Newest buzz word is battlefield ethics.
That generated a lot of time during last week's meeting at Pendleton.
TRADOC's saying the same thing.
I was hoping 120mm might expand on that last statement a little bit.Originally Posted by 120mm
Newest buzz word is battlefield ethics.
That generated a lot of time during last week's meeting at Pendleton.
TRADOC's saying the same thing.
My guess would be along these lines:
tact kills the warrior...
concerns about promotion kills the warrior......
traditional command and control kills the warrior......
centralized command and control kills the warrior......
Well, there have been distictions made between garrison troops and field troopers since long before any of us trod this Earth, but I'm left wondering if the Army isn't the place for "warriors", where is?
I mean is this setting up the traditional pissing match between the Army and the Corps? That's a pretty blanket statement...So where is warrior Valhalla? Blackwater?
Charlie,
I think you may be taking this incorrectly.
I don't think there are any pissing contests in this forum between Army and Marines.
120mm is Army.
The guess that I took about tact, promotion, and C2 isn't service specific.
Oh, and let me be clear, I'm not trying to start anything...I can completely understand frustration with nonsensical orders and edicts from on high that seem to defy field reality, but to say, "The Army is no place for "warriors". They are much too regimented and closed-minded for "real" warriors to truly thrive," kind of begs the question...
I'm just trying to get smarter here, that statement covers a lot of ground...
Charlie, keep in mind I was posting a guess, nonsensical orders and edicts from on high that seem to defy field reality are not service or work specific.
120mm lives in the Graf/Vilseck/7th CATC area I think. He is probably on his way home from work, he'll probably expand on that statement when he has time to get back on line.
I'd say roger that, but I'll steer clear of the buzzwords, and just say I comprehend what you are saying...I'm sure he didn't mean the entire Army, I'll check my headspace and timing in the interim...
Charlie,
Solid copy, anyways welcome aboard.
Well thank you, sir, for that welcome, I'll work on my entry techniques. I could have done that a little better. I understand what 120mm is getting at, I think, I saw something on the tube about today's Army BCT and I thought it was a bit theatrical, the whole "warrior ethos" deal, but hey, if it works...I'm in no position to know today, some of these active duty folks are.Charlie,
Solid copy, anyways welcome aboard.
I don't want to get too far afield here, I just thought a blanket statement covering the entire Army, well...It just had me looking for a clarification...
Tom- couldn't agree with you more. Everytime I see the "Soldier Show" come to a post, I keep thinking there's about a platoon of troops not in the fight. Same goes with alot of the other "morale" building tools out there like the rifle team, silent order drill team, etc.
After four years of nearly daily drill and ceremony at West Point, I'll be the first to say how much I hate it and how useless I think it is other than for important ceremonies. Jon hit it on the head. What ends up happening is valuable combat training gets put on hold to rehearse and "Pass and Review" for some change of command. Leaders go nuts with rehearsals and visions of Napoleanic maneuvers for what should be a simple ceremony. When I changed company commands, I refused to have any high flutin' ceremonies that would waste soldiers time. We did a quick rehearsal about a hour prior to the ceremonies, no marching, and that was it.
I think this goes along the lines of building a more practical army. Same with the old PT standards of the "turn and bounce" and all that other eight count PT exercises I hated as a PL. Most units have gotten smarter and now use more practical PT models like crossfit to get soldiers into good combat shape, not PT test shape. It all comes down to how we think. Do we want to spend hours teaching our infantrymen how to conduct a "Right Wheel" on the parade field, or how to breach and clear a room with bad guys in it?
Marc-As a piper, I couldn't agree with you more reference sending in the combat pipers. I brought my pipes to Iraq in 2004 and our Iraqi battalion HATED the things. I used to stand out on the roof of our barracks on a "Man-love Thursday" and play just to piss them off a little bit! Nothing better than some pipes blasting out Black bear to get your blood boiling! Send in the Pipers!!!
"But the bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet withstanding, go out to meet it."
-Thucydides
I'll buy that, but while we're getting back to basics, what's with all the simulators? I'm amazed watching Holder Complex in motion these days with nice clean simulators training armor crewmen to presumably do armor crewmen tasks in an environment that looks, well, remarkably nice...
What happened to diesel fuel, ammo, and field time? Do they have a tank recovery simulator too? Maybe they could make a close order drill simulator...
Train like you're going to fight...
Edited to add: Please forgive my geezing...
Last edited by Charlie 14; 05-31-2007 at 07:53 PM.
Charlie -
Nichols accurately describes what I mean. If I may add, "warriors" cannot turn off being a warrior, by and large. If they could, they wouldn't "be" warriors, they would be acting like one. And a warrior in a garrison environment is very similar to a tiger in a cage. Just pacing and pacing, thinking about eating the little kids with the balloons.
As far as "the Army is no place for warriors" being a blanket statement, I've met as many, if not more "accountants at heart" in the combat organizations I've been a part of, as in CS and CSS units. Certain organizations are better homes for warriors than others, but the Army is a large bureaucratic organization, and large bureacratic organizations are antithetical to "warriors."
The bottom line is we really don't want an Army of warriors. First, I suggest they are rarer than one might think. Second, they tend to fight, whether you want them to or not. Soldiers, with discipline and a fundamental understanding of mission are much more useful, especially in the "Small Wars" venue.
The internet is a very bad place for your typical "warrior". They tend to wander from place to place, picking fights, sometimes without even knowing it.
BTW - I am Army, but I think the Marine Corps rocks. If they were less picky about back injuries, I woulda been one!
Ahhhhh, OK, I figured we were closer on this than I was led to believe by that blanket statement. You know, maybe Nichols is onto something when he talks about, "Buzzwords," and their inhernet uselessness. "Warriors" does conjure up images of undisciplined louts with bad tattoos, and maybe a Metallica ticket stub in their wallets.Charlie -
Nichols accurately describes what I mean. If I may add, "warriors" cannot turn off being a warrior, by and large. If they could, they wouldn't "be" warriors, they would be acting like one. And a warrior in a garrison environment is very similar to a tiger in a cage. Just pacing and pacing, thinking about eating the little kids with the balloons.
As far as "the Army is no place for warriors" being a blanket statement, I've met as many, if not more "accountants at heart" in the combat organizations I've been a part of, as in CS and CSS units. Certain organizations are better homes for warriors than others, but the Army is a large bureaucratic organization, and large bureacratic organizations are antithetical to "warriors."
The bottom line is we really don't want an Army of warriors. First, I suggest they are rarer than one might think. Second, they tend to fight, whether you want them to or not. Soldiers, with discipline and a fundamental understanding of mission are much more useful, especially in the "Small Wars" venue.
The internet is a very bad place for your typical "warrior". They tend to wander from place to place, picking fights, sometimes without even knowing it.
BTW - I am Army, but I think the Marine Corps rocks. If they were less picky about back injuries, I woulda been one!
Howabout this, the Army should be a good place for motivated, intelligent, highly proficient, and disciplined young men that are part of a family (green, standard-issue type) to which they are fiercely loyal, whether that family be a team, a squad, a platoon, a crew, or whatever, and put family and mission above all else, including their less than desirable "warrior" impluses at times...
In the perfect world, that wouldn't be a bad start. Make them tri-lingual, with the wordly experience of a well traveled 50 year old in a 19 year old body, and we can take the world. But I'm willing to tweak it. So how does one fix the Big Green Machine to promote those qualities at the expense of the, "accountants"? How do we buy more smart teeth and less tail? How do you recruit and train intelligent, tenacious, fighters -- to include small war fighters where listening, communicating, and thinking takes precedence over trigger pulling at times? And I hear what you're saying, or I think I do, you're saying the "corporation" doesn't want them.
That's not a bottom up problem, that's a top down problem. Let's have some fun, how would you rebuild it so you could make it work?
I hate it when I ask questions I can't answer. I bet a lot of guys here would have an idea or two though. What's the mission? What do you need to do it?
Overall I think you bring out some good points but I respectfully disagree about rifle teams.
Some of the best combat riflemen this country has ever produced have been forged on the anvil of competitive shooting. Competitive shooting is an invaluable discipline even if the training and competition are not combat specific. The training reinforces the basics of marksmanship and the competition requires disciplined shooting under stress. These are always good things.
Gunnery Sergeant Hathcock is perhaps the best known example of a competitive rifleman who was a stunning success in combat. Here are examples of some others:
http://www.worldwar1.com/dbc/woodfill.htm
http://hometown.aol.com/lds1952/index.html
May rifle teams flourish long after dog and pony shows are a dim memory!
