I am currently doing research on the changing nature of U.S. Army doctrine and would like your opinion on the Army's stability operations doctrine. In short do you think the Army has the right doctrine, training, and right types of organizations available to go into "failed states" and put those nations back on their feet. If you would like to take a survey on this go to the link below (it is only 12 questions) or just post a response.
http://www.surveymethods.com/EndUser.aspx?C4E08C96CD8E9397

This sounds like something right out of the Clinton Administration/Code Pink play book. The Military does not go into anywhere to put 'nations' on their feet. They go in to kill the enemy to put it bluntly. Nation building is left to the failed United Nations who are still watching Sudan kill over 200 Dufar refugees the other day. BlackHawk Down was the result of 'Nation building'. Nation building gets our good men and women killed. The Red Cross/Peace Corps are the only entities that should be going into nations looking to 'build nations.' Any thought of using the U.S. Military as a construction outfit is wholley destructive in thought and suicidal in practice. Newbie, not mad at you, it's the premise of your research.

Actually stability operations has been adapted into the Army mission statement (See the 2007 Posture Statement on the Army's website.)This was done with DOD directive 3000.5. It was issued by the Bush administration and his Secretary of Defense Mr. Rumsfield. I did the original post because I am doing a research project on this subject for graduate school. I'm not sure why the orignal post came up with the numbers and basic training but I am retired military with over 21 years active and 5 years as a defense contractor.