Military Occupation policy

It seems since the War on Terror started that most nations do whatever they can to keep their soldiers away from the locals to the point there is barely interaction unless its carefully staged. Why did this change compared to the past where soldiers always mingled with the locals?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Probably too many rapes in Okinawa during the late 90s. Guys mingled during Panama and Grenada, so the change happened sometime during the 90s.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Shift in policy came in the 90s when the Cold War was over and troops were getting in trouble for rapes, drunk driving, etc. Nowadays in South Korea they will just start curfew at night and forbid people from leaving post at night over one moron because of bad PR.

      Concerns over social faux-pas or the troops getting involved in local issues.

      The recent policy is majorly due to
      >Insurgent conflict means the populace are possibly, even likely informers, potentially insurgents themselves
      >That means that anything your troops tell the locals could be used against them, or troops could be lured into ambushes/traps by seemingly congenial locals

      >Cultural differences
      >American troops are going to look unfavorably on Ahmed hitting his wife or Mahmoud having dancing boys at his party, and depending on their disposition might cause a scene
      >Since you can't really change a culture overnight, much as you'd like to, the only way to avoid your troops getting pissed and involving themselves in things they can't fix is to keep them away from those things happening

      >Culpability and responsibility
      >Say you let your men out for a night on the town, they find a local booze joint and get smashed, then get into a fight with locals over some slight or another
      >Your men are trained, they're fit, they go a little too far and seriously hurt, maybe kill a local civilian in the ensuing brawl
      >It becomes a small fiasco because ultimately the chain of responsibility goes to the top for what soldiers do, and one man's actions wind up affecting the entire military
      >You can avoid this outright by just keeping your men away from the locals

      Pretty much this, cultural aspects are way too different and will only lead to trouble. The army also wants to prevent Pvt snuffy from falling in love with a local.

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Didn't they try and keep the soldiers away from the populace in Japan and Germany but gave up trying to discourage it really quickly because it was difficult to do and people were more congenial than expected?
    It could be one of those things that works well in some countries but not in others.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Concerns over social faux-pas or the troops getting involved in local issues.

    The recent policy is majorly due to
    >Insurgent conflict means the populace are possibly, even likely informers, potentially insurgents themselves
    >That means that anything your troops tell the locals could be used against them, or troops could be lured into ambushes/traps by seemingly congenial locals

    >Cultural differences
    >American troops are going to look unfavorably on Ahmed hitting his wife or Mahmoud having dancing boys at his party, and depending on their disposition might cause a scene
    >Since you can't really change a culture overnight, much as you'd like to, the only way to avoid your troops getting pissed and involving themselves in things they can't fix is to keep them away from those things happening

    >Culpability and responsibility
    >Say you let your men out for a night on the town, they find a local booze joint and get smashed, then get into a fight with locals over some slight or another
    >Your men are trained, they're fit, they go a little too far and seriously hurt, maybe kill a local civilian in the ensuing brawl
    >It becomes a small fiasco because ultimately the chain of responsibility goes to the top for what soldiers do, and one man's actions wind up affecting the entire military
    >You can avoid this outright by just keeping your men away from the locals

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why is he doing that

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Having fun, kids like being held up side down. You never did that with your younger cousin?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        i don't think hes allowed near them...

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >You never did that with your younger cousin?

        I did. But it was more of a water-boarding session without the water.

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >US marine torturing captured jihadist.jpg
    warcream

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >doing reps with 3rd world children
    America truly is the greatest nation

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >using your own troops to occupy a nation
    divid and konkur, idz mujj zheeper and eyseyer too yuze lokul peepul.

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Joe fricks a local, have a son (or not, it's optional)
    >5 years later some european law firm contact the local to sue Joe and the US Army for millions in settlement.
    >Repeat for thousand Joe's during decades
    There're attorney making a living of that. It happens a lot in the UN peacekeeping missions for any mid to high income country, it doesn't work if the military is from shitholes like Bugundakanda, Pookistan, Reddemthetoilet.

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >>"oh what a nice picture, looks like the soldier and the kid are having fun-"
    >101st AB patch
    >502nd Infantry Regiment "Blackhearts" patch on helmet

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I don't get it
      >Am moronic

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah_rape_and_killings

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          hot

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Most westpoint co's have the big gay and ended up calling the shots in the pentagon which lead to the current state and public image of US forces in particular

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Why did this change compared to the past where soldiers always mingled with the locals?

    Officers watched this :

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >why are soldiers keeping away from civilians ever since they started engaging in wars where the enemy side is almost entirely guerillas who have no issues with impersonating civilians to carry out attacks?
    What a mystery

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    russians tried the old method, and in some cases it went well!
    in others (most), it went somewhat poorly. protests were dispersed, tear gas was shot, beatings, etc.
    and in some places, there were massacres.
    smarter nations than russia already know this would be the outcome and avoid it.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *