Posted on 08/07/2006 12:26:01 AM PDT by neverdem
AS we all know, war has changed. In the 21st century it is dominated by irregular and unconventional ways of fighting. Al Qaeda demonstrated this on 9/11, and the bloody wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are only further corroboration. War can no longer be waged effectively by conventional combat forces employed by modern militaries.
The Pentagon is just starting to catch up with these changes. It is in the midst of a strategic overhaul aimed at coming up with new ways to fight new wars. This was first signaled in the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review, which described the “long war” America is now engaged in as “a war that is irregular in its nature” against adversaries that “are not conventional military forces.”
More recently, two of the Pentagon’s smartest and most experienced generals, David Petraeus of the Army and Jim Mattis of the Marines, have overseen the production of a new counterinsurgency manual — called the FM 3-24/FMFM 3-24 in Pentagon-speak — for fighting these irregular wars. This blueprint declares that it is primarily for “leaders and planners at the battalion level and above” who are “involved in counterinsurgency operations regardless of where these operations may occur.”
The current draft of this counterinsurgency manual, which has been shown to civilian experts and been posted on the Internet by the Federation of American Scientists, provides an encyclopedic 241-page review of insurgencies that took place in the 20th century and an alphabetical list of the tools of counterinsurgency. The manual, which is still a work in progress, amounts to an introductory course in the history of insurgency and counterinsurgency.
But to be of practical use to American troops in fierce battles in Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond, the final draft of the handbook must be more than a Counterinsurgency 101 exercise. It must,...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Jeez, warfighting doctrine critique/advice from NYTimes... good lord...
Here's another reason to read this treasonous rag. They can get good guest OpEd columns from Op-Ed Contributors. Unfortunately, their motive for posting it is suspect.
The authors have other full-time jobs. What are the errors, if you please?
Here is the link to this PDF document:
http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24fd.pdf
Thanks for the link.
Isn't this the Marine commander who took some heat for his candor about how he enjoyed taking out terrorists who abused women and children? He's my hero.
Ward Churchill's Comments--And the General's
It appears to be the same guy.
Interesting discussion about the General and that idiot college professor. Clearlysome of DUmmies like to dabble as history buffs....and with the usual embarassing (or should be for them) results.
What are the errors, if you please?
calling Rummie
Posting it on the internet is the first step in it becoming ineffective. Al Qaeda has internet connections as well. And they'll simply change tactics in response to what the U.S. plans on doing.
"The Pentagon is just starting to catch up with these changes. It is in the midst of a strategic overhaul aimed at coming up with new ways to fight new wars. This was first signaled in the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review, which described the “long war” America is now engaged in as “a war that is irregular in its nature” against adversaries that “are not conventional military forces.” "
Actually it started right before 9/11 when Rumsfeld had the task of reconstituting the military after the Clintons dismantling of it.
Problem was that it just isn't the military. It is everything and the NY Times has managed to destroy everything else but the military they are saying should be changed.
IMHO, I beg to differ. This isn't the latest technology or tactics. I don't see how posting a new counterinsurgency manual, "called the FM 3-24/FMFM 3-24 in Pentagon-speak — for fighting these irregular wars. This blueprint declares that it is primarily for 'leaders and planners at the battalion level and above' who are 'involved in counterinsurgency operations regardless of where these operations may occur,'" hurts our efforts. It is or should be common sense and common knowledge.
After Vietnam, it seems we walked away from any formal counterinsurgency doctrine. I think we need this doctrine condensed for fire team and squad leaders as well as formalized training in basic and advanced non-commissioned officer courses.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.