Quoted: Quoted: The US military relies on its high tech toys too much.   Uhhhhhh, your point? Isn't what they buy them for? It would be unprofessional for an infantry officer to try to seize objectives without using supporting arms and technology he has readily available at his disposal. And it would be dumb. If the enemy had this technology, you think they'd hesitate to use it? You don't toss away your men like piss in the wind when you have a better means of accomplishing objectives. That's what 3rd world peasant armies do. And that's seperates us from them.

Exactly!  Why fight using Civil War tactics, when better is available?  Think "Pickett's Charge", then think if they simply had superior (say, even, "Twilight Zone" superior, which is what we're talking about in comparison) artillery instead of using the men.

I'm sure some of our opponents or potential opponents would love to see us doing the "man for man" thing.  Can someone say "human wave?"  If I had to point to one thing that made all the technology practical, it would be that.

Quoted: Quoted: But I hope that you can see what foreigners mean when they say that the U.S. relys more on technology an LOTS of equipment. It is becuase, compared to everyone else, you do... I still don't understand your logic. Because we have a metric assload of equipment, we 'rely' on it more than other nations rely on the same equipment? I don't see how we rely on our tanks or fighters or whatever more than any other nation does. It's just that we have more tanks and fighters. Our defense spending, as a percentage of GDP, is something like 3.2%. France is at ~2.9%, and Great Britain is at ~2.5%. So while our spending, as a percentage of GDP, is slightly higher than the Western average, it certainly isn't extraordinarily higher than other Western nations. And that 3.2% is 3.2% of a ~12.5 trillion USD/year GDP, so we have a similiarly proportioned slice of much bigger pie to play with than does a France or Germany. As for us having lots of stuff, sure we do. We need it. If China should invade Taiwan, it isn't going to be France that rushes wing after wing of the latest and greatest fighters to defend Taiwan. Should another war happen in Korea, it won't be German divisions sent to the scene. When Kosovo needed bombing, who was called upon to provide the biggest number of sorties? And not but a few years ago, there was this little union of republics, soviet and socialist in nature, that needed staring down. And so forth. Besides, we learned our lesson from WW2: Don't go to war with 'just enough'. Why buy 500 M1 Abrams when we can afford 5000? One carrier might make France giddy, but we want 12, plus a horde of assault ships. 200 F-16s would be good, but 2000 would be better. *shrug* I'm not saying that the perception isn't there, but I have yet to see any reasonable explanation put forward for it.

I tend to agree.

All modern western nations tend to have similar equipment. They all have tanks, APC's, IFV's, fighter jets, etc. It's just that we have a rather large amount of it.

However, I don't think we are any more dependent on our weapons and technology than anyone else. But I guess because we have a rather large military, the use of so much of this stuff gives that impression to some.

What a joke. We have the best trained military in the WORLD. So what if we ALSO have the best equipment & technology, that only helps our brave men & woman. Do not discredit our soldiers, marines, airmen & sailors' ability just because they also have superior technology. We have shown time & time again that we can kick ass with whatever we're given.


With that mentality, we should all still fight our wars with bow's & arrows.  

If other countries had the same technology we have, i guarantee that they would not hesitate to use it.  

Quoted: the big ticket items...not those little thingies you mentioned which are common among modern armies... your high-tech equipment is pretty much useless when fighting a domestic insurgency simply because it's designed for mass destruction and can't be used in the close-in, urban enviornment where the majority of insurgent attacks take place. yes, you COULD use it and destroy whole cities or neighborhoods and that probably would effectively kill off the insurgency, but what's the trade off for doing so? In a war in which the hearts and minds of the average citizen are the key to victory, killing innocents in droves is not likely to lead to additional support for our mission, is it?

Four letters: JDAM

The Abrams tank has done quite a bit of good on our side

I heard something about a new sonic detection system that pinpoints the location of enemy snipers.  I would definately call that high-tech, and it is not something that is common amongst the world's armies.

