Interesting article, however, in this statement the author completely misses the big picture. His assumption seems to be missions happen at the cost of training. Somebody should tell him, there is no better training than actually doing the work. It's akin to saying a pilot is losing training effectiveness by actually flying the plane instead of sitting in a trainer!
res- Training is a key component of readiness, and frequent missions cause the armed forces to reduce training schedules.
The lessons the military is learning everyday fighting this war on terror is having profound positive effects on readiness. The tactics, the integration of the various services, the logistical movement of equipment and personnel, and a thousand other things large and small are being improved daily. War gives the military an "urgency to change" and improve. And nothing helps future readiness more than a large bureaucracy emboldened to change and improve.
I also think all the guff Rumsfeld is getting about the equipment not being in place is a good thing. Because, the butt sharks who work for him (all large hiearchical designed organizations have them), have probably never been more motivated to make the logistical train accountable to the end user than now. When a single soldier asking a question can spark such embarrassment, (granted it was planted), you better believe those guys are moving better to meet the needs of the troops in the field.
I've noticed a small change already in the way the troops are cared for as they travel through Space A terminals. Now, those busses are waiting for them when they hop off the plane, those room keys are ready to be handed out to them, and the people in the terminals go a little more out of their way to make them comfortable while they wait for the next flight.
I could be wrong, but I see allot of these things linked. |
