Training While Deployed: Lessons for a Garrison Environment
By: MAJ Jake Conrad and CPT John Formica
“We don’t rise to the level of our expectations; we fall to the level of our training.”
Archilocus
When junior Army leaders hear the word “training,” it often evokes painful images of bureaucratic obstacles such as Range Control restrictions, Unit Movement Operations (UMO) requirements, and Defense Training Management System (DTMS) updates. Conversely, the words “combat deployment” conjure thoughts of tactical imperatives like mission requirements, lethality, and readiness. Unless there is an imminent deployment on the training calendar, junior Officers and Non-Commissioned Officers tend to fixate on bureaucratic restrictions instead of improving readiness. This results in a perceived divorce between garrison training and combat operations. Our Troop’s overseas deployment provides some key takeaways on best practices for fighting these misconceptions while conducting garrison training.
We deployed to northern Iraq in 2018 during a time of transition. The Iraqi Coalition had retaken Mosul and ISIS strongholds had been shattered across the country. In response, US forces dropped the “accompany” aspect of the advise and assist role, relegating our formations to fixed-site security. This mission consisted of manning perimeter towers, operating entry control points, and fulfilling quick reaction force requirements. While this may sound exciting, for the average Soldier it equated to 8-12 hour daily shifts performing the same important, albeit mundane, tasks. As the Troop’s leadership, we struggled to combat complacency – so, we turned to training.
Just as in garrison, three obstacles were immediately apparent: land, ammo, and time. Our Troop was stationed at a small airfield in northern Iraq. ISIS had completely destroyed the airbase, and as a result, coalition forces and the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) only occupied a fraction of it. On the east side of the airstrip were a few kilometers of open terrain, overgrown and filled with rubble. This area provided a suitable amount of land to build a functional area for small unit maneuver live fires. After a few weeks of effort, a sizable piece of terrain that we dubbed the Nomad multi-purpose range complex (MPRC) was ready. Surprisingly, acquiring training ammunition was no issue. The airstrip had been a staging area for the US and ISF before the Summer 2017 push to retake Mosul. It had a large ammunition holding area filled with an abundance of training dedicated training munitions. Platoons rotated security responsibilities monthly, and while serving as quick reaction forces, simultaneously executed training. This strategy afforded a 30-day dedicated training progression, graduating from individual qualification ranges to day and night dismounted section live fire lanes. After redeploying back to the states, we reflected on three lessons learned from our time spent training overseas.
Training Should Not be a Paint-By-Numbers Affair
In a garrison environment, range control is a necessary evil. It reduces risk, deconflicts organizational efforts, and maintains infrastructure. However, it also caters to the lowest common denominator. For leaders, planning training has turned into a paint by numbers affair. Surface danger zones are already drawn, firing boxes are mandated, and Soldiers are at the mercy of the range inspectors and the target operators. When we arrived in Iraq, there was no range control, let alone a range. As leaders, we were able to build our training exercises from the ground up. This provided some challenges, but it presented even more opportunities. By cutting out the bureaucracy, we were able to focus purely on honing lethality. Gone were the numerous potential distractors: mandatory cold times, range sign-on and clearing process, and coordination with the ammunition supply point. Instead, we were able to focus solely on building tough realistic training scenarios while efficiently maximizing Soldier time. While this level of autonomy is not possible in a garrison environment, the lesson is still applicable. As leaders, we must be competent enough to safely execute training within our formations. If Range Control did not exist, how would we safely plan and execute live fire events? This is our responsibility.
Reinventing the Wheel is Okay
To realize our goal of maneuver live fires, leaders had to innovate. Resources were ample, space was abundant, and Soldiers were made available, but outside of berms and rubble, the MPRC was indistinguishable from a desert. Our greatest challenge was developing functional targetry and formulating a scheme of maneuver. Based on a shared understanding of the training objectives, the platoons worked together to develop solutions. With a bit of ingenuity, static and dynamic targets were constructed. Single silhouettes took up positions in the rubble, two-silhouette MG teams laid in bunkers, and three-silhouette teams were manually pulled up using detonation cord (desert mice had eaten away at 550 cord in previous trials). For the night iterations, Chemlights served as indicators of enemy positions. Out of a desert and rubble, we constructed a two square kilometer range. Our leadership accomplished this by getting creative. Live fire exercises are one of the few times where Soldiers truly feel like warriors. Amidst weeks of motorpool Mondays, inventory layouts, and readiness tasks, that instinctual fire burns low. Repetitive, and unoriginal training scenarios can quickly disinterest Soldiers. “Don’t reinvent the wheel” is the advice given to every young leader upon being told to plan and execute training. Most offices and computers are littered with binders and gigabytes of operational concepts and orders detailing how each training event has been conducted since the current Battalion Commander was a Platoon Leader. In choosing the safety of the familiar, junior Officers and Non-Commissioned Officers condemn their Soldiers to outdated and mundane training. As leaders we are told what to train, but we are not told how to train. A Section live fire can be conducted in innumerable ways using the same range and the same targets, so why do we typically do it the same way each time? It’s okay to reinvent the wheel if it results in safely trained Soldiers, and developed leaders.
Remain Grounded in Doctrine
Leadership turnover seems to occur prior to any deployment. In our case, three of the four Platoon Leaders had been in position for less than a month before we arrived in Iraq. Nearly half of the Troop’s junior Officers and Non-Commissioned Officers had not participated in any of the garrison training rotation. Although we were all deployed together, the leadership had never trained together. To begin moving in the right direction, we turned to Army doctrine. Leaders relied on Army Doctrine Publication (ADP) 7-0 to provide the concepts for how to train, and Army Doctrine Reference Publication (ADRP) 7-0 and the Army Training Network (ATN) to flesh out the details on these concepts. We hosted leadership development sessions discussing unit training management, navigating ATN, and constructing small arms ranges. Platoon Leaders developed personalized individual and collective training schedules from scratch. Weekly training meetings were implemented emphasizing the 8 Step Training Model. With a small and achievable training plan, and no outside resource dependencies, we were able to train sections and develop leaders to our standard and at our pace. Instead of drowning in a condensed and hectic training rotation, we had the opportunity to slow down the process. This allowed junior leaders to witness the fruits of their labor and see training management in action. At times, this effect had been lost in the train-up for our deployment. Often, we jumped from one event to the next, barely completing key tasks and flying by the seat of our pants. In garrison, we could have done better. Leaders must provide and protect the time necessary to focus on executing training well, instead of just going through the motions. This provides better development for junior leaders and Soldiers, as well as making the process that much more satisfying.
Final Thoughts
“Difficulties are meant to rouse, not discourage. The human spirit is to grow strong by conflict.”
William Ellery Channing
As leaders, we are entrusted to prepare our formations for combat, to fight and win our Nation’s wars. Whether operating in a garrison or a deployed environment, planning and executing tough and realistic training poses unique challenges. Our overseas deployment provided clarity on mistakes we made during our preparatory training cycle. Oftentimes, “checking the block” or “going through the motions” provides the easiest route to managing the limited time and resources available in a garrison environment. However, this is a disservice to our Soldiers and our profession. It is all too easy to become fixated on bureaucratic constraints or training distractors. As leaders, we must overcome these obstacles and remain committed to improving our formations.
About the Authors
Jake Conrad is an active duty Army Armor officer serving as a Joint Chiefs of Staff Intern at the Pentagon.
John Formica is an active duty Army Armor officer serving as an assistant professor of military science at Norfolk State University.