It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Australian chief lashes US on Iraq

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Australian chief lashes US on Iraq


www.smh.com.au

AUSTRALIA'S Chief of Army, Lieutenant General Peter Leahy, has taken a swipe at the US military's strategy at the outset of the Iraq war, expressing disbelief that it has taken so long for commanders to realise the merits of engaging with the local population and winning their trust.

Colonel Diemer said the strategy meant combat units were now living among the population, doing more foot patrols, talking and interacting with the population well before they undertook any offensive operations.
(visit the link for the full news article)

Mod Edit: Removed excessive copy/paste over the 500 character limit.

[edit on 24-7-2007 by UM_Gazz]




posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Well well I can remember when people said that the US was botching the war in Iraq they got branded anti American. Now all the chickens are coming home to roost .

It is simply astonishing that US commanders and civilian leaders who came from the Vietnam era had such an lack of understanding of how to fight counter insurgency war.

www.smh.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 11:50 PM
link   
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.



new topics
 
1

log in

join