From: | dickboyd@aol.com |
Date: | 28 Apr 2003 13:47:11 -0000 |
Reply: | cpeo-military |
Subject: | [CPEO-MEF] Generals Fight the Last War |
_ In a message dated 4/25/2003 3:53:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Charles Jeff Douglas at cpeo-military@igc.topica.com writes: Now, bringing the debate back to my original posting regarding realistic training for our military forces, Im simply saying that it is important that the military train the way it fights. I didnt intend to start a debate about traffic, or the technology of GPS, or France's trade, or the vulnerability of petroleum or electrical distribution systems to terrorism, or spotted owls, or even the morality of war. With full respect for everyone's opinions, and our right to openly disagree Charles Jeff Douglas This is a continuing discussion of how the military trains. Generals train to fight the last war. I feel we should train to prevent war. Do we know how to prevent war or do we give up on peace as too hard and concentrate on battle? Do we need an occasional show of power as a deterrent to large war? How do we make known that power and the willingness to use it? Do we invite the bad guys to witness our war games, or do we indirectly show our might by letting the arms merchants sell their wares? Or do we find ways to convert the bad guys? Or do we demonstrate our might by not using it? Do we need to understand the rest of the world better? Do we need better understanding of ourselves? Do we need a better understanding of how the res of the world sees us? Are we seen as a bunch of power hungry savages bent on air conditioning and large cars at any cost? Does that story of the United States as a "Great Satan" make it easy for a dictator to sway the masses? What are our vulnerabilities? There is an aversion to change. Machiavelli advised the Prince not to change anything as he would only have lukewarm support from those to benefit and much opposition from the incumbent. Pyrrhus of Eprius defeated the Romans in two battles with very heavy losses. The victory may have been more costly than defeat or not waging war in the first place. Mr. Rumsfield advocates a lighter army. Something patterned more after the Marines. Live off the land, move rapidly, know the enemy. Would a smaller armed force motivate the State Department to highlight problem areas sooner? Or are we complacent in fortress America, content that a large military will save the day? My gut feel is that friendly fire casualties in Iraq were greater than losses to the bad guys. But I also feel that lingering on that point or even investigating the truth of the statement is counterproductive. I feel that the coalition forces had the best training and the best leadership. But I contend that they were still training to fight the last war. Yes, the coalition forces prevented the torching of the oil wells. Yes, the coalition forces preserved the infrastructure. Yes, the coalition forces had excellent intelligence. But still there were mistakes. How well did identification friend or foe (IFF) work? Were the troops skilled in navigation? What was the weak item in the supply chain? Were Patriot test firings really that successful? Were the forces trained how to treat civilians? Will analysis be done with the emphasis to fix the blame, or to fix the problem? My sense is that if environmental constraints are blamed, the problems will still be there. Remove the environmental constraints and the military will grow lax on developing work arounds or identifying problems. Don't force it, use a bigger hammer. I do feel we should discuss any missed training opportunities due to environmental constraints. A Navy Admiral wants wider latitude in geographic selection and fewer environmental constraints in the field. But isn't that the point of training for future wars? To develop the discipline to be constrained. Said another way, we aren't at war with the environment. Our strength is in "surgical" strikes, limited engagement, demonstration of ability to find the bad guy, knowing when to stop fighting and commence statesmanship. Or do we send Sgt. Tackleberry to get the cat out of the tree? Walk quietly, but carry a big stick. Teddy also said something about being bloodied in the arena. Trust your neighbor, but tie up your camel. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | |
Prev by Date: [CPEO-MEF] CORRECTION: Asbestos at the former Lowry AFB Next by Date: [CPEO-MEF] Comments on EPA's Draft IC Guidance | |
Prev by Thread: [CPEO-MEF] CORRECTION: Asbestos at the former Lowry AFB Next by Thread: [CPEO-MEF] EPA Bans Staff From Discussing Issue of Perchlorate Pollution |