- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
But you got to admit you are dressing up 'old ideas' in new clothes.
Ahhh, that's better.
Yes, my ideas are - to an extent - old ones. However, I'm going by the adage "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Moreover, I should think that provision of attack aviation, medium lift, new guns, UAVs, 4th rifle companies, a Special Operations group, leasing of aircraft, etc., etc.. is hardly "old think", although others have said the same thing before.
If you're looking for a complete restructure as was attempted with the DFS Regiment, I don't feel that we have such a significant problem with Army structure that the abandonment of current battalion-level institutions is required. In fact, I often think that we're engaging in restructure initiatives just to be seen to be doing something, rather than attempt to find real solutions to tactical problems. The DFS Regiment (IMHO) is a perfect example - unusable in any rational tactical sense. I've personally seen no evidence that the traditional structures (battalions, regiments, etc.) are incapable of operating in the current tactical enviornment - if properly resourced and trained. The Brits seem to do pretty well. Again, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. In Canada, we often attempt to "fix" things by rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic rather than address the underlying problem - the provision of adequate resources. Sort that out and I suspect you'll find that the Army functions pretty well.
Cheers,
TR