Posted on Nov 21, 2014
What if the military has been focusing on the wrong thing this whole time?
23.7K
130
65
28
28
0
I just posted this article in Small Wars Journal. I invite you to post your comments there as well...
http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/what-if-the-military-has-been-focusing-on-the-wrong-thing-the-whole-time
For over a decade, and ever since the United States began the endeavor of creating a stable Iraq and Afghanistan, the dogmatic military view has essentially been “We will train our allies until they are able to secure their own nation.” With conflict in Afghanistan lasting over 13 years, and with the recent tragic losses of momentum, equipment, and territory in Iraq, it is apparent that things are not going as was hoped by many. Going back to my time training Iraqi Commandos as a US Special Forces officer, I have had one question that always lingered in the back of my mind:
“We are investing hundreds of billions of dollars in training our allies, so how is our enemy able to achieve so much success when no major power is training them?”
In other words, despite the seemingly successful training of the Iraqi Army, why are they unable to stand up to forces like ISIS, who are not trained by any major power? Similarly, why is training the Afghan Army considered the yardstick of success, when there is no major power similarly training the Taliban? If training is the key to success, how is the other side surviving and even thriving when we have been training our allies for over a decade?
The problem may be rooted in the fact that the US military, and even its Special Forces, has largely been focused on tactical and technical training. We measure our allies’ capabilities through the lens of traditional American military metrics; whether they can organize at the squad, platoon, company, or battalion level, etc. As has been recently shown in Iraq, where the Iraqi Army has surrendered despite outnumbering and outgunning their enemies, these metrics have been a failure. Is it possible we have been focusing on the wrong thing this whole time?
Evans Carlson was the first commander of the 2nd Marine Raider Battalion in World War II, charged with leading early guerilla operations against the Japanese while the US was still building up its conventional force in response to Pearl Harbor. So important was his mission that his second in command was James Roosevelt, the sitting President’s oldest son. Evans studied guerilla warfare during his time as a liaison to the Chinese Communist Army in the 1930s, and through his previous experience in Nicaragua. Evans believed that the key to his men’s success was “a broad and deep political education system designed to give men something to fight for, live for, and if necessary, die for.” This belief system is something the US military instills in all of its members. Each year thousand of young Americans volunteer to serve overseas, to be far away from their families, ready to fight for our nation’s causes, and to make the ultimate sacrifice if necessary. Teamwork, purpose, and a belief in something bigger than yourself is instilled in our young service members during basic training, and throughout the course of their military careers. It is this complete commitment to success, and to each other, not our GPS guided bombs, which makes the American military such a formidable force. Yet, when it comes to building our allies military, we do almost none of this. We have failed to impart in them the very element which has made us so successful. Instead, we focus on the important but somewhat superficial measures of how well they can organize in a formation, how well they can patrol in a street, and how well they can write an operations order.
We continue to measure progress by how well trained our allies are, but no amount of training can replace the determination and the willingness to fight for a cause. That determination is something our enemies have. It's also something the US Armed Forces have. However, it's something we have failed to give to our allies.
In Iraq I trained a crack commando Iraqi unit. Every day we trained for hours on end, teaching them to shoot better, to maintain their equipment better, and to plan and communicate their operations better. All basic tenets of a functional combat unit. When we did missions together, they performed well. Years after we left, would they hold up to an aggressive and determined enemy? Recent history shows that it's unlikely. Even when Iraqis significantly outnumbered their enemy, were better equipped, and were better "trained,” they were not prepared to fight.
Perhaps "training" is an easy political concept for our leaders to sell to the American people of what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, I would argue that no amount of training, no matter how well we train our foreign allies to aim their AK-47, will be enough to defeat an enemy if there is no fundamental and cultural trust and commitment to that cause. To defeat such a determined enemy, we must indoctrinate our allies with the same will and desire that we have in our own US military, or at least on par with their enemy. These are qualities much more difficult to measure than whether one can operate at a platoon, company, or battalion levels - metrics the U.S. Army loves to measure.
