• 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!

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

I'm not an aircraft officianado, but I want the one what got all them guns with high rates of fire.

FP is great, but I think CCA has better "eyes" close in.

Again, just for my SA...11, 13 or 18 series?


No, I'm disagreeing with you because I think you're wrong. I'm too discplined to let my personal feelings effect my opinions. But, then again, I don't even know you, so how can I dislike you?

I was pretty rude to you the other day. You're human, you can't help it.

Sounds like it would have been perfect for Mogadishu. I don't think the enemy's RPG's could have touch a spectre, especially at night.

Remember that at the time, there is no way of knowing that it was only RPGs that took the birds down. Even so, I'm telling you that AC-130s HATE any ADA threat at all...even RPG and MG fire. Remember, they are flying in a circle pattern very very slowly. If they stay high, they are good.

Bottom line is that Spectre firing in MOG would have been to much CD. We wouldn't get it today in the same situation.
 
Bottom line is that Spectre firing in MOG would have been to much CD. We wouldn't get it today in the same situation.

That's why the military needs to stop worrying about collateral damage and more about troop safety.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
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?
 
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.
 
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.
I'm so glad I'm not in your unit. We would clash...alot.



That is a very reckless and lazy statement.

But, it's true. Amazing how much I can say in just a few words, huh?



True, but FP is never number one...at least it shouldn't be.

You have a point, mission accomplishment is number one, force protection in number two.



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.

There were 15,000 French civilians killed during the normandy landings.




then, what are you? 76Y? 29E? oh, I know what your MOS is, 57E!...:rofl
 
I'm so glad I'm not in your unit. We would clash...alot.

No, you would do what you were told.


You have a point, mission accomplishment is number one, force protection in number two.

Hey, you are learning.



There were 15,000 French civilians killed during the normandy landings.

True, but not all by the Allies.



then, what are you? 76Y? 29E? oh, I know what your MOS is, 57E!

I don't know what any of those MOS's are. 13A.
 
No, you would do what you were told.

oh, yeah. We would definitely clash...:rofl




Hey, you are learning.

I was just dragging around to see if you would say it. I figgered I had to let you off the hook.





True, but not all by the Allies.

Not all, but there was definitely more allied ordinance being fired landward. The enemy fires were directed seaward.






OMG, that explains everything.
 
Back
Top Bottom