The Army is getting it right, finally!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Old Dog said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have to agree Old Dog. My contention is that (to my untrained eye) the objective that the course teaches is at odds with the concept of WAR. I understand that if we level a block to get at one gunman we have just made recruits for the opposition (read enemy). But taking into consideration that we might "humiliate the family, needlessly destroy property, or alienate the local population from our goals" and using that as a criteria during a firefight strikes me as a good way of getting our forces killed. Imagine if a patrol is sent out and told "try not to hurt or humiliate anybody, and please, please don't break anything"; that would be bad enough. Make it worse, have some bigwig back at HQ telling the men this. What do you think will really happen?

Also these people that might be our friends, how good of a friend are they if the harbor the enemy?

Again, I realize my own ignorance but it seems to me that if the people learned that if you harbor the enemey you have a chance of, uh... "being humiliated, having property destroyed, or being alienated from the people that are doing nothing more than trying to teach the country's police/army to do their own job", they might just quit harboring them.

Just my $.02
 
Again, I realize my own ignorance but it seems to me that if the people learned that if you harbor the enemey you have a chance of, uh... "being humiliated, having property destroyed, or being alienated from the people that are doing nothing more than trying to teach the country's police/army to do their own job", they might just quit harboring them.
Click to expand...
The problem is that the people in question are generally living in FEAR of the insurgents, not willfully cooperating or supporting them. If you haven't noticed, the insurgents are killing more Iraqis than they are Americans--not just bombings that make the news, but things like murdering an Iraqi family so they can use the family's house as a staging point.

Making decent Iraqis fear and loathe Americans as much as they fear and loathe the insurgents is not a winning strategy. Nor can our goal here be just to level the country and get out; that would just create another pre-2001 Afghanistan. We are in a very sticky mess now, one we probably shouldn't have gotten into in the first place, but the only way out of the mess is to intelligently deal with the reality on the ground.

You might notice that it is largely the special forces that are teaching the course referenced in the original article. The Green Berets understand Sun Tzu a lot better than the REMF's do.

Imagine if a patrol is sent out and told "try not to hurt or humiliate anybody, and please, please don't break anything"; that would be bad enough. Make it worse, have some bigwig back at HQ telling the men this. What do you think will really happen?
Click to expand...
The article points out that part of the problem is basing large numbers of soldiers in centralized bases and then sending them out "on patrol." Which does little to actually win the fight. One of the points of the training appears to be to get commanders to see the bigger picture, beyond the ritual of "going on patrol" and trolling for IED's. We can't win a war of attrition if we guarantee the insurgents an unlimited supply of recruits, but beyond that we are not well equipped politically or militarily to fight a war of attrition in the first place. If we find ourselves in a war of attrition, we need to reassess the situation and think of a better plan, which appears to be what is going on now.

Again, it's not the REMF's that are teaching this course, it's the Green Berets and such.
 
The first and second world wars were won due to an overwhelming force against the enemy, which was the entire country. The cause and effect of war has not changed. If the civilians were within the regions of cities or villages being defended by the enemy, they lost just like the soldiers. The opposition has drawn on the humanity of the US to try and separate our reactions, to separate the shooting enemy from the non-shooting enemy. They have indeed won this one too because we WILL NOT DO WHAT WORKS. And that is the same reason we lost the previous war.
But now, we are going to kiss their ______ too. I don't see how our soldiers can mantain their sanity.
 
It seems that, to a large degree, what we're doing in Iraq is similar to trying to fight a "war on gangs" in our inner cities. You know that in a particular neighborhood you'll be looking for bald guys named Jesus instead of brown guys with beards named Akbar, but it turns out there are a lot of fellas named Jesus in MS13 territory who don't like gangs any more than you do.

And if they openly help us their lives and families are at risk.

They're squeezed between those that would kill them for personal/ideological gain, and our Freedom Troopers trying to Keep The World Safe For Our Western Way of Life, with the promise that if they play along then they too can live like us.

Everyone's demanding they take a side, or be viewed as a part of the problem.

