Boo Radley
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 37,066
- Reaction score
- 7,028
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
there's much you don't know
That may be true. But I'm asking you to explain.
there's much you don't know
you're asking me to explain how obama ESCALATED afghanistan?
What a giant creamy load!
Escalate it?
Because obviously everything was going JUST GREAT until Obama came along in Afghanistan...
What the 7 years before he came into office meant nothing to you?
LOL!
Escalate it?
It doesn't matter. Killing civilians hurts our cause. What works as an argument for some here won't like work for those who care about those killed there. And it grows the threat we face.
You understand little about combat, war, etc. Civillian casualties are a reality of war, and always will be. Doing nothing emboldens the enemy as seen on 911.
I'm sorry, outside of actually catching bin Laden or attempting to forestall the terrorist attacks right before they happened, what is it we were supposed to have done to prevent 9/11?
And you DO know that Boo is a veteran of the 82nd, right?
It was a massive intelligence failure among many administrations. Too long a list of how the elected officials failed and the soldiers had to clean up thier messes.
Yes, I do. I stand by my statement, as he is not a combat veteran, as can be seen by his civillianesque view on war and combat. I appreciate him as a brother, but at the same time, he shows little understanding of war, the failure of diplomacy, and the realities of battle.
I can agree with this.
I think war/combat is definitely a visceral experience that is only understood by those who have been through it. However there has to be a distinction made between war as experienced by those at the tactical level, and the politicians and statesmen who formulate and implment at the strategic level. Not many people are qualified to comment on the former, but many are qualified to comment on the latter, and I believe that people who have been in the military at the tactical/operational, and sometimes even at general/flag level, don't necessarily make great strategists, and in our country strategy is mostly the domain of politicians (most of whom are civilians).
Strategy and plans all sound great until the 1st 7.62 flies by. I don't discount most of what you are saying, but I do stand by my statement, I have seen some terrible terrible things. Things I still to this day do not talk about. What I do stand up to and comment on however, is when I see "theory" and "blame" for what amounts to the reality of war. We, the US, US Troops, have been killed and maimed, avoiding civillian casualties, to suggest we are wonton in our disregard for civillian life, or that we "kill" poor iraqis soldiers who were "doing nothing but defending thier country" (USA_1 was opining this on another thread), shows just how disconnected civillians and the like are from the war fighters.
I agree with this. I definitely think that crazies who characterize troops as "baby-killers" and bloodthirsty warmongers who are just itching to pull the trigger don't live within the realm of reality. However, that doesn't keep me from criticizing the decision to go to War in Iraq, or the conduct (at least in the initial stages up until about 2007) of the war itself, which was on the whole a strategic disaster. A distinction definitely needs to be drawn between the war and warriors, something which we failed to do in Vietnam and I think we are doing a better job of it today. I think the points that Boo mentioned just further reinforce the general agreement among most that counterinsurgency operations are a real bitch.
As for the war conduct? We rolled Iraq like a cigarette, How was it a strategic disaster?
Too long to explain; for a general understanding of the decisions that went on at the top and the results of those decisions on the ground, I read these books:
Amazon.com: Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq (9781400075393): Michael R. Gordon, Bernard E. Trainor: Books
Amazon.com: Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq: Thomas E. Ricks: Books
In essence the pre-war planning was shortsighted, and it took the Administration four years to get its act together and start dealing with Iraq intelligently starting with the surge, specops raids, Sunni Awakening etc.
Because they were too busy trying to avoid civilian casualties. When you fight a war on such a surgical and precise level, it's going to take time.
Can you imagine how long WW2 would have lasted, if we hadn't bombed Germany and Japan? Or the Civil War, had Sherman waged total war on Georgia and South Carolina?
Allied ordnance killed 15,000 French civilians during the invasion of Normandy.
You understand little about combat, war, etc. Civillian casualties are a reality of war, and always will be. Doing nothing emboldens the enemy as seen on 911.
I'm sorry, outside of actually catching bin Laden or attempting to forestall the terrorist attacks right before they happened, what is it we were supposed to have done to prevent 9/11?
You really like to tell people what they don't understand. You're almost always wrong, but I sense it must make you feel better somehow.
Anyway, this isn't a traditional war. Not like WWII, and while more like VN, not quite like that either. You have to know what you're fighting, understand your enemy, and plan to accomplish a mission. Killing civilians in this case defeats our purpose, and in the end, leaves us worse off than had we not invaded in the first place.
Most those who testified durng the 9/11 commission said there was no one we could have killed that would have prevented it. No country we could have incvaded that would have prevented. Mindless war simply doesn't make us one bit safer. Nothing in either Afghanistan or Iraq is making us any safer.
Oh boo, please tell me about war and combat, i'm all ears...... Tell me how i am wrong....
Accidental killing of civillians has little effect overall on the general populace of a repressed regieme. If you are up for it, i'll give you some books to read.
It does really? Not invading left us with UNSCAM, unkown wmd, sanctions, it left iraqis with rape rooms, tourture, murder and despotism in all itd glory. So worse off?
I disagree...
I think Reverend makes a good point when he points out the failure of the intelligence community. But I agree that invading any particular country would not have prevented anything a small group of men had already set their minds on doing.
If the terrorists weren't using civilians as human shields, there wouldn't be so many civilian casualties. Wanna blame someone? Blame the terrorists.
Actually I have already explained. And no, we actually knew the wmds were not a real concern. Drinking the koolaid doesn't make the argument valid. And we don't have heaven in either country now, which still have corruption and torture. So, the betterment has been not only mild with no future certainty, but expensive. When the worst of it was happening, we did nothing. We waited until it was mostly over, and then added injury to injury. Not something anyone would thank us for, or that we should feel too good about.
So, no, as realted to purpose, we create more than we kill when we kill civilians.
There are also laws that prohibit using non-combatants as human shields.
There is no certainty, but to suggest that there is "no knowledge" of civilian damage when planning/commencing operations is just flat out wrong. Steps are always taken to prevent civilian damage by civilized armies. However, there is no cause to take action when excessive civilian damage is not only possible, but probable.Usually there is no knowledge or certainty as to whether civilians will be harmed or not as a result of the targeting of terrorists and other militants. The blame in such cases is to be placed on those who have placed them in that position, using them as human shields and using their corpses to promote their radical cause. Western forces have no interest to get civilians killed, it's not like they see civilians and think "hey let's kill those innocent bastards". They target militants. You simply cannot assure that civilians will never die when targeting Islamic terrorists.