Satellite Imaging has given us a great advantage on the battlefield, something that the insurgents have no access to.

Have you never seen the video of the Apache helicopters taking out the insurgent mortar crew?  IR did a bit of good there.

I think that we have quite a bit of high-tech crap that is doing us alot of good out there, all while saving the lives of countless American grunts.

If the technology saves one extra US life or takes one extra enemy life, why not use it?
Of course, the cheaper the better, but money is not even a comparison IMHO.

Quoted: Quoted: British Army forum (Unofficial) is Army Rumour Service NTM heh that some funny stuff , especially of you imagine it in a heavy cockne  accent

Sah! Sah! They're in tha trees, sah!

Quoted: ok, what other high tech toy/s other than the UAVs thats been proven to be useful in killing insurgents and protecting the troops effectively from IEDs?

How about the precision guided bombs they can call down from an airstrike rather than having an entire platoon wiped out by going into some terrorist's booby-trapped rathole???

Quoted: Some Brits are just envious because we whipped ass then had to save them.

From what I read, it seems to me that a significant number of them were dismissive of America's "force protection" strategy.

I would hasten to ask those guys which ones of them would volunteer to get their rear ends shot up while chasing some terrorist f*cker back into his booby-trapped hole in the ground.

NEWSFLASH: The Americans call in airstrikes or armor strikes precisely because getting an entire platoon or company wiped out of comission is hardly a good option when the terrorists have constructed elaborate traps with tunnels and supply dumps specifically to cause American casualties.

It makes much more sense to bomb such a location than to play hide and seek with a bunch of f*ckers with RPGs stashed all over the place.

I don't believe the US ought to make a habit of putting our soldiers into shooting alleys for the insurgent loonies, and I bet that if those Brits on that site complaining about it were the ones who would have to chase Achmed and his buddies into a trap they might feel the same.

Not to mention that the stories of close quarter combat where Americans have gone HAND TO HAND with the enemy are LEGION. American commanders are not bomb happy retards who are afraid of risk, dammit!

They understand that they have a responsibility to their men and they aren't going to let them get shot to pieces for nothing. In fact, I bet if you interviewed the average American officer in charge of combat troops over there you would find that it really ISN'T so simple to get a bombing or artillery mission going, even with a high profile mission. American commanders don't just have bombs appear when they want them!

I just hear an awful lot of silly crap being spewed by guys who haven't had to face the situations our officers have had to face. It is real easy to monday morning quarterback and second guess from the safety of an internet board.

It is quite another to be contemplating the complex situations our commanders are faced with.

I know some fantastic Brits and I don't feel the need to go badmouthing their military. I wish they would extend my nation the same bloody courtesy.

Quoted: I would just LOVE to hear from a Frenchman on this one.

Amen!

Quoted: NEWSFLASH: The Americans call in airstrikes or armor strikes precisely because getting an entire platoon or company wiped out of comission is hardly a good option when the terrorists have constructed elaborate traps with tunnels and supply dumps specifically to cause American casualties.

That checks.

Others can go forth and die bravely needlessly.  Our troops are valuable Americans and should not be squandered cheaply.

Quoted: I still don't understand your logic. Because we have a metric assload of equipment, we 'rely' on it more than other nations rely on the same equipment? I don't see how we rely on our tanks or fighters or whatever more than any other nation does. It's just that we have more tanks and fighters. Our defense spending, as a percentage of GDP, is something like 3.2%. France is at ~2.9%, and Great Britain is at ~2.5%. So while our spending, as a percentage of GDP, is slightly higher than the Western average, it certainly isn't extraordinarily higher than other Western nations. And that 3.2% is 3.2% of a ~12.5 trillion USD/year GDP, so we have a similiarly proportioned slice of much bigger pie to play with than does a France or Germany. As for us having lots of stuff, sure we do. We need it. If China should invade Taiwan, it isn't going to be France that rushes wing after wing of the latest and greatest fighters to defend Taiwan. Should another war happen in Korea, it won't be German divisions sent to the scene. When Kosovo needed bombing, who was called upon to provide the biggest number of sorties? And not but a few years ago, there was this little union of republics, soviet and socialist in nature, that needed staring down. And so forth. Besides, we learned our lesson from WW2: Don't go to war with 'just enough'. Why buy 500 M1 Abrams when we can afford 5000? One carrier might make France giddy, but we want 12, plus a horde of assault ships. 200 F-16s would be good, but 2000 would be better. *shrug* I'm not saying that the perception isn't there, but I have yet to see any reasonable explanation put forward for it.

US military doctrine and spending is based around the notion of our needing to conduct major operations in multiple locations at the same time, which happens to be EXACTLY what we are doing. We are in Iraq, Afghanistan, beginning to stare down Iran, Europe, Taiwan, Korea.....Lots of places where a major war can flare up at any moment.

We have to have a lot of stuff and PRESERVE OUR SOLDIERS because we might need them if Kim Jong Ill decides to go postal tomorrow.

Lots of people whine about the US military, but the bottom line is that the US military is one of the important reasons why the whole damn globe isn't swallowed in war.

When one considers the massive commitments of the US government, it doesn't make sense to have entire companies rendered combat ineffective to chase terrorists down a friggin rathole. If you have an enemy sniper zapping your guys and you don't have a sniper of your own to take him out, calling a nearby Abrams to blow the sh*t out of the building he is hiding in is a pretty darn good strategy as opposed to letting your men get picked off one at a time.

This is, by the way, a time tested method of dealing with a sniper threat. I'll betcha that not a few Brittish commanders in WWII dealt with German snipers by calling down artillery strikes or by calling for armor to blow the snot out of a suspected sniper's nest. They weren't really interested in "hearts and minds" back then, I suppose....

the military is only as strong as the government and public will permit it to be, and a lot of america has become soft and seems to have no real concept of what has to be done.
Public opinion against military action, or more specifically sustained military action, is the biggest threat to national security.
That and seemingly recruiting numbers.

Quoted: That checks. Others can go forth and die bravely needlessly.  Our troops are valuable Americans and should not be squandered cheaply.

Even with all our high tech gear there is no shortage of stories about individual units being cut off in Iraq and getting shot up badly. Yet while under heavy enemy fire and with no communications and no resupply, they STILL manage to prevail.

There is no such thing as "over" reliance on "technology".

It also stuns me to hear people say that Americans rely to much on technology and then criticize friendly fire incidents. How the hell are you supposed to avoid friendly fire if you don't use technology? It is things like GPS and radio communications that are going to PREVENT friendly fire incidents! (It would be interesting to see, by the way, how many friendly fire incidents the Brit military had as compared to how many soldiers they fielded....)

The Brittish soldiers I have met have been Royal Marines from the SBS, and they didn't have a problem with the American military. In fact, they liked the way we operate in general. When one considers that they are at the point of the spear and that they bear the most risk, one can understand why they like a policy of force protection.

I'll concede that my beloved U.S. Army is not and never has been perfect.

Still, the fact is that much of the criticism leveled at us by foreigners - especially members of foreign armies like those tards on the British Army rumor site - is grounded in jealousy.

Quoted: I would just LOVE to hear from a Frenchman on this one.

Sorry i have to be bribed for helping you

I thought this topic there was interesting.

www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=28244.html

Quoted: I'll concede that my beloved U.S. Army is not and never has been perfect. Still, the fact is that much of the criticism leveled at us by foreigners - especially members of foreign armies like those tards on the British Army rumor site - is grounded in jealousy.

There quite possibly is some truth the the jealousy comment. However, to think that all British soldiers as represented by those on the site at face value are 'tards' who hate the US military is as much of a false impression as the one which started the whole thing off.

