 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
So? Combat doctrine isn't applied on a one-off basis for each operation. Excessive caution, excessive delays, and a slow pace of operations on the part of the British forces were common throughout the war. |
So? Are you saying the British did not hard fighting during the war? The point made was about friendly fire-are you then admitting the Brits, by their actions, have a lower iincidence of it?
quote:
It depends entirely on the people being occupied and the intentions and capability of enemy forces in the area. Fallujah is a problem now because we were too goddamned soft and slow dealing with them in the first place. |
The porblem was not "softness"-the problem was lack of good policing-a big difference. But US forces don;t police-they either shoot things up, or stay out of it. And that is the point. The US forces built up nothing but an adverserial relation with most of the pop. in this city-fine, after doing so, sure they would have to go in shooting-but as we saw, that approach was condemned by our own appointed Iraqis, which is why they demanded a truce.
Instead of patrolling with armored vehicles, in full combat gear, with guns pointed at the locals, like the GI's do, maybe if we patrolled on foot, without full combat gear and the gns pointed down, like the Brits do, then things would be a little better. Yes, we are occupying Iraq, but according to our political leaders, for their won beenfit, NOT ours. Any time for exaqmple we accidentaly shoot up some passing motorists we undermine that notion-that we are there for Iraqis.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Defiant
|
 |
WISCONSIN
Aug 1999
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
So? Are you saying the British did not hard fighting during the war? The point made was about friendly fire-are you then admitting the Brits, by their actions, have a lower iincidence of it?
The porblem was not "softness"-the problem was lack of good policing-a big difference. But US forces don;t police-they either shoot things up, or stay out of it. And that is the point. The US forces built up nothing but an adverserial relation with most of the pop. in this city-fine, after doing so, sure they would have to go in shooting-but as we saw, that approach was condemned by our own appointed Iraqis, which is why they demanded a truce.
Instead of patrolling with armored vehicles, in full combat gear, with guns pointed at the locals, like the GI's do, maybe if we patrolled on foot, without full combat gear and the gns pointed down, like the Brits do, then things would be a little better. Yes, we are occupying Iraq, but according to our political leaders, for their won beenfit, NOT ours. Any time for exaqmple we accidentaly shoot up some passing motorists we undermine that notion-that we are there for Iraqis. |
Nice idea, but we would get our arse shot off more than we are now. Talk about ducks in a pond.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:35
|
|
quote:
Nice idea, but we would get our arse shot off more than we are now. Talk about ducks in a pond. |
Thanks to bring this up:
We are in Iraq, or so our political leaders tell us, to create a better Iraq for Iraqis. The US military is the main tool our political leaders decided to use.
I have every respect for people that sign up to serve, like Oerdin. But in the end, I also believe they understand the risks they might be asked to take, and as long as they are not asked to take risks beyond those that the mission requires, they will do ask ordered.
So our dorctine should be mission specific, NOT simply desinged to lower casualties. IF an operation calls for tactics that might lead to higher casualties, then so be it-this is a risk known before we undertake it, and it is the job of the political leadership to inform and be honest with the people about the risks the mission will require.
Again, our leaders tell us we are doing this to better the lives of the Iraqis-do you think the average Iraqi who sees a soldier come donw the road pointing a gun at them from a heavily armored combat vehicle feels that soldier is there trying to make their lives better? Now have this person know somoene who has knows someone hurt by an incident with GI's, or had property ruined by GI's and so forth, will they really think that GI's are there as partners?
Here in NYC, the police found that, if people in a neighborhood saw cops daily, got to know their beat cop, then they would cooperate more, and help the police against the criminals, as opposed to sitting on the side or acting againt the police.
Out leaders say all the time a minority of Iraqis support the violence and most don;t want it, and so forth-well, this is probalby true, but most iraqis won't help us even if they might not join to hurt us, and that only makes our job harder. I think US troops would overall be safer if, this whole year, they had built close and friendly relations with the Iraqio populace everywhere, as opposed to limiting the outreach to the type of missions men like Oerdin carry out.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Defiant
|
|
WISCONSIN
Aug 1999
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
quote:
Nice idea, but we would get our arse shot off more than we are now. Talk about ducks in a pond. |
Thanks to bring this up:
We are in Iraq, or so our political leaders tell us, to create a better Iraq for Iraqis. The US military is the main tool our political leaders decided to use.
I have every respect for people that sign up to serve, like Oerdin. But in the end, I also believe they understand the risks they might be asked to take, and as long as they are not asked to take risks beyond those that the mission requires, they will do ask ordered.
So our dorctine should be mission specific, NOT simply desinged to lower casualties. IF an operation calls for tactics that might lead to higher casualties, then so be it-this is a risk known before we undertake it, and it is the job of the political leadership to inform and be honest with the people about the risks the mission will require.
