Bill Sykes' Newsletter from America.
(February 2002)
An ex-Brit gives his views-(without fear
or favor)---of the American Scene
What a way to run a war.
Let me say up front that any war that is conducted in such
a manner as to avoid friendly casualties has my full support.
The bombing campaign conducted by the United States has
flattened the tops of many of Afghanistan's mountains, and
has decimated the Taliban and al Quaeda forces with little
loss of American lives.
This to me is a definite plus in the battle to destroy the
enemy forces and maintain a minimum casualty count.
 Fortunately
the war has currently shifted from what appeared to be it's
major objective, the capture of Osama bin Laden, to the
roundup and interrogation of terrorist-associated armed
forces and the installation of a stable Afghan government.
On the other hand it may be disconcerting for the members
of the gallant American Marine Corp and the 101st Airborne
to appear to be considered by world news reports to be doing
housekeeping and guard duties at the Kandahar airbase.
One must not forget that the Marines and Airborne Forces,
plus the Coalition Peacekeepers, are in a very inhospitable
and dangerous Afghan environment and must be supported in
any and every way that we, the general public, can offer.
 The
modern day unconventional way of conducting a war, has the
Supreme Commander, General Tommy R. Frank's, maintaining
his headquarters, (and one would assume his general staff),
at a Central Command Building in Tampa, Florida.
This has certainly raised some eyebrows in the United States
Military.
It would appear to be sound judgment when considering the
advanced communications and information technology available
to the Supreme Commander, which allows him to keep his distance
from where the real fighting is going on.
On the other hand, in the European and North African Campaigns
of World War Two, famous generals of that era, such as Wavell,
Auchinleck, Montgomery, Patton and Rommel, (to name but
a few), led their men into battle.
 How
things have changed in this new way of conducting a War.
For whatever reasons, I was not a great fan of Montgomery,
but admit to great admiration for General Rommel who to
me was a soldier's soldier, as well as being a great military
strategist.
Are there any opinions out there on the subject.
Should the General, as in the past, assume the model of
personal leadership, and command his armies as near to the
front as possible, or should he adopt the current day approach
of electronic control from a remote location, such as an
air conditioned office in Florida?
In my days with the Allied Armed Forces of World War Two
in the European theatre it was always considered appropriate
for an officer never to give a command for a duty that he
would not be prepared to tackle himself.
But there, unfortunately I'm of the Old Brigade who hasn't
yet caught up with the idea of remote controlled Armies.
Mention in dispatches:
 In
addition to the bravery of the American Marines and the
other coalition forces actively engaged in the war in Afghanistan,
a special mention must be made of the American "Green
Berets" and the British "Special Air Services",
personnel who's behind the scenes activities have earned
them great respect for their bravery, daring, and determination
in bloody firefights with the enemy forces.
Their activities do not usually hit the headlines due to
the covertness of their operations but I'm sure that they
deserve all the credit and respect that can be given.
|
