Quote:
Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Note that a problem right now in Iraq is still the Rumsfeld doctrine, which keeps us emphasizing light forces. Light forces are wonderful in their place, and it has long been recognized that they have a place, but they are being overemphasized today and in the wrong place light forces are a disaster (cf. the charge of the light brigade). Fallujah is a classic heavy force location (and if you want to compare military learning, watch the Israeli approach fighting in old Arabic cities, where they use lots of armor).
Part of the political interferance issue is a refusal to learn from mistakes, because, hey, Bush can't have been wrong. So today we are not going to shift tactics.
|
I concur, sort of. The shift of emphasis was, in theory, a good idea if incomplete. It doesn't work in Iraq, obviously. However, I don't think having more conventionally trained forces would help that much. Our current forces are trained to confront an organized conventional army, not act as an occupying force, which is what is needed. Adding more of them doesn't help them much in accomplishing that (certainly not as much as many people who say "more boots on the ground" seem to think). But neither does sending fewer special forces. See: the British in Basra, who are having much more success. Basra is, admittedly, much less hostile than the areas the US is patroling, but the British also have decades of experience dealing with N. Ireland. Just another example of "fighting the last war" - one is more outdated than the other, but neither is current.
BR(insert "very special forces" joke about armored short buses here in lieu of link to the Onion)C
