• 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!

Deos understanding your enemy make you a terrorist?

Does understanding your enemy make you a terrorist?

  • Yes

    Votes: 1 5.9%
  • No

    Votes: 16 94.1%

  • Total voters
    17
Well, I'm not going to pour out the insults the way you do

Please learn English before replying.

but are you seriously suggesting that if the enemy is killing more of your soldiers than you are of the enemy, you wouldn't see that a bad thing and make adjustments to your operations?

In a COIN operation, body count alone isn't a good measure of anything. Furthermore, you just outright ignored (or failed to comprehend due to your inability to understand English) that there are examples in history were negative body count was in no way correlated to success or failure.

And, again, for a force that has near limitless replacements, a negative body count that results in their opponent finding it increasingly harder to field troops, they are winning. If force A can replace units faster then force B, and it is cheaper per unit for force A, then force A should in pure operational terms, apply attrition to wear down force B barring other strategy.

Thank God!, you never served in the military.

Thank God you never ran a COIN operation.

Still have no idea where Malaya is eh?
 
You're not serious?!?...:rofl

Epic Fail!

In terms of understanding attrition on a cost basis, it does serve as a useful example, be it two extreme ones. Of course it does not address the human cost of conflict, but right now that isn't the subject of the discussion.

The point was to highlight the issue of attrition, something you have just recently shown you have no understanding of.

Ever hear of the Korean War? How about period in the Iraq-Iran war where Iraq sued for peace? Attrition at play. You insult me for allegedly not knowing, but you don't even have a grasp of the concepts.
 
Last edited:
In terms of understanding attrition on a cost basis, it does serve as a useful example, be it two extreme ones. Of course it does not address the human cost of conflict, but right now that isn't the subject of the discussion.

The point was to highlight the issue of attrition, something you have just recently shown you have no understanding of.

Ever hear of the Korean War? How about period in the Iraq-Iran war where Iraq sued for peace? Attrition at play. You insult me for allegedly not knowing, but you don't even have a grasp of the concepts.

yeah, I know, you got it all figured out. No point in even talking to you.
 
yeah, I know, you got it all figured out. No point in even talking to you.

Still can't find Malaya on the map eh?

Saying I know nothing....and then proceeding to ignore my arguments which show you are wrong is hardly a good way of argumentation. But that may be due to your clinically proven inability to understand English. I do find it hysterical how you proceed to insult me on my alleged ignorance...and then you can't even attempt to refute me. :rofl

"You're wrong!"
"Why?"
"uh........"

While I realize you have problems with English, here's a link to a dictionary:
Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online

Feel free to look up the terms we've been discussing so you can finally understand just what we are talking about.
 
Yes, that does happen. From my experience it was rare.

So do you concede your original point?

You said that when U.S. forces cause collateral damage they are terrorists, which, of course, is insane.

Nope I don't. Cause as you just admitted it does happen. Even if it is rare. Those people obviously think that the US are the terrorists.
 
Just be glad some of the people who like to indulge in these more extreme examples of moral equivalence aren't writing our laws.

If they did, a person whose foot slipped off the brakes causing his car to run over a person would receive the same sentence as one who tortured somebody to death.

Umm actually I'm not argueing what the law says. That is clearly defined. I'm talking about how people can feel and think.
 
Are you seriously agreeing that a negative body count is no big deal? That you can deal with the enemy doing more damage to your combat power, than you're doing to his? Is that what you're suggesting, "Captain"?

Please, tell me it isn't.

That wasn't the argument I responded to. You are changing the subject. That's not what I said. I said that killing many enemy fighters isn't as critical to victory in a COIN environment than you would think. In fact, it's not really important at all.

In Iraq and AFG, it is very common for COIN units to take more casualties than the insurgent force. Especially in Iraq, when units were plagued with IED attacks, taking multiple casualties at a time, and often, not killing or capturing any enemy during the attack. "Body Count" is a seriously antiquated term...I would include friendly injuries and enemy captured as well because they are taken out of the fight.

Sarge, please don't put words in my mouth. Your "body count" premise shows how out of touch you are. As far as you should be concerned, I am a walking COIN library. I can answer any of your questions. If you aren't up to speed on the Contemporary Operating Environment, it's OK. Just ask the questions, I'll give you the answers.
 
Nope I don't. Cause as you just admitted it does happen. Even if it is rare. Those people obviously think that the US are the terrorists.

OK, buddy; whatever you say.

It's ok to just say that you are to proud to admit that you made a poor argument and was summarily destroyed in front of everyone.

We all know anyway.
 
That wasn't the argument I responded to. You are changing the subject. That's not what I said. I said that killing many enemy fighters isn't as critical to victory in a COIN environment than you would think. In fact, it's not really important at all.

In Iraq and AFG, it is very common for COIN units to take more casualties than the insurgent force. Especially in Iraq, when units were plagued with IED attacks, taking multiple casualties at a time, and often, not killing or capturing any enemy during the attack. "Body Count" is a seriously antiquated term...I would include friendly injuries and enemy captured as well because they are taken out of the fight.

Sarge, please don't put words in my mouth. Your "body count" premise shows how out of touch you are. As far as you should be concerned, I am a walking COIN library. I can answer any of your questions. If you aren't up to speed on the Contemporary Operating Environment, it's OK. Just ask the questions, I'll give you the answers.

That's because you responded to a comment made to another poster. Go back and read the posts, in their proper contexts, then try again.

I can understand why you would ignore the posts of some posters, but to understand the proper context of my posts, you must read their's, which are the ones I was responding to.
 
Last edited:
That's because you responded to a comment made to another poster. Go back and read the posts, in their proper contexts, then try again.

Except that when reading the thread, that isn't at all what happened. In fact, the very post you responded to you screwed it up by failing to understand what that poster was even talking about. This likely stems from your inability to comprehend the written English language.

You still don't get that it's not about the body count, it's about a whole variety of factors.

How sad. Something so relatively basic slips through your grasp.
 
http://www.usgcoin.org/library/doctrine/COIN-FM3-24.pdf

Counterinsurgency Field Manual said:
1-14. Before most COIN operations begin, insurgents have seized and exploited the initiative, to some
degree at the least. Therefore, counterinsurgents undertake offensive and defensive operations to regain
the initiative and create a secure environment. However, killing insurgents—while necessary, especially
with respect to extremists—by itself cannot defeat an insurgency.
Gaining and retaining the initiative requires
counterinsurgents to address the insurgency’s causes through stability operations as well. This initially
involves securing and controlling the local populace and providing for essential services. As security
improves, military resources contribute to supporting government reforms and reconstruction
projects. As counterinsurgents gain the initiative, offensive operations focus on eliminating the insurgent
cadre, while defensive operations focus on protecting the populace and infrastructure from direct attacks.
As counterinsurgents establish military ascendancy, stability operations expand across the area of operations
(AO) and eventually predominate. Victory is achieved when the populace consents to the government’s
legitimacy and stops actively and passively supporting the insurgency.

I read this and other statements in the Counterinsurgency Field Manual as stating that killing insurgencts, especially the extremists, is an important part of COIN. But it is not the main thrust of COIN - protecting the populace and rebuilding institutions is.
 
http://www.usgcoin.org/library/doctrine/COIN-FM3-24.pdf



I read this and other statements in the Counterinsurgency Field Manual as stating that killing insurgencts, especially the extremists, is an important part of COIN. But it is not the main thrust of COIN - protecting the populace and rebuilding institutions is.

Purdy much what I've been saying all along, but reality doesn't mean much to some folks.

There are some folks in this world that read a couple of Libbo articles, then they are suddenly Liddell Hart, or something. Yet, they have zero comprehension of the principles of warfare, nor the elements of combat power.
 
Last edited:
OK, buddy; whatever you say.

It's ok to just say that you are to proud to admit that you made a poor argument and was summarily destroyed in front of everyone.

We all know anyway.

Oh look everyone! An I WIN! post! :roll:

Seriously dude? Despite you saying this...

Yes, that does happen. From my experience it was rare.

So do you concede your original point?

You said that when U.S. forces cause collateral damage they are terrorists, which, of course, is insane.

You're saying that I was "destroyed"? Instead of trying to say "I WIN!" try and actually look at it from their point of view. You know the ones that go to the terrorists side to get revenge for a fallen loved one?

The only thing that you destroyed was your credibility by trying to say "I WIN!"
 
Last edited:
Oh look everyone! An I WIN! post! :roll:

Seriously dude? Despite you saying this...



You're saying that I was "destroyed"? Instead of trying to say "I WIN!" try and actually look at it from their point of view. You know the ones that go to the terrorists side to get revenge for a fallen loved one?

The only thing that you destroyed was your credibility by trying to say "I WIN!"

You called American Soldiers terrorists. I said they weren't.

I think I win. You lose.
 
You called American Soldiers terrorists. I said they weren't.

I think I win. You lose.


A case could be made for any country or group of people to be considered a terrorist. As far as I'm concerned the term "terrorist" is purely subjective.

Do you know what the term "subjective" means? Please re-read my posts and put 2 and 2 together.
 
Purdy much what I've been saying all along, but reality doesn't mean much to some folks.

Except that wasn't what you were saying.

Do we need to add this to the documented list of your failures to understand the written English language?

No one argued that killing insurgents isn't a part of COIN. Why you can't figure that out is beyond reason. What we disagree with is your position that it is the primary goal and how a COIN operation is judged.

There are some folks in this world that read a couple of Libbo articles, then they are suddenly Liddell Hart, or something.

By your own criteria, the British documentation from Malaya makes them "Libbos." Furthermore, you just called everyone in General Petraeus's brain trust, including retired Lt. Col Nagl who helped write the Army's COIN manual which you claimed you were supporting to be "Libbos."

Good job on epic fail there. By your reasoning, you support "Libbos."

Yet, they have zero comprehension of the principles of warfare, nor the elements of combat power.

The irony is beyond measurement here. You insult those who have read and follow the doctrine that you allegedly claim to have been saying all along.
 
I read this and other statements in the Counterinsurgency Field Manual as stating that killing insurgencts, especially the extremists, is an important part of COIN. But it is not the main thrust of COIN - protecting the populace and rebuilding institutions is.

Which serves to eliminate the insurgency via eliminating its support. As I have stated before (and as Apdst crudely insulted me on without understanding) that by removing the water from the fish, an insurgency dies. Economic development and security removes reasons to support an insurgency and as the FARC have known for years, without support of the locals, there can be no insurgency.

The notion that killing is key is pretty asinine.

Here's Afghanistan Math:
If there are 10 terrorists and you kill 2, how many do you have left?

A) 8
B) 0, as none want to fight anymore
C) 50 as you pissed off all of their friends and family who now want to kill you

Ignoring the basis for COIN, as Apdst has done repeatability here in favor of killing rather then development is why we'll be in Afghanistan forever. Unless you want to kill everyone, which I don't put past some people here, the focus really should be on security and development. Not seek and destroy.
 
Which serves to eliminate the insurgency via eliminating its support. As I have stated before (and as Apdst crudely insulted me on without understanding) that by removing the water from the fish, an insurgency dies. Economic development and security removes reasons to support an insurgency and as the FARC have known for years, without support of the locals, there can be no insurgency.

The notion that killing is key is pretty asinine.

Besides the Counterinsurgency Field Manual, another good text is [ame=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0275993035/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0275989410&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0ND9G33DA72Z01WSCCS2]Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice[/ame] by David Galula. It is about the French experience in Algeria in the 50s. Which they ultimately got their butts kicked and lost.

Here's Afghanistan Math:
If there are 10 terrorists and you kill 2, how many do you have left?

