http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040315-598006,00.htmlWhich Way Is The Exit?
<snip>Administration backers say U.S. commanders have wisely absorbed the lesson of British colonial rule that a heavy military presence in the streets is an irritant, not a reassurance. But the U.S. has also been moving its forces out of the cities into walled-off garrisons to reduce American casualties. Now in the midst of the largest troop rotation since World War II, the Pentagon is replacing seasoned Army combat divisions, in part, with Marines and a sizable corps of reserve and National Guard units (they will make up nearly 40% of the post-June force) unfamiliar with the country, lacking in hands-on experience and trained to operate quite differently. In January before the House Armed Services Committee, Marine Corps Commandant General Michael Hagee said his incoming troops have been studying how the Los Angeles police department patrols gangland neighborhoods. They plan to be less intrusive, eschewing tank raids in favor of foot patrols, cultivating goodwill rather than taking the fight to the enemy. "There is a time for the iron fist and a time for the velvet glove," says Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, deputy director of U.S. military operations in Iraq. Retired General Anthony Zinni, who headed the U.S. Central Command from 1997 to 2000, says the garrison strategy is "good because it drives down U.S. casualties, but it's bad because it means you're throwing everything onto an Iraqi security force that clearly is not prepared to take it on. You're going to see them pay a hell of a price." Officers in the new Iraqi security corps say the occupation is at a critical phase where the U.S. needs to ease up. "If they do not," says General Abdullah Hussein Jabara, who works with Iraq's security forces, "the bad feelings will continue to grow."
more
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
