posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 11:50 PM
The civilian leaders from the Viet Nam era didn't serve.
Back then the National Guard was for those who did not want to go to Viet Nam; the NG
slots were unobtainable for most young men, unlike today.
(I've heard it said that the military purposefully made the Guard more attainable in order to discourage unnecessary wars, hoping that employers and
citizens in general would put up an uproar as their NG had to leave their community to fight. For Iraq Rumsfeld changed all that, showing contempt for
the military and every American.)
Anyway, very good find, xpert. This Aussie general is indeed correct. Two generals who did understand the need to change from military battlefield to
counterinsurgency efforts were Mattis and Petraeus. Unfortunately Mattis's plans for Fallujah were countermanded by someone higher up than Rumsfeld.
Hence, the horrible First Battle of Fallujah.
Petraeus was asked to be in charge of the "surge". Even if this "surge" is counterinsurgency, I'm afraid it is either to little too late or it is
not being backed up by intense diplomacy to be effective.
In other words, civilian leaders are still not getting it right!
BTW the other generals etal who fought military battles after Mission Accomplished (when co-in would have been the better choice) helped add fuel to
the growing fire in Iraq. Their tactics helped the people of Iraq turn against the military set out to save them.
Soldiers who are trained to hate the soldier enemy, in order to do battle against them, transferred that hatred to the very civilians they should have
been protecting and using to root out the insurgents.