| I'm just thinking about it still, like with "shock and awe" Why did the U.S. do that? What was its purpose? I don't care who you are but like with the C 130 model of aircraft that can pick up anything and intercept any signal from a satellite or a cell phone. And it strikes me to know with common sense that insurgents are not using cell phones, they are using courier on bikes, or walking with messages, technology that has been around since the dawn of man, paper, and legs. Makes that big expensive airplane, with a highly skilled crew basically useless.
Along with the smart munitions, on the news during the invasion, I believe they were a bit overrated. Why? There was so much emphasis on these things, to me, a bomb is a bomb, if it is guided, and then it is a very accurate bomb. This created the illusion that civilians in one room are safe and sound when a warplane takes out their insurgent neighbors next door. Insurgents can counter this, by moving AMONG the people, thus making it impossible to brink U.S. firepower to bear.
I will openly admit, honorable Gates telling the Brits there are not doing a good job, while some aspects of U.S. counter terror and insurgency doctrine Cleary showing our enemies the idea, that we are full of ourselves, and just plane arrogant. Am I blaming the U.S. troops? Heck no, I thank them, am I critizing our counter insurgency doctrine? Yes, some of it just does not make much logical sense.
If you ask me we could learn a thing or two from the British, they have been in the business much longer than we have.
__________________  "This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience"- Dwight D. Eisenhower , Jan 17,1961. |