Even special operations training of our allies has focused on tactical skills such as raids, ambushes, and surgical strikes. Those are important skills, but there is no equivalent body teaching that to ISIS and they regularly outpower and overwhelm the forces trained by the United States. We need to acknowledge that tactical training of a force will never, by itself, prepare them for combat effectiveness. If we ever want our allies to truly be in charge of their own defense, we need to focus on building forces with the desire to win, and with the willingness to die. This is not just about “winning hearts and minds” – this is shaping them. That kind of training happens through years of communication and cultural investment at all levels, and not by spending even more time shooting paper targets at a flat range.
To be successful, we must not only train our allies on how to aim their rifles, but also develop their willingness to employ that weapon. The former is much easier to measure, but the latter is much more important for success.
http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/what-if-the-military-has-been-focusing-on-the-wrong-thing-the-whole-time
For over a decade, and ever since the United States began the endeavor of creating a stable Iraq and Afghanistan, the dogmatic military view has essentially been “We will train our allies until they are able to secure their own nation.” With conflict in Afghanistan lasting over 13 years, and with the recent tragic losses of momentum, equipment, and territory in Iraq, it is apparent that things are not going as was hoped by many. Going back to my time training Iraqi Commandos as a US Special Forces officer, I have had one question that always lingered in the back of my mind:
“We are investing hundreds of billions of dollars in training our allies, so how is our enemy able to achieve so much success when no major power is training them?”
In other words, despite the seemingly successful training of the Iraqi Army, why are they unable to stand up to forces like ISIS, who are not trained by any major power? Similarly, why is training the Afghan Army considered the yardstick of success, when there is no major power similarly training the Taliban? If training is the key to success, how is the other side surviving and even thriving when we have been training our allies for over a decade?
The problem may be rooted in the fact that the US military, and even its Special Forces, has largely been focused on tactical and technical training. We measure our allies’ capabilities through the lens of traditional American military metrics; whether they can organize at the squad, platoon, company, or battalion level, etc. As has been recently shown in Iraq, where the Iraqi Army has surrendered despite outnumbering and outgunning their enemies, these metrics have been a failure. Is it possible we have been focusing on the wrong thing this whole time?
Evans Carlson was the first commander of the 2nd Marine Raider Battalion in World War II, charged with leading early guerilla operations against the Japanese while the US was still building up its conventional force in response to Pearl Harbor. So important was his mission that his second in command was James Roosevelt, the sitting President’s oldest son. Evans studied guerilla warfare during his time as a liaison to the Chinese Communist Army in the 1930s, and through his previous experience in Nicaragua. Evans believed that the key to his men’s success was “a broad and deep political education system designed to give men something to fight for, live for, and if necessary, die for.” This belief system is something the US military instills in all of its members. Each year thousand of young Americans volunteer to serve overseas, to be far away from their families, ready to fight for our nation’s causes, and to make the ultimate sacrifice if necessary. Teamwork, purpose, and a belief in something bigger than yourself is instilled in our young service members during basic training, and throughout the course of their military careers. It is this complete commitment to success, and to each other, not our GPS guided bombs, which makes the American military such a formidable force. Yet, when it comes to building our allies military, we do almost none of this. We have failed to impart in them the very element which has made us so successful. Instead, we focus on the important but somewhat superficial measures of how well they can organize in a formation, how well they can patrol in a street, and how well they can write an operations order.
We continue to measure progress by how well trained our allies are, but no amount of training can replace the determination and the willingness to fight for a cause. That determination is something our enemies have. It's also something the US Armed Forces have. However, it's something we have failed to give to our allies.
In Iraq I trained a crack commando Iraqi unit. Every day we trained for hours on end, teaching them to shoot better, to maintain their equipment better, and to plan and communicate their operations better. All basic tenets of a functional combat unit. When we did missions together, they performed well. Years after we left, would they hold up to an aggressive and determined enemy? Recent history shows that it's unlikely. Even when Iraqis significantly outnumbered their enemy, were better equipped, and were better "trained,” they were not prepared to fight.
