I’m watching regular stories on TV about Western troops being sent to train soldiers in the Middle East, Africa or whatever. Is this basic training, or things like how to line up for a building entry, how to shoot straight etc. ? And why is military knowledge in such short supply in parts of the world that see constant warfare ?
Just a random uninformed thought, but it may be less to do with combat and more to do with military conduct - how to act around civilians, don’t rape, pillage and commit crimes, that sort of thing.
To be cynical, I suspect that it’s often an excuse for US troops to be in a country without actually being in direct conflict with anyone. For example, the Vietnam Conflict (or the American War as they say n Vietnam) started with US troops “advising” the South Vietnam Army.
I assume they train for the same reasons why any other military (or any job at all) has a training program- to give individuals a chance to improve their skills, to practice working together, to keep people from getting too complacent, and to learn new systems, policies and equiptment. I would also speculate that military training is a powerful incentive for countries to work with the US.
In Africa, at least, there actually aren’t a heck of a lot of wars going on. The Boko Haram insurgency, South Sudan, and Libya spring to mind. A few areas that never really gelled have continued fighting, such as Somalia and the Central African Republic. And there are smaller insurgencies in various places and some stuff in the Congo that lingers. But I wouldn’t characterize it as “constant war.” Cameroon, just to give an example, hasn’t seen military action in quite a while before Boko Haram came knocking. They’ve had to quite suddenly go from being a relatively relaxed, relatively low-profile military to one that is fighting as complex an insurgency as it gets.
Oo, africa not a lot of war ? I don’t know about that -
http://www.thenation.com/article/us-carried-out-674-military-operations-africa-last-year-did-you-hear-about-any-them/
- and that’s just the US. There’s a bunch of other countries doing similar things.
But what about Ukraine for example ? Ex-soviet countries have long military traditions so why do they need training ?
You’re thinking the “basic training” end of things and I think “advanced weapons and tactics” is probably more likely.
A lot of military equipment is complex and requires extensive training to use properly.
For example, you definitely don’t need US troops to teach rifle skills, but you could probably use someone with know-how to teach you how to setup and run a covert drone operation.
So I suppose like everyone else the military are keeping up with technology.
I was watching this - SEAL critiques ISIS training video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjj2n1fHXQs
… I mean, I would have thought all you need to work out room entry tactics and stuff like that is some Warcraft table top miniatures and a pencil. Then again, looking at the beliefs some of these guys hold, Ukrainian nazis and ISIS martyrs aren’t exactly the brightest bunnies in the burrow, so yeah, maybe they do need to be told which boot goes on which foot. (not that US trains ISIS, but you get the idea.)
Are you under the impression that Western militaries don’t also train for room entry tactics and “stuff like that”?
The idea I’m getting is that you think Ukrainians, Arabs and Africans as whole groups are dumb.
If you’re a teenager, please say so. Wouldn’t be held against you, quite the contrary.
There’s a lot fo countries where time/money/etc really do prevent them from ever developing training regimes that match the US and western European militaries. Some that have very well developed capability at the low tactical levels may not have similar capabilities at higher levels or in things like logistics. There’s also different approaches and ways to do things even when both sides are pretty good. When there’s a relationship between nation states with some shared interests learning to work together is a huge deal. You don’t want to try and figure that out for the first time when it’s for real.
I’m getting the idea that you’re about to over reach yourself.
Te be sure, exactly this was just S.O.P. on “both sides” during the Cold War era. Every primitive backward place on earth, where two tribes of half-naked savages were hurling stones and spears at each other, you could count on it like clockwork – the Soviets would be there with their “advisors”, bringing in modern hi-tech weapons (like guns and airplanes), which of course the “natives” had no idea how to use, to the “advisors” would include pilots to fly the airplanes, and so on.
And, likewise, there would be the Americans, with their “advisors”, arming the other side to the teeth with guns and airplanes, and trainers to teach them how to use all those things, and pilots to fly the planes, etc.
And then the half-naked natives would be hurling bullets and airplanes and bombs at each other instead of stones and spears.
Kinda reminds me of the role that a certainCol Friedrich Wilhelm Von Steuen played in American Revolutionary War (scroll down to American Revo portion of link). He was brought in, as kind of an ‘inspector/advisor’, by Gen Washington to form a much more effective fighting force overall, in a nutshell (as I understand it anyways).
Sure, lots of the guys doing the shooting/revolting were excellent riflemen and hunters - but lacked understanding of ‘what it takes’ to be effective militarily overall en masse. He ‘whipped them into fighting shape’ as I heard many Drill Sergeant’s put it when I went through US Army training.
Here’s one part I really found striking: “Steuben’s introduction of effective bayonet charges became crucial. In the Battle of Stony Point, American soldiers attacked with unloaded muskets and won the battle solely on Steuben’s bayonet training.”
Teaching the use/maintenance of advanced weaponry certainly would play a role and other non-usual issues faced by a fighting force not used to what they are up against, as well.
But Von Steuen made a rag-tag, but certainly dedicated-to-a-cause, mass of fightin’ men into a force that was more than formidable, as history shows 
I would imagine that limited-experience militaries would benefit from much of what Von Steuben accomplished even at most basic levels of how to form-up effectively and maintain discipline, etc.
[QUOTE=MrQwertyasd]
But what about Ukraine for example ? Ex-soviet countries have long military traditions so why do they need training ?
[/QUOTE]
Because their training sucks. It sucked when it was actually the Soviet Union, and it sucks more now. The Russians themselves aren’t well trained, and the Ukrainians are even worse.
GOOD training is in short supply because it takes time and costs a lot of money. If you want troops who are well disciplined and in control and able to do the job correctly it’s going to cost a lot. Most western nations, especially the US, have very good training regiments for their troops, especially the special forces, which are generally the troops used to train foreign troops. Of course, there is also hearts and minds and indoctrination involved, as well as training and, probably most importantly today, attempting to train the troops on all of the control and discipline factors so that the troops don’t just fly out of control and start slaughtering everyone they meet.
“Constant warfare” doesn’t mean “well trained”. I recall how in the book Black Hawk Down, they describe how the Somalis would run into the middle of the street and spray wildly with their AK-47s. Why do you think a company of Army Rangers and Delta operatives were able to hold off 1000s of Somali soldiers? Getting hopped up on drugs and terrorizing helpless civilians is not the same thing as being a well-trained fighting force.
The “why” is because our allies of convenience are often corrupt dictatorships who have standing armies that suck. We train their armies to suck less so that they can fight terrorists and Islamic militants who while not well trained or disciplined, are at least aggressive.
Training isn’t just tactics or battlefield strategy. There is also a lot of training ostensibly friendly forces about logistics, security, propaganda and social/psychological methods, intelligence gathering, recruitment, and sustainable training programs themselves. It also gives US military officers and intelligence agents the opportunity to gain information, insight, and potentially recruitment into other nations, and allows the US to influence those nations to support or oppose causes in common with the US without direct confrontation. The US has one of the largest professional (i.e. full time, non-conscripted, and professionally trained) militaries in the world, and so is well suited to the role of training and advising without having to engage in warfighting themselves.
The cynical would also observe that it offers the chance for US military equipment and weapons manufacturers to showcase and sell their wares; while not a primary objective of the US military per se, there are certain obvious advantages and co-interests in doing so. This has the added benefit in time of war of having common systems and logistics, and therefore being able to aid allies without having the complexity of different logistical requirements.
Stranger
Ahh.
I see.
Well, when I say constant warfare, I mean I’m old enough to have been watching TV news about Africa since the days of Idi Amin, and I can’t even remember the number of conflicts journalists have brought me. a seemingly endless series of acronyms SWAPO, UNITA, MPLA etc etc. ie - a lot of post-colonial action, with, presumably, a lot of colonial training cadres being deployed.
It has been rocky. But Africa has a billion people and 54 countries across a space that bigger than the U.S., China, India, Japan and all of Europe combined. Some areas have war, some areas have rebels, most areas don’t. We just don’t tend to get a lot of news about Africa that isn’t focused on the bad stuff.