U.S. Department of Defense research has uncovered some interesting aspects of military operations conducted during the last few years. The most useful finding was that it was the skill and training of American troops that accounted for most of their success. Adding more technology did not increase the success of U.S. troops as much as expected, because most of the existing success was due to high skill levels and, all-too-often, low skill levels among the opposition. This was the case in Afghanistan and Iraq, and in counter-terrorism efforts around the world. The media has not picked up on this, because your average journalist does not realize how important high skill levels are in military success.
In 1997, I wrote about the lessons for the US Army from Iraq's initial invasion of Iran in 1980. In one part I concluded:
Iraq's failings highlight the advantages the United States Army derives from its modern equipment and realistic training. Although there appears to be a consensus among military strategists and policy-makes that the United States must maintain its technological edge, the troops must be trianed and motivated to take advantage of that technology. The critical advantages provided by highly trained soldiers with good morale are not easily quantifiable in peacetime. The lack of quality becomes quantifiable, indirectly, when one counts the burned-out armored vehicles of an army whose troops do not know how to use their equipment and who lacked the will to fight on in adversity.
The importance of this invisible edge that the United States Army works hard to maintain cannot be overestimated. The disasters that can follow from incorrectly believing you have a trained army are appalling.
I'm glad the Army is researching this. I'd take good soldiers with mediocre equipment over poor soldiers lugging around bells and whistles any damn day of the week.
We win because of our soldiers (and Marines and sailors and airmen), not the gear they fight with.
