A Hybrid Solution for a Hybrid Threat: Implementing a Variation of the Regimental System

Figure 1. 2 PARA’s victory at Goose Green is attributed to the values of the British regimental system. (Photo by British Army photographer. United Kingdom Crown Copyright. Used by permission)

Figure 2. 2 PARA Soldiers man artillery in the Falklands. (Photo by British Army photographer. United Kingdom Crown Copyright. Used by permission)

In his Jan. 14, 2014, address to the students at National Defense University, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff GEN Martin Dempsey said, “We’ll have to embrace change or risk irrelevance.”¹ This brief, cautionary statement captures the challenges associated with maintaining an agile and effective ground force when combating an amorphous and technologically advanced hybrid threat² with an Army reduced in both size and available resources. In other words, the Army is getting smaller while its mission continues to grow in both scope and complexity.

As GEN Dempsey alluded to, the Army requires a fundamental change at the institutional level if it is to remain globally relevant while coping with the possibility of shrinking to the smallest fighting force since the beginning of World War II.³ Simply stated, the Army needs to identify an approach to focus the limited available resources on optimizing the effectiveness of its brigade combat teams (BCTs). The best way to accomplish this goal is to improve platoon training and reduce the personnel turnover through a stabilized hybrid regimental system.

Army Regulation (AR) 525-29, Army Force Generation, explains that Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN) is “the Army’s core process and a key component of transformation” and cycles brigades through three force pools: reset, train/ready and available.⁴ This process creates “brigade-based combat and support formations of common organizational designs that can be easily packaged to meet the varied demands of [commanders].” In this system during a steady-state rotation, units will spend 27 months in the reset and train/ready pool, followed by nine months in the available pool. If the unit does not deploy during those nine months, it returns to the reset pool and repeats the process.

During the reset phase, units experience a large emigration of Soldiers leaving to attend schools or to fill the needs of the other units further along in the ARFORGEN process. This personnel outflow degrades the unit cohesion built through the previous 27-month training process and requires money to train new Soldiers on mission-essential tasks and new equipment. Both the budget cuts proposed by the Pentagon to meet the 2015 spending cap and force reductions will decrease the resources and Soldiers available to train during this time. Further, 27 months is a relatively short amount of time when compared to other countries’ approaches to building cohesive teams.

Compared to the Soldier rotation associated with the ARFORGEN system, the British regimental system keeps soldiers assigned to the same units and avoids the personnel turbulence associated with the ARFORGEN model. Following the Cardwell-Childress reforms of the 19^th Century, the British army organized itself into regiments based in the regions from which they recruited their members.⁵ Soldiers tended to stay within the same regiments for most of their careers. The regimental system built cohesive teams that enabled England to become a dominant global power up until the mid-20^th Century and conduct expeditionary operations with a small, professional army to the current day.

Counterpoint to ARFORGEN

While a complete restructuring of the Army to implement an exact copy of the British regimental system would fail to yield a benefit that is proportional to the associated challenges, initiating a hybrid model within the current force structure is feasible and will foster unit cohesion, minimize the impact of the reduction of training resources and allow the Army to redirect the money saved in personnel costs to unit training funds. ARFORGEN provides a unit with 27 months to train for a deployment; however, budget cuts will decrease the resources available to build a cohesive team from new Soldiers replacing those former unit members who depart for schools and to meet the Army’s needs. A hybrid regimental system will reduce personnel turbulence within a unit and allow it to maximize the training in a limited resource environment.

This hybrid regimental system will apply only to combat-arms military-occupational specialties. Sustainment and combat-service-support occupational specialties are too diverse and much too prolific throughout every Army duty station, thus making them difficult to arrange in a system such as the one proposed in this article. For example, the military police have the responsibilities of overseeing military correctional facilities, enforcing the law, investigating criminal cases and providing personal-security details. Accordingly, military-police command echelons range from a company to a brigade throughout Army posts, depending on that unit’s mission.⁶

That being said, the hybrid regimental system will offer combat-support and sustainment Soldiers the opportunity to remain within the same BCT if their requests adhere to the Army’s needs. Further, the hybrid regimental system dictates that Soldiers work within the same type of BCT for their entire career (armored, Stryker or infantry) to maximize the technical expertise yielded through constant training with the same type of equipment.

