|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
New Member |
RE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,150458,00.html
Now that AQI has really ticked off the Sunni Tribes in Anbar and are catching Holy Mohammed from them...What next? When AQI starts to become a non-threat, who replaces them as the next Target? You got it...the former Number One Target moves back up to the top of the list! However, this time around the Sunni Tribes are better armed and organized. We had best watch our backs very close. A few Centuries of History will not change overnight. |
||
|
Member |
From the pundetry I'm hearing a reminder of the ancient rule "An enemy of my enemy is my friend." Heck, we allied with Stalin against Hitler! Look how that turned out. My sense is that Iraqis, like much of the world, are for 1) their immediate families; 2) their tribal group, local region, or religious sect; 3) Iraq; 4) Islamic world; 6) regional autonomy from the rest of the planet, in that order. The US is merely useful as "an enemy of my enemy," i.e. not even on the list. Let's see how this turns out. [I confess... I'm not very optimistic] |
|||
|
|
New Member |
_______________________________________________
QUOTE: My sense is that Iraqis, like much of the world, are for 1) their immediate families; 2) their tribal group, local region, or religious sect; 3) Iraq; 4) Islamic world; 6) regional autonomy from the rest of the planet, in that order. The US is merely useful as "an enemy of my enemy," i.e. not even on the list. Let's see how this turns out. [I confess... I'm not very optimistic] _______________________________________________ Bruce: You Broke the Code! I don't think all the Conservative Think Tanks in the World can put Humpty Back Together Again...Especially since they are largly responsible for causing poor old Humpty's Fall. Perhaps Mr. Lind should take an extended vacation in Germany and enjoy the many Octoberfests and Great Beer! Might Clear His Head a Little! |
|||
|
Member |
Somebody tell this guy, that as well the region still exists, where Ostpreussen has once been at times of German Reich, Ostpreussen itself ceased its existence at end of WWII. Not that he gets lost in the maneuvers
Weird also, what he's writing about US troops stopped "brutalizing the local population". So in his opinion troops brutalized them ? I think Mr. Lind simply got lost in his own play of thoughts. Some German beers would indeed help to calm his nerves down a bit. I've seen that too often: If it does not work, blame it on leadership, if it works give the honor to somebody else. What he did not get is: its likely, that only increased presence made it work. But that would not fit in his knotted thoughts. And also not in this report. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Only if he brings this discussion group with him!  |
|||
|
|
New Member |
Here we go again, an academic who consistently refuses to give credit to the military for doing something right. Mr. Linds academic credits are quite impressive, but my question is - "When did he ever put on a uniform and go out and have to deal with the policy that his fellow academics have postured out to the rest of us?"
Ugh!!!!!  The man writes an excellent paper, but as the saying goes it's easy to critize from the cheap seats. |
|||
|
Member |
We stopped brutalizing the local population?
When did we start brutalizing them? At least he didn't call us babykillers. |
|||
|
Experienced Member |
I can only present what our son (a Marine doing another tour in Iraq at this very moment) and many of the men in his Company told me.
Their first tour was run and gun. They would smash down walls, walls of residences, blow up front doors and rush in, having no idea what was inside a structure. Many times it was just a family fearing for their lives as they had no control over what was happening. Some Iraqi's would grab a gun not knowing who or what was coming into their lives...you're spotted holding a weapon, you were usually dead meat. All the while you have other family members screaming, yelling, crying, pleading...sadly, victims of circumstance. His second tour was not as violent, though on many ocassions, they still broke down doors and rushed into an abode at 3am guns at the ready. The Iraqi's had a habit of passing on so called intel about a house/family who were members of an insurgent group...wound up being a lie and one Iraqi was pizzed at another for some stupid transgression that happend two years ago. What better way to get revenge, send our troops on a wild goose chase. This tour, much different. Marines are kinder, more friendly, help out Iraqi's. They make sure they are always in the neighborhood and always with Sunni Iraqi troops. Rarely are Marines more than five minutes away from a problem should one arise. And most important, all of the Marines (at least in our sons unit) speak Arabic pretty darn good. Part of their pre-deployment training was eight weeks of intensive language classes. A Marine who didn't learn the language wasn't deployed with them. But, I can see where our initial tactics would be considered terrorizing the Iraqi population. How would any of us feel if at 3am people came barging through your front door armed to the teeth, making demands and possibly shooting the place up? You sure as hell do not win hearts and minds with such tactics. As for the article itself, excellent. A person who has not worn a uniform is not exempt from having expertise in military matters. S/F Gordon |
|||
|
|
Member |
uh34d, reading your words it looks like you support the "brutalizing" argument. Is this right ?