Perhaps "training" is an easy political concept for our leaders to sell to the American people of what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, I would argue that no amount of training, no matter how well we train our foreign allies to aim their AK-47, will be enough to defeat an enemy if there is no fundamental and cultural trust and commitment to that cause. To defeat such a determined enemy, we must indoctrinate our allies with the same will and desire that we have in our own US military, or at least on par with their enemy. These are qualities much more difficult to measure than whether one can operate at a platoon, company, or battalion levels - metrics the U.S. Army loves to measure.
Even special operations training of our allies has focused on tactical skills such as raids, ambushes, and surgical strikes. Those are important skills, but there is no equivalent body teaching that to ISIS and they regularly outpower and overwhelm the forces trained by the United States. We need to acknowledge that tactical training of a force will never, by itself, prepare them for combat effectiveness. If we ever want our allies to truly be in charge of their own defense, we need to focus on building forces with the desire to win, and with the willingness to die. This is not just about “winning hearts and minds” – this is shaping them. That kind of training happens through years of communication and cultural investment at all levels, and not by spending even more time shooting paper targets at a flat range.
To be successful, we must not only train our allies on how to aim their rifles, but also develop their willingness to employ that weapon. The former is much easier to measure, but the latter is much more important for success.
Iraq
Afghanistan
Strategy
Command Post
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 29
3
3
0
I served as an Advisor in Afghanistan in 07-08 and completed the Advisor course which was at Fort Riley at the time and I found that although they were capable fighters at the company level and to a degree at the BN level they had similar issues that we also saw in Vietnam. The advisor's performance was related to the unit he advised (Unrealistic expectation), we became just as much an enabler as we were an advisor (CAS, MEDEVAC etc.), and want has always been a problem is their ability to sustain themselves. This is do to corruption, lack of internal resources and an inability to forecast out or even understand the concept of looking beyond today and tomorrow and consider next month or next year. We also found ourselves not letting them fail and we learned quickly to let them fail when we could so they could learn. I can go on for a long time on just the Advisor piece, but the main point is that we greatly assisted them in sustainment at a minimum and enabled them greatly in providing indirect fire, CAS and MEDEVAC. Now we expect them to go out and fight often without that and sustain large operations or even small units when too many of us held their hand or also when they are too corrupt not pillage off themselves.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
I think you hit the nail on the head on why we have failed in Vietnam also. We only did half of the training. We didn't instill the pride into the soldiers that was need in order to fight for their Country and into their Leadership.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
There was an interesting article in the NY Times the other day about the waning of a nation/army's focus over the duration of a large conflict. I will post the article if I find it.
There are a couple of the main points that I think need to be highlighted. One, the continue shift in focus from Afghanistan to Iraq to Afghanistan and now seemingly back to Iraq. Two, the stovepipping of the DIME model for the whole of government approach, where it seems we are disconnected on even the smallest things like aid to the populace.
If we can't get these things working in harmony, I'm not even saying that they need to be synced up, how are we ever going to safely and successfully extract ourselves from a conflict going forward?
There are a couple of the main points that I think need to be highlighted. One, the continue shift in focus from Afghanistan to Iraq to Afghanistan and now seemingly back to Iraq. Two, the stovepipping of the DIME model for the whole of government approach, where it seems we are disconnected on even the smallest things like aid to the populace.
If we can't get these things working in harmony, I'm not even saying that they need to be synced up, how are we ever going to safely and successfully extract ourselves from a conflict going forward?
(3)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
I'd be very interested in reading that article.
However, the historical reality is that NO country can maintain a national focus on any conflict which does not DIRECTLY impact its citizenry for any extended period of time.
A government may be able to maintain a focus on a long-term conflict, but the populace can't.
What is needed is for the government to maintain a steady stream of "scare propaganda" to make the populace THINK that there is a direct threat.
Unfortunately [potential over generalization follows] the American cultural character makes the general populace more predisposed to lose interest in anything which doesn't resolve itself quickly enough than the cultural character of most other countries.
