The Army is getting it right, finally!

[Titan6]

Not in the Middle East right now but some time this year I see the sand box calling me back to play.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion on war. You can say we should fight this country or that or not at all and this is how a free country works. Call your congressmen, vote, campaign, please share your opinion, it renews my faith in this country every time I hear it. I don't feel for one second that I am not being fully supported because you don't like this president or that SECDEF or think we shouldn't be beating on what ever country is currently being beat upon. Now those morons that go to military funerals and protest, if I ever end up in a dark alley with one of those fellars well......

On the other hand telling the military how to run a war with tactics and strategy is kind of idoitic when all you know about it is what you have read somewhere or seen on TV. Not that the military is not open to ideas, but the source is always considered and some ideas are particularly lame and foolish.

Think of it as trying to coach a football game when you can not see the playing field. You keep sending in plays straight from the pros playbook and your guys keep getting clobbered. Until you actually see what is happening on the field you will never know why you are getting beat (and then still might not know). It is called situational awareness. You can't get it without being there.

There is far more study and thought that goes into these things than most may ever realize. Unfortunately whenever a war comes up and everyone with a sharp pointy pencil (or keyboard and High speed internet) comes out of the woodwork. When the idea of the day dosen't work than more often than not another idea is pulled off the shelf even though the situation has changed and the "new" idea it is tried without success.

Despite being invincible supermen; soldiers and leaders still make mistakes. Just that it is when we get hit in the head with kryptonite our mistakes make the 10 oclock news and get sent around the internet at the speed of thought. So if you want your say please by all means send out your opinion but unless you are ready, willing and able to sign up and go out and do it yourself leave the strategy and tactics to the soldiers in the field.

 

[RNB65]

IMHO, there is no solution to the Iraq situation and the best course of action is to divide the country into thirds (Sunni, Shia and Kurd) and withdraw US forces immediately. Contrary to popular belief, there is no civil war in Iraq. It's a religious sectarian war between Sunni and Shia that goes well beyond the Iraqi borders and there's not a damn thing the US can do to stop it. If the US withdraws from Iraq, at least the anti-American insurgency violence will end and the Sunnis and Shias can fight it out among themselves until they eventually get tired of killing each other. Then and only then will it end.

 

[Mk VII]

Welcome to the Northern Ireland Experience You too can have the world's press second-guessing your actions in the paper next day.

Conventional wars of the WW2 type are probably a thing of the past now. Every tyrant out there can see what happens to his country when he is obliging enough to fight war our way. So assymetric war is going to be the rule, not the exception. The political will go hand-in-hand with the military solution, and the 'kill everyone until there's no one left and level the city and call it a win' mindset which many round here seem to favour will not do (unless you really want us to be the imperialist thugs that the other side are saying we are).
Armies do "suck" at doing this stuff, it's not what they were trained to do and they would rather do what they are good at which is breaking things and killing people. But longing for the war we used to have, or the war we would like to have, isn't going to work.

 

[Zero_DgZ]

Precisely.

What we have worked ourselves into is a no-win scenario where there are no right answers, just answers that will be dissected and turned into "wrongs" later.

Short of turning the entire country into a parking lot for Disney Land Arabia there isn't much we can do about it, either.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

We are fighting people who would be perfectly happy to turn the United States in to a slag heap -- and if we leave this job undone and let them work their plans unmolested, they will acquire the ability to do exactly that. Count on it.

 

[Thin Black Line]

We could always go back to the threat of reciprocal slag heaping aka MAD
like we did with the Soviets. Let's not overstate the threat we face today;
it's like going from a platoon of snipers who all have a collective fix on you
to the loud mouth little guy with a .25 pocket pistol in the street.

 

[RNB65]

We are fighting people who would be perfectly happy to turn the United States in to a slag heap

Nope, not in Iraq we aren't. The folks you're describing are hidden away in Afghanistan and Pakistan getting a big kick out of the fiasco the US has gotten itself into in Iraq and enjoying every second of it. They know that every US soldier sent to Iraq is one less soldier available to fight them.

 

[USAFA06STX]

I apologize if this is a little off topic but one of the mistakes I've noticed in this thread is that the strikes that started the Second Gulf War against Iraq are refered to as a preemptive strike instead of a preventative strike (despite what wikipedia says, they maybe be similar but are not the same).

A preemptive strike is performed against an immenant threat to a country such as the Israeli strikes that started the Six Day War in 1967. In this case, hours before several other nations where to attack Isreal, Israel attacked first because there was an imminent threat to their livelihood. An imminent threat has to components - the capability to carry out the threat, and the will to carry out the threat. While capability is easy to determine, it is the will that is often the harder component to accurately assess.

A preventative strike occurs when there is no imminent threat but a threat that will have to be dealt with at some point past the immediate future. While it is acknowledged that Saddam and Iraq were a threat to the United States, it is generally accepted that they were not a imminent threat to the US, because even if Saddam did have the will, he did not have the capability.

This distinction is important because traditionally a preemptive strike is accepted to be a reason for "just" war due to a country's inherent right to self defense. A preventative strike is not as commonly accepted as a reason for a "just" war as it is not yet immediately needed for self defense. Asserting that a preventative strike is just as the Bush administration has done can be dangerous as it allows other countries to take a similar policy towards the US (China and Russia are watching, even if you don't realize it).

I am not trying to make this a personal attack on anyone or their views of the situations in Iraq, I just happen to feel that without an explaination most people do not understand this small, but important, distinction between the preemptive and preventative.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

We could always go back to the threat of reciprocal slag heaping aka MAD
like we did with the Soviets.

Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) was based on the assumption that nations will not willingly commit suicide. As we have seen again and again, that is not true with terrorists.

And when they hit us, where do we send the return rockets?

Nope, not in Iraq we aren't. The folks you're describing are hidden away in Afghanistan and Pakistan getting a big kick out of the fiasco the US has gotten itself into in Iraq and enjoying every second of it. They know that every US soldier sent to Iraq is one less soldier available to fight them.

And that explains why Al Qaeda is putting so much into the war in Iraq, eh?

We are fighting them there -- and if we leave without whipping them, it will be a major defeat for us, and we will pay the price.

 

[Master Blaster]

Geez, and here I though by got it right, you meant that they had a winning strategy for the Middle east that included:

Taking all of the oil fields and declaring them the 51st state, Far east Texas.

Selling guns to the Shiia and the Sunnis so they can pursue killing each other.

Let me know when that becomes the strategy because then they will have it right.

 

[RNB65]

And that explains why Al Qaeda is putting so much into the war in Iraq, eh?

We are fighting them there -- and if we leave without whipping them, it will be a major defeat for us, and we will pay the price.

Sorry, but I'm not buying that Kool Aid any more. Iraq is just a sideshow for Al Qaeda. Bin Laden and his cronies are big picture guys who could care less about what happens in a little wastewater place like Iraq.

 

[EricTheBarbarian]

muslims are a peaceful people

we should just quit and give up because the war is hard, thats what america was founded on right? if you would compare the america people now to world war 2 theyre a completely different breed of people. Way back then there was a large amount of hatred for germans and the japanese. Hating your enemy makes you want to defeat them and fight them even stronger. Now we are constantly told that Iraqis and muslims are peaceful people and not to hate them. All the people who say we should just flatten the place, well we have the geneva conventions and arent allowed to fight like that anymore. We follow the rules when our enemy doesnt. if we had the geneva conventions for WWII, the US would have been charged with war crimes for targeting civilians(i.e. bombing factories with civilian workers). there were 292,131 americans killed in WWII and 1,078,162 total casualties. In vietnam there were 211,471 casualties and 47,369 were killed. We lost 3,000 in one day in the WTC and there have been about 3,000 killed the whole time in iraq. I guess we should just quit then, but the numbers are no where close to even Vietnam, which people like to compare iraq to. then you have the whole arguement that Iraq didnt have any terrorists if youd like to believe that, but there are terrorist there now. Should we not fight them because they werent there before? Having a battleground in Iraq I believe has kept the fighting over there with people who VOLUNTEER to fight and not people who are at work in a city here somewhere like NY. This is still an all volunteer army and the people who complan the most are the ones not doing the fighting. Just my informed opinion, but it seems like everyone already has their mind made up so Id just add my .02 cents worth.

 

[Thin Black Line]

This distinction is important because traditionally a preemptive strike is accepted to be a reason for "just" war due to a country's inherent right to self defense. A preventative strike is not as commonly accepted as a reason for a "just" war as it is not yet immediately needed for self defense. Asserting that a preventative strike is just as the Bush administration has done can be dangerous as it allows other countries to take a similar policy towards the US (China and Russia are watching, even if you don't realize it).

I am not trying to make this a personal attack on anyone or their views of the situations in Iraq, I just happen to feel that without an explaination most people do not understand this small, but important, distinction between the preemptive and preventative.

This distinction is very important and you have explained this well. Preemption
and the "just war" concept also plays an extremely improtant part for those
of us with spiritual/religious considerations in our belief system. For my self
at least, the self-defense part when it comes to violence is absolutely
necessary be it on either an individual or a national level. This has created
some concerns for me when it comes to Iraq and what was used for
justification which has later turned out to lack some basis.

And when they hit us, where do we send the return rockets?

If it involves nuclear materials, we'll know.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Conventional wars of the WW2 type are probably a thing of the past now.

Well, until the war with China that is.


As for Iraq, total war is the only solution. It broke the figthing spirit of the Confederacy, the fighting spirit of Germany, and even the zealots of Japan. Only by waging total war and bringing it to every man woman and child can this end. Make them so tired of war that they just give up.

 

[Titan6]

As for Iraq, total war is the only solution. It broke the figthing spirit of the Confederacy, the fighting spirit of Germany, and even the zealots of Japan. Only by waging total war and bringing it to every man woman and child can this end. Make them so tired of war that they just give up.

Thank goodness we finnally agree on something. Now If I can direct your attention to the nearest recruiting office to either sign you and your children up (or reenlist, whatever..) we can get your paperwork processed smoothly....

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

To late for that. I'm already in. Michigan Army National Guard, PV1, 31Bravo Military Police.

 

[Titan6]

Dang it an MP I should have know it, now this Major is off to the camps for sure. . Well PV1 Taurus, when you get to Iraq, which I am sure you will soon, your attitudes may change just a skoosh....

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Sorry, but I'm not buying that Kool Aid any more. Iraq is just a sideshow for Al Qaeda. Bin Laden and his cronies are big picture guys who could care less about what happens in a little wastewater place like Iraq.

And you base that judgement on your own vast combat experiece and military training, do you?

 

[doc2rn]

Okay this is war and it's ugly. But doing a mount opperation which may disrupt or embarrass someone's daily life is a small price to pay for preserving life. Would it be better if the sniper kills an American on patrol? Of course not. What about that off duty Iraqi policeman? Of course not. Both are currently charged with maintaining order but the only ones we hear about are dead soldiers. We should be asking Bush why our military is doing a civilian police force's job?

 

[Titan6]

Okay this is war and it's ugly. But doing a mount opperation which may disrupt or embarrass someone's daily life is a small price to pay for preserving life. Would it be better if the sniper kills an American on patrol? Of course not. What about that off duty Iraqi policeman? Of course not. Both are currently charged with maintaining order but the only ones we hear about are dead soldiers. We should be asking Bush why our military is doing a civilian police force's job?

No not really.

First, it is MOUT (Military Operation in Urban Terrain).

Second, what the American People should ask is should we be there at all? Who, what, where, when and why of deploying the troops is up to the president. If you think he is a bad leader, make congress do their job: Only the Congress has the power to declare war. The Military has always spent way way more time conducting operations other than war, and congress controls the purse strings for that as well. If you want it to stop call your congressman.

But military operations are not run by committee. And I will not criticize a man who has way more responsibility for lives and the running of the country than I could ever dream of.

 

[RNB65]

And you base that judgement on your own vast combat experiece and military training, do you?

No, just common sense and a better understanding of the situation in the Muslim world than the current administration possesses. GW knew there weren't any WMD in Iraq. He just wanted to take down Hussein in order to finish the job his daddy failed to finish and to get revenge for Hussein's assassination attempt on daddy. They decided to just simply stick their heads in the sand and ignore what was obviously going to happen once Syria and Iran decided they wanted to play in this game also. And while American forces are tied down in a quagmire in Iraq, the Taliban are slowly but surely regaining power in Afghanistan.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

No, just common sense and a better understanding of the situation in the Muslim world than the current administration possesses.

When a man with no combat experience or training begins pontificating about military matters, he pretty much forfiets any claim to have common sense.

 

[RNB65]

When a man with no combat experience or training begins pontificating about military matters, he pretty much forfiets any claim to have common sense.

You may be right, but mark my words. GWB is going to join LBJ as another Texas president who's legacy was destroyed by an ill-advised war.

 

[GTSteve03]

When a man with no combat experience or training begins pontificating about military matters, he pretty much forfiets any claim to have common sense.

How much combat time have you had in Iraq, Vern?

 

[Thin Black Line]

But military operations are not run by committee.

LOL, yes they are. And I'm not talking about the Hill or Halliburton either.
You don't think there's a committee with a lot of heated discussion where
everyone has ACUs and stars on and are worried about being replaced by
the CiC?

But, yes, I agree with you in that Congress needs to re-assert its own
War Powers. They turn it on, they can turn it off.