Afghan Duty Will Make or Break Career's

[tomahawk6]

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/497489.html?source=somnia

This is a good thing. The junior officers and NCO's are being tested in the crucible of combat operations. Some will make the grade and others wont. Those that do will have a positive impact on the army for year's to come. We have seen these cycles in the US Army. The Vietnam era officer's had a lasting impact on the Army as will the officer's who are now serving in Iraq/Afghanistan. We are already seeing the brigade commanders of OIF/OEF becoming general officers. The division commanders who have served are now LTG's. The Corps commanders are now General's. Their experiences are shaping the army of tomorrow. NCO's and officer's with combat experience will have an advantage over those who havent. We already have more combat experience in the Army and Reserves than at any time since Vietnam, this is going to benefit the CF in the same way as more units rotate through the theater.

 

[Praetorian]

Definately
Combat always brings out the best and the worst
It will also have positive affects for incoming troops, who will go through basic maybe with instructors who have had real life experience and can add lessons, rather then just passing on the same stuff they were taught, kinda like Darwinism, with every new experience the Army will adapt and become better.  A little bit of spencer; survival of the fittest; god willing in reference only to careers, but it is all too often forgotten that there is lives, not just promotion, on the line.

:cheers:

 

[Hot Lips]

Sounds like it will make for some great training ahead...hope I get to do some of the learning soon.
It is true...those who do are definitely the ones to get the latest and greatest from...I think in most lines of work.

HL

 

[Five-to-One]

None of that will make any difference though unless the heads in the CF decide to get off the cold war-era training styles

 

[Journeyman]

None of that will make any difference though unless the heads in the CF decide to get off the cold war-era training styles

~sigh~  OK, others mention repeatedly the benefits of filling out your profile. In the absence of any information, I assume your viewpoint is based on something you read - - Scott Taylor? Maybe Soldier of Fortune magazine? If you are in the Canadian military, when people talk about "time in," you still look at your watch, don't you.

Now the reason I'm being so harsh here.......is because you clearly have no idea how much CF training has changed since the end of the Cold  War. Even if you have some awareness of what training was like prior to 1989, you obviously have never done pre-deployment training for any operation since the mid-1990's Balkan missions!

Any vestages of "cold war-era training styles" as you so derisively call them, are generally seen during the basic combat arms development periods - - it's called "learning your trade." Once you have developed competency in these basics (which, I assure you, are far from "basic" - - no matter how many video games you've played)....you then move along into the more challenging skill sets. As well as refreshing the basics, these are the ones the troops seek to master before deploying.

Trust me, both the "heads in the CF" and troops deploying, are training far beyond the skills you believe you know.

 

[HItorMiss]

+1

Here Here JM!

 

[Five-to-One]

I may not be one of those rambling idiots with zero idea of what they are talking about but point taken clearly you know more, next time ill be better informed

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Definately
Combat always brings out the best and the worst
It will also have positive affects for incoming troops, who will go through basic maybe with instructors who have had real life experience and can add lessons, rather then just passing on the same stuff they were taught, kinda like Darwinism, with every new experience the Army will adapt and become better.  A little bit of spencer; survival of the fittest; god willing in reference only to careers, but it is all too often forgotten that there is lives, not just promotion, on the line.

:cheers:

Ummmm have you ever been in a Theatre of Operations....if you haven't stay in your own lane as you have no clue what you are talking about.

 

[Danjanou]

Ok five to one, as you embark on what we all hope will be a long and fruitful military career here’s some free unsolicited advice from an old Cold Warrior who finished his first overseas deployment while you were still an evil gleam in your daddy’s eye.

Engage brain prior to opening mouth.

Here endeth the lesson.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

P.S. Jack Bauer can kick Chuck Norris' ass.

 

[3rd Horseman]

If you follow allot of the threads through out this site allot of cold war bashing goes on. I for one was trained under that system and would bet that a cold war trained and equipted Canadian unit would make fast minced meat of any current new age light wheeled force that appears to be being bragged about here. The reality is that we train the same way, we have just changed equipment choice not for any war fighting capability but for economics.

