• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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.

But the British were superior to the Afghans when they ruled Afghanistan. Why didn't it work then? If the French really wanted to, they could have brought in sufficent troops and equipment to aptly demonstrate military superiority.

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.

Okay, so what level of detriment do you think that collateral damage has?

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.

Strategic? Or do you mean tactical? I'd agree on tactical, but not on strategic. Especially if you are considering COIN in terms of economic development. Killing lots of civilians to the point where they will not work with Americans in economic development does not achieve strategic goals.
 
Interesting you think that after I explicitly stated the problem of water and fish to apsdt. I take it you did not understand the analogy?

Your analogy is flawed. You took different wars, involving different armies, during different time periods. The British didn't lose in Afghanistan because they didn't, "win the hearts and minds", of the Afghans. They lost, because their Napoleonic tactics and command structure didn't allow them the flexibility to conform to an assymetrical war. The same thing is purdy much true for the French, except the the French have lost every war they're ever been in, so that one's up in the air.

The whole, "hearts and minds", idea has really, really been beaten to death.
 
Your analogy is flawed.

You think so because you don't understand it.

Do you realize that that fish water concept was used by General P's think tank?

Do you even know what the fish and what the water represent?

The whole, "hearts and minds", idea has really, really been beaten to death.

it's not actually about hearts and minds. It's about mere tolerance. Do we give a **** if they like us? No. We give a **** about their tolerance. We don't care if you like us or not, only if you are willing to work with us.
 
You think so because you don't understand it.

Do you realize that that fish water concept was used by General P's think tank?

Do you even know what the fish and what the water represent?

Well, by all means, explain it to me and please, use historical examples to support your point.



it's not actually about hearts and minds. It's about mere tolerance. Do we give a **** if they like us? No. We give a **** about their tolerance. We don't care if you like us or not, only if you are willing to work with us.

Well, if they're less tolerant of use than they are the Talliban, then there's something seriously wong with them.
 
But the British were superior to the Afghans when they ruled Afghanistan. Why didn't it work then? If the French really wanted to, they could have brought in sufficent troops and equipment to aptly demonstrate military superiority.

Sound CI tactics are inherent to military superiority; the British and French obviously lacked them; not to mention the technological disparity.

Okay, so what level of detriment do you think that collateral damage has?

I couldn't say for sure, but a policy of minimized collateral damage is always best.

Strategic? Or do you mean tactical? I'd agree on tactical, but not on strategic. Especially if you are considering COIN in terms of economic development. Killing lots of civilians to the point where they will not work with Americans in economic development does not achieve strategic goals.

No, I meant strategic. How many civilians would have to die before the Iraqis would refuse to negotiate? Apparently, it's more than 100,000 [1].

Now, I'm not saying collateral damage shouldn't be avoided whenever possible. It obviously has a detrimental effect on strategic objectives, but I don't think it's so detrimental that our troops must be further endangered because of it.

[1] - Iraq Body Count
 
Sound CI tactics are inherent to military superiority; the British and French obviously lacked them; not to mention the technological disparity.

That's exactly right. The British and French armies, in those time periods, weren't fluid enough to adapt to a new battlefield. It's the same reason that the militarily superior British Army lost the Revolutionary War: they failed to adapt.
 
If you've never served, just keep your tactical and strategic advice to yourself.

Somewhere in a dark room with his eyes closed and his hands over his ears is Rumsfeld.
 
What most people don't understand is that the winning of hearts and minds in Iraq and Afghanistan mostly consists of being the biggest, baddest mother on the block; killing the enemy in every engagement; demonstrating our ability to close with and destroy anyone who opposes us. It's kind of hard to do this when you have little armchair generals telling us how to conduct tactical operations because of some imagined strategy.

Collateral damage doesn’t do as much to undercut the “winning of hearts and minds” as most people would like to think; especially when the collateral damage is the result of a legitimate engagement. Iraq is a perfect example of this, as they (the Iraqis) have suffered innumerable casualties as the result of collateral damage, yet we were still able to win them over. Why is that? Because they are smart enough to realize two things:

1. The Americans are bad mothers. We do not want to fight them.

My question would be, how does one go about intimidating people whose lives are so bereft of security and comfort that they are generally willing to sacrifice their lives- in a very literal way- by blowing themselves up on a routine basis in order to take some of their adversaries with them?
These people- the tribal people of Afghanistan- are some of the poorest people in the world, with the lowest quality of life. I don't have to be there and meet them first hand to know this; I'm well-read, and it's common knowledge. I've heard it from a number of reputable sources and organizations, such as WHO.
It's true, their culture and their religion have a lot to do with it.
But do you really think a culture and religion like that would continue to thrive among a people who had any personal stake in living this life?
These people don't have enough food or potable water. When they get sick, there isn't any medical care; they either die or just stay sick. They can't reasonably expect any of their children to survive to adulthood; if one does, it's an unexpected blessing. There is nothing of beauty or comfort in their lives. There is nothing to make them think they might be worthwhile- as individuals- to anyone. Their lives have meaning only when they are a cog in a machine; the only opportunity they have to give any meaning to the fact that they lived, were here for awhile, and died is to be part of this struggle against foreign invaders making their bleak lives even worse than they were previously, if that's even possible.

I'm not trying to get on a soapbox and make everyone feel sorry for these people, but seriously: how are you going to scare or intimidate, with military might or through "being a badass", people who have no real reason to live and who aren't attached in any meaningful way to this life?

