Will work for conventional threat doctrine

Check out "United States is Restarting WWII To Accommodate Demand".  Although it is satire, the article might be onto something.

For the last few weeks at Majors' School, there have been amazingly few Godwin references despite a rapid approach to WWII in our history studies.  However, our tactics studies over the last two weeks have been centered on how to plan tactical campaigns around a hypothetical, "conventional military" threat (as opposed to terrorists or insurgents, this refers to linear-type formations with lots of tanks and airplanes).  This is commonly known as the "Military Decision Making Process," or MDMP.  Strangely, however -- perhaps disappointingly -- the designers of this school apparently think that we as Majors are somehow inculcated with the precise knowledge of this imaginary enemy's doctrine, tactics, and capability.

Some 20 years ago, we studied the old Soviet Union's tactics in depth.  My first unit in the Army back then was the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, a storied unit that guarded Germany's "Fulda Gap" against the coming Soviet hordes (successfully, mind you).  As a new soldier, I was inundated with all manner of classified and unclassified knowledge about the inner workings of the Red Army's formations.  One of my sons was even born in Fulda.

So here we are, winding down over a decade of "asymmetric" warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan, and our Army leaders say we need to focus on our "core competencies" (read: linear warfare) and away from counterinsurgency training in our formations.  Fine enough -- even though the Soviet Union is no more, many of our enemies still employ their doctrines, equipment, and tactics.  Iraq did in 2003, China and "Best Korea" still do, Russia of course still does (but their military is purely defensive), and smaller belligerents still do as well.  So why don't we get at least some training on their doctrines?

I'm not really sure, and neither are our instructors.

Maybe we should restart WWII, just so we can use some MDMP training on a real enemy.  Any takers?

And that is the last I will think about anything military until next week.  Happy Thanksgiving!

got risk?

Risk aversion, according to military pundits and economic zeitgeist, is when someone is too scared to make a decision that accepts risk -- in effect, staying in one's comfort zone.  By being the polar opposite of decisiveness, risk aversion can keep a person or organization too safe, thereby missing opportunities or perhaps disenfranchising certain population segments.  Some current military critics argue that "risk aversion is rewarded" in our military, a supposition that is apparently causing our best and brightest to leave in droves.

Fort Leavenworth is not immune.

Last month, I was informed by the base's finest that Grant Avenue, the only four-lane road on this small post, is the only road where bicycles are prohibited due to high volumes of traffic on normal work days.  After I filed a formal online complaint suggesting that the road be open to cyclists on the weekends,  I actually got a response from the garrison's Command Sergeant Major (sort of the senior "Town Hall" representative, like a deputy mayor).  We met later and he informed me that he was examining the complaints from me and others to determine the best course to accommodate everyone.  This was refreshingly positive -- especially since at Fort Sill (my last post), any complaint I ever submitted was ignored, or else I was told where to go and how to get there.

But, here is the rub:  the CSM said that some of the leaders involved (probably retired senior officers who don't ride) stated, "...if we open up Grant to cyclists, we have to include 65-year-old grandmothers and 10-year-old kids.  That's too dangerous."

Which of course is like saying I need to dig a foxhole in my front yard in order to keep the elephants away.

The grandmothers, kids, and especially perambulators are the very ones cyclists like me are trying to avoid at 20 mph on the narrow, cracked sidewalks, never mind that the roads we are allowed on are narrower and, at certain times just as busy, ergo making those routes inherently more dangerous -- or that almost every traffic light along Grant has  signs facing the cross streets that say, "WATCH FOR CYCLISTS."

So yet again, another Army post is subjected to silly rules enforced by the whims of people who don't really think things through or perhaps overthink them -- all in the elusive name of safety.  They might as well ban all bikes on all roads, period.

Now, this is obviously too trivial to make me want to retire, but the issue is indicative of the larger problem of risk aversion -- which has ended up with our military in deep trouble more times than I'd like to admit.

Thought for the weak

Not long after we started here last month, some messages were sent out from senior leaders reminding us to adhere to standard uniform policies.  What follows here is a direct quote from one of those messages (and was originally sent from a Sergeant Major), with a few points of clarification in brackets:

"All:


"I notice this morning an international students was riding his bike without a jacket.  I couldn't turn around in traffic to stop him, but there were several ILE students [some of us] who walked and rode past him.  So if students are not policing each other then the violation continue.  Not to be preaching, but when an enlisted Soldiers ask me 'can we ride our bike without our ACU jacket [uniform top] or wear other backpacks that are not authorized'.  How do you response except with the truth.


"We have a systemic problems with the wear of the uniform from the students which needs to be address.  I'm sure it has been, but maybe they don't care.  So when I hear the CASCAL survey [???] about 'Soldier are not discipline,' its start with them.


"Maybe we need to do a lamp [our august newspaper] articles on standard uniform wear.  I'll work that piece.


"Thanks you all for your support.  Hooah!!"


Mind you, if I understand the intent of this, this esteemed senior noncommissioned officer is right in that Field Grade officers should set the example, and should know better than to even ask those kinds of questions.  Uniform policy is an accepted fact of soldiering -- an artifact of our culture, if you will.

Apparently however, correct English grammar and spelling are not -- assuming, that is, that the SGM is not a foreign soldier himself (his name doesn't appear foreign, anyway).

The senior officer who initially forwarded the verbatim comments -- who, ostensibly, is himself a CGSC alumnus -- should have known better than to embarrass the NCO corps by forwarding the exact message, thus detracting from the heart of the message itself (which apparently was: wear your uniform like a professional).  More importantly, the senior NCO -- as a professional -- should set the example himself and either get professional help with his writing skills, have someone smarter screen his messages before blasting them out, or else just not bother.  The message is lost, largely because the NCO tried too hard to sound smart.

Especially in this environment, where we thousand-plus Majors are expected required to get it right the first time.

This is nothing new.  Maybe it's just that our Army has left the professional writing skills exclusively up to us officers for far too long.