World Affairs Board - View Single Post

Bigfella · 02-28-2007, 04:31 AM

"Bigfella,

I'm not so sure if everyone has moved beyond that (although I would place the feeling as a collective blame in the press and policy makers) - in a grand sense, the US Army blocked the Vietnam experience from its collective memory as opposed to facing its problems fully. The Army that rebuilt from its hollow early 70s shell did so by focusing on the "big one" at the Fulda Gap and relegating COIN into something that we don't do. Only now do you see a large scale unearthing of the lessons from Vietnam as we search for answers in Iraq.

How it manifests itself today is the fact that soldiers feel that some of the good things they are doing at the micro level doesn't get reported at the macro level. While there is definitely plenty of truth to this, the imbalance that exists is the importance that folks will place on the good deed they did, raising it far above what a holistic view would assign to it. A clinic that is built and dedicated may be a step forward, but does the clinic get stocked with medicine? Does it get staff with medical professionals? Can residents come to the clinic without getting death threats from insurgents? Is it even used, or does it become another source of graft and corruption? It is this context that isn't perceived, and so the perception of a media disconnect is overblown and made into an us vs. them thing.

Now, my experience may not be typical and I was in Iraq when it was still popular, but the media embeds with my unit, and even the freelance media that would come up to my unit gave very fair coverage (except for the Army Times, LOL!, but that was because of a pissing contest between my commander and the reporter, and so he made his piece into a hit piece I think to spite my commander)." - Shek

Shek,

Point taken. I was taking heart from a number of articles I have read written by serving officers or people associated with military institutions - like Hammond. I don't doubt that the broader picture is a bit muddier. Still, the military do appear to have moved farther than many who commentate from the sidelines.

I wish I could say you were wrong on COIN. I get the impression the military & many in government simply swore never to get involved in such a war again. Thus Papa Bush's decision not to stay in Iraq in '91. I get the impression COIN was shunted off to the 'specialist' category & not taken very seriously until it was too late. Rather than 'fighting the last war', I thin many just tried to pretend it didn't happen.

As for the Army Times, I thought a 'West Point Liberal' like yourself would have felt quite at home with those pinkos.

02-28-2007, 04:31 AM	#10 (permalink)
Bigfella *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 01-12-07 Location: Melbourne Posts: 891 Country:	"Bigfella, I'm not so sure if everyone has moved beyond that (although I would place the feeling as a collective blame in the press and policy makers) - in a grand sense, the US Army blocked the Vietnam experience from its collective memory as opposed to facing its problems fully. The Army that rebuilt from its hollow early 70s shell did so by focusing on the "big one" at the Fulda Gap and relegating COIN into something that we don't do. Only now do you see a large scale unearthing of the lessons from Vietnam as we search for answers in Iraq. How it manifests itself today is the fact that soldiers feel that some of the good things they are doing at the micro level doesn't get reported at the macro level. While there is definitely plenty of truth to this, the imbalance that exists is the importance that folks will place on the good deed they did, raising it far above what a holistic view would assign to it. A clinic that is built and dedicated may be a step forward, but does the clinic get stocked with medicine? Does it get staff with medical professionals? Can residents come to the clinic without getting death threats from insurgents? Is it even used, or does it become another source of graft and corruption? It is this context that isn't perceived, and so the perception of a media disconnect is overblown and made into an us vs. them thing. Now, my experience may not be typical and I was in Iraq when it was still popular, but the media embeds with my unit, and even the freelance media that would come up to my unit gave very fair coverage (except for the Army Times, LOL!, but that was because of a pissing contest between my commander and the reporter, and so he made his piece into a hit piece I think to spite my commander)." - Shek Shek, Point taken. I was taking heart from a number of articles I have read written by serving officers or people associated with military institutions - like Hammond. I don't doubt that the broader picture is a bit muddier. Still, the military do appear to have moved farther than many who commentate from the sidelines. I wish I could say you were wrong on COIN. I get the impression the military & many in government simply swore never to get involved in such a war again. Thus Papa Bush's decision not to stay in Iraq in '91. I get the impression COIN was shunted off to the 'specialist' category & not taken very seriously until it was too late. Rather than 'fighting the last war', I thin many just tried to pretend it didn't happen. As for the Army Times, I thought a 'West Point Liberal' like yourself would have felt quite at home with those pinkos.