Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
This is on of the times when I cannot resist the urge to point out that there's a discrepancy between the U.S. military self-image and reality.
The self-image of a professional, highly proficient force that faces undisciplined and incompetent opposing forces collides with repeated (likely systemic) symptoms of poor discipline.

A fighter-bomber pilot who bombs a wedding claiming it was self-defence because he saw muzzle fires is undisciplined. He uses an excuse that's ineligible because he was out of range anyway.

A NCO who returns fire in a firefight instead of ensuring that his team returns fire is undisciplined (or incompetent).

A (assistant) platoon leader who does not ensure that his platoon is fully disciplined and alert is himself undisciplined (or incompetent).

Soldiers who drive through Baghdad ramming every car that doesn't give way to their speeding are undisciplined (AND incompetent).


This sounds like anecdotes and can be explained with the sheer size of U.S. forces, but then again the overall picture doesn't inspire more confidence.
I suggest your last sentence sums it up well.

First, what I see as competent or incompetent is based on my personal frame of reference.

I would say that it would all depend upon how that military reacts to undisciplined or incompetent actions. If they are shrugged off or a blind eye turned then there is a BIG problem, while if appropriate action is taken against the perpetrators then the overall reputation of that military could in fact be enhanced by the disciplinary process.

But if you are saying that we all need to be a little more humble than normal about just how good we are (or were) then you are absolutely correct.