The changes to training are much more interesting. The amount of time spent in the field will increase from 11 nights to 14 nights. The increased emphasis on field training appears to be a good thing, but upon closer examinations, the changes appear more nuanced. Under the new plan, the number of nights spent in a patrol base will decrease from nine to two. Six of the seven nights formerly spent in a patrol base will now be spent in what Cadet Command is calling a tactical training base (read FOB). The balance of the nights in the field will be spent in assembly areas.
I'm not sure how much of a gain this is. One of the lessons we have learned in Iraq is "don't commute to work." In other words, living on a huge, highly fortified FOB and conducting patrols during the day is not a good way to provide population security. We also discovered the importance of combat outposts, which are really just urban patrol bases. So it puzzles me that Cadet Command is moving towards more "FOB" time and less "COP" time.
Spending more nights in assembly areas also does not seem to be much of a training advantage. As I recall, the assembly areas were simply non-tactical bivouac sites. No real gain in training there (except maybe making cadets tougher, "like they were when WE were cadets").
The evaluations and such remain largely the same, with the exception being that evaluating a casualty and performing first aid will now be evaluated. Presumably this will be a go/no go evaluation.
In short, I think the move towards more field training is a good one. Tactical operations is the foundation of what the Army does and is clearly the Army's most critical function. Preparing future officers to be successful in that environment ought to be a Cadet Command priority. However, the way in which they are increasing the amount of field training does not seem to offer many tangible benefits.
No comments:
Post a Comment