Posted on Nov 21, 2014
What if the military has been focusing on the wrong thing this whole time?
23.7K
130
65
28
28
0
I just posted this article in Small Wars Journal. I invite you to post your comments there as well...
http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/what-if-the-military-has-been-focusing-on-the-wrong-thing-the-whole-time
For over a decade, and ever since the United States began the endeavor of creating a stable Iraq and Afghanistan, the dogmatic military view has essentially been “We will train our allies until they are able to secure their own nation.” With conflict in Afghanistan lasting over 13 years, and with the recent tragic losses of momentum, equipment, and territory in Iraq, it is apparent that things are not going as was hoped by many. Going back to my time training Iraqi Commandos as a US Special Forces officer, I have had one question that always lingered in the back of my mind:
“We are investing hundreds of billions of dollars in training our allies, so how is our enemy able to achieve so much success when no major power is training them?”
In other words, despite the seemingly successful training of the Iraqi Army, why are they unable to stand up to forces like ISIS, who are not trained by any major power? Similarly, why is training the Afghan Army considered the yardstick of success, when there is no major power similarly training the Taliban? If training is the key to success, how is the other side surviving and even thriving when we have been training our allies for over a decade?
The problem may be rooted in the fact that the US military, and even its Special Forces, has largely been focused on tactical and technical training. We measure our allies’ capabilities through the lens of traditional American military metrics; whether they can organize at the squad, platoon, company, or battalion level, etc. As has been recently shown in Iraq, where the Iraqi Army has surrendered despite outnumbering and outgunning their enemies, these metrics have been a failure. Is it possible we have been focusing on the wrong thing this whole time?
Evans Carlson was the first commander of the 2nd Marine Raider Battalion in World War II, charged with leading early guerilla operations against the Japanese while the US was still building up its conventional force in response to Pearl Harbor. So important was his mission that his second in command was James Roosevelt, the sitting President’s oldest son. Evans studied guerilla warfare during his time as a liaison to the Chinese Communist Army in the 1930s, and through his previous experience in Nicaragua. Evans believed that the key to his men’s success was “a broad and deep political education system designed to give men something to fight for, live for, and if necessary, die for.” This belief system is something the US military instills in all of its members. Each year thousand of young Americans volunteer to serve overseas, to be far away from their families, ready to fight for our nation’s causes, and to make the ultimate sacrifice if necessary. Teamwork, purpose, and a belief in something bigger than yourself is instilled in our young service members during basic training, and throughout the course of their military careers. It is this complete commitment to success, and to each other, not our GPS guided bombs, which makes the American military such a formidable force. Yet, when it comes to building our allies military, we do almost none of this. We have failed to impart in them the very element which has made us so successful. Instead, we focus on the important but somewhat superficial measures of how well they can organize in a formation, how well they can patrol in a street, and how well they can write an operations order.
We continue to measure progress by how well trained our allies are, but no amount of training can replace the determination and the willingness to fight for a cause. That determination is something our enemies have. It's also something the US Armed Forces have. However, it's something we have failed to give to our allies.
In Iraq I trained a crack commando Iraqi unit. Every day we trained for hours on end, teaching them to shoot better, to maintain their equipment better, and to plan and communicate their operations better. All basic tenets of a functional combat unit. When we did missions together, they performed well. Years after we left, would they hold up to an aggressive and determined enemy? Recent history shows that it's unlikely. Even when Iraqis significantly outnumbered their enemy, were better equipped, and were better "trained,” they were not prepared to fight.
Perhaps "training" is an easy political concept for our leaders to sell to the American people of what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, I would argue that no amount of training, no matter how well we train our foreign allies to aim their AK-47, will be enough to defeat an enemy if there is no fundamental and cultural trust and commitment to that cause. To defeat such a determined enemy, we must indoctrinate our allies with the same will and desire that we have in our own US military, or at least on par with their enemy. These are qualities much more difficult to measure than whether one can operate at a platoon, company, or battalion levels - metrics the U.S. Army loves to measure.
Even special operations training of our allies has focused on tactical skills such as raids, ambushes, and surgical strikes. Those are important skills, but there is no equivalent body teaching that to ISIS and they regularly outpower and overwhelm the forces trained by the United States. We need to acknowledge that tactical training of a force will never, by itself, prepare them for combat effectiveness. If we ever want our allies to truly be in charge of their own defense, we need to focus on building forces with the desire to win, and with the willingness to die. This is not just about “winning hearts and minds” – this is shaping them. That kind of training happens through years of communication and cultural investment at all levels, and not by spending even more time shooting paper targets at a flat range.
To be successful, we must not only train our allies on how to aim their rifles, but also develop their willingness to employ that weapon. The former is much easier to measure, but the latter is much more important for success.
http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/what-if-the-military-has-been-focusing-on-the-wrong-thing-the-whole-time
For over a decade, and ever since the United States began the endeavor of creating a stable Iraq and Afghanistan, the dogmatic military view has essentially been “We will train our allies until they are able to secure their own nation.” With conflict in Afghanistan lasting over 13 years, and with the recent tragic losses of momentum, equipment, and territory in Iraq, it is apparent that things are not going as was hoped by many. Going back to my time training Iraqi Commandos as a US Special Forces officer, I have had one question that always lingered in the back of my mind:
“We are investing hundreds of billions of dollars in training our allies, so how is our enemy able to achieve so much success when no major power is training them?”
In other words, despite the seemingly successful training of the Iraqi Army, why are they unable to stand up to forces like ISIS, who are not trained by any major power? Similarly, why is training the Afghan Army considered the yardstick of success, when there is no major power similarly training the Taliban? If training is the key to success, how is the other side surviving and even thriving when we have been training our allies for over a decade?
The problem may be rooted in the fact that the US military, and even its Special Forces, has largely been focused on tactical and technical training. We measure our allies’ capabilities through the lens of traditional American military metrics; whether they can organize at the squad, platoon, company, or battalion level, etc. As has been recently shown in Iraq, where the Iraqi Army has surrendered despite outnumbering and outgunning their enemies, these metrics have been a failure. Is it possible we have been focusing on the wrong thing this whole time?
Evans Carlson was the first commander of the 2nd Marine Raider Battalion in World War II, charged with leading early guerilla operations against the Japanese while the US was still building up its conventional force in response to Pearl Harbor. So important was his mission that his second in command was James Roosevelt, the sitting President’s oldest son. Evans studied guerilla warfare during his time as a liaison to the Chinese Communist Army in the 1930s, and through his previous experience in Nicaragua. Evans believed that the key to his men’s success was “a broad and deep political education system designed to give men something to fight for, live for, and if necessary, die for.” This belief system is something the US military instills in all of its members. Each year thousand of young Americans volunteer to serve overseas, to be far away from their families, ready to fight for our nation’s causes, and to make the ultimate sacrifice if necessary. Teamwork, purpose, and a belief in something bigger than yourself is instilled in our young service members during basic training, and throughout the course of their military careers. It is this complete commitment to success, and to each other, not our GPS guided bombs, which makes the American military such a formidable force. Yet, when it comes to building our allies military, we do almost none of this. We have failed to impart in them the very element which has made us so successful. Instead, we focus on the important but somewhat superficial measures of how well they can organize in a formation, how well they can patrol in a street, and how well they can write an operations order.
We continue to measure progress by how well trained our allies are, but no amount of training can replace the determination and the willingness to fight for a cause. That determination is something our enemies have. It's also something the US Armed Forces have. However, it's something we have failed to give to our allies.
In Iraq I trained a crack commando Iraqi unit. Every day we trained for hours on end, teaching them to shoot better, to maintain their equipment better, and to plan and communicate their operations better. All basic tenets of a functional combat unit. When we did missions together, they performed well. Years after we left, would they hold up to an aggressive and determined enemy? Recent history shows that it's unlikely. Even when Iraqis significantly outnumbered their enemy, were better equipped, and were better "trained,” they were not prepared to fight.
Perhaps "training" is an easy political concept for our leaders to sell to the American people of what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, I would argue that no amount of training, no matter how well we train our foreign allies to aim their AK-47, will be enough to defeat an enemy if there is no fundamental and cultural trust and commitment to that cause. To defeat such a determined enemy, we must indoctrinate our allies with the same will and desire that we have in our own US military, or at least on par with their enemy. These are qualities much more difficult to measure than whether one can operate at a platoon, company, or battalion levels - metrics the U.S. Army loves to measure.
Even special operations training of our allies has focused on tactical skills such as raids, ambushes, and surgical strikes. Those are important skills, but there is no equivalent body teaching that to ISIS and they regularly outpower and overwhelm the forces trained by the United States. We need to acknowledge that tactical training of a force will never, by itself, prepare them for combat effectiveness. If we ever want our allies to truly be in charge of their own defense, we need to focus on building forces with the desire to win, and with the willingness to die. This is not just about “winning hearts and minds” – this is shaping them. That kind of training happens through years of communication and cultural investment at all levels, and not by spending even more time shooting paper targets at a flat range.
To be successful, we must not only train our allies on how to aim their rifles, but also develop their willingness to employ that weapon. The former is much easier to measure, but the latter is much more important for success.
Iraq
Afghanistan
Strategy
Command Post
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 29
0
0
0
Good article. Consider that it may not be the well trained SMs who have a motivation problem.
No doubt the people who have been trained have a rank structure that leads up to top levels of government. When those governments have an attitude of "why take responsibility as long as the U.S.A. is willing to, including the cost of doing so", then it . . . rolls downhill.
Perhaps it would behoove us to realize that some nations consider ours to not yet be out of its adolescent years comparative to their empires in past millenia which have risen and fallen, and to which they are, proudly, heir. People in many of the Grand Daddy nations have started thinking the U.S.A. may need some "tough love" - for their our own good, and ours.
No doubt the people who have been trained have a rank structure that leads up to top levels of government. When those governments have an attitude of "why take responsibility as long as the U.S.A. is willing to, including the cost of doing so", then it . . . rolls downhill.
Perhaps it would behoove us to realize that some nations consider ours to not yet be out of its adolescent years comparative to their empires in past millenia which have risen and fallen, and to which they are, proudly, heir. People in many of the Grand Daddy nations have started thinking the U.S.A. may need some "tough love" - for their our own good, and ours.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
LTC Yinon Weiss I think you are spot on. Even a well equipped and well trained army will not fight for a government they do not support or feel an allegiance or alliance to. They see that their government as being corrupt and unable to or unwilling to function as a government should therefore they have no loyalty to it. One cannot buy or supply loyalty, experience, camaraderie, or morale it must be felt from the depths of the person. Perhaps it can taught, perhaps some are born with it (those that become soldiers) or perhaps it comes with something called National Pride. It's true weapons and money do not win wars, Men and Women do.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
If they don't have the "will" all the training in the world will be for naught.
When their first allegiance is to their tribe and religion, it's hopeless, IMO. Saddam was secular and held them together through brute force. Now that he's gone, Iraq is fractured along ethnic, religious and tribal lines.
Same will happen with Afghanistan when (if ever) we leave. Though it's pretty much there already. They'll go back to their 7th century living. The nickname "Graveyard of Empires" was given for a reason. Apologies for digressing. :)
When their first allegiance is to their tribe and religion, it's hopeless, IMO. Saddam was secular and held them together through brute force. Now that he's gone, Iraq is fractured along ethnic, religious and tribal lines.
Same will happen with Afghanistan when (if ever) we leave. Though it's pretty much there already. They'll go back to their 7th century living. The nickname "Graveyard of Empires" was given for a reason. Apologies for digressing. :)
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
The very first module I had in ROTC was about ethics and values. The Army Values and the Warrior Ethos, how many times is that reiterated in Basic Training?
If you focus on training people HOW to fight, but they don't know WHY to fight, someone else will give them the why.
Probably not people that like America very much.
If you focus on training people HOW to fight, but they don't know WHY to fight, someone else will give them the why.
Probably not people that like America very much.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Without reading any other posts, I'll venture to say I will mirror others.
This situation is no different than Vietnam. The NVA / VC had a much more will to fight for what they believed in. The VC (mostly living in the south) were tired of the powers to be and were more open to what the north had to offer. It is clear they had a much more will to win than the south. We(U.S.) did not loose Vietnam.
Iraq is the same. Too many's loyalties are with a religious sect, a tribal leader, not the nation as a whole. I could see that in 2003 when I was there. You can have all the equipment, training in the world, yet if you're heart and soul isn't in it, you don't believe in what you're fighting for, you will loose. Our own country is a good example. We were up against the power house of the world at the time. Yes we received training and help from others, but in the end it was the will of the soldiers and people supporting the soldiers how the war was won.
Afghanistan is no different. If we'd look at history, we'd stayed out. Once we leave it is only a matter of time before that country slips away to something else.
This situation is no different than Vietnam. The NVA / VC had a much more will to fight for what they believed in. The VC (mostly living in the south) were tired of the powers to be and were more open to what the north had to offer. It is clear they had a much more will to win than the south. We(U.S.) did not loose Vietnam.
Iraq is the same. Too many's loyalties are with a religious sect, a tribal leader, not the nation as a whole. I could see that in 2003 when I was there. You can have all the equipment, training in the world, yet if you're heart and soul isn't in it, you don't believe in what you're fighting for, you will loose. Our own country is a good example. We were up against the power house of the world at the time. Yes we received training and help from others, but in the end it was the will of the soldiers and people supporting the soldiers how the war was won.
Afghanistan is no different. If we'd look at history, we'd stayed out. Once we leave it is only a matter of time before that country slips away to something else.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
LTC Yinon Weiss One may also try to compare similar situation in Japan, Germany, or Korea to Iraq's. Like other posters have stated, religion sects play a huge role in this part of the world, not just this country. The corruption level of the government is another contributing factor. Until they can resolve the differences between Shia and Sunni, they can't start working toward true peace.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
One of the major problems, sir, is that we don't even understand our "allies" well enough to reach them on a deeper than superficial level. How can we have the kind of influence on their hearts and minds if we don't even know or agree with what they want for themselves and each other. They aren't going to have our brand of governance or democracy if they have democracy at all. They have to have their own brand. Perhaps we can't help them get that. Perhaps we can. I suspect that if we will ever manage it, we will have to get out of our own way to do so.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Very good points.
From the point of view of non-Americans, the US government is very frequently seen as "Talking the talk, but not walking the walk.".
Possibly the fact that a succession of American governments have seen absolutely nothing wrong with removing democratically elected governments in other countries (and installing crass, venal, brutal, and corrupt dictatorships) when the democratically elected governments don't do what is best for American businesses might have something to do with those non-Americans forming that totally erroneous opinion.
Throughout history (roughly) 90% of the population has wanted nothing more than a place to live in reasonable comfort/safety, enough food to survive on in a reasonable manner, sufficient clothing to meet the demands of the climate, reasonably non-aggravating interpersonal relationships, and for "The Gummint" to stay the hell off their backs. Of the other (roughly) 10% about 9% have added "and I get to run things so that I can have everything I can think of and still have enough to give away to the people I feel more like rewarding than killing" at the top of the list and the other 1% has generally been viewed as dangerous radicals because no one really believes them when they say that they are only interested in improving the condition of everyone.
From the point of view of non-Americans, the US government is very frequently seen as "Talking the talk, but not walking the walk.".
Possibly the fact that a succession of American governments have seen absolutely nothing wrong with removing democratically elected governments in other countries (and installing crass, venal, brutal, and corrupt dictatorships) when the democratically elected governments don't do what is best for American businesses might have something to do with those non-Americans forming that totally erroneous opinion.
Throughout history (roughly) 90% of the population has wanted nothing more than a place to live in reasonable comfort/safety, enough food to survive on in a reasonable manner, sufficient clothing to meet the demands of the climate, reasonably non-aggravating interpersonal relationships, and for "The Gummint" to stay the hell off their backs. Of the other (roughly) 10% about 9% have added "and I get to run things so that I can have everything I can think of and still have enough to give away to the people I feel more like rewarding than killing" at the top of the list and the other 1% has generally been viewed as dangerous radicals because no one really believes them when they say that they are only interested in improving the condition of everyone.
(0)
(0)
PV2 Abbott Shaull
Sadly, many American fail to realize that the Founding Father tried to tell us that they had to be involved with the system somehow and not to sit back and let others decide things. That is one of the hardest things to do, is to motivate people into realizing they need to get more involved.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Ive already responded in Small Wars, so I won't repeat myself (much).
The issue is the difference between "military effectiveness" and "military efficiency".
Of the two - if you can only have one, go for "effectiveness".
Ideally, go for both. Both the USMC and the Canadian Army tend toward the first.
The issue is the difference between "military effectiveness" and "military efficiency".
Of the two - if you can only have one, go for "effectiveness".
Ideally, go for both. Both the USMC and the Canadian Army tend toward the first.
(0)
(0)
0
-1
1
This is the kind of crap that happens when you stupid people vote for a guy that is a dumbass with no idea of foreign affairs or how to fight a war. You thought it was time the nation try out a black person to be your commander a chief .That's working really well now right?
(0)
(1)
LTC Yinon Weiss
Actually, this article is about the training in Iraq under Bush. I don't blame Bush however for the effects described in the article. That was the military's responsibility.
Also, the down vote is for your racist remark, which is completely uncalled for.
Also, the down vote is for your racist remark, which is completely uncalled for.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google