| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| US armyÂ’s kill-kill ethos under fire |
| 2006-10-01 |
| THE American army should scrap the Warrior Ethos, a martial creed that urges soldiers to demonstrate their fighting spirit by destroying the enemies of the United States at close quarter rather than winning the trust of local populations, according to senior US officers and counter-insurgency experts. Soldiers are instructed to live by the creed, which evokes the warrior spirit of the modern US army. It begins with the stirring vow, “I am an American soldier”, and goes on to affirm that “I will never accept defeat. I will never quit . . . I stand ready to deploy, engage and destroy the enemies of the United States of America in close combat”. Admirable though this may be in the heat of battle, the Warrior Ethos’s emphasis on annihilating the enemy is inimical to the type of patient, confidence-building counter-insurgency warfare in which America is engaged in the Middle East, according to Lieutenant-General Gregory Newbold, former director of operations to the joint chiefs of staff at the Pentagon. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #15 The Failed Lefties + anti-Amer Agendists want to domestically increase anti-Amer Amer National/Hyper Socialism-Governmentism-Totalitarianism inside America, while internationally-geopol weaken + isolate AMERIKA unto world-wide Retreat, Withdrawal = Fallback, and Concession-Appeasement. Between now + 2015-2020, Amer's enemies can attack Hated Fascist = Well-Meaning But Imperfect America = Amerika AS LONG AS AMER ISN'T ACTUALLY DESTROYED. IOW, ANY COLLATERAL CASUALTIES INSIDE CONUS-NORAM WHICH RESULTS FROM "AMER HIROSHIMAS/NEW 9-11'S" DUE TO "LIMITED WARS/ATTACKS" IS NOT TREASON = MURDER/CRIME, BUT MERE POLITIX-POLISCHTICK. What kind of Soldier = Warrior is best to fight the most dangerous kind of enemy, which are THOSE FROM WITHIN??? * MSM > VALERIE PLAME'S JOB [AT PENN STATE] WAS TO RECRUIT OPERATIVES-INFORMANTS FOR THE US CIA [INTEL COMMUNITY?]. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-10-01 22:53 |
| #14 Saying that Abu Ghraib was caused by a problem with the "Warrior Creed," is really a stretch. I think that the Iraqis and Afghans understand the concept of "No Better Friend; No Worse Enemy" pretty thoroughly. Being overly sensitive doesn't win hearts and minds in the Middle East, it gets you stepped on. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2006-10-01 22:46 |
| #13 I think about what William T said about the press. |
| Posted by: Lancasters Over Dresden 2006-10-01 22:19 |
| #12 I think W.T. Sherman's comment about 'good indians'. |
| Posted by: Omaviter Thainter8686 2006-10-01 21:22 |
| #11 The #1 rule of battle is if you have a choice to fight one a**hole or a dozen a**holes, fight the one. You never let the enemy have any advantage, and this includes at home. If you can persuade his family that he is screwing up, it makes his job that much harder. Hell, if you can get everything you want with diplomacy, go for it. Sorry if it isn't as emotionally gratifying as firing your bullet launcher. But you got to keep your eyes on the prize. As a real world example of how unconventional sometimes works a hell of a lot better, the SF in Afghanistan spent months cultivating Afghans with a "hearts & minds" approach. And it was paying off in spades. They were helping out the good guys in all sorts of ways. The SF guys were seen as powerful warlords that it would be a very good idea to support. Then the army sent in conventional soldiers. They went around FRIENDLY villages, kicking down doors, grabbing and searching women, and holding village elders at gunpoint. The SF guys liked to shat. There were some very harsh words among commanders before the conventionals were pulled back. The SF had to throw a LOT of apology BBQs to get those villages and tribes back on our side. It had damn near resulted in several hundred Pushtun deciding that the Taliban weren't so bad after all. You gotta think carrot *and* stick. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-10-01 20:04 |
| #10 Hell, need to feed 'em corn right 'moose? That would give 'em the right killer attitude. |
| Posted by: 6 2006-10-01 18:44 |
| #9 From Vietnam veteran Drill Sergeant SFC Pettus...1969: "What is the spirit of the bayonet fighter? KILL, KILL, KILL!... or be killed." I've always thought Drill Sergeant Pettus had it right, and still do. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-10-01 18:40 |
| #8 I can hear it now: "The pansies are coming, the pansies are coming!" Apologetic defeatist wimps. Out trying to assemble another poorly thought out policy that can only result in more Americans making the ultimate sacrifice for no reason when they could have avoided it by offing some ba$turd who deserved it or a sub-moron who shouldn't be in the gene pool anyway. Maybe a better idea for this article would be that we shouldn't do stupid stuff that goads fence-sitters into being extremists. I can understand that. But there's still fighting to be done, and the enemy hasn't really taken a break yet, he's just been shoved underground head first. When they go away, send in the police. It should be known and understood that when an American soldier comes after your a$$, you have a problem. It should be something to be feared and therefore avoided at all costs. That filters out those with ulterior motives and lets us know exactly who we are dealing with. Success in Iraq will underscore this point and give the rest something to think about. Except for apologetic pu$$ies, of course, who don't have the balls and/or understanding to wait for future potential adversaries to learn a lesson at the enemy's expense. |
| Posted by: gorb 2006-10-01 17:27 |
| #7 nice pussy column - was that carter speaking? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-10-01 16:36 |
| #6 There is a gross difference between a WARRIOR and a policeman. Every member of the military is trained to be a warrior. We sometimes find ourselves doing police work, but the main job of a warrior is to fight against the enemies of the United States. Most warriors are flexible enough to handle ANY job that comes their way, regardless of what it is. This is just another piece of PC crap that has no place on the battlefield, and little in the US military establishment. This "general" needs to find himself looking for a new job - in the civilian sector, where he obviously belongs. He has no core "Warrior" ethos, which is essential for career military members at all levels. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2006-10-01 16:35 |
| #5 A soldiers job is to destroy the enemy. Kill enough of them and watch how the 'hearts and minds' of the locals come around to the proper way of thinking. Watch Petraeus. He's a very smart guy and a potential POTUS. |
| Posted by: Parabellum 2006-10-01 15:58 |
| #4 This is a longstanding argument between conventional and unconventional soldiers. The problem is that each of them fight a different enemy in a different situation. A US conventional soldier is fighting an enemy that is either an invader, or is defending his country. In the former case, the conventional soldier tries to protect and evacuate the locals so he can kill the invader. In the latter case, *he* is seen as the invader by the enemy who is rallied to "defend his country", *not* "defend his dictator." I either case, the warrior ethos should be kept by the conventional soldier. However, the unconventional soldier fights an enemy of split motives. He may want to defend his country, but his people may be an oppressed minority--he may despise the majority. He also needs the support of the people, voluntary or coerced, to continue the fight. This is why the unconventional soldier is so fixated on winning the "hearts and minds" of the enemy *people*, if not their fighters. Even the definition of battle is different between the conventional and unconventional soldier. For the former, it is a formal surrender of the enemy army, in which enemy soldiers are ordered to lay down their arms. For the unconventional soldier, the battle continues, but migrates from being a war to a police action. The end for him comes when he can turn over his battle to a policeman. In Iraq and Afghanistan, both of these philosophies coexist, and do to great effect. But there has been and will continue arguments as to which one is appropriate and how much the balance between the two philosophies should be. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-10-01 15:55 |
| #3 Run that idea by the Marines, you fools. See what it gets you. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2006-10-01 15:05 |
| #2 Oh how Euro of them. How Metrosexual... |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2006-10-01 15:00 |
| #1 what a load of special bullshit. “A strategic corporal can have a lot more impact on the course of the war than a general, so it’s critical that soldiers and marines appreciate the consequences of their actions,” Newbold said. “The old Soldier’s Creed came down to ‘doing the right thing’. I like that.” |
| Posted by: RD 2006-10-01 14:56 |