"French soldiers' view of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan" Topic

link

I don't play (ultra)moderns but found this article interesting. Has it already been posted? Is it bs?

Nice one, and coming from the French no less.
Tend to think that while gen Y are useless in the workplace, they've proven themselves capable in service of their country.

One could venture a guess that a different kind of Gen Y-er decides to go military compared to the private sector.

Good article.

But the French guy proves a bit clueless with the comments of "This group is so much better than 'The Greatest Generation' at war that WWII vets."

That claim is about America as a whole – they got out of the depression and changed their country around whilst waging war on a global scale.

And then they went home and rebuilt society.

Whilst modern American/Western troops are good, most of us are living in luxury off past glories (yours truly). The wars have little impact on your average person whose main problems are now described disparagingly as "first world problems."

And you see the ruins of that the "Greatest Generation" built all around which we then squandered – empty factories, welfare dependency, ramapnt drug abuse, ghettos, ineffective government, social media fueled narcisism etc etc.

> And you see the ruins of that the "Greatest Generation" built all around which we then squandered

Up till just a decade or so ago, LONG after the decline was firmly in place, those "greatest generation" folks were voting in large numbers. And being a minority in the postwar period or accused of being a communist? The GA deserves credit but they also have a lot to be ashamed of.

As for the article, the author mentions being with two groups from an elite unit (or some similar wording). What would one expect? By the point this was written anyone only looking to pay for college by joining up is long gone – and unlike WWII, Korea, or Vietnam the force is all volunteer.

I've got two sons in the Army and without a doubt the most stunning revelation to me has been the quality of the young men and women who they serve with. Compared to my experience from 70-74, these young people are smarter, fitter and better troops than we were.

I believe I've read that about 1% of the population has served during the current century. We owe them our admiration much more than thanks.

Nice article, and a interesting view. Thanks for the link

Dynaman8789, I never said they were perfect. Their drive is far more than that of us Generation Xers, the Babyboomers or most Generation Y.

We are the rich Romans lounging around in our own wealth whilst the hordes to the east (and in this case also south) grow in number and strength be it dominant China, aggressive Islamic growth or the ever beligerrent Russians.

Hell I'm guilty of it too.

The current generation of GI's in our volunteer army as a whole are better fed, fitter and more educated than those of the 'Greatest Generation,' but saying that they're "so much better" than WWII Rangers, Airborne, Red Devils or Vietnam special forces like Green Berets or SEALs is a stretch and denigrates the bravery, contributions and professionalism of these earlier warriors.

If anything, I would think the current generation of GI's have advantages that previous generations did not have, at least to the same degree: superior and near instantaneous fire and air support.

Living conditions of modern GIs are also vastly improved. Not much lying in a muddy half frozen foxhole whilst enemy artillery shreds your surroundings these days.

On the other hand the GIs of WWII didn't have to worry about IEDs or "green v blue" when they were behind the front lines.

among other things, what emerge from this interesting article is the tendency toward a doctrine based on self decision and attack mode in difficult situations…the authors said that it's different from the Continental and GB doctrines..that both stress the defensive and "wait for orders" stances..i don't think is true as regards to modern UK soldiers…i remenber to have read some (maybe Highlanders or Ghurkas) charging at baionet point some ambushing Afghans terrs after having debussed from their convoy vehicles under fire..i can confirm that, unfortunatly and from time being, the doctrine of the Italian Army is like the author said..no initiative..just freeze and wait for orders (as in teh sad Check Point Pasta episode during the Somalia crisis)….well an admiration on my part for those US Servicemen an their leaders (except the Politicians)….

Hmmm – I wouldnt have thought British troops would be overly defensive. Even facing off against the Red Army in the 80s we taught to take every opportunity to (counter!) attack and act aggressively at all times.

Doubt it's BS…from what I've read, the US Army today is a lot better at fighting COIN than it was in 2001 and is now one of the best in the world.

As with anything, practice makes perfect.

Excellent post, thanks for sharing! I think this is one of the most interesting bits and highly relevant to our hobby:

What is hard for most people to comprehend is that that attitude represented only the most elite units of the past. Current everyday conventional boring 'leg infantry' units exceed the PT levels and training levels of most Special Forces during the Vietnam War. They exceed both of those as well as IQ and educational levels of: Waffen SS, WWII Rangers, WWII Airborne and British 'Commando' units during WWII.

