Page 20 of 29 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 290

Thread: C.I.A. Had Plan to Assassinate Qaeda Leaders

  1. #191
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    03-31-11 @ 07:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    2,331

    Re: C.I.A. Had Plan to Assassinate Qaeda Leaders

    Quote Originally Posted by tlmorg02 View Post
    If it were not for the CIA, Afghanistan would be another North Korea, a nuclear power under Russian influence. I think it is one of our most valuable defenses in America's arsenal.
    Do you have faith in their killers though? I don't. I think all those assassins in SAD are just too old to do their thing. I have heard that the average age for a SAD is 60ish. Way too old for jumping out of planes and the sort. Way to old.

  2. #192
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,496

    Re: Counter-Insurgency

    Quote Originally Posted by repeter View Post
    Doesnt mean anything if you need to take out 1 man, and don't know where he is. In that case, it'd be far better to have a UAV over a sniper team.
    If you don't know where the target is, a UAV isn't going to do you anygood, either. Besides that, a sniper team can confirm the kill, where an air-strike can't.



    Hmm...like everything it's much easier to talk about it then actually do it. How are you going to limit any of those 5 elements? Leadership I can imagine, but they replace those rather quickly don't they? And we can't even think of reducing their maneuver, firepower, protection or information can we?
    Replacing a leader is another one of those things that easier said than done.[/quote]

    They have tunnel networks everywhere, and masquerade as civilians, thats maneuver.

    Firepower, those same tunnels, and unless we somehow eliminate Iran from the equation, we can't stop the weapons going in.

    Protection, they can walk right by our troops without being spotted, and they have tunnel networks which we sometimes can't find, and are not going to necessarily clear out.

    Information...I don't think I really need to explain that, do I?

    You are talking about how we would fight the Russians for Western Europe, not how we would fight some psycho's in a desert. What combat troops? They are all goat herders, who take a few cheap shots, and blend back into the crowd...we can't effectively stop them without pacifying the entire population, and we cannot do that bloodlessly.
    When engaging an enemy that relies heavily on assymetrical warfare as his main strategy, it the degree of difficutly goes up to be sure, but the objectives are the same. It's this kind of warfare where combat multipliers become even more important. A sniper team, or a light hunter/killer team will have more success in reducing the enemy's combat power. The most important mission for those teams would be observe the enemy's movements, so as to learn more about how they operate.

    If we locate tunnel entrances we can monitor movement and thereby interdict that movement. If the enemy's movement is restricted to the tunnels, then we have hurt their ability to maneuver, in a big way. When we start infiltrating the tunnels, then we've restricted their movement, even more, not to mention reduced the level of protection that their fighters have.

    Weapons are transported. There's no other way to accomplish that. They're brought by vehicle, pack animal, or carried by humans. Locating and interrupting logistical routes is way to interrupt combat power.

    The principles of warfare are the same, no matter what enemy you're fighting. He has to use those same principles. If you force him to deviate from those principles and deny him the ability to fully utilize his combat power, you will destroy his ability to resist.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  3. #193
    Guru
    repeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    07-15-14 @ 12:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,445

    Re: Counter-Insurgency

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    If you don't know where the target is, a UAV isn't going to do you anygood, either. Besides that, a sniper team can confirm the kill, where an air-strike can't.
    Called a kill cam...and sniper teams have to be deployed to the right area, and they have to facing the right direction, and they have to be in less-windy areas, and they have to have the supplies to survive for X number of days, and they have families.

    Replacing a leader is another one of those things that easier said than done.
    Yeah, just like about everything you said. Theoretically plausible and possible. Practically impossible. And if they couldn't replace them, well, I think we would have won this war quite some time ago.

    When engaging an enemy that relies heavily on assymetrical warfare as his main strategy, it the degree of difficutly goes up to be sure, but the objectives are the same. It's this kind of warfare where combat multipliers become even more important. A sniper team, or a light hunter/killer team will have more success in reducing the enemy's combat power. The most important mission for those teams would be observe the enemy's movements, so as to learn more about how they operate.

    If we locate tunnel entrances we can monitor movement and thereby interdict that movement. If the enemy's movement is restricted to the tunnels, then we have hurt their ability to maneuver, in a big way. When we start infiltrating the tunnels, then we've restricted their movement, even more, not to mention reduced the level of protection that their fighters have.

