Now we are training forces in Syria, just as we did in Iraq, Vietnam, various other hot spots.
Seriously, what can we teach them that they don’t know? Is this just a sop to war hawks, or are there secrets they don’t yet know about combat?
Tactics. What to do in certain situations. Like attacking a machine gun position without getting lead poisoning. How to setup interlocking lanes of fire. all the basic infantry skills.
IMT
I don’t think they are teaching them the basic infantry techniques. Those are not rocket science and US is not the only source of such wisdom. US will, most probably, supply them with new armaments, and those require training to utilize properly.
Logistics. Training in new weapons. Handing out “lessons learned”, from Iraq and Afganistan.
Marksmanship, for one. It is insane how many of these people have been fighting since they were teenagers and still can’t hit a target 25 meters away.
And teaching them how to not do stupid crap like this:
No, aceplace57 is exactly right. It isn’t rocket science, but it also isn’t common knowledge or instinctive. The US is not the only source of such wisdom, but someone needs to teach it. They aren’t going to acquire these skills without proper instruction.
The ‘easy’ stuff is small unit tactics. This is why you teach people to charge into oncoming fire. Which is quite a bit harder than most people think.
The hard part is teaching leaders logistics. How to bring the mostest the firstest? How do you resupply the firstest to keep the mostest?
Tactics is easy…strategy is hard. You can win tactically and lose the war.
It is possible to win strategically and lost battles tactically.
My primary issue is that the US doesn’t fully understand strategic goals in the region. We can’t reliable make meaningful changes without understanding what the goals of those we help are.
You couldn’t possibly be more wrong. Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
Bear,
You fought some irregulars, right? How did they tend to differ from your own? How about Iraqi allies?
Yes, there are. We can teach them, but that doesn’t mean they’ll listen.
“up up down down left right left right B A” is one they likely don’t know.
Pretty much sums it up, really.
Even the most seasoned veterans had no concept of aiming. They seemed to believe that it was our superior weapons that allowed us to hit targets. It would blow their minds when I’d grab one of their AKs and just start shooting up the X ring on a target. They had no concept of concealment, noise/light discipline, tactical movement or maneuver, field sanitation, or just about anything. Working with them on patrol was like herding cats. Much more of a liability than an asset. And that’s not even mentioning the way they would halt during a movement, in the middle of an open field, during prayer time. They have to pray, got it. But in the middle of an open field with no security?
The enemy would occasionally bring the fight. But their strength was always in volume rather than accuracy. Launch a lot of rockets, spray some machine gun and disappear back into the village and into the local population before they get found and/or fixed.
In Iraq, the biggest killer was HBIEDs. Booby-trapped houses that would take out entire squads. That was also around the time they started getting EFPs, but the tactic was the same as previous IEDs, just the effects were improved.
Heading to Afghanistan, I thought I would be facing more prolonged, complex firefights. But it was more of the same. A lot less small arms fire, and a lot more IEDs, mortars and rockets. It’s frustrating as shit.
Oh, if only.
And it’s always shit like this:
It’s supposed to be a joint patrol and a “partnership”, but it’s always “You pull security and do everything, Mr USA, I will sit back here and relax”
https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1208x906q90/745/svOkXN.jpg
The look on that guy’s face…“They never let me hold the cool guns - I quit!”… priceless.
Bear,
Thanks for your answer.
How much impact did training have?
What was their conception of discipline, of following orders well and quickly?
Why do you think even the seasoned veterans had no concept of aiming? I understand that Arab countries use Soviet tactics which don’t emphasize or expect accuracy from basic infantrymen but even then, I’d expect veterans to realize the usefulness of aiming. Chechens aren’t Arabs but they were Soviet-trained and during their wars they had teams composed of an RPG, an MG and a sniper. The inclusion of a sniper suggests that they realized the usefulness of accuracy.
You need to train the trainers. You know how come we can take a farm boy out of Bumfuck, Idaho and turn him into an efficient soldier in a few months? It’s because the guys who train him know what they’re doing. That’s why it takes a decade to turn an army around, you’ve got to get the guys you start up training to progress through the ranks. Of course, if your entire officer corps, both comissioned and non-commissioned is made up of people who got the job through family or political connections, it’ll never happen, no matter how long you have.
None. A complete waste of time. I once spent over 6 hours trying to teach a concept as simple as “When the enemy shoots at our element, seek a covered/concealed position and immediately return fire. Whoever sees the enemy immediately calls out the direction, distance and description and everyone else echoes what that person says so that everyone hears it.” After 6 hours, there was no progress. None. And that was after giving up on the first lesson, which was formations and order of movement. Just trying to teach them to walk in a specific formation and have them understood which direction they are responsible for watching was impossible. I am sure the terp was explaining everything as I said it. They just didn’t grasp it, and didn’t care to learn.
When the rounds start coming out in sector, they stay down and let us do everything. Occasionally they might pop up and spray some machinegun fire or shoot an RPG in a random direction, but we were lucky to even get that out of them. Sometimes they just run off or back to base. One time I thought they had run off, but it turns out they just went to the other side of the hill and hid out until everything was over. We were about to leave them, since I thought they already left. But we sent some guys to go look around for them. There they were, acting as if nothing had happened.
No concept at all. Everything is personal to them. If I tell them what to do, it must be a request, like from a friend to a friend. They didn’t seem to understand rank structure lower than company commanders. There was the boss, and then everyone else was equal.
Chechens were respected among US Soldiers. When word comes down that a Chechen mortan team or sniper team is in the area, ears perk up. I’ve had both operating in areas that I’ve patrolled, and I’ve been engaged by a Chechen mortar team. It’s the only time I’ve seen the enemy walk rounds in on the target. They obviously understand successive bracketing.
Bill Door nailed it. There is nothing intuitive about marksmanship. If someone is not taught, they will not acquire the knowledge through trial and error. Years of combat that involves spraying blindly over and around walls is only going to encourage more of the same. And the younger fighters are going to emulate the older ones. That is why marksmanship and combat tactics are not the easy part. Farming villages have a much better grasp of logistics than they do of combat skills. Any man who has grown crops for his family, or shopped at the market can understand how to acquire and produce supplies. Trial and error will teach people how much supplies are needed for different lengths of time and different sized groups. They can figure out how to transport things from A to B. They may not be super efficient, but they’ll know enough to take care of their particular little group.
They can figure out logistics. But they have to be taught tactics.