Quoted:
After seeing so many different fortified positions built by other armies around the world, it became painfully obvious to me that this is one area where the US sucks completely at, for a number of reasons:

1.  Our officers don't know history, have never studied enough detailed military history to understand basic fortifications, camouflage discipline, and some of the age-old tactics used for fortified positions.

2.  We don't have any natural enemies on our borders who are a military threat to us.

3.  Our strategic and theater-level force posture is normally focused on air and naval dominance, supporting our allies, logistics, and maneuver if necessary.

4.  We historically have an on-again, off-again force mobilization trend that knee-jerks when we need to deploy for combat, then purges the experience from the ranks during peacetime and rewards sh*tbags and careerist morons who can't rub 2 brain cells together.  Those turds filling leader suits are then the next senior commanders and NCOs to take the new generation of young bloods into war to have the juniors re-learn lessons their older brothers also re-learned the hard way from the last overseas commitment that was conceived by that generation's morons.

There are bunker-trench complexes built in the 1940s that exceed the military understanding and capacity of our current climate by leaps and bounds.

US units are typically very undisciplined when it comes to basic fortifications on FOBs, especially when it comes to where to locate them, how to camouflage them, how to shape the structures, and how to defend them.

This should not be the case because we have volumes of institutional and historical knowledge to study and apply, with more logistics to build than any other nation with both hands tied behind our backs, with good initiative from some junior leaders.

Since the command climate and senior leadership development focus is so corrupted with careerists instead of true students of their craft, we continue to suck in this area.