Wartime is always different, in wartimes I would expect myself weird things to happen, and as well I'd be not happy to have a group of armed people invading my house, I'd better like them to be US troops instead of Saddams Fedayeen. The difference, if it could called "brutalizing" or not, is imho how long it is done this way, and honestly, I don't buy the "brutalizing" argument. I would cheer this guy, I would cheer everyone, who has some real new and bright ideas, but what I saw was not even close to something useful.
|
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
NikeAjax:
Posted Mon 01 October 2007 01:50 AM uh34d, reading your words it looks like you support the "brutalizing" argument. Is this right? (I'm not sure how you would get that impression from my post? The post merely recounts what our son, and men in his unit have conveyed to me based upon their actual experiences during their tours in Iraq.) Wartime is always different, in wartimes I would expect myself weird things to happen, and as well I'd be not happy to have a group of armed people invading my house, I'd better like them to be US troops instead of Saddams Fedayeen. (The problem is, you don't know who is coming through your front door at 3am. And like most humans, your first reaction would be to be startled from a deep sleep, then you would react to the perceived threat. In the dark with only bright lights hitting you in the face, you generally have no idea who is behind those lights, you're temporarily blinded. Under such circumstances and within the first say 15 to 30 seconds, you cannot distinguish if they are US troops, Iraqi troops, Fedeyeen, Saddamists, al Quida. Under such circumstances, I would go for my gun. I'd take the chance. And if lucky enough to point my weapon, you can bet I'd start firing at whomever is there. Nobody has the inherent right to barge into anyone's home in the middle of the night...especially in an undeclared war.) The difference, if it could called "brutalizing" or not, is imho how long it is done this way, and honestly, I don't buy the "brutalizing" argument. (That is your opinion and based upon your possible limited knowledge of such actions and the psychological impact associated with such actions. I know what it is like from first hand experience and have witnessed the effect upon people.) I would cheer this guy, I would cheer everyone, who has some real new and bright ideas, but what I saw was not even close to something useful. (Dealing in absolutes will always get one into trouble. I would have to guess the above response is a shoot from the hip type and purely based upon an emotional reaction as opposed to a rational one based upon experience and relevant evidence. Having an understanding of the extreme difference between second generational warfare and fourth generational warfare is something sadly lacking within our own government and military. But that is what happens when one thinks they are the tough guy on the block.) S/F Gordon _______________________________________________ quote: Originally posted by uh34d: I can only present what our son (a Marine doing another tour in Iraq at this very moment) and many of the men in his Company told me. Their first tour was run and gun. They would smash down walls, walls of residences, blow up front doors and rush in, having no idea what was inside a structure. Many times it was just a family fearing for their lives as they had no control over what was happening. Some Iraqi's would grab a gun not knowing who or what was coming into their lives...you're spotted holding a weapon, you were usually dead meat. All the while you have other family members screaming, yelling, crying, pleading...sadly, victims of circumstance. His second tour was not as violent, though on many ocassions, they still broke down doors and rushed into an abode at 3am guns at the ready. The Iraqi's had a habit of passing on so called intel about a house/family who were members of an insurgent group...wound up being a lie and one Iraqi was pizzed at another for some stupid transgression that happend two years ago. What better way to get revenge, send our troops on a wild goose chase. This tour, much different. Marines are kinder, more friendly, help out Iraqi's. They make sure they are always in the neighborhood and always with Sunni Iraqi troops. Rarely are Marines more than five minutes away from a problem should one arise. And most important, all of the Marines (at least in our sons unit) speak Arabic pretty darn good. Part of their pre-deployment training was eight weeks of intensive language classes. A Marine who didn't learn the language wasn't deployed with them. But, I can see where our initial tactics would be considered terrorizing the Iraqi population. How would any of us feel if at 3am people came barging through your front door armed to the teeth, making demands and possibly shooting the place up? You sure as hell do not win hearts and minds with such tactics. As for the article itself, excellent. A person who has not worn a uniform is not exempt from having expertise in military matters. S/F Gordon |
|||
|
|
Member |
uh34d,