    Weapons are transported. There's no other way to accomplish that. They're brought by vehicle, pack animal, or carried by humans. Locating and interrupting logistical routes is way to interrupt combat power.

    The principles of warfare are the same, no matter what enemy you're fighting. He has to use those same principles. If you force him to deviate from those principles and deny him the ability to fully utilize his combat power, you will destroy his ability to resist.
    Once again, good in theory. And how exactly do you tell who is the enemy, when one moment, they pop a few rounds, the next, they are "running in terror" from the big bad US troops. Thats the problem. If we could notably distinguish the enemy from the civilians, there would be no problem. Iraq and Afghanistan would have been won, and everything would be as close to being back to normal in that region as possible. But, we can't tell who is the bad guy and who isn't. Due to this, they can watch our troops patrol, and think of places for IED's. They can get up close to our tropps before atatcking. they can stealthily get out of fights. They can smuggle weapons (unless of course, you want to do a full-body search on every single person you see) whenever and wherever they want, and they controled the entire country a few years back.

    There is no way to completely stop the problem, not without killing every single person in the whole country, and that's completely unfeasible. I'm sorry, but counter-insurgency operations (when dealing with radical religionists) are giong to be impossible until you kill every single one of them, that's all there is to it.
    Veni. Vidi. Vici.
    -Gaius Julius Caesar
    The Only Thing to Fear is Fear Itself.
    -Franklin Delano Roosevelt

  4. #194
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,496

    Re: Counter-Insurgency

    Quote Originally Posted by repeter View Post
    Called a kill cam...and sniper teams have to be deployed to the right area, and they have to facing the right direction, and they have to be in less-windy areas, and they have to have the supplies to survive for X number of days, and they have families.
    And, it's alot harder to hide from a sniper team than an aircraft.



    Yeah, just like about everything you said. Theoretically plausible and possible. Practically impossible. And if they couldn't replace them, well, I think we would have won this war quite some time ago.
    Let me be more specific. Replacing a leader with a competant leader is sometimes easiser said than done. Of course someone is going to step up, but when you take out leader, after leader, after leader morale will suffer among the enemy ranks. Morale is also a combat multiplier. Therefore, when you create an environment where not even the senior leadership is safe from enemy fire, you have denied the enemy of one of his important combat multipliers.

    These tactics aren't, "practically impossible", and I'm not just pulling all of this out of my ass. It's been proven time and time again on the battlefield. The Confederate Army is a perfect example of how attrition among an army's officer corps can have an adverse effect on the army's performance on the battlefield.



    Once again, good in theory. And how exactly do you tell who is the enemy, when one moment, they pop a few rounds, the next, they are "running in terror" from the big bad US troops. Thats the problem. If we could notably distinguish the enemy from the civilians, there would be no problem. Iraq and Afghanistan would have been won, and everything would be as close to being back to normal in that region as possible. But, we can't tell who is the bad guy and who isn't. [/quote]

    It's not a theory. It's been proven to work thousands of times over the centuries, or at least since firearms were introduced into warfare. An unconventional enemy isn't, as you say, "impossible", to defeat. Historically, unconventional forces have proved that they can't sustain effective offensive operations, without the support and combined efforts of a conventional force. Unconventional forces/assymetrical forces are only economy of force. That's it. They do have the advantage of blending in with the local population, because they don not wear distinctive uniform items. However, at some point, for them to be effective, they must come out in the open, with their personal weapons and engage friendly forces. They have to move from one place to another, carrying their weapons. scout/sniper teams are primary employment to deploy on this type of battlefield. It's not hard to spot the enemy. He's the one with the rifle. And, yes, it will be more time consuming than a conventional war might be, but it's not impossible to defeat an enemy of this kind. We've already done it once, to a better trained, more motivated and better supplied enemy.

    Due to this, they can watch our troops patrol, and think of places for IED's. They can get up close to our tropps before atatcking. they can stealthily get out of fights.
    That's why you imploy tactics and SOP's that take away the effectiveness of the enemy's tactics. It's called, "adapting to the environment", and American soldiers do it better than any soldier in the world.

