Page 12 of 16 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 156

Thread: US Marine and Afghan forces lose many due to lack of support...

  1. #111
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,356

    Re: US Marine and Afghan forces lose many due to lack of support...

    Quote Originally Posted by 1069 View Post
    Well, if Americans aren't willing to risk their lives, we can always leave.
    I'd be totally down with that. Then the risk would be reduced to nil.
    As long as we're in their country, though, it is incumbent upon us to treat them humanely, regardless of the risk.
    If we're going to fight the war in such a half ass manner, with tactics cost more lives than neccessary, then leaving is exactly what we should do.

    I seriously take issue with the use of such tactics. I guess it's because I can see things from a soldier's perspective. It's real easy to say all that when you're not the one doing the dieing.
    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.

  2. #112
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    10-26-10 @ 06:34 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,978

    Re: US Marine and Afghan forces lose many due to lack of support...

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    If we're going to fight the war in such a half ass manner, with tactics cost more lives than neccessary, then leaving is exactly what we should do.

    I seriously take issue with the use of such tactics. I guess it's because I can see things from a soldier's perspective. It's real easy to say all that when you're not the one doing the dieing.
    No, it's not "real easy".
    There's not a mother in this world who wouldn't prefer to stand between her child and danger, rather than the other way around.
    You're obviously not a parent if you think so.
    I'm growing weary of your suggestions that it's "real easy".

    Regardless, I'm not sending my son halfway around the world to treat the inhabitants of other countries inhumanely when they pose no direct threat to us. Not with my blessing.
    He's a United States soldier, not a killing machine.
    There is honor in being a soldier, but no honor in dehumanizing or indiscriminately killing innocent people or even not-so-innocent people on their own soil. If he took part in such a thing, he wouldn't come back the same person, anyway.
    Last edited by 1069; 09-19-09 at 04:42 PM.

  3. #113
    Sage
    First Thought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    DFW, Texas
    Last Seen
    12-01-10 @ 03:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    6,218

    Re: US Marine and Afghan forces lose many due to lack of support...

    Quote Originally Posted by theangryamerican View Post
    God help us when an enemy nation decides to put together an army composed soley of women and children...
    Their army is not composed solely of women and children.
    "An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it." - Gandhi

  4. #114
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,356

    Re: US Marine and Afghan forces lose many due to lack of support...

    Quote Originally Posted by 1069 View Post
    No, it's not "real easy".
    There's not a mother in this world who wouldn't prefer to stand between her child and danger, rather than the other way around.
    You're obviously not a parent if you think so.
    I'm growing weary of your suggestions that it's "real easy".
    Well, the difference between me and most of the mothers in ths country, is that I have stood between their sons and danger, so I can speak with an authority on the subject that you can't. And, yes, if you're not the one whose life is on the line, it's real easy to say all that crap.

    Regardless, I'm not sending my son halfway around the world to treat the inhabitants of other countries inhumanely when they pose no direct threat to us. Not with my blessing.
    He's a United States soldier, not a killing machine.
    There is honor in being a soldier, but no honor in dehumanizing or indiscriminately killing innocent people or even not-so-innocent people on their own soil. If he took part in such a thing, he wouldn't come back the same person, anyway.
    You're totally misinterpreting what everyone has been trying to tell you. No one is saying we should be purposefully mistreating non-combatants. All anyone has been saying, is that we shouldn't purposefully sacrifice American lives in the name of winning hearts and minds. That is dishonorable. Any soldier, or leader, who puts his politics, or his career ahead of the lives of his men, has no honor.

    BTW, your kid isn't coming home the same person, either way. You might as well go ahead and come to terms with that reality.
    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. #115
    Advisor Tubub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    05-22-13 @ 03:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    521

    Re: US Marine and Afghan forces lose many due to lack of support...

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    I know all this. I was there when all this was happening.

    Essentially, the insurgents would rather get paid than be killed. Such an incentive would not exist in the absence of our aptly demonstrated military superiority. The insurgents capitulated because they were smart enough to realize that money is better than bullets.

    Moreover, this misses another point I was trying to make e.g., collateral damage is not as detrimental to our strategic objectives as everyone would like to think. If it was those insurgents wouldn't have bargained with us, period.

    And since we know collateral damage does not preclude the completion of strategic objectives, considerations of such should not jeopardize the safety of our troops.



    Yea, what would I know about it…
    Your entire argument is advocating shock and awe tactics, which have been proven to fail when used against insurgencies. I won't try to say that I've been to Iraq or Afghanistan, because I haven't, but I know enough to know that it wasn't force that turned the tide in Iraq but a change in strategic objective and tactics that was people-centric instead of focusing on the transitioning of forces... As well as an end to the shock and awe tactics that once reigned in policy early in the war.

    The kind of big-unit war your wishing Afghanistan was doesn't exist, though the thinking is reminiscent of Vietnam.... But, since I'm sick of the ****ing Vietnam shadow, I'll compare it to the Philippinnes instead. American soldiers in the Philipinnes didn't know how to fight a counter-insurgency campaign, and, as a result, they were harsh and brutal in their search for the enemy. Of course, the effect was negative because such actions turn the people against you. The reason the United States won the war was because they shifted their tactics and policy from focusing on killing the enemy and empowering the Philipinnes government to pacifying the countryside and winning hearts and minds... The people are the pool that the insurgency swims in. They recruit, arm, rest, and live with the people. Without the people's consent, the insurgency dies. That's something General Westmoreland didn't understand but General Abrams did and it is why we almost won in Vietnam.(Now, that's not to say Westy was a terrible general or that attritional warfare is not part of a counter-insurgency campaign... but it is to say that fighting a counter-insurgency campaign through purely attritional means will take years and much more blood and sweat than the mission requires. Killing the enemy is part of winning the war, but it is not the only part.)

    Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife

    Counter-Insurgency Field Manual
    Last edited by Tubub; 09-19-09 at 08:36 PM.
    “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

  6. #116
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,356

    Re: US Marine and Afghan forces lose many due to lack of support...

    Quote Originally Posted by Tubub View Post
    Your entire argument is advocating shock and awe tactics, which have been proven to fail when used against insurgencies. I won't try to say that I've been to Iraq or Afghanistan, because I haven't, but I know enough to know that it wasn't force that turned the tide in Iraq but a change in strategic objective and tactics that was people-centric instead of focusing on the transitioning of forces... As well as an end to the shock and awe tactics that once reigned in policy early in the war.

    The kind of big-unit war your wishing Afghanistan was doesn't exist, though the thinking is reminiscent of Vietnam.... But, since I'm sick of the ****ing Vietnam shadow, I'll compare it to the Philippinnes instead. American soldiers in the Philipinnes didn't know how to fight a counter-insurgency campaign, and, as a result, they were harsh and brutal in their search for the enemy. Of course, the effect was negative because such actions turn the people against you. The reason the United States won the war was because they shifted their tactics and policy from focusing on killing the enemy and empowering the Philipinnes government to pacifying the countryside and winning hearts and minds... The people are the pool that the insurgency swims in. They recruit, arm, rest, and live with the people. Without the people's consent, the insurgency dies. That's something General Westmoreland didn't understand but General Abrams did and it is why we almost won in Vietnam.(Now, that's not to say Westy was a terrible general or that attritional warfare is not part of a counter-insurgency campaign... but it is to say that fighting a counter-insurgency campaign through purely attritional means will take years and much more blood and sweat than the mission requires. Killing the enemy is part of winning the war, but it is not the only part.)

    Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife

    Counter-Insurgency Field Manual
    We were successful in the Phillipines. Interesting that you would use that as an example of how not to fight an insurgency.

    Just a little piece of advice: 90% of a war, is destroying the enemy's ability to wage war. Killing the enemy is a huge part of winning a war.
    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. #117
    Advisor Tubub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    05-22-13 @ 03:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    521

    Re: US Marine and Afghan forces lose many due to lack of support...

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    We were successful in the Phillipines. Interesting that you would use that as an example of how not to fight an insurgency.

    Just a little piece of advice: 90% of a war, is destroying the enemy's ability to wage war. Killing the enemy is a huge part of winning a war.
    We were successful in the Philippinnes only after we shifted our tactics. You should go back and read what I actually said.

    Here's other advice: 100% of the objective of war is destroying your enemy's capability to wage war. If all your doing is racking body counts while neglecting all other factors, including considerations for the indigenous people, then your gonna get a lot more of your enemy. Unless your considering genocide, your enemy will continue to grow while support for you will continue to diminish.

    This isn't WWII in North Africa where the indigenous people had no side and local politics meant nothing to the foreigners warring on their land... this is an insurgency: The Enemy was breed out of the people and the political situation in the country. Instead of constructing robo-cops to go out and quell the violence, maybe you should consider the factors that have led to the insurgency's existence in the first place and take actions to ensure that people won't be led to entering or supporting the insurgency.
    Last edited by Tubub; 09-20-09 at 12:47 AM.
    “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

  8. #118
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,513

    Re: US Marine and Afghan forces lose many due to lack of support...

    Quote Originally Posted by 1069 View Post
    What's the truth? That if we accept high levels of collateral damage and kill a lot of innocent civilians, our troops will be safer?
    Nobody's "blind" to that fact. We know it's true.
    We just aren't going to do it anymore.
    And that is to bad. It will make our enemy's bolder and weaken the moral of our troops.

    Now all our enemy's have to do is hide behind civilians. Sound familiar?

    Obama is a no knowledge no service politician trying to run a militarily war. This will end in failure.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  9. #119
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,005

    Re: US Marine and Afghan forces lose many due to lack of support...

    Quote Originally Posted by Tubub View Post
    Your entire argument is advocating shock and awe tactics, which have been proven to fail when used against insurgencies.
    That is not what he advocated at all. "Shock and Awe" was Rumsfeld bull**** meant to prove that the "soldier" was now obsolete and that our wars are to be won through sheer techonology. The idea was that our enemy would come running towards the barest minimum of troops with their hands in the air as they did in the Gulf War (The Drive-by War to some of us). But the Gulf War was a war gamer's dream. It was fought in the open desert far form civilian populations and void of urban settings. Rumsfeld's jack-assery set the military up for a fight thsat was harder than it should have been.

    "Shock and Awe" was garbage and this is not what is being advocated by anyone in regards to defeating today's insurgencies.



    Quote Originally Posted by Tubub View Post
    I won't try to say that I've been to Iraq or Afghanistan, because I haven't, but I know enough to know that it wasn't force that turned the tide in Iraq but a change in strategic objective and tactics that was people-centric instead of focusing on the transitioning of forces... As well as an end to the shock and awe tactics that once reigned in policy early in the war.

    The kind of big-unit war your wishing Afghanistan was doesn't exist, though the thinking is reminiscent of Vietnam.... But, since I'm sick of the ****ing Vietnam shadow, I'll compare it to the Philippinnes instead. American soldiers in the Philipinnes didn't know how to fight a counter-insurgency campaign, and, as a result, they were harsh and brutal in their search for the enemy. Of course, the effect was negative because such actions turn the people against you. The reason the United States won the war was because they shifted their tactics and policy from focusing on killing the enemy and empowering the Philipinnes government to pacifying the countryside and winning hearts and minds... The people are the pool that the insurgency swims in. They recruit, arm, rest, and live with the people. Without the people's consent, the insurgency dies. That's something General Westmoreland didn't understand but General Abrams did and it is why we almost won in Vietnam.(Now, that's not to say Westy was a terrible general or that attritional warfare is not part of a counter-insurgency campaign... but it is to say that fighting a counter-insurgency campaign through purely attritional means will take years and much more blood and sweat than the mission requires. Killing the enemy is part of winning the war, but it is not the only part.)

    Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife

    Counter-Insurgency Field Manual
    Oh, c'mon. I have no idea where you are basing your opinions, but this makes absolutely no sense. And by the way, the new manual on "counterinsurgency," known as MWCP 3-33.5 to the Marine Corps, misses the mark as well. Your opinions do not reflect on what history has taught us. Nor do they reflect accuracy in regards to what we face today.

    The manual states (and yes, i have an official copy right in front of me ordered through the military PUBS system) that "killing insurgents-while necessary, especially with regard to extremnists-by itself cannot defeat an insurgency." This is wrong. Over the past 3,000 years, insurgencies overwhelmingly have been put down thoroughly by killing insurgents. In our own American history, insurrections and insurgencies have been defeated only with military force - Whiskey Rebellion, a long succession of Indian Wars, our Civil War, the Boxer Rebelion, the Moro insurrection, "banana wars," etc. If you truly know this history, you would state that these solutions didn't last forever. But the truth is that they consistently proved more sturdy than negotiating treaties, which is what our politicians look to do today over some ignorant sense that insurgencies are more powerful than anything our military could ever go up against.

    Another error in this manual states that "insurgencies and counterinsurgencies have been common throughout history, but especially since the beginning of the 20th century." Hmmm. The Roman legions serving from Britian to Gaul, on to Asia minor and Palestine, and back to northern Africa? The age of ideology across Europe? Latin American was ravaged through a never ending of succession of insurrections for centuries. The revolution of Mexico in 1910? Thousands of years of insurgencies in China? Multiple revolutions and insurgencies of 1848 in Europe? Balkan insurgencies against Turkish rule? Tribal insurgencies in Africa? Multiple uprisings against British rule on the Northwestern Frontier? the Mahdist revolt? Boer uprisings? They literally go on forever, yet the 20th century saw an escallation? The writers of this manual should have studied a bit more. All the insurgencies above were put to rest through military action by the way. The common thread running through the above FEW examples is that those confronted by adequate and committed military forces failed while those that faced a irresolute foriegn rulers or weak domestic governments often succeeded. To be effective against an insurgency, history has shown us that a military must be bold and used with resolve. No other model has a history of consistent success. No politicial handshakes. No compromises. And certinaly no negotiations. This is the accurate history of our world and of insurgencies. Not a quick look see into a few Western events, which drew inaccurate conslusions (as if our military is only supposed to learn from the designed models that fit comfortably with the "hearts and minds" politically correct garbage of the later 20th century).

    But probably the biggest sin of this new manual is that it barely mentions religion as a factor in today's world of insurgencies. And because of this it misses the mark on what our troops are having to face. The insurgfencies of the 21st century reflect the anchient rules of war where God's decided when it was time to end the bloodshed. The manual suggests that there is a rational equation to defeating insurgencies. But when it purposefully omits religion out of some politically correct idea of "winning hearts and minds" it merely misguides those that face God at the end of an AK-47 or an IED blast.

    You are making the same mistake our politicians and the architects of this new manual are making. This insurgency in Afghanistan that contains "God" as an A-Gunner does not reflect the insurgencies of Vietnam or any other example the new manual focuses on. Or do you think that convincing some Vietnamese that you are the good guys is the same thing as trying to convince tribal nomadic clans that their idea of God is wrong? Religion, within a failed civilization, raises the stakes. But political correctness has us running as far and as hard away from understanding our enemy as possible doesn't it?
    Last edited by MSgt; 09-20-09 at 03:10 AM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  10. #120
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,513

    Re: US Marine and Afghan forces lose many due to lack of support...

    You are making the same mistake our politicians and the architects of this new manual are making. This insurgency in Afghanistan that contains "God" as an A-Gunner does not reflect the insurgencies of Vietnam or any other example the new manual focuses on. Or do you think that convincing some Vietnamese that you are the good guys is the same thing as trying to convince tribal nomadic clans that their idea of God is wrong? Religion, within a failed civilization, raises the stakes. But political correctness has us running as far and as hard away from understanding our enemy as possible doesn't it?

    Repeated for speaking the truth.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

Page 12 of 16 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... 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
  •