- Joined
- Sep 29, 2007
- Messages
- 29,262
- Reaction score
- 10,126
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I prefer an a-10 anyday. then again, I was a ROMAD...
What is ROMAD?
I prefer an a-10 anyday. then again, I was a ROMAD...
I'm not an aircraft officianado, but I want the one what got all them guns with high rates of fire.
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?
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.
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.
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 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.
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 a proponent of hitting the enemy with a superior level of violence of action and defeating him.
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.
Ahhh...well don't say "troop safety" then!
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 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.
This one can be added to your (growing) list of invalid criticisms....once again diluting from any valid ones.
Should I use, "economy of force", instead?
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.
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 don't agree that it's that important. IMO, nothing takes priority over troop protection.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Are you an 88M?
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.
Hell no.
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.
13A.
OMG, that explains everything.