AnyoldIron, What's Your Opinion?

[OrnotBitwise]

Actually, anyone can chime in. I'm just particularly interested in AOI's take since he (A) has some expertise in the aread, (B) has expressed opinions on related subjects and (C) is not from the U.S. and so has a less biased perspective.

I'm reading Woodward's State of Denial in fits and starts, mostly on the train home in the evenings. He's not a particularly good writer, but the subject matter is compelling.

During the first year of the occupation we had, according to Woodward, a vertiable Keystone Kops comedy of errors. Not so much a perfect storm as a case of having, not only the wrong tools, but no one capable of recognizing the fact. One factor underlies almost all others, however: the U.S. military was neither trained nor equiped for the jobs which Rumsfeld intended for them. Indeed, the whole culture of the military disdained such roles.

One U.S. diplomat summed the problem up this way:

. . . the U.S. Army was a highly offense-oriented organism that hated peacekeeping, civil action, training other forces and playing defense.

First, do you think that this is a reasonable characterization and, more importantly, what do you think it would take to change it? Ironically, Rumsfeld wanted to change it. He was just entirely the wrong man for the job.

 

[Cypress]

This is why it was critical for the Chimp in Chief to work with, and cooridnate with the UN regarding the occupation of Iraq.

The US Army is not trained to be civil adminstrators. Nor should that ever be a primary mission for it.

Say what you will about the UN, but they always have the ability to muster a large cadre of civil adminstrators, public health adminstrators, international police, etc. to leverage. They ain't perfect, but they have a role to play - one that bush bascially ignored.

 

[AnyOldIron]

Counter-insurgency and military peacekeeping are as much a part of the job of soldiers as warfighting, and has been for millenia. A classic example of this is the Roman army, who could both effectively warfight as well as maintain the peace and reverse insurgency.

The US military falls down on this, simply because it relies to heavily on technology and overwhelming firepower. And this is the case when the US military took up its role in Iraq. Ironically, overwhelming firepower is probably the most counter-productive tactic you could use in a counter insurgency situation.

This reliance has made the US military reluctant to engage with the reality of what was going on on the ground. It is unfortunate that, when they realised that they would need to train their troops in counter-insurgency tactics that they turned to the IDF for training and advice. The IDF's notion of counter-insurgency (ie overwhelmingly brutal, using might to counter the insurgency) is as counterproductive as overwhelming firepower and 'force-protection' tactics.

Hopefully the US military will learn from its mistakes and train it's troops in counter-insurgency and fighting in built up areas, for it is its role for the future.

Hopefully it will drop the mentality of heavy reliance on overwhelming firepower, as this gives troops a sense of over-confidence, which in turn will stop me from yelling at the TV screen whenever I see US troops all bunched up in a gaggle and not covering their arcs... lol

 

[Damocles]

Counter-insurgency and military peacekeeping are as much a part of the job of soldiers as warfighting, and has been for millenia. A classic example of this is the Roman army, who could both effectively warfight as well as maintain the peace and reverse insurgency.

The US military falls down on this, simply because it relies to heavily on technology and overwhelming firepower. And this is the case when the US military took up its role in Iraq. Ironically, overwhelming firepower is probably the most counter-productive tactic you could use in a counter insurgency situation.

This reliance has made the US military reluctant to engage with the reality of what was going on on the ground. It is unfortunate that, when they realised that they would need to train their troops in counter-insurgency tactics that they turned to the IDF for training and advice. The IDF's notion of counter-insurgency (ie overwhelmingly brutal, using might to counter the insurgency) is as counterproductive as overwhelming firepower and 'force-protection' tactics.

Hopefully the US military will learn from its mistakes and train it's troops in counter-insurgency and fighting in built up areas, for it is its role for the future.

Hopefully it will drop the mentality of heavy reliance on overwhelming firepower, as this gives troops a sense of over-confidence, which in turn will stop me from yelling at the TV screen whenever I see US troops all bunched up in a gaggle and not covering their arcs... lol

Not only the bunched up groups, but the practical application of radio silence. As a guy who worked intel I used to almost go into fits over what the US gives up over the radio... let alone what they give to the media to make intel gathering for the enemy so very easy.

 

[AnyOldIron]

Radio discipline is a problem with inexperienced junior officers, but unit's signals officers should be cracking down.

Our radio kits are notoriously crap, so as a results of security breaches during the Falklands we introduced BATCO on the one-time pad system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-time_pad

 

[Damocles]

Radio discipline is a problem with inexperienced junior officers, but unit's signals officers should be cracking down.

Our radio kits are notoriously crap, so as a results of security breaches during the Falklands we introduced BATCO on the one-time pad system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-time_pad

It is one thing that the US and her Allies could learn from Israel. The difference between what we give over the radio compared to what Israel does is incredible. Simple breaths of air are as eloquent to them as a moron giving coordinates and a list of munitions over the air are to us...

The O-Branchers in intel are supposed to teach people not to be moronic about that, but I have heard it. I can only hope that we are better now than before.

 

[AnyOldIron]

A simple battlecode should rectify the problem, though I'm shocked that the US military don't use secure digital networks, with the money available to it...

 

[Damocles]

A simple battlecode should rectify the problem, though I'm shocked that the US military don't use secure digital networks, with the money available to it...

It depends on what they are sending and from where. Battlecodes are made, but messed up constantly.... The Russkis suck at it too.

 

[OrnotBitwise]

Counter-insurgency and military peacekeeping are as much a part of the job of soldiers as warfighting, and has been for millenia. A classic example of this is the Roman army, who could both effectively warfight as well as maintain the peace and reverse insurgency.

The US military falls down on this, simply because it relies to heavily on technology and overwhelming firepower. And this is the case when the US military took up its role in Iraq. Ironically, overwhelming firepower is probably the most counter-productive tactic you could use in a counter insurgency situation.

This reliance has made the US military reluctant to engage with the reality of what was going on on the ground. It is unfortunate that, when they realised that they would need to train their troops in counter-insurgency tactics that they turned to the IDF for training and advice. The IDF's notion of counter-insurgency (ie overwhelmingly brutal, using might to counter the insurgency) is as counterproductive as overwhelming firepower and 'force-protection' tactics.

Hopefully the US military will learn from its mistakes and train it's troops in counter-insurgency and fighting in built up areas, for it is its role for the future.

Hopefully it will drop the mentality of heavy reliance on overwhelming firepower, as this gives troops a sense of over-confidence, which in turn will stop me from yelling at the TV screen whenever I see US troops all bunched up in a gaggle and not covering their arcs... lol

I hope for the same things you do, I believe, but hope never paid the rent. I'm more interested in what it would take to change the situation.

I suppose what I'm really asking is difficult for a lifelong civvy, such as myself, to communicate well to someone who has served. We don't know the argot and don't share the same points of reference. That is, ironically enough, exactly why the line of inquiry is potentially productive though.

In your opinion, how much of the problem has been cemented into the U.S. military culture and how much of it is simply systemic? If it's just a systemic, structural problem, it isn't all that hard to fix. Painful and unpleasant, but not time consuming. If, however, these prejudices have been encoded into the very culture of the military, that's a whole 'nother thang, as you might say.

That could take generations.

 

[AnyOldIron]

If the US were fighting a conventional war, its tactics would be very effective. However, conventional war isn't going to be the thing for the next century. A-symmetric warfare is the future, and the US Army is desperately poor at this... Its down to over-confidence in the ability of technology. In the same way that the US intelligence forces lacked human intelligence capabilities because of the over-reliance on technology.

Its not a major problem and it can be solved. US army forces need to strip down to bare bones, rid the average trooper of all his technological devices and train them at the basic fieldcraft that the US, in centuries past, was well known for.

A more major problem is US military doctrine that relies too heavily on the use of overwhelming firepower. This is a problem at the top. To resolve this, the US needs to do more UNesque peacekeeping missions. This will reduce the dependence on overwhelming firepower and teach the finer arts of counter-insurgency work.

These changes will simply require political will, but that is difficult as few in the US seem to recognise the problem.....

 

[uscitizen]

Anyold, the overpowering dependency on the US military on technology is due to the industrial war machine. The corps do not make money on training soldiers, just on selling incredibly expensive machines to the military.