Again, our leaders tell us we are doing this to better the lives of the Iraqis-do you think the average Iraqi who sees a soldier come donw the road pointing a gun at them from a heavily armored combat vehicle feels that soldier is there trying to make their lives better? Now have this person know somoene who has knows someone hurt by an incident with GI's, or had property ruined by GI's and so forth, will they really think that GI's are there as partners?
Here in NYC, the police found that, if people in a neighborhood saw cops daily, got to know their beat cop, then they would cooperate more, and help the police against the criminals, as opposed to sitting on the side or acting againt the police.
Out leaders say all the time a minority of Iraqis support the violence and most don;t want it, and so forth-well, this is probalby true, but most iraqis won't help us even if they might not join to hurt us, and that only makes our job harder. I think US troops would overall be safer if, this whole year, they had built close and friendly relations with the Iraqio populace everywhere, as opposed to limiting the outreach to the type of missions men like Oerdin carry out. |
Gepap,
The only problem here is we are in the Sunnit Triangle and chances are they are a quite of few "civilians" pointing their weapons at us. Even the cease-fire in Falluja is not a cease fire. We are in Iraq for Americans not the Iraqis, I know what all the politicians say, but we are there for our overall safety. Our response to these so called uprisings should be hammer fast and quick with maximum effort, that is all these people understand.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Defiant
Gepap,
The only problem here is we are in the Sunnit Triangle and chances are they are a quite of few "civilians" pointing their weapons at us. Even the cease-fire in Falluja is not a cease fire. We are in Iraq for Americans not the Iraqis, I know what all the politicians say, but we are there for our overall safety. Our response to these so called uprisings should be hammer fast and quick with maximum effort, that is all these people understand. |
Resistance in the Sunni triangle is a result of the political uncertainty and loss of priviladge this area sees. Opposition would always be hgiher here than elsewhere, BUT even here, without building partnerships with Iraqis we ensure that even if we stamp one set of gunmen today, another set of gunmen, maybe more gunmen, will be here tommorrow.
As for your statement that we are in iraqi for Americans and not Iraqis-then we failed, because thet real implication of your statement is that we will be forced to stay in Iraq indefinitelly.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Defiant
|
|
WISCONSIN
Aug 1999
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Resistance in the Sunni triangle is a result of the political uncertainty and loss of priviladge this area sees. Opposition would always be hgiher here than elsewhere, BUT even here, without building partnerships with Iraqis we ensure that even if we stamp one set of gunmen today, another set of gunmen, maybe more gunmen, will be here tommorrow.
As for your statement that we are in iraqi for Americans and not Iraqis-then we failed, because thet real implication of your statement is that we will be forced to stay in Iraq indefinitelly. |
Don't get me wrong GePap, we are there for America, but we have to make Iraq(Middle East) better off in order for America to be safer. We are still in Germany and Japan, agreed, not need now but we will be in Iraq for 50 years or more.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
So? Are you saying the British did not hard fighting during the war? The point made was about friendly fire-are you then admitting the Brits, by their actions, have a lower iincidence of it?
|
"hard fighting" can happen whether you intend it or not - the enemy has a bit of a say too, old chap. The fact is that the British commanders in WW2 were as a rule excessively cautious, failed to achieve key objectives in a timely manner, frequently found reasons to dig in or wait for more supplies, and yes, in the short run, they probably had a lower relative incidence of fratricidal casualties - while offsetting that by higher overall casualties due to failure to rapidly and decisively break enemy resistance. Warfighting involves risks.
quote:
The porblem was not "softness"-the problem was lack of good policing-a big difference. But US forces don;t police-they either shoot things up, or stay out of it. And that is the point. The US forces built up nothing but an adverserial relation with most of the pop. in this city-fine, after doing so, sure they would have to go in shooting-but as we saw, that approach was condemned by our own appointed Iraqis, which is why they demanded a truce.
|
Fallujah was an expected area of significant opposition before the war even started, but our brilliant political leadership had no plans for dealing with that issue, and insufficient forces at any time to really assert total control of any area. Before you get to the "policing" and pussyfooting around stage, you have to reduce enemy capacity for unconventional resistance to a point where "policing" is a viable option. That means disrupting leadership and communications, and depriving them of significant heavy weapons and explosives.
Fallujah was a key point in the line occupied (at least in theory) by two IRG divisions, a key HQ and supply point, and an active center for ISSS, SRG and Saddam Fedayeen as well as Baath party leadership. What happened to all those people? They sure as hell had to be handled, and most slipped through the cracks. Our political leadership had a fetish for WMD's and wanted to prove how small a force we could use to knock off the Hussein government, so they ignored the density problem for occupation.
quote:
Instead of patrolling with armored vehicles, in full combat gear, with guns pointed at the locals, like the GI's do, maybe if we patrolled on foot, without full combat gear and the gns pointed down, like the Brits do, then things would be a little better. Yes, we are occupying Iraq, but according to our political leaders, for their won beenfit, NOT ours. Any time for exaqmple we accidentaly shoot up some passing motorists we undermine that notion-that we are there for Iraqis. |
You have a short memory - we used to patrol on foot and by Humvee in a lot more areas, (and still do), but that let the cockroaches scurry out of the way and organize, as well as exposed our troops to a lot of IED attacks.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
I'm not sure we can switch now, though. First impressions are pretty powerful, and I think at this point the "trigger happy American" stereotype is firmly entrenched in the Iraqi conciousness.
-Arrian |
Why "first impressions?"
The Iraqi Air Force never flew a single sortie - IRG units and SRG units disappeared from the map without a fight. Most of the Iraqi Army, even the non-conscript units, melted away out of sight. Standing against US firepower was a swift and certain one way ticket to hell.
So why wouldn't the committed defenders of the Iraqi regime simply plan to lay low, organize, observe, and then escalate and attempt to counterattack before the American election? The June handoff date to an Iraqi government kind of forced the pace, but why assume that people who started out hostile to us and committed to oppose us just went away? And then, like magic, a year later a spontaneous popular uprising just materializes at a politically opportune time?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
- while offsetting that by higher overall casualties due to failure to rapidly and decisively break enemy resistance. Warfighting involves risks. |
And the Soviets were all for crushing the enemy and breaking resistance, and they suffered even bigger casualties in their operations. Perhaps the level of aggressiveness is not the most important factor to casualty levels.
quote:
Our political leadership had a fetish for WMD's and wanted to prove how small a force we could use to knock off the Hussein government, so they ignored the density problem for occupation. |
I agree with this.
quote:
You have a short memory - we used to patrol on foot and by Humvee in a lot more areas, (and still do), but that let the cockroaches scurry out of the way and organize, as well as exposed our troops to a lot of IED attacks. |
As Arrian said, first impressions matter-we started doing this after it was clear we were too isolated from Iraqis. You say it gives the cockaroaches time to leave-well, you know something, we will never have the time, manpower, and knowledge of the place to root all the roaches out without Iraqi support. It would have been very nice to have more Iraqi informants, and a good partner in an Iraqi police force, but we have neither really.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
MtG - by first impressions I meant first impressions of the occupation, by Iraqis *not* so loyal to Saddam (or rather their status under Saddam) that they were gonna fight us no matter what.
It might be that Fallujah was essentially a lost cause from the "hearts and minds" perspective. Sounds like that might be so. But that can't be the case all over, and as GePap said, combatting the hardcore Saddamites would be easier if we had some Iraqi help. We'd be more likely to have that help, IMO, if we had done some things differently, including more of a "walk softly" approach to the occupation in general.
I'm sure you know a lot more about combat that I do. That's a given. But this operation goes way beyond being just a combat operation, or a combination of many little combat ops. It's the peace we need to win - and that's political. I know soldiers hate it when politicos impose what they think are ridiculous "rules of engagement" on them, and I think that's a tough thing to get right, but the fact is that the political angle is the most difficult thing to get right in Iraq, and it trumps everything else.
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chemical Ollie
|
 |
Bored of this board
Jan 2002
time: 06:35
|
|
I'm glad to find some Americans who share my point of view, like Arrian and GePap.
I'm sure most of the people in this forum have an academic degree or are on their way to get one, and along with it might come some knowledge of project management. Those management methods are generic to any type of activity, like private life, business, military or any other area. When you plan a project of any kind, you set a strategic, long-term goal. The accomplishment of that goal should then be the aim of every single policy, tactic and action.
In the case of this war, the long-term goal is "Iraqi Freedom", if you believe in the official politics. But many policies, tactics and actions of the US military are directly opposing the strategic goal. That may be things already pointed out by GePap and Arrian, facts reported by Oerdin (like soldiers mounting heavy plates on their vehicles to do more damage on civilian cars that are in their way in traffic jams), calling airstrikes on mosques (guerillas using it as an ambush hideout does not matter in the eyes of the Iraqis).
There are several patriotic American war movies where the message is that the mission objective is more important than the life of individual soldiers. The most obvious I can think of is U571 where a sailor drowns himself to achive the goals.
While I can't blame soldiers who don't want to die (who would want to?), their urge to save their own asses is not working towards the strategic goal. Trigger happiness in convoys, road blocks and airstrikes could sometimes save the life of the individuals who pull the trigger, but the colateral damage from those actions might upset enough civilians to make US lose the war. If the first goal was to save American lifes, the troops should stay home.
And disarm those civilians! There is no legal reason whatsoever for a civilian to own an AK-47.
Last edited by Chemical Ollie on 15-04-2004 at 03:55
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-04-2004 00:14
) by not engaging the enemy aggressively. The unpleasant minor detail that this entails is that the prolongation of the conflict results in more overall casualties on all sides.
|