I'm a strong believer in the idea that unit qualities such as motivation, teamwork, and determination are far more important in determining victory or defeat than gear. Granted, you can't take out a tank with a rifle, but if you have one platoon of unmotivated, undisciplined, poorly trained troops armed to the teeth with automatic weapons and another platoon of highly motivated, disciplined, and well trained troops armed with semi-automatics those with superior morale and training will prevail every time, even against overwhelming numbers.

@Visceral Impact: I might go so far as say you could arm the high-enders with bolt action rifles and they'd still kick the crap out of the un-s (un-motivated, un-disciplined, un-trained).

I want to say that I saw this article before, back in 2008-10. The French article, I mean, not this recent commentary on it.

I will point out that there was one other military trained that they should always keep attacking: Rommel's Afrika Korps. Rommel wrote that the greatest weapon of a tank was it's engine, and that in the absence of orders a tank formation should continue advancing in their last ordered direction!

It's always amusing to me when people complain about "gen Y'ers" yet in a few years, they'll be lining up to have that generation foot the bill for their social security and medicare.

Better hope they have short memories.

Doubt it's BS…from what I've read, the US Army today is a lot better at fighting COIN than it was in 2001 and is now one of the best in the world.

As with anything, practice makes perfect.

That is correct sir …

….well an admiration on my part for those US Servicemen an their leaders (except the Politicians)….

Indeed …

I believe I've read that about 1% of the population has served during the current century. We owe them our admiration much more than thanks.

I believe it's less than 1%. But no matter,

Never was so much owed by so many to so few
W. Churchill

By way of answer, my brother-in-law did a tour in Iraq in a Provincial Reconstruction Team (hearts and minds). He worked with a French outfit for a while and had nothing but good to say about them. And he's no Francophile.

"On the other hand the GIs of WWII didn't have to worry about IEDs or "green v blue" when they were behind the front lines."

True. And the Greatest Generation types had one long deployment in which they could count on returning home for good when it was over (i.e., the road home goes through Berlin).

Modern warriors have neverending deployment cycles, with a more-or-less fixed return date, but with no way to accurately measure success and no apparent end.

What is a "Warfighter"?

And I always thought of the US military as "soldiers", not "warriors". The mindset of a "warrior" is not compatible with American values. I'm not denigrating career military, just the idea that war is a career. That makes warriors go looking for a fight. Americans are supposed to enter the fight to END it, pronto with victory. Then go home….

By way of answer, my brother-in-law did a tour in Iraq in a Provincial Reconstruction Team (hearts and minds). He worked with a French outfit for a while and had nothing but good to say about them. And he's no Francophile.

Yeah, we (Americans) have a pretty odd view of the French: mostly stale jokes and opinions of people who've never travelled (anywhere, let alone to France) or met French citizens.

I remember seeing this several years ago and wondering about its authenticity, but I hope it's a true account.

And I always thought of the US military as "soldiers", not "warriors". The mindset of a "warrior" is not compatible with American values. I'm not denigrating career military, just the idea that war is a career. That makes warriors go looking for a fight.

Are you an American and better yet are you an American soldier ? Well no matter, really. The US Military trains and prepares for war to limit our losses and in increase the enemies. The more of the enemy you kill, the better chance you have "winning"/ending the war. And that was the US ARMY's philosophy since Gen. Grant and the ACW. With the advent on wide spread guerilla wars and terrorism, etc. in many cases from a tactical standpoint in at least the short term, killing massive amounts of the enemy as often as possible seems like a good idea. But I only commanded an Inf Company, I was not a General …

Not a soldier, only a citizen. "My" military is not meant to adopt a "warrior mentality", for the reasons I stated. Citizen soldiers can be the best in the world and end "the war" much more efficiently than a bunch of "warriors" who like to fight and have no motivation to end "the war" anytime soon. Besides, warrior societies promote elitism, social stratification and domestic violence as a means to attaining control of the gov't. It is a process that leads to despotism. Citizen soldiers are the very antithesis of that process. They hate wars, love peace, hearth and home, and tend not to make the military into a career. (Again, I am not denigrating career military, only pointing out the two divergent mindsets of "warriors" and citizen soldiers….)

Remember: I.S.A.F.= I Saw Americans Fight. (add Brits Aussies, CDn initialy)

the others have some will but with ROe that hamstring it (the French are like that) and many others just do not much. Too risky, too little training etc. Home politics.

You do need warriors to fight.

From my standpoint War Ace, your description of warriors vs. citizen soldiers is a little off. Warriors don't go looking for war, or start them … they end them. And since we were highly trained professionals, our learning curve is much shallower than the draftee who had 9 weeks of BCT and sent to the front. As a former military professional I'd much rather command volunteers who had be on active duty for a few years. Than try to train and lead those who 10 weeks ago were driving a bus or selling shoes. Not there is anything bad about citizen soldiers. But over time we learned professionals who constantly train to perfect their art and the science of modern warfare are very effective. And suffer less losses and inflicts more damage on the enemy. I know of none of the soldiers I served with that was actively hoping to go to war. But we were prepared to do so. I asked to be assigned to the 101 and later 2 tours in Korea, as after all my training. I believed that is where my "skills" could be put to better use. Again, your characterizations of warriors and citizen soldiers is not only inaccurate, but a bit insulting to myself and my former comrades, IMO … And if we have to go to war, you want highly trained professional to quickly get to the business of winning and get it over with … None of us want to go to war, but if we had to, we were prepared. And trained and prepared to raise Hell on our enemies … Again, like many here who never served or served in a combat unit. You have little idea of the reality of being a soldier and his duties. etc. … Only making statements based on what you read or saw on TV …

You do need warriors to fight.

yes … thank you …

You guys are talking about two different things.

I believe that the "warrior mentality" is what is not being addressed here. Is a change in the US military's mentality occurring or not? No matter how professional and full-time our military is, that doesn't mean that the "warrior mentality" is required or desirable. But it is a continuing danger. And if or when the balance of mental state in the military adopts "Flight of the Valkyries" as their theme music, as an extreme graphic example, then the danger is becoming a reality. If "Legion" is right, and the prevailing mentality is abhorrence of war, but determination to wage it fully and swiftly, then I have nothing to worry about at the present time….

Then you have nothing to worry about … But the PSYOPs guys did strap speakers on our choppers and play Flight of the Valkyries on some of our ops in Central America. Remember PSYOPs is an important part of warfare as well. And making the enemy fear you is an important aspect of winning the battle. Making him afraid of the dark, as they know we are who they should fear in the middle of the night. Let them feel like we are predators and hunters … That is all part of waging a war that will be swift and costly to your enemy. With limiting losses to your own forces. The enemy knows if he takes on your unit, you have a lot of firepower on hand and can call-in even more with FA, CAS, Gunships, Naval Gunfire, etc. And the only continuing danger is to our enemies. Those who understand the art and science of warfare usually don't not want to do go to, but want to defeat the enemy as quickly as possible. The US military follows lawful orders from the civilain leadership. My comrades and I didn't want to die anymore than you do. But we would do our duty, regardless. That is one of things that makes the difference between professional soldiers and the civilains they are to protect. The soldier [stealthfully] more towards the sounds of the guns. So you can sleep well … The only one who should fear us is those that wish to do harm to our country and it's citizens like you and many others …

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

George Orwell

This all the point I was trying to make about just reading about or seeing things in the media and in movies, etc. about soldiers. I knew of no officers like we saw Robert Duval play [very well, IMO] in Apocolypes Now or any other such movies … As I said like many, you and others don't understand the dynamics concepts, etc. of soldiering from the outside looking in. From the limited POV of the books the media, etc. …

Yes, they are caricatures. All characters in stories are caricatures to some extent. That is inevitable.

But the very real danger of a citizen-based military, especially a military controlled by the citizenry, being taken over by "warriors", is ever with us. The line to never cross is resorting to "mercenaries", which is the temptation when a citizenry no longer has the pathematic devotion to duty to serve, yet the need for a military remains great. There is talk in the USA of the deterioration of that civic duty, reducing the pool of volunteers to a dangerously low level. What does a citizenry that has no desire to serve do when they require protecting? They hire mercenaries. Would the citizenry of the USA ever accept that expedient in place of the draft? I hope to hell not! But do we have enough troops to meet all of our needs? When the wars go on "forever", as these insurgencies we get involved in seem likely to do, and the reserves are called out more often, and our military grows weary, what then? Is the solution to deliberately inculcate a "warrior" mentality, hoping to attract more willing recruits into the "cool" job of the "Warfighter"? (again, that term in the article that I have never run into before) Do we institute a compulsory draft of all young men to receive training as reservists? Does the level of training and morale have to take a hit in that case? I think that the morale of American soldiers in the 2WW was high, even if their skill level was often lacking. The vast majority of them believed in the need of their sacrifice to duty. We don't need some artificially inculcated "warrior" mentality. We need a sense of civic duty. That emphasis will steer us safely far away from the "mercenary" danger, which is always with us as long as we rely primarily on professionals.

