Uh, I think you're missing the fact that
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
Keep in mind the enemy reacts. How will he react to helicopter-mobile(/-dependent) occupation infantry? ... and less on the patrols at will ... Meanwhile, the civilian populace knows the foreign troops only from helicopters and foot patrols while the Taliban move at will in Toyota Land Cruisers ...Who looks like a winner and in power? Those who venture out of their fortresses only through the air or those who dare to go everywhere?
the object is to use the helicopter for only initial entry into the area and for resupply -- the troops would move about on foot -- aggressively and frequently -- and we have light vehicles that will provide superior mobility and tactical agility when compared to Toyota pickups. They would be out of the air -- and large vehicles -- for a couple of weeks or more at a time. For various reasons, we have elected to not operate in that manner -- the capability to do it absolutely exists and can be expanded, the will to do that obviously does not. :mad:
Quote:
Remember the IED effect on patrols, especially in cases where no MRAPs/helicopters are available (or practical): The mere threat suffices at times to restrict the troops actions. It may be a subconscious influence, but it's there. Especially the less zealous contingents and troops might even consider to minimize patrol activity.
That over caution is an acknowledged problem. It is a significant training and a tactical employment defect. Many Commanders and leaders know better but are not permitted to do better...
Can't make your neighbors look bad, not egalitarian enough. Uniformity is more important than competence and success. Can't expect much more from an Army that worries about what color reflective belts the Troops wear when moving about on Bases that have 'Mayors'. In a combat zone... :rolleyes: :mad:
All a result of flawed policy decisions over many years and the Armed Forces just get to pick up the tab at delivery time... :(