British Troops Move North...

[AisA]

They are my positions, but they didn't originate from me. I'll defend them if you engage me with rational arguments, but you HAVEN'T.

In the first place, the burden of proof rests with you. An unsupported assertion is just that -- unsupported. Do you have anything besides the argument from authority?

In the second place, I've pointed out the accomplishments that would not have been possible without good intelligence -- namely the capture of Hussein, his maniacal sons, and the other 49 Baathist monsters, just to name a few things. You've ignored this evidence, and instead you assert that I "haven't challenged anything you've said"??

To say that we place "no value" on intelligence is a sweeping condemnation, which of course is not true.

So, your position is that the military does value intelligence but ignores its importance anyway? Let's see, that would make our military not merely dumb, but outright retarded.

The question remains, do you have any evidence to support your accusations, which include the following: 1) that our military puts far too much emphasis on technology, 2) it ignores the importance of good intelligence, 3) it is inferior in training to the British and 4) it has no officers with the "ability to move comfortably between and within the inner circles of foreign militaries" -- any evidence other than so-and-so says so?

[Oakes]

In the first place, the burden of proof rests with you. An unsupported assertion is just that -- unsupported. Do you have anything besides the argument from authority?

Citing someone else isn't automatically an argument from authority. The sources themselves provide support for their arguments.

In the second place, I've pointed out the accomplishments that would not have been possible without good intelligence -- namely the capture of Hussein, his maniacal sons, and the other 49 Baathist monsters, just to name a few things. You've ignored this evidence, and instead you assert that I "haven't challenged anything you've said"??

I've already answered this. The military has had a lot of success because it doesn't always ignore good intelligence. The military isn't always wrong.

So, your position is that the military does value intelligence but ignores its importance anyway? Let's see, that would make our military not merely dumb, but outright retarded.

My argument is that you can point to specific instances when it has depended more on technology than intelligence.

[AisA]

I'm still waiting. Where is the proof? Give us a link that is current, not two years old -- or recite the proof yourself -- or withdraw the accusations.

[Oakes]

I'm still waiting.  Where is the proof?  Give us a link that is current, not two years old -- or recite the proof yourself -- or withdraw the accusations.

What's wrong with the example I gave oldsalt? Wilcox and Wilson's article. The table half-way down analyzes the Afghanistan war with these ideas in mind. Phase I consisted of air strikes: "Not effective in dislodging Taliban. Terrorists retained initiative." Phase II consisted of SOF and CIA gathering intelligence: "Extremely effective in forcing Taliban and Al Qaeda into mountains. US and Allies won initiative. Rapidly cleared country." When we went back to conventional forces, it again proved ineffective.

[AisA]

In the first place, the information in that article is two and a half years old -- and the military has been changing since.

In the second place, the article makes assertions such as this:

Unfortunately, it turned out that the “victory” of Operation Anaconda was more imagined than real. Too many Al Qaeda escaped the noose again to claim anything but a hollow victory for the elements of the 101st Airborne and the 10th Mountain divisions and the allied special operations forces.

How do these authors know how many Al Qaeda escaped? They got from it from The New York Times -- that bastion of journalistic integrity.

Those that critique our military's performance based on NYT reports have little credibility -- especially when commanders on the scene, such as Tommy Franks, contradict their assertions.

And this -- regarding the alleged escape of bin Laden at Tora Bora -- is pure speculation:

The real failure was in misreading the cultural intelligence that should have told us that our somewhat erratic allies were not up to this fight. Motivation of the friendlies should have been a top priority. One suspects that our SOF advisors knew as much and probably reported it through the chain of command. Eventually, the Afghani warlords were turned around, but by then it was too late.

This is very easy to say after the fact, but the question remains -- how do these authors know what actually happened between us and the warlords?

To their credit, the authors admit this problem early in the article with this statement:

It is important here to caveat that we still do not have definitive factual information on what has transpired in Afghanistan. Thus far, we have had to rely on press reports (usually unreliable and very Western in interpretation of what happened), Pentagon briefings (not totally unbiased), and some anecdotal reports from allied warriors.

Here is what we do know now. The Afghanis have had a national election -- without a single terrorist incident. How can this be viewed as a military failure? How can this have been achieved if "too many Al Quaeda escaped"?

I see nothing in this article to support the assertion that the US military currently puts too much emphasis on technology, ignores good intelligence and is poorly trained.

[Oakes]

I see nothing in this article to support the assertion that the US military currently puts too much emphasis on technology, ignores good intelligence and is poorly trained.

You're absolutely right, but as my first post should've indicated, my perception of the US military is built on the cumulation of articles I've read, not just one. You can find more recent articles critiquing the Iraq war on d-n-i.net, but my intention in this thread was not to bring out an exhaustive slew of evidence as if I were writing a thesis paper. I haven't seen anything indicate that the major philosophy guiding our military has fundamentally changed, despite the great things that have been accomplished. I hope I'm wrong.