Building Agile and Adaptive Soldiers Requires Agile and Adaptive Leaders

Military strategist Carl von Clausewitz once said, “Everything is very simple in war, but the simplest thing is difficult. These difficulties accumulate and produce a friction, which no man can imagine exactly who has not seen war.”1 Our military uses leaders and soldiers who have “seen war” to train our future leaders to be agile and operationally adaptive, but we need to go one more step and use a different training method. We use the systems-based approach to training, but we should use an innovative training method called outcomes-based training and education. ‘Fog and friction’ The “fog and friction” of war Clausewitz identified requires leaders to know both the art and the science of warfare. The science of warfare is the method by which soldiers plan and account for tangible aspects governing application of forces in a complex environment against an adaptive adversary. The art of warfare is the intangible art of applying forces in space and time, and considering risk, to accomplish the mission at the lowest cost. Soldiers at all levels can only be successful if they have the mastered the tangible science and intangible art of warfare. Clausewitz believed that soldiers could only attain mastery of the art and science through a career of rigorous self-development and personal experience in war or under the instruction of those who had experienced war.2 The nature of warfare and the effects of fog and friction on forces on the battlefield haven’t changed since Clausewitz first published On War. However, there has been a paradigm shift in the contemporary operational environment, forcing our Army to re-evaluate our methods of training and preparing leaders for it. The Army Leader Development Strategy outlines this shift and characterizes it by the cumulative effects of complexity and time, decentralization of forces on the battlefield and the need to frame ill-structured problems.3 In the current operating environment, leaders at all levels of experience Building Agile and Adaptive Soldiers Requires Agile and Adaptive Trainers by MAJ Joseph M. Harrison “The training and education of our entire force must aim to develop the mindset and requisite knowledge, skills and abilities required to operate effectively under conditions of uncertainty and complexity.” – GEN Martin Dempsey, foreword to TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-0, Army Capstone Concept 28 and rank find themselves at decisive points on the battlefield. They make decisions and give recommendations that can dramatically affect the operational and strategic outcomes of our wars. As an example, continuous reconnaissance drives our tactical planning in counterinsurgency and stability operations. Soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq are asked to identify and analyze infrastructure; interact with and assess dynamic societal relationships; interpret the physical terrain; and anticipate threats against them throughout year-long deployments. Their timely and accurate reporting collected within context of the operational environment and informed by commanders’ intent allows units to transition effectively between lines of effort throughout their area of operations. When soldiers effectively collect, assess, communicate and recommend actions based on effective reconnaissance, units and leaders can effectively allocate assets and resources tactically to achieve operational and strategic goals. When soldiers do not conduct effective continuous reconnaissance, units and leaders make ill-informed decisions in the absence of quality intelligence, and their tactical plans can negatively influence operational and strategic goals. As an Army, we must develop professional soldiers who can understand the art and science of warfare at all levels so we may better apply the tools of national power. We must build within our soldiers’ professional judgment degrees of precision and accuracy equivalent to the guided munitions they employ. Limits of training the tangible The systems approach to training is currently the engine that drives much of the Army training system and is the foundation for doctrinal publications and institutional training programs.4 The value of the systems-based approach is that it provides the analytical (tangible) basis for unit, leader and individual training proficiency and assessment, and a means for efficiently and predictably allocating resources. Army Training and Evaluation Program-mission training plans, soldier training publications and programs of instruction are tangible and consistent. Under the battle-focused concept, a unit prioritizes training to its standardized wartime mission. This training begins with initially assessing training, determining training objectives, creating a training strategy, preparing for training, executing training and evaluating completed training against an established standard.5 The battle-focused concept allows great predictability in identifying, resourcing and training soldiers and units under varying conditions of increasing complexity and difficulty. This predictability in allocating land, ammunition and resources allows for efficiencies in training soldiers to time and standard, but costs in training them to a desired outcome. Individuals and units train to minimum standards and only conduct more training if those minimal standards haven’t been met. Our current training systems stifle development of intangible attributes such as initiative, accountability and adaptability that a more agile and flexible training method could offer. To illustrate, a soldier who qualifies marksman on his weapon system sits in the bleachers with a soldier who qualifies expert until another soldier completes retraining and qualifies to the minimum standard before the unit leaves the range. Is shooting more rounds and gaining more familiarization with your weapon punishment for failing to initially qualify? Is barely qualifying rewarded or recognized the same as demonstrating higher fundamental skill? Is the highly skilled soldier truly being challenged to maximize potential? Assessments under the systems-based approach, although quantifiable, tie in to the accomplishment of established task lists but are divorced from the desired outcomes of preparing units and soldiers for war. The systems-based approach applied at a training center, a U. S. Army Training and Doctrine Command schoolhouse or internally by a peer evaluator within a U. S. Army Forces Command unit focuses upon task and subtask completion checklists maintained by the assessor of training. The assessor of training becomes both the focus of avoidance and obscuration and the target of appeasement. The separation from desired outcomes and quantifiable tasks is further exacerbated by the difficulty in updating and changing ARTEPs, STPs and POIs to more adequately reflect changing realities based on combat-deployment experience. Deviations from the systems-based approach occur across units and leaders within the Army. Mandated checklists can hijack these deviations with warrior tasks and battle drills that do not consider unit modified tables of organization and equipment or expected missions in theater. The result is an Army full of leaders and soldiers who:

• Are accountable for knowing the tangible science that governs the application of force; and

• Become masters at gaming the systems involved in training for war without necessarily mastering the fundamental intangible attributes necessary to be successful at fighting in a real one. Training for the intangible The OBT&E approach differs from the systems-based training approach in two distinct areas. First, and most importantly, outcomes-based training focuses on the intangible and tangible aspects of soldiering that impact mission accomplishment within the commander’s intent. These attributes are defined within the context of predetermined measures of effectiveness outlined by the commander prior to conducting training and are flexible enough to allow variations and adjustments throughout its execution. The value of this shift from a task-based systems approach to an outcome-based training approach is subtle but extremely powerful. Outcome-based training empowers a commander to conduct multiechelon, ambiguous and complex training events without the requirement of pre-training all the associated individual and collective tasks and sub-tasks that may be involved within the training scenario. The high instructor-to-student ratio associated with outcomes-based training reduces the negative impact one individual can have on collective training. It also increases the opportunity for all students to be mentored on multiple tasks and subtasks throughout a training event. Before and throughout the execution of training, the commander can focus instructor coverage to develop tangible skills and intangible attributes he believes will prepare his unit and its soldiers for war. An example of this would be afield-training exercise where a company commander conducts force-on-force training, with two of his platoons conducting security operations in an urban and rural environment and a third platoon conducting reconnaissance in preparation for an attack on an inferior force. Within the context of this exercise, the commander could focus on the tangible skills of security and reconnaissance in an urban and rural environment and the intangible leader attributes of initiative, adaptability and problem-solving. The commander could then continue to assess and build these skills and attributes within the exercise by continuing the rest of the security and reconnaissance missions while introducing new variables, or he could he could change the tangible skills measured in the training exercise by ordering the third platoon to execute their planned attack. Flexibility in the timing and sequencing of execution allows the commander to 29 train a wider range of tangible skills within a shorter period. This dramatically increases the ability to train the intangible attributes of his soldiers and his unit by retraining and reinforcing key attributes within the same training exercise. The flexibility in creating and freeing up collective training time comes by reducing the amount of unit time devoted to individual tasks. Training these individual tasks can either occur concurrently during a large collective training event or reinforced with routine short-duration training events. An example of this would be incorporating land navigation, communication, problem-solving and first-aid skills into physical-training events. Too often physical training is neither physically realistic enough nor mentally demanding enough to prepare soldiers for the rigors of war. By incorporating skills training into physical training, an instructor can adjust the mental and physical stresses his students experience to meet desired training outcomes. Second, outcomes-based training shifts the relationship between the student and the trainer from subject and evaluator to student and instructor. Within the OBT&E framework, the student and instructor are mutually interested in achieving the desired outcomes of training; they are not restricted to accomplishing tasks and subtasks within specified conditions and standards. Training is guided by applying fundamental principles to realistic practical exercises, tactical-decision games or tactical-decision exercises. The student is expected to have studied and gained an understanding of the fundamental principles associated with the training event he is given. The event itself should be organized in away that allows multiple solutions and applies principles toward solving a military problem. The student completes the event and achieves the desired outcomes by:

• Assessing the problem and identifying the decision points within it;

• Making tactically sound decisions to minimize associated risk;

• Communicating it effectively to his peers or subordinates; and

• Applying the fundamental principles associated with the problem to solving it. The instructor facilitates student learning throughout the process by helping the student organize and frame the problem within fundamental principles. He leads thinking with questions that allow the student to describe the situation through the principles and break it down into manageable pieces. The instructor’s assessment of training and the student is interactive throughout the outcomes-based training process. The instructor constantly adapts to the learning style, personal strengths and professional growth of the student. This maximizes the development of desired outcomes, skills and attributes. Instructors must be experts in understanding and applying OBT&E methods. In addition, they must be masters of the fundamental principles associated with the training exercise. OBT&E requires involvement by the commander throughout the planning, preparation, execution and assessment of training modules to ensure training outcomes meet his intent. Tangible outcomes will vary between trainees; time and resources invested into training may also vary greatly between training exercises and trainees. The development of intangible soldier attributes, however, will vastly outweigh those gained through the systems-based approach. Demonstrating initiative and self-development is an intangible skill that Clausewitz specifically cited as a fundamental skill in becoming a master of the art and science of warfare. Timely and accurate feedback provided by knowledgeable instructors during OBT&E training lets soldiers see themselves and their thought process in real-time; this self-awareness grows throughout the OBT&E process and stays well after a training event ends. The result is soldiers who arrive better prepared for training, who are more deliberate in their thought processes throughout training, and who are more self-aware of the tangible skills and intangible attributes they are applying and how effective they are in applying them. The overall result is a marked increase in intangible-attribute growth that leads to increased ability to build tangible skills. Opportune moment Outcomes-based training is not easier to do, nor is it a shortcut to avoid systems-based training. OBT&E requires adaptive, knowledgeable and agile leaders to build training exercises and develop training-certification programs that capture the fundamental principles of warfare within the context of ill-structured, complex and decentralized problem sets that build tangible tactical skills and intangible leader attributes. OBT&E is a deliberate attempt to target and train the intangible attributes associated with understanding the art of applying the physics of warfare in a manner that maximizes retention of knowledge while simultaneously increasing the rate at which soldiers absorb and apply it. We are at an opportune moment in history where our military both recognizes the need to train for agility and adaptability in our future leaders and has an abundance of leaders and soldiers who have firsthand practical experience in operating in ambiguous and complex environments. It is incumbent upon us to equip our leaders and soldiers with the tools necessary to pass on their hard-earned skills through this innovative training method.

MAJ Joseph Harrison commands N Troop, 3-16 Cavalry Squadron, 3/16th Brigade, Fort Knox, KY. He has served in various command and staff positions in the continental United States and Korea, including team leader for the Army Reconnaissance Course, 3-16 Cavalry Squadron; tank company commander, D Company, 1st Battalion, 72nd Armor, 1st Heavy Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, Republic of Korea; and executive officer and scout platoon leader, H Troop, 3rd Battalion, 1st Armor Brigade, Fort Riley, KS. He also deployed to support Operations Iraqi Freedom I April 2003-March 2004 and Iraqi Freedom III January 2005-February 2006. His military education includes Cavalry Leader Course, Maneuver Captain’s Career Course, Armor Officer Basic Course, Airborne School and Air Assault School. He holds a bachelor’s of science degree in comparative politics from the U. S. Military Academy and a master’s of arts in military history from Austin Peay State University. Notes 1Clausewitz, Carl von. On War., J. J. Graham translation published in London in 1873, accessed at http://www.clausewitz.com/Com-pareFrameSource1.htm. Chapter VII, Friction in War. 2Ibid. 3Army Leader Development Strategy, “Implications of the Operating Environment on Leader Development Strategy,” Nov. 25, 2009. Page 4. 4Field Manual 7-1, Battle Focused Training, September 2003. Chapters 1-18. 5Ibid. Figure 2-6. ARTEP-MTPs – Army Training and Evaluation Program-mission training plans FORSCOM – (U. S. Army) Forces Command MTOE – modified table of organization and equipment OBT&E – outcomes-based training and education POI – program of instruction STP – soldier training publications TRADOC – (U. S. Army) Training and Doctrine Command Acronym Quick-Scan 30