Essentially, the hybrid regimental system will keep a combat-arms Soldier within the same battalion or brigade for about seven to 10 years. Company-grade officers will remain in the same battalion until they complete their company command or key-development assignments. Combat-arms officers will attend their respective captain’s career course and return to their parent battalion following graduation. After completing both their post-command broadening assignment and Command and General Staff College, officers will follow a career path identical to current practices.

Enlisted combat-arms Soldiers will stay within the same battalion until they complete the Advanced Leader’s Course. If possible, noncommissioned officers (NCOs) will have the option of returning to their original duty station following graduation. Upon arriving at their next assignment as a sergeant promotable or staff sergeant, NCOs will remain in that BCT until they retire. Also, NCOs and Soldiers will return to their parent brigade after completing any broadening assignments.

The platoon is a privileged echelon within this system because it provides the greatest level of flexibility in conducting decentralized stability operations or executing battalion-level decisive action. Also, training platoon collective tasks requires fewer resources than training those of larger echelons. In other words, while budget cuts may prevent certain brigades from training at a combat training center, platoons will be able to conduct some form of collective training in a resource-constrained environment at their home station.

Effective platoons also foster mission command because commanders become confident in trusting their subordinates to accomplish a particular mission.⁷ Specifically, effective platoons provide commanders with “the ability to execute multiple related and mutually supporting tasks in different locations at the same time.”⁸ On both the contiguous and non-contiguous battlefield, commanders must be able to trust that their platoons can execute their intent if the Army is going to excel at conducting unified land operations.

For example, Army doctrine recommends that a commander task any element smaller than a platoon to secure a combat outpost.⁹ The effective platoons produced by the hybrid regimental system will support the task-organization concept defined in Chapter 3 of Army Doctrinal Reference Publication (ADRP) 3-0, Unified Land Operations, which allows the Army to “match unit capabilities to the priority assigned to offensive, defensive and stability or defense support of civil authorities task.”¹⁰ Simply stated, a smaller Army with fewer resources can execute the same mission of a larger Army as long as its platoons are effective.

Neuve Chapelle

Many historical examples provide compelling evidence of the regimental system’s potential and justify a reinvestigation of implementing a permutation of the British model. Given the upcoming 100-year anniversary of World War I, it is useful to examine the 2^nd Battalion of the Scottish Rifles Regiment’s actions at Neuve Chapelle March 10-15, 1915, as described by John Baynes in Morale: A Study of Men and Courage.¹¹ The unit cohesion and fighting spirit fostered through years of rigorous training as a team were crucial to the unit’s success. In fact, Baynes believes that had 2^nd Scottish Rifles not trained as an organic team within the regimental system for an extended period of time before Neuve Chapelle, the Germans would have destroyed the battalion within the first two hours of the battle.

In March 1915, Field Marshal Douglas Haig decided to conduct an offensive operation in France’s Artois region to relieve the German pressure on the French army north of the Ypres. The 23^rd Brigade, 2^nd Scottish Rifles’ higher headquarters, was to conduct a penetration to allow follow-on forces to exploit their success. The decisive point for this operation was the seizure of Neuve Chapelle, a critical German advance-supply depot.¹²

At 4 a.m. March 10, 1915, elements of the regiment moved into the forward trenches and waited for the initial field-artillery barrage to destroy the wire obstacles. Unfortunately, the British artillery failed to achieve this effect prior to the regiment’s attack. During the operation’s first minute, small-arms fire killed both the commander and command sergeant major of Company A and fixed the rest of the company in the wire obstacles. Meanwhile, Company B managed to seize a foothold in the German trenches despite suffering atrocious casualties. The battalion commander, LTC Wilfred Bliss, ordered the rest of the battalion to exploit Company B’s success. Simultaneously, the Germans to the north of the battalion reconsolidated and engaged Companies C and D with enfilade fire. Within seconds of this advance, enemy fire killed both Bliss and his adjutant.

Baynes explains that by the time Companies C and D reached the German trenches at 9:30 a.m., “Practically every officer had been killed or wounded, and the NCOs who took their place had to go on memory [of the original operations order].” Worse, enemy fire had killed one out of every three enlisted men by this time. Only two officers, one being the battalion executive officer, were able to continue to lead the advance. Despite these horrendous losses, Baynes remarks, “Time and time again the [chain] of command changed as officers and NCOs were killed. The extraordinary thing is that in spite of all these elements of chaos, the attack continued and retained a certain cohesion.”

By 6:30 p.m., the remaining element of the Scottish Rifles regiment reconsolidated at the brewery on the outskirts of Neuve Chapelle and was “in every way a viable military unit despite being low in strength.” After enemy fire wounded him twice, then-MAJ George Carter-Campbell¹³ continued to lead the attack until the evening of March 14, when the decimated battalion secured the last portion of Neuve Chapelle. They were relieved in place early in the morning of March 15.

Baynes clearly states that 2^nd Scottish Rifles were able to continue the attack because of one key factor originating from the regimental system: trust forged through years of training with the same team. He explains that before Neuve Chapelle, every man spent at least seven years in 2^nd Scottish Rifles. During this time, the men mastered platoon-level tasks through years of demanding training and forged an unbreakable bond of trust with each other. Baynes gives full credit to the regimental system, writing, “I am firmly convinced that if some magic power had been able to show everyone in the battalion what was going to happen to him, and had then given him the option of going away or staying to see the battle through, that only a handful would have left.” Every member of the regiment strove to perform at the maximum level – whether at a rugby match against a rival battalion or during company maneuvers in northern Scotland.

Goose Green

To validate the regimental system’s contemporary relevance, this article will now investigate the Battle of Goose Green during the Falklands War. The 2^nd Battalion of The Parachute Regiment, known as 2 PARA, a force consisting of 690 men, attacked a prepared defense occupied by a numerically superior Argentine force to seize the town of Goose Green May 27-28, 1982. Due to the distance to their objective, 2 PARA left behind their heavy mortars and other crucial equipment. They began their assault at 2:30 a.m. May 28 and seized their objectives spread widely throughout featureless terrain masked in pitch darkness. After the 36-hour battle that spanned 10 kilometers, 2 PARA achieved “a victory that defied all odds: 1,500 prisoners were taken in the battle for Goose Green, and some 55 Argentine personnel were recorded as having been killed with less than 100 wounded” (per the Royal Air Force). Similar to 2^nd Scottish Rifles, 2 PARA lost their battalion commander, LTC Herbert H. Jones,¹⁴ in the battle’s early portion. Despite this loss, 2 PARA was able to maintain a ferocious operational tempo and defeated a numerically superior enemy in the dead of night. One cannot deny that the values of the regimental system as espoused by Baynes played a critical role in 2 PARA’s success.

The 75^th Ranger Regiment, arguably the most elite light-infantry unit in the world, is proof of the regimental system’s effectiveness when instituted within the U.S. Army. Many examples of the Ranger regiment’s effectiveness span from Grenada to Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan. The key to the Ranger regiment’s success lies within its focus on the “The Big Five” (small-unit tactics, mobility, marksmanship, physical training and medical training). The small-unit tactics in this case correspond to the squad and platoon level. Once a Soldier is selected to become part of the Ranger regiment, he is able to stay within the organization until he either decides to leave or is removed by his chain of command. The absence of personnel turbulence allows the Ranger regiment to build a cohesive team that serves as the Army’s premier light-infantry unit.

If the regimental system works so well for 75^th Ranger Regiment, why not institute a more flexible version within the conventional forces of the U.S. Army?

When considering the effectiveness of the regimental system as demonstrated by 2^nd Scottish Rifles during World War I, the reaffirmation of the system’s relevance in the Falkland Islands and the lethality of 75^th Ranger Regiment, the regimental system’s potential is undeniable and serves as a valid solution to maximizing the Army’s effectiveness during these difficult financial times. By implementing a hybridization of the regimental system within the combat arms, the Army can use unit cohesion and effectiveness to mitigate budget cuts and strength reductions from eroding combat power. Just as 2^nd Scottish Rifles was able to seize Neuve Chapelle after suffering 80-percent casualties, a variation of the regimental system will create effective maneuver elements capable of excelling in challenging operating environments by maximizing the available limited resources through cohesive teams built through mutual trust¹⁵ and a mastery of platoon-level tasks. This result is much more beneficial to brigade combat teams than the end state currently offered by the 27-month training period associated with ARFORGEN.

Cohesion and agility

Similar to the difficult mission given to 2^nd Scottish Rifles 99 years ago, the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review demands that the Army of the future “will need to be capable of conducting prompt and sustained land combat as part of large-scale, multi-phase joint and multilateral operations, including post-conflict stability operations that transform battlefield victories into enduring security and prosperity.”

As the Army continues to reduce its size and budget, its mission will continue to gain complexity and become more demanding. If the Army hopes to mitigate the tactical and strategic risks associated with executing the same mission with the smallest force since 1940, the institution must develop cost-effective approaches to maximize the effectiveness of training and developing cohesive teams or risk deploying unprepared units. The hybrid regimental system allows the Army to do exactly that. If something isn’t done, we risk repeating Napoleon’s mistakes during the Peninsular War, in which he reduced the size of the French Army in Spain but did not reduce the scope of the mission.¹⁶

In the Army’s current force structure, combat-arms Soldiers often find themselves rotating between armored, Stryker and infantry BCTs. This transition creates the perpetual need of having to learn the necessary technical skills and unique tactics associated with a type of brigade. Naturally, this situation can degrade the perishable knowledge gained while working with different equipment from a previous organization. New-equipment training programs fail to yield the desired results if Soldiers spend three years in an armored BCT (ABCT) and ultimately move to a Stryker BCT, where they will have to undergo yet another period of instruction on their combat platform and still have the potential of moving to a light organization later in their careers.

In other words, the hybrid regimental system will stop Soldiers from being merely familiar with their equipment and afford them the time needed to master the technology available within a brigade. More importantly, they will become experts on how to use this technology before deployments. A piece of equipment is only as effective as its operator; and if its user only has 27 months and few resources to learn how to use it during operations, the equipment will yield mediocre results.

By remaining in the same organization for an extended time, both Soldiers and their leaders will master unit standard-operating procedures and battle drills. ADRP 7-0, Training Units and Developing Leaders, states, “Effective training and leader development form the cornerstone of operational success. Through training, units, leaders and Soldiers achieve the tactical and technical competence that builds confidence and adaptability.”¹⁷ Echoing this point, Baynes believes that the amount of time 2^nd Scottish Rifles spent training together was critical to their success. Each man served in the battalion’s regimental system for at least seven years before Neuve Chapelle. These men trained on individual and collective tasks until they mastered how to work as a team. In other words, the regimental system developed them into a cohesive unit that refused to let a team member fail.

ADRP 7-0 goes farther to explain that when a unit repeatedly performs a task under varying conditions, it becomes able to “confidently adapt to a new mission or environment.” When considering the trust gained from working as a cohesive unit and the confidence inspired by learning how to successfully complete a task under adverse conditions, we can conclude that the longer a cohesive unit trains together under a variety of conditions, the more efficient it becomes at executing mission orders. As Carl von Clausewitz said, “Constant practice leads to brisk, precise and reliable leadership, reducing natural friction and easing the working of the machine.”¹⁸ Thus, the hybrid regimental system will consistently stabilize combat-arms personnel within a BCT long enough for them to forge effective platoons, which will in turn allow the Army to meet the diverse requirements dictated in the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review.

Yet another compelling reason to implement a hybrid regimental system is the recent regional-alignment-of-forces initiative. It is essential that Soldiers become familiar with the culture and language of their respective operating environments if they are to be successful while conducting unified land operations (ULO) when deployed. GEN Daniel B. Allyn, former commanding general of U.S. Army Forces Command (FORSCOM), states in his training guidance that “[ULO] challenge us to provide a realistic training environment that replicates the complex and uncertain conditions of future battlefields.”¹⁹

By tailoring each division training area to replicate its assigned region with respect to architecture and human context,²⁰ Soldiers will become familiar with navigating a particular culture and build fundamental language skills. This follows the axiom of “training as you fight,” an ingrained theme within the Army’s culture. Furthermore, ADRP 7-0 states that realistic training allows a unit’s leadership to “assess challenges and employ critical thinking to develop sound, create solutions rapidly.” The longer units train in an environment consistent with that of their assigned region, the more effective they will be when they deploy.