    Don't be fooled by the spin you've been taught. Guerilla fighters have to practice the same principles that any other infantryman does. They have to initiate and break contact just like any other infantry unit and the lack of uniforms isn't going to give them any kind of advantage.

    They can smuggle weapons (unless of course, you want to do a full-body search on every single person you see) whenever and wherever they want, and they controled the entire country a few years back.
    Weapons have to smuggled in large enough numbers to do some good. Carrying one weapon through at a time isn't going to have any kind of positive effect on the enemy's war effort.

    Did you notice that you said that in the past tense?

    There is no way to completely stop the problem, not without killing every single person in the whole country, and that's completely unfeasible. I'm sorry, but counter-insurgency operations (when dealing with radical religionists) are giong to be impossible until you kill every single one of them, that's all there is to it.

    You're wrong. You don't have to kill everyone in the country to take aways a unit's will to fight. If that were the case, there would be several million armed fighters in Afghanistan than just a few thousand. I think you're under the impression that everyone in the country is a part of the Taliban, which is far from the truth.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  5. #195
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Counter-Insurgency

    Quote Originally Posted by repeter View Post
    Doesnt mean anything if you need to take out 1 man, and don't know where he is. In that case, it'd be far better to have a UAV over a sniper team.

    Hmm...like everything it's much easier to talk about it then actually do it. How are you going to limit any of those 5 elements? Leadership I can imagine, but they replace those rather quickly don't they? And we can't even think of reducing their maneuver, firepower, protection or information can we?

    They have tunnel networks everywhere, and masquerade as civilians, thats maneuver.

    Firepower, those same tunnels, and unless we somehow eliminate Iran from the equation, we can't stop the weapons going in.

    Protection, they can walk right by our troops without being spotted, and they have tunnel networks which we sometimes can't find, and are not going to necessarily clear out.

    Information...I don't think I really need to explain that, do I?

    You are talking about how we would fight the Russians for Western Europe, not how we would fight some psycho's in a desert. What combat troops? They are all goat herders, who take a few cheap shots, and blend back into the crowd...we can't effectively stop them without pacifying the entire population, and we cannot do that bloodlessly.
    Quote Originally Posted by repeter View Post
    Called a kill cam...and sniper teams have to be deployed to the right area, and they have to facing the right direction, and they have to be in less-windy areas, and they have to have the supplies to survive for X number of days, and they have families.



    Yeah, just like about everything you said. Theoretically plausible and possible. Practically impossible. And if they couldn't replace them, well, I think we would have won this war quite some time ago.



    Once again, good in theory. And how exactly do you tell who is the enemy, when one moment, they pop a few rounds, the next, they are "running in terror" from the big bad US troops. Thats the problem. If we could notably distinguish the enemy from the civilians, there would be no problem. Iraq and Afghanistan would have been won, and everything would be as close to being back to normal in that region as possible. But, we can't tell who is the bad guy and who isn't. Due to this, they can watch our troops patrol, and think of places for IED's. They can get up close to our tropps before atatcking. they can stealthily get out of fights. They can smuggle weapons (unless of course, you want to do a full-body search on every single person you see) whenever and wherever they want, and they controled the entire country a few years back.

    There is no way to completely stop the problem, not without killing every single person in the whole country, and that's completely unfeasible. I'm sorry, but counter-insurgency operations (when dealing with radical religionists) are giong to be impossible until you kill every single one of them, that's all there is to it.
    The military and CIA are so stupid - they keep on coming up with these flawed plans based on their own "experience" when they could be getting the really good ideas from our own resident experts.

    You should send them a letter.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  6. #196
    Guru
    repeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    07-15-14 @ 12:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,445

    Re: Counter-Insurgency

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    And, it's alot harder to hide from a sniper team than an aircraft.

    Let me be more specific. Replacing a leader with a competant leader is sometimes easiser said than done. Of course someone is going to step up, but when you take out leader, after leader, after leader morale will suffer among the enemy ranks. Morale is also a combat multiplier. Therefore, when you create an environment where not even the senior leadership is safe from enemy fire, you have denied the enemy of one of his important combat multipliers.

    These tactics aren't, "practically impossible", and I'm not just pulling all of this out of my ass. It's been proven time and time again on the battlefield. The Confederate Army is a perfect example of how attrition among an army's officer corps can have an adverse effect on the army's performance on the battlefield.

