Leadership and Command Philosophy

by Brigadier General Philip L. Hanrahan A leader must develop a leadership philosophy. Such a philosophy applies to both noncommissioned officers (NCOs) and of ficers. In theory, this philosophy should apply to all our actions as leaders whether or not we are in a command position. A leader is privileged to lead and command and his philosophy guides his actions and conduct and provides a philosophy and guidance for the entire organization and its soldiers. Individual leader philosophies tend to evolve over time as leaders move through their military careers and serve at different command levels. A leader should also realize that over time the Army evolves as society evolves. However, the core of our philosophy should remain the same and be “refined” as time passes. As a young second lieutenant leading a tank platoon, my philosophy was simple. It consisted of three points: lead by example; accomplish the mission; and take care of soldiers. Today my philosophy of leadership and command has evolved to five points: lead by example; accomplish the mission by training and maintaining to standards; take care of soldiers and their families; conserve resources; and have fun. A quarter-century ago, having fun was not a specific consideration. A tank platoon leader’s assignment, by its very nature, was a fun job, while at the same time frustrating and challenging. Twenty-five years ago, the focus on families was not as serious as it is today. If any attention was paid to families, it was lip service. As a second lieutenant, resources were not a great concern. We operated under the naive assumption that “the Army will not let us run out of money.” Today, we know this is not the case and training opportunities are often driven or limited by resource availability. Each leadership philosophy applies to all lead ers, regardless if they are Active Duty, Army Reserve, or National Guard. In today’s Army, many of us will serve in two or more of these components during the course of our military careers. Lead by Example Leading by example appears to be a simple concept, but is more complex than realized. Leading by example involves every aspect of a leader’s actions, whether officer or NCO, and begins with a leader’s physical appearance such as a standard hair cut, proper uniform wear, and military courtesies. When a soldier is not meeting standards regarding military courtesies or proper uniform wear, leaders have the obligation to make on-the-spot corrections. Leaders should participate in physical fitness training and test with their soldiers. Leaders should always try to “max” the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) — if that’s just not realistic any more, be out there with your soldiers doing physical training (PT) and leading from the front. For leaders, the standard is not the minimum; the standard should be to strive for a “max” on each event of the APFT. On a related note — you can meet the standard for height and weight if you can pass the tape test; however, the goal for leaders should be to make the table weight and not the tape weight. Training with your soldiers should not be limited to PT; leaders should strive to be technical and tactical experts in their chosen fields, whether administrative or artillery. “Expert” qualification with individual weapons or as a member of a tank or Bradley crew should be the standard for leaders. As leaders advance in rank and experience, their technical- and tactical-expert areas evolve as the nature of assignments change and leader’s role evolves. However, the critical point remains that leaders should master the elements of each assignment in which they serve — sometimes this expertise comes from attending an institutional school and other times through self-study and the “school of hard knocks.” Leaders set the standard of dedication to the job, to the unit, and to the soldiers with whom they serve and work. Leaders put in the time to get the job done and done to standard. For example, when a National Guard or Army Reserve soldier assumes a leader position, they do the — 47 job regardless of whether or not there is money to pay them for the duty. In other words, it is not just a two-day-a-month, two-weeks-in-the-summer assignment. In an ideal world, leaders are the first to arrive at work in the morning (or on drill weekend) and the last to leave in the evening. Leaders set the standard in conduct while on and off duty. Leaders must not do improper things and should avoid the appearance of impropriety. Even if something is technically “legal” or “correct,” soldiers may perceive it as wrong. Sometimes, these things are easier said than done, but our real moral fiber is tested by what we do when no one is watching. Accomplish the Mission by Training and Maintaining to Standard The next component of the leadership and command philosophy is to accomplish the mission by training and maintaining to standard. Mission accomplishment depends on how well soldiers know their “craft.” No one is born knowing how to operate a Bradley Fighting Vehicle or how to zero an M16A2 rifle. These are learned skills, and the training begins during basic training, participation in the Reserve Officers Training Corps, or on enrollment in a military academy. The Ar my bases its training on tasks, conditions, and standards. Once we complete our basic military training, too often we cut corners during training and “bend” the standard. How many times have we not had the correct type or amount of training aids, the correct student-instructor ratio, or enough time? Everyone wants to get through daily training, so we cut corners and save time in the short run, but cost lives in the long run. The biggest problem in the training area is that we do not assign classes far enough in advance for the instructor and alternate instructor (yes, we should always have an alternate instructor) to prepare for class, and often lack resources for instructors to properly prepare the class or block of instruction. These missing resources range from a shortage of manuals to a lack of training areas or ammunition. The Army has done a great job in preparing programs of instruction (POIs) and lesson plans that outline the task, conditions, and standards for training; required resources; and curriculum. The Army has established schools and courses to teach soldiers how to present effective instruction; however, it a leader’s responsibility to identify instructors and students well in advance of training and provide resources (time and materials) to ensure classes are taught to standard. Training is too important not to train to standard. Leaders need to attend training, both to learn what is being taught and to ensure it is taught correctly, “by the book,” and to standard. Following training, an after action report (AAR) is critical. An AAR review reveals what went right, what went wrong, and determines areas in which the unit could improve. Writing down AAR results, placing them in a file, and reviewing them immediately before the next training cycle will help units avoid making the same mistakes. The same applies to maintenance training — we either fail to train or do not train to standard. Technical manuals outline how to safely operate and maintain all types of equipment ranging from protective masks to Blackhawk helicopters. Not only do leaders have to make time on the training schedule to perform maintenance, they need to be involved with the training, whether it’sat the motor pool, arms room, or nuclear, biological, or chem ical (NBC) cage. Leaders have to get their hands dirty as well — equipment must be maintained or the unit cannot train. Accidents will happen during training — we train skills that involve risk and danger. For example, if we are going to fight at night, we have to train at night; if we are going to fight in an NBC environment, we have to train in an NBC environment. Leaders have an obligation to con duct a risk assessment before and during training to identify risks associated with training and take necessary measures to minimize risk, while simultaneously maintaining realistic and valuable training. These measures could range from conducting safety briefings and increasing leader supervision to adding safety officers and assistant instructors. Take Care of Soldiers and Families The Army spends a lot of time and money recruiting soldiers. Taking care of soldiers begins before they report to their first duty assignment. It begins with sponsoring the soldier and his family. New soldiers should get sponsorship letters signed by the company commander and first sergeant as soon as they are identified as being assigned to the unit. If possible, selected sponsors should live close “No one is born knowing how to operate a Bradley Fighting Vehicle or how to zero an M16A2 rifle. These are learned skills, and the training begins during basic training, participation in the Reserve Officers Training Corps, or on enrollment in a military academy. The Ar my bases its training on tasks, conditions, and standards.” “Leaders should participate in physical fitness training and test with their soldiers. Leaders should always try to “max” the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) — if that’s just not realistic any more, be out there with your soldiers doing physical training (PT) and leading from the front. For leaders, the standard is not the minimum; the standard should be to strive for a “max” on each event of the APFT.” 48 — to the new soldier and be of similar age and marital status. The sponsor should contact the new soldier before drill or before the soldier reports to the unit and make sure the soldier knows where to go and what time to report to the unit. The sponsor should make sure the soldier completes inprocessing during the first drill. Each member of the company chain of command should meet and talk with the new soldier. During the new soldier’s first formation, he should be introduced to the unit — it is during this first day that the soldier will draw his first impression of the unit. One of the most central ways to take care of soldiers is through formal and informal counseling and mentoring. This process begins with the commander and first sergeant interviewing the soldier during inprocessing and should continue periodically during