Attitudes to warfare
There's an article about how the US military's attitude to warfare and training could have led to the Haditha massacre.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5049214.stm
What caught my eye was a quote from Lt Gen Peter Chiarelli, who said,
"We have to understand that the way we treat Iraqis has a direct effect on the number of insurgents that we are fighting. For every one that I kill, I create almost 10 more."
'Well, duh - that should have been blindingly obvious from the start,' was my initial response.
However, as the article points out, just because the British army seems to take these things into consideration now, doesn't mean we always have. We've had our fair share of massacres in the distant past. Moreover, in the recent past, we had Bloody Sunday and paid for it for years because of the huge surge in support that one incident created for the IRA.
Is it possible that the alleged differences in gung-ho-ness between the two armies is purely a matter of learning from past experiences? Or is it some fundamental difference in national psyche? If it's one and not the other, they'll have a better chance of turning things around.




There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett