PBI - What does IMHO stand for?
"In My Humble Opinion"
I still stand by my belief in the differences in the quality of individual that the Canadian Army tends to get.
I guess it depends on what you have seen, because I also stand by my assertion.
On inspection of some of the kit (Catheters, etc) it is quick to see that it is beyond the capabilities of the basic first aid soldier that Canada has. So do we adjust that level of trg and if so where do we do this? BMQ, SQ (whoops that will be gone soon), DP1? We must conduct a close inspection of what we ask the individual trg system to do. While some lessons learned would be nice to have, we can only teach so much in individual trg and the slack will have to be incorporated into collective trg.
You may recall that about ten years ago, as the op tempo started to go up and we began to go on more missions where people were shooting, getting shot at, and becoming casualties, that the Cbt A realized that our largely "work place"-oriented civvy-type first aid training, and our hopeless little first aid kits, were both inadequate. Recommendations were made to start combat first aid training, and to begin training a few "combat lifesavers" in each section. I know this because our battalion (1 PPCLI) made these same recommendations as a result of our experiences on Op HARMONY Roto 04. The training was intended to be inserted into TMST, but we recognized that it needed to be a part of the elementary training of all soldiers. It was achievable, and I know that on later missions soldiers were trained to start IVs and administer morphine. During my recent tour in Afghanistan, when I interviewed tactical leaders in the US Inf bns in TF THUNDER (USMC, USARNG and Active Army) I got a resounding reinforcement of this training need. One of the battalions stated they trained several soldiers in each platoon to EMT level. This is not a new lesson learned but it is a vital one and one that we can achieve.
The lessons learned in Iraq are good for the type of army that the US has now. Will these lessons be applicable in the future operations that the Canadian Army will be operating in? Is OIF the type of operation that the CLS has outlined that we will be involved in the future? Should we focus on Afghani lessons learned more so than others. There are lots of armies with experience in Iraq - Brits, Poles etc are any of these armies closer to our nature?
We don't confine ourselves to looking at OIF: we study OEF as well. But, even if we did confine ourselves to OIF, the US forces there are engaged in such a wide range of operations that there is much to be learned. Unless we are going to restrict ourselves solely to benign, low-risk Ch VI type ops in future (certainly not the message the CDS or CLS are passing on...) then perhaps we could dismiss the US LL by saying they are an Army "unlike ourselves". I do not think this will be the case, and I definitely do not believe that these differences, whatever you perceive them to be, are so outstanding that they negate the value of US experience. I suspect you may have a bit of a stereotyped view of the US Army: I believe that at the tactical level they have become far more adaptive, flexible and much better users of initiative than we have traditionally been willing to give them credit for.
How do we know that our individual trg is lacking and requires changing?
By constantly paying attention to the LL of armies actually engaged in all types of operations, then adopting those LLs that we think are valid. If our trg doesn't already impart those things that we feel we need, then it's obviously inadequate. I guarantee you that while our indiv trg has traditionally been one of our strengths, we do not have a corner on good IT techniques nor training support systems. The US already led us in some areas, and is learning quickly in others.
Cheers.
.
