Page 25 of 29 FirstFirst ... 152324252627 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 250 of 290

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

  1. #241
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Counter-Insurgency

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Sure, "Granny", Meade showed up with his thumb in his ass, but some of his division and brigade commaders took the initiative and denied the Confederates the advantage of terrain. Buford's action on the first day is still used as the textbook example of the cavalry's mission.
    Yes.
    Point being, and as you illustrate, there are any number of situations where sitting tight and letting the enemy come to you is the prudent thing to do.

  2. #242
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,580

    Re: Counter-Insurgency

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Yes.
    Point being, and as you illustrate, there are any number of situations where sitting tight and letting the enemy come to you is the prudent thing to do.
    In an ambush, or an entrapment style plan, yeah. The Army of The Potomac wasn't fighting from a static position, nor were they laying an ambush, but that's neither here, nor there. Holing up in a static base, with zero control over what goes on outside the base is the worst idea possible. A unit must remain fluid and control of the terrain, in order to exploit tactical misteps made by the enemy.
    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. #243
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Counter-Insurgency

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    In an ambush, or an entrapment style plan, yeah.
    Not even just then. Depending on the technology and the terrain, it may very well be that the tactical defensive is a generally better choice than the tactical offensive.


    Holing up in a static base, with zero control over what goes on outside the base is the worst idea possible. A unit must remain fluid and control of the terrain, in order to exploit tactical misteps made by the enemy.
    Two concepts here:

    -Strategic/operational offense and tactical defense are not mutually exclusive. Strategically or operationally putting your force someplace the enemy cannot afford to let you stay forces him to attack you. If, tactically, you're better off on the defense, this is a better option that a simple offensie action where you seek out an emplaced enemy.

    -Counter attacks and/or exploting 'exploit tactical misteps made by the enemy' are a natural part of the tactical defensive. Being on the tactical defensive necessitates, rather than precludes, their use.
    Last edited by Goobieman; 07-20-09 at 05:25 PM.

  4. #244
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: Counter-Insurgency

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Yes.
    Point being, and as you illustrate, there are any number of situations where sitting tight and letting the enemy come to you is the prudent thing to do.
    Attempting to apply this to terrorist is beyond naive; it will lead to more innocent lives lost.

    They only have to be successful ONE time while we would have to be right 100% of the time. Do you know any REAL situation where one is right 100% of the time?

    Your Gettysburg example is comparing an orange to an apple. The North knew the enemy was coming, knew where they were heading and therefore could plan a defensive network to counter their attack.

    HUGE difference comparing a massive army invading and a few bold murderous terrorists who think nothing of blowing themselves up to kill as many of our people as they can.

    Reading stuff like this makes it unfortunately painfully obvious that Americans have learned NOTHING from the events of 9-11 and have been quick to forget them.

    As Bush indicated before we went into Iraq and Afghanistan, the best tactic would be to support and assist countries in establishing secular Democracies that respect life and their neighbors. Prosperity is the best way to battle terrorism combined with persistence and perseverance by all nations interested in the respect and dignity of human kind to stamp out this religion of ignorance; that of a false belief that it is okay to murder others because they choose not to agree with your beliefs.

    Unfortunately and because Osama was correct about the lack of American/Western will, we have lost sight of this FACT and perhaps will once again abandon our allies and friends in their time of desperate need for the false Liberal belief that hunkering down is a better strategy than actively being engaged with our allies and enemies. The lessons of WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam and 9-11 are all but forgotten and collective memory of the nation is once more illustrative of lemmings than it is reasoned and logical.

  5. #245
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Counter-Insurgency

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    Attempting to apply this to terrorist is beyond naive; it will lead to more innocent lives lost.
    I was not suggesting we should. I was simply responding to the implication that "'hunkering down' and waiting for the enemy to come to you" is never a good idea.

  6. #246
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,580

    Re: Counter-Insurgency

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Not even just then. Depending on the technology and the terrain, it may very well be that the tactical defensive is a generally better choice than the tactical offensive.

    Two concepts here:

    -Strategic/operational offense and tactical defense are not mutually exclusive. Strategically or operationally putting your force someplace the enemy cannot afford to let you stay forces him to attack you. If, tactically, you're better off on the defense, this is a better option that a simple offensie action where you seek out an emplaced enemy.

    -Counter attacks and/or exploting 'exploit tactical misteps made by the enemy' are a natural part of the tactical defensive. Being on the tactical defensive necessitates, rather than precludes, their use.

    Obviously, it's MET-T, but you can't dispose of your unit's ability to shoot and move so as to take the initiative, when the oppurtunity presents itself. I understand your point and you're right. However, what Repter is suggesting, is that we confine our forces to a static defense and disregard efforts to interrupt the enemy's flow of logistics and/or his ability to maneuver at will.
    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.

  7. #247
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: Counter-Insurgency

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    I was not suggesting we should. I was simply responding to the implication that "'hunkering down' and waiting for the enemy to come to you" is never a good idea.
    I was responding to your incorrect annalogy in a thread about terrorism and insurgencies. We are usually in pretty close agreement most of the time.

  8. #248
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Counter-Insurgency

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    I was responding to your incorrect annalogy in a thread about terrorism and insurgencies. We are usually in pretty close agreement most of the time.
    I dont think we disagree here...

  9. #249
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Counter-Insurgency

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Obviously, it's MET-T, but you can't dispose of your unit's ability to shoot and move so as to take the initiative, when the oppurtunity presents itself. I understand your point and you're right.


    However, what Repter is suggesting, is that we confine our forces to a static defense and disregard efforts to interrupt the enemy's flow of logistics and/or his ability to maneuver at will.
    Yes.
    As noted before, I was simply taking exception to your implication that you should never hunker down and wait for the enemy to come to you

  10. #250
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,580

    Re: Counter-Insurgency

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Yes.
    As noted before, I was simply taking exception to your implication that you should never hunker down and wait for the enemy to come to you
    I was responding to the notion that as a grand strategy, static defenses do not work.
    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.

Page 25 of 29 FirstFirst ... 152324252627 ... 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
  •