# Training Mission in Kabul Afghanistan



## Tow Tripod (20 Nov 2010)

If there was ever a mission where MOD 6 Corporals could be used in the training of recruits this would be it. There is not much difference between the Kabul Military Training Centre and LF WATC,  Meaford or Valcartier. As per I expect the the army will go heavy on the officer side and take a year or two to realize that it really doesn't take that much to train the ANA other than lots of patience.
With the closing of recruiting for the time being I also suggest that Canadian infantry recruits that are still stuck in PAT platoon go to Kabul to complete their basic infantry course!! (JOKE)


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Nov 2010)

There is a bit of wisdom in your post, TOW.  Whereas we used field force soldiers for the BG, OMLT and PRT, we will need people from the training system for Kabul.  

I would offer up MCpls and up, however, and only those with experience in the training system (eg: the ATCs, CFLRS, CTC, etc).  It remains to be seen if it will go that way, or if "they" will simply send a battalion over to train....


----------



## Journeyman (20 Nov 2010)

Tow Tripod said:
			
		

> If there was ever a mission where MOD 6 Corporals could be used in the training of recruits this would be it. There is not much difference between the Kabul Military Training Centre and LF WATC,  Meaford or Valcartier. As per I expect the the army will go heavy on the officer side and take a year or two to realize that it really doesn't take that much to train the ANA other than lots of patience.
> With the closing of recruiting for the time being I also suggest that Canadian infantry recruits that are still stuck in PAT platoon go to Kabul to complete their basic infantry course!! (JOKE)


I fixed a small typo you had at the end


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Nov 2010)

Don't we have a hard enough time filling our training centres to prevent troops from sitting on PAT platoon for a year or more, without sending them all on tours?

However, if you're advocating sending Cpls fresh off their PLQ to further their leadership and training abilities, I think that's a great idea. As long as we utilize their experience properly once they return.


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Nov 2010)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Don't we have a hard enough time filling our training centres to prevent troops from sitting on PAT platoon for a year or more, without sending them all on tours?
> 
> However, if you're advocating sending Cpls fresh off their PLQ to further their leadership and training abilities, I think that's a great idea. As long as we utilize their experience properly once they return.


I disagree.  Sending over freshly qualified Jr. NCOs to instruct?  The PAT problem isn't, I think, due to lack of instructors.  But what I meant was taking those in the field force who have experience in the training system.  (No LDA for us in the trianing centres=we're not deployable)


----------



## Franko (21 Nov 2010)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> However, if you're advocating sending Cpls fresh off their PLQ to further their leadership and training abilities, I think that's a great idea. As long as we utilize their experience properly once they return.



The average fresh PLQ qual Cpl these days has *maybe *5 years in at the most. Half of them have a hard time just to make their timings for a small party task.

I wouldn't trust them with a mob of ANA any day of the week.

You need _seasoned _instructors to train effective soldiers.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Nov 2010)

Der Panzerkommandant.... said:
			
		

> You need _seasoned _instructors to train effective soldiers.


Does that mean the system will be vacuuming a s**t load of senior folks from out of the battalions/regiments across Canada to train?  I know we only know the broad strokes right now, but if this is what's going to happen, even though it'll give junior leaders a chance to do more back here, it can't be good for the system overall.


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Nov 2010)

There are seasoned instructors all across the army, regular and reserve.

But let us not forget teaching them how to teach and how to set up a training system.  Or at least a school.  Or at least amplify on the schools we've already set up.


----------



## Tow Tripod (21 Nov 2010)

Puck Chaser, 
WRT sending troops from PAT platoon that was IOT complete basic infantry training know that in 2011 WATC is only on the books to put through one DP1 course.Their is no contingency plan to deal with the troops left in PAT platoon.Like I said it was a joke for them to be sent to Kabul to finish their infantry training there.Wake up!


----------



## PPCLI Guy (21 Nov 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I would offer up MCpls and up, however, and only those with experience in the training system (eg: the ATCs, CFLRS, CTC, etc).  It remains to be seen if it will go that way, or if "they" will simply send a battalion over to train....



"They" need to balance out the competing needs of mission success and crippling an overborne domestic training system.  "They" need to establish a Force Generation model that is sustainable for 3.5 years.  "They" also need to meet unit need / desires to deploy.

I'm willing to bet that "they" will centre mounting of the TF on units tapped for LoO 4.


