AJB37
Well-Known Member
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/07/army-generals-h.html#more
Interesting read, figured I'd share it.
Interesting read, figured I'd share it.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Pentagon Adviser: Dump Big War Training, Learn New Languages Instead
- Thread starter AJB37
- Start date
Hmm, does that mean all your other questions are "dishonest" or something other than honest or honorable?
Hmm, does that mean all your other questions are "dishonest" or something other than honest or honorable?
Only if I'm asking high school girls.
This sounds like a set up to have us ready to fight piss ant conflicts in asia, africa, south america (which we already do, and fairly well), while nations that despise us wind up for a sucker punch to the back of the head.
Don't we already have groups of SF soldiers/marines with SOCOM and the new MARSOC that are learning/know how to do this type of unconventional warfare? Are they really proposing to turn the whole army and marine corps into SF bubbas? Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of them being 'special'
Don't we already have groups of SF soldiers/marines with SOCOM and the new MARSOC that are learning/know how to do this type of unconventional warfare? Are they really proposing to turn the whole army and marine corps into SF bubbas? Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of them being 'special'
This sound like the typical 90's and modern day attitude that our troops need to be everything to everyone. Warfighters, nation-builders, policemen etc. etc. Are we doing that in Iraq? Yes. However, comma, pause for effect, we are not trying to fight a major peer competitor at the same time. THAT is our primary purpose. Ultimately, we exist to take the fight to the enemy somewhere else so we don't' have to do it in downtown Dubuque.
Do I agree with bulking up our linguistic capacity? Yes. Do I agree with giving troops some kind of intercultural education? Yes. There are other areas of the government which should be helping out in this whole "nation building" thing (I'm looking at State specifically) who seem to be UA. Guys who have been there correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe we need to increase the Federal budget to deal with nation building, but that doesn't necessarily man it has to or should be a uniformed, DoD endeavor.
Do I agree with bulking up our linguistic capacity? Yes. Do I agree with giving troops some kind of intercultural education? Yes. There are other areas of the government which should be helping out in this whole "nation building" thing (I'm looking at State specifically) who seem to be UA. Guys who have been there correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe we need to increase the Federal budget to deal with nation building, but that doesn't necessarily man it has to or should be a uniformed, DoD endeavor.
At least on the Marine side of the house (ahem, according to my sources
) the arty community's proficiency is lacking some due to the fact that they really haven't fired their guns since the war kicked off and that they are taking up similar roles of the infantry types. To what extent they are lacking and time to recover, I don't know.
Oh, State's there (in the 'Stan); I met one of 'em.
...one.
But, to be honest, I wasn't exactly in a position to root out all DoS reps in country. From what I saw, though, their numbers are extremely small, they speak a totally different language than we do, and anyone bringing the kind of happy joy, joy things that DoS and NGOs bring to the LN pop is a MAJOR target for the bad guys - that's why those of us toting guns are doing the heavy lifting in that respect.
I don't want to give too much credit to State, but they were basically told to butt out in the beginning of the wars by big DoD, even when they offered to help. Ironically, one of their INR analysts was one of the few that got what was going to happen in postwar Iraq right.
And the Foreign Service is not too big, only around 11,000 total, and they have to cover every corner of the globe in addition to Afghanistan and Iraq. So there are reasons that you are not seeing a lot of them, there are lot less of them to go around.
But how many 'peer' competitors do we realistically expect conflict from? Most countries that could be considered peers are either allies, or have economies so connected and interdependent with our own that they have more to lose in an all-out war than we do.
Shouldnt we consider the possibility that WW2-style nation vs nation wars are a thing of the past, and low-intensity conflicts/ insurgencies like this one are all that we have left to fight? Perhaps the military needs to adapt to better conduct precisely the type of "nation-building" occuring in Iraq and Afganistan.
If we do yield some of our military supremacy, I believe you will quickly find us gaining more and more 'peers' and not all of them are as interconnected to us as China.
Who?
I see your point but I dont buy it. Anyone capable enough to challenge us will have to be part of the global economy - which by definition means they will be closely connected to the world largest economy, ours. Thomas Friedman argues this point really well in "The World is Flat". I think we need to address the issue that 'conventional' warfare may really be a thing of the past.