Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 161

Thread: The Army: A Profession of Arms

  1. #121
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Jakola View Post

    My question is how do we, as a profession of arms, establish clear roles and develop our military leaders to operate within those established boundaries?
    The Cuban Missile Crisis is an interesting example. The Army had another option to offer the President largely because it had a different Strategy on how to fight a war. The Army had a Missile-Counter Missile-Civil Defense Plan that was largely different than the other services. I saw this up close and personal and the Army has never received the proper credit for preventing WW3-IMO.

    The point being if the Army concentrates on offering differant policy advice(option) than everybody else it will be easier to develop a proper curriculum for the PME of it's soldiers. It would also increase its ability to influence policy simply because it is differant. Just my opinion.

  2. #122
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Jakola View Post

    This movie gets at what I view as an extreme example of advocacy that clearly enters the realm of treason.
    Slippery slope.
    General Lemay advocating strongly for the bombing of Cuba during the missile crisis is another real example of the type of advocacy that goes beyond informing or shaping policy. His role as a leader in the profession of arms was not to set policy that is the role of the President. However, I view General Lemay as acting outside the bounds of the profession of arms by attempting to set policy.
    Well that is exactly my point. Soldiers should not set policy. They should merely advise as to what is possible using violence or the threat of violence. That's it!

    My question is how do we, as a profession of arms, establish clear roles and develop our military leaders to operate within those established boundaries?
    Get them to study war and warfare. Their contribution is violence, and the control that brings. Make sure they understand that. You do not shape policy to better use violence. You better shape violence to serve policy.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  3. #123
    Council Member wm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    On the Lunatic Fringe
    Posts
    1,237

    Default

    On the issue of advocacy and advice raised by Bill Jakola, I will offer the following:

    A wise old colonel once told me, "Whether you are a staff officer or a subordinate commander (and you'll always be one or the other unless you get elected President) your job is to find the best solution you can to the problem and then convince the boss that your proposed solution is the best. Once the boss makes a decision on how to tackle the problem, it's time to stop arguing. Then, your job is to make sure the boss's decision gets implemented as best you can. If at any time you find you you can't do these things, it's time to get out." Until a decision is made, one advocates. Once the decision is made, one gives advice on implementing it.


    I agree that Ken's assessment of the problem that is a significant contributor to lack of professionalism and support his proposed solution thereto. "Up or out" must be removed in order to have a force that is not suboptimized. As I see it, the policy "rewards" officers for being competent at a given level by promoting them until such point as they display incompetence and then throws them out--some reward. Rewarding competence is a suboptimizer--I'd prefer my force to strive for excellence, not just competence. Other ways besides promotion exist to reward excellence.

    However, I must disagree with Ken's assessment of the military's status as a profession, epecially when compared to his two paradigms--physcians and lawyers.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    A Profession requires a discrete vocabulary (we have that), dedication to its norms (we have that), a body of specialist knowledge (we have that), is trusted to be self regulating (not present) and self policing (also not present). Those items are listed in order of importance, least to greatest. The 'profession of arms' fails on the two most critical tests.

    . . .

    If the occupation of soldiers was self regulating and self policing as are law and medicine, then it might be a profession. Since it is not those things -- and should not be if it is to serve the State -- then it doesn't really exist as a profession.
    The miltary is self-regulating to a high degree--if it weren't then what the heck are those ARs, AFIs, etc. all about. The military is also self-policing. After all it has its own code of justice--UCMJ--and its own police forces. I suspect Ken's main focus for denying that the military meets these two tenets is based on the phrase "is trusted." I submit that the military is trusted to be self regulating and self policing. However, limits exist to that trust. In similar fashion, limits exist to the self-regulating and self-policing of doctors and lawyers. Every state in the US regulates its doctors, and I believe its lawyers as well, through a governmental organization that is outside the profession. Doctors and lawyers must be licensed/admitted to practice in a jurisdiction--In Massachusetts at least, the state medical and bar associations (the self-regulating and policing arms of those professions) do not perform that function, state agencies do. The Mass. Board of Registration in Medicine is a state agency, not a physician's organization. In addition to licensing physicians, it also has the responsibility for disciplining them. The Mass. Board of the Bar Overseers performs a similar function:
    Quote Originally Posted by http://www.mass.gov/obcbbo/board.htm
    The Board of Bar Overseers was established by the Supreme Judicial Court in 1974 as an independent administrative body to investigate and evaluate complaints against lawyers. Although both the Board is an official body subject to the supervision of the Supreme Judicial Court, no public funds are spent to support it. The Board's expenses come solely from the annual registration fees paid by lawyers.