----------



## Old Sweat (21 Nov 2010)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> "They" need to balance out the competing needs of mission success and crippling an overborne domestic training system.  "They" need to establish a Force Generation model that is sustainable for 3.5 years.  "They" also need to meet unit need / desires to deploy.
> 
> I'm willing to bet that "they" will centre mounting of the TF on units tapped for LoO 4.


You beat me to it. It seems to this geriatric old soldier that the simplest way to do it is to task infantry battalions in turn and augment them as necessary with the other arms and services. The tasked "battle group" will have continuity, cohesion and identity. Where have we seen that done before?

Now, there no doubt will be some playing with the org charts, and maybe the rear party will be heavy in junior ranks, who will be kept busy on courses. 

Down side - the same experienced leaders who have been on multiple tours will be doing another.


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Nov 2010)

I'm just concerned that the troops deployed won't be filled with those in the field force who have experience in the training system, is all.  I mean, if we are there to train, I don't see too many of the rank of Cpl or Pte going over (in training roles, I mean).


Whatever goes will of course have to come from the field force, but considering the role, is CMTC the right place to work them up?  Or should our work up training focus on things such as "Training for Land Operations", the Army Learning Model, etc.  I suspect that we not only would train Afghan soldiers, but also train their trainers, no?


----------



## PPCLI Guy (21 Nov 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Whatever goes will of course have to come from the field force, but considering the role, is CMTC the right place to work them up?  Or should our work up training focus on things such as "Training for Land Operations", the Army Learning Model, etc.  I suspect that we not only would train Afghan soldiers, but also train their trainers, no?



I would suspect that the Trg TF will be mounted as a separate mission.  I also suspect that whichever Area is chosen as Lead Mounting Area will have a plan - it just remains to be seen whether LFDTS and the OTS staff are allowed to provide overly proscriptive D&G.


----------



## Tow Tripod (21 Nov 2010)

Brand new qualified  MOD 6 Cpls and Mcpls would be the best suited for this task. Teaching the ANA is not your typical instructing. I was at KMTC in 2006 and because our training audience was illiterate we did much "instructing by drawing diagrams in the dirt with our Gerber knives and using bottle caps to show section level tasks. While this is and obvious Sgt task most brand new Mcpl could or should be entrusted with this task. Remember this is training not mentoring. Right from the Prime Minister's mouth.


----------



## dogger1936 (21 Nov 2010)

Der Panzerkommandant.... said:
			
		

> The average fresh PLQ qual Cpl these days has *maybe *5 years in at the most. Half of them have a hard time just to make their timings for a small party task.
> 
> I wouldn't trust them with a mob of ANA any day of the week.
> 
> You need _seasoned _instructors to train effective soldiers.



5 years? that soldier must have been forgotten about or was on C&P. Try 3 years right after they got promoted from no hook to cpl advanced. Thats the norm here at the regiment anywho.


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Nov 2010)

Tow Tripod said:
			
		

> Brand new qualified  MOD 6 Cpls and Mcpls would be the best suited for this task. Teaching the ANA is not your typical instructing. I was at KMTC in 2006 and because our training audience was illiterate we did much "instructing by drawing diagrams in the dirt with our Gerber knives and using bottle caps to show section level tasks. While this is and obvious Sgt task most brand new Mcpl could or should be entrusted with this task. Remember this is training not mentoring. Right from the Prime Minister's mouth.


I disagree.  This is Canada's foreign policy about which we're talking.  We need the best and the brightest, with experience, that we can send over there, not non-promoted Cpls.

I agree that part of this is suited for MCpls and Sgts, at the ground level.  But we also have to train their trainers, no?  And that calls for WOs and Sgts to teach their Jr NCOs....and officers to train their officers how to make a training plan...etc.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Nov 2010)

All this training of the ANA and ANP is all well and good. Who's doctrine are they using? Is there a standard laid out amongst ISAF on what, why and how they will learn? Or do we teach what we want, the US what they want, the Brits what they want. Who's students will make the best NCO\ Officers? How will they be promoted\ merited into their new forces? Will you get preference for being trained by a certain country?

What about interoperability amongst solely Afghan units after we say "You're good to go!" and they hook up with a unit from Halmed or Bagram. Who's right, who's in charge, will they follow direction, will they have confidence in a doctrine they weren't taught.
Teaching someone drill, how to maintain and fire a pers weapons and basic fire and movement does not a soldier make. We need to leave there with a cohesive standing military that can rival any other in the region, equipment, resource and tactic wise. They have to be operating with one doctrine and one set of training values.

They need a School of Basic and Advanced Training. Staffed by ISAF pers, form various countries, with a set doctrine that fits their need. They need to graduate trained soldiers on a weekly basis and post them as a whole to various spots around the country, away from their homes with no ties to the community they are posted to.

Training in FOBs and PRTs of piecemeal outfits of locally recruited drug addicts is a bandaid solution that won't survive the first week after the ISAF staff leaves the gate and they are on their own.

If we are going to be serious about training then it need to be done properly.


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Nov 2010)

Now, it's obvious that the training cadre is going to come from the field house.  And I 'get it' that they will have to undergo work up training. In the past, units and sub units went through their paces, culminating in an "event" at CMTC (or wherever).  How's this for an idea:

Those units that are going to be sent over fill up training slots at the schools?  I mean, we (the schools) are supposed to be the "be all, end all" for individual training, so why not?  As far as the Infantry School goes, we are constantly undermanning the staff for courses, and this could be at all rank levels.  

And no, this isn't just a "cheap grab" to fill slots, but by coming to a school, getting the indoc, and supervised by the various company/squadron/battery chains-of-command, then instructors could receive feedback from those who have already been training.  I know that there are many capable instructors out there, but wouldn't it make sense for those who do IT for a living to pass on their skills to those who are about to head over?

Anyway, just a thought.


----------



## dogger1936 (21 Nov 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> All this training of the ANA and ANP is all well and good. Who's doctrine are they using? Is there a standard laid out amongst ISAF on what, why and how they will learn? Or do we teach what we want, the US what they want, the Brits what they want. Who's students will make the best NCO\ Officers? How will they be promoted\ merited into their new forces? Will you get preference for being trained by a certain country?
> 
> What about interoperability amongst solely Afghan units after we say "You're good to go!" and they hook up with a unit from Halmed or Bagram. Who's right, who's in charge, will they follow direction, will they have confidence in a doctrine they weren't taught.
> Teaching someone drill, how to maintain and fire a pers weapons and basic fire and movement does not a soldier make. We need to leave there with a cohesive standing military that can rival any other in the region, equipment, resource and tactic wise. They have to be operating with one doctrine and one set of training values.
> ...





Agreed 100%. unfortunately you and I know the bandaid is where this is all heading.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (22 Nov 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Anyway, just a thought.



Very interesting thought though.

You will, of course, get no credit for said thought when I next bring it up at work.... 8)


----------



## medicineman (22 Nov 2010)

Isn't that the way it works - Capt comes up with idea, runs with it, then passes it up the chain for the cut and paste of signature blocks...oops, sorry, had a flashback to when I was a Pte  ;D.

MM


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Nov 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Now, it's obvious that the training cadre is going to come from the field house.  And I 'get it' that they will have to undergo work up training. In the past, units and sub units went through their paces, culminating in an "event" at CMTC (or wherever).  How's this for an idea:
> 
> Those units that are going to be sent over fill up training slots at the schools?  I mean, we (the schools) are supposed to be the "be all, end all" for individual training, so why not?  As far as the Infantry School goes, we are constantly undermanning the staff for courses, and this could be at all rank levels.
> 
> ...



I think that's a great idea, the culminating event being that they teach either a DP1 course, a BMQ, or a PLQ. It fulfills the Army's desperate need for qualified training staff, and provides an actual useful experience instead of firing blanks at random objects.


----------



## vonGarvin (22 Nov 2010)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Very interesting thought though.
> 
> You will, of course, get no credit for said thought when I next bring it up at work.... 8)



If it works, I'll gladly remain the "silent partner".  It's more important that we do things right, rather than I get a parade.


(I'd get a parade, right?  With flower girls and trumpets and streamers?)  ;D


----------



## Franko (27 Nov 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> If it works, I'll gladly remain the "silent partner".  It's more important that we do things right, rather than I get a parade.
> 
> 
> (I'd get a parade, right?  With flower girls and trumpets and streamers?)  ;D



The only parade you're going to get is this one -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwsntHcWiy4


----------



## Journeyman (27 Nov 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> (I'd get a parade, right?)



"We can't all be heroes because somebody has to sit on the curb and clap as they go by."  ;D

Will Rogers
_US humorist & showman (1879 - 1935) _


----------

