Page 14 of 15 FirstFirst ... 412131415 LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 143

Thread: Support Grows to End 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

  1. #131
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Redneck Riviera
    Last Seen
    07-09-11 @ 06:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,728

    Re: Support Grows to End 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    That's why the military needs to stop worrying about collateral damage and more about troop safety.
    I agree. We never worried about this nonsense in WWII. It's the kinder/gentler armed forces these days. And it's a lot harder on the men and women who are involved.

  2. #132
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,520

    Re: Support Grows to End 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

    Quote Originally Posted by Catz Part Deux View Post
    I agree. We never worried about this nonsense in WWII. It's the kinder/gentler armed forces these days. And it's a lot harder on the men and women who are involved.
    That's exactly right.

    Sherman said it best: "War is cruelty There is no use trying to reform it The crueler it is the sooner it will be over"?

    iraq and Afghanistan would be relegated to the history books three years ago, if we weren't playing patty-cake with the bad guys.
    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. #133
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    10-14-11 @ 10:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,164

    Re: Support Grows to End 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    That's why the military needs to stop worrying about collateral damage and more about troop safety.
    You are exactly wrong. We used to be far too focused on troop safety, which caused commanders to avoid any tactical risk, which actually resulted in more casualties. Decreasing Collateral Damage is the most important factor in winning in Iraq and AFG. Focusing on troop safety is a losing formula


    I'm confused why you would say such a thing because YOU are the proponent of a full-fledged counter-insurgency strategy in AFG...which is based off of the notion of securing the afghan people first and foremost. That's why McChrystal has made the ROE very strict and cut down on the drone strikes, because he believes that CD is our number one problem in Afghanistan, a concept he borrowed from Petreaus in Iraq; which is the more CD you cause, the more insurgents you create; which in my experience is true.

    Nothing hindered me more during my tours in Iraq than command obession with troop safety. Nothing degrades combat operations more. It's nice for garrison and in the field, but highly-detrimental to combat operations. In the same regard, nothing caused more problems or created more bad guys than collateral damage. In the contemporary environment, CD is the most important issue; even more so than lethal targeting.
    Last edited by kansaswhig; 10-12-09 at 04:03 PM.

  4. #134
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,520

    Re: Support Grows to End 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

    Quote Originally Posted by kansaswhig View Post
    You are exactly wrong. We used to be far too focused on troop safety, which caused commanders to avoid any tactical risk, which actually resulted in more casualties. Decreasing Collateral Damage is the most important factor in winning in Iraq and AFG. Focusing on troop safety is a losing formula
    You're confused by my definition of troop safety. What I'm referring to, is a situation just like Mogadishu, or recently in Afghanistan, where soldiers weren't given supporting fires, for fear of infliciting civilian casualties.


    I'm confused why you would say such a thing because YOU are the proponent of a full-fledged counter-insurgency strategy in AFG...which is based off of the notion of securing the afghan people first and foremost. That's why McChrystal has made the ROE very strict and cut down on the drone strikes, because he believes that CD is our number one problem in Afghanistan, a concept he borrowed from Petreaus in Iraq; which is the more CD you cause, the more insurgents you create; which in my experience is true.
    I'm a proponent of hitting the enemy with a superior level of violence of action and defeating him.

    Nothing hindered me more during my tours in Iraq than command obession with troop safety. Nothing degrades combat operations more. It's nice for garrison and in the field, but highly-detrimental to combat operations. In the same regard, nothing caused more problems or created more bad guys than collateral damage. In the contemporary environment, CD is the most important issue; even more so than lethal targeting.

    I would rather give my soldier the CAS/ARTY that they need to survive and risk creating a few new bad guys, than to let my soldiers die, just in the interest of not creating a few new bad guys.
    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. #135
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    10-14-11 @ 10:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,164

    Re: Support Grows to End 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    You're confused by my definition of troop safety. What I'm referring to, is a situation just like Mogadishu, or recently in Afghanistan, where soldiers weren't given supporting fires, for fear of infliciting civilian casualties.
    Ahhh...well don't say "troop safety" then!


    I'm a proponent of hitting the enemy with a superior level of violence of action and defeating him.
    I think everyone is. You just have to know when to turn it on and off. If it's going to needlessly kill civilians, you can't have it. That's McChrystal's policy...and mine.


    I would rather give my soldier the CAS/ARTY that they need to survive and risk creating a few new bad guys, than to let my soldiers die, just in the interest of not creating a few new bad guys.
    I wouldn't. Terrible move. We are fighting guys with AKs and RPGs; in most cases CAS isn't necessary. If we can do it w/o killing civilians, then yes. If not, then we'll have to do it with small arms and crew served weapons. Even if it means more guys get killed and wounded. That's how important this is.

    Petreaus and McChrystal agree with me.

  6. #136
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,520

    Re: Support Grows to End 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

    Quote Originally Posted by kansaswhig View Post
    Ahhh...well don't say "troop safety" then!
    Should I use, "economy of force", instead?




