Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
How about a thought experiment...Maybe that would have helped to keep the mission - to provide security and stability to the people of Iraq - more in the focus?
Almost certainly would have done so. Unfortunately, we didn't do that so we're confronted with reality and not the ever elusive ideal that you keep looking for and I remind you is nonexistent -- that happens all too often in dealings with fallible humans and harsh, messy, illogical reality...

That's not the good call, though, this is:
I ask because the U.S. military culture aspect and arguments seems to make up a huge part of this discussion.
Military culture is indeed the culprit. Not so much the US military culture but really because generic military culture in combat is involved.

I suggest that British, Dutch, Israeli or Singaporean Apache crews or French or German Tiger crews as well as Italian Mangusta crews probably would have reacted in much the same way -- though the cockpit chatter might have been more 'professional' by some (with the Singaporeans the most professional and the Italians or French being little if any better than the Amis). Americans are gauche, everyone knows that...

While we have always been aggressive, others used to be equally so and a number were and probably are, as you know, far more ruthless than any US force has ever been. We seem more aggressive today than many but as one who saw us in action many years ago and for much of the intervening time, I can assure you that we, also, are far, far less aggressive than we used to be.

While I believe this incident exemplifies a generic military reaction I will acknowledge that the US forces today are more aggressive than most -- but only slightly so.

That is as a military force. Like politicians elsewhere, ours are less aggressive than they used to be -- just not quite so much less as most. That is the major difference with respect to the US today...