[lksteve]

is that they read like something written by a major bored out of his gourd...but never the less, i have read and reread the article about the Ute uprising of 1879...my sysnopsis? the more things change, the more things don't...

the never-ending predicament of the US Army seems summed up in the prologue...
"The study chronicles the Army's role in the struggle between two cultures...it serves to illuminate the problems of utilizing the military instrument in an environment of transitory national policies and competing national and local interests..." when the politicians can't get it right, the Army does make a convenient scapegoat...and if military force isn't the right approach...well, there you go...

not a bad read, but it seemed like Deja Vu all over again...constraining the Army to forts (or was that strategic hamlets), appointing indian agents who knew nothing of the culture (or was that Bob Gosende?) and commentary that post Civil War (or was that Cold War) politics played a clear role in defining the military strategy followed (did i hear someone say 'our enemy is instability' or am i just having bad memories)...

what the article told me is that before the post Vietnam draw down, before the post Cold War draw down, before there were sky marshals and border observation posts in Texas, the Army has had to adapt to missions other than war for political expediency and self-preservation...