A worthy read for the thinkers in here...

[RGStory]

Take a young Soldier out to the woods these days. Hand them a compass, protractor and a map, then be pleased if they don't ask you what those are, be even happier if they know how to use it!

I could tell you some stories!

That is a very old complaint. I believe 1st Baron Baden-Powell also had that complaint.

Then he created the Boy Scouts.

Lack of woodsman ship skills goes back a very long ways. Nearly to the inception of modern wars, but I suspect that if historians bothered to pay attention at the time, they would have written about it of the Roman Legions.

Large armies are always predominately fielded from the largest population bases, which are typically the cities.

I learned more about land navigation in Philmont Scout Ranch than I ever did in the Marine Corps. By the time I made it to Pendleton, I rarely needed a compass at all if I had a good topo map.

I agree with you entirely that it is a problem, but I disagree that it is an ailment due solely to the modern society.

How many service men could actually set up a solid bivouac site without modern comforts? How far from the water source should you position sleeping arrangements? Where do designate camp cleaning in relation to where you draw water from? How and where do you dig your latrine pits? Is the area subject to flash flooding?

Baden-Powell recognized this and as a solution began the boy scouts to prepare the English youth for future service.

 

[bigdaddydmd]

Take a young Soldier out to the woods these days. Hand them a compass, protractor and a map, then be pleased if they don't ask you what those are, be even happier if they know how to use it!

I could tell you some stories!

I wish you were wrong, but personal experience says you are not. Every year I end up OIC'ng and instructing Land Nav and spend a half the day in the classroom trying to teach Medical Officers and Enlisted how to read a map, use a compass, plot a point, and god forbid you throw magnetic declination at them. Resecting? Triangulation? Hell, even pace count on flat terrain is a challenge let alone rough terrain. Then its out to the Land Nav course for daytime, group buddy system find the points. I collect all electronics, cell phones, smart watches and they get a compass, protractor, map, and their camelback. Off they go, and I'm pleased if they can find 8/10 points within the allotted time. Granted these are MEDCOM soldiers and not Combat MOS, but it is still a critical skill.

 

[bigdaddydmd]

Listened to an interesting interview a couple of weeks ago. The Nimitz Lecture, I think it was called.

The author/speaker, Ricks, had a very interesting take on why senior officers since 1945 can't hold a candle to those in WW2. He works for a little commie thinktank... and is anything BUT non-partisan. That does not mean he is wrong in this case.



Excellent presentation.

Sirhr

Got thru it in chunks. I wasn't able to sit thru it all in one sitting due to time. Thank you. I now have a subject and material for the next time I run OPD.

 

[Maggot]

I respectfully disagree.

We humans have a terrible tendency to incorrectly assess the behaviors of an entire group based upon the actions of a few. Maybe we are just hardwired to overact to threats.

Moving into WWII we had a population that was less educated, less healthy, less literate, more impoverished, and less in number than we have today. At one point the service entry exam during WWII consisted of a standard so low that that you only needed half of your original teeth, be free of flat foot, venereal disease and pass the psychological examination that only asked a single question, yet still we had an unfortunately high number that failed to pass.

In the modern America, we look at the flamboyant few in the American public that are clearly weak in mind and spirit, and we throw out the whole batch and suddenly declare that we are doomed to lose the next war? No. I still see great things in the American public.

Every American generation has its war. The last generation always castigates the next by saying it is unprepared. They are usually correct, but I believe it would be a mistake for our enemies to think they lack the spirit to win when they need to.

And Ill respectfully say:

To a point Ill agree, there are many fine people here, and I hope youre right, but I think that balance is changing rapidly.

 

[DocRDS]

Did the armed forces lose, or did the politicians force them to quit?

Does not invalidate the critiques of Centralized Command, but it needs to be asked.

 

[armorpl8chikn]

I don't care about the masses. I care about my adversaries weaknesses and how to exploit them.

The masses can be silenced too. It takes a ruthless mind to do so.

Not disagreeing with you at all.

 

[Fig]

Auftragstaktik pronunciation in German

How to say Auftragstaktik in German? Pronunciation of Auftragstaktik with 3 audio pronunciations, 13 translations and more for Auftragstaktik.

www.howtopronounce.com

 

[308pirate]

That was Cheney's payoff to Haliburton. He should be tried, convicted, and executed, for starting a war for profit.

Where is the evidence of that?

 

[Terry Cross]

Moving into WWII we had a population that was less educated, less healthy, less literate, more impoverished, and less in number than we have today. At one point the service entry exam during WWII consisted of a standard so low that that you only needed half of your original teeth, be free of flat foot, venereal disease and pass the psychological examination that only asked a single question, yet still we had an unfortunately high number that failed to pass.

Thinking out loud here.... I always looked at it as almost an advantage to have a lot of the fighting force come from a hard life, less comforts, more street smarts and just a straight up understanding of how bad humans can treat each other. This has to play into their ability to fight in austere conditions with little support and a lot of up-close brutality around you every day.

I think a protracted conflict with severe conditions will favor those less shocked by those conditions.

I know that we are still blessed to have some true meat eaters in the ranks but they are the minority.

Regardless of nukes, stealth, GPS and lasers . . . there will likely still be a point when pivotal fights could boil down to who can best grind it out with small arms, grenades and knives while taking casualties for weeks or months. They say we are past that but I believe both sides have the ability to exhaust and counter all the wizbang shit over time.

I have rarely wished to be wrong as much as I do now.

./

 

[Maggot]

Where is the evidence of that?

Absolutely hard cold evidence, I dont have., but there is whats called, 'circumstantial evidence and many have been convicted on it.

-Prior to becoming VP Cheney was CEO of Haliburton.
-He becomes VP under a feeble minded yes Boi, W.
-Very questionable evidence about WMD in Iraq, though admittedly most every country likely has them.
-Cheney tells W that "Saddam tried to kill your father.
-We invade Iraq on that premise.
-Haliburton gets a 'NO COMPETITION CONTRACT' to rebuild what we destroy.

To me thats pretty good circumstantial evidence.

 

[308pirate]

Absolutely hard cold evidence, I dont have., but there is whats called, 'circumstantial evidence and many have been convicted on it.

-Prior to becoming VP Cheney was CEO of Haliburton.
-He becomes VP under a feeble minded yes Boi, W.
-Very questionable evidence about WMD in Iraq, though admittedly most every country likely has them.
-Cheney tells W that "Saddam tried to kill your father.
-We invade Iraq on that premise.
-Haliburton gets a 'NO COMPETITION CONTRACT' to rebuild what we destroy.

To me thats pretty good circumstantial evidence.

Well then case closed

 

[Maggot]

Well then case closed

I dont know, No one knows what was in Cheney's mind but Cheney, but it sure looks questionable.

 

[RGStory]

Thinking out loud here.... I always looked at it as almost an advantage to have a lot of the fighting force come from a hard life, less comforts, more street smarts and just a straight up understanding of how bad humans can treat each other. This has to play into their ability to fight in austere conditions with little support and a lot of up-close brutality around you every day.

I think a protracted conflict with severe conditions will favor those less shocked by those conditions.

I know that we are still blessed to have some true meat eaters in the ranks but they are the minority.

Regardless of nukes, stealth, GPS and lasers . . . there will likely still be a point when pivotal fights could boil down to who can best grind it out with small arms, grenades and knives while taking casualties for weeks or months. They say we are past that but I believe both sides have the ability to exhaust and counter all the wizbang shit over time.

I have rarely wished to be wrong as much as I do now.

./

Both are required to field a military that has a tooth to tail ratio as long as ours.

But to your point regarding front line combat troops, I still say both are required and I believe that we will still find an ample supply of sturdy and capable persons from inside the cities. Just because they don't know woodsmanship skills, does not mean their lives are devoid of hardships.

The Lost Battalion from WWI is a great example and history is strewn with examples of cities being capable of fielding combat effective armies.

As far as the value of modern access to higher quality education I'd point to the 332nd Fighter Group. An odd case to be sure for entirely different reasons, but the combat value of concentrating highly educated and intelligent individuals in a combat unit is abundantly clear.

I have a long list of persons I served with that were remarkable individuals. In that list I count several that started their lives out on a road that lead either to the military or prison. Two of them that come to my immediate memory are currently serving as SNCO's and have already left the drill field. One from Atlanta, GA and the other from some New Jersey shithole. Either leading, or being led by, I would fight with them by my side. I still know more than they know about land nav though.

 

[stefan73]

Both are required to field a military that has a tooth to tail ratio as long as ours.

But to your point regarding front line combat troops, I still say both are required and I believe that we will still find an ample supply of sturdy and capable persons from inside the cities. Just because they don't know woodsmanship skills, does not mean their lives are devoid of hardships.

The Lost Battalion from WWI is a great example and history is strewn with examples of cities being capable of fielding combat effective armies.

As far as the value of modern access to higher quality education I'd point to the 332nd Fighter Group. An odd case to be sure for entirely different reasons, but the combat value of concentrating highly educated and intelligent individuals in a combat unit is abundantly clear.

I have a long list of persons I served with that were remarkable individuals. In that list I count several that started their lives out on a road that lead either to the military or prison. Two of them that come to my immediate memory are currently serving as SNCO's and have already left the drill field. One from Atlanta, GA and the other from some New Jersey shithole. Either leading, or being led by, I would fight with them by my side. I still know more than they know about land nav though.

I have seen too many people overemphasize the educational background of a person vs the quality of Soldier/Leader they are. You can be a super duper extraordinary physicist but lack in being a Soldier and/or a leader (I met a guy like that, I would NOT let him lead my child if I had the option)! His education seems to be his only redeeming quality because he sucks as a leader and has no interpersonal skills (think of a three year old who's mother just took the candy bar out of his hands and placed it back on the shelf at the store).

 

[RGStory]

I have seen too many people overemphasize the educational background of a person vs the quality of Soldier/Leader they are. You can be a super duper extraordinary physicist but lack in being a Soldier and/or a leader (I met a guy like that, I would NOT let him lead my child if I had the option)! His education seems to be his only redeeming quality because he sucks as a leader and has no interpersonal skills (think of a three year old who's mother just took the candy bar out of his hands and placed it back on the shelf at the store).

Hahaha. You are right. I think I overemphasized the point. I didn't mean to convey that I believe a bunch of doctors and lawyers are going to perform exceptionally well.

Allow me to moderate then. There are more benefits to having an educated military than an uneducated one.

Or better yet, I'll start with Thucydides, “The society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools.” and infer that the value of educated military is well known.

If that is true, then our society today has the ability to field far more lethal armies than in the past. We can maximize that potential by allowing subordinates to exercise greater initiative without micromanagement by higher.

 

[hankpac]

Take a young Soldier out to the woods these days. Hand them a compass, protractor and a map, then be pleased if they don't ask you what those are, be even happier if they know how to use it!

I could tell you some stories!

Not my guys. Take any one of them out and drop them with map and compass, and by the time you get back to the hummer, he'll be there finishing a meal, and probably have the three most likely routes of entry trip-flared. These young guys are SHARP.

 

[jbailey]

Love that picture @hankpac
The American Soldier, motivated by patriotism and the buddy to his left and right, remains the finest fighting force on the planet. Any foe, state-organized or otherwise, will learn this lesson if they mistake the causes of the Afghan defeat.

 

[stefan73]

Hahaha. You are right. I think I overemphasized the point. I didn't mean to convey that I believe a bunch of doctors and lawyers are going to perform exceptionally well.

Allow me to moderate then. There are more benefits to having an educated military than an uneducated one.

Or better yet, I'll start with Thucydides, “The society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools.” and infer that the value of educated military is well known.

If that is true, then our society today has the ability to field far more lethal armies than in the past. We can maximize that potential by allowing subordinates to exercise greater initiative without micromanagement by higher.

Concur

 

[stefan73]

Not my guys. Take any one of them out and drop them with map and compass, and by the time you get back to the hummer, he'll be there finishing a meal, and probably have the three most likely routes of entry trip-flared. These young guys are SHARP.

I would argue you are wrong, they are Bastogne. If they were 506 Currahee I might agree

Just joking BTW

Campbell has a great warfighting mindset and when I was there was a highly disciplined organization! I never removed that combat patch after I left there! My BC later became the 101st Division CDR MG Winski who is now retired. He was a tough leader, very demanding but he would let you know what he wanted and was fair. He is one of the few CDR's that said that as long as I was following his intent, was doing the right thing both morally and ethically that he would have my back and he proved it twice! He was a solid leader and a good guy.

 

[stefan73]

All joking aside, I think the Army still struggles with understanding the new Mission Command Doctrine and how Command and Control fits within it. Not many people seem to have really done the deep dive into what the newer doctrine means besides bringing back Command and Control while maintaining the Mission Command philosophy.

In the old days before Mission Command doctrine we had Command and Control and understood that we needed to operate within the "intent" and we were usually given a Task and Purpose. Worst task and purpose I received once was T:kill, P: cause (that kid went far ) after I had to retrain his guys.

Terry's concern about our systems and signatures is spot on. Add in that Soviets FA systems outrange what we have on the ground. All they need to do is to detect and then engage with their long shooters. This is one of more than a few shortcomings IMO. We have become over reliant on systems and technology. One of our challenges is to fight the enemy and not the systems and/or plan.

 

[clcustom1911]

We have had over 20 years now of commanders teaching subordinates this command cowardice, who then in turn teach their subordinates the same. How does it get fixed now? Its at the point the General Officer Corps is plagued by this malaise.

I have enough examples to fill pages with bullet points from my own personal experience. Everything from the mundane of unit wide cinderella curfew for grown adults, to the serious of CO's pulling ammunition from Marines on FOB's because they were more worried about the number of ND's on a fitness report than they were of enemy action in a combat zone. I am certain anyone who served for any significant length of time in the past 3 decades could do the same.

A serious war would fix this shit, but at what cost? How much blood before we started firing commanders who were unwilling to act without a babysitter's approval?

How does it get fixed now?
Write more white papers?
This has been written about since the ancient Greeks. Its not a new age phenomenon, its just an old disease that we are infected with today.

Can't fix wartime leadership issues in a peacetime environment.

When a "manager" faces the meat grinder of choices in combat that's where the wheat is separated from the chaff, and leaders are forged.

Captain Sobel vs Major Winters.

 

[TriggerJerk!]

I am not a veteran. But everything I know about leadership and people management I learned from military superiors and colleagues (most WWII and Korean War vets). So you guys must be doing something right!

Thanks for the link @MarinePMI.

 

[stefan73]

Can't fix wartime leadership issues in a peacetime environment.

When a "manager" faces the meat grinder of choices in combat that's where the wheat is separated from the chaff, and leaders are forged.

Captain Sobel vs Major Winters.

A "Golden child" Co CDR (he was physically fit, well spoken) on first contact looked back at his CO XO and said "fuck this shit I quit, you're in charge". The XO was an old friend of mine from Fort Hood.

Some people aren't cut out for warfare, some are. Some you would look at and not see the warrior (they just don't look the part), but it was there. I told my guys once that you could be physically a stud but that doesn't mean you are a warrior or worth a shit. I saw a Soldier refuse to get on the gun on one of my HMMWV's because of cowardice. I saw another soldier freeze on the gun in a firefight (that I can forgive, but actively being a coward and refusing is different). To me "heart" was a greater trait. The Soldier that fought through adversity to achieve and be a Soldier is the guy/gal I want.

The challenge is taking a group of people from various specialties, backgrounds, uniting them and motivating them to work towards a specific goal. Getting them to take ownership and have pride in the work they are doing. If you accomplish that they will achieve a lot but to get there you need to have a few things first. Your Soldiers need to have faith/trust in you as a leader, if you don't have that than you lead solely by your rank/position and they will not perform to the levels they could. The one that people follow out of trust is a leader and the other is more of a manager.

 

[Soulezoo]

That fuckstick Bergdahl was one of those bunkhouse commandos.
All piss and vinegar about gonna git him some until he got past the wire the first time. After that he was a whiney thumb sucker.. and you all know the rest.

Not an officer obviously, but of similar mentality.

 

[pmclaine]

The problem starts at the top.

We have a civilian lead military that has no understanding of Strategy. Few if any have a military background and they rely too heavily on their military advisers that may apply nebulous goals to make it easier to claim victory while suffering a defeat.

Our politicians look at war as a means to ensure their continued office rather than an existential threat that they have worked to avoid vigorously through negotiation and diplomacy and in doing so have clearly defined the threat when talks break down.

At that point the civilian leadership should be clearly knowledgeable on the threat and able to define strategic goals and objectives that once obtained would be the metric for success and signal the end of hostilities. Strategic goals are clear, limited and expected to be achievable.

Global War on Terror is none of that.

Civilian leadership needs to have trust that it has trained and equipped a capable military so that once strategy is expressed in a short understandable statement to the military it can stay hands off and allow the military to conduct the war using tactics it has been trained to use and understands?