the soldier’s career. In most cases, this is one area in which leaders can and must improve. All too often, we only counsel soldiers when they do something wrong or fail to do something they should have done. Soldiers need to know what is expected of them and leaders have an obligation to keep them informed on how they are doing — before they are given a formal evaluation report. Leaders have a tendency to overlook the necessity to both positively and negatively counsel soldiers. Taking care of soldiers continues everyday thereafter until the soldier retires from the Army. Feeding soldiers and making sure they have billets is but a small piece of the puzzle. Getting the soldier paid timely is another critical element of this process. Recognizing the soldier for positive accomplishments through a fair and active awards program is another aspect of this process. Timely promotions for deserving soldiers are another way that we as leaders take care of soldiers. Leaders also have an obligation to provide soldiers meaningful and challenging training so they have the skills and confidence to survive on the battlefield and win America’s wars and con flicts. Providing sol diers with necessary resources to train, including ammo, vehicles, and training areas, goes along way in taking care of soldiers. Leaders are responsible for taking care of families, which begins with the commander and first sergeant interviewing the soldier during inprocessing. Leaders need to learn about the soldier’s family during this interview, not just the family members’ names and ages, but also their hobbies, interests, and special needs. Ensure family members have identification cards and access to military medical care. Briefings and access to the judge advocate general for wills and powers of attorney are apart of taking care of families and soldiers. Family members need to be made aware of their privileges and benefits, as well as unit activities. A unit newsletter can accomplish this, provided it actually gets delivered to the spouse and not just to the soldier. Family day activities are another way to get this information to families. Holiday meals and din ing-ins are other ways to get families involved. An active family readiness group can be a real “force multiplier” in this area. The old saying is true, “we enlist soldiers and we reenlist families.” Leaders have to take care of soldiers and their families, if we are to establish and maintain successful units. Conserve Resources As leaders, the idea of resource conservation does not enter into our thought process. For too long, soldiers and leaders have assumed that we can spend all the money we have and go back to higher head quarters for more because “the Army will not let us run out of money.” Year after year, especially during the end of the fiscal year, there is suddenly more money than we can spend. We schedule workshops, meetings, conferences, buy supplies, computers, and other equipment just to use up the money. “Use it or loose it” is the implied message. In large measure, this situation comes about because we have been “good stewards” of our money for the first three quarters of the year. Spending 50 percent of our financial resources during the fourth quarter is not the best way to run an organization. When we talk about conserving resources, we are not just talking about money. Time, soldiers, ammunition, and training areas are all resources that we should conserve. Good detailed advanced planning and following the Army’straining system and procedures help us plan and execute good training and save time. Properly managing time, training areas, and “Not only do leaders have to make time on the training schedule to perform maintenance, they need to be involved with the training, whether it’sat the motor pool, arms room, or nuclear, biological, or chem ical (NBC) cage. Leaders have to get their hands dirty as well — equipment must be maintained or the unit cannot train.” “When we talk about conserving resources, we are not just talking about money. Time, soldiers, ammunition, and training areas are all resources that we should con serve. Good detailed advanced planning and following the Army’straining system and procedures help us plan and execute good training and save time. Properly managing time, training areas, and soldiers will conserve these resources and improve unit readiness and morale.” — 49 soldiers will conserve these resources and improve unit readiness and morale. Supply accountability and discipline are also apart of conserving resources. If we do not maintain good equipment records (and maintain that equipment), we may not have equipment with which to train and, in some instances, be forced to purchase replacement equipment. We have to protect our training environment and training areas. For example, oil spills have to be avoided; however, when they do occur, they must be promptly cleaned up and reported. Streams in training areas can not be polluted, and we cannot take home cactuses from desert training sites. If training areas are not cared for, there is always the possibility of losing the privilege to train in some areas. Keep in mind that violating environmental statutes can result in fines and penalties. Resource management is the responsibility of leaders at all levels. As soldiers, we are also taxpayers and should be concerned that the military is using its resources wisely. During the planning process, consider resources to ensure training is conducted to standard in the most effective and cost-efficient fashion. Have Fun All work and no play is not the way to run a unit. This is certainly not to say that being a soldier is a game or a joke. What soldiers do is deadly serious. They do not “play war” or “play army” on the weekends, or “go to summer camp.” Soldiers are trained to do America’s business. It is a tough, demanding, and deadly business. However, it is important to work hard and play hard — soldiers are volunteers, they joined the Army for various reasons, and have their own reasons for staying. If assignments are not “fun,” soldiers will not stay in the Army. “Fun” does not mean the assignment is not tough or demanding. In fact, tough training is fun. When soldiers train to do the job they enlisted for and the training is done well, that training is fun. Soldiers may complain how cold, wet, and miserable they are, but when the training is done, these shared “war stories” build moral and esprit de corps. Training can be fun by incorporating individual, squad, or crew competition, such as disassembling and reassembling weapons the quickest, which cook can prepare the best dessert, or which company has the highest average APFT score. These are easy competitions to set up and easy ways to build morale. Award trophies, gift certificates, or maybe even a savings bond to the winners. Sometimes a certificate of commendation printed on a laptop computer is enough to award a job well done. Having a plaque in the company or battalion headquarters building for the top junior enlisted soldier, NCO, and com pany grade officer. Establish a “top gun” program for your best Bradley or tank crew. Making training fun is one area where leaders are limited only by their creativity. A variety of physical training activities will have a positive impact on morale, such as a company running in uniform, in formation, with the American flag and unit colors out front as part of a local 10K race will make you, your unit, and spectators hold their heads a little higher, not to mention the fact that such activities also have recruiting potential and help increase community awareness of the Army. All of us need to keep our sense of humor (or to develop one). When things are not going so well, sometimes a joke will break the stress and tension, which allows us to refocus in the right direction. Remember, when it stops being fun, soldiers will stop being soldiers. It is not just money that motivates soldiers; it is camaraderie, meaningful training, and a positive, caring environment that motivates soldiers to do their best for their unit, their country, and themselves. It is our job as leaders to establish and maintain such an environment, and humor and fun are vital components of such an environment. Many, if not most, leaders already have developed their own leadership and command philosophies, and many of the above elements are implicit, if not explicit, parts of such philosophies. For leaders who do not have a philosophy of leadership, I hope this article provides a framework to help you develop a philosophy. For those leaders who have leadership philosophies, perhaps this article will help you refine your philosophy. BG Philip L. Hanrahan is currently serving as commanding general, 90th Regional Support Group, San Antonio, TX. He received a B. A. and a J. D. from Washington and Lee University and an M. A. from the United States Army War College. His military education includes Armor Officer Basic Course, Armor Officer Advanced Course, U. S. Army Command and General Staff College, and the U. S. Army War College. He has served in various command and staff positions, including assistant division commander - support, 95th Division (IT), Oklahoma City, OK; commander, 1st Brigade, 100th Division, Lexington, KY; commander, 3d Squadron, 397th Cavalry, Corbin, KY; and commander, 2d Squadron, 302d Cavalry, Georgetown, KY. 50 — Israel’s from Page 25 verbial fear of preparing to fight the last war. We can and should look to past examples and recent trends in mounted war fare, such as those provided by Israel, as we continue to become the Army of tomorrow. Notes 1Information at http://www.tau.ac.il/humanities/ archaeology/megiddo/introduction.html, accessed January 2004. 2Christopher Bellamy, The Evolution of Modern Land Warfare, New York, Routledge, 1990, p. 7. 3Werner Keller, The Bible as History, New York, Bantam Books, 1982, pp. 187 and 215. 4Chaim Herzog and Mordechai Gichon, Battles of the Bible, New York, Random House, 1978, pp. 55- 56. 5Keller, p. 215. 6Trevor N. Dupuy, Elusive Victory: The Arab-Israeli Wars 1947-1974, Garden City, NJ, Military Book Club, 1978, p. 51. 7Bellamy, p. 8. 8Dr. Christopher Gabel, lecture at the Military History Instructor Course, Fort Leavenworth, KS, January 2004. 9Dupuy, p. 584. 10Tom Donnelly and Sean Naylor, Clash of Chariots: The Great Tank Battles, New York, Berkley Books, 1996, p. 210. 