    The Board of Bar Overseers consists of twelve volunteer members who are appointed by the Court for four-year terms. Eight of the members are lawyers; the other four are public members. The activities of the Board are governed by Supreme Judicial Court Rule 4:01 and the Rules of the Board of Bar Overseers. The Board acts as an administrative tribunal to consider disciplinary charges brought by Bar Counsel. When a lawyer is found guilty of misconduct the Board either imposes discipline or recommends to the Supreme Judicial Court that more serious discipline be imposed.
    Fact of the matter is that the USA as a nation came to exist because of distrust of authority. As a result, just about every public activity in this country has some oversight by the citizenry, its elected or apppointed representatives, or both.

    I concur that much of what the military does is very much tradecraft, but that does not yield the result that the military is not a profession. A platypus lays eggs like birds and reptiles, but that does not keep it from being a mammal.
    Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit
    The greatest educational dogma is also its greatest fallacy: the belief that what must be learned can necessarily be taught. — Sydney J. Harris

  4. #124
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Always good to hear from you WM.

    We can have one of our rare disagreements on this esoteric topic.

    I sincerely hope the The Mass. Board of Registration in Medicine as a state agency is not unduly responsive to the State Medical Association as is ours in Florida (though we are getting better...). Nationwide, the various Medical Boards and Registries are effectively self regulating with minimal government oversight; that is not true of the Armed forces -- if it were, then OCLL would be a much smaller and far cheaper operation than it is.

    I also note the Lawyers have assured themselves of a voting majority on the Board of Bar Overseers. One could wish for such representation on the two ASCs.

    One of the penalties of being old is that one recalls things. Like the screaming and wailing of old Marines, Officer and Enlisted, when the UCMJ was first promulgated in 1951. "Congress has sold us down the river..."

    However, all that said, I do realize the desire and logical conclusions of many opt for the 'Profession' as opposed to trade -- and I really have no problem with that. I simply have another opinion and voice it on occasion by pointing out that a good many effective wielders of violence for political ends are not professionals in any sense and thus, I attempt to discourage the fatal flaw of allowing one's ego to impede common sense leading to underestimating one's opponents -- a too consistent American failure.

    The Platypus is an interesting allegorical choice, it is indeed a mammal -- but it does lay eggs. Venomous, too. Not many of them about, though...

  5. #125
    Council Member Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Mountain, West Virginia
    Posts
    990

    Default

    One of my main concerns about the Profession of Arms in the U.S. is that we now seem to be more concerned about the smooth functioning of our administrative and logistical processes rather than winning wars. During the past 30 years most of the military professionals I've known have reached the point that they're neither surprised nor indignant when the system screws up because they've seen it happen so many times. To get something done in the military you have to use the chain of command and each level of the hierarchy has its own internal processes, which means that by the time the chain of command has done its thing the situation that started things in the first place has changed and has been overcome by events. In tactical situations that process can and does snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

    It reminds me of what a woman told me about being a clerk typist for the Bureau of Indian Affairs -- when she typed a piece of correspondence it would be sent around for review with a routing slip attached, and by the time everyone had reviewed it 12 months would have elapsed and the situation would be OBE. However, whether you're a lieutenant colonel, a master sergeant, or a typist, if you need your job you'd best keep your mouth shut and not say anything about it.

    I suppose that's okay because North Korea, North Vietnam, the Viet Cong, Afghanistan, and Iraq have never been threats to the survival of the U.S., but if we ever face a real enemy this sort of thing will really matter.

  6. #126
    Council Member Bill Jakola's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wm View Post
    On the issue of advocacy and advice raised by Bill Jakola, I will offer the following:

    your job is to find the best solution you can to the problem and then convince the boss that your proposed solution is the best.
    WM my definition of advice and avocacy may be somewhat different than yours. I view our responsibility as providing courses of action, or strategies to our political leaders and not advocating for only one solution. Since providing just one answer, as you suggest, limits the commander's choice to either approve or not.

    But also our profession requires us to maintain and profess expert knowledge. Part of professing this expertise is advocating and even dissenting when the gravity of the situation warrants.


    Quote Originally Posted by wm View Post
    I agree that Ken's assessment of the problem that is a significant contributor to lack of professionalism and support his proposed solution thereto...

    However, I must disagree with Ken's assessment of the military's status as a profession, epecially when compared to his two paradigms--physcians and lawyers.

    Here I must clarify the difference between behaving professionally or possessing professionalism and the profession of arms. Professionalism as you and Ken point out is not different in the military than it is in other areas, like plumbing. However, the profession of arms is uniquely different in that it derives power from society. In other words, society creates the profession of arms to maintain expertise in the management of violence in the resolution of social problems.

    This contract between the society and the profession is what distinguishes the profession of arms from an occupation or trade. For example, as Dr. Snider points out, in 2003 the society asked the profession to conduct COIN but the profession did not have any COIN expertise. This was a failure of the profession and this is why we need to have this conversation. We need to ensure our profession of arms maintains the required expertise across the full spectrum of operations. This is our mandate from the society we serve.

  7. #127
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post

    However, all that said, I do realize the desire and logical conclusions of many opt for the 'Profession' as opposed to trade -- and I really have no problem with that. I simply have another opinion and voice it on occasion by pointing out that a good many effective wielders of violence for political ends are not professionals in any sense and thus, I attempt to discourage the fatal flaw of allowing one's ego to impede common sense leading to underestimating one's opponents -- a too consistent American failure.
    Maybe Ken is right? One could say that the American Army is not a Professional Army in the sense that the fundamental definition of a Professional is one who renders a service for a fee, hence a true professional army is a mercenary army. But the American Army might be better considered a Citizen Army and they serve out of a sense of duty and love of country as opposed to monetary gain. Instead of being Professional, the American people expect them to be competent and expert at waging War and Warfare. Just a thought.
    Last edited by slapout9; 11-16-2010 at 12:06 AM. Reason: spellin stuff

  8. #128
    Council Member Bill Jakola's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    66

    Default Exactly, not professional but profession of arms.

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    Maybe Ken is right? One could say that the American Army is not a Professional Army in the sense that the fundamental definition of a Professional is one who renders a service for a fee, hence a true professional army is a mercenary army. But the American Army might be better considered a Citizen Army and they serve out of a sense of duty and love of country as opposed to monetary gain. Instead of being Professional, the American people expect them to be competent and expert at waging War and Warfare. Just a thought.
    Slap, this is exactly right. We are not talking professional, or professionalism but, as you say, a profession of arms "competent and expert at waging War and Warfare". The profession matins expert knowledge of war.

    Also, your link to the old movie about the coup was spot on for depicting the civil military relationship. I see this part of the profession (civil/military) easier to envision and it has much clearer lines of demarcation. Whereas, the military/military (joint and foreign) relationships are
    more challenging to describe.

  9. #129
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Jakola View Post
    Also, your link to the old movie about the coup was spot on for depicting the civil military relationship. I see this part of the profession (civil/military) easier to envision and it has much clearer lines of demarcation. Whereas, the military/military (joint and foreign) relationships are
    more challenging to describe.
    A little tidbit about the movie President Kennedy personally pushed Hollywood to have the movie made, to include his arraigning to be away from the White house so part of the filming could be done in front of the White house. If you haven't seen the whole movie take a look some time it is worth it. The very same scenario could happen today, actually pretty scary

  10. #130
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default 1964 was the year for nuke, agitprop movies

    We had Dr Strangelove (released 29 Jan 1964) and the lesser-remembered Fail Safe (released 7 Oct 1964) (on cable a month or so ago), which were of the "Big Boom cuz of Screwup" genre.

    We had Slap's Seven Days in May (released 12 Feb 1964), of the "Big Conspiracy" genre - timely as being released a few months after JFK was killed.

    We also had the 7 Sep 1964 Daisy Ad, which played on fears that the Dr Strangelove and Fail Safe scenarios would actually play out. That is, if the electorate allowed "conspiratorial nutcases" (i.e., Goldwater et al) to assume the reins of power.

    Such was 1964 Hollywood's normative view of the military (scarcely in its eyes a profession of arms at flag officer level). While I hated that view then and now, I admit to some addiction with the films themselves. But, I also appreciate The Battleship Potemkin .

    More recently, we find another fan of "Seven Days" in a high place:

    Pentagon Memo: Gates Sees Fallout From Troubled Ties With Pakistan

    By ELISABETH BUMILLER
    Published: January 23, 2010

    ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Nobody else in the Obama administration has been mired in Pakistan for as long as Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. So on a trip here this past week to try to soothe the country’s growing rancor toward the United States, he served as a punching bag tested over a quarter-century.
    .....
    His final message delivered, he relaxed on the 14-hour trip home by watching “Seven Days in May,” the cold war-era film about an attempted military coup in the United States.
    Too bad he didn't write a review for us.

    Cheers

    Mike

  11. #131
    Council Member Bill Jakola's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    66

    Default Interesting that SECDEF Gates watched this movie.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
    We had Dr Strangelove (released 29 Jan 1964) and the lesser-remembered Fail Safe (released 7 Oct 1964) (on cable a month or so ago), which were of the "Big Boom cuz of Screwup" genre.

    We had Slap's Seven Days in May (released 12 Feb 1964), of the "Big Conspiracy" genre - timely as being released a few months after JFK was killed.

    We also had the 7 Sep 1964 Daisy Ad, which played on fears that the Dr Strangelove and Fail Safe scenarios would actually play out. That is, if the electorate allowed "conspiratorial nutcases" (i.e., Goldwater et al) to assume the reins of power.

    Such was 1964 Hollywood's normative view of the military (scarcely in its eyes a profession of arms at flag officer level). While I hated that view then and now, I admit to some addiction with the films themselves. But, I also appreciate The Battleship Potemkin .

    More recently, we find another fan of "Seven Days" in a high place:

    Pentagon Memo: Gates Sees Fallout From Troubled Ties With Pakistan



    Too bad he didn't write a review for us.

    Cheers

    Mike
    Mike,


    Yes, too bad he didn't write a review in light of Bob Woodward's recent book "Obama's Wars" showing similar tension actually happening.

    But it is difficult to know the full story having only read one side. Still it is Interesting that SECDEF Gates watched this movie.

  12. #132
    Council Member wm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    On the Lunatic Fringe
    Posts
    1,237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    [A] good many effective wielders of violence for political ends are not professionals in any sense and thus, I attempt to discourage the fatal flaw of allowing one's ego to impede common sense leading to underestimating one's opponents -- a too consistent American failure.
    Maybe the reason that we feel the need to label ourselves as a profession is to separate ourselves from those other wielders of violence whom we tend to think do so illegitimately. The real tough nut to crack will be deciding whose use of violence is justified. I choose to say justified rather than legitimate because the former does not tend make one think only in terms of what is legal.

    It might be the case that a moral justification trumps a legal one (and I submit that this is the case). Just war theory came into its modern form in the West by way of Hugo Grotius' writings (On The Law of Peace and War in Three Volumes, which is a legal interpretation. However, one of the earliest Western discussions of just war is in St. Augustine and tends to be more of a moral justification, albeit one derived from a religious basis for morality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    The Platypus is an interesting allegorical choice, it is indeed a mammal -- but it does lay eggs. Venomous, too. Not many of them about, though...
    Besides being a mammal that is egg-laying, venomous, duck-billed, beaver-tailed, and otter-footed, the platypus has another rather unique characteristic: it is a monotreme (along with the four species of Echidna or spiny anteater) .

    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    Monotremes are the only mammals known to have a sense of electroreception: they locate their prey in part by detecting electric fields generated by muscular contractions. The Platypus' electroreception is the most sensitive of any monotreme.
    But I digress. This is the Small Wars Council, not Animal Planet.
    Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit
    The greatest educational dogma is also its greatest fallacy: the belief that what must be learned can necessarily be taught. — Sydney J. Harris

  13. #133
    Council Member wm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    On the Lunatic Fringe
    Posts
    1,237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Jakola View Post
    This contract between the society and the profession is what distinguishes the profession of arms from an occupation or trade. For example, as Dr. Snider points out, in 2003 the society asked the profession to conduct COIN but the profession did not have any COIN expertise. This was a failure of the profession and this is why we need to have this conversation. We need to ensure our profession of arms maintains the required expertise across the full spectrum of operations. This is our mandate from the society we serve.
    I think you have got this just backwards. The contract described in the quotation, if there is one, is what makes what armies do more like tradecraft. (BTW I doubt that such a contract has ever existed. Appeal to a contract here, just as in Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, is a useful fiction or myth not unlike the stories pre-scientific peoples tell to explain things like thunder.)

    The armed forces of this country were unprepared to perform COIN because America "hired" its military to defend it from aggression--what the Preamble describes as "provide for the common defense." How conducting COIN in Iraq or Afghanistan provides for the common defense of the USA escapes me.
    Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit
    The greatest educational dogma is also its greatest fallacy: the belief that what must be learned can necessarily be taught. — Sydney J. Harris

  14. #134
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Juice in Bellow...

    Quote Originally Posted by wm View Post
    Maybe the reason that we feel the need to label ourselves as a profession...
    Heh. That 'cachet' thing...
    I choose to say justified rather than legitimate because the former does not tend make one think only in terms of what is legal.
    My belief is that all war is 'immoral' but some are necessary and a few lack that urgency but may still be desirable, thus, J'accord.
    ...Hugo Grotius' writings ...just war is in St. Augustine and tends to be more of a moral justification, albeit one derived from a religious basis for morality.
    Yes. Frankly, I think both were off a bit. War is really a very inefficient way of resolving disputes but it exists due to the irrationality of human emotions. It is not IMO ever 'just' but may be justified and is unlikely to be moral as I see morality but may still be the right thing to do. Conflicting emotions. As Lee said "It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it." Hard on people but can be fun. A trade best practiced by professionals or a profession dominated by tradesmen...
    But I digress. This is the Small Wars Council, not Animal Planet.
    Umm, well, maybe...

  15. #135
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default That is a quote of the week!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by wm View Post
    The armed forces of this country were unprepared to perform COIN because America "hired" its military to defend it from aggression--what the Preamble describes as "provide for the common defense." How conducting COIN in Iraq or Afghanistan provides for the common defense of the USA escapes me.
    I'd cannot add to that but will comment the conduct of COIN anywhere short of an adjunct operation in a major war is neither the job of the Armed Forces or one best performed by them...

  16. #136
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Jakola View Post
    Still it is Interesting that SECDEF Gates watched this movie.

    You should really watch both together. "Fail Safe" and "7 Days in May".
    In Fail Safe a limited Nuclear exchange takes place because of a glich in a tatally automated Defense system, kinda like what just happened a few weeks ago when the Air Force lost power? to some 50 ICBM's.

    7 days in May takes place when the Miltary decides to have a "Secret War Game" where they intend to kidnap/or something else? the President while he is at a Secret Miltary Base.

    Both are future scenarios of what could have happened or could still happen.

  17. #137
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Scene from Fail Safe, best part is towards the end.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-Q1rKFsHnQ

  18. #138
    Council Member Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Mountain, West Virginia
    Posts
    990

    Default Parameters Article

    In the Summer 2010 issue of Parameters, the War College quarterly, there is an historic overview of the involvement of U.S. military officers in politics. According to the author:

    The belief that the American military has been uninvolved in politics is traditional and long-held. In his magisterial work on the subject of civil-military affairs, Samuel P. Huntington stated flatly that “after the Civil War officers unanimously believed that politics and officer-ship did not mix.” This article has attempted to show that such an assessment is simply not true. Rather, senior military officers were continually and deeply involved in political affairs both before and after the Civil War. More importantly, such a relationship was not seen as either un-American or unconstitutional. On the contrary, for most of the nation’s history the close relation between soldiers and politics has been encouraged and accepted.
    The article can be read by clicking here.

  19. #139
    Council Member Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Mountain, West Virginia
    Posts
    990

    Default

    American Civil-Military Relations: The Soldier and the State in a New Era, edited by Suzanne C. Nielsen and Don M. Snider, Baltimore, Md., Johns Hopkins University Press, is reviewed in the Spring 2010 issue of Parameters, available by clicking here.

  20. #140
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Jakola View Post
    This contract between the society and the profession is what distinguishes the profession of arms from an occupation or trade. For example, as Dr. Snider points out, in 2003 the society asked the profession to conduct COIN but the profession did not have any COIN expertise. This was a failure of the profession and this is why we need to have this conversation. We need to ensure our profession of arms maintains the required expertise across the full spectrum of operations. This is our mandate from the society we serve.
    So why doe the US Army consistently choose not to maintains the required expertise across the full spectrum of operations?

    The failure to be ready to fight an Irregular Threat was a failure of training. Almost all US Officers knew they should be doing it. They just CHOSE to ignore it, because no one forced them to study their profession in an objective sense.

    Failing to admit this has left the door wide open for the "COIN Club" and stuff like FM32-4, which are failures of exactly the same nature. Until the US Army understands that their job is WARFARE, then all the other sophistry and pontificating will make no difference. Being skilled at "fighting" - in it's broadest sense, is what counts. All else is rubbish.

    ....and let us not fall back on the idea that the US Army was "good at fighting regular threats." There is no evidence that they were. They managed to beat the Iraqi Army. That did not required great skill. They were 4th rate in 1991 and 10th rate in 2003.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

Similar Threads

  1. Towards a U.S. Army Officer Corps Strategy for Success
    By Shek in forum Training & Education
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 05-16-2010, 06:27 AM
  2. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 10-26-2007, 03:06 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •