There is no doubt that we need to overhaul the war plan.

America is a better country because of men like Mark Finelli.

I don’t believe a draft (or even an increase in the number of troops on the ground) would solve the problem in Iraq. A couple of points jumped out at me as I read the email. One that simply screamed off the page was that 70% of all coalition casualties are the result of IED attacks. I had read this elsewhere before, but am always shocked at how high the percentage is. I am curious as to what changes in tactics are being considered to combat these attacks? As far as I can tell, the patrols that CPL Fenelli describes are exactly like the patrols that my friends who have served in Iraq describe. That would indicate to me that little has changed in the last four years. Why are these “presence patrols” even being done? What is the mission, what are we hoping to accomplish? These “presence patrols” were first invented by NATO/EU forces in the aftermath of the Balkan conflicts in Bosnia/Kosovo to reassure the population that the conflict was indeed over and that the military was always just over the horizon. They are NOT designed nor intended to engage and defeat the enemy. They were never considered as an offense tactic to be used in a warzone in which the conflict had not yet ended. As usual our Pentagon (and their civilian superiors) are fighting a war using a previous war’s tactics. IEDs wouldn’t be much of a threat if the enemy didn’t know that every day in every major city in Iraq a convoy of American troops would be passing through, exposing themselves to attack. Instead of hunting and killing the enemy we are riding around exposed waiting for the enemy to attack us, which they are happy to do.

I have plenty of other thoughts on this email, which I will share later.