Whatever happened to Hearts and Minds?
"SANGIN, Afghanistan — A senior British commander in southern Afghanistan said in recent weeks that he had asked that American Special Forces leave his area of operations because the high level of civilian casualties they had caused was making it difficult to win over local people."
This is a direct quote from the New York Times regarding an article about how even the British are now opposed to the US strategy of "strategic bombing" along with special forces due to the large number of "collateral damage".
The fact of the matter is that large scale air support and bombing operations are only effective against another organized military with specific targets which can be destroyed. When air power and bombing are brought to bear on a guerilla or an insurgent force disaster is lurking around the corner. The smartest bomb in the US arsenal can not distinguish the difference between the guerilla fighter or the innocent family in the building next to him or even with him. Time and time again we see the failure of large scale mechanized and air forces to eliminate the threat of guerilla fighters. Vietnam, Israels failed attempts at controlling the Palestinians, Israel against Hezbollah and now the US in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Other nations in the current conflicts have take a less aggresive posture with good results, mainly the Dutch in Afghanistan who practice small patrols who aid and assist the citizens rather than intimidate and the British in Iraq who learned their lessons from a bitter conflict with the IRA on their home turf. The US sticks with its heavy handed tactics of Tanks, Armor, Artillery and Air Power only to see the populace of the countries turn against them. As the stated mission in Vietnam turned into winning over the hearts and minds of the people it is supposedly the same now. Yet we continue to see "collateral damage" as a necessary cost of bringing these people freedom. I find the whole concept and practice laughable.
Francois Tremblay over at Check Your Premises raised the issue that the US Military suffers an image problem in its current conflicts. This is an image problem of our own doing and as a direct consequence of our heavy handed and brutal tactics in the name of "freedom" and "liberty" for the Iraqi people. He also offers up some creative slogans for the Military such as:
“US Foreign Policy: Killing Freedom-Loving People, Financing Our Own Enemies and Installing Puppet Dictators Since 1861″
“Sure, We Shoot Innocent Protesters and Bomb Babies, But We’re Here to Help You.”
“Dethroning Hussein Created General Chaos, But At Least You Can Vote Now!”
“Sure Your Whole Family Was Massacred, But Now You Guys Have a McDonalds, So We’re Not So Bad After All.”
These are all apt slogans for our military and its endeavors maybe they should adopt these instead of weak slogans like "Army Strong".
This is a direct quote from the New York Times regarding an article about how even the British are now opposed to the US strategy of "strategic bombing" along with special forces due to the large number of "collateral damage".
The fact of the matter is that large scale air support and bombing operations are only effective against another organized military with specific targets which can be destroyed. When air power and bombing are brought to bear on a guerilla or an insurgent force disaster is lurking around the corner. The smartest bomb in the US arsenal can not distinguish the difference between the guerilla fighter or the innocent family in the building next to him or even with him. Time and time again we see the failure of large scale mechanized and air forces to eliminate the threat of guerilla fighters. Vietnam, Israels failed attempts at controlling the Palestinians, Israel against Hezbollah and now the US in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Other nations in the current conflicts have take a less aggresive posture with good results, mainly the Dutch in Afghanistan who practice small patrols who aid and assist the citizens rather than intimidate and the British in Iraq who learned their lessons from a bitter conflict with the IRA on their home turf. The US sticks with its heavy handed tactics of Tanks, Armor, Artillery and Air Power only to see the populace of the countries turn against them. As the stated mission in Vietnam turned into winning over the hearts and minds of the people it is supposedly the same now. Yet we continue to see "collateral damage" as a necessary cost of bringing these people freedom. I find the whole concept and practice laughable.
Francois Tremblay over at Check Your Premises raised the issue that the US Military suffers an image problem in its current conflicts. This is an image problem of our own doing and as a direct consequence of our heavy handed and brutal tactics in the name of "freedom" and "liberty" for the Iraqi people. He also offers up some creative slogans for the Military such as:
“US Foreign Policy: Killing Freedom-Loving People, Financing Our Own Enemies and Installing Puppet Dictators Since 1861″
“Sure, We Shoot Innocent Protesters and Bomb Babies, But We’re Here to Help You.”
“Dethroning Hussein Created General Chaos, But At Least You Can Vote Now!”
“Sure Your Whole Family Was Massacred, But Now You Guys Have a McDonalds, So We’re Not So Bad After All.”
These are all apt slogans for our military and its endeavors maybe they should adopt these instead of weak slogans like "Army Strong".
posted by the meathaus at 12:46 AM
1 Comments:
Very interesting on on target comments. Nice article.
Post a Comment
<< Home