Equally unfortunately, when dealing with a national culture which does not value the same things as the United States of America says it stands for, the only "new government" that the US is going to be able to install is one which pays lip service to those ideals while continuing to act in accordance with its own cultural norms. (i.e. In a country which is tribal and where the ideal is nepotism and personal enrichment through the exercise of arbitrary power, the "new government" will consist of those tribal people who believe in nepotism and personal enrichment through the exercise of arbitrary power who are "democratically elected" through elections controlled by nepotism and the exercise of arbitrary power.)
However, the historical reality is that NO country can maintain a national focus on any conflict which does not DIRECTLY impact its citizenry for any extended period of time.
A government may be able to maintain a focus on a long-term conflict, but the populace can't.
What is needed is for the government to maintain a steady stream of "scare propaganda" to make the populace THINK that there is a direct threat.
Unfortunately [potential over generalization follows] the American cultural character makes the general populace more predisposed to lose interest in anything which doesn't resolve itself quickly enough than the cultural character of most other countries.
Equally unfortunately, when dealing with a national culture which does not value the same things as the United States of America says it stands for, the only "new government" that the US is going to be able to install is one which pays lip service to those ideals while continuing to act in accordance with its own cultural norms. (i.e. In a country which is tribal and where the ideal is nepotism and personal enrichment through the exercise of arbitrary power, the "new government" will consist of those tribal people who believe in nepotism and personal enrichment through the exercise of arbitrary power who are "democratically elected" through elections controlled by nepotism and the exercise of arbitrary power.)
(1)
(0)
(1)
(0)
SGT Mary G.
LTC (Join to see) - Thank you for the article,sir. (I now want to read some of the author's books too.)
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Yinon, you're correct about the insufficiency of tactical training. At the most fundamental level, victory in battle is about imposing your will through violence and the destruction of your enemy's will to fight. It presumes the existence of a unified, collective political will--something that is simply not present in Afghanistan or Iraq. The poor performance of many unit reflects this absence of a unified political will. The will may be present when US advisors are fighting alongside these units but that is more a reflection of our will rather that the true will of these Iraqi or Afghan units. I would add also that we do not sufficiently emphasize or resource institution building. Without the necessary institutions to train, educate and inculcate soldiers and leaders and sustain combat power, all of the tactical training I the world is worthless. In the absence of these institutions, the half life of unit effectiveness is measured in months, maybe weeks.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
As a former MiTT member in Iraq, I can definitely agree with this. Two points we always worked on my team and only partially succeeded on were: an Iraqi solution to an Iraqi problem and having to get them to want to do it. Solving their problems for them, the American solution to everything, and forcing the to do things via a childish reward system, the way many teams accomplished things prior to 2009, could not develop into a long term solution for the "Iraq question."
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
A Soldier puts Iraqi police in formation and gives them an ass chewing. It's funny, how he pretty much calls them pussies and tells them to fight their own d...
I think we overlook the impact that their religion plays in to all this. We are dealing with Muslims whose loyalties are questionable at best because they follow a religion characterized by the violent acts of its followers and whose holy book describes their god Allah as the greatest of deceivers.
Their religious beliefs hamstring them from wanting to kill their fellow Muslim brothers... a crime which might send them to hell. Some are torn between wanting to be good Muslims and cooperating with Infidels. Nobody questions the religious zealotry of those in ISIS. They are simply being good Muslims and doing what good Muslims do -- emulating their prophet Muhammed, fighting, raping and pillaging in the name of their "peaceful" religion. They don't fear dying for their cause, and they have no qualms about killing anyone who is cooperating with the infidels, whereas the people we train seem to be reluctant to go after their more radical brethren. They are unworthy Allies who can't be trusted because at any time they might switch allegiances and try to shoot you in the back.
This soldier has his Iraqi police pegged and calls them out for being a bunch of pussies. They seem to make every excuse as to why they aren't doing more to combat those seeking to overthrow the Iraqi gov't. I guess it's something best seen on video, so here goes... Enjoy:
Their religious beliefs hamstring them from wanting to kill their fellow Muslim brothers... a crime which might send them to hell. Some are torn between wanting to be good Muslims and cooperating with Infidels. Nobody questions the religious zealotry of those in ISIS. They are simply being good Muslims and doing what good Muslims do -- emulating their prophet Muhammed, fighting, raping and pillaging in the name of their "peaceful" religion. They don't fear dying for their cause, and they have no qualms about killing anyone who is cooperating with the infidels, whereas the people we train seem to be reluctant to go after their more radical brethren. They are unworthy Allies who can't be trusted because at any time they might switch allegiances and try to shoot you in the back.