11Abraham Rabinovich, The Yom Kippur War: The Epic Encounter That Transformed the Middle East, New York, Schocken Books, 2004, pp. 508-509. 12General Donn A. Starry, “To Change an Army,” Military Review, U. S. Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, KS, March 1983, p. 6. 13Rabinovich, p. 509. 14Robert M. Citino, Blitzkrieg to Desert Storm: The Evolution of Operational Warfare, Lawrence, KS, University of Kansas Press, 2004, pp. 255-262. 15Ibid. 16Citino, p. 185. 17Colonel Kevin C. M. Benson, “Thoughts on Restructuring Army Brigades,” ARMOR, May-June 2004, p. 23. MAJ Jim Dunivan is currently a student at the Irish Command and General Staff College, Curragh Camp, Newbridge, CO Kildare, Ireland. He received a B. S. from the U. S. Military Academy and an M. A. from Arkansas State University. His military education includes the Armor Officers Advanced Course, the Combined Arms and Services Staff School, and the Armor Officers Basic Course. He has served in various command and staff positions, including assistant professor of military science, Arkansas State University, Reserve Officer Training Corps Program, Jonesboro, AR; small group instructor, Armor Captains Career Course, Fort Knox, KY; assistant TRADOC Systems Manager for Training, Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below, Fort Knox; commander, B Troop, 3d Squadron, 8th Cavalry, Fort Hood, TX; and tank platoon leader and XO, 1st Battalion, 34th Armor, Fort Riley, KS.

is among the greatest strengths of our transformation. The second issue is the brigade mortar platoons being consolidated with the fires battalion. While the fires battalion could easily accommodate the span of command, control, and resupply requirements associated with a consolidation, this seems to directly contradict what the HBCT was designed to do. The CAB is organized to train, deploy, and fight with minimal task organization or additional assets required. The mortars are a critical part of that equation. MG Valcourt is correct in his view of the mortars as “sacred.” They are an integral part of the battalion and are personally connected to those they support. It is this personal connection and sense of responsibility that drives mortar crews to place effective fires just a little faster. Again, creating conditions where we train and “live” in our fighting formations is the most preferred option. MG Valcourt’s article highlights some of the great changes his branch is making to support transformation. While there may be room for discussion, his opening and closing statements could not be truer: Armor, Infantry, and Artillery are a team.

MAJ, U. S. Army Train As You Fight, Fight As You Train! Dear ARMOR, On 10 January 2005, while patrolling in Samarra, my M1114 was struck by an improvised explosive device (IED). The IED was a command-detonated 155mm artillery round lying beside the road. The round detonated between my up-armored high-mobility, multipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV) and a Nissan pickup truck carrying Iraqi army soldiers. Both vehicles were within ten meters either side of the blast origin. Two Iraqi army soldiers were killed and one wounded. A fragment, weighing approximately two pounds, struck the windshield directly in front of my face. The impact knocked my hands off of the steering wheel and stuck glass frags in my face. The gunner was riding low between his side shields and had his helmet gouged. Because of the up-armored HMMWV, I am able to write this letter. Because of eye protection, I am able to see the keyboard. Because of proper training, I was able to function after the blast and exit the kill zone, positioning the vehicle to cover recovery operations. The other soldiers in the vehicle and behind us rendered first aid, returned small arms fire, and evacuated the casualties and damaged equipment. It is our responsibility as officers and senior noncommissioned officers to ensure we have done everything in our power to properly train, equip, and lead subordinates. No detail is too minor. No training is unimportant. That same day, a major used combat lifesaver skills to keep a wounded soldier alive. A staff sergeant coordinated a quick reaction force over the radio. A captain operated a.50-caliber machine gun. You never know what job you will have to perform when the time comes. Stress this to all your soldiers. Be prepared to do everything you have been trained to do competently, immediately, and without hesitation. Your own or someone else’s life may depend on it. Soldiers must be mentally prepared to overcome fear and anxiety, to face adversity day after day. Two days earlier, I was in the same M1114 when two 155mm rounds were detonated a few feet from the passenger side door that I was sitting on the other side of. The blast went straight up. Proper training and preparation allowed us to react to the ambush, exit the kill zone, and effectively return fire against the enemy. Your soldiers must be mentally prepared to face adversity day after day and to overcome fear and anxiety. TRAIN AS YOU FIGHT, FIGHT AS YOU TRAIN! If you are not, start right now.

