5 ms·
I've always loved history, especially military history, however this is the first time I've read an article in this format regarding events I was actively invol
by AcerbicZero 8y ago
I've always loved history, especially military history, however this is the first time I've read an article in this format regarding events I was actively involved with. I spent my formative years of 2006-2008 involved in OIF, and again in 2009-2010, and reading this has been both humbling and surreal.
This article reads like a classic WWII historical analysis of some specific battle, and its kind of amazing that can even be done for this, because the way I remember most of my time during OIF, the whole thing was a jumbled mess of Army politics, confusion, and misinterpretation.
- hart_russell 8y agoThanks for your service.
- AcerbicZero 8y agoI never know what to say to that, but thank you for saying it :)
- Animats 8y agoThis article reads like a classic WWII historical analysis of some specific battle This was a very WWII kind of battle.
- SiempreViernes 8y agoI guess that gives valuable perspective on how reliable the ww2 accounts are. I think any account of military events that doesn’t honestly recount the actual confusion on the ground is rather suspect. One would hope that higher levels of command always think of how uncertain all information they get from lower levels is, but reading accounts of events written in this dead certain and authorative voice is a bit worrying. Only the number of enemy casualities hints at the uncertain state of basically all combat accounts.