I mean, I suppose you could threaten to torture their loved ones to death; but even that doesn't really seem to faze them. Remember the story someone posted awhile back about the Iraqi police officer whose small son was kidnapped by insurgents and allegedly tortured for years.
"Better my son be a martyr," the policeman was quoted by the article as saying, "than that we give in to their demands."

Really. These people have lived all their lives- all their history- in a way that's inconceivable to us as Westerners.
It's foolhardy to believe we can scare them.
It's pretty hard to scare people who don't eat enough, and haven't gotten enough to eat for their entire lives. Their emotions and senses are kind of dulled; they view everything through a sort of numb haze. They can't be expected to respond as healthy, alert people would; I'm sure this fact is taken as further evidence by some that they aren't really human and don't need to be treated as such.
 
I'm sure this fact is taken as further evidence by some that they aren't really human and don't need to be treated as such.

Thety should by all means be treated as humanely. However, American lives should never be made the price of that humane treatment.
 
Thety should by all means be treated as humanely. However, American lives should never be made the price of that humane treatment.

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.
 
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.
 
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:
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.
 
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…:roll:

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:
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.
 
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:
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.
 
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.



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:
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.
 
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.

You're reading comments that haven't been made. No one has said anything about ignoring the needs of the indigenous personel of Afghanistan. This whole thread has nothing to do with targetting, or otherwise intentionall endangering civilians. The only point that anyone on my side of the debate has suggested, is that we can't place civilians lives ahead of American soldiers's lives. If an American unit is taking fire from a village, then we need to return fire, period. If a few civilians get wasted in the process, well then that's just the nature of war. If the civilians aren't smart enough to see that they wouldn't dieing if the enemy wasn't using them for cover, then there's not much we're going to do to help them.
 
This whole thread has nothing to do with targetting, or otherwise intentionall endangering civilians.

It has been suggested that our troops protect themselves by disregarding or otherwise being cavalier about the safety of Afghani civilians.
I find that no more acceptable than if they were working here domestically and considered some level of civilian casualties sort of par for the course.

Civilians are civilians; they're innocent. They're people. They're just as worthwhile as you, me, or a United States soldier.

Protecting them from harm should be a higher priority than killing a bad guy.
 
It has been suggested that our troops protect themselves by disregarding or otherwise being cavalier about the safety of Afghani civilians.

True, however that's a far cry from firing upon civilians when there's no need to do so.


Protecting them from harm should be a higher priority than killing a bad guy.

Sometimes, yeah. Other times, that can't be the case.

Our soldiers are innocent, too and their welfare should take priority over anyone and come second only to mission accomplishment.
 
Our soldiers are innocent, too ...

Our soldiers are toting lethal weapons- which they have been fully trained to use- into somebody else's country; one of their objectives there is to kill bad guys.

Our soldiers may well be honorable. But no, they are not 'innocent'.
Not like a 5-year-old civilian is "innocent".
They signed up for this risk, unlike Afghani civilians, who have no choice and no possibility of removing themselves (or their children or elderly) from the danger.
 
Last edited:
Civilians are civilians; they're innocent. They're people. They're just as worthwhile as you, me, or a United States soldier.

Protecting them from harm should be a higher priority than killing a bad guy.

Dammit! C'mon. You are not looking at this correctly at all. Wrong. Absolutely wrong. And a bit twisted. This is an attitude based on theory and in the moment. In the end, the theories of those who thought they could define war from a classroom were proven wrong time and again. Rumsferld was a theorist. So was Clinton. So was Mcnamara. So is or media and elitist professors who are confined to chalkboards and text books.

A military man's job and duty is to kill the enemy and survive to continue killing. Your American military has defied this basic and generic definition. Your American military has painstakingly moved mountains to avoid killing innocent civilians. It places individuals "behind enemy lines" to paint target for precision air strikes to not only ensure accuracy for the kill, but to avoid mass civilian casualties from simple barrages. It seeks greater precision in technology to, which involves thousands of hours of training all for that little civilian that either protects our enemy or simply ahppens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The American war machine stands apart from almost every military example in history in this respect. Instead of the Hiroshimas and the Dresdens of World War II that ensured unconditional victory, we see our troops facing almost certain death repeatedly just to avoid the stigma of killing civilians. (The irony here is that in regards to humanity, the devistating attacks of old did far more to safe guard civilians thereafter. Today, we merely string out the slaughter with the notion that this is better.)

But when our military is in a situation where they can kill bad guys that are at the moment striking at them, then they have a duty to survive. This means calling in arty or an airstrike. It means sending in a rocket where a civilians may be protecting the enemy or being used as a shield. Precision is still employed. Even our artillery has grown into a fine art. But civilians will die in war even when Americans are pulling the triggers.

And as far as protecting them....the Dresdens and Hiroshimas brought longer lasting peace for civilians than the Fallujahs. In the medias quest to shed crocodile tears over civilians in a war and the average citizen who can't fathom what war is (but quick to send in the troops to exact his revenge), they have made the slaughter last. Iraq was inhumane because the politicians thought that people would complain about how inhumane "martial law" is. Fallujah I was called off literally neighborhoods from victory because politicians wanted the pressure fropm the media and the average citizen to go away. Al-Sadr's position in a Mosque in Najaaf was left untouched because politicians were watching the drama unfold in front of news cameras...and so were their voters. But here is the problem. The leftist and the rest of the international dimwits got what they wanted. From their ignorance of what war is and their quest to be the criticizer of military efforts was born years of civil unrest, Fallujah II, and Al-Sadr's militias. What was more inhumane? The military's wisdom to conduct wars correctly or the civilian's theory on how war should be conducted in accordance to classroom academics?

Your ideas of what war is and how it should be conducted defies reality.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom