As concerns "ruthless" I would pass on the commonly heard question from many foreign officers as to why is it OK for the US Army to kill "100's" of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet not OK for others to do the same given far greater strategic need in defence of their actual home lands.
I submit that Sri-Lankans merely observed that US(?)NATO conduct of operations gave very wide latitude to the idea of what levels of force were acceptable in the pursuance of policy.
From what I have seen and heard Tactical methods used were mostly just "best practice" give the threat, terrain and policy.
Bookmarks