On Tuesday 05 Dec 2006 9:19 am, Srini RamaKrishnan wrote: > Apropos of nothing except the trigger words, I've been wondering what > exactly it is that makes a technologically advanced army like the US > Army falter when faced with a rabble of guerrillas and insurgents.
To answer this may I recommend a book called "Armed Conflict- The lessons of modern warfare by Brian Steed? http://www.amazon.com/Armed-Conflict-Lessons-Modern-Warfare/dp/0891418032/sr=8-1/qid=1165293618/ref=sr_1_1/102-7263655-5809749?ie=UTF8&s=books A lot of things in war do not pan out as planned. Vietnam showed that the heavily armed and equipped US soldier would, in the course of an extended patrol, discard vital items such as water can, helmet and other stuff and retain a useless gun. Besides, the Viet Cong type was half was big as the marine and could survive on much less food, so his logistics required hefting much less by way of supplies. The one big objection I have to attempts at improving "courage" is that courage alone, taken out of context and without all the other bells and whistles that make a human such as profound stupidity, great fear, frustration, deep grief, intense anger, loss of rationality may not make any sense. The "brave soldier" is often a combination of many things. Courage itself may be a function of a lot of factors. A drunk may be courageous, but incpable. A "coward" may be capable and very effective given the correct circumstances. shiv
