Hi Old Eagle,
I agree, and it would make a good thread.
Hmm, I wouldn't say that my assumption was that it is "quasi-adversarial". I would characterize my assumption more along the lines of it being assumed that the US has the "answers" - ask your example shows . That being said, however, I think that is a problematic assumption - "ethnocentric" to use the verbiage of others.
Part of it goes back to the reasons behind the mission. What is the goal and how is this going to be understood by various partners, both traditional (e.g. the UK, Oz, Canada, etc.) and non-traditional (e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.). I would suggest that mission clarity is crucial and, if the goal is to develop global partners to deter terrorist activity globally, then the implications of that need to be taken seriously, to whit, that US forces have as much top learn as HN forces, although ot necessarily in the same areas. If the goal, on the other hand, is to protect US interest globally and, especially, US corporate interests (e.g. cheap oil, favourable access to raw materials, etc.), then you are going to have a real problem (BTW, this is at the root of the accusations concerning the US building an "Empire").
Bookmarks