[Mazer]

Originally Posted by Malk-a-mite

Problem with this is rotation. Most of the people who have picked up these skills are on rotation out, and not a lot are looking at reupping for another stint. So the question becomes one not of have our troops learned anything, but has the way in which the military trains its troops and the way in which the commanders use the troops evolved in any way.

After speaking to a friend who just completed basic about 9 weeks ago, the answer to part one is no.

Is your friend serving in Iraq now? I'm curious to know what he's learning over there. I would venture to say that the Army's field training techniques have changed drastically since Vietnam, and it has a lot to do with the way troops are deployed, which I'll explain below.

"This is exactly what happens when there aren't enough troops: You extend people and you deplete your theater reserve," said an American defense official in Iraq, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the topic.

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

I've read that a lot of this ill sentiment among the military brass has a lot to do with Rumsfeld. The military leaders want to run this war like every other war we've been involved in, i.e. throw all your manpower and firepower at the problem until it goes away. The secretary of defense understands, as the president does, that an oppressive dictatorship-styled occupation will loose this war for us. To limit casualities on both sides they're simply limiting troop numbers. They want the troops on the ground to interface with the people of Iraq, teach them how to defend themselves, use them to gather intelligence directly, and restrain themselves from causing collateral damage. As a result conventional tactis have gone right out the window, and the administration is basically forcing the military to learn new things to adapt to this situation. Needless to say a lot of West Point graduates are wondering why they bothered to go to school to learn a bunch of now useless strategies.

Almost no high-ranking, active-duty U.S. officers are willing to discuss their concerns about troop levels publicly, for fear of being reprimanded or having their careers cut short. There's an unwritten understanding, they said, that the Bush administration doesn't want to hear about the need for more troops.

Like I stated above, the iron fist of Rumsfeld is preventing a lot of brass from abusing their authority. Those that do so get the boot. Asking for more troops is not an abuse of authority, but building a strategy around a certain troop level and demanding more troops from the president in order to make that strategy work is blackmail, because employing such a strategy needlessly jeopardizes the lives of the troops that are there. Those who have tried to use blackmail have either been demoted or retired. The lesson is do what the commander in chief tells you to do or face the consequences. While you may not like the way the president has used the military in the middle east, you have to give him credit for upholding his Constitutional mandate to keep the military subservient to the civilian government.

Anyway, this war will be won mostly with brains rather than brawn. Everybody who has been demanding that the troops be brought home will soon get their wish. The brass will likely complain in private that troop levels in Iraq are being scaled back too quickly, while the anti-war camp here at home will publicly complain that they're not being scaled back fast enough. You can't fault the military for wanting to finish the job, for wanting to keep as many troops in place as they can so they can do what they were brought there to do. But the hammer isn't the only tool available to us. Before too long our mission in Iraq will be a diplomatic/humanitarian one because, simply put, using the military to solve all our problems weakens our moral authority. We can't do that and win the war at the same time.