Some of this discussion is departing reality and is taking on a curmudegonly "Back in the day ..." aspect devoid of reality,
It is impossible to operate in a country the size of California without using vehicles with the limited troop densities we have. Allied troops are not as inept at C-IED as JMA suggests, there are a raft of TTPs and Techniques that more often than not prevent IED deaths. While IEDs are responsible for 90 some percent of casualties, the actual numbers are quite low given the number of daily patrols and movements going on.
Platoon Leaders and company commanders are not blindly walking into IED hotspots writ large as you suggest. There are always a few bone-headed leaders. Media doesn't report houses that don't burn down, or patrols not hit by IEDs.
This isn't to say we can't or shouldn't improve, but really. You suggest I walk my troops from, say, Spin Boldak to Kandahar on patrol? Who is divorced from reality here?
Come on. The criticism to be made here isn't of the tactical TTPs, but of the strategy employed. If you haven't noticed, for all the hubub about Keating and Wanat, over the past year a number of patrol bases were attacked by large numbers in an attempt to repeat those episodes, and in every case the enemy was routed. So our tactical game has improved markedly. There are many, many other examples of successful C-IED and such out there. We adapt, they adapt. As it always has been.
It doesn't mean things are getting better overall. It doesn't mean we're going to win. But the grandstanding going on here is getting silly and divorced from reality and fueled by nostalgia and dreams.
Bookmarks