colonel macgregor on dan rather reports

7/29/2019 Colonel Macgregor on Dan Rather Reports

1/25

Dan Rather Reports

Episode Number: 329

Episode Title: Battle Plan

Description: The Pentagon is making decisions to build up a big, "culturally sensitive" ground

force meant to police cities and occupy foreign territory. Why? Pentagon brass thinks that's

what's "most likely" down the road. And few in government are asking critical questions.

TEASE:

SENATOR EVAN BAYH, (D) INDIANA

We need to prepare ourselves for a much different kind of warfare, requiring different kinds of

capability and really a different kind of mindset. There's not really ever going to be a going back

to the old way, if we're gonna protect America.

DAN RATHER

You're not suggesting that when we tell ourselves the United States military is the greatest

fighting force the world has ever known, that we're kidding ourselves?

COLONEL DOUGLAS MCGREGOR

Yes. Because while we do many, many things very well, we have limitations. Those limitations

are evident today in Iraq, and in Afghanistan.

AIR FORCE MAJOR CHARLES J. DUNLAP, JR.

The enemy never knows whether he's being watched or not. I want him to be worried all the

time about what our capabilities might be.

DAN RATHER (VOICE OVER)

THE FUTURE OF THE US MILITARY, TONIGHT ON DAN RATHER REPORTS.

BATTLE PLAN:

DAN RATHER (ON CAMERA)

GOOD EVENING. TONIGHT WELL GIVE YOU A LOOK AT THE FUTURE OF THE

AMERICAN ARMED FORCES. SURPRISINGLY, THERES AN EMERGING

CONSENSUS ABOUT WHAT THAT FUTURE SHOULD LOOK LIKE -- MORE GROUNDTROOPS TO ACT AS POLICE, MORE CAPABILITY TO FIGHT INSURGENTS IN CITIES.

SO SAYS SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN; SO SAYS SENATOR BARACK OBAMA. ITS

WHAT ARMY BRASS WANTS, AND WHAT EDITORIALS URGE. AND IT'S ALREADY

HAPPENING. AS YOULL SEE TONIGHT, WE AS A NATION ARE BUILDING ENTIRE

CITIES IN THE DESERT TO TRAIN SOLDIERS FOR JUST SUCH BATTLES AHEAD.


2/25

RATHER (VOICE OVER)

THE U.S. ARMY HAS A GLORIOUS HISTORY, AND MOST OF THAT GLORY WAS

EARNED IN ONE WAY: TYPIFIED BY THE LIBERATION OF FRANCE IN WORLD

WAR II, THE AMERICAN ARMY MARCHED IN HEAVILY ARMED COLUMNS ACROSS

SWATHS OF TERRITORY. THESE WERE WARS OF DEFINED FRONTS, AND

ANYTHING AHEAD OF THE TANKS WAS FAIR GAME. BUT THE ARMY TODAY ISFIGHTING A DIFFERENT KIND OF WAR.

STAFF SERGEANT MCGRATH

We're trying to get a nice pulse of the town, and where they currently stand at this time.

RATHER (VOICE OVER)

AND GEARING UP TO FIGHT MORE. THESE ARE WARS FOR HEARTS AND MINDS,

AS LIKELY TO BE FOUGHT WITH A HANDSHAKE AS A GUN.

LT. COLONEL BILL BENSON

Deputy Mayor's over here.

MCGRATH

Ooh! Salaam Aleichem. How you doin'? The Deputy Mayor.

RATHER (VOICE OVER)

THIS IS A WAR OF COUNTERINSURGENCY. IT ENTAILS HOUSE-TO-HOUSE

SEARCHES FOR ILLEGAL WEAPONS . . .

BENSON

I've got an IED detonator, a weapon, and a box of 7-6-2 rounds so far. I'll keep looking.

RATHER (VOICE OVER)

AND INTERROGATION OF HIGH-VALUE TARGETS.

SOLDIER 1

You don't know? I think there was some shooting just not too long ago.

RATHER (VOICE OVER)

BUT IT'S ALSO ABOUT PROVIDING SMALL BUSINESS GRANTS TO LOCAL

VILLAGES.

SOLDIER 2

Hey sir, I found the woman you're looking for. Salaam Aleichem.

GHASSAN ZUHAIR MUWAFA ANI AL TAMIMI, IRAQI ACTOR

Aleichem Salaam.

SOLDIER 2

Here's the baker, if you want to talk to her.


3/25

SOLDIER 3

We just wanted to let you know that you were approved for your grant...

TRANSLATOR

[ARABIC]

RATHER (VOICE OVER)

SCENES LIKE THIS ARE ALL IN A DAY'S WORK FOR THE ARMY IN IRAQ. BUT THIS

ISN'T IRAQ. THE WEAPONS AREN'T REAL, AND THESE TOWNS WERE

CONSTRUCTED BY HOLLYWOOD SET-BUILDERS. AND WHAT YOU'RE SEEING

HERE IS THE ARMY'S NATIONAL TRAINING CENTER ON FORT IRWIN, IN THE

MIDDLE OF CALIFORNIA'S MOJAVE DESERT.

IRAQI WOMAN

[ARABIC]

RATHER (VOICE OVER)AND ALTHOUGH THIS SEEMS LIKE A VERY REAL INTERACTION BETWEEN AN

IRAQI VILLAGER AND AMERICAN FORCES, THIS IRAQI-AMERICAN ACTOR WORKS

FOR A GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR HIRED TO POPULATE THE CALIFORNIA

DESERT WITH ARABS. AND WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE AT FORT IRWIN IS MORE

THAN JUST TRAINING -- IT'S THE ARMY OF THE WORLD'S ONLY REMAINING

SUPERPOWER FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGING ITS MISSION. FORT IRWIN ROTATES

BETWEEN TRAINING FOR IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN TEN TIMES A YEAR, HOSTING

GROUPS OF 6000 SOLDIERS AND OFFICERS ON THEIR WAY TO THOSE

BATTLEFIELDS. HALFWAY BETWEEN LOS ANGELES AND LAS VEGAS, ITS OVER

A THOUSAND SQUARE MILES, BIGGER THAN THE STATE OF DELAWARE. WE

VISITED DURING AN IRAQ ROTATION. AND WE SAW THE ARMY BUILDING A

CITY ON THE SAND, HUNDREDS OF BUILDINGS SIMULATING A MIDDLE-EASTERN

METROPOLIS TO TEACH AMERICANS HOW TO WIN URBAN COMBAT, AND WIN

OVER HEARTS AND MINDS. SINCE FORT IRWIN OPENED IN 1980, IT'S TRAINED

SOLDIERS FOR AMERICA'S NEXT BATTLEFIELD. DURING THE COLD WAR, THESE

SANDS STOOD IN FOR THE PLAINS OF CENTRAL EUROPE, THE PLACE WE

EXPECTED TO FACE THE SOVIETS. COLUMNS OF MOCK-ENEMY TANKS REMAIN

AS REMINDERS. BUT AFTER 9/11, THE ARMY THOUGHT IT WOULD HAVE TO SEND

SOLDIERS INTO A VERY DIFFERENT KIND OF BATTLE, ONE IN WHICH SOLDIERS

HAVE TO MAKE TOUGH CULTURAL CALLS ON THE FLY. LISTEN TO THIS

CONVERSATION ABOUT NOT BARGING INTO THE HOME OF A MULLAH AND HIS

WIFE.