    Once again, good in theory. And how exactly do you tell who is the enemy, when one moment, they pop a few rounds, the next, they are "running in terror" from the big bad US troops. Thats the problem. If we could notably distinguish the enemy from the civilians, there would be no problem. Iraq and Afghanistan would have been won, and everything would be as close to being back to normal in that region as possible. But, we can't tell who is the bad guy and who isn't.
    It's not a theory. It's been proven to work thousands of times over the centuries, or at least since firearms were introduced into warfare. An unconventional enemy isn't, as you say, "impossible", to defeat. Historically, unconventional forces have proved that they can't sustain effective offensive operations, without the support and combined efforts of a conventional force. Unconventional forces/assymetrical forces are only economy of force. That's it. They do have the advantage of blending in with the local population, because they don not wear distinctive uniform items. However, at some point, for them to be effective, they must come out in the open, with their personal weapons and engage friendly forces. They have to move from one place to another, carrying their weapons. scout/sniper teams are primary employment to deploy on this type of battlefield. It's not hard to spot the enemy. He's the one with the rifle. And, yes, it will be more time consuming than a conventional war might be, but it's not impossible to defeat an enemy of this kind. We've already done it once, to a better trained, more motivated and better supplied enemy.

    That's why you imploy tactics and SOP's that take away the effectiveness of the enemy's tactics. It's called, "adapting to the environment", and American soldiers do it better than any soldier in the world.

    Don't be fooled by the spin you've been taught. Guerilla fighters have to practice the same principles that any other infantryman does. They have to initiate and break contact just like any other infantry unit and the lack of uniforms isn't going to give them any kind of advantage.

    Weapons have to smuggled in large enough numbers to do some good. Carrying one weapon through at a time isn't going to have any kind of positive effect on the enemy's war effort.

    Did you notice that you said that in the past tense?

    You're wrong. You don't have to kill everyone in the country to take aways a unit's will to fight. If that were the case, there would be several million armed fighters in Afghanistan than just a few thousand. I think you're under the impression that everyone in the country is a part of the Taliban, which is far from the truth.
    You know what, I don't really need to reply to each part of your post individually, because one thing really covers it all: this isn't a ground war in the conventional sense.

    The frontlines are so blurred, neither side can find them, and neither side can define them. We cannot operate against a counter-insurgency like we would a standing army, and thats pretty much what you are saying we should do. 5 elements of combat, paralyze combat units, etc.

    The last time we faced anything like what we face in Afghanistan is Iraq, and as you can probably tell, pretty much all we can do is send as many men into the area as possible. All we can really do is dissuade them from fighting us there, and maybe persuade them to fight in more favorable terms. What those are, don't ask me.

    And unless you misread/ignored a lot of what I've been saying, the exact problem is that everyone isn't a terrorist in Afghanistan.
    Last edited by repeter; 07-18-09 at 08:36 PM.
    Veni. Vidi. Vici.
    -Gaius Julius Caesar
    The Only Thing to Fear is Fear Itself.
    -Franklin Delano Roosevelt

  7. #197
    Guru
    repeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    07-15-14 @ 12:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,445

    Re: Counter-Insurgency

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    The military and CIA are so stupid - they keep on coming up with these flawed plans based on their own "experience" when they could be getting the really good ideas from our own resident experts.

    You should send them a letter.
    Thank you for donating another helping of crap to the forum.
    Veni. Vidi. Vici.
    -Gaius Julius Caesar
    The Only Thing to Fear is Fear Itself.
    -Franklin Delano Roosevelt

  8. #198
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Counter-Insurgency

    Quote Originally Posted by repeter View Post
    You know what, I don't really need to reply to each part of your post individually, because one thing really covers it all: this isn't a ground war.
    Sure it is.

    The frontlines are so blurred, neither side can find them, and neither side can define them.
    Just because there are no "front lines" doesn't mean there aren't well-defined boundaries.

    We cannot operate against a counter-insurgency like we would a standing army, and thats pretty much what you are saying we should do. 5 elements of combat, paralyze combat units, etc.
    That's not what he's saying. Our military has altered and refined its SOPs since day one of Afghanistan/Iraq. We have the most effective counter-insurgency forces on the planet, and they will only continue to get better.

    The last time we faced anything like what we face in Afghanistan is Iraq, and as you can probably tell, pretty much all we can do is send as many men into the area as possible. All we can really do is dissuade them from fighting us there, and maybe persuade them to fight in more favorable terms. What those are, don't ask me.
    Why would we ask you anything? You have no experience whatsoever.

  9. #199
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Counter-Insurgency

    Quote Originally Posted by repeter View Post
    Thank you for donating another helping of crap to the forum.
    It just seriously blows my mind that you're arguing that the CIA and military have no idea what they're doing and should listen to you instead. It's like me trying to tell a radiologist what he's looking at on the film.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  10. #200
    Advisor Tubub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    05-22-13 @ 03:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    521

    Re: Counter-Insurgency

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Again, you're talking about a different operation.
    Then what operation are you talking about? I'm talking about every single operation that should take place in the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan, which would concern the operation this thread is about. So what other operation are you talking about?

    Post something to prove your point.
    I posted several things. You failed to address them.




    Snipers are combat multipliers.
    Irrelevant.



    Prove it.
    Read sometime.

    Najaf Safe Haven
    Tal Afar Safe Haven
    Fallujah Safe Haven
    Casey makes attacking Safe Havens policy
    End of Safe Havens

    "In the wake of the personnale changes, U.S. policy also began to shift. Most notably, the summer of 2004 saw the beginning of fundamental changes in U.S. military presence and posture. On August 5, 2004, Casey issued a campaign plan, a classified document of about twenty-five pages, plus a series of appendices detailing aspects of the campaign. Remarkably, this was the first time the U.S. effort in Iraq had a road map for attacking the insurgency.("We did not have a campaign plan the whole time Sanchez was out there," recalled a senior military intelligence officer..."(Fiasco 392)

    It's not genocide to kill the enemy. That's totally naive.
    Your expanding the parameters of who is and who isn't the enemy to encompass way too wide of a scope. Polls conducted in 2004 found numbers like 72% or 84% of Sunnis oppose the American presence and some 36% find attacks acceptable. This was an effect of the CPA's alienation of the Sunni community... So your answer is to label them as combatants and say they are legitimate targets? Nice try... you are the unbelievably naive one.

    Source1
    Source2

    The Sunnis who are actively engaged in combat operations, are legitimate targets, yes. When defining combat operations, that includes logistical support.
    Its genocide when virtually an entire religious sect opposed the occupation and you respond by labeling them all combatants. But no, its very black and white, right? Civilians and combatants are clearly marked. Your naivete is being exuded at its highest.



    Yes, and vitory is achieved by engaging the enemy in close quarter combat and destroying his ability to fight.
    What are you even talking about? Victory in what? Close quarter combat?... What? Victory is achieved in a number of ways... but it also depends on what degree or what objective you are victorious in... your statement here makes little sense.

    You can spin it however you want, but in ANY combat situation, destroying the enemy's combat power is priority #1.
    You completely disacknowledged what I said and just went back to "killing people wins wars". When its an insurgency, killing people can lose your war just as much as win it. You don't understand counterinsurgency at all.

    Let me help you:Introduction to Insurgencies and how to defeat them

    The second strategic approach, and one that proved most successful at achieving long-term stability, sought to resolve the conflict in all its dimensions. In this approach, counterinsurgency was not primarily about defeat of an armed enemy; rather, its main objective centered on establishing lasting stability in a state or region. Not only were the actions of the insurgents suppressed, long-term solutions to both the symptoms, and, more important, the causes of the insurgency comprised essential elements
    Using Vietnam as an example of a tactical failure is erroneous on your part. US forces defeated the enemy on the battlefield in Vietnam.
    But tactical victory did not give way to strategic advances. Without a coersive strategy, MACV simply sought to rack up body counts. Tactical victories can also be counterproductive to strategic success, especially when using overly-agressive tactics that make civilians more likely to become insurgents. Such was true, without a strategy and with many units that failed to understand counterinsurgency and endorsed overly agressive tactics, in the first 20 months of the Iraq war.


    PS: There is a point of ignorance that is reasonable when defending a point. Try not to cross that line.
    “Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checked by failure...than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat.”
    -TR

Page 20 of 29 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •