| ©2005-2006 QuikManeuvers. All Rights Reserved. |
Rangers: Afghanistan and Iraq
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
US Army Ranger Officer Interviews
© 2006
162 pages; 3 sections
© 2006
162 pages; 3 sections
Rangers: Afghanistan and Iraq includes three interviews of US Army Ranger
officers who have served in Afghanistan and Iraq. The hidden story of modern
US Army Rangers are in those interviews. The reader will be shocked to discover
how US Army Rangers are being misused. Rangers: Afghanistan and Iraq is an
important historical document. The US Army’s 75th Ranger Regiment is a force to
be reckoned with.
Rangers: Afghanistan and Iraq is about the misuse of modern US Army Rangers.
The US Army’s 75th Ranger Regiment in 2006 includes four Ranger battalions of
commandos. Those Ranger battalions of elite troops are America’s best infantry.
However, they have not been used as Ranger battalions in Operation Anaconda,
at Tora Bora, or in Iraq. The employment of one or two battalions of US Army
Rangers in the above listed conflicts, and many other battles, would have resulted in
victory for America. The US Army’s 75th Ranger Regiment must not be
fragmented or disbanded.
officers who have served in Afghanistan and Iraq. The hidden story of modern
US Army Rangers are in those interviews. The reader will be shocked to discover
how US Army Rangers are being misused. Rangers: Afghanistan and Iraq is an
important historical document. The US Army’s 75th Ranger Regiment is a force to
be reckoned with.
Rangers: Afghanistan and Iraq is about the misuse of modern US Army Rangers.
The US Army’s 75th Ranger Regiment in 2006 includes four Ranger battalions of
commandos. Those Ranger battalions of elite troops are America’s best infantry.
However, they have not been used as Ranger battalions in Operation Anaconda,
at Tora Bora, or in Iraq. The employment of one or two battalions of US Army
Rangers in the above listed conflicts, and many other battles, would have resulted in
victory for America. The US Army’s 75th Ranger Regiment must not be
fragmented or disbanded.
“Although the Rangers are considered to be elite conventional infantry, conventional US Army generals refuse to utilize
them in units of sufficient size to make a real difference. The reason for that refusal is simple. Rangers are a finely
honed instrument of war. US conventional generals of the past twenty years, shy away from war fighting units because
the generals themselves are not warriors or warfighters. They are “diplomats in mufti,” uniformed politics who advance the
cause of “peace by negotiations and appeasement dollars,” not combat. They see themselves as careful and cautious
international policemen. That is why they despise warfighting and warriors.
That is also why they have atomized and fragmented US Army Ranger units. They send them to the various theaters of
war as back up forces for special operations or as guards or simply men who sit and wait. US conventional generals
knowingly deprive their finest soldiers of their reason for living, combat. They don’t use most of them and eventually turn
them against the US Army. Thus conventional generals are running off ranger-enlisted personnel because they want an
army of policemen, not warriors.
In the meantime the legions of US Army Rangers merely sit and wait. They are rarely used in combat roles and when
they are, they are deployed as squads or platoons. US conventional generals don’t want a tough bunch of combat
veterans handing around.”
them in units of sufficient size to make a real difference. The reason for that refusal is simple. Rangers are a finely
honed instrument of war. US conventional generals of the past twenty years, shy away from war fighting units because
the generals themselves are not warriors or warfighters. They are “diplomats in mufti,” uniformed politics who advance the
cause of “peace by negotiations and appeasement dollars,” not combat. They see themselves as careful and cautious
international policemen. That is why they despise warfighting and warriors.
That is also why they have atomized and fragmented US Army Ranger units. They send them to the various theaters of
war as back up forces for special operations or as guards or simply men who sit and wait. US conventional generals
knowingly deprive their finest soldiers of their reason for living, combat. They don’t use most of them and eventually turn
them against the US Army. Thus conventional generals are running off ranger-enlisted personnel because they want an
army of policemen, not warriors.
In the meantime the legions of US Army Rangers merely sit and wait. They are rarely used in combat roles and when
they are, they are deployed as squads or platoons. US conventional generals don’t want a tough bunch of combat
veterans handing around.”
Excerpt from Rangers: Afghanistan and Iraq
Review Table of Contents
| . |
| US |
17
only $
| other books about Combat Military Leadership other books about Light Infantry other books about Special Warfare |
