We're the Military and Airpower Guys of Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online + a stray we found wandering around looking lost. All original material JHD, BHD, JR, WT, and KA 2003-2010 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2004/12/slaughter_of_the_regiments.html Fri, 06 Jan 2012 18:57:06 Z Movable Type 4.12 en Copyright 2012 http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification In a previous post, I talked about the Perils of Transformation for the people trying to implement it, and those going through it. In the case of the British Army, with it's long and storied history, the contraction inherent in trying to shift from an Army designed to fight battles of attrition to an Army designed to fight battles of maneuver is particularly painful, as there are more regiments with long and distinguished histories than there are companies of infantry to assign the lineages to. The US Army has had similar experiences, but as I noted in the previous bit,... http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2004/12/slaughter_of_the_regiments.html http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2004/12/slaughter_of_the_regiments.html Mon, 20 Dec 2004 07:17:31 -0600 Excellent! And I think you hit right at the heart of things. Leadership aside (since its need is a given, really), the history does matter, even if it's only an imagined understanding. The unit history does makes a difference, especially if it is a storied one! Knowing the history gives a soldier something to compare himself with, something to push himself forward with; it gives him that little extra umph of pride that comes from knowing he is standing where so many others have stood. And the desire to not let those others down, to live up to the history. To anyone who has never been in a line unit in the Army, this may seem like so much nonsense, especially since we do indeed deactivate and reactivate units almost at random, folding flags and shipping them and the unit museum holdings elsewhere, where a new unit gets to be proud of the history. It must seem so false and pretentious to some, but even so, it is not. I can tell you how it was from experience. I was in the 13th Armor, in the 1st Cavalry Division. The 13th was an old Cav unit that had helped chase Poncho Via around. It was no big deal, but then I read some of the unit history, and that made me feel like maybe the unit crest stood for something. Of course, I was not conscious of this until 1974 when the Army moved the 13th to Germany and we became the 1st Bn, 7th US Cavalry -- Garryowen, Sir! Can you imagine?! I was now a member of the most famous Cavalry unit in old west history. Custer's of course, but there was a lot more we learned (forced to, in fact, by a 7th Cav history buff named Major Osborne--a British Army exchange officer who was our acting Bn XO). And so when I put on my Class As, I was wearing that big yellow patch, a black beret (that's what armor folks wore in the 1st Cav), Armor brass, and 7th Cav unit crests. In fatigues we got to wear the leather belt with a 7th Cav buckle! Regardless of the reality, when I put that stuff on, I was part of a long line of soldiers who had worn the same things, and I strutted with the best of them. And more to the point, it felt better to be in the 7th Cav than it had to be in the 13th. I know full well that's silly, but it was true anyway. I never bragged about being in the 13th, but I sure did about being in the 7th. It may have been the naiveté of youth, but that's who fights our wars, isn't it? History matters! And that's only half of it, really, because even today, when I see pictures of soldiers at war wearing 1st Cav, 25th Div, or especially 1AD patches (where I served 6 years), I feel a little closer to them. I was them, in some small way, and it helps. And more important, it makes me proud to see them carry on the good name of the unit. Again, I know all this may seem silly to those who've never been in the Army, but there it is. And I cannot even imagine what it must be like to be a soldier or veteran of the Black Watch! Or the Household Cavalry's Life Guards or Blues and Royals! Or the Coldstream Guards!!! Just the names give me shivers. And now THAT would be something to brag on, wouldn't it. -SangerM http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2004/12/slaughter_of_the_regiments.html#comment-10571 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2004/12/slaughter_of_the_regiments.html#comment-10571 Mon, 20 Dec 2004 13:27:02 -0600 So let me get this straight - there is still going to be a net reduction in the number of infantry? Did peace break out and I didn't get the memo? It is one thing to reorganize - but it is another to reduce troop levels in wartime. I realize it is only 1500 men - now. How many later? Britain is our only ally to commit large numbers of troops, and they continue to make cuts to their military. (Remember what they intend to do with their navy?) http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2004/12/slaughter_of_the_regiments.html#comment-10567 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2004/12/slaughter_of_the_regiments.html#comment-10567 Mon, 20 Dec 2004 10:06:27 -0600