05-30-2010, 12:27 AM
Hi,
I'm going to go one step further. The problem is that many of those situations were not wars, they were police actions (and not just in name as Korea was). Combat soldiers are trained in how to destroy the enemy and take their land. They are not trained on how to control a population that's in turmoil, how to defuse situations instead of letting them explode.
We need an organization, possibly part of, possibly independent of, existing organizations. A cross between the military and the police. Sort of a super SWAT crossed with Sheriff Andy Jackson Taylor
How we get that is left as an exercise to the reader. 
--Pete
(05-29-2010, 11:36 PM)Jester Wrote: The second means fighting a different war in a different way, where the US's big "advantages" of a high-tech, high-firepower military, are potential liabilities. Fixing that problem is decidedly not the same as finding a balance between overwhelming and insufficient force. It's a a matter of developing a correct strategic understanding of the situation, and adapting tactics and even overall philosophy to solve the problem at hand, rather than the problem they might wish was at hand.
I'm going to go one step further. The problem is that many of those situations were not wars, they were police actions (and not just in name as Korea was). Combat soldiers are trained in how to destroy the enemy and take their land. They are not trained on how to control a population that's in turmoil, how to defuse situations instead of letting them explode.
We need an organization, possibly part of, possibly independent of, existing organizations. A cross between the military and the police. Sort of a super SWAT crossed with Sheriff Andy Jackson Taylor
How we get that is left as an exercise to the reader. --Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?