Today's technology erodes that buffer between the civilian leader and the military commander. Our last successful war, WWII, I think the military benefited from the fact it could be twenty four hours usually more before civilian leadership knew what was happening at the front. They had time to stumble, recover and carry on before someone worried about polls or their next election could interfere.

In my time the USMC concept of its smallest autonomous unit, the Fire Team, being just part of the next bigger autonomous unit the Squad composed of three fire teams, Growing again to the Platoon, than the Company and so on, each expected to know the mission than take advantage individually through initiative of enemy mistakes or oversights encountered during the conduct of the battle and exploit the opportunity while still supporting each other as sub units of the next bigger formation.

Through the initiative of the L/Cpl fire Team leader taking out the machine gun bunker, the Sergeant squad leader is able to overcome the enemy position and the platoon Lieutenant secures the trench line for the company Skipper to gain control of the hilltop objective.

It seems according to the article that now a days that initiative is lost and I think its because the chiefs are watching all the way back to Washington.

Yet with all these eyes apparently no one takes any accountability when stuff goes really shitty yet one L/Cpl makes a dead Taliban gargle in piss because the L/Cpl is happy he is alive and the gargling Taliban that was just trying to kill him is dead, next thing you know the Commandant USMC personally will be directing your UCMJ case.

 

[stefan73]

The problem starts at the top.

We have a civilian lead military that has no understanding of Strategy. Few if any have a military background and they rely too heavily on their military advisers that may apply nebulous goals to make it easier to claim victory while suffering a defeat.

Our politicians look at war as a means to ensure their continued office rather than an existential threat that they have worked to avoid vigorously through negotiation and diplomacy and in doing so have clearly defined the threat when talks break down.

At that point the civilian leadership should be clearly knowledgeable on the threat and able to define strategic goals and objectives that once obtained would be the metric for success and signal the end of hostilities. Strategic goals are clear, limited and expected to be achievable.

Global War on Terror is none of that.

Civilian leadership needs to have trust that it has trained and equipped a capable military so that once strategy is expressed in a short understandable statement to the military it can stay hands off and allow the military to conduct the war using tactics it has been trained to use and understands?

Today's technology erodes that buffer between the civilian leader and the military commander. Our last successful war, WWII, I think the military benefited from the fact it could be twenty four hours usually more before civilian leadership knew what was happening at the front. They had time to stumble, recover and carry on before someone worried about polls or their next election could interfere.

In my time the USMC concept of its smallest autonomous unit, the Fire Team, being just part of the next bigger autonomous unit the Squad composed of three fire teams, Growing again to the Platoon, than the Company and so on, each expected to know the mission than take advantage individually through initiative of enemy mistakes or oversights encountered during the conduct of the battle and exploit the opportunity while still supporting each other as sub units of the next bigger formation.

Through the initiative of the L/Cpl fire Team leader taking out the machine gun bunker, the Sergeant squad leader is able to overcome the enemy position and the platoon Lieutenant secures the trench line for the company Skipper to gain control of the hilltop objective.

It seems according to the article that now a days that initiative is lost and I think its because the chiefs are watching all the way back to Washington.

Yet with all these eyes apparently no one takes any accountability when stuff goes really shitty yet one L/Cpl makes a dead Taliban gargle in piss because the L/Cpl is happy he is alive and the gargling Taliban that was just trying to kill him is dead, next thing you know the Commandant USMC personally will be directing your UCMJ case.

Not only is it because of the constant eyes on but the chances that a mistake could be made and even if a mistake is not made some GO could maliciously go after you. If you look at then CPT Dave Staffel that I went to ICCC with and MSG Anderson that had a "kill or capture" target that they tried to get. Things didn't go as planned and there were a lot more fighter around that prevented them from safely capturing the target so they killed him. Then SOCOM tried to shit on them and hammer them. They were later exonerated but the cost was high. Last I was told is that Dave paid for MSG Anderson's defense fees.

The point, you can do your job and still get your shit handed to you by some POS GO with an axe to grind!!!!
www.blackfive.net/main/2007/09/does-socom-have.html

 

[stefan73]

That fuckstick Bergdahl was one of those bunkhouse commandos.
All piss and vinegar about gonna git him some until he got past the wire the first time. After that he was a whiney thumb sucker.. and you all know the rest.

Not an officer obviously, but of similar mentality.

Bergdahl was a traitor, clear and simple. He purposely hung back on patrols to try and break out to go hang with his Talib buddies.