Once units master platoon-level tasks and learn to apply them to a particular operating environment, they can provide the Army with cadres of individuals who can train host-nation forces to a higher level of effectiveness.²¹ The cadres’ training will enable them to understand the cultural nuances of a particular host nation and build better relationships with their multinational partners. While conducting defensive support of civil authorities on American soil, these cadres can also impart their expertise to local law enforcement. Further, they will increase the effectiveness of their partnership by being able to share standard-operating procedures honed to perfection through years of training.²²

The hybrid regimental system combats the problem of Soldiers serving in multiple divisions and developing only a cursory understanding of their assigned region before moving to a different organization and having to learn a new culture and language. This is a serious risk of the combination of the ARFORGEN process and the Regional Alignment of Forces Initiative. Understanding a language and culture is a perishable skill. Soldiers are often quick to learn phrases in a local dialect while conducting operations, yet this knowledge rapidly dissipates upon redeployment. By immersing a unit in the same culture in both training and deployment, the Army will benefit from an enhanced level of cultural understanding when units work with their host-nation partners.

Regarding finances, this system will reduce personnel costs and enable the Army to divert the savings into unit training funds. In the FY 2014 Department of Defense budget, the Army requested $1.8 billion to pay for Soldier relocations. This amount accounted for roughly 5 percent of all personnel costs within the Army’s budget request. The hybrid regimental system will reduce the frequency in which Soldiers move during the course of their careers and thus reduce this financial requirement. The Army can redirect the money saved by reducing the number of Soldier moves into unit training budgets.

For example, a combined-arms battalion gunnery costs $2.5 million. Diverting even a portion of the $1.8 billion to training would provide greatly increased training options.²³

Focusing training resources on platoon-level training also requires fewer resources to train than higher echelons and thus mitigates the effects of budget constraints. Units can maximize training time and resources by deploying small units (i.e., companies and below) to a training area while brigades and battalions use mission-command training programs (MCTPs) to streamline staff processes.²⁴ By providing the available training resources to small units, brigades and battalions can avoid the massive logistics and financial requirements needed to deploy entire battalion and brigade headquarters and to make the resource investment necessary for platoons to master their mission-essential tasks.

Finally, the hybrid regimental system not only benefits BCTs, it also provides Army families with a level of unheralded stability. Remaining in one location for large portions of an Army career will add a degree of normalcy to Army family life and enhance Soldier resiliency. Spouses will be no longer have to combat the persistent bias of employers who are hesitant to hire someone who will only work for them for a short time. Children will be able to attend the same schools for most of their primary education and not spend their formative years in a state of perpetual migration.

All these benefits are just a sample of how stability will benefit Soldiers’ families and help them build upon this vital source of resiliency in their lives.

Why system will work

This is not the first argument for the implementation of a form of the regimental system within the Army. Chapter 3 of AR 600-82, The U.S. Army Regimental System, stated that every Soldier must affiliate with a regiment in an attempt to harvest the best concepts of the British regimental system.²⁵ This affiliation served as a discriminator for a Soldier’s future assignments.

However, it ranked ninth out of 10 assignment criteria. The first was the needs of the Army, while a Soldier’s preference ranked tenth. This initiative quickly lost momentum for two reasons: the Army reduced its size in the late 1990s and the Human Resources Command rarely reached the ninth criterion before assigning a Soldier. Further contributing to the demise of changes dictated in AR 600-82 was the simple fact that regiments stationed at unattractive duty stations did not meet the required number of regimental affiliations, thus creating more assignment challenges for branch managers.²⁶

It is important to elaborate on how the hybrid regimental system will not duplicate the failures of AR 600-82. First, it will only apply only to combat-arms Soldiers and not to the entire Army, thus making it more feasibly implemented. Next, the proposed changes would not take effect until the Army decides that it has reached the ideal size for its future mission, thus avoiding a large personnel fluctuation following this program’s inception.

For a counterargument, some would cite David French’s 2008 book, Military Identities: The Regimental System, the British Army and the British People c.1870-2000, where French identifies several weaknesses of the regimental system. He believes that the regimental system produces leaders who are not “sufficiently intelligent and educated [to the extent] that they [can] solve the many unexpected problems that [confront] them on the battlefield.” French argues that when a leader spends his or her entire career within one organization, he or she falls prey to the groupthink of his or her unit. This deficiency creates a bias when selecting solutions to problems by privileging approaches favored by the regiment over new ideas. Oftentimes, those favoring new solutions are considered mavericks, while those who uphold the status quo receive accolades for their loyalty.²⁷

Unlike the British model, the hybrid regimental system would employ broadening assignments and schools to afford leaders a chance to mentally reset in a different environment. The Army’s professional-education system takes place in centralized locations and exposes students to both a multitude of problem-solving techniques and current Army doctrine. This environment provides students with the knowledge necessary to consider different approaches to resolving challenges when they return to their units and will prevent the mental rigidity of unit-approved solutions.

Further preventing groupthink, the hybrid regimental system will relocate officers and NCOs at least once during their careers. They will arrive at their next unit with the knowledge gained from their previous assignment and be able to provide different approaches. This rotation will constantly influence the current unit standard-operating procedures and challenge the formation of group thought within a given organization.

Others would also argue against the regimental system because it lends itself to leaders forming cliques that inhibit fair and unbiased evaluations of their subordinates. A leader’s personal relationship with both subordinates and peers created through years of working with them could create biased evaluations and sow discord throughout the ranks. The perception of the “chosen few” possessing a predestined mandate to lead would deteriorate the performance of those members who feel that they are outside of the elite social circles. Naturally, individuals would fail to see the benefit of pushing themselves or their subordinates to perform at a high level if they believe that a peer will receive a better evaluation given that person’s personal relationship with their rater and senior rater.

The hybrid regimental system can rectify this problem in several ways. Leader rotation, both within and outside of a unit, will provide subordinates new raters and senior raters and will sever personal relationships endemic to the British regimental system. To further combat evaluation bias, broadening assignment and academic evaluations will play a greater role in command selection and promotion boards. These evaluations provide the best approach to combating rater prejudice by providing officers and NCOs an opportunity for a neutral party to evaluate their performance. Also, AR 623-3, The Evaluation Reporting System, states that Soldiers have the right to appeal an evaluation they believe is “incorrect, inaccurate or in violation of the intent of [the] regulation.”²⁸ Finally, the Army can use 360 evaluations of senior leaders within a unit to ensure that the hybrid regimental system avoids problems with cliques and toxic leaders.

Conclusion

In closing, the hybrid regimental system is the solution to maintain the Army’s efficiency and effectiveness while providing for the common defense with a drastically reduced force. Granted, implementing such a system will be an extensive administrative task. The ripple effects of such an implementation will affect regulations, doctrine and policies. That being said, we as leaders have the responsibility to ask ourselves the following question: Would we rather face difficulty in the administrative realm, or prefer to face the challenges in combat when we send our nation’s sons and daughters to fight without setting the conditions for mission accomplishment?

Recent arguments claim that our technological advantage will offset the reduction in force. This platitude abates our angst until we face one crucial fact – technology is only as effective as the Soldier who operates the equipment. The Army can provide Soldiers with the most advanced equipment possible; however, that equipment is worthless unless Soldiers have the training to maximize its use while their leaders understand how to implement it into an operation. Putting Soldiers in stable and cohesive units will give them the time and resources to conduct the training they need.

Restating GEN Dempsey’s statement, we must embrace change or face becoming irrelevant in the world. While Army leaders cannot control what happens in the world, they can influence the quality of force they deploy to the modern operating environment. Technology will not ultimately decide future conflicts. Well-trained Soldiers and competent leaders in a hybrid regimental system will.

Notes