An exchange with a student on the US Army of Occupation
Judd: I have a friend who was in Desert Storm and he is adamant that we should not be providing the policing function that we are now. He saw first hand just how good we are at waging war and how difficult it is to provide the ongoing security function in a post war environment. It seems that if our military has a clear, definable objective, it functions very well. But when the objective gets muddled, as it does with security/policing of a populace, then it doesn't do so well. The increasing influence of Iraqi politics seems to be eroding our already limited ability to provide the policing/security functions.
------------
Jerry:
The US military is now an occupation force in Iraq. The functions of an army of occupation are vastly different than the functions of an army of conquest. Consequently, both the structure and the organizational culture of the occupation units must be extremely different from the structure and organizational culture of the conquering units. To pretend that the same military organization can do both jobs is so extremely managerially naive that it boggles my mind.
It's like sending assembly line workers out into the field to sell the cars they made. A sales force must be organized, trained, recruited, motivated, remunerated very differently than a group of factory workers. Any MBA student knows that. Why didn't the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the President and the Vice-President know that?
I can only imagine that they all have been stuck in self-denial, refusing to admit that the US military is an Army of Occupation in Iraq.
The insurgency is a resistance to foreign occupation, just like the French Resistance in WWII. Just like the Viet Cong. Just like George Washington's Revolutionary Army. The Iraqi people do not want a foreign form of government forced down their throats. Even if we believe it is the best form of government in the world. They don't. Obviously.
------------
Jerry:
The US military is now an occupation force in Iraq. The functions of an army of occupation are vastly different than the functions of an army of conquest. Consequently, both the structure and the organizational culture of the occupation units must be extremely different from the structure and organizational culture of the conquering units. To pretend that the same military organization can do both jobs is so extremely managerially naive that it boggles my mind.
It's like sending assembly line workers out into the field to sell the cars they made. A sales force must be organized, trained, recruited, motivated, remunerated very differently than a group of factory workers. Any MBA student knows that. Why didn't the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the President and the Vice-President know that?
I can only imagine that they all have been stuck in self-denial, refusing to admit that the US military is an Army of Occupation in Iraq.
The insurgency is a resistance to foreign occupation, just like the French Resistance in WWII. Just like the Viet Cong. Just like George Washington's Revolutionary Army. The Iraqi people do not want a foreign form of government forced down their throats. Even if we believe it is the best form of government in the world. They don't. Obviously.
Comments
Post a Comment