Counterinsurgency ain't for amateurs, students discover

Major Shawn Tabankin was leading a platoon in Iraq in 2004 when a bomb exploded under his vehicle. "It sounded like being in the worst car accident ever," he says. But he was soon back on the streets, patrolling, searching for explosives, and conducting house-to-house sweeps. He also served in Afghanistan in 2011, advising police on defense against Taliban attacks.

But this October, Tabankin was in friendlier territory: a gym in Skidmore's Williamson Sports Center. He and veteran staff sergeants Nate Williams and Thomas Myers were invited by government professor Yelena Biberman-Ocakli to run her "States, Rebels, and Warlords" students through a battle drill to understand ground fighting on a tactical level, as well as host a Q&A session regarding stability operations.

About a dozen students formed a traditional squad led by Williams, the other led by Myers. Once briefed and organized, they engaged in a mock battle: the squad is en route to a meeting when insurgents open fire on them.

The exercise gave students "a small taste of the difficulties of being an infantryman," says Tabankin, recipient of a Bronze Star and Purple Heart. "It's not 'Call of Duty' on PlayStation 4. It's a technical job that requires an incredible amount of teamwork . . . to shoot, move, and communicate effectively."

In a follow-up class discussion, a student said, "I didn't realize how calculated ground troops can be. They have protocols and are extremely strategic." As Tabankin, explained, "Down at the squad level, you see how tough it is, even without an enemy presence. It's a team sport. It really is." And like sports teams, the US military relies on playbooks. "There's an intentionality to it," says Biberman-Ocakli. "And this was just one exercise—combat troops learn dozens of them."

Several students were struck by the notion of obeying orders, no questions asked. "What if you disagree about the strategy?" asked one. Tabankin emphasized, "We don't design our configuration. Some office person at the Pentagon does that. We just deal with what we are given."

Or not given: all three veterans discussed how difficult it can be to serve in an "incomplete unit" in a conflict area, or to deal with troop withdrawals that they feel can diminish their capacity to safely get the job done. It's what Biberman-Ocakli called a "civil-military divide."

The biggest lesson for students was discomfort with the reality of warfare—killing and being killed. Could they do it? Would they do it? "It was crazy to hear one of the veterans say that if they encountered sleeping terrorists they would definitely kill them," said a student.

Another was troubled by her involuntary actions during the simulation. "It was weird how I instinctively pointed my finger at another student as if it was a gun," she said. "Where does that come from?"

Biberman-Ocakli hopes that the experience gave students greater context and insight into the hows and whys of military policies and of their success or failure.