I got the impression from your statement: "But, I can see where our initial tactics would be considered terrorizing the Iraqi population." Yes, you are right, it's simply not possible to distinguish if out there are the good or the bad guys, but insecurity is likely in wartimes. If you grab your gun, then you must be aware, that there could be heavy response. I believe, you would know that, and I believe, you would not, even sleepy, play hero. War is never just, but if I would be an Iraqi, I would blame it to a certain amount on circumstances. I would hope, this time moves by and it will get better. And don't damn the tactics, if you don't provide better ones. Right and justice gets lost in wartimes, they have to get established again. But I believe US troops already have rather restrictive ROEs, making it even harder for them to fight. After all to read here on mil.com, one sometimes wonders why in wartime laws are handled this way, sometimes it looks like it's done to demoralize troops. But exactly this makes me feel it's not appropriate to say troops are brutalizing or terrorizing people. And what's the difference to search private property in nighttime for terrorists against to drop a bomb on a potential target ? If this war is justified, and that it is in my opinion, then both is right, if not, that's your opinion, then neither is. I feel not qualified to discuss differences of second and fourth generation war, all I know, this is an asymmetrical war, this is terrorism and there was no template how to handle such. Everything has to be learned first, and I'm sure it will be learned. Sometimes a bit slow, that's the sad thing, because it costs good lives. But have a look on your politics, your media, the disputes in politics make it really hard for your military to win. All this has influence on this war, all this costs also lives. Nobody has to wonder, why and that mistakes happen. My reaction may be emotional, but I'm for sure no blind believer, I like to adapt to changes. In the same I feel, there are much too much people claiming after, they knew it all better. But these people don't have any solution, neither before, nor after and they don't having any leadership. And that makes me angry.
|
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
NikeAjax:
Posted Mon 01 October 2007 10:43 AM uh34d, I got the impression from your statement: "But, I can see where our initial tactics would be considered terrorizing the Iraqi population." (Hey, I have to believe someone or a group of someone's entering an abode armed to the teeth in the middle of the night is going to scare anyone. In Iraq, you have no idea who is coming through the door. It could be US troops, Iraqi troops, Iraqi police, al Quida, Saddam Baathists, Shiia militia or anyone of the 28 groups identified in Iraq.) Yes, you are right, it's simply not possible to distinguish if out there are the good or the bad guys, but insecurity is likely in wartimes. If you grab your gun, then you must be aware, that there could be heavy response. I believe, you would know that, and I believe, you would not, even sleepy, play hero. (Ohhh no, anyone attempts to enter, or enters my home in the dead of night, I'd grab the weapon I keep near me at all times. I may get shot in the process but at least I would not go quietly. I'd rather die knowing I at least tried to protect what is mine than face the possibility of being toyed with by a person or persons who forcibly entered my home and I did nothing. I'm not a sound sleeper. So between my Bulldogs early warnings and easily being awakened, I think I could make a stand. One of the trademarks psychologically of Vietnam service is hypervigilance. Who knows, it might be a good thing.) War is never just, but if I would be an Iraqi, I would blame it to a certain amount on circumstances. I would hope, this time moves by and it will get better. And don't damn the tactics, if you don't provide better ones. (You want a better tactic, how's this; we withdraw all of our ground forces into our base camps. We fight only to protect them and the people within its area. The Iraqi military or police need some help and ask for it; fixed wing and chopper gunship assets are deployed. Any area where the enemy is entrenched, the area is destroyed, leveled.) Right and justice gets lost in wartimes, they have to get established again. (That still does not give free reign for troops to terrorize innocent civilians. If we have good, specific, accurate intel to act upon, fine. But the random street to street, home to home incursions do not help our cause.) But I believe US troops already have rather restrictive ROEs, making it even harder for them to fight. After all to read here on mil.com, one sometimes wonders why in wartime laws are handled this way, sometimes it looks like it's done to demoralize troops. But exactly this makes me feel it's not appropriate to say troops are brutalizing or terrorizing people. (Again, I can only go by what our son and men in his Company tell me. They do not have their hands tied behind their backs. They are free to make split second decisions about engaging anyone. Their job as an anti-terrorist Company is to go out and whack the hornets nest. In the process, a lot of homes are forcebly entered in the dead of night but based upon what is considered good intel.) And what's the difference to search private property in nighttime for terrorists against to drop a bomb on a potential target ? If this war is justified, and that it is in my opinion, then both is right, if not, that's your opinion, then neither is. (Normally, munitions are dropped when a target has been acquired. Bombs are not dropped willy, nilly. Targeting the homes on streets throughout Iraq has no comparison at all with the dropping of bombs.) I feel not qualified to discuss differences of second and fourth generation war, all I know, this is an asymmetrical war, this is terrorism and there was no template how to handle such. Everything has to be learned first, and I'm sure it will be learned. Sometimes a bit slow, that's the sad thing, because it costs good lives. (Sorry, all of the info was available for decades and ignored. All they had to do was read the DOD book published in 1969 titled 'The Communist Irfracture of South Vietnam' to find the answers. Far too few within the military and government had a handle on fourth generational warfare. Those that did were ignored and basically drummed out of the military. Read John Paul Vann's writings, Creighton Abrahms to name a couple. No, all of the info was there so shame on the leadership that ignored it.) But have a look on your politics, your media, the disputes in politics make it really hard for your military to win. All this has influence on this war, all this costs also lives. Nobody has to wonder, why and that mistakes happen. (Politics yes, media no. The media has never been responsible for events created by leadership, good or bad. As to mistakes, they are made when an ideology and ignorance combine to create super ego's. It seems to always make them smarter than the last group who tried and failed.) My reaction may be emotional, but I'm for sure no blind believer, I like to adapt to changes. In the same I feel, there are much too much people claiming after, they knew it all better. But these people don't have any solution, neither before, nor after and they don't having any leadership. And that makes me angry. (You should be angry. Angry at people who make decisions that are based upon ignorance. When relevant facts are ignored, you generally wind up getting into trouble. Sad part is, others wind up cashing the checks that others write in the form of death and maiming.) S/F Gordon _______________________________________________ |
|||
|
|
Member |
This gets rather lengthy, don't know if anybody else will still enjoy, but...
Here it is:
|
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
NikeAjax:
I agree so I will only respond to a few of your replies. Posted Wed 03 October 2007 03:07 PM This gets rather lengthy, don't know if anybody else will still enjoy, but... Here it is: quote: Originally posted by uh34d: NikeAjax: Posted Mon 01 October 2007 10:43 AM uh34d, I got the impression from your statement: "But, I can see where our initial tactics would be considered terrorizing the Iraqi population." (Hey, I have to believe someone or a group of someone's entering an abode armed to the teeth in the middle of the night is going to scare anyone. In Iraq, you have no idea who is coming through the door. It could be US troops, Iraqi troops, Iraqi police, al Quida, Saddam Baathists, Shiia militia or anyone of the 28 groups identified in Iraq.) <<If you imagine, you are an Iraqi, then you will know that searches are going on. In knowing that making yourself prone and start a fight, you would be as brave as dead. If you have a family behind you to care, you'll better search cover, get your gun ready, and wait what's coming.>> {Again, an Iraqi family doesn't know who is coming through the door. I'll give you an example as related to me by our son and other men in his Company. On many ocassions, insurgents will invade a home for the purpose of setting up an ambush. Rather than detain, tie up and gag the inhabitants, the insurgents kill them. In fact, this type of action by the insurgents has led to accusations that our troops killed the inhabitants when in fact they were already dead. One of the big problems in Iraq, the Iraqi's will not allow us to do autopsies on the dead. So there is no way to prove who's rounds killed the innocents. Considering the fact this type of action occurs, it is no wonder inhabitants of a home will react with force in order to protect themselves. So, I stand by my comments about attempting to defend ones self under such circumstances} <<As you above spoke about terrorizing again, would you like to give me a straight answer to my former question: Do you believe US troops brutalized the Iraqi people, yes or no? {Yes, I believe many Iraqi's have been brutalized. Many reports and even polls of our troops have them admitting they have brutalized Iraqi's. In one of the polls, they went as far to admit they would not report another service member for brutalizing an Iraqi. I believe it was around 40% who responded in such a fashion. I believe relevant evidence has demonstrated many such events have occured. I do believe that such incidents have ebbed significantly over the past year or so due to better training of our troops regarding civilians.} (Normally, munitions are dropped when a target has been acquired. Bombs are not dropped willy, nilly. Targeting the homes on streets throughout Iraq has no comparison at all with the dropping of bombs.) <<These are both military actions, both are done based on intel, and upon someone who kept it useful and gave the order. So it's very similar. You've yourself stated above about searches done by intel.>> {I did mention on many ocassions, the intel was questionable.