MCGRATH

We've got to find a way to get into the courtyard; the door is closed.

BENSON

We don't want to be inappropriate if she's home by herself.


4/25

RATHER (VOICE OVER)

A FAR CRY FROM GENERAL PATTON MARCHING ACROSS EUROPE.

BRIGADIER GENERAL DANA PITTARD

As the operational environment has changed so has-- our-- our combat training centers. We

have, now, transformed into being able to make sure that our units are prepared for irregularwarfare-- which is what's taking place in Afghanistan and Iraq-- a counterinsurgency

environment.

RATHER (VOICE OVER)

OVERSEEING THIS WHOLE OPERATION IS BRIGADIER GENERAL DANA PITTARD.

ITS HIS JOB TO TURN THE THOUSANDS OF YOUNG AMERICAN MEN AND WOMEN

WHO PASS THROUGH FORT IRWIN INTO SOLDIERS WHO CAN FIGHT THIS NEW

KIND OF WAR.

PITTARD

Stability operations has primacy. But there are still elements of offensive operations anddefensive operations. And you'll see that during a rotation here.

RATHER (VOICE OVER)

STABILITY OPERATIONS. THAT'S ARMY-SPEAK FOR THINGS LIKE KEEPING THE

PEACE, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

MCGRATH

Unemployment rates are high, and maybe with the boost of a microgrant, they start a business

that will help boost the economy.

RATHER (VOICE OVER)

AND DISTRIBUTING FOOD AND MEDICINE.

AID WORKER

That one's a little bit heavier.

RATHER (VOICE OVER)

WHILE THERE IS TRAINING HERE IN FIGHTING AND BATTLEFIELD MEDICINE, THE

EMPHASIS EVEN IN COMBAT IS ON LOW-INTENSITY MILITARY OPERATIONS IN

CITIES. HERE, AN ARMY PATROL SEARCHING A NEIGHBORHOOD FOR A

SUSPECTED GUN-RUNNER COMES UNDER SNIPER ATTACK.

MCGRATH

Up top you got talk!

BENSON

Keep fire in that window!


5/25

MCGRATH

Get in here! There you go; there you go.

BENSON

We got a patrol coming up from the south! Have them stop and secure the south side!

SOLDIER 4

This is another one of our targets were looking for. This guy is his known friend.

RATHER (VOICE OVER)

HERE, THE CIVILIAN IN THE BACKGROUND IS ACTUALLY A TRAINER HIRED TO

TEACH SOLDIERS HOW TO BEHAVE WITH THE LOCAL POPULATION.

SOLDIER 4

The question of -- they gave us false names.

TRAINERYou dont want them to know too much.

RATHER

AND HERE, THE TRAINER WARNS A SOLDIER ABOUT REVEALING TOO MUCH

WHEN BRIEFING IRAQI SOLDIERS.

SOLDIER 1

See him, be on the lookout for this guy, and we have to capture this guy.

TRANSLATOR

[ARABIC]


AND THE TRAINING EXTENDS EVEN TO ARMY TRANSLATORS.

TRANSLATOR

I never saw him here before but they are coming from outside.


IT'S ALL PART OF THE EMPHASIS ON REALITY, WHICH STRETCHES NOT JUST TO

MILTARY REALISM, BUT ALSO TO ARCHITECTURE, MARKETS, AND MOST OF ALL,

LANGUAGE.

PITTARD

If you go through and-- and-- and you-- you don't have Arabic-speaking role players, that's an

issue because that's not real. Or if it's a-- Afghanistan rotation, they're not speaking-- Pashtun or

Dari, that's not real. The kind of towns, the urban towns we're creating, the signs, it must hit all

five of your senses. You must see Iraq and Afghanistan. You must smell it. You must touch it.


6/25

GHASSAN ZUHAIR MUWAFA ANI AL TAMIMI, IRAQI ACTOR

[ARABIC]

PITTARD

You must hear it. And that's what we're trying to create.

BASSAM KALISHO, IRAQI-AMERICAN

We believe in this is Iraq right now. We dont believe in this is desert in California, no. When I

come in here, when I step in my village, hey this is my house this is my village I live over here

so you guys do whatever you have to do. If youre going to do it in Iraq, do it over here.


BASSAM KALISHO IS ONE OF THE HUNDREDS OF IRAQI-AMERICANS HIRED TO

RECREATE THEIR HOMELAND AT FORT IRWIN.

KALISHO

We got a script and we play by the script but sometime we play "free play" and we just put it tothem like they going to face it in Iraq. I been a U.S. citizen for a long time and this country give

me a lot: freedom, nice wife, beautiful kid. My familys here, so I owe this country so whatever

I do over here, its not just the moneyits just something I believe in it; Im saving life.


KALISHO PLAYS THE MAYOR OF THE FICTIONAL IRAQI TOWN OF MEDINA WASL

AND HE HOPES AMERICAN SOLDIERS LEARN FROM THE MISTAKES THEY MAKE

HERE, WHERE THE BULLETS AREN'T REAL.

KALISHO

When they go to Iraq, they will remember hey I did in Medina Wasl I made that mistake, I killed

innocent people, I dont want that to happen over here again, so if we save a life, its worth a lot.


THE NATIONAL TRAINING CENTER'S PRIORITY IS TO CREATE THE MOST

REALISTIC PERSONAL INTERACTIONS POSSIBLE.

PITTARD

Anything that the local commander can do to assist with stability of that particular area is what

we're trying to accomplish here.

BENSON

You learn to operate and use all of your systems, your communications systems, your

intelligence systems.


LIEUTENANT COLONEL BILL BENSON IS TRAINING FOR HIS THIRD TOUR IN IRAQ


7/25

BENSON

There's someplace he's going up here, and I would say that this is probably how weapons are

getting into Al Sharq.


AND HE THINKS THE TRAINING AT FORT IRWIN IS JUST WHAT BAGHDAD-BOUNDSOLDIERS NEED.

BENSON

Life in America has not trained anyone for the experiences they're about to encounter when they

get to Iraq. It's not one-hundred percent authentic, but it's close enough so that when they're in

Iraq and they're meeting someone for the first time, and theyre meeting real Iraqis for the first

time, they know what to expect.

PITTARD

The current national strategy-- and then the military strategy that supports the national strategy of

the United States, we need more forces. And that's, obviously, been recognized by-- by both theexecutive branch as well as-- as well as Congress.


AND THERE ARE SOME IN CONGRESS WHO THINK THE MILITARY'S

TRANSFORMATION NEEDS TO BE EVEN MORE DRAMATIC.

SENATOR EVAN BAYH, (D) INDIANA

Going forward, we need to prepare ourselves for a much different kind of warfare, requiring

different kinds of capability and really a different kind of mindset.

RATHER (VOICE OVER)

SENATOR EVAN BAYH OF INDIANA SAYS HES ON A MISSION TO REMAKE THE

U.S. MILITARY, AND HE'S CALLING FOR A TOP-TO-BOTTOM REVIEW OF HOW OUR

FIGHTING FORCES ARE ORGANIZED.