I'm not convinced that the move away from thinking about obligatory military service was ever a good one….

That emphasis will steer us safely far away from the "mercenary" danger, which is always with us as long as we rely primarily on professionals.

I will disagree again … modern warfare takes professional to the job. [BTW, my Father was an Infantrymen in WWII in the ETO.] And I again disagree, that going to an all volunteer force was not a good move. And as you noted, the current citizens in the US would not accept a draft. Or to hire Mercs … Again, I wanted train and lead professionals not draftees. I have no idea where you get the concept that the US Military would ever take over the government. We are Americans who clearly understand our values. From Washington, Lincoln, etc. … The US is not post WWI Germany. Or ancient Rome. Again, where would you get such ideas ? It makes me worry about such a mind set. You just go to work and enjoy your life as a civilian … Those who are like I was in my youth will do their duty as I did. And it has nothing to do with a US Military Coupe'. Believe me … And the term "warfighter" has been around for awhile in military circles. It's not meant to be a recruiting tool etc. … It's just a description of what Infantryman, Tankers, Artillery Crews, etc. do … when called upon. And train to do so, ie.: fight wars … Also as was brought up on anther thread here TMP link , COL Jessop in "A Few Good Men" is not real either. You wouldn't risk murdering a substandard troop. You'd just have the Admin Officer/NCO do the transfer paperwork. Not as exciting as in the movies, but it is the truth. But like other things I've said here about real soldiers not make believe ones, maybe

You can't handle the truth!

?

Yeah. Well.
From a transatlantic viewpoint all that "hoo hah", warrior, ride of the valkyries just seems frankly a bit mad.
Makes you wonder if the US military has seen too many films and is confusing Hollywood and real life.

A professional military generally is a good thing as long as they are more effective than the alternative. The more yelling and drama there is on display the less effective the troops doing it would be my assumption.

Yeah … Well … Believe me … the troops are effective … Regardless of what some may think or assume … again, especially some who were never in the military or a combat unit …

From a transatlantic viewpoint all that "hoo hah", warrior, ride of the valkyries just seems frankly a bit mad.
Makes you wonder if the US military has seen too many films and is confusing Hollywood and real life.

A professional military generally is a good thing as long as they are more effective than the alternative. The more yelling and drama there is on display the less effective the troops doing it would be my assumption.

And based on some comments here … some are confusing movies with real life … because they never were a soldier … among other reasons …

And in this thread we see why the military is not run by the civilian masses, and why the military actions are not dictated by the military.

Good system.

DS6151 – Right. This whole "democratic society" thing has worked out pretty well.

Checks and balances.

Interesting post … I think ? And yes, in our oath, "We will follow the orders of the President of the United State and all the officers appointed over us" … as far as I can remember … The system has worked for a long time … it is not prefect in some ways but it works … Of course along with that we were instructed to only follow lawful orders … and taught the difference …

I think what he is saying is that civilians don't know how to run the military (and shouldn't) and the military doesn't know how to run a country (and shouldn't).

Keep things separated and we'll do just fine.

One wag recently stated, "All government agencies break things as a course of their actions, but the only portion of government that ever functions correctly is the military, because it is the military's job to break things."

Oh yeah, Grunts know how to break things …

I think what he is saying is that civilians don't know how to run the military (and shouldn't) and the military doesn't know how to run a country (and shouldn't).

Yeah thats the way it should work and generally does …

French did get their butts handed to them by the Taliban at Uzbin a while back. Talibunnies got a whole lot of funky gear out of it.

I agree Tango 2 3 … I have no idea where he and others get their ideas. Most likely from reading inaccurate stuff and watching the same on TV, etc. … You and I were both soldiers, so we know first hand about the "Warrior" spirit, morale, etc. … What would combat units like Infantry and tanks/CAV, etc. be without being well trained, high morale, motivation, OO-RAH spirit, etc. ? But again, many here who have never served are welcomed to their opinions. Like some who still may believe the world is flat, it may not really be correct. To quote latto again,

From a transatlantic viewpoint all that "hoo hah", warrior, ride of the valkyries just seems frankly a bit mad.
Makes you wonder if the US military has seen too many films and is confusing Hollywood and real life.

A professional military generally is a good thing as long as they are more effective than the alternative. The more yelling and drama there is on display the less effective the troops doing it would be my assumption.

I was the 101 in CA and units like that, the 82d, RANGERS, USMC, etc. are anything thing but less effective, and again his assumptions, etc. are just plain wrong …

… where would you get such ideas ?

Maybe from the "paranoia" of the Founders, who set up our Gov't this way to keep control of the military squarely under the thumbs of our elected representatives. For a reason, and that is the danger of an evolving military mindset that grows apart from the constant concerns of the citizenry….

Well I didn't plan changing on your or anyone elses minds. And I know well about our Founding Fathers, etc., it entered into our training, etc. … I study history too … But regardless, I think your paranoia is very much misplaced, and very much unwarranted, etc. and has no basis in fact or reality … In my over a decade of active duty in my distant youth. Nothing I remember ever having to do with an over throw of any gov't came up. We were too busy training and deploying keeping people like you safe, etc. … Guarding among other things your freedom of speech., etc. … So you can say such [crazy !]things as being paranoid about a military over throw of the US Gov't. You'd be better to worry about an alien attack on DC, IMO … Which BTW, if that comes about, you'll need guys like me to protect you, etc. … Again, don't worry you can remain paranoid about our "warrior spirit", warfighter capabilities, etc. … It won't stop soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and coast guardmens from doing their duty. Even for people like you who distrusts them.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

George Orwell

Give it a rest will you? Ok you were in the army, good for you, we get it, but it doesn't make you an expert on every other ing subject under the sun.
Yes armies need to be aggressive, they exist to kill the other side as quickly and efficiently as possible.
This is a wargames site, people round here are familiar with that concept. If you've got a point then argue it but spare us the chest thumping and the brooding vet routine, even Rambo lightened up in the sequels.

I think the real problem here is that some people appear to have the idea that "Warrior" = "Murderer".

I really hope I'm misreading things.

I would suggest that those individuals read Starship Troopers and think about what is written about why a society goes to war, and the limits placed on a military. That lesson and thought process is why Starship Troopers is on every US branch's Required Reading List.

Give it a rest will you?

I will if you will …

Give it a rest will you? Ok you were in the army, good for you, we get it, but it doesn't make you an expert on every other Bleeped texting subject under the sun.
-------------
Actually as a fellow Brit thats a bit unfair on the poster from the US. Personally having read various wild and wacky comments by Americans who believe that their military are itching to impose a One World Govt etc (and thus lionise the whole citizen militia etc type ideas – not that putting GW Ace in that camp of nutters) its interesting to see the very reasonable comments of Legion (even if on a number of other topics I have differing views from him). Whilst you are saying give it a rest, its the case that in the UK we don't have anything like the bonkers groups in the US who have a very prejudiced view of the military (and even more of those in federal law enforcement)

I have to say btw that in the comments (whilst most are pretty sensible) there are one or two that Stephen Colbert would be proud of – I particularly like

"Who hates us? North Korea--commie leftist. China--Left. Venesuela--Left. Cuba--Left. French--left. Muslim nations--fake leftist (just using as a smokescreen).Who hates us? North Korea--commie leftist. China--Left. They hate America because America is a symbol for what people think of as the Right--patriotism, freedom over assistance, Judeo-Christian morality, etc."

I suspect the poster of that doesn't really know much about China as the idea (speaking as a someone with Chinese family) of modern China being leftist is laughable. I'm still scratching my head about what Muslim nations being fake leftist and using a smokescreen means in real English.
Still I guess he wouldn't like me as a leftist Christian with Chinese relatives!

I wasn't really commenting on the argument as such,it seems to be about semantics as much as anything.
My beef was more with legions debating technique, which seems to be " I was in the army so I know. If you weren't in the army you don't know and if you disagree with me then you weren't in the army."

its interesting to see the very reasonable comments of Legion (even if on a number of other topics I have differing views from him). Whilst you are saying give it a rest, its the case that in the UK we don't have anything like the bonkers groups in the US who have a very prejudiced view of the military (and even more of those in federal law enforcement)

Thanks you G, yes, we may differ on other topics. But I think we are all general reasonable in most conversations. And maybe it's just me, but I think a lively debate is a good thing. And no doubt, there are a number of fringe groups in the US that think as you mentioned G. And of course I'm not one of them.

doesn't really know much about China as the idea (speaking as a someone with Chinese family) of modern China being leftist is laughable.

So obviously you'll have more knowlegde, insights, etc. … then me who does not have a Chinese family. So I'd take you word over mine on such a topic. As generally, I'd think when it comes to many military subjects, especially dealing with the USA, I'd probably be a good source … Yes ?