The Army is getting it right, finally!

[GTSteve03]

Military school gives officers new tools

I think someone in charge has finally done enough reading on 4th Generational warfare and saw that we needed some change in the tactics in Iraq.

This looks very promising, I just hope its not too little, too late.

 

[Sinsaba]

Very worried...

... "On the surface, a raid that captures a known insurgent or terrorist may seem like a sure victory for the coalition," it observes in red block letters. It continues, "The potential second- and third-order effects, however, can turn it into a long-term defeat if our actions humiliate the family, needlessly destroy property, or alienate the local population from our goals." ...

Reminds me of "A kinder, gentler war"

Let me see... a soldier is out in the thick of it. He finds out where that morter position is (an example alluded to earlier in the article) and he doesn't go after the guy because our actions "humiliate the family"??? What kind of thinking is that? Is someone insane?

Let me see... a soldier comes under fire from an apartment building. What do they do? Stop and think, "how can I do this without needlessly destroying property or alienating the local population"? If so, he is dead.

DISCLAIMER: I'm not a soldier. I've never been in a firefight. So this is my uninformed opinion.

 

[Manedwolf]

Reminds me of "A kinder, gentler war"

Let me see... a soldier is out in the thick of it. He finds out where that morter position is (an example alluded to earlier in the article) and he doesn't go after the guy because our actions "humiliate the family"??? What kind of thinking is that? Is someone insane?

Let me see... a soldier comes under fire from an apartment building. What do they do? Stop and think, "how can I do this without needlessly destroying property or alienating the local population"? If so, he is dead.

DISCLAIMER: I'm not a soldier. I've never been in a firefight. So this is my uninformed opinion.

1. Large family lives in apartment building. Does not hate Americans. Does not fight Americans.

2. Mistaken shot kills member of family. Instead of appearing sorry, other members of the family are pushed to the ground by troops, apartment searched, people bellowed at.

3. You now have all the adult men of the family looking for the nearest AK and joining up to kill Americans for revenge. You've created a bunch more enemies.


See why it's important?

 

[RaySendero]

Reminds me of "A kinder, gentler war"

Let me see... a soldier is out in the thick of it. He finds out where that morter position is (an example alluded to earlier in the article) and he doesn't go after the guy because our actions "humiliate the family"??? What kind of thinking is that? Is someone insane?

Let me see... a soldier comes under fire from an apartment building. What do they do? Stop and think, "how can I do this without needlessly destroying property or alienating the local population"? If so, he is dead.

DISCLAIMER: I'm not a soldier. I've never been in a firefight. So this is my uninformed opinion.

Seems to me that a soldier will likely get himself or another buddy killed pondering that **** for very long. He needs to take out or neutralize the threat quickly - Sort out the politics afterwards.

Just a thought - Maybe different training for war vs peacekeeping efforts. This could be important in planning missions under peacekeeping efforts but now-a-days its sometime hard to seperate the two.

 

[HankB]

You've created a bunch more enemies.

Enemies . . . as opposed to friends who 1) tolerate sniping or mortar/RPG attacks from their building; 2) protect the snipers by their silence; 3) invite the snipers over for dinner.

That's why in WWII and post-WWII occupation, the usual response to sniping incidents was something like a barrage from a battery of 155s . . .

 

[JesseJames]

You know what. I'd say apply what General Sherman did in Atlanta. Remove and relocate all the non-hostile Iraqis down south where it is relatively stable.
Cordon off the entire city of Baghdad. Whoever is left gets annihalated.
Even if it means reducing the city to rubble.
War, the old fashioned way.
Remember how long it took the Southern states in this country to recognize other races and let go of their hate and resentment after the Civil War?
And we expect the Sunnis and Shiites and Kurds to get along after centuries of conflict?
We shouldn't try to appease any faction. We must recognize who are truly the "good guys". Who is willing to help build a better Iraq or wanting it to devolve again into a totalitarian state.
One group or groups must be crushed while one becomes dominant under a civil government that all will and must recognize.

 

[Sergeant Sabre]

Remove and relocate all the non-hostile Iraqis...

And how, pray tell, do we identify the non-hostile ones?

And what about the non-hostile families that don't want to leave their home they've had for generations? Or the job that keeps the family afloat?

 

[CAnnoneer]

The article as well as the above exchange show why conventional armies suck at fighting guerrillas - the former are designed to move in and smash, total, destroy, and annihilate everything in their path, the latter are designed to annoy, drain strength, sow fear, and foment policy changes.

The solutions since times immemorial have been:
1) annihilate everything and rule by fear
2) if you can't do #1, never ever fight guerrillas

It remains to be seen if new developments in technology, organization, and awareness that mix military and political considerations would allow for a successful third option, or produce a giant mess like VN. You know which brilliant non-uniformed grofaz's to thank for all of this...

