The simulated exercises can seem all too real for US soldiers training for Iraq

Barnaby Phillips, Al Jazeera's Europe correspondent, travelled across the US to find out what ordinary Americans feel about five key electoral issues.

In part three of American Challenge, he finds the US military attempting to adapt to 21st century warfare.

Apache helicopters fly above our convoy as we make our way across the desert.

Through the dust, we can see the town of Medina Jabal - a bleak collection of concrete buildings on the windswept plain.

There is smoke and we can hear gunfire. When we arrive we find American soldiers crouching behind buildings, and there is a body lying on the street. 

Then, furious women run towards the soldiers, screaming and shouting in Arabic. 

The soldiers, who are from Alaska, are confused. Well, if it looks and sounds just like Iraq, that is because it is meant to. 

Except that we are in the middle of the Californian desert, and this is how the American military prepares soldiers who are about to be shipped out to the real Iraq.

Counterinsurgency skills

Pittard says the army has greatly improved its counterinsurgency skills

We were trying to see how the American army has responded to years of conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This desert setting, so realistic that even the extras on the streets of Medina Jabal are in fact Iraqis, recruited from the expatriate community in nearby San Diego, is part of the army's national training centre. 

The man in charge is General Dana Pittard. He says the army has greatly improved its counter-insurgency skills and its ability to win over local populations.

"I remember at one time during the 1992 presidential election it was: 'It's the economy stupid.' Now, as far as counter-insurgency is concerned, it's all about the people," he says. 

I heard that message again in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. This is home to the army’s staff college and where it develops its doctrines.

Learning new skills

In Focus

Part One:  Economy Part Two:  Healthcare

Colonel Steven Leonard has been busy here, writing the army's field manual on what are called "stability operations".

The thinking behind the manual is that, in our post-Cold War world, the army is more likely to be engaged in long counter-insurgencies than it is in fighting conventional wars against other major powers.

In other words, it needs a range of skills beyond its ability to bring massive firepower to bear on a battlefield.

So, I wanted to know, how do you turn an army with such destructive power into something more constructive? Are you going to teach officers anthropology as well as artillery, so they get on better with the locals?

And what about languages - how about training a few more officers to speak Arabic, or Pashto?

"We're asking people to be more aware of the situation that there in," concedes Colonel Leonard.

"[And we're asking them] to be a little more understanding of differences in culture, religion ... [to] be more adaptive, creative to situations and actually expand their minds a little bit."

Financial cost

US soldiers are being trained in new forms of warfare

One is money. The Americans already spend a lot on their military; almost as much as the rest of the world put together.

But adopting a counter-insurgency doctrine is expensive, not least because, in order to be done successfully, it will entail expanding the army.

And there is the next problem; after five years of an unpopular war in Iraq, and seven years of a difficult war in Afghanistan, do enough young Americans really want to join the army?

To find out the answer to that question I went to a shopping mall, in Kansas City.

I was with two recruiting officers - Sergeant Mitchell, and Captain Gilge. We walked around, eyeing up potential army talent.

This is not easy. The target age for new recruits is from 17 to 24. But then you have to weed out the unfit, the high school drop-outs and those who have been in serious trouble with the law.

We approached one young man, who was wearing a baseball cap.

"How would you like to serve your country?" asked Sergeant Mitchell. The young man looked embarrassed and mumbled something about wanting to finish college.

Lowering standards? 

In fact, the army is on target this year to meet its goal of 170,000 new recruits.

And, as an institution, it still retains the respect of ordinary people. It is not uncommon in America to see civilians walk up to soldiers and thank them for their service, or even offer to give up their business class seat on an airplane, or insist on paying a bill in a restaurant. 

But, at the same time, the army has had to lower its recruitment standards, and offer higher bonuses in order to attract enough young people.

In Washington DC I spoke to Lawrence Korb, a former assistant secretary of state for defence, who gave a bleak assessment of the army. 

"[It's] essentially broken", he argues, with too many poorly qualified people coming in at the bottom and too many good middle-ranking officers leaving, because of the war in Iraq, he says.

Mr Corb says this is "asking for trouble down the road".

New technology

The US army wants technology to help it battle counterinsurgency campaigns [AFP]

We travelled to Fort Bliss, Texas, for a display of what is known as "The Future Combat Systems", or FCS, a multi-billion dollar procurement programme designed to modernise the army. 

Secretly, I was expecting to see a lot of heavy weaponry that could inflict terrible destruction at great distances.

But it seems even the FCS has adjusted its priorities to fall in step with the army's more urgent needs - technology that can help infantry troops fight their way through villages and fields in a counter-insurgency campaign.

So, we were shown a new unmanned aircraft that can hover and send live video back to a commander several kilometres away and a very clever robot on wheels that can roll into a village ahead of an infantry platoon and transmit photos back to its controller.

The robot's head turns quizzically in various directions, trying to absorb as much information as possible.

Is it perhaps a metaphor for a more humble US army, ready to listen and learn after the painful experiences of recent years?