Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, outlined a new U.S. approach to war in a series of speeches this week that replaces overwhelming firepower with more restrained use of force to safeguard civilian lives.
The speeches, delivered at Kansas State University and the Army's Fort Leavenworth, amount to a formal effort on the part of the chairman to codify how a decade of combat is changing the military's understanding of its role in battle and, more broadly, its place in U.S. foreign policy.
My thoughts: While the debate over whether this doctrine will perpetuate or win wars is interesting, it seems the larger question of whether or not this will start more wars has been largely ignored.
The major paragraph that stood out to me was:
"Embedded in Mullen's new doctrine is the somewhat controversial notion that troops should assume greater physical risk in order to protect innocent civilians in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq. "We protect the innocent," Mullen said. "It is who we are."
Mullen is describing the military and the soldier more like a heavily armed policeman rather than a soldier designed primarily to fight other soldiers. And if the military can be utilized like an international police force as effectively as Mullen seems to suggest and encourage, then what does this mean for the strategies and force structures created with this knowledge? If the military can be wielded as an effective police force for various places in the world, as Mullen says it can, Washington may be more encouraged with this knowledge to play the role.
No comments:
Post a Comment