That's a crappy position to be in. And as soon as we make ourselves look worse than the opposition (your 12 year old sister was strip-searched while searching for weapons, and has been catatonic for days because of what she sees as a violation of her person!?!?!?!?! Hell, the gangs just want to take protection money and sell drugs, but they'd never hurt her like that...) then we've strengthened their cause and delayed the process.

It's worth making everyone see our enemies as the bad people, and ours as the good. And to do so, it's worth, I don't know, vowing to never take another action in-country that could be viewed as torture, or levelling buildings with HE because someone on the third floor is firing an AK while yelling LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA....

Just seems prudent.
 
The first and second world wars were won due to an overwhelming force against the enemy, which was the entire country. The cause and effect of war has not changed. If the civilians were within the regions of cities or villages being defended by the enemy, they lost just like the soldiers. The opposition has drawn on the humanity of the US to try and separate our reactions, to separate the shooting enemy from the non-shooting enemy. They have indeed won this one too because we WILL NOT DO WHAT WORKS. And that is the same reason we lost the previous war.
But now, we are going to kiss their ______ too. I don't see how our soldiers can mantain their sanity.
Click to expand...

Ya, alright then. Where did you recieve your professional military education?

Body counts do not defeat insurgencies. We can kill them until the sun runs out of fuel, but they will still be there. Kill kill kill kill kill and there are still more. Even worse if the tactics used to kill one hundred of them produce one thousand more.

According to the investigative news show Frontline , the insurgency has been removed from the border town of Tal Afar. It wasn't done by storming and and flattening everything, regardless of who thy are. It was done with intelligent, insightful, anti-insurgent operations. A chief component of which was working with the locals, who just wanted water, electricity, and jobs. The local US Commander was interviewed, and he said that a chief part of his strategy was showing the locals that the US can't bring them those things because the insurgents simply destroy the water pipes and electrical lines.

Trying to show that Axis Europe and present-day Iraq are in any way the same, or in any way call for the same strategy, immediately betrays one's level of military understanding.

Allow me to share with everyone a very good general rule that can be applied when evaluating whether or not you understand the situation in Iraq: Ask yourself 1)"Am I in Iraq?", and 2)"Have I been in Iraq?". If the answer to those questions is "no", then you don't understand. If question #1 = no but question #2 = yes (as is the case with me), then you are ahead of many.
 
And to do so, it's worth, I don't know, vowing to never take another action in-country that could be viewed as torture, or levelling buildings with HE because someone on the third floor is firing an AK while yelling LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA....
Click to expand...

Prudent and civilized. I'm amazed at how little the latter consideration seems to enter the debate today.

Even if it were the case that wars could be won by killing 100 innocent people for every terrorist, I'd rather lose than become a bigger terrorist. Being unwilling to do absolutely anything to win a fight is part of living in a civilized world.
 
Brutal tactics won't necessarily win against an insurgency, either. Look at the Soviet experience in Afghanistan. We had a much better time in Afghanistan than the Russians did because the average Afghan was convinced that we were on their side, and that the Taliban were not. Turn that equation around by ill-advised brutality, and we would likely repeat the Soviet debacle.
 
Sergeant Sabre said:
Allow me to share with everyone a very good general rule that can be applied when evaluating whether or not you understand the situation in Iraq: Ask yourself 1)"Am I in Iraq?", and 2)"Have I been in Iraq?". If the answer to those questions is "no", then you don't understand. If question #1 = no but question #2 = yes (as is the case with me), then you are ahead of many.
Click to expand...

I'm no on both, but I can still read and hear, and I know just enough about history to be dangerous. I do not pretend to have a good understanding of what is going on in Iraq, I could not begin to tell you why a Shiite can't get along with a Sunni or a Kurd. I may be very very thick, but I don't think the details matter all that much at this point. I have this very deep feeling that we can blow hell out of that country or try our level best to win over the Iraqi people or take any action we like in between with basically the same end result. Were I the Commander in Chief, I'd throw every resource at my disposal at propping the Iraqi forces that I like the best into some semblance of functional and declare victory. And after declaring victory this time, I'd act like it and leave.
 
Agreed

JesseJames said:
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.
Click to expand...

The civilian population could help weed out the insurgency, but they don’t out of fear of or are supporting them. We should make it very clear to the populace who they should be afraid of. If the population supports the insurgency then we should act accordingly. Now is not the time to pussyfooting around.
 
Stop using conservative talking points.

3rdpig said:
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.
Click to expand...

The examples you give can be applied to any number of counties…so why Iraq when there are countries that are greater threats, broke as many UN violations, and have greater humanitarian needs?

I think all the talk about conservative and liberal talking points is BS. The fact is it doesn't matter what your politics are if you can't admit it is going badly you are not inclined to fix it. Is it exactly like Vietnam? No. But, In some ways it is and some it is not.
 
Malone LaVeigh said:
...

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.

...
Click to expand...

Malone,
Who was lying and what did they say?
 
Well, to me it seems a done deal - we did invade and we're there now - so there's not a whole lot you can do about that except pull out or use the situation, or some combination of the above.


If nothing else, the place is a magnet for folks who hate the USA and are willing to shoot at us. To me, this is probably a good thing, I'd rather have our soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines facing them over there than our LE folks facing them here.


Plus, if what we're trying to do actually works, a representative democracy actually does take hold in the middle east, that can only be a positive for change against the theocracies and monarchies that predominate over there right now.
 
4th Generation warfare..bahhh..it's a term thought up by the non-combatants in the think tanks to justify their jobs and promoted by the defense contractors as a way to bilk the American taxpayer of more of his hard earned money and provide less capability.

Guerrilla warfare has been around as long as there have been armies. The principles of war remain the same as they always have. I'd suggest you get down to the library and see if they have a copy of the two volume set War in the Shadows - The Guerrilla in History by Robert B. Asprey What makes any of you think what were dealing with in Iraq is so fundamentally different then what the Romans delt with in Spain in 200 BC of what the Norman Crusdaers faced in Syria from the Seljuk Turks or Edward I's pacification campaigns in Wales and Scotland?

Electronic mass communication has not as many people would have you believe added a new dimension to the battlefield. The ancients still had to get their message out and suppress the enemy from getting his message out.

It will take a generation to fix our military establishment after all the damage that's been done to it by the proponents of fourth generation war.

Jeff
 
Sinsaba, I am not in the military so maybe you or someone who has been there, done that, can answer this, but I am curious to know if you really think that as a superior officer, even telling your men that is going to do any good. It seems to me that if you're getting shot at, or you're the first man through the door, you're going to do anything in your power to make it back to base in one peice and one day closer to going home. You can tell soldiers and Marines to be careful what they shoot, and inform them of the potential hazards and consequences of breaking or killing something or someone they shouldn't have, but my initial assumption would be that survival rates pretty high on every grunt's priority list--probably higher in the short term than whether or not putting someone in twisty ties until a situation is sorted out and resolved is going to humiliate them enough to fight the infidels.

Again, you can take this for what it is worth, but I was watching a show on the History Channel about the American occupation of Normandy and France directly after D-day. Interviews with French citizens of the time showed that alliances were mixed and easily broken. The citizens were willing to support whoever was in power enough to protect them. Imagine it is Humvees outside your street and mortars or car bombs that may kill you doing the most mundane daily activity. Much like the soldier, your first priority is going to be survival, in most cases. The primary difference is that you don't have a rifle to fight back--your only defense is compliance. If you have to let someone take a few shots at American soldiers from your window to ensure you aren't hacked to death with a rusty machete in your own home, you're probably going to do it. People who suggest an airstrike or anti-tank missile is a valid solution and that families won't be so quick to volunteer their windows if they know they're going to get blown up aren't really paying attention. They're already under threat of being blown up and the consequence of not allowing the rifleman in your house is still death. It is lose-lose for them. I don't think many of us can really grasp with our current lifestyles what it would be like to be stuck in the middle of something like that.

I think it makes a little bit of sense in the long term to recognize the show of faith made by not blowing up an entire building. If a family sees that these young men are willing to just bust down the door and kill the rifleman, even at great personal risk to themselves, they made be discouraged by bullet holes in their walls and a busted down door, they may be humiliated to be pushed to the ground, searched, restrained, and questioned, but will hopefully realize that the other option was an AH-64 Longbow and a salvo of rockets and cannon fire.

At the same time, I can see how I as a soldier would be reluctant to be the first or second man through the door when all I had to do was call in an airstrike. I can see both sides and it is a complicated issue. Nothing worth having is ever easy. More than the politics and those in Capital Hill, I am more interested in the young men and women in harm's way. I have a great deal of admiration for them cause they have a tough, dangerous job and I think they, by and large, do it with integrity and professionalism. I wish our government would have showed restraint in their use but now that they are over there, I have no doubt they are representing us well and doing the best job they can. If anyone can do this despite the blunders and beaurocracy, it is them.
 
In a war, if you know where a sniper/insurgent is and do not IMMEDIATLY tell the Army where they are, you deserve the barrage of 150mm required to get said insurgent.

Kinder, gentler war means a swift and painless death.
 
YellowLab said:
In a war, if you know where a sniper/insurgent is and do not IMMEDIATLY tell the Army where they are, you deserve the barrage of 150mm required to get said insurgent.

Kinder, gentler war means a swift and painless death.
Click to expand...
Sure, 'cause, like, it's not after years of occupation these folks will be without phones and power.

Wait...:uhoh:
 
I'd be interested in hearing from those who think this Iraq thing was a good idea and its going swimmingly in light of today's developments. As for me, I'm sticking with my assessment that it was a poorly thought out approach to begin with, not well executed and with very little if any chance of resulting in meaningful short, intermediate or long term positive change in the region. Sadly it is looking like it is becoming harder and harder to be able to claim victory and exit in anything that resembles soon.
 
OK, Sarge, waited for a year to see how it would turn out.....they did it your way. Guess you were wrong! A guys operating over there who have similar faults in their training is why we are not winning. And, since you are so wrong, don't even think about asking about my credentials!
 
Allow me to share with everyone a very good general rule that can be applied when evaluating whether or not you understand the situation in Iraq: Ask yourself 1)"Am I in Iraq?", and 2)"Have I been in Iraq?". If the answer to those questions is "no", then you don't understand. If question #1 = no but question #2 = yes (as is the case with me), then you are ahead of many.
Click to expand...

I can answer No and YES and would rather not have to say yes-yes again in
the future. Kind of like being hit by a 2x4 and being asked if I want to get hit
with one again. I undertand it perfectly --far better than the symbolic manner
in which Congress has been handling it.
 
Don't worry Lucky,

When they come for us domestic terrorists after guns are made illegal, they'll play just as nice.:evil:


Now, closer to topic. If it was my country that a foriegn country had invaded, I would be fighting them also. Saddam is gone, let's declare victory and let the Iraqis fight it out amongst themselves and buy our oil off of the winner.
 
"Winning the hearts and minds of the people" seems like we tried that in Vietnam, we would build a village, provide food , medicine during the day and at night they would break out the sks,ak47 and kill us so I'm not a big fan of being Mr nice guy in war. War is ugly if attack we need to fight to win and then get the H--- out........:cuss:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

K
  • Locked
The Next Generation of War?
Replies
12
Views
799
Ktulu
K
R
  • Locked
Report: Army could be near breaking point
2
Replies
44
Views
1K
Chrontius
C
P
  • Locked
Russian military re-evaluates its future after Iraq war
Replies
9
Views
940
4v50 Gary
4v50 Gary
2
  • Locked
Saddam's tactics could allow him to survive war
Replies
3
Views
390
2dogs
2
W
  • Locked
Army Stops Many Soldiers From Quitting-Extends Enlistments to Curtail Troop Shortages
2
Replies
49
Views
1K
striker3
S
Back
Top