Set up for failure? What do you think about this article?

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:01:08 -0400

Wanted to get your thoughts on this article. Does it seem like we have more and more of these issues these days? Does it seems like we are seeing more projects set up in order to gain notoriety (*Ahem*...F35...*cough cough*) or 'set up to fail' because leadership doesn't agree with it?

Task Force Violent: The unforgiven Part 2

The second installment of a 5-part series on Task Force Violent. Unwanted and unsupported, the first MARSOC commandos were 'set up for failure'

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 13 at 2015 2:54 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 13 Mar 2015 14:54:04 -0400

The greatest problem is that I think there is a disconnect between the battlefield realities and the expectations. Technology is great, but it will not be the ultimate deciding factor. No matter what the cost, the deciding factor in any military conflict will be the training and dedication of the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines. A Hellfire missile needs a trained helicopter pilot and competent gunner.

Vietnam showed us that technology is excellent, but it is still important to focus on fundamentals. We were so impressed on the F-4 Phantom and missiles that we failed to train our pilots on the basics of dogfighting. As such, the MiGs quickly learned to close inside missile range and stay inside, fighting in close. The earliest versions of the F-4 didn't even have a gun/cannon to engage these enemy aircraft.

Night vision goggles led to a development of new techniques of ambushing and disabling our Soldiers on patrols at night. Even though we owned the night, the multitude of traps and "lay-in-waiting" ambush strategies meant that the bulk of operations were carried out during the daytime.

In Iraq, the vast array of technology was outsmarted by "hit-and-run" insurgent tactics that provided focused, high-intensity but short duration engagements (with several exceptions). It wasn't the Stryker, Bradley, Abrams, or HMMVW that decreased the attacks, it was the troops.

In Afghanistan, the enemy quickly learned to evaluate the quality of the Soldiers that they were against. Some of those in very proficient units (i.e. "Outlaw Platoon") developed a reputation, and often encountered less frequent attacks due to their reputation. This isn't to say that they had an EASY deployment by any means, but the enemy placed more effort into the attacks to attempt to gain a victory. When these attacks inevitably happened, regardless of what the situation was, the only thing that stopped these troops from being overrun was their training, their primary weapon, and communications with various other assets (A-10s, artillery, etc).

The problem with technology is that it fails. We are seeing this same issue in the medical field, where degradation of assessment skills is coming as a result of improved technologies. Old orthopedic physicians can feel the way that a knee is stabilized and make a diagnosis, whereas there are a multitude of physicians now that simply order the X-Ray and MRI outright to "see what we are dealing with" without performing much assessment at all. Reliance on computer technology creates near pandemonium if it fails....our work basically grinds to a halt if we are not able to use our computer system for patient care.

The same is true in the military. A few times we've lost power, and basically sent half our staff home because they had an inability to perform their duties. Also, I feel it is important to mention that these new aircraft are very complex. Which do you think has a greater rate of failure? A well-made slingshot or an M-4? The more moving components that you add in, the greater the risk that one failure will bring down the system. With the F-35, I worry about what would happen if you have a surface-air strike from a SAM or AA battery that takes out the hydraulic power. In aircraft like the F-15, it is possible to land still (although challenging). However, in some of these aircraft, I'm not convinced that the aircraft could survive such an impact....especially the F-35, which likely relies on hydraulic power for it's vectored thrust capabilities. Even the F-22 has had a number of incidents where pilots became hypoxic because of oxygen delivery failures and various other items.

Furthermore, it creates a frustrating, but necessary risk-benefit ratio. Again, launching 8 Hellfire missiles comes close to more than $1,000,000 expended on a single mission. These kinds of costs are not sustainable on a long-term basis, and could economically bankrupt a nation. In addition, it is important to balance those with other logistics demands like training requirements and additional manpower.

I hope that people don't lose focus on the most important component of the mission: Boots on ground.
v/r,
CPT Butler

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Mar 13 at 2015 6:55 PM

CSM Michael J. Uhlig — Fri, 13 Mar 2015 18:55:26 -0400

Have you ever been to Point De Hoc and had a look at the mission our RANGERS were handed as their first mission? Climbing sheer cliffs and only fighting with what you carried up the cliff face with you!

Not concerned that someone is trying to get notoriety from the unit, MARSOC means business!