 

[Terrierman]

They were fighting each other before we got there, they'll be fighting each other when we leave. None of this was worth the lives of my brother Marines and the others who have fought and died there. Look no further than the outcomes of the Iraqi and Palestinian elections for what the future is going to be like over there when democratic elections are allowed. Would that we had never went, but it's too late for that. The sooner we decide the Iraqi forces are up to the task and we come on home the better. This war was a bad idea to begin with and has not been prosecuted in a manner that demonstrates the will to win it. I thought we learned that lesson in Viet Nam but apparently not. That old line about go big or stay home is still valid.

 

[Sergeant Sabre]

They were fighting each other before we got there, they'll be fighting each other when we leave....That old line about go big or stay home is still valid.

I agree with your entire statement.

 

[Thain]

Sadly, in the run up to the war, people were telling me to "Shut up and support our troops." because I was agianst this war from the beginning. Iraq is the new Vietnam... only this time, we didn't even wait for the pretext of the Gulf of Tonkin.

Premptive warfare... can't wait until Kim Jong Il tries it on Seoul.

 

[pauli]

if one takes the time to read the article, it would appear that the professional soldiers who actually take the course seem to approve rather highly of it. the contrast to the peanut gallery is amusing.

we, as americans, pride ourselves on the professionalism, intelligence, and moral character of our military, as well as their ability to do things the right way, not just the easy way. this seems to be a manifestation of those traits.

the people in iraq are entirely accustomed to thuggishness. giving them more of the same is no way to dissuade them from fighting against our troops.

 

[3rdpig]

Sadly, in the run up to the war, people were telling me to "Shut up and support our troops." because I was agianst this war from the beginning. Iraq is the new Vietnam... only this time, we didn't even wait for the pretext of the Gulf of Tonkin.

Premptive warfare... can't wait until Kim Jong Il tries it on Seoul.

Iraq has very few parallels to Vietnam. If you think so then point them out. But I bet you're just parroting the liberal talking points.

Also, Iraq signed a treaty to end a war AFTER they'd invaded a neighboring country, raped, burned and destroyed. The treaty stated that war would end if they obeyed certain conditions. They BROKE that treaty over and over again. Just as if a felon breaks probation, the original sentence kicks in. Saddam's original sentence was to have his army destroyed, his palaces bombed and his life ended. A nation honors it's agreements or they stop having any infuence in the world. They become another UN, no real power, nothing but talk that can be safely ignored.

Do you really equate a legitimate pre-emptive strike, such as if Isreal strikes Iran's nuclear facilities, with a totalitarian nation like North Korea attacking their peaceful, democratic neighbor, South Korea? In the first case, Iran is an entity that has publicly stated that Isreal should be wiped off the map, then is known to be developing a nuclear bomb. In the second case South Korea has offered nothing but peace and financial assistance to their neighbor.

If you can't see the difference you need more help then you can find here.

 

[wingman]

You now have all the adult men of the family looking for the nearest AK and joining up to kill Americans for revenge. You've created a bunch more enemies.

Oh yes,winning the hearts and minds of folks, we tried that in Vietnam i was
there and it did not work. The army is not for police work or social work.....
When we leave Iraq(if we do) they will tear each other apart. If we're going
to fight go in remove all leaders destroy all military equipment and leave....
I know let us build schools, roads, spend billions and they will love us.

 

[Terrierman]

Iraq has very few parallels to Vietnam. If you think so then point them out. But I bet you're just parroting the liberal talking points.

The parallels I see are:
1. That we are fighting an insurgency,
2. There was/is no clearly defined end game, the goals of the conflict are ephemeral and constantly being nuanced.
3. There is/was no threat to the vital interests of the U.S. presented by Iraq,
4. The area has a long history of unresolved and deep rooted conflict.
5. The group that we are supposedly fighting for lacks the will and ability to do their own dirty work (remember the ARVN?).
6. The war is politically divisive and highly controversial and becoming more so as time passes.
7. To this outsider, it appears the war is not being prosecuted in an efficient and aggressive manner.
8. We're allegedly fighting to defend somebody else's liberty.

Those are not anybody's talking points but mine.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

Terrierman, good list, but you left out pressuring the population into holding elections that a significant percentage of the population considers a sham, thereby instituting a government that same group considers illegitimate.

Oh, the parallels are there, all right.

I was also against this war, but when the shooting started, I changed my sig line to:

USA to do list:

1.Finish the job.

2.Get rid of the liars who got us into this mess.

I've been thinking about that statement lately, and have to say that I have abandoned all hope that it can be done. The American people didn't have the collective moral courage to do the latter, and our leaders don't seem to have the capacity to do the former.

 

[KriegHund]

I think its a good idea, but dont press it hard. Dont expect the rules to be followed everywhere. A good general principle.

 

[CAnnoneer]

USA to do list:
1.Finish the job.
2.Get rid of the liars who got us into this mess.

+1

It is time to get out. We have entered the stage of diminishing returns for some time now.