Last edited by Rifleman; 06-01-2007 at 08:53 PM.
And on that note, DoD ought to buy the mailing lists of every department of natural resources in this nation and target junior hunters when they reach 17...Show me a kid who is comfortable in the woods and can hit a squirrel in the head with a .22 at 75 yards with open sights and I'll show you a newly minted E-1 with potential...Any marksmanship matters. How in the world can the Army promote themselves as the pre-emminent ground force in this nation and not field a team?
Why do the Thunderbirds and Blue Angels exist? They have young kids watching and they light a dream, they evoke pride...Last time I checked this was an all volunteer force...You need volunteers, talented volunteers are even better.
Good point, and as an Appalachian boy I can relate.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that some of the best combat riflemen this country has ever produced have been forged on the anvil of squirrel hunting, then refined and polished by formal practice and competition shooting.
Last edited by Rifleman; 06-01-2007 at 11:44 PM.
Charlie 14,
Sounds like you're at Knox. Stop by CP37 off HWY 60 when we have the LTs in Gauntlet. Especially if it's raining. It dirty as hell, just the way Army training should be. EPA evens stops out to fine us every once in a while. It's awesome.
Any given week we have a Troop's worth of LTs learning their trade. Out of about 90 days in BOLC III they spend about a third of it in the field. On real equipment. They get 5 days in CCTT.
Example is better than precept.
Things like this help me sleep better at night...I would love to stop by but the last time I saw Knox up close and personal was in 1983. I was a TC in C-1-1, I got diverted on my way to the 2/6th Cav, but that's another story, they had some new tank everybody was jazzed about, XM something or another...I have a good friend that retired down there, Dennis Arnold, one outstanding NCO, I should go down and see him.Charlie 14,
Sounds like you're at Knox. Stop by CP37 off HWY 60 when we have the LTs in Gauntlet. Especially if it's raining. It dirty as hell, just the way Army training should be. EPA evens stops out to fine us every once in a while. It's awesome.
Any given week we have a Troop's worth of LTs learning their trade. Out of about 90 days in BOLC III they spend about a third of it in the field. On real equipment. They get 5 days in CCTT.
This is a heck of a board, the knowledge and the backgrounds that people bring to the table are impressive. I think I'll talk less and learn more, I just had to chime in on that Army-warrior deal, no matter where you're coming from it seems like today's troopers are doing a heck of a job.
In defense of the intangibles, of traditions and rituals
I'm all in favor of professional competence, of training that is useful to the mission at hand, and especially of not wasting people's time.
That being said, I would argue in favor of traditions and rituals. There probably needs to be a proper balance achieved in their use, but that is the case with anything.
In a defense establishment run amok with technology as the answer to everything in war, these intangibles are a brake. As long as we remember that wars are not won by the most advanced gadgets and widgets, by he who throws the most money at the problem, we stand half a chance of succeeding at the endeavor that is war. Such things as tradition and ritual remind us that there is more to war than technology, that there is an art to the craft.
How many of you have attended the funeral of a service member killed in the line of duty recently? Do I need to say more?
At the end of the day, human beings are not robots. They do not perform well simply because they practice, or they are competent. They do not willingly sacrifice their lives because they are good professionals.
Perhaps I am biased from more than a decade of close observation of the Marine Corps and Marines. That being said, I believe I am not far off the mark in positing that it is an organization that succeeds based on more than mere competence.
Today my husband had to do something, had to see something that nobody ever should. The sort of thing that can break a person's spirit, that can make a person doubt everything he is doing. When he got back to his room, when he needed something to reassure himself of what he was doing, he popped in the dvd of the recent PBS program, "The Marines," that I had sent to him.* This is what he wrote:
"After today I had to watch the Marines video again. I know that the particularities and gritty details of it suck, but I still do really believe in the organization. I couldn't keep going everyday if I didn't."
You don't get to that point on training alone. It requires something more, something akin to faith. Faith itself is an intangible. And it is built on a foundation of other intangibles, like rituals and traditions.
Let us have enough training, _and_ enough parading.
=============
*Aside from the entertainment value for him and his team, I thought it might come in handy in their training mission. This use had never occurred to me.
Last edited by Sargent; 06-03-2007 at 04:39 AM.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks