I'll have a go at it. Some things he says are good points, others...well...
There has been an overwhelming concern from keys leaders in the field, many of whom feel that in order to fight this non-conventional war in both Afghanistan and Iraq; the cold war doctrine and theories need to be revamped and restructured in order to fit the ever changing face of battle.
If he had written this in 2003 or 2004 it would make sense, but we have done exactly this. I know the Army in particular has changed drastically from what it was when I first joined in 1998. The Stryker Brigades in particular are incredibly flexible to meet almost any threat (though I'd be reluctant to take 'em into a tank battle!).
They are relying on instinct and a cross between old doctrine and new technological training in order to combat the unknown enemy, an enemy that has been fighting for thousands of years in an irregular manner and one who has achieved great success with their tried and proven style.
What's your point? The doctrine we developed in WWII and in Vietnam came from our failures in combat. We're fighting a different enemy, we're learning what we need to do and what doesn't work. With far fewer lives lost than in previous wars, I might add.
It is my observation, that the implementation of modern computer technology in the form of simulation(s) has been used to take the place of what was once known as “real boots on ground training”.
Possibly unit-dependent, but in the Strykers we utilized he EST2000 (one of the simulators he's referring to) as early, pre-range training. It's much cheaper and easier to coordinate time and equipment on a simulator than it is to navigate the bureaucracy of the AHA for ammo draw and Range Control. The simulators help the Squad Leader to identify his weaker Soldiers and decide which basics he needs to focus on for which Soldier so when the range time comes he can maximize his use of it. I think they're a great asset.
Realistic training is imperative to combat readiness
Indisputably true. As long as you phase your training events properly, with increasing realism, complexity, and difficulty, then they'll be good to go. We had some great ranges that, at the time, I felt seemed fairly scripted, but when I got to Iraq I realized just how well they had prepared me for it all.
Huge +1 to what you said. Say hi to Mrs. FSE for me, too!
What’s your point? The doctrine we developed in WWII and in Vietnam came from our failures in combat. We’re fighting a different enemy, we’re learning what we need to do and what doesn’t work. With far fewer lives lost than in previous wars, I might add.
Yes we are. However, our current training is several years old. The doctrine that is currently being used and taught is for the most part 5+ years old. I have direct involvement with the current pre-tain up for the deploying soldiers here at Ft. Bliss. They are still being taught to stop at all trash piles and Cordon due to IED’s. We need to take all key leaders immediately after their re-deployment, run them through a de-briefing, then take that info and change the Doctrine based upon the experiences that they encountered. By time the red tape gets lifted and it gets into the manual, it will be only 1 year old and not 5-7 years old. I keep seeing the same Pepsi Can loaded with C-4 on the handouts that I had in 04-05. I am not saying that the system is broken, but that it needs to be current. Also, you will never hear me say that “Simulation Training” is not a good thing, but it must be done along with actual “Boots on Ground” training. Imagine you only going through the EST2000, never stepped foot in a Stryker and going to war, then being issued your Stryker. This is simular to what the CSS Units are doing with their soldiers. They are even qualifying on the Weaponeer prior to rolling out. This is just wrong.