HOW AMERICANS SEE THEMSELVES

[Gordon Angus Mackinlay]

THE WASHINGTON POST

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A57403-2001Dec17

A couple of paragraphs from the article.
WE DON‘T PEACEKEEP[

Why? Because the American military is the world‘s premier fighting force, and ought to husband its resources for just that. Anybody can peacekeep; no one can do what we did in Afghanistan. Many nations can do police work; only we can drop thousand-pound bombs with the precision of a medieval archer.

Peacekeeping is a job for others. The Canadians invented it in the late 1950s and have completely reorganized their armed forces for that role. There are dozens of countries that are never going to fight a real war against a real enemy but whose armed forces are perfectly suited for peacekeeping.

Ours is not. It is not just the Law of Comparative Advantage. It is common sense. Americans make lousy peacekeepers -- not because they are not great soldiers but precisely because they are. Being the best, and representing the strongest country in the world, they automatically become prime targets.

 

[Infanteer]

He obviously does not have a clue what he is talking about.
Peacekeeping is a POLITICAL matter in both the States and Canada, so tactically I cannot see how this makes them better warfighters.
In fact, Mr. Towhey gave a pretty convincing arguement for Canadians, and not Americans, being the best warfighters from the platoon to battalion level. That must have been something we gained from reorganizing our military for peacekeeping operations, eh?

 

[enfield]

I‘ve seen that article around before.
The author makes a couple blatantly incorrect assumptions:

That the world order consists of a pyramid with the US at top, NATO below it, other allies below that, and a fragmented Third World below that. Essentially, he assumes that what‘s in the US‘s best interest is in everyone else‘s best interest. By his estimate, the EU, Canada, Australia, etc., are nothing but American colonial auxiliaries.

Other nations, alliances, and groups have their own interests, which may or may not coincide with the US‘s. There have been, and are corrently, military operations that have not involved the US at all.

Secondly, he assumes that peacekeeping is a) easy and b) a secondary function that it is unnecessary and irrelevant. While the need and conduct of some missions can be questioned, as a whole the practise of peacekeping/enforcement/making/ nation building is a sound one and absolutely essential to effective foreign policy and global security.

He is advocating that the US go around bombing everyone and the rest of the world pick up the pieces. BS.
I wasn‘t aware that we had reorganized our military for peacekeeping - I must have missed the lectures on vehcile checkpoints, negotiations, and civilian relations. Defintley wasn‘t on MLOC this year. I‘ve seen a number of articles, even in Canadian papers, saying that the US is the military that can fight, that the US is a shining example of what a military should be, that Americans are the only ones who train, that Americans have shown that militaries should be mostly SOF, that Americans are a modle for officer traininga nd have better officer schools, yadda yadda yadda. Garbage.

Sorry for the long post, I‘ve just seen to many articles like this to keep quiet.

 

[Brad Sallows]

It‘s cheaper to keep a lid on a problem with peacekeeping / peacemaking than to wait until it explodes and deploy an army group with all the bells and whistles.

 

[Jungle]

First of all, they DO participate in peace support ops. I have worked alongside troops from the 1st Inf Div in Macedonia, wearing blue berets... Second, that is the opinion of a single person. I know a lot of Americans think that way, but I do not believe it is a large portion of the population. We have freaks too who believe and write the most stupid things...
Jungle, in an unusually warm part of Québec...

 

[fortuncookie5084]

I‘ve been very aware for a while that this is THE line of thinking in the United States military community . Like it or not this is how they view themselves, and it is through this set of ideas that they consider their relationships with everyone else. Some of what this Charles Krauthammer guy(who wrote the article) has to say is true, if Americentric.

 

[rceme_rat]

They also have the MFO on the Sinai.

Perhaps the author is trying to make the point that their focus should be on conducting full scale military operations in multiple theatres, rather than being distracted by a peacekeeping mentality. Our focus on peacekeeping, particularly the traditional style (e.g., UNDOF) has led many citizens to believe that we don‘t need to train or equip for war. We may have doen ourselves in through our own emphasis on peacekeeping success.

 

[delta_whiskey]

Oh what a silly silly man he is... The fact that the american soldier would be the first to go is not because he/she is a "rich target". It‘s because america has so many enemies, or at least those who hate it. When they see that tape, what are they going to think? i‘ll tell you what, "Take THAT, you self-centred bigot called America!". Actually that‘s what i would say, pity for the soldier aside. Ugh. Geez.

 

[Korus]

Mr. Towhey gave a pretty convincing arguement for Canadians, and not Americans, being the best warfighters from the platoon to battalion level

Was that on this message board? if so, could someone point me towards that post.. sounds interesting. Thanks..

 

[fortuncookie5084]

Agreed. However all those good troops aren‘t worth much until we develop the willingness to deploy them operationally at the sharp end (we‘re doing that now in Afghanistan, thankfully) and to provide the absolutely neccessary logistical blunt end that we require. Our #1 troops, from the lone platoon right through an entire battle group, aren‘t worth a hill of beans if we don‘t have any way to get them to the battle and support them with ammo and rations while they‘re there. Definite must-haves for us are: transport aircraft (long range), transport ships, and air-to-air refuelling for our tactical aircraft. That isn‘t a wish list, it is a need list.

 

[Infanteer]

Here is the link to that. It gets pretty heated with opinons at some points, but you can pull some good info, as there is probably more than 100 years of military experience contributing.

http://www.socnetcentral.com/vb/showthread.php?s=f60a89fab50aedd049245e2b208b8d9f&threadid=11465