A) 8
B) 0, as none want to fight anymore
C) 50 as you pissed off all of their friends and family who now want to kill you

Ignoring the basis for COIN, as Apdst has done repeatability here in favor of killing rather then development is why we'll be in Afghanistan forever. Unless you want to kill everyone, which I don't put past some people here, the focus really should be on security and development. Not seek and destroy.

I do think that we (US soldiers) are being conservative with our fire and getting mainly insurgents, not civilians. But the insurgents do have a very effective recruiting/training pipeline, whether that is recruiting Afghans or Pakistani Taliban, I don't know.

The problems in Afghanistan as I see it, are two-fold...

First is the sanctuaries: they are running training and reconstitution in Pakistan and we really can't get at them.

Second is the cultural divide: Coalition Afghanis are Tajik, urban, secular (more so than religious), educated, not typically the rules of Afghanistan. The Taliban insurgent forces are Pashtun, rural, religious, illiterate, usually the rules of Afghanistan. How do we get the Pashtun population to turn against their brothers, the Taliban? How do get the Pashtun to enter a consensual government?
 
This, knowing the enemy is common sense.. What takes intelligence is seeing him as a man, not an enemy..
A man with problems - yes, but a man..
 
Besides the Counterinsurgency Field Manual, another good text is Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice by David Galula. It is about the French experience in Algeria in the 50s. Which they ultimately got their butts kicked and lost.



I do think that we (US soldiers) are being conservative with our fire and getting mainly insurgents, not civilians. But the insurgents do have a very effective recruiting/training pipeline, whether that is recruiting Afghans or Pakistani Taliban, I don't know.

The problems in Afghanistan as I see it, are two-fold...

First is the sanctuaries: they are running training and reconstitution in Pakistan and we really can't get at them.

Second is the cultural divide: Coalition Afghanis are Tajik, urban, secular (more so than religious), educated, not typically the rules of Afghanistan. The Taliban insurgent forces are Pashtun, rural, religious, illiterate, usually the rules of Afghanistan. How do we get the Pashtun population to turn against their brothers, the Taliban? How do get the Pashtun to enter a consensual government?

You don't.
The approach has to be changed..
And there are similarities with Vietnam - where evidently nothing has been learned..
 
Which serves to eliminate the insurgency via eliminating its support. As I have stated before (and as Apdst crudely insulted me on without understanding) that by removing the water from the fish, an insurgency dies. Economic development and security removes reasons to support an insurgency and as the FARC have known for years, without support of the locals, there can be no insurgency.

The notion that killing is key is pretty asinine.

Here's Afghanistan Math:
If there are 10 terrorists and you kill 2, how many do you have left?

A) 8
B) 0, as none want to fight anymore
C) 50 as you pissed off all of their friends and family who now want to kill you

Ignoring the basis for COIN, as Apdst has done repeatability here in favor of killing rather then development is why we'll be in Afghanistan forever. Unless you want to kill everyone, which I don't put past some people here, the focus really should be on security and development. Not seek and destroy.


When in combat, you can't not kill the enemy and expect to win. Your unit's integrity will fall apart and become totally combat ineffective.


What we disagree with is your position that it is the primary goal and how a COIN operation is judged.

I never said that. Perhaps it's you that needs to learn to read.
 
When in combat, you can't not kill the enemy and expect to win.

You still don't get it.

You don't need to kill your enemy necessarily. You just need them to stop fighting you. That can be accomplished in many ways as Iraq and Malaya showed. Is killing necessary sometimes? Absolutely, especially for certain types of insurgents. It is necessary to kill all of your enemies? No. But it is not the primary goal of a COIN operation. Perhaps if you bothered to read (or understand) what you allegedly have claimed to have read, you'd understand that. I'd ask you to show in the literature of COIN something that supports your argument, but I know you haven't read a single thing. You are talking out of your rear and it is obvious to everyone.

Your unit's integrity will fall apart and become totally combat ineffective.

Tell that to the British who succeed beyond their dreams in Malaya (still having trouble finding that on the map aren't you? :rofl).

It is still hysterical how you say I don't have a clue yet everything I've said is echoed in the manuals and literature you claim you support.

There is a reason why I back Bhkad on this despite disagreeing with mostly everything else. He understands what COIN is. It is not about killing your enemy as a primary goal. You still haven't understood that basic concept despite your claims that you have argued what the COIN manuals from the Army state. I suspect you haven't even bothered to read a single thing on COIN given your insistence upon killing.

I never said that. Perhaps it's you that needs to learn to read.

Sure you didn't. You just only discussed killing to the point you deliberately ignored all discussion about the other points of COIN. In fact, you insulted me for even mentioning the other aspects of COIN. Sure you never argued that. You just deliberately pretended all other aspects of COIN didn't matter. Sure you never argued that, you just treated everyone who argued that killing wasn't the primary goal of COIN as an idiot.

Pretend all you want you never argued that. Too bad you can't go back and edit your posts to support the claim you are making here.

You haven't shown you even know what the letters in COIN mean.
 
You still don't get it.

You don't need to kill your enemy necessarily. You just need them to stop fighting you. That can be accomplished in many ways as Iraq and Malaya showed. Is killing necessary sometimes? Absolutely, especially for certain types of insurgents. It is necessary to kill all of your enemies? No. But it is not the primary goal of a COIN operation. Perhaps if you bothered to read (or understand) what you allegedly have claimed to have read, you'd understand that. I'd ask you to show in the literature of COIN something that supports your argument, but I know you haven't read a single thing. You are talking out of your rear and it is obvious to everyone.



Tell that to the British who succeed beyond their dreams in Malaya (still having trouble finding that on the map aren't you? :rofl).

It is still hysterical how you say I don't have a clue yet everything I've said is echoed in the manuals and literature you claim you support.

There is a reason why I back Bhkad on this despite disagreeing with mostly everything else. He understands what COIN is. It is not about killing your enemy as a primary goal. You still haven't understood that basic concept despite your claims that you have argued what the COIN manuals from the Army state. I suspect you haven't even bothered to read a single thing on COIN given your insistence upon killing.



Sure you didn't. You just only discussed killing to the point you deliberately ignored all discussion about the other points of COIN. In fact, you insulted me for even mentioning the other aspects of COIN. Sure you never argued that. You just deliberately pretended all other aspects of COIN didn't matter. Sure you never argued that, you just treated everyone who argued that killing wasn't the primary goal of COIN as an idiot.

Pretend all you want you never argued that. Too bad you can't go back and edit your posts to support the claim you are making here.

You haven't shown you even know what the letters in COIN mean.

And, the quickest way to make them stop fighting you, is to take way their combat power. The quickest way to take away their combat power, is to kill them. Do you understand what combat power is? Prolly not, huh?
 
And, the quickest way to make them stop fighting you, is to take way their combat power. The quickest way to take away their combat power, is to kill them. Do you understand what combat power is? Prolly not, huh?

I guess you do think we can kill our way of this.

Tell me, can you kill someone you can't find? :rofl You still have no idea what the fish-water concept is do you?

You know, if you actually answered any of those, I wouldn't treat you so badly. You pretend you understand, utterly fail to show you understand and then constantly run away from challenges to show you understand anything in this subject.

So much for your reading any of the alleged literature you claim to be supporting. Well, you being dishonest isn't exactly shocking news.

It is hysterical how you think you are arguing what people like Nagl and Petreaus are when your whole argument is killing. Total failure to even understand their primary points. You clearly did not read a single thing about COIN.

Can you even name a single piece of literature you claim to be supporting? :rofl

Can you define COIN for me?

I'm betting not.

Run Away! Run Away! Don't prove you understand anything! In fact arguing the OPPOSITE of what COIN experts have been saying proves you understand them!

LOL.
 
Back
Top Bottom