BAYH

Dan, we're living in a much different world than we did, even ten years ago. The threats that

face our country have changed dramatically since the time of the Cold War. And to meet those

threats, and with all the money that we spend to meet those threats, we need to make sure we're

doing it in the most effective way possible. That's currently not the case. And that's why we

need a review.

RATHER (VOICE OVER)

THE RESULT OF SENATOR BAYH'S BROAD STUDY WILL BE A LENGTHY WHITE

PAPER THAT OUTLINES A MAJOR RETHINK OF THE WAY THE PENTAGON DOES

BUSINESS. HES SPEAKING ABOUT HIS CONCLUSIONS FOR THE FIRST TIME

TONIGHT.


8/25

BAYHThe threat of insurgencies, nontraditional warfare, is likely to be with us for some time. And--that really needs to be our focus going forward. It's unlikely we're going to be fighting this sortof traditional-- land based-- large tank war in the northern European plain.

RATHERDo we need a larger force? Or do we have a large enough force now that needs to berestructured and redirected?

BAYHMost people who've looked at this and I would agree-- suggest we need to add a couple ofdivisions.

RATHERA division being 15, 20 thousand?

BAYHThereabouts, that's right.

RATHER (VOICE OVER)IN ORDER TO PAY FOR THESE TROOPS, SENATOR BAYH WANTS TO ELIMINATEEXPENSIVE LEGACY WEAPONS -- SYSTEMS LEFT OVER FROM PLANNING FOR THECOLD WAR. SOME TARGETS MIGHT BE THE AIR FORCE'S F-22 FIGHTER, ITS C-130JTRANSPORT AIRCRAFT, THE JOINT V-22 OSPREY, THE NAVY'S VIRGINIA CLASSSUBMARINE, AND THE MISSILE DEFENSE PROGRAM ALSO KNOWN AS STARWARS. TAKEN TOGETHER, JUST THESE FIVE PROGRAMS CONSUMED $19.7BILLION IN PENTAGON PROCUREMENT AND R&D FUNDING LAST YEAR ALONE.

RATHERWell that brings us to Congress. A Representative wants the ship building in the state or theaircraft that you're manufacturing, they want to earmark it to make sure they take care of theirconstituencies. There's a long history of this. And perhaps you could forgive Mr. and Mrs.Average Citizen who say you know, Congress is not gonna give that up.

BAYHWell, the average citizen has a right to feel skeptical about that-- Dan, given the history here.But we need to give it up.

RATHER (VOICE OVER)AND BACK AT FORT IRWIN, THE ARMY'S IN THE MIDDLE OF A HUGE PROJECTTHAT'S IN LINE WITH SOME OF SENATOR BAYH'S THINKING. HE THINKS MOREIRAQS MIGHT BE DOWN THE ROAD, AND SO DOES THE PENTAGON. THAT'S WHY,RUMBLING ACROSS MAKESHIFT ROADS THROUGH THE SAND, THESE TRUCKSARE CARRYING SUPPLIES TO A MASSIVE CONSTRUCTION SITE.


9/25

PITTARDWe've seen the need throughout our army to increase the sizes of our urban training facilities.

We are, now, building-- a little city of 600 buildings that'll be finished by the end of 2009 tomeet that need here at the National Training Center.

RATHER (VOICE OVER)THE ARMY AS POLICE FORCE AND DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, YOU WONT JUSTFIND THAT ON THE GROUND IN IRAQ; ITS NOW THE SERVICES OFFICIAL

POLICY. IN 2008 THE U.S. ARMY UPDATED WHAT'S KNOWN AS THREE-DOT-O, ITSBASIC MANUAL FOR ALL FIELD OPERATIONS, THE FIRST UPDATE SINCE

SEPTEMBER 11TH. AND FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY, THE MANUAL PUTSTABILIZING WAR-TORN NATIONS ON EQUAL FOOTING WITH BATTLEFIELD

VICTORY AS A PRIORITY FOR THE U.S. ARMY.

PITTARDRight now, we're fighting a war in both Afghanistan and Iraq. And primacy in that war is

stability operations with components of offensive operations and defensive operations. So what3.0 has really stated is what is happening.

RATHER (VOICE OVER)

BUT IT'S NOT JUST FOR THE HERE AND NOW THAT THIS NEW MILITARYDOCTRINE IS BEING FORGED. WHEN THESE SIX HUNDRED EMPTY BUILDINGS

ARE SWARMING WITH THOUSANDS OF MOCK CIVILIANS AND SOLDIERS INTRAINING, IT MAY NOT BE AS IRAQ BUT AS ANOTHER URBANIZED COUNTRY

WHERE THE U.S. COULD GET INVOLVED IN A GROUND WAR. MOST EXPERTS --THEIR FEELINGS ABOUT IT NOTWITHSTANDING -- AGREE THAT WOULD BE IRAN

OR PAKISTAN.

SENATOR JOSEPH LIEBERMAN, (I) CONNECTICUTI want to welcome Lieutenant General William Caldwell.

RATHER (VOICE OVER)

ACCORDING TO WILLIAM CALDWELL, THE THREE-STAR GENERAL WHO WROTETHE NEW MANUAL, THIS DOCTRINE WASN'T JUST WRITTEN WITH IRAQ IN MIND.

GENERAL WILLIAM CALDWELL

You know, we've spent a lot of time looking at the threat out into the future and examining thatas part of this Manual development. And one thing we do say is that they will continue to be --

these type of operations for the next 10 or 15 years.


10/25

RATHER (VOICE OVER)

BUT THE PENTAGON IS NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT THE FUTURE; THEY'RE

STUDYING THE PAST. IN 2002, THEY HIRED A CONSULTING FIRM TO LOOK AT

THE EMPIRES OF GENGHIS KHAN AND THE ROMANS, TO SEE WHAT THEY CAN

TEACH US ABOUT REGIME CHANGE AND OCCUPATION. AND WHAT GOES ON AT

FORT IRWIN REFLECTS THE LESSONS OF MORE RECENT OCCUPYING FORCES --THE 19TH-CENTURY EMPIRES OF FRANCE AND BRITAIN. SO SAY NOT JUST

STRATEGISTS AND SCHOLARS, BUT ALMOST EVERY OFFICER AND

INFANTRYMAN WE SPOKE TO. HERE'S THE BATTLE-TESTED COLONEL BENSON.

BENSON

The lessons learned out of Vietnam-- the French experience in Algeria and the-- British army in

Malaysia-- are just a few examples of the kind of counterinsurgency-- fundamentals and doctrine

that have been around with us for a long time. As an army, though, we kinda had to relearn that.

Alright, is this the guy you got?

MCGRATHYes, sir. And--

BENSON

Okay that's him.

MCGRATH

He was under an alias name.

RATHER (VOICE OVER)

BUT EVEN WITH ALL THIS NEW DOCTRINE AND TRAINING, SENATOR BAYH IS

STILL WORRIED THAT THERE'S NOT THE WILL TO CHANGE.

BAYH

There's too much intransigence. Even after Iraq and Afghanistan which need to have been a

wakeup call and have been for some, there's still a desire on the part of many to well, once that's

over, we'll kind of go back to the traditional ways of doing business. That's not good enough

anymore. There's not really ever going to be a going back to the old way, if we're gonna protect

America.

RATHER (VOICE OVER)

NO GOING BACK TO THE OLD WAY. FAIR ENOUGH, BUT THERE IS MORE THAN

ONE APPROACH TO FINDING A NEW WAY FORWARD. SOME VOICES, EVEN SOME

WITHIN THE MILITARY, STRENUOUSLY OPPOSE THE ARMY'S FOCUS ON MORE

TROOPS AND THEIR CONSTANT PRESENCE ON THE GROUND ABROAD.

AIR FORCE MAJOR CHARLES J. DUNLAP, JR.

We will never have the size of the armed force that the counterinsurgency manual tells us the

force ratios that they want.


11/25

RATHER (VOICE OVER)

Air Force Major General Charles Dunlap, one of the highest-ranked officers in the service, thinks

that the way the Army is going about planning for the future is inherently flawed, relying on

numbers that he says just aren't possible.

DUNLAPThey wanna have 20 soldiers for every 1,000 persons in the population. So you can do the math

on various countries around the world, if we do it the old way. So we need to figure out how to

do it the new way.

RATHER (VOICE OVER)

ACTUALLY, THE ARMY'S COUNTERINSURGENCY MANUAL SAYS THAT TWENTY

SOLDIERS IS USUALLY CONSIDERED THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF TROOPS FOR A

SUCCESSFUL OPERATION. OF COURSE, FULL-SCALE COUNTERINSURGENCIES

WON'T BE FOUGHT IN EVERY INCH OF A COUNTRY. BUT FOR IRAQ, THE

FORMULA WOULD WORK OUT TO OVER A HALF-MILLION SOLDIERS.

CURRENTLY, THERE ARE ABOUT ONE-THIRD OF THAT IN IRAQ. IF APPLIED TOIRAN, THAT FORMULA WOULD CALL FOR ALMOST A MILLION AND A HALF

SOLDIERS. FOR PAKISTAN, OVER THREE MILLION.

RATHER

That raises the question of-- at a time where we talk about increasing force levels, from where

are these people going to come?

DUNLAP

That is a huge question because I think-- especially for the Army, they really are-- pushing the

envelope. They've done, I think, about everything they can in terms of recruiting and incentives.

And it is hard for them to get the kind of sophisticated soldier that you need today. As we see

with counterinsurgency-- they need high-end liberal education. In other words, languages--

knowledge of other cultures, history, politics, and so forth.

RATHER

It's possible, its probable? That we could keep the force level at or about where it is now, not

increase it dramatically, if we're pretty smart about how we plan and spend? Or not?

DUNLAP

Yes. If-- if we're pretty smart about how we plan and spend, we can-- keep the numbers of

human beings in the Armed Forces about the same.

RATHER (VOICE OVER)

BOOTS-ON-THE-GROUND ZEALOTS IS WHAT GENERAL DUNLAP CALLS THOSE

IN CONGRESS AND THE ARMY WHO NEGLECT TECHNOLOGY AND PREPARE TO

QUOTE, REFIGHT THE LAST WAR IN THIS CASE, THE CURRENT OCCUPATION

OF IRAQ. HE WORRIES WE'RE DISTRACTED FROM WHAT REALLY MATTERS --

BUILDING A MILITARY TO FIGHT FLIES WHILE THE VULTURES CIRCLE.


12/25

DUNLAPAs much as we're concerned about-- a weapon of mass destruction getting into the hands of an

individual terrorist or-- or group, the fact of the matter is as horrific as that would be, a few ofthose weapons are not going to destroy the United States. It would take a major state power to

be able to do that. But we will see them resurging in the future, and we have to be prepared.

SOLDIER 5Get down; get down.

RATHER (VOICE OVER)

AS FOR INSURGENCIES, DUNLAP ACKNOWLEDGES WE HAVE TO FIGHT THEM,BUT SAYS THAT WHAT WE CAN DO WITH TECHNOLOGY HAS FUNDAMENTALLY

CHANGED. SCIENCE NOW ALLOWS US TO TARGET ENEMIES WITH DEADLYPRECISION, AS WE SEE IN THIS BATTLEFIELD VIDEO. GENERAL DUNLAP SAYS

WHEN THE UNITED STATES PROVIDES THE HIGH TECHNOLOGY, THE NATIVEGOVERNMENT'S ARMY CAN DO THE WORK ON THE GROUND.

DUNLAP

I believe that we ought to leverage technology to do some of that counterinsurgency. Mydisagreement with the counterinsurgency manual was that it was based on historical studies

when, quite frankly, airpower's technology did not have all that much to offer.

RATHERYou're talking about Vietnam, Malaysia, those kinds of battles.

DUNLAP

Exactly. Exactly. And what's happened, what's different now, is what I call the precisionrevolution. It's a little bit unpopular these days to talk about high technology because it's equated

with high cost weapons. But the fact of the matter is, in my judgment, this country is atechnological country. That's always been our strength. That's not to say that there's no role for

boots on the ground. There's always gonna be boots on the ground. But anything we can do toremove young Americans from being at the pointy end of the stick I think is a good thing. And

we ought to look to do that. One of the things that I like about our reconnaissance capability isthe enemy never knows whether he's being watched or not, or listened to, or how he's being

tracked.SOLDIER 6

What are these guys going to do?

SOLDIER 7Looking around.

SOLDIER 6

It's a guy in the field -- get the guy in the field.

SOLDIER 7Roger. See this?


13/25

SOLDIER 6

Yep.

SOLDIER 7

I've got a guy running-- throwing a weapon...

SOLDIER 6

Smoke him. Hit him.

SOLDIER 7

Got him.

SOLDIER 6

Good.

SOLDIER 7

Second one.

SOLDIER 6

Hit the other one.

DUNLAP

I want him to be worried all the time about what our capabilities might be. Because in a perfect

world, what we do is we drive the Saddam Husseins in the world into spider holes because if

their command and control is in a spider hole, we win, and so that's what I think we can do with

our technology, and we can do it better than anyone else.

RATHER (VOICE OVER)

STILL, WHETHER ITS GENERAL DUNLAP'S HIGH TECH WEAPONS, OR FT. IRWIN'S

BOOTS ON THE GROUND, THERES AGREEMENT THAT COUNTERINSURGENCIES

WILL CONTINUE TO BE A MAJOR FOCUS FOR THE U.S. MILITARY IN THE YEARS

AHEAD.


NOW, WHEN WE RETURN, WE TALK TO ONE WAR HERO WHO SEES THE MILITARY

HEADING DOWN A SELF-DEFEATING PATH.


AS WEVE SEEN TONIGHT, THE MILITARY IS CHANGING IN WAYS THAT

CHALLENGE OUR VERY DEFINITIONS OF WAR FIGHTING. WE MET THE MEN AT

THE FOREFRONT OF THAT TRANSFORMATION, WE MET A SKEPTICAL AIR FORCE

GENERAL, AND NOW WE TURN TO ONE OF THE LEADING VOICES OF DISSENT

WITHIN THE ARMY. A MAN WHO THINKS THE CHANGES WE SAW AT FORT IRWIN

COULD BRING AMERICAS MILITARY DOMINANCE IN WORLD AFFAIRS TO AN

UGLY END.


