I quote: "A hallmark of a counter-insurgency - the war the Americans, British and Canadians are fighting - is the ability to constantly adapt to new circumstances."Originally Posted by Noble Industries
Constantly adapt? Is anyone near doing this? I doubt it.
I'd say that the western armies already have adapted to all the influences and factors imposed upon them.
Remember, they are not just fighting insurgencies in the East, they are also serving government policy. The military systems have adapted to serve their/our political masters and populace who are inherently risk-adverse and safety-orientated.
I find the accusation that militaries are not adapting misleading and of no benefit. If the political will was there for victory at higher cost, we would see longer deployments in country, soldiers stripped of body-armor and allowed to show greater audacity in hunting and fighting the Tb, etc. As it is the demand is for the mission to be sustained, which means the military is inadvertently serving the demand back home for maximum force protection. The fact that mid- to long-term operational success is potentially compromised is not a decision consciously taken at any level but it has become reality - or at least, it has from my point of view.
I am of the belief that the smaller coalition partners, Australia included, have elevated a 'zero casualty priority' to operational policy. It's not good for the force nor the mission, but it is there.
'...the gods of war are capricious, and boldness often brings better results than reason would predict.'
Donald Kagan
related to Aussies in AFG:
http://www.defence.gov.au/Army/lwsc/..._autumn_10.pdf
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks