• 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!

C.I.A. Had Plan to Assassinate Qaeda Leaders

Re: Counter-Insurgency

So, please, tell us what tactical, or strategic doctrine, or theory your basing your opion on.

Basing what part of it? Or all of it?
 
Re: Counter-Insurgency

Basing what part of it? Or all of it?

You've said that everything I've stated, so far, is impossible. You zero wiggle room for my conclusions to be correct. Therefore, you must have some doctrine, theory, or historical exmaple to support your conclusions. Care to share them with us?
 
Re: Counter-Insurgency

You've said that everything I've stated, so far, is impossible. You zero wiggle room for my conclusions to be correct. Therefore, you must have some doctrine, theory, or historical exmaple to support your conclusions. Care to share them with us?

What I'm saying about yours is that you are stereo-typing all warfare, and while the basic elements stay the same, the situation differs greatly. I'll get back to you on the doctrine thing, I need to go, and won't have time until tomorrow now.
 
Re: Counter-Insurgency

What I'm saying about yours is that you are stereo-typing all warfare, and while the basic elements stay the same, the situation differs greatly. I'll get back to you on the doctrine thing, I need to go, and won't have time until tomorrow now.


"...the basic elements stay the same", is all I've been saying.

I look forward to your docs.
 
Re: Counter-Insurgency

"...the basic elements stay the same", is all I've been saying.

I look forward to your docs.

That doesn't help the smallest bit. At least I'm saying what we could possible do. And I quite frankly don't have the patience to go look for an actual doctrine related to what I'm saying. It's understood that you need to establish a presence, and then increase the presence when performing counter-insurgnecy, correct?
 
Re: Counter-Insurgency

That doesn't help the smallest bit. At least I'm saying what we could possible do. And I quite frankly don't have the patience to go look for an actual doctrine related to what I'm saying. It's understood that you need to establish a presence, and then increase the presence when performing counter-insurgnecy, correct?


Warfare, is warfare, is warfare. The objective is counter insurgency operations is the same as with any other type of land warfare. You have to deny the enemy the ability to operate. Granted, when fighting an unconventional force, cooperation with the local personel is more important than in most other scenarios and that adds a new twist to the strategy that a commander would employ in his theater of operations. However, that doesn't take away from the fact that you have to defeat the enemy. The locals aren't going to defeat the enemy for you. If that were the case, you and your soldiers wouldn;t even be there.

Don't worry about the supporting docs, because I know you can't find any, creible, or not, to support your point of view.
 
Re: Counter-Insurgency

Warfare, is warfare, is warfare. The objective is counter insurgency operations is the same as with any other type of land warfare. You have to deny the enemy the ability to operate. Granted, when fighting an unconventional force, cooperation with the local personel is more important than in most other scenarios and that adds a new twist to the strategy that a commander would employ in his theater of operations. However, that doesn't take away from the fact that you have to defeat the enemy. The locals aren't going to defeat the enemy for you. If that were the case, you and your soldiers wouldn;t even be there.

Don't worry about the supporting docs, because I know you can't find any, creible, or not, to support your point of view.

Don't forget that it is implausible to remove the enemy supply, and the enemy's will to fight you. All of those attributed to counter-insurgency would force a commander to think and act very differently from say a defensive war in Germany.

And I frankly don't care enough about a petty dispute to waste time scrolling through pages of results for something like this. And you might make yourself a bit more "creible" if you spelt it right, or took the time to fix it ( something close to 7 or 8 seconds).
 
Re: Counter-Insurgency

Don't forget that it is implausible to remove the enemy supply, and the enemy's will to fight you. All of those attributed to counter-insurgency would force a commander to think and act very differently from say a defensive war in Germany.

It's not impluasible. They're humans, not super men and definitely not invincible.

It doesn't matter how you do it, destroying the enemy's ability to fight is the number one priority and, that's a fact. Unless you can provide some documentation that proves that not destroying the enemy's ability to fight is a good idea. Let me save you the trouble; such documentation doesn't exist.
 
Re: Counter-Insurgency

And I frankly don't care enough about a petty dispute to waste time scrolling through pages of results for something like this. And you might make yourself a bit more "creible" if you spelt it right, or took the time to fix it ( something close to 7 or 8 seconds).

"Spelt"?...
 
Re: Counter-Insurgency

It's not impluasible. They're humans, not super men and definitely not invincible.

It doesn't matter how you do it, destroying the enemy's ability to fight is the number one priority and, that's a fact. Unless you can provide some documentation that proves that not destroying the enemy's ability to fight is a good idea. Let me save you the trouble; such documentation doesn't exist.

Maybe you don't understand what I'm saying. What I am saying is that wasting time going after imported weapons, as you said we should, would be a waste of time. Trying to stop the inflow of fighters, as you said, would also be a waste of time. They are going to simply keep coming , and all we can really do is hunker down, and wait for them to come and die. Besides that, we can't really do much.
 
Re: Counter-Insurgency


Yeah, here ya go

Main Entry: 1spelt
Pronunciation: \ˈspelt\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English, from Late Latin spelta, of Germanic origin; perhaps akin to Middle High German spelte split piece of wood, Old High German spaltan to split — more at split
Date: before 12th century
: an ancient wheat (Triticum spelta syn. T. aestivum spelta) with spikelets containing two light red grains ; also : the grain of spelt


So, the best you can do is attack my spelling?
 
Re: Counter-Insurgency

Maybe you don't understand what I'm saying. What I am saying is that wasting time going after imported weapons, as you said we should, would be a waste of time. Trying to stop the inflow of fighters, as you said, would also be a waste of time. They are going to simply keep coming , and all we can really do is hunker down, and wait for them to come and die. Besides that, we can't really do much.

I would love to see the tactical doctrine that says, "hunkering down", and waiting for the enemy to come to you is a good idea.

It's completely moronic not to attempt to interdict the flow of men and material to the enemy's area of operations. Cutting, or slowing down the enemy's line of supply is Tactics 101 stuff.
 
Re: Counter-Insurgency

I would love to see the tactical doctrine that says, "hunkering down", and waiting for the enemy to come to you is a good idea.
See: Meade @ Gettysburg
 
Re: Counter-Insurgency

See: Meade @ Gettysburg

Sure, "Granny", Meade showed up with his thumb in his ass, but some of his division and brigade commaders took the initiative and denied the Confederates the advantage of terrain. Buford's action on the first day is still used as the textbook example of the cavalry's mission.

If we want to use an example from the Civil War, we could use Vicksburg and Port Hudson. The Confederates hunkered down and waited for the enemy to come. Neither engagement turned out well for the Confederates.

How did the Federals win at Prot Hudson and Vicksburg, Repeter? They denied the Confederates resupply, until the Confederates no longer had the ability to resist, due to the lack of food and ammo. You're saying that you want our forces to do the same thing in Afghanistan. Your strategy would allow the enemy to cut our line of supply.
 
Re: Counter-Insurgency

Sure, "Granny", Meade showed up with his thumb in his ass, but some of his division and brigade commaders took the initiative and denied the Confederates the advantage of terrain. Buford's action on the first day is still used as the textbook example of the cavalry's mission.
Yes.
Point being, and as you illustrate, there are any number of situations where sitting tight and letting the enemy come to you is the prudent thing to do.
 
Re: Counter-Insurgency

Yes.
Point being, and as you illustrate, there are any number of situations where sitting tight and letting the enemy come to you is the prudent thing to do.

In an ambush, or an entrapment style plan, yeah. The Army of The Potomac wasn't fighting from a static position, nor were they laying an ambush, but that's neither here, nor there. Holing up in a static base, with zero control over what goes on outside the base is the worst idea possible. A unit must remain fluid and control of the terrain, in order to exploit tactical misteps made by the enemy.
 
Re: Counter-Insurgency

In an ambush, or an entrapment style plan, yeah.
Not even just then. Depending on the technology and the terrain, it may very well be that the tactical defensive is a generally better choice than the tactical offensive.


Holing up in a static base, with zero control over what goes on outside the base is the worst idea possible. A unit must remain fluid and control of the terrain, in order to exploit tactical misteps made by the enemy.
Two concepts here:

-Strategic/operational offense and tactical defense are not mutually exclusive. Strategically or operationally putting your force someplace the enemy cannot afford to let you stay forces him to attack you. If, tactically, you're better off on the defense, this is a better option that a simple offensie action where you seek out an emplaced enemy.

-Counter attacks and/or exploting 'exploit tactical misteps made by the enemy' are a natural part of the tactical defensive. Being on the tactical defensive necessitates, rather than precludes, their use.
 
Last edited:
Re: Counter-Insurgency

Yes.
Point being, and as you illustrate, there are any number of situations where sitting tight and letting the enemy come to you is the prudent thing to do.

Attempting to apply this to terrorist is beyond naive; it will lead to more innocent lives lost.

They only have to be successful ONE time while we would have to be right 100% of the time. Do you know any REAL situation where one is right 100% of the time?

Your Gettysburg example is comparing an orange to an apple. The North knew the enemy was coming, knew where they were heading and therefore could plan a defensive network to counter their attack.

HUGE difference comparing a massive army invading and a few bold murderous terrorists who think nothing of blowing themselves up to kill as many of our people as they can.

Reading stuff like this makes it unfortunately painfully obvious that Americans have learned NOTHING from the events of 9-11 and have been quick to forget them.

As Bush indicated before we went into Iraq and Afghanistan, the best tactic would be to support and assist countries in establishing secular Democracies that respect life and their neighbors. Prosperity is the best way to battle terrorism combined with persistence and perseverance by all nations interested in the respect and dignity of human kind to stamp out this religion of ignorance; that of a false belief that it is okay to murder others because they choose not to agree with your beliefs.

Unfortunately and because Osama was correct about the lack of American/Western will, we have lost sight of this FACT and perhaps will once again abandon our allies and friends in their time of desperate need for the false Liberal belief that hunkering down is a better strategy than actively being engaged with our allies and enemies. The lessons of WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam and 9-11 are all but forgotten and collective memory of the nation is once more illustrative of lemmings than it is reasoned and logical.
 
Re: Counter-Insurgency

Attempting to apply this to terrorist is beyond naive; it will lead to more innocent lives lost.
I was not suggesting we should. I was simply responding to the implication that "'hunkering down' and waiting for the enemy to come to you" is never a good idea.
 
Re: Counter-Insurgency

Not even just then. Depending on the technology and the terrain, it may very well be that the tactical defensive is a generally better choice than the tactical offensive.

Two concepts here:

-Strategic/operational offense and tactical defense are not mutually exclusive. Strategically or operationally putting your force someplace the enemy cannot afford to let you stay forces him to attack you. If, tactically, you're better off on the defense, this is a better option that a simple offensie action where you seek out an emplaced enemy.

-Counter attacks and/or exploting 'exploit tactical misteps made by the enemy' are a natural part of the tactical defensive. Being on the tactical defensive necessitates, rather than precludes, their use.


Obviously, it's MET-T, but you can't dispose of your unit's ability to shoot and move so as to take the initiative, when the oppurtunity presents itself. I understand your point and you're right. However, what Repter is suggesting, is that we confine our forces to a static defense and disregard efforts to interrupt the enemy's flow of logistics and/or his ability to maneuver at will.
 
Re: Counter-Insurgency

I was not suggesting we should. I was simply responding to the implication that "'hunkering down' and waiting for the enemy to come to you" is never a good idea.

I was responding to your incorrect annalogy in a thread about terrorism and insurgencies. We are usually in pretty close agreement most of the time. :2wave:
 
Re: Counter-Insurgency

I was responding to your incorrect annalogy in a thread about terrorism and insurgencies. We are usually in pretty close agreement most of the time. :2wave:
I dont think we disagree here...
 
Re: Counter-Insurgency

Obviously, it's MET-T, but you can't dispose of your unit's ability to shoot and move so as to take the initiative, when the oppurtunity presents itself. I understand your point and you're right.
:yt

However, what Repter is suggesting, is that we confine our forces to a static defense and disregard efforts to interrupt the enemy's flow of logistics and/or his ability to maneuver at will.
Yes.
As noted before, I was simply taking exception to your implication that you should never hunker down and wait for the enemy to come to you
 
Re: Counter-Insurgency

Yes.
As noted before, I was simply taking exception to your implication that you should never hunker down and wait for the enemy to come to you

I was responding to the notion that as a grand strategy, static defenses do not work.
 
Back
Top Bottom