Sinsaba
Member
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.
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