The Evolution of the US Army's Fighting Doctrine: From Deadly to Protective

The US Army's approach to warfare has undergone significant changes over the past decades. Unlike many other armies, the US Army's mission structure has evolved to prioritize minimizing harm to innocent civilians, making it distinct from traditional military doctrines. This article will explore the changes made by the US Army following the Meili massacre in Vietnam and how these changes have shaped modern military operations.

The Legacy of Vietnam: Morality Testing Scenarios

The Meili massacre, a tragic event that occurred during the Vietnam War, had profound implications for the US Army's doctrine. This massacre and other similar incidents led to a shift in how the military conducted operations. In Vietnam, the classic maneuver doctrine that designated enemy forces and sent soldiers to annihilate them created numerous situations where innocent civilians were often caught in the crossfire. The resulting moral trauma and loss of empathy were widespread, manifesting in atrocities like the Meili massacre, which not only tarnished the image of the US Army but also eroded public support for the war.

A New Doctrine: From Search and Destroy to Protection Missions

To address these issues, the US Army embraced a new doctrine. The implementation of this new approach involved several key changes, including the cancellation of the draft, stricter measures regarding prisoner treatment, and a decrease in search and destroy missions. In the Middle East, most operations now focus on defense and protecting non-combatants. When military intelligence identifies enemy forces operating in a particular area, soldiers are tasked with protecting civilians, such as at markets, schools, and hospitals. In these missions, the primary objective is to prevent civilian casualties, making the use of lethal force secondary and often incidental.

In heavily contested areas, classical force-on-force combat occurs. In these scenarios, American soldiers are more likely to cause collateral damage. However, the likelihood of such incidents can be significantly reduced through rigorous training and discipline. Fear and incompetence are more likely to result in civilian harm than any other factor. Trained and disciplined soldiers are more likely to remain calm and make accurate assessments of targets, thus minimizing accidental casualties.

The Role of Artillery and Drones

While the US Army strives to protect civilians during routine operations, artillery and unmanned drones are the primary sources of civilian casualties. The decision to use these weapons is a matter of strategic necessity rather than a moral failing. These technologies allow for precision and reduce the immediate risk to human soldiers. However, the use of such weapons is carefully considered, and efforts are made to ensure they are directed at legitimate military targets.

The Dichotomy: Modern Infantry vs. Special Forces

Not all soldiers in the US Army are involved in these protective missions. Special forces and Navy SEALs operate under different doctrines, often engaging in lethal operations that blur the line between combat and assassination. While these units are essential for strategic objectives, their missions are undoubtedly riskier and can lead to greater harm to civilians. However, even in these units, a strong emphasis is placed on minimizing civilian casualties through rigorous training and mission planning.

It is noteworthy that soldier cowardice, defined as fear of death or injury, is a concern but is mitigated through early identification and elimination from ranks. A volunteer army thrives on bravery and the willingness to put one's life on the line, but it does not tolerate those who cannot face the reality of modern warfare.

In conclusion, the US Army's approach to warfare has shifted from a doctrine emphasizing lethal combat to one focused on protecting civilians. While this approach has its challenges, it reflects a commitment to upholding ethical standards even in the midst of conflict.