This soldier has his Iraqi police pegged and calls them out for being a bunch of pussies. They seem to make every excuse as to why they aren't doing more to combat those seeking to overthrow the Iraqi gov't. I guess it's something best seen on video, so here goes... Enjoy:
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
The more I read and hear about George W. Bush the more I feel sorry for him.
He appears to be a rather good hearted, but incredibly ineffectual person who got elected to an office that he knew he wasn't qualified to hold and then did what his "advisers" told him to do because he thought that they knew what they were doing and what they were telling him they were doing was what they were actually doing.
Unfortunately, the way that the American political system ACTUALLY functions today, the US is very likely to see a whole bunch of high level politicians who aren't actually qualified for the offices they hold but who look really good on TV.
Having a pliable President is something that the people who finance the Republican and Democrat parties are very much in favor of.
He appears to be a rather good hearted, but incredibly ineffectual person who got elected to an office that he knew he wasn't qualified to hold and then did what his "advisers" told him to do because he thought that they knew what they were doing and what they were telling him they were doing was what they were actually doing.
Unfortunately, the way that the American political system ACTUALLY functions today, the US is very likely to see a whole bunch of high level politicians who aren't actually qualified for the offices they hold but who look really good on TV.
Having a pliable President is something that the people who finance the Republican and Democrat parties are very much in favor of.
(1)
(0)
LCpl Rick Ponton
IAM CONCERNED ABOUT THE MORALE OF OUR TROOPS BECAUSE THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE HAS BEEN REMOVED AND ALL THE HARM THAT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS CAUSED.
(0)
(0)
PV2 Abbott Shaull
Muslim Religion impact their law, no more so than Christianity has impacted the laws of Europe and the Americans, and the various religions have impacted the laws of Asia. It is one of those things that are bound to spill over, no matter how hard ones try to separate the two. What gets to me, is we have gone so far to remove any source of Christianity in today public schools system, but yet so many question based around Islam are allowed in based on humanity and culture diversity. Which is ironic and wrong, these type of questions should be allowed either, if the Christian and even Jewish question are not allowed by all fairness, and to keep it equal.
(0)
(0)
PV2 Abbott Shaull
Any one serving the post as Secretary of Defense does so at the discretion of the President of the United States. So not to surprise he was asked to resigned. I don't see the current Joint Chief of Staff lasting to much longer if he keeps on insisting on sending more troops into Iraq either.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
If we would have kept our focus on Afghanistan rather than invading Iraq on a semi-loose connection could we have retained the initiative better in one theater rather than sharing the focus between two?
What would the butterfly effect be for where we are now as a military, nation, and world? I think those that influenced the policy makers at the time lacked the gumption to say this is not a coherent plan, and we need more time to flesh this out prior to starting something. I know I am throwing stones, but looking back there are plenty of holes in the initial planning for Iraq and the attention it diverted away from other areas of need.
What would the butterfly effect be for where we are now as a military, nation, and world? I think those that influenced the policy makers at the time lacked the gumption to say this is not a coherent plan, and we need more time to flesh this out prior to starting something. I know I am throwing stones, but looking back there are plenty of holes in the initial planning for Iraq and the attention it diverted away from other areas of need.
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
I agree with you, though there are many that write the plans and advise those in power that would have said differently. This all reverts back to my original comment, if we would have kept our focus on Afghanistan instead of thinking of how we could link other actions that the poilicy makers wanted to do we may have done better in Afghanistan, and it may not have been the longest war in U.S. history.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
If Mr. Bush's administration had been prepared to accede to the absolutely outrageous demands of the Afghan government that it present actual evidence as to the complicity of Osama bin Laden rather than relying on "WE THE GOVERNMENT of the United States of America tell you what to do and you ignorant nignogs had better damn well jump to it." when the Afghan government offered to turn Osama bin Laden over to the US government despite the fact that the US government did not have an extradition treaty with Afghanistan, things might well have worked out differently.
