Military Review English Edition November-December 2014 | Page 36

a consensus regarding the inability of the BFSB to satisfy their reconnaissance and security requirements.22 They sought a combined arms organization capable of obtaining and evaluating information through direct interaction with a threat or civilian populace, possessing the means to fight for it if necessary. Its security role was summarized as “to provide early warning, identify opportunities, and prevent premature deployment of main body formations.”23 In essence, these Army leaders sought a more robust organization capable of operations in a complicated and chaotic battlefield environment against a variety of threats. The crafting of an effective reconnaissance and security brigade organization provides the stimulus and justification for restoring traditional security missions to reconnaissance doctrine. The planned brigades are intended to operate as part of early entry and forcible entry operations. Unlike the BFSB, they will possess combat power combined with information collection and assessment capabilities. They are intended to operate forward and in close proximity to hostile forces, achieving their objectives through combat if necessary. The new brigade must be imbued with the mindset and experiences of a cavalry organization. To achieve this and leverage fully their capabilities requires coherent doctrine that restores the clear linkage between security and reconnaissance missions. The two are not mutually exclusive, but interwoven. Reconnaissance by its nature provides information and early warning of threats to help prevent the parent force from being surprised, a point expressed in manuals such as FM 17-97: “Reconnaissance keeps the follow-on force from being surprised or interrupted, and protects it against losing soldiers and equipment on the way to the objective.”24 Indeed, “even during security missions that involve fighting the enemy, the scouts’ primary task remains gathering information.”25 This relationship flows naturally from the forward and mobile presence of cavalry on the battlefield. For the planned reconnaissance and security brigades, doctrine must provide the guidance for active screen, guard, and cover missions. These missions must become part of the unit METLs and become central to their training. Continuing to ignore such missions or lump them into the general categories of area security and force protection will hamstring the new organizations before they are fielded, with a concomitant 34 impact on cavalry squadrons and the new standard scout platoons. Units will be called on to execute these missions with or without doctrinal coverage. The difference is that a reconnaissance and security unit with no experience, understanding, or training in screen, guard, and cover missions will do so at a considerable cost in men, materiel, and time. Alternately, scouts will simply not perform these security missions, endangering themselves and their parent organizations. The first decisive action training environment rotation conducted at the National Training Center in March 2012 included the execution of an offensive mission by an armored BCT. The unit’s reconnaissance squadron ably supported this operation, but upon its conclusion failed to transition into a security mission. The opposing force exploited the absence of a screen line and related active security measures to inflict heavy losses on the BCT and its tactical operations center. Analysis of this defeat underscored the critical linkage between reconnaissance and security: Reconnaissance squadrons must set conditions for future operations. There is no rest for the weary. The squadron, although significantly fatigued following the reconnaissance phase of the ABCT [armored brigade combat team] operation, should have transitioned immediately to provide security for the ABCT, allowing the rest of the brigade to prepare for future operations.26 The Army currently retains soldiers of all ranks with experience and knowledge of how to execute screen, guard, and cover missions. This knowledge base will not remain in the Army indefinitely, but it can be tapped now to end the doctrinal dispersion of security. A doctrinal reset is necessary to ensure that time-proven cavalry missions and principles are retained and readily accessible to every commander, staff officer, noncommissioned officer, and soldier without undertaking an exhaustive literature search. Conversely, surveillance needs to return to its proper role as a subordinate, enabling function. These measures will ensure that reconnaissance and security organizations possess the doctrinal tools necessary to achieve success on the next battlefield and avoid self-inflicted capability failure before the first shot of the next conflict is fired. Scouts out! November-December 2014  MILITARY REVIEW