14/25

DAN RATHER (VOICE OVER)DOUGLAS MACGREGOR IS A WARRIOR, AND A SCHOLAR. HE LED THE SOLDIERSOF THE SECOND ARMORED CAVALRY TO VICTORY IN THE FIRST GULF WAR, ANDGOT A BRONZE STAR FOR IT. BUT HE ALSO HAS A PH.D IN INTERNATIONALRELATIONS AND HAS WRITTEN TWO CONTROVERSIAL BOOKS ON MILITARY

REFORM. COLONEL MACGREGOR, NOW RETIRED, FEELS THAT THE DIRECTIONTHE MILITARY IS HEADED TODAY COULD HAVE DANGEROUS CONSEQUENCESTOMORROW.

RATHERDoes the United States, at this moment, have a strategic world view, and are we following in thatstrategy?

COLONEL DOUGLAS MCGREGORWell, that's the $60,000 question and the answer is no. There is no larger strategic frameworkthat links the use of military power to attainable, political military objectives of any kind. We

really haven't had any such strategic framework for at least the last 130 years.

RATHERIn your considered judgment, what should be the purpose of our strategy at this time?

MCGREGORWe absolutely must do business with the rest of the world to survive. We have, for the last 200years increasingly become the engine of prosperity for the world. In other words, our economydrives the world economy. Which is a very good thing. To do that we have to have access tomarkets and business. So you maintain forces for the purpose of protecting your commerce andhaving access to markets and business. This is why the British organized the alliance againstNapoleon, who was trying to exclude them from continental Europe. It's ultimately why weopposed communism, because we wanted to open these countries up to make them part of thelarger world economy to which we need access. So access, more than anything else, to marketsand business drive your interests, security wise. And that says something about the kind of forceyou want to maintain.

RATHERWhat does it say about the kind of force we want to maintain?

MCGREGORWe don't have borders that we need to defend. Our borders are already defended. We'resurrounded, largely, by water. So how do you justify a large land force, when there are noenemies impinging on your territorial integrity? You don't is the answer. You can't maintain alarge, standing army. You can only maintain enough land-power that is required for your abilityto periodically intervene for short periods of time to maintain access to markets and business.


15/25

RATHERAt the present time, we have obligations to the defense of Europe, the defense of Israel, thedefense of Japan, South Korea. Can we meet our obligations with the size military force that wehave now?

MCGREGORAbsolutely. There are no large armies mobilizing to invade-- central East Europe. The Russiansmaintain large armies largely because they have very serious enemies to the south and to theeast-- because they have indefensible borders. We don't face that kind of strategic problem. Sothere's no requirement for us to do that. There are no large armies mobilizing in Iran, about tooverwhelm Iraq, contrary to popular belief. There are no armies anywhere in the world today,quite frankly, that present a huge strategic threat to the United States.

RATHERHow is it that an officer with the kind of combat record that you have winds up having such,what many people would say, such modest goals for the U.S. military?

MCGREGORWell, first of all, I dont think that the United States economy or the society that we maintain isdesigned to produce exclusively military power. I don't see that territorial conquest has anyplace in American foreign policy. I think the days when the United States and Great Britain andFrance, and the Netherlands, and the Spaniards and others could go into the countries belongingto non-Europeans and essentially occupy them, govern them and exploit them are over. Peopleare very, very expensive. Every 10,000 troops costs well over $1 billion to maintain. So itwould stand to reason that you need to organize this ground force efficiently and effectively, sothat you get the maximum, potential combat power out of it. That's not how we're organizedright now. We're still organized as small versions of World War II formations. You've got to beable to cross service lines to get the capabilities that you need when you need them withoutinterference from this enormous service bureaucracy--

RATHERDon't we have that now?

MCGREGORNo. Absolutely not. The services control all of the money. If you want to know who has powerin Washington, you ask, "Who's got the money?" Anyone who thinks that-- a senator fromIndiana-- like-- Evan Bayh, who's a terribly nice guy, is as powerful as Senator Inouye fromHawaii, who sits on the Appropriations Committee, is delusional. Senator Inouye is much morepowerful because he controls money. Move to the military. The money resides with the servicechiefs. The service chiefs preside over enormous bureaucracies that have grown up over the last40 or 50 years of the Cold War. They are married to the defense industries. Both have aninterest in Congress and appropriating money for the things that the services want because theservices preeminently, like every bureaucracy, are interested in maintaining the status quo.


16/25

RATHERWhen it comes to land forces, you're talking about a combined U.S. Army and Marine Corps

about the size it is today, which would be what, 700--

MCGREGOR

About 700,000 men, total.

RATHER

700,000. Big enough, you think?

MCGREGORYes. Absolutely. Because remember, we have never withdrawn from most of the Cold War

garrisons that we've maintained around the world. We-- we have aircraft sitting in NorthernJapan. We still have troops in Iceland. We've got forces in Germany. We've got forces all over

the place and we've been trying to push them further east into Poland and Romania and Bulgariaand places like this. Quite frankly, there's no rationale or justification for these forces anymore.

The states that we formerly provided defense to are now at least as rich and well off as we areand can easily defend themselves. And there is no detectible tangible threat to them. So we

don't need to maintain the vast overseas garrisons. We've never gone back and asked questionsalong the lines of, first of all, where are all the soldiers? What are they doing? I mean, we had

more men in the United States Army in 1950 and the United States Army of 1950 couldn't fightits way out of a paper bag. Because most of that was a garrison constabulary force in Germany

and Japan, riding on light vehicles and under strength in its combat formations. So the first thingyouve got to do is say, weve got all of these men, all of this manpower, but we dont seem to

get much bang for our buck. Where are all the soldiers? We have generals galore inside theUnited States Army and Marine Corps. We are increasingly like a South American military

establishment with a surplus of four-star and three-star generals presiding in single serviceheadquarters that we simply don't need. And these bureaucracies are bankrupting us. But

we've got to retain what makes sense. We've got to retain capability, but the emphasis has to beon teeth. Not useless overhead and not an extensive tail.

RATHER

Well, what if someone made the argument, let me make the argument-- you don't change awinning game.

MCGREGOR

Well, that's-- that is obviously the argument that the generals set forth to guarantee no change inthe structure or organization and modernization of the force after '91. I would argue that Desert

Storm was not the great success story as presented to the American people. It was analogous tothe high school fight-- football team taking on Third Graders and soundly defeating them. And

then walking off the field thinking that they were the finest football team that had ever beenfielded, without having actually taken on anybody who was any good. And that was a mistake.

The ultimate reason we went back into Iraq in 2003 was that the 1991 war was an unfinishedwar. We failed.


17/25

RATHER

With General Powell, with General Schwarzkopf, every flag rank officer I know of would say--

not only would say that's wrong, but those are fighting words so far as they're concerned.

MACGREGOR

Well remember the generals traded very heavily on the success story. And because thepoliticians were anxious to join what they saw as an easy victory band wagon and wave the flag-

- we ended up rendering generals almost invulnerable to the point where we've eliminated

accountability for generals. So that nothing that generals say is questioned. Nothing that

generals want is challenged. And regardless of a history of almost continuous failure in both

Afghanistan and Iraq, we have yet to remove a single senior officer. And I think this goes back

to the 1991 war and the mythology created in the aftermath of that war. That something really

great and stupendous had happened, that we had fought, as the generals like to call it, the fifth

largest army in the world. But the truth was, no Arab army had taken on and defeated a

European force since the Renaissance.

RATHERYou're not suggesting, or are you, that when we tell ourselves, as we've been telling ourselves,

that the United States military is the greatest fighting force the world has ever known, that we're

kidding ourselves.

MCGREGOR

Yes. I think that we're- we have to be very, very careful about what we assume we can and

cannot do. Because while we do many, many things very well, we have limitations. Those

limitations are evident today in Iraq, and in Afghanistan. We are an English speaking democracy

and we do not look favorably upon long wars of attrition. In fact, we dislike them intensely.

Which is one of the reasons that Franklin Roosevelt ended World War II as quickly as he

possibly could and so did Truman. It's why Eisenhower ended the Korean War as completely as

he possibly could under the best terms that he could get. He understood that we could not

sustain long wars without endings in sight. And-- we-- we seem to have forgotten that.

RATHER

Do you think there's any chance of changing hearts and minds in the Middle East through

changing regimes?

MCGREGOR

There is no chance of changing hearts and minds anywhere in the world today that is not

European through military occupation.

RATHER

That's a pretty radical view.


18/25

MCGREGORI don't think so. I think it stands the test of time and history. And I think if you look at the

historical record, you will see that efforts to go into places like the Philippines, where weeffectively waged genocidal warfare for several years, killed perhaps 100,000 Filipinos, to bring

the place under our control--

RATHERThis was in very early 20th century.

MCGREGOR

Yeah. But it's, you know, we did similar things, tragically, in Vietnam. We have gone into thesenon-European countries. Our occupations inevitably have created rebellions against us because

our government is unwanted.

RATHERCan you describe what you consider to be the ideal plan for reorganizing army for-- formations

into groups, based on specific capabilities. To streamline-- Army command and controlstructures, and for that matter, the Marines as well.

MCGREGOR

People at the lowest level, at the tactical level, captains, sergeants, lieutenants, lieutenantcolonels, majors, have to be in a position where they can make decisions on the basis of the

information they have and the situation that is developing. We have resisted this, because wehave the citizen soldier model which is a legacy of World War II and Vietnam that says, "People

at the lowest level are simply not capable of making these decisions. Therefore all decisionsmust be elevated to the highest level where the man with the most experience, who's a long-term-

service soldier, can review the facts and make the right decision." Well, that paradigm isirrelevant today. We have very capable people at the lowest levels. They dont need more

supervision; they dont need micromanagement; they need more capability and greaterindependence and autonomy. So we've got to attack this very complex system of many, many

echelons that separate the strategic level from the tactical. We need to compress those. One wayto do that in my view was to eliminate -- in warfare-- the division organization and the brigade.

And to essentially take away the division and the brigade and create a new intermediateformation which you could call a battle group, whatever you would like to, but is commanded by

a brigadier general with a robust staff. And that formation is 5 to 6,000 men and it's either amaneuver formation, or it is a strike formation, or is it a support formation. Or it's an

intelligence surveillance reconnaissance formation.

RATHERWell, isn't it or is it true that the Army, particularly the Army, has already moved toward some of

the reforms that you've outlined here?


19/25

MACGREGORWhat the Army generals did is that they looked at aspects that would not fundamentally change

anything. In other words, they-- they were interested in avoiding structural organizationalchanges that would have an impact on culture and promotion systems. And so they-- they-- in

their new mini brigade-- of about 3,500, they have two battalions. But otherwise, the staff

structure is the same, and the formation is too small to operate independently.

RATHER

Let's turn to something recent. Anbar Province in-- in Iraq.

MACGREGORRight.

RATHER

Doesn't it or does it vindicate the light armor, highly mobile, intense civil affairs, integrated--approach to occupation as-- Secretary Gates suggested.

MACGREGOR

No. Let's look at what's actually happened in Anbar Province. Thousands of Marines were killedand wounded in 2003, 2005, and into 2006. And then the Marine Corps leadership, along with

the Navy Special Forces, your SEALS, began to notice that there was growing friction betweenal-Qaeda, both indigenous and foreign, and the local tribal sheiks. And they began to question

whether or not this was not an opportunity to reduce the casualties that the Marines in particular,the conventional forces, were taking by striking a deal with the Sunni sheiks. What we did is

something that we could have done in 2003. We went to the sheiks and we said, "Listen, we'llessentially turn over control of the province to you. We'll let you stand up and arm your security

forces. We'll back you. But we want your assistance in eliminating al-Qaeda, which we knowyou also dislike. And, oh, by the way, there will be handsome cash payments to you in the form

of millions of dollars in hard cash, Sheik."

RATHERWell, it worked.


20/25

MACGREGOR

And it worked. Absolutely. And as I said, we could have done that in 2003 before al-Qaeda

even had a foothold in the country. There was never any requirement to occupy Anbar and

govern it. But we should not interpret this as a sudden outpouring of affection, love, or

understanding for the United States. We should not interpret this as the foundation for Anglo-

Saxon democracy. The sheiks are calling the tune. We have been living in this very fictitiousworld where we have been encouraged to look at anyone who doesn't immediately agree with us

or shares a different viewpoint or has interests that don't necessarily coincide with us in all cases

as an enemy. Today we're looking at the Russians as though they're enemies, which is absurd.

There is absolutely no reason why the United States and Russia should not be on excellent terms.

But Putin, apparently, is not sufficiently democratic. Americans tend to see the world in terms of

personalities. Is Putin good or is Putin bad? Putin is irrelevant. He represents Russia, 130

million Russians. He represents 1,000 years of Russian culture and history. We have tended to

personalize these things and trivialize international relations on the assumption that someone's

personal relationship is gonna make any damn difference to how things actually happen

RATHERDefense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, now gone. He came to the Pentagon with some ideas about

change, certainly in the military's view-- radical change in some ways.

MACGREGOR

I think in-- in large part he was on the right track. An enormous constraint was imposed from the

outset on Rumsfeld, and that was his inability to fire generals. It was made very clear from the

White House that he could not replace general officers. And one of the things that Rumsfeld

privately did understand: you don't change institutions and culture unless you change people.

RATHER

The way it's been put to me by some military people, listen, U.S. military doctrine, at least since

the time of General Grant and General Sherman, is that you need overwhelming force at point of

attack. And that that remains military doctrine and that overall in the main it has served us well.

We need big combat units.

MACGREGOR

I absolutely fundamentally disagree with that assumption because, once again, that goes back to

three very unique events in the history of the United States: the Civil War, World War I, and

World War II, where we mobilized millions of citizen soldiers for a very narrow and specific

purpose. General Grant says in his memoirs that we fought the war the way we had to because

we had to crush the South with numbers and material. It was the only way we could fight

because he did not have competent commanders. He did not have trained formations. We did

the same thing in World War I. And, ultimately, we did the same thing in World War II. And

after each war we returned to the status quo of maintaining a small, innocuous, volunteer army

that truly was not professional, that was largely treated to abject neglect, while we focused our

attentions on the Navy and the Air Force. My point is we don't need millions of men under arms,

but we do need a very competent standing professional force that has more teeth than tail and

overhead, that is designed for the kinds of limited operations that we must undertake in

expeditionary warfare.


