(Military Times) Op-Ed: The Price of Bad Tactics

[unhappycamper]

The Price of Bad Tactics
William Lind | February 24, 2009

For the gazillionth time, the U.S. military in Afghanistan had to announce last week that an American airstrike killed civilians. The incident followed a familiar pattern. We first announced that 15 insurgents were killed, then had to climb down, finding after an official investigation that only three of the dead were fighters, while 13 civilians died.

In Congressional testimony, Secretary of Defense Gates said that unless we stop killing Afghan civilians in airstrikes, "we are lost." So why do we keep doing airstrikes?

The answer is, because American infantry tactics are bad. They amount to little more than bumping into the enemy and calling for fire. The easiest way to provide the overwhelming firepower our bad infantry tactics depend on is with airstrikes. So to win tactically, we have to lose strategically. At least from the Vietnam War onward, that equation has come to define the American way of war. It is the price of bad tactics.

Why does American infantry continue to employ bad tactics? Superior alternatives are readily available. The "infiltration tactics" used by German infantry in the Kaiserschlacht of 1918 are far superior. Better still are true light infantry or Jaeger tactics, which influenced the development of infiltration tactics. Light infantry tactics rely less on firepower and more on stealth, surprise, ambush and encirclement. Their history is well known, and reaches back as far as the 18th century. The literature on them is extensive.

There are three basic reasons why the U.S. military continues to employ bad infantry tactics when superior alternatives lie ready to hand. The first is the unfortunate combination of hubris and intellectual sloth which characterizes most of the American officer corps – and infantry officers in particular. Most read nothing about their profession. Of those who do read, most confine their study to doctrinal manuals – the U.S. Army's are wretched rehashed French stuff, the Marine Corp's somewhat better – or histories of American victories. The number who really study tactics, learning about infiltration tactics, Jaeger tactics, the infantry tactics of oriental militaries etc. through reading, is tiny.


Rest of article at: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,185670,00.html?wh=news

[pasto76]

1. Positive Identification is a requirement for lawful engagement.

As reservists soldiers this was pummled into our heads in Iraq. Made it clear we didnt want hotheads shooting for trophies.

It also happens to be right. To have that moral superiority that the Right loves to drag out, we have Rules of Engagement that put us a half step behind. I submit the alternative is to be a murderer.