Proceedings and Its Others

[mmx1]

Well, if the point is to advocate total war, then go ahead and do so. Ken, you certainly made it better than he did. But it's un-PC to advocate total war, so instead, he skirts the issue by
1) lamenting the PC-imposed limitations
2) drawing an analogy to WWII without completing the analogy. So if we're to conduct this war like WWII....what exactly do we do? I won't put words in his mouth, but he doesn't offer any such vision.

The result is useless wistful thinking about what could be rather than actionable recommendations on alternatives. I've come to expect that from political ideologues. I don't expect that from a professional magazine - I expect more useful recommendations than "PC and civilian ethics are bad". That the level of discourse doesn't, in this instance, rise above what I see from the political side, is my beef with the publication.

Would they print your comments? If so then we can have some honest discourse about the cost/benefits of total war. If all we can do is blame scapegoats....I can read that elsewhere.

[Ken White]

provided so I can't comment on what he said or how he said it. I would note that not everyone is a great writer and some have difficulty putting heartfelt thoughts in a coherent to others format.

However based on what you did quote, I have to say that IMO Captain Kelly's first paragraph is essentially correct, as is the second. Whether they have any relevance to the rest of his article or to the world today is another matter entirely. In any event, I can see his point on the topic and I see yours. I suggest that it's a difference in background and outlook that creates the dichotomy and that, while you can condemn his if you wish, that had the two of you talked in person, it might come across differently...

His third paragraph though is I believe important and correct. Let me give you some examples. When a soldier is killed or several are, units today hold a memorial service. Fine in this war; wasn't possible in WW II, Korea or Viet Nam due to the speed of activity and the sheer number of casualties. That is a gesture of respect for the fallen and it is certainly well meant -- it is also potentially a combat distractor. Every death is now investigated; that also is not possible in a large war for the same reasons and is also a combat distractor (not least as the Investigator[s] intervie anyone with knowledge of the incident). In short, just these two simple examples are indicative of a trend that has potential harmful effects. The troops get used to them and in a tough, fast war, they won't see them; thus I submit they are a bad practice.

Armed forces are a reflection of the society from which they come. We have, over the last 60 year become a much kinder and gentler nation. Unfortunately, at base level, war has not become one nanogram more kind or gentle.

Other factors like the constraints imposed by the desire to hold civilian casualties to an absolute minimum which drives the choice of 'limited' war -- a decision that paradoxically generally serves to prolong combat and thus increase casualties of all types on both sides and exacerbate battle damage. It may not be apparent to you but to many troops serving in Afghanistan and Iraq, the ROE and the presence of the media are frequently constraints on action because the kids are afraid they're going to get a court Martial for doing what they should do. It's also noteworthy that the British troops in Iraq have surfaced the same complaint. Many of those rules; the investigations and memorial services I cited above; dozens of other things like clearing targets with Lawyers; those things are not necessarily imposed by opponents of this war but they are things the system does in an attempt (foolishly and fruitlessly, I believe) to placate those opponents. Those things do in fact have a softening impact on most -- not all (fortunately) -- units in the Armed forces

We let the troops get too kind and gentle and they will suffer; that's his point.

All that gets way off the issue -- that issue is that Captain Kelly is expressing his gripes with the system. That may be unprofessional to you but professionals are people also. You can gripe in this professional forum that he's being political because he griped in another professional forum that politics and correctness were ruining the armed forces. Seems a fair trade to me.

And you certainly don't have to read Proceedings if you don't want to.