To start with, ARRSE isn't going to be received well by people who either can't understand British humour or who get lit off faster than a house where the gas stove has been left on all night. For those who aren't aware, 'Arse' is British for backside and is a mild swear-word. Any British site that calls itself 'arrse' is not going to take itself, or anyone else seriously. Look around, and you will find that the British are as depreciating of themselves as of anyone. The site is a fantastic resource, but you have to be able to tell between jibes and slander. You will note if you stay around that the American posters on the site are treated well and warmly, unless they're assholes. It should also be noted that a very large portion of the British military has been through Iraq, and a lot of the posters speak from personal experience.

Staying on the site, in the BCT thread, there's some input by a chap called 'Sierra1'. I can see him fitting well into Arfcom. He charges in all guns blazing about how America is fantastic, can do no wrong, etc etc.  Although he is a minority of one on the thread, it diverted it into a 6-page pissing match, and is exactly the reason why there is frequently a negative perception of Americans at face value.

They, both American and British posters, make some quite astute observations. Start with the different building blocks. American soldiers tend to join for vastly different reasons than the British. For starters, America has more soldiers per population, and so doesn't have the same option to pick the cream of the selections. Secondly, many Americans are in the military for a short 3-or-6-year stint for the benefits. Job skills, college money, so on. The proportion of career soldiers in the US compared to the British is fairly low. As one American pointed out, being a career soldiers is quite well respected in all parts of the UK. Serving 22 years in the US Army, going to Panama, Haiti, Afghanistan and Iraq twice is treated in a lot of the US as rather ho-hum.

A second example was posted by a Brit visiting a US area, there was a sign up saying 'Know your lane, stay in your lane, dominate your lane.' There is a perception that American soldiers specialise far too much. An exaggerated example might be a Bradley mechanic, who knows everything it is possible to know about a Bradley, but can't change a tyre on a HMMWV or slap a bandaid on. Now, it's accepted that this actually works for the US military, but there is still the perception that it's 'wrong' to those brought up in other cultures. Americans place value in general in the concept of the Subject Matter Expert, British people like to be more rounded. Particularly when it comes down to knowing who is on your side. There are a lot of 'friendly fire' jokes about the American military from the British for good reason and bitter experience. "Shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out" is a perception. Not an accurate one, but a perception none-the-less. The original poster did not ask for a reasoned debate as to the merits of the US military, but as to how the military is perceived, subtle yet important difference.

Again, I reiterate, that everyone, including the British, openly admit that when it comes down to something like WWIII, invading Iran, or otherwise demolishing another country's military, the US does it the best. They have the equipment, the training to use that equipment and are not shy about spending the money to use it. In general competence, the British can be said to have an edge at battalion level because of the way they're structured, but when it comes to multi-battalion or division sustained operations, the Americans pull ahead, not because of equipment, but because the Americans do a lot more work on that scale than the British and are simply better at it and more practised at it.

The problem most in evidence though, and examples have shown up on this thread as well, is 'why risk an American life when we can just JDAM the building?' It's failing to see the woods for the trees. Fallujah was mentioned earlier, and it's true: The American military went in and did what it does best: Intense fighting. The problem is that most of Iraq is not Fallujah September 2004. What worked and was appropriate in Fallujah, or in the hills of Vietnam does not work in the small town of Al Shahab with all of three insurgents in a population of 2000. High ranking officers in the US have openly admitted that the British does sort of low-intensity op better, and have had British trainers in to teach Americans how they do business. I've received these classes. The problem is then that whilst the NCOs and junior officers receive and understand, the mid-levels, probably worried about what their OER would look like if they lost one soldier, refuse to allow them to put those policies into practise. Although it's a low-intensity combat zone, the final truth of the matter is that it is still a war. In order to win a war, you need to put soldiers at calculated risk in order to obtain greater payoff. It seems to me that too many soldiers are of the all-or-nothing approach, and can't tone it down to middle-levels to fit the situation. An argument on the Irish site between an America infantryman and the rest of the site went "The job of the Army is to kill people and take ground". "No, the job of the Army is to carry out the policies that the civilian leadership sets for it". It may not be popular, it may not be that the army or its training is well suited for the COIN role, but regardless, it's the way they're being used and people need to get used to the fact that it's an entirely different set of parameters. Dead enemy with collateral local damage and live Americans won't win this one. Captured enemy, with little local damage and more American dead will. It sounds callous, but it's an unfortunate truth which few want to accept.

NTM

Quoted: There quite possibly is some truth the the jealousy comment. However, to think that all British soldiers as represented by those on the site at face value are 'tards' who hate the US military is as much of a false impression as the one which started the whole thing off.

Indeed.

I don't believe that the people's opinions on that site are representative of everyone in the UK. The UK military people I have dealt with have been superb people with funny accents and a penchant for eating really awful food.

"Where can a fellow get some decent blood pudding around here?"

My response: Nowhere. We don't have vampires on this side of the Atlantic.

My last weapons instructor was a Brit, an 18 year veteran of the SBS and worked for their intelligence service for a few years. He was a great instructor and we had lots of fun. He had only been in the US for a couple of weeks when he taught our class. On the evening of the no light shoothouse he told us to go to the boot of our cars and get our torches out. Being the only fellow who had dealings with the Brits before, I translated for him.

It was hilarious because the first thing he bought when he came to the US was a jacked up Ford F350 dualie pickup. He didn't just move to the US, he was going to go full on Redneck Bubba on us. I bought him a confederate flag to hang in the back of his huge truck so he would fit in with the other hilbillys.

He didn't have a superiority complex or an inferiority complex. He was just a pleasant bloke to be around who knew his stuff.

Quoted: I thought this topic there was interesting. www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=28244.html

Good find. Forgot about that thread.

Excerpt from one post:

"the Americans are grateful for whatever we do and their arrogance is only arrogance because we perceive it as such. It is like criticizing paras for being in your face, when all they think they are doing is expressing their esprit de corps, albeit quite forcefully! Our American allies are full of the confidence that having a national purpose engenders. You may debate whether it is mis-placed but you cannot deny its sincerity."

Quoted: There is a perception that American soldiers specialise far too much. An exaggerated example might be a Bradley mechanic, who knows everything it is possible to know about a Bradley, but can't change a tyre on a HMMWV or slap a bandaid on.

Perhaps for the same reason that soldiers can't do their own in-field repair of things like weapons. It is not because they are incapable of doing the repair, but they can actually come up on charges if they do something that isn't approved by the reg books. If a soldier breaks a slide stop on a pistol and repairs it himself he can end up in a world of crap.  Special forces guys can get around this sometimes, but then only sometimes. Ask a NSWG guy about modifying his issue weapons sometime.

In a time of necessity, our soldiers usually adapt and overcome using whatever they have on hand. The stories about American troops improvising in Iraq and Afghanistan are legion.

The American soldier has rules and regulations hanging over his/her head like the sword of damocles, thus they consider every action they take in light of how much trouble they can get in for it. No Bradley mechanic is going to change a hum-vee tire if it is going to get him into mounds of trouble because an anal-retentive loo-tenant in charge of a different motor pool to go ape for doing an "unapproved" repair.

If the Brits don't have to deal with that kind of regulatory nightmare, then they ought to thank their lucky stars as opposed to criticizing those who must put up with such things.

But more than once in American history a soldier on scene has done something that goes completely against regulations because the tactical situation made those regulations perilous to life and limb. And so with the finest American spirit, he has thought "f*ck the regulations. I NEED to do this" and has done it anyway, and has prevailed by doing so. Commanders who realize the realities of combat usually excuse the breaking of onerous regulations in such circumstances.

Tag

Oh., there is also one other totally unrelated but commonly held perception of the US Army: They see a midlevel NCO's Class A, and they think that the US throws medals at you.

