CanuckHeaven
13-08-2007, 23:00
After reading part of an article posted by Neu Leonstein, I thought I would check out other articles by the author (Ullrich Fichtner) and came across this interesting piece (http://www.defesanet.com.br/zz/war_petraeus_2.htm).
Can anyone imagine "civilized warriors"? It is really too bad that this formula wasn't perfected BEFORE invading Iraq, but then again, perhaps it is just an extension of the propaganda that has innundated the entire Iraq campaign?
Some samples from the article:
Weapons alone aren't enough to win a war -- you also need to dig wells and build schools.
....in the end the visitor is left with the feeling that a revolution is being launched here in Fort Leavenworth, one that will radically change the face of the United States military and the wars it will fight in the future.
The military also failed to realize that rebuilding stadiums could sometimes be more important than winning minor military skirmishes. It also had trouble understanding something that organizations like the United Nations had long known, and that is that providing seeds for crops can ultimately be more critical to achieving success than ammunition.
Petraeus is the man at the helm of the Army's top-down revolution.
Together with a general from the US Marines, James Mattis, he has written a new doctrine on counterinsurgency, a doctrine that turns almost every previous rule of warfare on its head.
The 241-page document contains an outline of the history of all rebellions and a guide to the wars of the future. For the first time, it draws no distinction between civilian and classic military operations.
In fact, it almost equates the importance of the two. Petraeus believe that the military can no longer win wars with military might alone. On the contrary, according to the new theory it must do its utmost to avoid large-scale destruction and, by as early as the initial attack, not only protect the civilian population but also support it with all available means in order to secure its cooperation for regime change. As uncomplicated as it may seem, Petraeus's new doctrine represents a sea change when it comes to the US military's training and combat procedures. Some might also interpret it as a way of settling scores with the failed strategy in Iraq.
No more Shock and Awe?
In one classroom, 15 uniformed soldiers, including guest students from Colombia, Argentina and Ukraine, sit in a U-shaped formation in front of computer screens. The instructor is a retired lieutenant colonel with
active duty experience in Malaysia and Thailand. During his lecture he
jumps from one place to another around the globe. He talks about Chechen and Mexican Zapatista rebels, Columbia's FARC revolutionaries and the Taliban, about Syria, Saudi Arabia and Somalia. He asks his students:
"In your opinion, how has the US's view of the world changed since Sept. 11?" A female student says, in a piercing voice: "We now know that we have to take them out before they take us out." It isn't the answer the instructor was looking for. He says: "Well, let's take a closer look."
Global sensitivity training and a new doctrine
The group of instructors sitting around the conference table is responsible for the new army's core issue: cultural awareness, or the art of handling multiculturalism and practicing tolerance and respect for foreigners. The people sitting around the table have served as diplomats and intelligence agents in Israel and Jordan and as military attachés in Syria. Their job is to give these young soldiers a crash course in how to deal with other cultures in general and Islam in particular.
"Arabs are not always Muslims, and Muslims do not always think the way Arabs do," says Kerry, citing an example of the kind of message he and his colleagues are here to instill in the officers.
Mark A. Olson is a pale, dour, combat-tested colonel in the Marines who has seen his share of the world. His subject at Leavenworth is counter-terrorism, and he knows his people well. "There will always be those who aren't interested in hand-shaking and baby-kissing," says Olson. "Those are the tank commanders who think it's their job to drive down the street and shoot at everything that moves." Olson makes a contemptuous face. "But then we wash that stuff out of their heads. We make it clear to them that idiots like them are not only not ending the insurgency but are in fact strengthening it. And, believe me, that's something they never forget."
Olson is one of Petraeus's better students. He says that officers of the future must have broader qualifications, civilian skills and a quick head that tells them when to shoot and, more important, when not to shoot. A military that acts too brutally in the wrong place merely creates new enemies. "We have to build contacts to the civilian population. They have to understand that they don't need to respect us, but that they should accept their new government."
I would imagine that a few of the hardcore NSG posters that have been preaching the kill'em all doctrine will have a difficult time adjusting to this new one, but it would appear that it is in the best interests of all concerned if they truly do want to win "the hearts and minds" of the people.
Good luck to the US in perfecting this model, but until I see it bear fruit, I will remain skeptical.
Your thoughts?
Can anyone imagine "civilized warriors"? It is really too bad that this formula wasn't perfected BEFORE invading Iraq, but then again, perhaps it is just an extension of the propaganda that has innundated the entire Iraq campaign?
Some samples from the article:
Weapons alone aren't enough to win a war -- you also need to dig wells and build schools.
....in the end the visitor is left with the feeling that a revolution is being launched here in Fort Leavenworth, one that will radically change the face of the United States military and the wars it will fight in the future.
The military also failed to realize that rebuilding stadiums could sometimes be more important than winning minor military skirmishes. It also had trouble understanding something that organizations like the United Nations had long known, and that is that providing seeds for crops can ultimately be more critical to achieving success than ammunition.
Petraeus is the man at the helm of the Army's top-down revolution.
Together with a general from the US Marines, James Mattis, he has written a new doctrine on counterinsurgency, a doctrine that turns almost every previous rule of warfare on its head.
The 241-page document contains an outline of the history of all rebellions and a guide to the wars of the future. For the first time, it draws no distinction between civilian and classic military operations.
In fact, it almost equates the importance of the two. Petraeus believe that the military can no longer win wars with military might alone. On the contrary, according to the new theory it must do its utmost to avoid large-scale destruction and, by as early as the initial attack, not only protect the civilian population but also support it with all available means in order to secure its cooperation for regime change. As uncomplicated as it may seem, Petraeus's new doctrine represents a sea change when it comes to the US military's training and combat procedures. Some might also interpret it as a way of settling scores with the failed strategy in Iraq.
No more Shock and Awe?
In one classroom, 15 uniformed soldiers, including guest students from Colombia, Argentina and Ukraine, sit in a U-shaped formation in front of computer screens. The instructor is a retired lieutenant colonel with
active duty experience in Malaysia and Thailand. During his lecture he
jumps from one place to another around the globe. He talks about Chechen and Mexican Zapatista rebels, Columbia's FARC revolutionaries and the Taliban, about Syria, Saudi Arabia and Somalia. He asks his students:
"In your opinion, how has the US's view of the world changed since Sept. 11?" A female student says, in a piercing voice: "We now know that we have to take them out before they take us out." It isn't the answer the instructor was looking for. He says: "Well, let's take a closer look."
Global sensitivity training and a new doctrine
The group of instructors sitting around the conference table is responsible for the new army's core issue: cultural awareness, or the art of handling multiculturalism and practicing tolerance and respect for foreigners. The people sitting around the table have served as diplomats and intelligence agents in Israel and Jordan and as military attachés in Syria. Their job is to give these young soldiers a crash course in how to deal with other cultures in general and Islam in particular.
"Arabs are not always Muslims, and Muslims do not always think the way Arabs do," says Kerry, citing an example of the kind of message he and his colleagues are here to instill in the officers.
Mark A. Olson is a pale, dour, combat-tested colonel in the Marines who has seen his share of the world. His subject at Leavenworth is counter-terrorism, and he knows his people well. "There will always be those who aren't interested in hand-shaking and baby-kissing," says Olson. "Those are the tank commanders who think it's their job to drive down the street and shoot at everything that moves." Olson makes a contemptuous face. "But then we wash that stuff out of their heads. We make it clear to them that idiots like them are not only not ending the insurgency but are in fact strengthening it. And, believe me, that's something they never forget."
Olson is one of Petraeus's better students. He says that officers of the future must have broader qualifications, civilian skills and a quick head that tells them when to shoot and, more important, when not to shoot. A military that acts too brutally in the wrong place merely creates new enemies. "We have to build contacts to the civilian population. They have to understand that they don't need to respect us, but that they should accept their new government."
I would imagine that a few of the hardcore NSG posters that have been preaching the kill'em all doctrine will have a difficult time adjusting to this new one, but it would appear that it is in the best interests of all concerned if they truly do want to win "the hearts and minds" of the people.
Good luck to the US in perfecting this model, but until I see it bear fruit, I will remain skeptical.
Your thoughts?