Teaching to the Test

The U.S. Army is in the process of revamping its physical fitness tests. Sit ups are to be replaced by "rowers" and the 2 mile run with 1.5 mile run.  Also, the push up test is to be shortened from 2 minutes to 1 minute and an obstacle course with hurdles, an ammunition can carry and wounded soldier drag will be added. Army officials explained that the aim is to focus on "readiness" over simple fitness.

Regardless of the specific training program a more fit soldier, as defined by cardiovascular fitness, muscular endurance and strength, is more ready to deploy than a less fit soldier. However, the duties of soldiers are too broad and diverse to use the specificity principle to train all soldiers with the same program.

Perhaps all soldiers should be treated as infantry from the moment they begin boot camp: this job entails specific demands including long foot patrols with heavy packs and then being ready to sprint behind a boulder ready to return fire. This is where the value of the wounded soldier drag would prove its worth and is the best change made to the tests. Even so, do they need to be tested on this or simply be strong enough to do it when called upon?

It would not be easy, but I suppose I am arguing that it would be more effective to make boot camp and all subsequent training more like infantry school to help prepare soldiers physically for how they will be truly tested during deployments. Two questions to consider here: Is the Army saying infantry units are not fit enough? Is this more of an issue among the more sedentary combat units?

Another change is that the scoring scales will be the same for men and women. This raises an alarm because if a lot of young women can score well on the tests it means they are too easy for the young men and are not useful. I do not think our politically correct military would design a fitness test that would have  women post poor scores. Would it design tests that demonstrate women are capable of performing in combat units?

Reports of the Osprey's Death Have Been Greatly Exaggerated

The original tiltrotor vertical takeoff aircraft was canceled during President George H.W. Bush's presidency by then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney.  It was a problem child that ran up against the technological limitations of the day. Now, almost twenty years later the MV-22, "has had the lowest class A mishap rate of any rotorcraft in the Marine Corps during the past decade", according to the Naval Safety Center.

The Osprey was written just a few years ago as too expensive, too dangerous and just unworkable, but now is the cutting edge in tactical airlift capabilities.  After several years of deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq you would probably be hard pressed to find a military unit that would not want more of them. They will have to wait because as of April 2010 there were only about a dozen deployed with plans for fifty by 2016. This seems like a ridiculously small number given the Pentagon's own admission in the last Quadrennial Defense Review that the military was in serious need of more rotor craft.

More ground combat units supported by more helicopters and tiltrotors seems to be the way to go, but the trend toward smaller and smaller ground forces is moving forward. This means more and more reliance in missiles and air power which makes sense against a conventional power like China, but for at least the near future we will continue to fight tribal gangs with AK-47s and RPGs.  The Osprey can add to ground units' tactical superiority against all enemies, current and future.

The Soul of the Army

No less an authority than George Washington believed, "discipline is the soul of an army. It makes small numbers formidable; procures success to the weak and esteem to all." More than all the new uniforms, UAV's or F-22s the Pentagon could buy, it depends on discipline for success. It is the glue that holds units together during tough training and deadly combat. This is why it is so disheartening to see signs of shakey discipline in the ranks.

After Michael Hastings's controversial article in Rolling Stone Magazine showing General Stanley McChrystal and his staff in an unflattering light led to the general's dismissal he has apparently become the reporter of refuge for disgruntled officers. His latest work alleges that Lt. Colonel Shawn Stroud illegally ordered Lt. Colonel Michael Holmes to use psychological operations techniques against selected politicians in an effort to "brain wash" them into supporting funding and troop increases.

A little bit of research seems to indicate that the incident boils down to a dispute over bureaucratic labels, organizational charts and an Army officer who should know better than to talk to anyone from Rolling Stone. Upon further questioning from the New York Times Holmes conceded that what he was asked to do was, "pretty innocuous."

Is this how warriors in war time behave? Is it too much to ask that military professionals handle disagreements like adults behind closed doors instead of slinking off to all too willing to give the Army another black eye? Discipline in the ranks is at least as important for Lt. Colonels as it is for Privates so before acting maybe Holmes should have asked himself, "What would George Washington do?"

What Time is it in Afghanistan?: Part IV

Have 9/11 and Osama Bin Laden receded so far from the public consciousness that even good news about the fight in Afghanistan is not an important story? I suppose if our forces were being pushed out of Kandahar and Helmand province and suffering high casualties the media would be compelled to cover it. It seems the media has put itself in a box after years of decrying Operation Enduring Freedom as doomed to failure while George W. Bush was President they. Now with President Obama in the White House the far left has cooled the rhetoric but instead of trying to cover what is actually happening they have mostly ignored Afghanistan except to remind us that the Karzai government is corrupt and unreliable.

The truth seems to be that the surge of troops into Kandahar and Helmand has been quietly clearing the Taliban out of their strongholds in southern Afghanistan. As always it remains to be seen if these tactical victories can be translated into a strategic victory. Aside from the questions about the Afghan government, the biggest stumbling blocks are the sanctuaries in Pakistan and the half-hearted cooperation of the Pakistan government. Time still is not on our side, but perhaps our troops recent victories have bought them the time they need.

Owning the Night

For a twenty years the United States military has prided itself on owning the night. The Pentagon has invested considerable resources to field various kinds of night vision equipment for ground troops, pilots and surveillance. However, aside from the specialized sniper rifles the Army and Marine Corps has not paid a lot of attention to muzzle flash suppression. The muzzle designs of infantry weapons offer some level of performance, but given the amount of night fighting the Army and Marines have engaged in over the last ten years, dedicated muzzle suppression technology seems like an obvious area to address.

A recent Military.com article quoted an Army weapons procurement officer pointing out that the enemy's ability to shoot back suffers when they cannot see where shots are coming from.  You don't say?  One would assume our troops have been providing feedback on ways to improve night fighting capabilities for years so why has it taken so long to see action on this?

This blog is not intended as a complaint department, but I want the best for our troops and it seems that too many changes and improvements get swamped by bureaucratic inertia.  One can look at the continuing drama regarding the new camouflage patterns. (see some of my previous posts for more on camo issue.)  A common thread running through these issues seems to be to focus on big ticket technology at the expense of lower technology items needed by infantry squads.

Ten Years in the Abyss

The ongoing violence in Egypt's major city reminds us that authoritarian leaders and regimes are better at putting down rebellions.  Although it remains to be seen how the situation will shake out in Egypt, the Muslim World is replete with examples of dictators crushing uprisings including Saddam's Iraq, the Taliban's Afghanistan Iran, and Syria.

The United States and its few allies have been combating a much more organized and dangerous form of violence for ten years: Militant Islamism.  This is a coordinated effort by many thousands of Muslims who believe Islam commands them to rid the world of all infidels or everyone who does not believe as they do.  This is not a political position that can be assuaged, bartered or compromised away as Western rulers want to believe.

What does this say about our long-term chances for success? As the film "Apocalypse Now" noted "Good does not always triumph over evil." The implication is that the forces of evil are willing and able to go to any lengths to prevail in the end and reasonable democratic leaders will eventually turn away from the abyss out of fear of becoming like the enemy. But was Rambo right? To win a war does one have to become war?  Current events in Lebanon, Egypt, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran do not bode well for Western hopes of a peace or even coexistence.  We seem to be fighting to not lose while our enemy is fighting for total victory whether that comes in the next year or in the next century.

Book Review: "Decision Points" by George W. Bush

 President Bush's book is not a traditional political memoir. It does not exhaustively chronicle his entire eight years in office, but instead discusses and explains the key decisions of his presidency. Supreme Court appointments, 9/11 and the War on Terror make up the central topics. "Decision Points" tackles these topics in Bush fashion: straight forward and unadorned. His simple prose may annoy the literary set, but the more practical minded will appreciate the refreshingly unaffected style.

The best chapter is the one that describes the surge of troops and change of strategy in Iraq near the end of 2006.  President Bush recounts the pressure he was under by the public and Democrat and Republican congressmen to withdraw troops and essentially admit defeat.  Bush makes it clear that he never gave up on the dedication of the troops or the aspirations of millions of Iraqis who who were struggling to build a better country.  His courageous decision and the Iraqi's ability to follow-through on their promises to help is an aspiring story of good triumphing over evil.

Those hoping for juicy White House gossip or the revelation of secret information will be disappointed. The war is ongoing so President Bush is restrained from releasing much new information, but the ultimate insider's account of a president at war is still compelling reading,