I’ve often mused why it is that the worlds most well endowed army, backed up by the supposed political envy of that same world – cannot for their life subdue the t-shirted and AK-47 equipped insurgencies that seem to  spontaneously generate where ever they pitch their tents. Fred Reed has an amusing post up as to why, concluding thereafter that :

America’s problem is not that its generals prepare for the last war, but that they don’t prepare for it, and then fight it again the same way.

Of course while, such a seemingly obvious set of reasoning will never be taken seriously by the “serious” opinionators, there is a big truth in the observation – that will simply ignored because in order to find a correction, the entire presupposition of how and what we are doing in these places would have to be questioned objectively as to how  military application could possibly result in the desired geo-political objectives. And while this threat is symptomatic of the conventional/counterinsurgency debates within the military, no one (except maybe Bill  Lind) is suggesting that the traditional military assume the (successful) tactics and social/cultural postures of their insurgent opponents, which incidentally is in all probability as alien to the US military hierarchy as the US military is alien to the host populations. Because that is what the face of change the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan represent to those people – an invasive, culturally illiterate, autocratic, ham fisted, and  amoral conveyor of alien means of violence and death. Of all the (many)  reasons the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan will fail, this simple explanation colors all the others, because who would identify, or gain confidence or belief in a future defined by a little understood and alien military force?

Leave a Reply