Washingtonpost.com:
The Army is full of soldiers showing qualities such as patriotism, duty, passion and talent, writes [British Brig. Nigel] Aylwin-Foster [this week in the U.S. Army magazine Military Review], whose rank is equivalent to a U.S. one-star general. "Yet," he continues, "it seemed weighed down by bureaucracy, a stiflingly hierarchical outlook, a predisposition to offensive operations, and a sense that duty required all issues to be confronted head-on."
Those traits reflect the Army's traditional focus on conventional state-on-state wars and are seen by some experts as less appropriate for counterinsurgency, which they say requires patience, cultural understanding and a willingness to use innovative and counterintuitive approaches, such as employing only the minimal amount of force necessary. In counterinsurgency campaigns, Aylwin-Foster argues, "the quick solution is often the wrong one."
He said he found that an intense pressure to conform and overcentralized decision making slowed the Army's operations in Iraq, giving the enemy time to understand and respond to U.S. moves. And the Army's can-do spirit, he wrote, encouraged a "damaging optimism" that interfered with realistic assessments of the situation in Iraq.
"Such an ethos is unhelpful if it discourages junior commanders from reporting unwelcome news up the chain of command," Aylwin-Foster says. A pervasive sense of righteousness or moral outrage, he adds, further distorted military judgments, especially in the handling of fighting in Fallujah.
Similarly, the Bush administration has mishandled the entire "Global War on Terror" (even down to the name). Bush responded as if 9/11 were Pearl Harbor. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a military attack on a military target with a military objective, to knock the American Navy out of the Pacific for a year while the Japanese consolidated their hold on the territory they had taken. (The attack failed to achieve its objective, by the way.) Just trying to frame 9/11 in those terms shows how ridiculous it is. So what was the purpose of the 9/11 attack?
The conflict we are in is political, not military. Similarly, Iraq counter-insurgency has a strong political element. But neither the Bush administration nor, apparently, the U.S. Army has the intelligence or training to understand a war in which the task is not to kill as many enemy soldiers as possible every day. Because of that, they are playing right into the enemy's hands. The 9/11 attack was a surprise raid in a political struggle, the objective of which was to topple the government of Saudi Arabia. So far, that hasn't happened. But the Bush administration has ceded far too much ground to our adversaries pursuing an unimaginative, closeminded strategy and, worse, doesn't even realize how badly things are going.
Recent Comments