Replies

Thank you. while i'm on my soapbox, i'd like to spout off about a few things:

1. The beret fiasco was most harmful to the ranger battalions, not the monetary cost or impact to the regular army per se. Why? Our values are tradition, loyalty and bravery. The one army unit that most exemplefies these values is the ranger regiment. To tell them we are taking a uniform item from you, which you value, and give it to a pretty much undeserving group of rear echelon types insults the very unit that is first to fight. It tells them their bravery and sacrifice (which for the ranger regiment is significant) is not as important as political expediency.

2. Agree with you about the sorry nature of the recruiting jingo, 'army of one.' No doubt you and many others have said this madison avenue catch phrase denigrates the army's necessary value of teamwork in order to emphasize individualism. This is going in the wrong direction.

3. Fox news. Where did this USAF general Macinereny come from? He should be labeled minister of propaganda for the air force! Fox news must have hired him because they read the tea leaves and correctly predicted the winner of the DoD power struggle (it really doesn't have to be that way, but Sec. Rumsfeld encourages this, best i can tell). According to Macinerney, air power alone can win the war in Iraq (this was before we went to war). Every time this guy opens his mouth i have visions of privates in the 101st, 82nd, 3rd ID and 1st Marines getting killed because the pentagon realizes belatedly that they can't back up what he says, and has to use ground forces. I have no proof, but I'll bet you a doughnut that general Macinerney is a protogee of JCS chairman General Myers and/or has very close ties to Sec. Rumsfeld.

4. Justa's comments about the derth of tube artillery and armor are exactly right. As an infantry officer, I cannot imagine conducting combat operations without artillery support, as was (is?) done in Afghanistan. This violates soooo many principles of war.

5. Trying to win with special forces alone (on the cheap) is a recipe for disaster. Given the inevitable mission creep that politicians impose upon the armed services, forcing them to do more with less, the time will come when our SF units are asked to do things beyond their capability. Sure, sh__ will hit the fan politically when this happens, but just as in Somalia, many young soldiers will die needlessly to make the point. Now I'm a big fan of green berets; i think they are incredibly brave and competent. Its just that you need an army to occupy enemy terrain; a mission the SF are not designed to fulfill.

My two cents.

regards,

"Trying to win with special forces alone (on the cheap) is a recipe for disaster."

Special Forces did just fine winning Afghanistan.

Shisenski was wrong about troop levels; he wanted more troops for the initial military campaign, not the later occupation. Clearly our initial invasion was so successful that even the malcontents can't knock it.

As for the occupation, it went quite well by historical standards compared to the German experience in Serbia circa 1941-1945, the Austrian experience in Serbia circa 1914-1918, the Russian experience in Afghanistan circa 1979-1989, etc. The handover of power went ahead of schedule, the schools are all open in Iraq for the kids, traffic flows on all Iraqi highways, more electricity is being delivered to Iraqi civilians now than under Saddam's "peaceful" regime, more hospitals are open (with better staff and better supplies), and the oil is flowing in greater quantities today than in pre-war Iraq.

What we have here is that the news media is shaping public opinion by being so negative about Iraq.

For perspective, consider that Brazil is painted by the news media as a calm paradise, yet Rio's pretty beaches and slum wastelands see 110 adults shot dead every day; yes, every day in Brazil there are 110 *fatal* shootings.

You don't get that many fatalities in a week of "chaotic," war-torn Iraq.

Yet Iraq is a "disaster" and Rio is paradise.

Such is the power of the press.

You two have fallen for it hook, line, and sinker. By being relentlessly negative, the news media has programmed you two to think that Iraq, where 1 or 2 Americans are dying per day, is somehow worse than Brazil, where 110 adults are shot dead *every* day by gang violence and street criminals.

No doubt you'd both happily vacation in Rio, yet fear for your lives in Iraq, even though the *reality* is so vastly different than the perspective that is being painted by the news media.

"4. Justa's comments about the derth of tube artillery and armor are exactly right. As an infantry officer, I cannot imagine conducting combat operations without artillery support, as was (is?) done in Afghanistan. This violates soooo many principles of war."

The quest for a lighter, faster military is dead. Clearly a heavier military is required. Armor works.

Combat operations have been fine, however. At most, we've seen unexpected casualties from insurgent techniques (ala IED's and RPG's). Stopping IED's, mines, and RPG's isn't the forte of tube artillery, either.

Yes, we need mortars. Yes, we need counter-battery fire. No, we don't need $12 billion Crusader boondoggles that fire dumb warheads. We need precision fire and we need armor.