Page 8 of 16 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 156

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

  1. #71
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

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

    This is sad, and hopefully doesn't happen in any similar cases.

    Just because a person does not pick up a weapon for or openly declare to be an enemy combatant, does not mean that they aren't one. The article states that the observed "civilians" were helping the group shooting at our soldiers. That makes them enemy combatants, not civilians.

    Now I do agree that civilian casualties should be kept to a minimum during war. However, that should not mean that we unnecessarily risk our soldiers' lives to keep from killing civilians who are not just in the way, but aiding the enemy. As was stated earlier, losing the support of the people may lose the war, but losing the support of the soldiers (or potential future soldiers) definitely will.

    A couple of other things to keep in mind:
    -Losing a good, experienced soldier because someone is afraid of killing civilians in the hostile area is not an effective way to keep body counts low. Experienced soldiers are likely to save more innocent lives the longer they live and do more killing of people-who-have-no-problem-killing-innocents. Keep in mind, the people that we are fighting have few problems with killing innocent people, whether its because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time or on purpose. The more of this type of people we are able to kill, the fewer innocent lives that are put in jeopardy.
    -Soldiers who feel that their lives are less important than the lives of civilians who happen to be in hostile areas, especially when they know said civilians are aiding the enemy, are not going to be as effective soldiers as they could be. This particular problem would not only affect the morale of the current soldiers, but could also detrimentally impact the recruitment of future soldiers. How many people (and what kind) would really want to join if they thought that their lives were less important than the lives of civilians who are aiding the enemy or even just those civilians who might happen to be in the area where a conflict between us and the insurgents starts.

  2. #72
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon View Post
    Feel free to write to the military and tell them how to do their jobs.

    I am sure they will give your letter all due consideration.

    Iirc, the manual on counter insurgency operations is available online if you desire to understand more. Or if you merely want to talk about how you knw better than they do...
    Four Marines are dead because they couldn't get affective arty fire. Where is that in the CI manual? Please, show me.

  3. #73
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

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

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    By that measure, we should just evac the troops and glass the country.

    Remember that the soldiers are there to do a job. The restrictions are on them to ensure that we aren't doing this job 50 years from now.

    Killing civilians is not the way to get the Afghans to tolerate us.
    Soldiers and Marines need indirect fire support. That is part of warfare. Collateral damage is part of warfare. Stop trying to tell us how to do our jobs.

  4. #74
    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
    Soldiers and Marines need indirect fire support. That is part of warfare. Collateral damage is part of warfare. Stop trying to tell us how to do our jobs.
    Strategy is precedence. A key tenet of NATO strategy is to win the hearts and minds of the people of Afghanistan and convince them that the Afghan government and foreign forces are not the antagonists. Now, if calling in any type of indirect fire is going to serve as a tactical victory in exchange for a strategic blunder, the answer should be simple: Tactical actions should never be inconsistent with strategic objectives.

    The problem I had with the entire thing is that the coordinates they called in were out of the 500 meter safety zone. It wasn't near a village and they supposively made that clear, so what the **** was at stake?
    “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

  5. #75
    Student MikeVFF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    VT
    Last Seen
    01-24-12 @ 05:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    276

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

    You are all missing the point. The Target was not threatening any civilians and still they received no artillery fire.

  6. #76
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,935
    Blog Entries
    5

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    Four Marines are dead because they couldn't get affective arty fire. Where is that in the CI manual? Please, show me.
    If you will take a moment you might realize that I was dressing the general issues raised not the specific incident.
    I may be wrong.

  7. #77
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,301

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Before we jump to too many conclusions, there are some things to note.



    This is the key section of the report. If the enemy knows what you are going to do, you are screwed.

    Secondly, there is no evidence that the commanders chose civilian lives over the lives of troops. All we are told in the article is that helicopters and HE and smoke artillery where unavailable, but that WP was available, and used. We do not know why and there are a number of reasons possible, with logistic troubles probably topping the list.

    This is a tragic story, and to twist it to serve a political purpose is vile.

    Also, please read the BN news rules, your thread title is supposed to match the article headline.
    I'll bet those sympathizers work for ACORN.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  8. #78
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,444

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Tubub View Post
    Strategy is precedence. A key tenet of NATO strategy is to win the hearts and minds of the people of Afghanistan and convince them that the Afghan government and foreign forces are not the antagonists. Now, if calling in any type of indirect fire is going to serve as a tactical victory in exchange for a strategic blunder, the answer should be simple: Tactical actions should never be inconsistent with strategic objectives.
    The only thing wrong with that, is that, "winning hearts and minds", isn't a military strategy. Nothing should ever take priority over mission accomplishment and economy of force, in that order. The hearts and minds of your soldiers are more important than any other thing.

    The problem I had with the entire thing is that the coordinates they called in were out of the 500 meter safety zone. It wasn't near a village and they supposively made that clear, so what the **** was at stake?
    We aren't informed enough of the situation on the ground to know if the ground unit intentionally called indirect fire danger close. When you get out of school and join the service, then you can make those judgements.
    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.

  9. #79
    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...

    The hearts and minds of your soldiers are more important than any other thing.
    People are people. They're all of equal value.
    Nobody's hearts and minds are "more important".
    It kills me to say that, given the circumstances.
    But it's what I believe.
    And it's the way I raised my soldier.

  10. #80
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,444

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

    Quote Originally Posted by 1069 View Post
    People are people. They're all of equal value.
    Nobody's hearts and minds are "more important".
    It kills me to say that, given the circumstances.
    But it's what I believe.
    And it's the way I raised my soldier.
    You're wrong. The lives of the men in a military unit are far more valuable to each other and to their leaders than anyone else's. Anyone that believes otherwise either has never served in the military, or was a piss poor soldier. Any leader that would allow his men to die, either to protect his career, to uphold some political agenda, or protect anyone outside his service is a piece of **** and doesn't deserve the wear the uniform.
    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 8 of 16 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... 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
  •