With respect, I understand many people viewed that one training event with skepticism. I&#x27;m not going to try and change your mind. I would, however, like to address the idea that &quot;training for training&#x27;s sake&quot; has no value.<p>Tough, frequent, realistic training is exactly what is required to keep certain parts of the military prepared. I&#x27;m not talking about logisticians or acquisitions types. Personnel turnover is a problem. People must learn how to work together. For people like you and I, we have the opportunity to learn to work with our coworkers... every day! In the military, a service member only really learns how to work with their coworkers during these kinds of exercises. When it&#x27;s cold. When it&#x27;s dark. When everyone is tired and hungry.<p>You&#x27;ve also suggested that &quot;the military has the tactics and hardware to engage in urban settings down pat&quot; ... and you&#x27;re absolutely correct. Senior personnel have lessons learned. Those lessons are captured in various documents. However, much like a start-up, execution is everything. The execution comes from personnel who typically have just a few years experience. There is an enormous amount of knowledge which must be transferred in a short period of time. These training events are how the lessons and doctrine are shared with those junior leaders. Classroom instruction is <i>not</i> sufficient.<p>Finally, I will disagree that the training event was &quot;odd in it&#x27;s conception.&quot; Certain parts of the military perform these kinds of exercises regularly. The only part of this exercise which was odd was the amount of attention it garnered.