What few people (and an almost miniscule percentage of legislators) realized that the actions of a non-state, non-state financed, non-state advised, non-state supplied, and non-state controlled organization DO NOT provide the legal justification for the violation of the UN Charter (which is a part of American law) through the invasion and conquest of an independent and sovereign country [Afghanistan].
Had Iraq actually possessed those famous "vast stockpiles of WMD" and actually been planning to "give them to terrorists" so that they could be used to "attack America", [or even if the intelligent members of Mr. GW Bush's administration honestly believed that it did] that MIGHT (likelihood less than 20%) have justified the invasion of Iraq in the absence of proven actual plans to effect that transfer and in the absence of proven actual steps being taken to effect that transfer.
The legal difference between a "Preventive War" and a "Preemptive War" is significant, but the factual basis underpinning that difference may be incredibly slim.
What few people (and an almost miniscule percentage of legislators) realized that the actions of a non-state, non-state financed, non-state advised, non-state supplied, and non-state controlled organization DO NOT provide the legal justification for the violation of the UN Charter (which is a part of American law) through the invasion and conquest of an independent and sovereign country [Afghanistan].
Had Iraq actually possessed those famous "vast stockpiles of WMD" and actually been planning to "give them to terrorists" so that they could be used to "attack America", [or even if the intelligent members of Mr. GW Bush's administration honestly believed that it did] that MIGHT (likelihood less than 20%) have justified the invasion of Iraq in the absence of proven actual plans to effect that transfer and in the absence of proven actual steps being taken to effect that transfer.
The legal difference between a "Preventive War" and a "Preemptive War" is significant, but the factual basis underpinning that difference may be incredibly slim.
(0)
(0)
PV2 Abbott Shaull
The comparison for the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan by the Bush Administration were partially justified as knee jerk reaction to 9/11. With Afghanistan, the 'Taliban' Government really little control of the area outside of the Southern Afghanistan where they started, and areas around the towns and tribal regions they had Garrison. Much like every other 'Government' in the claimed control of Afghanistan in recent history. With Taliban, they claimed they had no control over what Osama did, and went as far to say he was welcome guest. Then told us to mind our own business, thinking we would back down.
For Iraq, we knew they didn't have no damn stockpile of WMD, and we had more rights to be concern about the unaccounted stockpile of WMD from the former Soviet Union that still has to be accounted for by Russia or any of the former Republics of the Soviet Union. Still there are others who claim we went in for control of their oil, I don't buy it completely, but the contracts that went out, didn't help President Bush Administration any.
At this time, I don't we have leg to stand on, with current Administration cutting the Military. We don't have the means to go back into either Country to help them out, after we failed in our attempt in Nation building. We don't really have no one to blame, but ourselves. Not so much the Military, but both Administrations and confusion created in not providing clear and concise direction to all Departments and providing a clear Chain of Command so everyone knew who was responsible for what.
For Iraq, we knew they didn't have no damn stockpile of WMD, and we had more rights to be concern about the unaccounted stockpile of WMD from the former Soviet Union that still has to be accounted for by Russia or any of the former Republics of the Soviet Union. Still there are others who claim we went in for control of their oil, I don't buy it completely, but the contracts that went out, didn't help President Bush Administration any.
At this time, I don't we have leg to stand on, with current Administration cutting the Military. We don't have the means to go back into either Country to help them out, after we failed in our attempt in Nation building. We don't really have no one to blame, but ourselves. Not so much the Military, but both Administrations and confusion created in not providing clear and concise direction to all Departments and providing a clear Chain of Command so everyone knew who was responsible for what.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
I disagree with you PV2 Shaull, the Taliban had a fairly strong control from JBAD to Herat. They may have claimed they had no control over OBL, when in actuality they were in cahoots with him. OBL had pledge help to the Taliban for safe haven. Had we been completely focused and authoritative from the start of OEF we may have had OBL at Tora Bora. Had this happened we could have effectively neutered the conflict from the start.