On the issue of the future military benefiting from the war vets.....the past has shown us that as we pass from war fighting to peace the war vets are purged from the ranks. So as long as the wars go on yes you are right but the few years after peace wait for the pink slip. For our most recent example, look around how many UNPROFOR medals do you see?

 

[Sapper41]

Consider it a generational thing, young soldiers(and the public) live in the now.  Cyprus, I won't even go there.  Germany stories are now met with a glazed look, might as well be talking about your phase III FTX in gagetown.  UNPROFOR... sorry no one in the back of the LAV was there and so they don't care.  Every lecture and field training exercise now begins with 'this isn't Bosnia so pay attention'.  Bosnia used to be dangerous but that was a long time ago and again no body cares.  This is unfortunate and disrespectful of all the experience gained over the years, but hey the green machine keeps moving on.

Afghanistan is sexy, Kandahar is sexy. Long live the 3 Block war.  Say good bye to Dobro utro! say hello to Salaam Alaikum.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Dear 3rd Horseman,

Are you suggesting some sort of duel between 4 CMBG circa 1985 and 1 CMBG circa 2006?  Bratwurst and beer vs beef jerky and Gatorade?

As fascinating as that would be to watch, I'm not sure that the outcome would be relevant.  Our army is not preparing to fight 4 CMBG in 1985, nor an UNPROFOR battlegroup in 1995.  It is training to fight an insurgent/terrorist force who also happens to be a real enemy.  We are trying to make that training as realistic as possible to match the threat and theatre.

The "Light" force that manoeuvres here is also one of the most robust in theatre.  I doubt many would trade their LAV IIIs/Coyotes for M113s and Lynxs.

Cheers,

2B

p.s. Chuck Norris could sooooo kick Jack Bauer's *ss twenty-four different lethal ways using only his wristwatch.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

"This is unfortunate and disrespectful of all the experience gained over the years, but hey the green machine keeps moving on."
I'm not so sure about that.  Although the veterns do need to be flexible and realize that although they have had experience elsewhere this is a new situation with new problems.  Basically just throw out the bath water and not the baby with it.

 

[3rd Horseman]

Cold War does not mean 4CMBG and Germany it means heavy and medium mech forces. Don't confuse the beer and schnitzel tour with what cold war era training is, Germany only a component of the CF at the time. As for 1CMBG 06 verses 1CMBG 95...Leos against coyote hum? 109s against towed arty hum. Little bird recce compared to coyote....don't bad mouth the lynx it could get into more places than that huge lumbering coyote.


Somehow running around in iltis jeeps is not cool nor effective (not that long ago) ...add the new Gwagon that's nice but it is not a combat veh and wheels are for ladies (sorry ladies) If given the choice I would rather fight from a heavy or even medium weight mech unit than our current light configuration. Ask your self what you would rather your En be eqpt with and then revisit the thought. The current A stan light chasing a small guerrilla force aside. Remember the force has to be able to fight all en not just be built to fight a guerrilla war in isolation.

3 block war is nothing new just a new name for the same old way we do business. It is a sexy name though. Salaam alikam was also the greeting in Bosnia and guess what it was the Alkaida main effort before Astan.

 

[17thRecceSgt]

Consider it a generational thing, young soldiers(and the public) live in the now.  Cyprus, I won't even go there.  Germany stories are now met with a glazed look, might as well be talking about your phase III FTX in gagetown.  UNPROFOR... sorry no one in the back of the LAV was there and so they don't care.  Every lecture and field training exercise now begins with 'this isn't Bosnia so pay attention'.  Bosnia used to be dangerous but that was a long time ago and again no body cares.  This is unfortunate and disrespectful of all the experience gained over the years, but hey the green machine keeps moving on.

Afghanistan is sexy, Kandahar is sexy. Long live the 3 Block war.  Say good bye to Dobro utro! say hello to Salaam Alaikum.

Sapper41,

Maybe no one in the "back of you LAV" was in Bosnia, but I certain hope they would care about any experience/lessons learned that they superiors or peers have from that experience.  Is that worse than the guys that have been nowhere, or have only been to Astan?

I have a buddy getting ready to go on TF1-07...he has 2 UNPROFOR tours, and 1 SFOR in Bosnia.  Somehow I have a hard time believing that young soldiers would blow that off as "nothing"...but maybe I am wrong.

The guys who went to Vietnam had Korea vets...the Korea vets had WWII vets...etc.  A vet has operational experience, regardless.  A good soldier, vet or not, gets on with the "world as it is today"...but in the end...if I had to have a soldier beside me that had operational experience that "was only from Bosnia" or one that didn't...the guys in Bosnia did the real deal...

Medac Pocket comes to mind. 

As for Astan tours Make or Break someone's career...maybe...it is their "performance" or lack thereof that will make or break them...so...in reality...its the individual that will make or break their own careers...is it not??????

Should there be advantages to those that serve operationally over those than haven't?  You bet.  I think there should be...and ya, to paraphrase Sapper41, Astan is the sexy spot now.

My 2 cents...

On a side note, I though "3 block" went out the window and "full spectrum" was the phrase of the day/week/month now....???

 

[Tracker 23A]

sorry no one in the back of the LAV was there and so they don't care.

I remember prepping for Kosovo and our new Lt. had gathered all the M/Cpl's and up in the platoon office and told us to forget what we had learned on previous tours since this was something entirely new.  I remember all of us looking at each other and asking what the heck would he say that for?

No matter what experience's you have to bring to the table, whether it is UN, NATO or any other operational tour, it is experience that benefits the group.  Anyone who says that previous experience doesn't and shouldn't matter, should stand in front of a mirror and jack themselves up for being stupid.

For a "leader" to say that, is just plain stupid.  I have never had a soldier not care about experience's their leaders had, especially on operations that were dangerous, no matter where they were.  Most young soldier's expect the guys who have been there longer to know what they are doing, and that comes from experience.  I don't think anyone in Afghanistan right now in the back of a LAV would deny the experience of their leaders, no matter what it is, since they rely on them for survival, and vice versa. 

Right Sapper41?

 

[17thRecceSgt]

Anyone who says that previous experience doesn't and shouldn't matter, should stand in front of a mirror and jack themselves up for being stupid.

For a "leader" to say that, is just plain stupid. 

Right Sapper41?

Well said. 

 

[Sapper41]

Tracker 23A,

Exactly, I think sometimes 'we' get a bit to high on ourselves and tend to play down the achievements of those that came before us.  It's probably worth while to caution any new Troop Commander to steer clear of any 'forget everything you know' speeches.  Some say ignorance is bliss, unfortunately ignorance of lessons learned will get your troops killed.

 

[pbi]

3rdHorseman said:

The current A stan light chasing a small guerrilla force aside. Remember the force has to be able to fight all en not just be built to fight a guerrilla war in isolation.

But that's just it: the current enemy is what matters. IMHO, the force has to be configured to fight the enemy of the moment, on the terrain in question. 4 CMBG was configured to fight against a very symmetrical, "big steel"  enemy, in a country with a highly developed transportation system and NATO logistics bult up over 40 years. IMHO it would be of very limited use in Afgh now, which is perhaps one of the reasons the US never deployed anything heavier than an up-armoured HMMVW. (In 2005/05 the heaviest vehs there, by far, were our  LAVs and the Norgies' CV 90's). In a couple of cases that I know of, the US dismounted armour or artillery units to provide more boots on the ground in OEF.  We can't stick with a force configuration just because we like it and that's what we've been brought up with all our service careers: that is called "irrelevance". Armies have to change or they will get their asses kicked.

As far as I know, the general assessment is that Western armies need to be able to fight effectively against enemies like the Taleban, AQ, etc for the near future. But, that too will change, and we will need to reconfigure the force to deal with whatever comes next.

Cheers