Some of it is pretty on. The Army gives you a ribbon just for being in the Army. A medal for barely making the minumum marksmanship qualification. A ribbon for going to the requred NCO course for your rank. Some of it really stems just from a difference of opinion as to what exactly should be worn. An American salad bar is a pretty detailed level. A British reservist mobilised for OpTelic, regardless of where he was sent or what he did will receive a single award, same as a regular army soldier: The Op Telic Medal. The American system is almost like a CV you wear on your chest, you can tell from the combination of medals/ribbons if he was mobilised as a reservist or regular army, if he was in Iraq or Kuwait, even if he was shot at or not. Basically, foreigners looking at American uniforms don't understand the concept of service-based awards, and think that the whole four rows on that squad leader are merit-based.

NTM

who gives a shit what they think


those who forget history are doomed to repeat it


(lack of capitalization and punctuation was added to give the spelling nazis something to do)

Quoted: Quoted: But I hope that you can see what foreigners mean when they say that the U.S. relys more on technology an LOTS of equipment. It is becuase, compared to everyone else, you do... I still don't understand your logic. Because we have a metric assload of equipment, we 'rely' on it more than other nations rely on the same equipment? I don't see how we rely on our tanks or fighters or whatever more than any other nation does. It's just that we have more tanks and fighters. Our defense spending, as a percentage of GDP, is something like 3.2%. France is at ~2.9%, and Great Britain is at ~2.5%. So while our spending, as a percentage of GDP, is slightly higher than the Western average, it certainly isn't extraordinarily higher than other Western nations. And that 3.2% is 3.2% of a ~12.5 trillion USD/year GDP, so we have a similiarly proportioned slice of much bigger pie to play with than does a France or Germany. As for us having lots of stuff, sure we do. We need it. If China should invade Taiwan, it isn't going to be France that rushes wing after wing of the latest and greatest fighters to defend Taiwan. Should another war happen in Korea, it won't be German divisions sent to the scene. When Kosovo needed bombing, who was called upon to provide the biggest number of sorties? And not but a few years ago, there was this little union of republics, soviet and socialist in nature, that needed staring down. And so forth. Besides, we learned our lesson from WW2: Don't go to war with 'just enough'. Why buy 500 M1 Abrams when we can afford 5000? One carrier might make France giddy, but we want 12, plus a horde of assault ships. 200 F-16s would be good, but 2000 would be better. *shrug* I'm not saying that the perception isn't there, but I have yet to see any reasonable explanation put forward for it.

You just explained it for me. Other countries, mine included say "how little can we get away with spending on defence so that we can put the money into useful things, like more welfare programmes?" The U.S. says "We need to be able to rush into Iraq, NK, Taiwan et. al. at the drop of a hat. How much do we need to spend to do it?". That level of commitment buys alot of stuff. also, you said "Why buy 500 M1 Abrams when we can afford 5000?" etc. The American military mindset is "why take 2 when you can take 200?" Its one that I happen to agree with to a certain extent, but it also breeds a certain approach to the use of equipment that other, less well resourced militaries would consider wastefull, or at least extravagent. ARFCOM sums up that attitude really well: "GET BOTH!"

I don't think that anyone here is saying that the American way of war is bad. Its certainly not perfect, and there is always room for improvement. A good example is John Wayne's description of the restricive rules on repair of gear. Another poster has already pointed out the relative merits of the Yank and Pom armies.

The perception is there because off the way the U.S. buys, supplies. trains and fights. I reckon that it would be fair to say that the U.S. relies alot on being lavishly equipped to do a job, because they can. Everyone else just has to make do by comparrision.

And, it's not the US GI's job to die for his country, but to make the other bastard die for his.  Or, to put it in the context of the above post, yes, I'd rather see invaders die than the Australians.

Accidental double post.  The site seems just to be hanging quite a bit.

...

...

Let's not forget that in Mogadishu, with only small arms and some light helicopter cover, short on food, water, ammo, and night vision, no armor, no artillery, no airplanes, Task Force Ranger had  close to a 100 to 1 body count.

No doubt the U.S. military is wasteful.  No doubt we are often afraid to take casualties.  No doubt we sometimes use a shotgun to swat a fly.

But man for man, rifle for rifle, our guys can bump uglies with anyone in the world, and the high tech toys only make them more lethal on top of it.

Double tap.

Quoted: Quoted: I would just LOVE to hear from a Frenchman on this one. Sorry i have to be bribed for helping you

I don't know how other countries see our military, but I've always taken a liking to this little diddy:

"What do we do?"
"KILL! KILL! KILL!"

"What makes the grass grow?"
"BLOOD! BLOOD! BLOOD!"

Tag for some very good posts and some very good links.

Just some thoughts...

The ARRSE site is particularly fun. If you drive around a while and read some threads my comments will be even more meaningful.

I am a .civ, with no military experience, whose father went to WWII and fought with the British and against the Germans (372 General Engineer Regiment, 12 Corps, 3rd Army, see "The Bulge.").  His comments were that both were very good soldiers.  He respected the German soldier as fighting for their country, generally, with comments that the SS were "fanatics."

He found that the Brits were much like the people "back home," and respected the abilities of the British Soldier.  "I'm glad we were on the same side." He respected their professionalism.

Many of the jabs back and forth now are tha same as during WWII. Don't mean nothin'.


I think many of the comments about the intensity of the engagement in Iraq are accurate re US using agressive force protection at times that other tactics might be better.  

Many of the ARRSE comments about the skills of the American soldier are probably not accurate, but based on some of my military friends comments about training time with the AR and the lack of ammunition available in the early stages of training, I am not surprised. There have been other comments that from Bn down to, but not through, small elements,the Brit forces have some advantages.  

I also, personally think, too many of us are too close to the Team America, World Police, stereotype for our own good.  2 more years should fix this. Fcuk, yeah!
 
But for combined use of force the US learned the lesson exceptionally well. Do we have to thank the German Blitzkrieg for this?

Also, based on some of my friends comments, the knock on the rapid rise, and relative inexperience, of US non coms, is accurate.  The Brit NCOs have always been among the world's best. Not new. Worth learning from, but not new.   By the time they (US troops) have a few weeks in country I think the level has come up a lot.  The American Soldier has always stressed marksmanship.  Handling must follow. Leadership is also stressed. We get the job done but could smooth out the curve a bit.



I know many fine individuals who thought, during Vietnam, that they were going to go over to 'Nam and kill a bunch of "gooks" and "geeks" and found that they were often the sacrificial lambs, fighting as a 2 year conscript, 1 year in country max, against a soldier with 10+ years experience against French Paras (good soldiers) and 3 or 4 or 5 previous generations of US troops, good troops.  The NVA and Cong were good soldiers, not too good to beat, but good soldiers, and part of the US experience in Vietnam resulted from Pride, good old fashioned Greek Hubris, Pride.

I am proud to be an American, and recognize proudly that our country's soldiers defeated the British and Prussian soldiers during Yorktown, and during the War of 1812, and that we, that would be my very own father, helped save their bacon in mutual defence against "the hun." Who can say that we wouldn't be speaking German right now, Vielen Dank.

But we need to be relentlessly truthful and accurate regarding strengths and weaknesses.  The troops I know coming back from the first or second time are very different from when they first left.  I am honored to say that they have excellent morale but they can talk about the reality in very clear terms.  Too much Pride can still blind us. I think we must be relentlessly clear in our vision.

I think that cross training and learning from those that do some things better than us is smart.  To think that no one does some things better than us is just not right.  Knowing the differences is wisdom.

We have a lot to learn from the Brits if we structure it right. They can learn from us as well; see Faluja and Ramadi.  Basra has not been quite the same.

Just some thoughts,

Regards,

Rick