21/25


COLONEL DOUGLAS MACGREGOR. AND WHEN WE RETURN, THE SO CALLED

"FRONT LINES" OF THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR. THATS NEXT.


TONIGHT, WEVE LOOKED AT THE U.S. MILITARY IN TRANSITION TOWARD

LOWER-INTENSITY COMBAT AND SO-CALLED STABILITY OPERATIONS. AT DAN

RATHER REPORTS WEVE BEEN FOLLOWING THESE CHANGES FROM THE

NATIONS MOST PRESTIGIOUS MILITARY ACADEMY, TO IRAQ, TO AFRICA.

WATCHING THESE SCENES OF AMERICAS NEW WAY OF WAR, BACK-TO-BACK,

DRIVES HOME HOW QUICKLY THESE CHANGES ARE COMING - AND JUST HOW

PROFOUND THEY ARE.


WE START AT THE UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY AT WEST POINT, ON THE

BANKS OF THE HUDSON RIVER. IT IS HERE THAT GENERATIONS OF FUTURE

GENERALS LEARNED THE ART OF WAR. BOTH OF THE ARMY OFFICERS WE SAT

DOWN WITH FOR THIS PROGRAM WENT HERE, AND MANY GRADUATES HAVE

BEEN CALLED UPON TO WIN WARS AND OCCUPY TERRITORY. GENERAL

ULYSSES S. GRANT, CLASS OF 1843, OCCUPIED THE DEFEATED REBEL SOUTH.

GENERAL DOUGLAS MACARTHUR, CLASS OF 1903, OCCUPIED JAPAN AFTER

WORLD WAR TWO. AND MOST RECENTLY, GENERAL DAVID PETRAEUS, CLASS

OF 1974, IS CURRENTLY IN CHARGE OF OPERATIONS IN IRAQ. EACH CALLED

UPON THE HONOR AND EDUCATION THEYD LEARNED AT WEST POINT.

ESTABLISHED BY THOMAS JEFFERSON IN 1802, IT IS THE OLDEST MILITARY

ACADEMY IN THE UNITED STATES, BUT ITS AT THE VANGUARD OF THE ARMYS

NEW WAY OF THINKING.

STUDENT 1

It's customary law, sir, so it applies no matter what.

BRIGADIER GENERAL PATRICK FINNEGAN

Over the course of the summer, we take a lot of cadets and send them to various places around

the world.


THE MAN RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TRAINING OF THE NEXT GENERATION OF ARMY

LEADERS IS BRIGADIER GENERAL PATRICK FINNEGAN.

FINNEGAN

We've seen that in Iraq and Afghanistan, that the application of force is not necessarily the only

thing that is going to win these battles and these wars that we're fighting. If we don't-- if we're

not available, if our officers are not ready to understand other cultures, to deal with them, to deal

with the people, we can win battles and we can kill people, but that is not going to secure

America's place in the world and it's not going to secure our liberty.


22/25

RATHERWell you've spent nearly all of your adult life in the Army, and you know an argument that goes

along the lines, "no no, I want my military people trained to kill people and break things, and ifyou need to, quote, nation-build, that should be somebody else's job."

FINNEGANAnd, sir, I agree with that. I agree that generally that's the role of the armed forces, is to applyforce, but it's clear that in the wars that we're fighting now, and in the wars that we're likely to

fight in the future that's not going to be enough. We have to deal with the people who are there.We're not gonna have another army lined up across the field against us. This is not the

Napoleonic wars where we simply shoot at their army and they shoot at us. We have to fight thiswar-- in the clich, of course, is winning hearts and minds, but that's what we have to do.

We have to have soldiers who are prepared to apply force when it's necessary, and also to knowwhen that is counterproductive to do and when they, instead, need to befriend the people so that

they get the information they need about the enemy so they can apply force when they need to.

DAN RATHER (VOICE OVER)WE TRAVELED TO IRAQ DURING THE SURGE, AND SAW WHAT THIS THEORY

LOOKED LIKE IN PRACTICE. BEFRIENDING LOCALS TO GET INFORMATION HASBECOME A COMMON TACTIC. WE SAW AMERICANS MEETING WITH SHEIKS

OVER LUNCH TO GATHER CRUCIAL INTELLIGENCE.

UNITED STATES MARINE CAPTAIN ANN GILDROYAll we need is just for your men and your whole tribe to look out for any movement that's

strange, especially as I said in the recent days we've had a lot of reports on the Soldiers ofHeaven coming into this province, so if they can be on the lookout for large groups of men

moving.

DAN RATHER (VOICE OVER)THAT INTERACTION WAS TYPICAL OF THE THREE WEEKS WE SPENT IN

SOUTHERN IRAQ WITH UNITED STATES MARINE CAPTAIN ANN GILDROY. SHEWAS RUNNING STABILITY OPERATIONS IN THAT SHIA-DOMINATED REGION.

AND SHE THINKS THE VIOLENCE AGAINST U.S. TROOPS IS DUE MORE TOPOVERTY THAN TO IDEOLOGY.

GILDROY

I really believe a lot of these guys-- it's not their choice to plant an IED, but because theunemployment's hovering probably around 85 percent down here and the situation's just been

really difficult here for a long time; I mean the Shi'a were really persecuted under Saddam, sothis hasn't just been four years of difficulty for them; it's been decades.


PART OF THE ARMYS SOLUTION IS WHAT CRITICS CALL PEACE-FOR-CASHPROGRAMS. CAPTAIN GILDROY SHOWED US THOSE, TOO.


23/25

GILDROY

We basically decided that the people who care most about their security and safety are the people

who live in that very house on that very block. We devised a system whereby we would give a

standard amount of money per kilometer that was guarded of territory, so every tribe gets the

same amount of money per kilometer. Then it's up to them how many people they want to hire

to cover that distance.


NOT TO MENTION THE HEARTS-AND-MINDS OPERATIONS THAT BUILD THE

TRUST NECESSARY TO SECURE COOPERATION FROM A BATTLE-SCARRED

POPULATION. THESE OPERATIONS COME IN THE FORM OF REBUILDING A CITY . .

. OPENING A SCHOOL . . .

GILDROY

We call these Mary Janes in the States.

RATHER (VOICE OVER)AND HANDING OUT SHOES TO CHILDREN. CAPTAIN GILDROY THINKS THE

MILITARY'S NEW APPROACH WILL BE IMPORTANT IN THE BATTLES AHEAD.

GILDROY

Its also really about building relationships. So, we have to give the Sheik a reason to work with

us.


THE UNITED STATES MILITARY IS TAKING UP THESE NEW RESPONSIBILITIES NOT

ONLY IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN, BUT ALL AROUND THE GLOBE.

HERE, ARMY SOLDIERS TRAIN LOCAL TROOPS IN UGANDA, AMERICAS MOST

IMPORTANT ALLY IN CENTRAL AFRICA.

