Armed Liberal has written about ex-Delta Force commander and now U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker before. When he was promoted, everyone understood this appointment to mean that military transformation was going to be a serious priority.
Here's a very important aspect of transformation that won't get a lot of attention, because it isn't flashy. But it matters - a lot. Schoomaker has declared that whether they reside in front-line battalions or support companies, all U.S. soldiers must consider themselves riflemen and be trained accordingly. Donald Sensing has the details, and a good summary of the rationale: When battlefronts are fluid and urban operations etc. more common, being able to control your weapon and consistently hit what you aim at makes a huge difference to discipline, confidence, and small-unit effectiveness.
This fits in well with a heads-up that Armed Liberal sent me a while back, linking in to a discussion on a U.S. Army Infantry Forum message board about the state of marksmanship and the difficulties encountered by low-level officers who wanted to improve the situation.
I think their efforts just got a lot easier. And that's a very good thing.
I see the doctrine as preached by Field Marshall Slim is back in vogue again. These things come in cycles.
It's funny. I'm not a military history expert, but I've read and watched enough to notice that some things, like this, do go out of fashion and then come back into fashion. The new guys come in, change things, they become the old guard, and then as they die off the new new guys rediscover things that the old old guard believed in.
If you see what I mean. ;-)
A couple of random asides:
You know, the NRA was founded by Union generals who found that their recruits couldn't shoot straight. Cound they get involved here?
The CMP (Civilian Marksmanship Program) was established by Congress to encourage, well, better marksmanship among civilians (who might be called up to serve). Yet most of the guys you see at CMP matches are WAAAAAYYYY past the age when they could be drafted (and way past the weight in many cases, too!).
I agree that every soldier should be a rifleman, but I'm wondering if we shouldn't expand the idea a tad, in the spirit of the founders of the NRA and CMP. Every citizen a rifleman!
Now if only the police would follow suit..
Well, that has been the philosophy of the Army for a long time, so this story doesn't really seem that exciting.
Everyone in the Army needs to qualify every year on his rifle and during Basic, he also goes through a grenade course.
Unless the Army is now going to make everyones MOS 11B.
Sounds kinda like the rule of thumb for the Marines. Maybe the Groundpounders can learn something...
elgato (GO Navy!)
If you read the Army personnel on the bulletin board link we provided, they seem pretty clear that in many places, things aren't at the level they should be.
If the Chief of Staff makes this a priority, however, the trickle-down will see efforts like theirs moved up the priority ladder by local commanders.
It's not a question of marksmanship - I qualified Expert with several different weapons, and won several competitions in my various units 10-15 years ago.
I was an "intel weenie," a linguist - and there was no question that we had to be competent to protect ourselves (and our classified equipment) on the battlefield. But no one in their right mind is going to rely on an essentially irreplaceable resource (expensively trained linguist, requiring 2 years of Army schooling) for infantry work - not if there is another option.
There is an additional problem for certain highly technical specialties - you have only a certain amount of training time available. A week spent crawling through the mud is not going to make a nuclear weapon technician a better soldier, if it means he hasn't used that week to maintain his expensively-attained proficiency. To do so means you end up with a mediocre technician and mediocre infantryman all rolled up into one soldier.
Yes, yes, there are many specialties (cook, clerk/typist, mechanic, supply, etc., etc., etc.) which do not require a high degree of technical specialization, and consequently are more suitable to the "every man an infantryman" approach.
[shrug]
It's a problem. I don't have a one-size-fits-all answer.
Raven Lee -- among other things, the new doctrine will require qualification twice a year.
Hey Russ, that week each year you spend training to be a soldier instead of a translator will be well worth it to Uncle Sam when some Gook yanks open the door to your office.
Whether a Nuke,an intel weenie or a front line grunt, you're all still soldiers and need to be able to respond as such.
That was the Marine Corps doctrine when I served, and it make a lot of sense in a world where the "front line" is the wire around the building you sleep in.
Note: the CMP (Civilian Marksmanship Program) was established to train marksmanship instructors. If you are one, you know that while teaching basic marksmanship can be fast, learning how to teach it (which includes learning it well) is slow.
The CMP is designed to provide a cadre of instructors if we ever need to bulk out the Army again ... and in that case, age is no barrier (or, if you've ever seen my 70 year old father shoot ... woah! Or read the recent Springfield 1903 anniversary issue (I think) of The American Rifleman, which details a national match in the 1920s where only sunset prevented a man of around the same age from beating a Marine ... by an handful of 1000 yard shots.)
That's a fascinating CMP fact which I didn't know. The only purpose most of my acquaintances ascribe to CMP is the ability to buy decent Garands at discount prices...
"The only purpose most of my acquaintances ascribe to CMP is the ability to buy decent Garands at discount prices..."
But of course! However ... the hidden agenda is that you have to participate in two? matches to be eligible for a rifle. And some fraction of the people who do it will like it, and continue (and those that just get the rifles? I suspect they'll shoot them, the Garand is a wonderful rifle, arguebly the best we've ever issued). And in the meanwhile, it supports the people who are serious about service rifle competition with cheap rifles, surplus ammo, etc.
(Needless to say the gun-grabbers in the Congress did their best to destroy it --- can't be doing gun control while the government is issuing them at or below cost, now --- and managed to make it "self-supporting" (i.e. I believe the DoD's financial contribution is now very limited at best).)
(Note: I don't do the CMP thing myself; I did this in JROTC (rifle team and instruction of general cadets), and service rifles are a little too heavy for what I need today (after too many years of typing); I sold my Garand :-( to buy a Scout).)
For the record: CMP is their home page.
Harold -
Steyr or Savage?
Drop me an email to answer...
A.L.
I heard a radio news item that today an engineering detachment was destroying munitions when it was fired upon. The unit captured three of the attackers, interrogated them and, based on information obtained, then organized and carried out its own raid on the safehouse identified by its prisoners.
That shows an outstanding flexibility and that's the real strength of this army.
"Every Marine a Riflemen"
This has worked for hundreds of years for the Marines and from what I saw in Iraq, it would benefit the Army greatly to get their soldiers to be more proficient and comfortable in handling their weapons, no matter what their MOS.
Not downplaying the Army as they do they're jobs and sacrifice their time & lives just as much as any service member has. I'm just saying if all non-infantry MOS's continued an, if only yearly, training in infantry tactics and rifle basics they would be that much more proficient when the time came to use it. You ask any Marine who has been in combat and he'll tell you, when sh!t hits the fan, a switch clicks and your doing what you were trained to do...and that's ANY Marine, not just Grunts.