Even taking the story at face value
it's necessary to keep something in mind.
Our military is subordinate to civilian political processes. That's good, but it does have one undesireable side effect: if there's no actual war in progress, the military turns political.
On another board, somebody posted "Murphy's Laws of Combat". Two of them are:
--No combat-ready unit ever passed inspection
--No inspection-ready unit ever survived combat
During peacetime, the way you get promoted in the military is to do politics well; plays well with others -- white rocks [one of the many things in M.A.S.H. that rings true], meeting the affirmative action quotas, getting good press. I don't think it's fatuous to argue that a person who's good at that sort of thing isn't too likely to be good at what is theoretically his job, the military action part. An officer who spends most of his day meeting deadlines for paperwork submission and juggling appropriations is learning to do paperwork and manage money, not to lead soldiers in combat. This is fairly well inevitable, IMO.
Unfortunately, when real combat starts, you've got desk weenies in charge, and they screw up. When they screw up, they get relieved, and others move into their positions. Eventually you find somebody who screws up less, and that one stays while the rest play musical commands. If the war goes on long enough, you get competent people in enough positions to get the job done, because promotion now comes on military grounds, not political ones.
We're a long way from that point, so I expect to see some ungodly screwups. Even if this story is completely true, look at it this way: Our guys got out, even if wounded. They'll be back, with a different CO, and some different attitudes (not to mention op orders / rules of engagement). Do that enough time, and it'll start being done right.
Regards,
Ric
