I made an earlier comment in this thread about the pitfalls of training Soldiers on tasks rather than training them to be able to function in any situation. Here is what I stated (08:59 AM on 12/06/2009)...

The argument that I and many others have been making is that we need to stop gearing training towards the flavor of the year because it leaves us unprepared for the next war. Rather than expecting so little of our Soldiers and assuming that we'll confuse them if we expect them to become professional Soldiers, we need to start training them in the profession, not in a list of skills. The industrial age has passed. Mass production of Soldiers with a few essential skills will no longer cut it. We cannot pick and choose which skills are important and then focus on those. We need professionals who can adapt to the unexpected. Our kids are smart enough and will rise to the occasion if we demand it of them.

I really could not think of a better way to word it. But, someone else has. I just saw this over at SWJ, posted by the Wise Old Dinosaur Ken White...

You want an outcome, not a task completed but a number of tasks melded together (and some of which may prove completely unnecessary in a particular building or situation...) to create that outcome...
I do not agree with retaining task condition and standard because the system allows -- even forces -- trainers to be lazy. It does not provide the objective evaluation of training status that it was 'designed' or purports to do. The system has some merit for training a large conscript Army so should be put on the shelf as a mobilization technique but it is totally inappropriate for a relatively small professional Army full of smart kids.

I don't know if he read my comment and worded it better (probably not as he's been bashing task-condition-standard for much longer than I have), but what he wrote is what I was attempting to convey.