 

[Manedwolf]

Iraq has very few parallels to Vietnam. If you think so then point them out. But I bet you're just parroting the liberal talking points.

Also, Iraq signed a treaty to end a war AFTER they'd invaded a neighboring country, raped, burned and destroyed. The treaty stated that war would end if they obeyed certain conditions. They BROKE that treaty over and over again. Just as if a felon breaks probation, the original sentence kicks in. Saddam's original sentence was to have his army destroyed, his palaces bombed and his life ended. A nation honors it's agreements or they stop having any infuence in the world. They become another UN, no real power, nothing but talk that can be safely ignored.

Do you really equate a legitimate pre-emptive strike, such as if Isreal strikes Iran's nuclear facilities, with a totalitarian nation like North Korea attacking their peaceful, democratic neighbor, South Korea? In the first case, Iran is an entity that has publicly stated that Isreal should be wiped off the map, then is known to be developing a nuclear bomb. In the second case South Korea has offered nothing but peace and financial assistance to their neighbor.

If you can't see the difference you need more help then you can find here.

The fact of the matter I see is that we did NOT need to invade Iraq when we invaded it. Saddam was contained and wasn't a threat...and we weren't READY to invade and hold a country that size.

bin Laden was still a threat and IS still a threat...we didn't finish the job. Iran was more of a threat. North Korea was more of a threat.

Not only did we go after the only country that was NOT a threat, but we rushed into it before we were ready. We ran into an entirely optional war we determined the opening time of with pants half-on, shoes untied, frantically stuffing ammo into magazines. We didn't have enough boots on the ground to maintain the peace, DESPITE frantic warnings from military historians and several generals that were promptly removed from their posts.

Strategically, it was a tremendous blunder. And it's hard to draw a happy face on it now...we can't "win" an occupation where we've unleashed decades of tribal tensions, we're losing men and women and equipment every day, and equipment that hasn't been shot up or hit by IEDs is grinding past its yearly maintainence schedule in less than a month in the harsh sand.

And we can't do a damned thing about the real threats. Because we're STUCK there grinding our army into that mess.

I think it's time we told our elected leaders to shelve this idea they have that it's our duty to "spread democracy" in the way we have, breaking nations and putting our soldiers into the resulting chaos... and instead worry about DEALING WITH THREATS to OUR nation!

That means:

- Secure borders NOW
- bin Laden's head on a stick NOW
- Overhauled, efficient first-responder system here, NOW

No more adventures until they clean up the mess at home!

 

[MechAg94]

The best time to do it would have been in '91. I think we would have done it evenually and it wouldn't have gotten any easier. The UN cronies were making too much money off of it.

 

[Manedwolf]

The best time to do it would have been in '91. I think we would have done it evenually and it wouldn't have gotten any easier. The UN cronies were making too much money off of it.

Well, no, actually. It wasn't them. It was likely on Bush's dads' orders:

"We should not march into Baghdad. . . . To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us, and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day Arab hero . . .assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerrilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability."
- George H. W. Bush, in his 1998 book A World Transformed

Guess George Junior didn't read his father's book.

 

[Old Dog]

Interesting how a thread that started with an article documenting what most would consider progress in our war-fighting methods ... devolves into the usual predictable comments about how screwed up the war is ... It seems few have intelligent remarks to render forth about the actual topic, but rather, seem content to continue on with the non-productive rhetoric about just how fruitless the war is in general.

Our involvement with this war is a fait accompli; it's time to quit arguing the issue of just how screwed up a debacle it is, and get on with fixing things. As the article points out, progress, however minimal it may seem to you all, is being made in some areas.

 

[MechAg94]

Well, no, actually. It wasn't them. It was likely on Bush's dads' orders:

"We should not march into Baghdad. . . . To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us, and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day Arab hero . . .assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerrilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability."
- George H. W. Bush, in his 1998 book A World Transformed

Guess George Junior didn't read his father's book.

You misunderstood what I said. I meant that if Bush II hadn't called for invasion, we would have done so eventually in some form. With the UN making money off the sanctions and Saddam and everyone else thumbing their noses at us, I can't see where it would have done us any good to do nothing. Bad move in the long run. The fact that we appeared weak in the 90's was part of the reason that we were hit on 911.

 

[Autolycus]

Tag for later.

 

[cz75bdneos22]

They were fighting each other before we got there, they'll be fighting each other when we leave. None of this was worth the lives of my brother Marines and the others who have fought and died there. Look no further than the outcomes of the Iraqi and Palestinian elections for what the future is going to be like over there when democratic elections are allowed. Would that we had never went, but it's too late for that. The sooner we decide the Iraqi forces are up to the task and we come on home the better. This war was a bad idea to begin with and has not been prosecuted in a manner that demonstrates the will to win it. I thought we learned that lesson in Viet Nam but apparently not. That old line about go big or stay home is still valid.

+1