With respect to Iraq, I think part of the problem is that we did not plan for an insurgency, we thought we would be seen as heroes.
With respect to Iraq, I think part of the problem is that we did not plan for an insurgency, we thought we would be seen as heroes.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I think we put too much of the COIN burden on DoD. We almost see it solely as a DoD problem and not a JIIM problem. I think in many areas the military does an outstanding job of what it does best, kinetics. The previous COIN manual defined it as a "national imperative" requiring the coordination of many of a host nation's agencies and resources. I believe the same goes for us as well. Where our nation often fails is expecting the military to do ALL of the heavy lifting. The military is only one, albeit a large, aspect of these security issues. One of the smarter NCOs I've worked for recommended this book to me. We have a successful historic example. Unfortunately I doubt we have the national will or patience to do it right:
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/149581.The_War_of_the_Running_Dogs
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/149581.The_War_of_the_Running_Dogs
Only three short years after the end of the Japanese occupation, war came again to Malaya. The Chinese-backed guerrillas called it the Wa...
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
If our attention had been focussed on the actual war on on terror instead of being distracted by that tragic and unnecessary invasion in Iraq, things might be alot different. For one: ISIS wouldn't exist,two: the IED technology more than likely would not have improved so quickly,three: never mind the 4500 military casualties and 100000 of civilians and contractors.
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Should we have allowed him to continue to use the materials and technology which the US provided him with to continue gassing the Kurds and torturing his own people?
You might also find [ http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5312561 ] or this [ http://www.mediamonitors.net/robinmiller10.html ] interesting - not that I'm accusing the US government of actually lying about what happened you understand, only in being incredibly selective about which portions of the truth is mentions or responds to.
BTW, at last report Saddam Hussein is no longer torturing Iraqis. The torturing is now being done by the democratically elected Shi'ite dominated government of Iraq (in the areas it controls) and by ISIS (in the areas it controls). The difference in the application of torture from Saddam's time to now is that under Saddam's regime you only got tortured if you actually did something which threatened to lead to the overthrow of the government but now you get tortured because of which version of which religion someone says you support.
PS - Exactly what is wrong with supporting governments which torture their own people and commit acts of genocide and when did the ACTUAL US government policy change from ignoring it to taking action against it?
Unfortunately there isn't a single thing which the US government can use to "justify" Mr Bush's War that the US government didn't/doesn't permit/condone/support in the VERY recent past (like, say, last week) - albeit not "officially".
You might also find [ http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5312561 ] or this [ http://www.mediamonitors.net/robinmiller10.html ] interesting - not that I'm accusing the US government of actually lying about what happened you understand, only in being incredibly selective about which portions of the truth is mentions or responds to.
BTW, at last report Saddam Hussein is no longer torturing Iraqis. The torturing is now being done by the democratically elected Shi'ite dominated government of Iraq (in the areas it controls) and by ISIS (in the areas it controls). The difference in the application of torture from Saddam's time to now is that under Saddam's regime you only got tortured if you actually did something which threatened to lead to the overthrow of the government but now you get tortured because of which version of which religion someone says you support.
PS - Exactly what is wrong with supporting governments which torture their own people and commit acts of genocide and when did the ACTUAL US government policy change from ignoring it to taking action against it?
Unfortunately there isn't a single thing which the US government can use to "justify" Mr Bush's War that the US government didn't/doesn't permit/condone/support in the VERY recent past (like, say, last week) - albeit not "officially".
(0)
(0)
PV2 Abbott Shaull
No ISIS would of exist, the cold hard truth is that these revolutions would of happen. The main difference is Saddam Army would be the one fighting ISIS, and it probably would have fared no bettered due to the fact, that Uncle Saddam had tunnel vision on the U.S. Much like many would have you believe President Bush was to focus on Iraq.
Yet like they say looking back after the fact, is one thing.
Yet like they say looking back after the fact, is one thing.
(0)
(1)
1
1
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google