Army leaders say [the new Expert Soldier Badge] is equivalent to the prestigious Expert Infantry Badge and Expert Field Medical Badge tests.
"This is about excellence. ... This is about being an expert," Command Sgt. Maj. Timothy Guden, CSM for Training and Doctrine Command, said during the award ceremony. "I am going to be completely honest with you: For the past 15 years or so, we have been OK with mediocrity. We have been OK with just, like, going wherever the Army pushes us and floating around like a piece of Styrofoam on the current."
The Army's soldiers need to be better tactically. Because eventually the past focus on marksmanship will be eroded by technology, and training will be our fallback edge. As I wrote about developing shooting technology on the USNI Blog:
The U.S. Marine Corps proudly says every Marine is a rifleman. But what happens if even enemy insurgents and militia fighters are just as accurate? New technologies are hastening that day of reckoning. Marines must cope by developing new training priorities, technology, and tactics to maintain their competitive advantage.
This applies to the Army, too, of course.
I am confused by an Army effort to equip support troops with smart rifles. Sure, the support troops could use this. They can defend themselves while maintaining their focus on their primary support duties. Which proves my point, no? To me, the combat troops should have priority on those rifles in order to refocus soldier training from marksmanship to tactical training.
Yes, it is good that Army squad firepower is getting better:
[Even] as the Army puts better optics, ammo and weapons into the hands of soldiers, it’s also looking for a way to move ahead of those systems being fielded. There are efforts to place a renewed focus on the individual soldier and squad, seeing even the smallest unit of firepower as worthy of investment in training, employment and hardware.
But technology should be what makes that added firepower accurate and allow the Army to focus on tactics.
