04-14-2014, 07:14 PM
LRRPF52 Wrote:This really cuts to the heart of the discussion. If the military just attempts to adapt to the taskings without fundamentally adapting doctrine and force flexibility, it doesn't matter what calibers are issued-they're going to go in unprepared, and a small minority of real performers will have to fight the organization and the enemy simultaneously.
If the organization miraculously focuses on doctrine, training, and true professional development, with the flexibility to tailor the force, they will efficiently get it done with existing systems in inventory. A new toy might make one marginal aspect of the huge pie taste a bit better, but it will still be a certain flavor of pie, barely distinguishable from the other.
True statements, and –in my mind - part of what the discussion was initially posed to address. Where does the military need to go IOT remain relevant, effective and proactive in the future (above and beyond shiny new toys)? There are a lot of competing issues/training priorities for the time of the folks in uniform. The argument can be made, and the one that I think most will ascribe to, that combat efficiency/effectiveness should be paramount at the expense of everything else. This means lots of field training, live fire training, off site training deployments etc., etc.
Now here's the BUTs -
A saying in the military (or at least my service) is we recruit individuals, but we retain families. How do you retain a solid family life in a profession that demands the highest level of martial excellence - a time consuming endeavor - and then combine it with the attributes of morally and ethically sound leadership with a regional understanding of a professional academic? It is an exceeding rare individual who can maintain a healthy family life with the operational tempo that is required for true martial excellence – a tempo that may have that warrior home for less than a month each year.
How do you balance all the other training and education that is expected of the military that has very little to do with martial excellence? How many evolutions are dictated by Congress, DoD, the individual service chief or the President that take time away from that warfighting excellence? Like it or not, these chuckleheads control the purse strings to make the warfighting training possible. The hours spent in classrooms to learn about sexual assault and prevention, suicide awareness and prevention, operational risk management are – whether you want to admit it or not – important to maintain the healthy, ethical force this country deserves.
How do you adjust the training at ALL levels to be proficient at the myriad of different styles/situations/generations of conflict that may be faced? Do you train, staff, equip and rely on unit A to be proficient at situation Y, while unit B is proficient at situation X? What happens when situation Y drags on for years or unit B takes casualties that degrades its combat effectiveness? Do you now put a unit in a scenario they are not adequately trained to be effective? And what happens if both situations occur simultaneously (a twist on the two war strategy)? Or do you make all units marginally familiar in all situations and hope for the best?
The questions above are what plague most leaders who give a s%$t. You want to train & bring your kids home at the end of a deployment in one piece, but you also want to give them time prior to the deployment to have a home to come back to.
It ain't all trigger time.