I’ll be interested in the opinions of people who are currently serving, or have recently served.
But one thing that is different now is that almost all of our soldiers are getting hands-on experience. This is not a peace-time military anymore.
And I see units being sent to places like Mauretania for joint ops with the local gendarmes. This has to be excellent training for the real thing, since the possibility exists on these exercises that they may turn into the real thing.
I am currently serving, and have been for 24 years. I am a MEDEVAC Patient currently getting fixed at Ft. Bliss, TX and have written of my experiences in Iraq during OIF3. The Army in particular is focused to a large degree in simulation training with the exception of those who are in current and immediate “train up” just prior to deploying.
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.