Couldn't agree more. At USMC staff college a long time ago we only once set up the gymnasium with the echelon markers to simulate a littoral event. It was fantastic to walk around and drink in the spatial orientation of assets against missions. I commented that I thought we should be doing it one day a week. Surely we could give up some of the arcane readings for this. You know what? I had the pleasure of taking Tactical Action Officer school at Damneck in the ship Combat mock-ups. That was training. Got to serve as AW and splashed an acft that was showing intent. Was interrogated afterward but told I did the right thing, just be careful.
Yes the pre-technology days of the ground force maneuver “rock drills” just as Mark has described forced special forces integration concepts, intelligence asset deployment arrays, maneuver deployment arrays, artillery prep and support, engineer prep and support, and logistical employment and rear echelon support based on solid enemy employment tactics and capabilities and clear assessed correlation of forces matrices. (COFMs). I’m not real sure at the field grade level we are truly teaching the art of war any more—true war fighting—which is not just deployment and redeployment or how you react to troops in contact but rather how your utilize force and equipment employment to effectively shape the battlefield to achieve the commanders overall objectives. Hence—we stopped teaching officers how to fight to WIN wars and concentrated for the last 15 years or so on teaching garrison administrative and organizational leadership concepts (Lean 6) , in country nation building and theater political engagement strategy. That never was the mission of an Army or ground force. An Army is inherently and doctrinally designed to fight and win Wars! (Yes you can insert Air Force, Marines, or Navy into much of that verbiage as well.). ……………Just a few thoughts from an old order of battle technician / intelligence targeting chief warrant officer
It is true we didn't have some of the simulation software, but unless it has really advanced, I don't think a 3D immersed lab can really represent a spatial representation of a large enough AO, but it an do pieces of it. 2D has probably advanced to a point where they can do a pretty good job of depicting action in space and time. For the operational and tactical levels of ground war I don't think there is a substitute for staff rides as a teaching tool. It becomes clear pretty fast who has the somewhat innate ability to read terrain and understand why campaigns worked or didn't work.
In early 1997, just prior to my DH tour, it was mandated that I attend "leadership school." I protested because a) it seemed like an admission that the Navy had failed to teach me anything in the prior 10 years of my service and b) I was transitioning to a new aircraft with a highly demanding training syllabus and felt my time would be better spent back in Lemoore learning my warfare specialty. My protest was to no avail so off I went to NAS North Island (McPea's...glug, glug.) To my recollection every instructor was an O-5. They were teaching leadership in San Diego even even though each of them had been passed over for command. The Navy has been unserious about war fighting for a very long time. But hey, at least we could leverage our Lean 6 Sigma TQLs and TQMs and apply them to the enterprise in order to skillfully adapt and affect our adversaries non-kinetically, or kinetically, as the case may be.
I do think that part of the problem is that there is not enough oversight of the military and the oversight that occurs is bad.
All military education should be focused on elements of how to wage war.
I think this changes somewhat at the very top of the military where generals need a diverse range of interests to make it easier for them to work with civilian leadership, the state department, etc....
But, that education should be worked out on a more informal basis.
Moral failures due to a materialist and atheistic belief system. Witness that Joe Biden—the “devout” Catholic— is a functional atheist.
Couldn't agree more. At USMC staff college a long time ago we only once set up the gymnasium with the echelon markers to simulate a littoral event. It was fantastic to walk around and drink in the spatial orientation of assets against missions. I commented that I thought we should be doing it one day a week. Surely we could give up some of the arcane readings for this. You know what? I had the pleasure of taking Tactical Action Officer school at Damneck in the ship Combat mock-ups. That was training. Got to serve as AW and splashed an acft that was showing intent. Was interrogated afterward but told I did the right thing, just be careful.
Yes the pre-technology days of the ground force maneuver “rock drills” just as Mark has described forced special forces integration concepts, intelligence asset deployment arrays, maneuver deployment arrays, artillery prep and support, engineer prep and support, and logistical employment and rear echelon support based on solid enemy employment tactics and capabilities and clear assessed correlation of forces matrices. (COFMs). I’m not real sure at the field grade level we are truly teaching the art of war any more—true war fighting—which is not just deployment and redeployment or how you react to troops in contact but rather how your utilize force and equipment employment to effectively shape the battlefield to achieve the commanders overall objectives. Hence—we stopped teaching officers how to fight to WIN wars and concentrated for the last 15 years or so on teaching garrison administrative and organizational leadership concepts (Lean 6) , in country nation building and theater political engagement strategy. That never was the mission of an Army or ground force. An Army is inherently and doctrinally designed to fight and win Wars! (Yes you can insert Air Force, Marines, or Navy into much of that verbiage as well.). ……………Just a few thoughts from an old order of battle technician / intelligence targeting chief warrant officer
It is true we didn't have some of the simulation software, but unless it has really advanced, I don't think a 3D immersed lab can really represent a spatial representation of a large enough AO, but it an do pieces of it. 2D has probably advanced to a point where they can do a pretty good job of depicting action in space and time. For the operational and tactical levels of ground war I don't think there is a substitute for staff rides as a teaching tool. It becomes clear pretty fast who has the somewhat innate ability to read terrain and understand why campaigns worked or didn't work.
In early 1997, just prior to my DH tour, it was mandated that I attend "leadership school." I protested because a) it seemed like an admission that the Navy had failed to teach me anything in the prior 10 years of my service and b) I was transitioning to a new aircraft with a highly demanding training syllabus and felt my time would be better spent back in Lemoore learning my warfare specialty. My protest was to no avail so off I went to NAS North Island (McPea's...glug, glug.) To my recollection every instructor was an O-5. They were teaching leadership in San Diego even even though each of them had been passed over for command. The Navy has been unserious about war fighting for a very long time. But hey, at least we could leverage our Lean 6 Sigma TQLs and TQMs and apply them to the enterprise in order to skillfully adapt and affect our adversaries non-kinetically, or kinetically, as the case may be.
I do think that part of the problem is that there is not enough oversight of the military and the oversight that occurs is bad.
All military education should be focused on elements of how to wage war.
I think this changes somewhat at the very top of the military where generals need a diverse range of interests to make it easier for them to work with civilian leadership, the state department, etc....
But, that education should be worked out on a more informal basis.