    I think everyone is. You just have to know when to turn it on and off. If it's going to needlessly kill civilians, you can't have it. That's McChrystal's policy...and mine.
    It would probably be a good idea for me not to re-enlist, then. I'm going to bring whatever tenacity available to bare on the enemy to quicker destory him and to better protect my fellow soldiers.




    I wouldn't. Terrible move. We are fighting guys with AKs and RPGs; in most cases CAS isn't necessary. If we can do it w/o killing civilians, then yes. If not, then we'll have to do it with small arms and crew served weapons. Even if it means more guys get killed and wounded. That's how important this is.

    Petreaus and McChrystal agree with me.
    I don't agree that it's that important. IMO, nothing takes priority over troop protection.
    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. #137
    Clown Prince of Politics
    Psychoclown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Hiding from the voices in my head.
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 09:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,738

    Re: Support Grows to End 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    This one can be added to your (growing) list of invalid criticisms....once again diluting from any valid ones.
    Haven't read the whole thread, but I had to respond to this. I think this is a potentially valid criticism of Obama. I'm not a huge fan of DADT, but trying to push through what is going to be a hugely controversial and divisive change while our troops are still actively engaged in two theaters of war isn't exactly great timing.

    While I generally favor abolishing DADT, I think it would be best to wait until our troops are no longer in hostile territory so they can iron out the wrinkles of letting gays serve openly without the added stress of combat.
    Slipping into madness is good for the sake of comparison - Unknown.

  8. #138
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    10-14-11 @ 10:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,164

    Re: Support Grows to End 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Should I use, "economy of force", instead?
    Yes:

    Economy of force is the principle of employing all available combat power in the most effective way possible, in an attempt to allocate a minimum of essential combat power to any secondary efforts. It is the judicious employment and distribution of forces towards the primary objective of any person's conflict.
    Note the underlined in the Def. Indiscriminate force resulting in civilian casualties in an MOUT environment is not the most effective way. in COIN or even CT, our primary objective is not to cause CD.


    It would probably be a good idea for me not to re-enlist, then. I'm going to bring whatever tenacity available to bare on the enemy to quicker destory him and to better protect my fellow soldiers.
    Are you a Tanker? You should kill the enemy. But don't kill civilians while you are doing it. It's not as hard as you think. Don't compromise discipline for ForcePro.




    I don't agree that it's that important. IMO, nothing takes priority over troop protection.
    Then you don't believe in counter insurgency. You don't believe in the tactics used during the surge. And you don't believe that Petreaus and McChrystal are right.
    Last edited by kansaswhig; 10-12-09 at 04:45 PM.

  9. #139
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,520

    Re: Support Grows to End 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

    Quote Originally Posted by kansaswhig View Post
    Yes: "Economy of force is the principle of employing all available combat power in the most effective way possible, in an attempt to allocate a minimum of essential combat power to any secondary efforts. It is the judicious employment and distribution of forces towards the primary objective of any person's conflict."
    Well, that's not exactly what I'm talking about, but if it will make you happy, ok.


    Note the underlined in the Def. Indiscriminate force resulting in civilian casualties in an MOUT environment is not the most effective way. in COIN or even CT, our primary objective is not to cause CD.
    It's obvious that causing collateral damage is never an objective, however it's the nature of war. If you want to stop collateral damage, then don't go to war.




    Are you a Tanker? You should kill the enemy. But don't kill civilians while you are doing it. It's not as hard as you think. Don't compromise discipline for ForcePro.
    That's right, you kill the enemy, you avoid killing civilians--as much as possible--and force protection is priority number one, IMO. You can avoid all the collateral damage you want, but if you lose too many soldiers, then you haven't accomplished anything.


    No, I'm not a tanker. Are you an 88M?
    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.

  10. #140
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    10-14-11 @ 10:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,164

    Re: Support Grows to End 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    It's obvious that causing collateral damage is never an objective, however it's the nature of war.
    Again, wrong. Protecting the population is the NUMBER ONE objective during COIN/SASO/CT operations. It is the most important thing. It's only the nature of war with undisciplined Soldiers and poor leaders.

    If you want to stop collateral damage, then don't go to war.
    That is a very reckless and lazy statement.

    That's right, you kill the enemy, you avoid killing civilians--as much as possible--and force protection is priority number one, IMO.
    True, but FP is never number one...at least it shouldn't be.

    You can avoid all the collateral damage you want, but if you lose too many soldiers, then you haven't accomplished anything.
    Would you have told IKE that when he was planning D-Day? The truth is that this has been done, successfully, by most units in IZ and AFG...including the ones I was in. It took DIVISION approval for Artillery fires. It frustrated me at the time, but it's probably a good policy.

    Are you an 88M?
    Hell no.

Page 14 of 15 FirstFirst ... 412131415 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
  •