Companies, platoons and even squads are often deployed alone to remote combat outposts as we wage the counterinsurgency fight. This tactic increases our interaction with local nationals and thus helps us to separate the enemy from the populace. But have we gone too far? Are we stretching ourselves so thin in our efforts to secure remote locations that we are accepting too much risk? Are we presenting the enemy with achievable targets? Listen in as experienced company level leaders talk about their views on the topic.
Much more at Army Magazine.
Comments
Extremely bad question by <i>Army</i> magazine. Shockingly so, in fact.
Size is not the issue; securing remote locations should never be a goal; risk is inherent in combat. Thats the type of question one would expect from the main stream media, not from a professional journal.
Fortunately, the Company Commanders who responded did far better than the Editors. Niel Smith opened well -- METT-TC determines -- and James Bithorn closed well:<blockquote>I feel that as an army, we have gotten extremely far from this and have accepted a quickly emplaced HESCO perimeter
as proper security. Lets not fool ourselves. <b>Pay attention to the doctrine weve been taught, remembering that it all still applies in some form in the contemporary operating environment</b>...Remember that a graphic symbol on a map does not always reflect reality!(emphasis added / kw)</blockquote>
In fairness to the magazine; they also ended well <i>"As with so many issues confronting company-level leaders, there is no "right" answer to this question."</i>
True; though I submit an honest appreciation METT-TC will invariably give an indication of what's acceptable. Not right, militarily acceptable...