} (Sorry, all of the info was available for decades and ignored. All they had to do was read the DOD book published in 1969 titled 'The Communist Irfracture of South Vietnam' to find the answers. Far too few within the military and government had a handle on fourth generational warfare. Those that did were ignored and basically drummed out of the military. Read John Paul Vann's writings, Creighton Abrahms to name a couple. No, all of the info was there so shame on the leadership that ignored it.) <<The system seem always to work the way, that without initial impulse there is no evolution. In WWII new tactics, new weapons are developed either by the aggressor, or by the defender but only after to learn inferiority of own weapons. You can now lean back and look at history, you can tell if and why it was wrong not to follow or learn a certain strategy. Maybe you're so bright that you knew it exactly at the right time. But as more information or doctrines are available, as more difficult it is to pick the right one. So it comes back to the first, it's developed, when it's needed. And that happens now.>> {Sorry but, that won't wash here. The tactical and political methodology was known but ignored in Iraq by this administration. Especially the Rumsfeld crowd.} But have a look on your politics, your media, the disputes in politics make it really hard for your military to win. All this has influence on this war, all this costs also lives. Nobody has to wonder, why and that mistakes happen. (Politics yes, media no. The media has never been responsible for events created by leadership, good or bad. <<Let me come back to WWII, if media would have reported about the much more casualties in comparison and in a similar way like today, then mood of the public would have undergone a strong change, leading to politicians getting soft knees, in the following having a heavy impact on military actions, this then leading to own defeat or at least premature stop of military actions, both leaving Nazis to survive. So media has, not even considering their bias like I do, a very strong influence.>> {Again, not true. When the first newsreels of Guadalcanal arrived in the US, they were shown to FDR. Nearly to a man, they wanted the newsreels to remain secret but not FDR. The movies were shown in all movie theaters throughout the US. FDR said something like 'he wanted the citizens of America to bear witness to the sacrifice being made by our troops' including the bodies floating and rolling in the surf, half buried on the beaches, the dead lined up with makeshift covers over their bodies. Honesty from a government is imperative to maintain support on the home front. Use lies, obsfucation and deceipt, you will lose the support of your citizens.} S/F Gordon _______________________________________________ |
|||
|
|
Member |
uh34d,
only a few points, as I believe, our opinions will not go to correlate: For the searches, I understand the situation, but I see no solution for changing it. Persons in command either needed these searches, or they did not. If they did, the basic problem people having fear could not be changed. In case searches were not needed, then I'd agree this has to be stopped. But can you tell, if it's needed or not ? I doubt. And even then I feel the word "brutalize" is completely inappropriate. You're sure that tactics and political methodology was all there and ready to use out of the box ? I mean without doubt fitting the situation ? Or even possible to adapt to the situation ? Even if miscalculation happened in Iraq, which I keep possible, I still see my statement fit. Miscalculation was also done in WWII, otherwise Chamberlain would not have post-agreed to annexation of Poland. Many other miscalculations happened, have a look at Pearl Harbor. Miscalculations happen every time, as soon a new situation appears. You'll find lots of them, current times and past if you only search a bit. Military evolution only happens with an initial impulse including every possibility of errors and miscalculation. Like in every other evolution. I can not see a situation like in Iraq being already solved before and because of this I stay by my statement. About media, it has its advantages and disadvantages, one is its capability to manipulate people. A picture is taken as proof and a report is taken as truth. If and how media succeeds to manipulate people has much to do how it is used. FDR saw it neccessary and beneficial for the case of winning the war to share the sacrifice made with the public. He was right, it seems. He was also another sort of politician. And if you consider, how companies, like Disney for example, were involved in pro-war movies and worked for the goal of winning the war, then you should see, media pulled on the same rope in the same direction with government. This was completely different than it is today. Let me simplify it: media is a tool and it depends how you use it, like with every tool, if you repair or destroy something. Additional to the said, todays media is and works quite different, to use this "tool" is also much more complicated. Would you notice, that I wrote "in a similar way like today", imagine in WWII daily reports of 100 deaths in town X, 500 in town Y, a.s.o., always with some sort of negative bias. Then you would have seen, how people got tired, how support from public would have dropped pretty fast. About our lousy politicians I won't even talk here. Here I also stay with my statement: project our todays media and politics onto WWII, and victory would not have achieved.
|
|||
|
| Powered by Eve Community |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