MAJ, U. S. Army Commander’s Perspective on Stryker Is Off the Mark Dear ARMOR, My compliments on much of LTC Jeffrey San-derson’s article,“ Transformation: A Commander’s Perspective,” from the January-February 2005 issue of ARMOR, concerning his observations on warfighting focus, training safety, and development of flexible and adaptive leaders. However, his suggestions on collapsing the branches and specialization by type of unit are widely off the mark, especially his perspective on Stryker. There may very well be three unit of action (UA) organizations — heavy, Stryker and light infantry — but there are only two types of maneuver forces, “heavy” and “light,” formerly known as “armor/mechanized” and “light infantry,” respectively. Conceptually, doctrinally, operationally, and tactically, Stryker is simply another platform for mechanized infantry, just like the Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle, the M113 armored personnel carrier, and the armored halftrack. Stryker UA’s claim to being an interim version of Future Combat System (FCS) applies only so far as its communications architecture is concerned. All legacy systems, such as the Abrams, Bradley, and M113, will operate side by side with the Stryker. As advanced digital capabilities migrate into these legacy units, Stryker’s uniqueness is already vanishing. The supposed complexity of the Stryker company organizationally and conceptually differs little from its World War II counterpart, the halftrack-equipped armored infantry rifle company. The 1943 company had three infantry platoons, each with three rifle squads, alight machine gun squad, and a 60mm mortar squad. The company also had an antitank platoon of three gun squads, as well as a headquarters section, maintenance section, and admin/mess/supply section. That gave the company commander nine rifle squads, three machine gun squads, three mortar squads, and three antitank gun squads divvied up among 20 armored carriers (halftrack), two cargo trucks with trailers, three Jeeps, while fully prepared to accept attached platoons of tanks and tank destroyers if available.

LTC, U. S. Army, Retired Former Commander Believes Aviation Should Be Left to the Air Force Dear ARMOR, I read, “Transformation: A Commander’s Perspective,” by LTC Jeffrey Sanderson, in your January-February 2005 issue, with approval, moving enthusiastically from topic to topic: Focus on Warfighting, Not Housekeeping; Training Safety to a Higher Live-Fire Standard; Developing Flexible and Adaptive Leaders; and Transforming Institutions. And, the last topic, Transforming Institutions, caused me to pause. His solution of collapsing the branches so he can select “Captain Jones to command an infantry company, a tank company, or even afield artillery battery” sounds like a cavalry troop commander serving in the Army of the 1960s in three cavalry units: airborne, 2/17th Cavalry, 101st Airborne Division, Fort Campbell (1965-1966); air, A Troop, 7/17th Air Cavalry, Vietnam (1967-1968); and 1/2d Armored Cavalry Regiment, Germany (1968-1970). This type of multiple-skill-set leader was in the cavalry that I remember in the 1960s. The solution is simple: more cavalry troops with a mix of tanks; Bradleys for scouts and infantry squads; organize mortars and engineers; and extend the training time for lieutenants and captains who lead cavalry troops in future fights. I was troubled by LTC Sanderson’s cursory view of aviation. One sentence, “The critical component of Army aviation somehow fits into this model, and with some mental energy, we can figure it out.” From my perspective, and having served as a ground commander and aviation commander as aero-scout platoon commander (OH-6A), as an armored cavalry troop commander, a heavy lift (CH-54) platoon commander, an air ambulance medevac commander (UH-1H), a combat aviation battalion commander, and a brigade commander with aviation, engineer, maintenance, combat support, and supply and service battalions, the ground commander just doesn’t understand the critical component of Army aviation. It requires too much mental energy. My simple solution is to transfer all U. S. Army aviators and their magnificent flying machines to the U. S. Air Force. Rucker Air Force Base sounds good to me. I like simple solutions, which is why I am a country lawyer in a three-lawyer county in Kansas.

COL, U. S. Army, Retired New Equipment Is Definitely a Combat Multiplier Dear ARMOR, This is in response to CPT Francis Park’s article, “Advanced Infantry Optics and Their Future in Armor,” in the January-February 2005 — 51 LETTERS from Page 3 training we did, we used during our year in Iraq. I later discovered that my platoon had M145 machine gun optics (MGO), M68 reflective sights (aimpoint) — a.k.a., close combat optics. My noncommissioned officers were unfamiliar with the optics; apparently, the former platoon sergeant had no interest in using the new equipment. He assumed the main gun optics would be broken or damaged by the soldiers, so they were not used. The armorer was told not to let anyone know the optics were even in the armsroom. When I discovered them, I immediately scheduled a range and took the platoon out to train. I worked with the platoon on M68s. Many soldiers were uncomfortable and did not completely grasp the concept of how they were to be used. U. S. Army Field Manual (FM) 3-22.9, Rifle Marksmanship M16A1, M16A2/3, M16A4, and M4 Carbine, was not yet available, so it took the platoon members time to get up to speed. The M68s that were not used by my platoon members began popping up on other weapons in the battalion. If my platoon was not thoroughly trained on them, then I knew others were not — they just thought the M68s looked cool on the M4. A week before we deployed, my platoon received six PEQ-2A laser-aiming devices. Great equipment, but there were no manuals included and the infantry companies had already sent their equipment, so it was difficult to neutral zero or obtain a true zero with the M68s, as well as the PEQ-2As. Near the end of our tour in Iraq, we finally received PAS-13s, more PEQ-2As, surefire tactical lights, and a much-needed borelight laser. We were finally able to properly neutral zero the PEQ-2As and the M68s. The borelight provides a neutral zero and removes shooter error, and even with dot sights, eye relief, both the distance and angle at which you look through the sight, is a factor. There are no “zero ranges” in combat, and simply put, if you use it properly, you will always hit the lethal zone. Once all weapons were neutral zeroed, they were night tested at the small arms range on our forward operating base — my platoon loved the new equipment. While deployed, I was able to obtain and print chapters of FM 3-22.9. That, along with a good friend who was a first sergeant observer controller at the Joint Readiness Training Center, enabled me to design a marksmanship training program, based on the one used by the 75th Ranger Regiment, to improve marksmanship skills. FM 3-22.9 is excellent; it gives detailed info on all the new equipment currently in use. Leaders need to get smart on new equipment and do a little homework before introducing it to platoons. The “death-before-dismount” mentality is a thing of the past and soldiers in our community, whether scout or tanker, need to understand that the battlefield of today and tomorrow may not be linear, as they were historically. The new equipment is definitely a combat multiplier. So the sooner we get more senior leaders to realize soldiers need these new items, they can begin to work the issue of obtaining more ammunition, to include more firing tables in small arms programs. One way to elevate the ammo issue is to rely heavily on dry firing to build muscle memory, which can be done anytime, anywhere. Solid muscle memory is key to becoming proficient shooters. Great article Captain Park; hopefully, it will ignite a spark and get leaders in our community to focus on other aspects of warfighting.

SFC, U. S. Army USMC Vietnam Tankers Association To Hold 2005 Reunion in August The U. S. Marine Corps Vietnam Tankers Association will hold its 2005 reunion from 17 August to 21 August 2005 at the Doubletree Hotel Philadelphia, 237 South Broad Street. For room reservations, call (215) 893-1600. Points of contact for the reunion are Dick Carey (508) 477-5957, e-mail: usmcvta@comcast. net or John Wear (215) 794-9052, e-mail: john wear@comcast.net 4th Infantry Division Association To Hold National Reunion in July The National 4th Infantry (IVY) Division Association will hold its national reunion from 17-23 July 2005. For more information, please contact Gregory Rollinger, 8891 Aviary Path R-66, Inver Grove Heights, MN 55077; or visit www. 4thinfantry.org. issue of ARMOR. CPT Park hits the nail right on the head regarding cavalry and armor units using this new equipment. Based on my own experiences, one major issue with fielding and using this equipment has been leaders in the armor community. The “I’m-not-infantry” mentality has run amok in this community for along time. Many times in the past, I was told I did not need such equipment because it was too expensive or because I wasn’t infantry. I spent the majority of my time in light and airborne units, so I understood the importance of marksmanship, especially when dismounted. I was an armor task force scout platoon sergeant when my battalion deployed to Iraq. Prior to my platoon’s deployment, I went online and got information so that I could get a few advanced combat optical gun sights (ACOGS), AN/PAS-13 thermal weapons sights, backup iron sights (BIS), and some other equipment that would increase our chances of success. I was told that the ACOGS and PAS-13s were too expensive and as far as the BIS, my request was “lost.” Later, my platoon was offered the opportunity to do some military operations in urban terrain (MOUT) training with a team from the 10th Special Forces Group. My commander told me that MOUT was not on my mission essential task list (METL) and that he saw no real need for my platoon to do this training. The battalion commander told me that I would never clear a building for him; that is why the infantry is attached to our task force. I trained my platoon on close-quarters marksmanship reflexive fire and any other tasks that were not historically organic to scouts. All the 52 — The challenges of the U. S. Army’s force modular redesign are upon us and we are addressing necessary changes with the grim, professional determination of an Ar my at war. Our Army’s efforts to make units of action (UA) a reality have demanded fundamental shifts in our thinking about how brigade combat teams (BCT) are organized and how they are expected to fight. The role of Cavalry has not been spared this reexamination. One of the latest efforts to ensure the officer education system at Fort Knox remains current and relevant is the Armor School’s recent redesign of the Cavalry Leaders Course (CLC). As we change our force structure, we must also reconfigure assumptions about who should attend the CLC. The combined arms philosophy that underpins the logic behind creating these units of action demands that all officers, regardless of branch, assigned to BCT (UA) planning staffs or reconnaissance squadrons within these brigades, should understand reconnaissance and security operations. Leaders who attend CLC are provided with the in-depth knowledge of reconnaissance and security, as applied to the new reconnaissance squadrons found in the heavy BCT, Infantry BCT, and Stryker BCT. The CLC accomplishes its learning objectives through challenging practical exercises that test and hone students’ understanding of the latest doctrine; tactics, techniques, and procedures; organizations; missions; capabilities; and limitations of reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition (RSTA) and reconnaissance squadrons. The Armor School at Fort Knox encourages CLC enrollment for all officers serving in armor, infantry, field artillery, engineer, aviation, military intelligence, and signal corps branches. Officers in these branches should attend CLC to prepare for assignments in support of RSTA and cavalry organizations. Attendance at CLC is currently open to any graduate of any of ficer career course ranking in the grades of first lieutenant (promotable) through ma jor. Enrollment is available through the Ar my Training Requirements and Resources System. The New Cavalry Leaders Course