peter Zeihan 2020
- Thread starter Cherico
- Start date
Low bar there.
PeaceMaker 03
Well-known member
Hmmm, not Chinese level….but some people seem to want the soldiers moving in that direction. Example of a 30 year difference in training.
Some fairly recent Infantry training I was told about: CMD leadership mainly from TRADOC.
(Canned training is not training.)
Squad live fire members must IMT to pre-placed red flags, then only shoot between the two yellow flags in front of the red flag.
A team or squad leader will escort each person in the squad.
……. Squad is recocked because one squad member went to right of a tree vs. left of the tree.
Vs CMD leadership Tier 1 background ……25 mile road March into an OBJ company never used. BN Scouts did the recon and brief CO and PL’s.
Company goes strait into live fire including mortar(60mm), AT-4, and all other sundry small arms.
(Granted that was culmination of year long training cycle).
Some fairly recent Infantry training I was told about: CMD leadership mainly from TRADOC.
(Canned training is not training.)
Squad live fire members must IMT to pre-placed red flags, then only shoot between the two yellow flags in front of the red flag.
A team or squad leader will escort each person in the squad.
……. Squad is recocked because one squad member went to right of a tree vs. left of the tree.
Vs CMD leadership Tier 1 background ……25 mile road March into an OBJ company never used. BN Scouts did the recon and brief CO and PL’s.
Company goes strait into live fire including mortar(60mm), AT-4, and all other sundry small arms.
(Granted that was culmination of year long training cycle).
Yeah, there's a lot of ruin in a nation, and people are actually quite adaptable, especially over a long period and generally like living.
What surprised me personally was the durability of the Venezuelan regime. You seem to have had a perfect storm of bad general economic trends, mismanagement, and a new poor leader, but somehow that's still there. And apparently planning to invade a neighbor.
TRADOC is the big standard that they must get.
That training isn't the training that matters.
Because for instance, my AIT is useless for what my job actually is.
Most training these days is not through TRADOC, as that is only for certain schools, and is generally to give you the basic understanding needed.
Where as once you get to your unit that is where you do most of your actual training.
Dismounted and mounted.
Long ruck to obj and engage etc.
There is also a diffrence between Tier 1 and standard line infantry
Those on line are often going to be doing standard force on force engagements where as Tier 1 usually have to do more rigorous stuff to have the attacks be on thier terms due to being lighter and more mobile, and yes better trained.
Do I think infantry need to train a little diffrent? Yes, but it is up to the S3s if units to make sure they train properly.
There is a reason we send people to NTC and JRTC every year
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
Oh, it's plausible that China will have a navy able to question American naval supremacy in China's own front yard. But it won't be able to change the answer.
I'm guessing Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq. Korea was over 70 years ago, not under 50.
But this betrays the vapidity of his analysis. Afghanistan and Iraq II were "lost" in the sense that the occupation went sour. I hope we can all agree that if the United States went to war with China and totally conquered it, the occupation would likely go badly, but I don't think that's what most people mean by "the US would lose a war with China".
And the military kicked ass I'm everyone of those
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
Arguable for Vietnam. Whether for political reasons or not, the army never pushed north, never captured the flag. North Vietnam did the proverbial "lose every battle and win the war". For the others, that's what I said.
I see your point. Vietnam was a loss because of government stupidity then military might
we have been losing a lot of wars because of government stupidity...
Poe
Well-known member
Well we have a stupid government, if we weren't so far ahead and blessed with amazing institutions and geography we'd be fucked by now
The military serves the civie governments goals, not their own desires for combat, and it is civilians who determine the policy goals of a nation (in trustworthy elections), not the military leadership or the NCO corp.
So you want us to go an nation build when the military can go strike the enemy and be out and get done what needs to be done?
Because when it comes to military matters, such as fighting the war. Let the military military. Let the politicians handle everything else.
Restricting the military is how you get Vietnam, the war you so like to hold over our heads, A-stan, Current situation in Iraq, the fact we havnt bombed Iran and Yemen into submission
AnimalNoodles
Well-known member
War is politics by other means. its inherently political.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
War is inherently political, but.
Going all the way back to Sun Tzu, letting political leaders mess too much with military execution was a known recipe for disaster, and it's a lesson the American political establishment has been insisting on ignoring painfully for most of a century.
Politicians set objectives, and reasonable limitations.
Unreasonable limitations and unreasonable objectives defeat a military as or more easily than the enemy will, as evidenced in Afghanistan.
Going all the way back to Sun Tzu, letting political leaders mess too much with military execution was a known recipe for disaster, and it's a lesson the American political establishment has been insisting on ignoring painfully for most of a century.
Politicians set objectives, and reasonable limitations.
Unreasonable limitations and unreasonable objectives defeat a military as or more easily than the enemy will, as evidenced in Afghanistan.
Sometimes nation building works (looks at S. Korea, Germany, Japan), but the people in charge have to know how to do it right, instead of doing it to line their own pockets.
But no one in the US wants to put enough thought together to make a modern Marshal Plan these days.
War is politics/diplomacy via other means.
The political sphere will never be absent from military affairs, and will dictate it's limitations/goals/rules; this has always been, and will always be, the case in the US.
Even Eisenhower as a general could not ignore the civilian government or what it wanted done about the war.
Out of all of those, only A-stan was justified to begin with; we should never have been in Veitnam or Iraq.
Maybe if the US military stopped pretending Veitnam and Iraq were at all justified, the US public would feel less like they need to keep the military on a short leash.
The problem is, Zach doesn't want the civie government setting any rules or restrictions on the US military that have political reasoning behind them.
Zach wants to continue to pretend politics is not part of military matters and affairs, despite the fact politics has NEVER been absent from the military, nor is politicians/civies setting goals for the military to achieve, and then wanting oversight on how it is done, some massive burden.
It mostly seems like he wants the concerns of the NCO corp to dictate US politics, not civies concerns.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
The bigger problem in this discussion is that Zach is really bad at communicating, not even taking the time to use proper spelling and grammar, much less fully articulating ideas and carefully delineating between what he does and does not mean.
His post directly below mine could mean he agrees with exactly what I was saying, it could mean he thinks the politicians should have zero say after war is declared, it could mean any number of things.
It's bloody hard to tell.