U.S. Soldiers to 'Go Native' on Operations by Paul D. Shinkman, U.S. News and Word Report.
... "The Army is beginning to regionally align its forces with the goal of increasing both the quantity and the quality of forces available to combatant commanders," according to text within the FY 2014 Defense Budget Overview. "Simply described, the Army will align units with specific geographic combatant commands based on existing assignments, relationships established through the State Partnership Program, or anticipated demand."...
Comments
I don't see how "aligning troops to a specific region" equates to "going native" in any meaningful sense. No more than a few training modules on the cultures and languages of a particular region, I'd guess. I doubt that very many of them will be squatting around the fire in native garb eating dog intestines with the local tribals.
I've never thought that adopting local dress gets much more than superficial camouflage and a bit of benign amusement. Learning the language does make a difference, as does staying around a while and earning some respect. Neither necessarily involves "going native" in any visible sense.
Dave, you are right.
TE Lawrence didnt adopt the local dress because he thought it was cool. He did this so as to have more cultural credibility with the tribes he was attempting to engage with and form an alliance. He may well have slipped into this role easier than others. One notices a distinct change in how local people and most importantly local elders treat you when you adopt their cultural dress and respect for tribal values. While some flipitantly write it off as 'going native' the stark reality hits when you realise the reason you survived, werent shot at, or succeded in securing an win-win arrangement was because you took the time to carefully study the nuances of local cultural ways and means.
Another problem with the mindset behind this article is the assumption that following Iraq and AFG the army has little to do and even less direction.
The author forgets that first and foremost the mission is to defend the nation and participate where appropriate in facilitating mutual treaty obligations. Training and developing soldiers is and always has been a vital action in peace and war.
The author makes another mistake in his interpretation of what he sees as a new direction with the statement "the Army has adopted a new motto of sorts: "Projecting a credibility that prevents conflict," to capitalize on the notion that nobody picks fights with the biggest guy at the bar."
Clearly he does not appreciate combat or security. As big guys and big armies have learnt its the toughest, smartest, most determined who tend to prevail or makes it too painful for the bigger army to endure. Being big can only help with the right training, mindset and will both internally and from political leaders who send their armies to fight.
If this is the sentiment flowing through US media who follow and report on policy developent and direction of the US military then, with friends like these are enemies have a head start.
What an unfortunate title to this article. When people talk like that it illustrates a lack of understanding of the work that is done with indigenous forces (whether military, police, or paramilitary - or resistance forces). Good Soldiers do not "go native." Growing a beard or other such actions do not indicate going native. Having cultural understanding and cultural respect does not mean going native. The irony is that most do not want US forces to come in and act like them. The most important thing is that Soldiers respect the culture even if they do not know it. But "going native" undercuts the credibility of US units and it is unfortunate that the headline editor of US News wrote this headline and caused a distraction from the important points about what the Army is doing with the regionally aligned force (RAF).