STAFF SERGEANT MICHAEL RYAN

If you mess up one part, I'm going to make you do it over again, but I don't expect you guys to

mess up.


STAFF SERGEANT MICHAEL RYAN IS ONE OF THE TRAINERS.

RYAN

We're not doing war back like in the Revolutionary War where everybody's spread apart, and on

line shooting; it's in buildings and cities and in buildings and cities people can jump out in front

of you at any time. They might be able to knock your weapon out of your hands; you might drop

your weapon; anything might happen, and you have to be able to defend yourself still.


24/25


THE UNITED STATES HOPES UGANDA WILL USE THIS TRAINING TO DEFEND

AGAINST RADICAL ISLAMIC COUNTRIES LIKE SUDAN AND TERRORIST GROUPS

LIKE AL QAEDA. THE BIGGER HOPE IS THAT AMERICAN TROOPS WILL SERVE AS

AMBASSADORS TO WIN OVER HEARTS AND MINDS IN THIS TROUBLED REGION.

THE U.S. ARMY IS DOING SIMILAR TRAINING HERE, IN THE DRY, WINDSWEPTLANDSCAPE OF THE CENTRAL PHILIPPINES, WHERE THEY'RE TEACHING THE

PHILIPPINE MILITARY HOW TO FIGHT THEIR OWN HOME-GROWN INSURGENTS.

ALTHOUGH THE PHILIPPINES IS A RELIABLE U.S. ALLY, IT'S ALSO HOME TO TWO

OF THE GROUPS OFFICIALLY LISTED AS TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS BY THE U.S.

GOVERNMENT. THE IDEA HERE IS FOR AMERICAN MILITARY KNOW-HOW TO LET

LOCAL ARMIES FIGHT COMMON ENEMIES. IMAGES OF THE PHILIPPINE ARMY

TAKING THE LEAD ARE LESS LIKELY TO CAUSE TROUBLE THAN IMAGES OF

AMERICANS FIGHTING FILIPINOS ON PHILIPPINE LAND. BUT SOMETIMES THE

GOAL ISN'T BEHIND-THE-SCENES SUPPORT FOR FRIENDLY GOVERNMENTS.

SOMETIMES THE U.S. WANTS LOCAL POPULATIONS TO KNOW THAT THE U.S.

MILITARY IS AROUND, AND THAT THEY'RE THERE TO HELP. THAT'S WHAT'SHAPPENING HERE IN THE PHILIPPINES. IN THE PREDOMINANTLY MUSLIM

SOUTH, THE UNITED STATES WANTS TO MINIMIZE ANTI-AMERICAN SENTIMENT,

AND SO AMERICAN TROOPS ARE HELPING BUILD A SCHOOL. THAT'S WHAT

HEARTS AND MINDS IS ALL ABOUT. AND HERE IN THE NORTHEASTERN AFRICAN

NATION OF DJIBOUTI, U.S. SOLDIERS LIKE CASINO EATMON TAKE TIME TO VISIT

A LOCAL ORPHANAGE.

PETTY OFFICER CASINO EATMON

It will show probably years later that America was here for us, they really helped us in a time of

need. As we see, a lot of children need help here.

RATHER (VOICE OVER)

DJIBOUTI, A PREDOMINANTLY MUSLIM NATION WAS AT ONE TIME SEEN AS A

RISK FOR BECOMING A HAVEN FOR ISLAMIC MILITANTS. THE AMERICAN

MILITARY HAS ESTABLISHED A PRESENCE TO SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT OF

THIS COUNTRY AND ITS U.S.-FRIENDLY GOVERNMENT. IN ANOTHER PART OF

DJIBOUTI, AMERICAN SERVICEMEN RENOVATE CLASSROOMS AND DIG THE

SCHOOL LATRINES. BUILDER FIRST CLASS KARL KIEFFER IS PART OF THE U.S.

NAVAL CONSTRUCTION FORCE. JUST ANOTHER SMALL EXAMPLE OF THE NEW

ROLES THE U.S. MILITARY IS PLAYING.

BUILDER FIRST CLASS KARL KIEFFER, US NAVAL CONSTRUCTION FORCE

Our sole job is to make life better for people. Whether it be to improve the US image, to gain

support for military operations, being someplace where we can build a school for children. It

feels good. It's, it's, its real good. Being able to support our country, support our military, but

doing it at the end of a hammer, not at the end of a rifle.


25/25


HEARTS AND MINDS. ITS FROM THE BIBLE, ORIGINALLY, THIS PHRASE WE

USE TO TALK ABOUT WINNING OVER MUSLIM POPULATIONS. DEUTERONOMY.

KEEP GODS WORD SO CLOSE THAT IT IS IN YOUR HEARTS AND MINDS. AS A

POLICY TO CONVINCE WARY NATIONS TO ACCEPT WESTERN VALUES, ITS

SUPPORTED BY 289,000 AMERICAN SOLDIERS ABROAD. THEYRE ON MASSIVEBASES AND IN HUTS IN THE JUNGLE, IN OVER 150 COUNTRIES. TEN YEARS AGO,

PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE GEORGE W. BUSH SAID PROUDLY THAT "AMERICA

HAS NEVER BEEN AN EMPIRE." NOW, TWO GOVERNMENTS HAVE BEEN TOPPLED

AND REPLACED, AMERICAN TROOPS ABROAD HAVE INCREASED BY 50%, AND

BOTH PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES WANT BIG GROWTH IN GROUND TROOP

STRENGTH. BOTH SUPPORT AN ARMY DESIGNED TO LIVE AMONG FOREIGN

POPULATIONS. THE BRITISH EMPIRE DIDNT START OUT THINKING IT WAS AN

EMPIRE. INDIA WAS JUST A PLACE TO GROW COTTON AND TEA. KIPPLINGS THE

WHITE MANS BURDEN AND THE IDEA THAT NATIVES NEEDED TO BE

CIVILIZED TO SERVE BRITISH INTERESTS -- THAT CAME LATER, AND

BLOODILY. BUT EVENTUALLY, SLOWLY, THE EMPIRE LET GO. AND BRITAINSTILL EXISTS. ITS IDEAS ABOUT NATURAL RIGHTS AND FREE MARKETS ARE

ENSHRINED IN THE CONSTITUTIONS OF EVERY FREE NATION. OTHER EMPIRES --

THE MONGOL, THE ROMAN, THE INCA COULDNT GET SMALLER,

OVEREXTENDED, AND IMPLODED. THERE ARE IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES

BETWEEN EMPIRES PAST AND TODAYS LONE SUPERPOWER, BUT TIME AND

AGAIN WE HEARD ON THE SANDS OF FORT IRWIN THAT THE U.S. ARMY HAD TO

LEARN LESSONS FROM THE EXPERIENCE OF FORMER GREAT COLONIAL POWERS.

THE SOLDIERS WHO TOLD US THAT WERE TALKING ABOUT BATTLEFIELD

TACTICS, BUT OF COURSE THE SAME IS TRUE OF HISTORY. AND THATS OUR

PROGRAM FOR THIS WEEK. FOR HDNET, FROM NEW YORK, DAN RATHER

REPORTING. GOOD NIGHT.

colonel macgregor on dan rather reports

Documents