|
Counter insurgency technique has been known almost as long as war has been around, and Petraeus wrote the current army manual on it, it has not been followed, this was known going in, its known now, and the US refuses to ante up and commit what is needed. You can have all the military might in the world but if you do not use it correctly it will fail.
Two choices:
go in and kill everything that moves
or
traditional counter insurgency means literally living with the indigenous and flooding the country with troops to a 20-30:1 or better ratio, controlling all borders, providing food, water, healthcare and aid and doing something about the refugees which is part of being an occupying power bent on doing "good"
building bases and patrolling is a well known failure, counter insurgency is up close and personal, long, grinding, and involves some attrition, comes with the mission, the original recommendations by the Generals, specifically Shinsecki was for in excess of 600,000 men, minimum.......thats 40:1
is it an embarrassment to waste soldiers by using them improperly and knowing it ahead of time? going into an occupation short handed on purpose?
or a crime?irresponsible?
invincible? not with civilian leadership around
|