No but he does point out that US forces ARE TRAINED to be aggressive and to be the first one to fire which the general points out is counterproductive in Iraq. At the very least, we can try to teach our troops to be less aggressive in certain instances. Chiarelli even gave examples of troops in Iraq that tried doing that and the better results that followed.
I wasn't saying he's wrong, just that's it's easy to escond guess from the safety of HQ. Btw, from what I understand the Brits have the opposite problem - they are often too reluctant to shoot back.
The Brits modus operendi is that they have far greater experience being occupiers where they've learned that a soft touch often works better. The problem is an occupation is an occupation and no one likes to be occupied so its no surprise that the Brits are taking casualties. The whole point of Gen. Chiarelli is that our goal is to win hearts and minds and that is a far better guarentee of our security than through agression.
Yeah, I'm aware of their self-proclaimed superiority in this matter. I didn't need the lecture from you.
Did you make that one up yourself? You're pretty quick. I will admit that I am completely ignorant about shooting Iraqis, and that US Gen. Peter Chiarelli knows a lot more than me. Will you? Why do you hate the superior officers of our troops? I can only conclude that you wish them harm.
You're not much on reading comprehension are you? I said he may be right, but I also said he's not the one that's could get killed because a soldier hesitates to shoot.
Your posts are full of condescension, as if you know everything and everybody else is clueless. It's kind of like a teacher talking down to his class.
His posts are probably some of the most level headed in this forum. You are either a jackass of proportions not known to many people on earth or just too stupid to realize it.
