Just finished reading the Burgess paper, which just goes to show how slow I read. It was good on WWII and Panama, laughable on Iraq, and good on its review of current doctrine. It seems clear there is no current Army doctrine that realistically deals with post war occupation duties and responsibilities. It is interesting to see the change in attitude in the government and the military from WWII where the post war occupation was considered a serious matter, serious enough for the President to weigh in on who was in charge, to today where, even after an obvious failure to deal with the duties of occupation until it turned into an insurgency we still have not changed our way of doing business. Everyone can find someone else to blame and are happy to leave it at that.
As the Land Component Command it would seem the Army would take this more seriously. It is our job to deal with things that happen on the land ... where everyone lives. Apparently we are content to let everything go to hell so we can have an insurgency. I guess insurgencies are sexier than occupations.
Bookmarks