I can think of several areas
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William F. Owen
Then they become good criminals not bad criminals. Actually I don't see any grown up western democracy supporting any insurgency these days. Sure there was the Bay of Pigs, the Contras and the Mujahaddin, but would there be in a post 9/11 world? Are they acting against a democracy or a dictatorship?
...and if you think about it, this question falls outside the realm of military thought. This is one for diplomats, not soldiers, or military theorists.
throughout the globe where if pressure from the US and others doesn't affect change in governance enough, there may very well be groups of individuals who's methods we may disagree with but whose purpose we would actually be in a position of supporting. Thats why defining it seems to me to be such a never ending pursuit.
Kinda like Stochastic math; great stuff with purpose but what the heck is it? :eek:
The problem, Wilf, is that
Quote:
...and if you think about it, this question falls outside the realm of military thought. This is one for diplomats, not soldiers, or military theorists.
I've not only thought about it, I've been able to live it. During that life, it came to my attention as a soldier, not a theorist, that I went a lot of places and did a lot of things that were militarily unsound and strategically inane, even borderline stupid and not at all in the realm of soldiers but that the politicians and diplomats wanted a presence or something done so soldiers went. And did what the civilians wanted to be done...
Democracies are messy that way.
Quote:
Then they become good criminals not bad criminals. Actually I don't see any grown up western democracy supporting any insurgency these days. Sure there was the Bay of Pigs, the Contras and the Mujahaddin, but would there be in a post 9/11 world? Are they acting against a democracy or a dictatorship?
To quote Sir Sean Connery, "Never say never..." ;)
Democracies are messy that way. :D
I think Ron has it right. :wry:
I can buy that figure. I'll also note that,
as I'm sure you've discovered, some of that which was earlier considered by me to be nonsense actually had a sound and logical basis but just hadn't been modified to cope with societal and technological differences. All that was required was minor tweaking.
Discovered also that if you can point out truly nonsensical thing to the right person (and that is critical, the wrong one will do nothing) things can get changed.
Years ago, US Army track vehicle mechanics were trained at Forts Knox (on tanks) and Sill (on self propelled guns) as well as Aberdeen Proving Ground (on APCs). Problem was that they all ended up with the same MOS (job code) and one could be in a Mech Infantry Battalion and have a slew of SP Artillery mechanics who couldn't spell APC. Years of complaint up the chain were to no avail -- until De Puy, then the TRADOC CG was briefed on it in a Motor Pool in Korea. Got fixed in a matter of weeks and all Track mechanics went to Knox to learn all the systems.
The moral of that story is the chain of command is important -- but sometimes (often? ;) ) you have to short circuit it to get things done. Carefully, of course -- but unhesitatingly...