|
dritalin -> RE: If this wars for oil, WHY ARE OIL $$ UP?!?!? (12/1/2007 5:39:47 PM)
|
Calm, let me explain some of the history of why US soldiers act how they do...
In World War II America was thrown into a world conflict primarily against Germany, Italy, and Japan. In order to dominate these conflicts the US millitary developed an effective strategy and mindset for defeating convential armies (conventional meaning Tanks, Battleships, soldiers in uniforms organized into Battallions, and so forth.) There were battle lines and we knew who the enemy was, and where they were. America was not only able to defend itself, but also able to liberate England, France, Belgium, Poland, and all of Europe, as well as China, Burma, the Phillipines, and the entire Asia Pacific region. This is how we acheived the so called "superpower" status. The next conflict that lay on our doorsteps was the incursion of Communism. So to combat communism we developed mass armies and prepared for a war on the Eurpopean battlefield. What we got instead was a communist insurgency in Vietnam.
What we did in Vietnam was wrong, but with the former context understandable. We went into an insurgency (which is largely political) with a conventional army. Because of completely unimaginative beurocrats many intelligent people were suppressed and any bennificiall learning that could have changed policy and led to a victory.
When the North Vietcong defeated the US, we returned home to lick our wounds and the Military lost much of it's prestige as both a fighting force and the political bulwarts of American Noblesque Oblige (do gooder..ness). This had lead to two key changes in the military that lead to the army that we have today. A) Congress stoped the draft and converted to Army into an all vollunteer army. Meaning that everyone in the US military made the decision to join, and was not legally forced to. and B) Many of the ranking officers retired or otherwise left the armed forces. What happened was there became a more eager, highly trained and ready for change military.
In the early ninetees when Saddam invaded Kuwait the US was asked with a coalition to intervene. The ground conflict lasted 100 hours and was a display of American strength in conventional warfare. When America returned to the Gulf in 2003 to oust Saddam the military prepared for a repeat of the 1991 conflict. The US quickly defeat Saddams army, but was not prepared for the insurgency that soon developed.
This is where the US military of today differs from the US military of Vietnam. When the chips were down and the insurgency stong (in late 06 Military intelligence and the leading generals declared Andar lost to Al-queada) the US military changed it's tactics. The command was changed to General Patraeus, who worked fervently to develope a countersisurgency doctrine. The US military set up a training center in Iraq for COIN (counter insurgency) training, where the emphasis was on dealing with the local leaders. Few conventional armies in the history of the world have developed this approach to war fighting, with Britain being a stalwart exception. The COIN school tought US commanders in everything from how to deal out funds for local construtction problems to spending more time sipping tea in long meetings with sheikhs. Also more emphasis was placed on training, equiping and preparing Iraqi security forces to defend their homeland. This included combining Iraqi forces with US and coalition forces in combined units and putting them in combined barracks. Another crucial role for the new COIN operations was the political side. More attention is being payed to the political landscape and conditions of Iraq, and more presure is being excerted on Iraqi parlamentary leaders (and Maliki) to hurry up with reconciliation, passing a budget, deviding oil revenues, developing the military and police, and eliminating corruption.
COIN is a difficult way to fight a war and requires an enormous amount of discipline, training, and restraint. The US commanders were at first hesitant to adopt the strategy (out of concern for their soldiers), but nearly all US officers (Lt. to Gen.) are on board, and the non-commissioned officers are comming on line. The trickle down effect will soon fall into the US fighting men and women, and the people training them. So hopefully soon we will see, especially as the security situation improves, more warmth on the side of US soldiers as they begin to realize that every Iraqi is not an Al-Queada operative in disguise rooting for their death.
|
|
|
|