recall the development of a "new" creeed/ethos as part of the directed deliverables... I think that is one that the TF developed as an implied task (I could be wrong, but my role in the early days of the CSA TFs was fairly central in terms of doing the action officer staff work)...
It would also be safe to say that it was the kinetic/frenetic (I use the word in its Webster's Dictionary form as opposed to lethal) nature of this particular GO that was his best and worst leadership trait... in other words plenty of energy to go around, so using some to develop the Warrior Ethos did not result in another initiative being short changed... I don't think a staff could produce enough work to overtax the man's energy...
Ironicly he is "the man" when it comes to inital entry training.
I rarely have use for the lumber, but it is helpful when dealing with vehicle maintenance issue
Hacksaw
Say hello to my 2 x 4
Bookmarks