We've become so risk-averse that it'll be a miracle if we can accomplish anything!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100806/wl_time/08599200886300
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100806/wl_time/08599200886300
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Petraeus Tightens Rules of Engagement
- Thread starter christian77
- Start date
Re: Petraeus Tightens Rules of Engagement
great, soon we will be patrolling with air-soft and Red rider bb guns....
great, soon we will be patrolling with air-soft and Red rider bb guns....
Re: Petraeus Tightens Rules of Engagement
And nobody mentions parallels with 'Nam....
I, too, know how it feels to take fire, have to ask for permission over the net to return it, and being ordered by some pencil pushin', ring knockin' butterbar not to.
And nobody mentions parallels with 'Nam....
I, too, know how it feels to take fire, have to ask for permission over the net to return it, and being ordered by some pencil pushin', ring knockin' butterbar not to.
Re: Petraeus Tightens Rules of Engagement
A study released this week by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that we incur 6 more attacks over a six-week period following each civilian death we cause in Afghanistan (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...803-afghan-civilians-20100803,0,2607445.story). It's easy rhetorically to criticize strict rules of engagement, but it's the right strategy to secure Afghanistan. As a foreign, occupying force, you cannot kill your way to victory over an insurgency. You must combine strategic, precision direct action with overarching political and economic development. These are political wars and cannot be won militarily.
The problem isn't that we've got strict rules of engagement. It's that we as a military are under-trained to handle full spectrum and stability operations. While earning a Ranger or SF tab is rightly a point of pride and honor, no comparable school or competency training exists for counterinsurgency (COIN) doctrine. You can ask the best D-boy or SEAL in the world to do COIN, and he's likely going to struggle, largely because his skill set is very different from what COIN competencies demand. And in all honesty, VERY few people outside of Civil Affairs and PSYOP communities have any desire to do COIN, even though that's the strategy we've been ordered to execute. There's the rub.
By following Petraeus' guidance, we made the Sunni Awakening in Iraq possible, which in turn stabilized the country. Only by winning back the public in Afghanistan will we have a chance at seeing a somewhat stable nation emerge there as well. I'm not exactly confident that's possible, but we should know from the examples of both Vietnam and Iraq that we can't kill ourselves to victory in these types of wars. If only we could, because God knows that's what we're best at. We are unquestionably the best warfighting nation in the world, but we are pretty haphazard nation builders. Still, when we're given a job, we execute orders. If the top general in A-stan says protect the population and bust our asses to conduct COIN, then that's what we need to be doing.
A study released this week by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that we incur 6 more attacks over a six-week period following each civilian death we cause in Afghanistan (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...803-afghan-civilians-20100803,0,2607445.story). It's easy rhetorically to criticize strict rules of engagement, but it's the right strategy to secure Afghanistan. As a foreign, occupying force, you cannot kill your way to victory over an insurgency. You must combine strategic, precision direct action with overarching political and economic development. These are political wars and cannot be won militarily.
The problem isn't that we've got strict rules of engagement. It's that we as a military are under-trained to handle full spectrum and stability operations. While earning a Ranger or SF tab is rightly a point of pride and honor, no comparable school or competency training exists for counterinsurgency (COIN) doctrine. You can ask the best D-boy or SEAL in the world to do COIN, and he's likely going to struggle, largely because his skill set is very different from what COIN competencies demand. And in all honesty, VERY few people outside of Civil Affairs and PSYOP communities have any desire to do COIN, even though that's the strategy we've been ordered to execute. There's the rub.
By following Petraeus' guidance, we made the Sunni Awakening in Iraq possible, which in turn stabilized the country. Only by winning back the public in Afghanistan will we have a chance at seeing a somewhat stable nation emerge there as well. I'm not exactly confident that's possible, but we should know from the examples of both Vietnam and Iraq that we can't kill ourselves to victory in these types of wars. If only we could, because God knows that's what we're best at. We are unquestionably the best warfighting nation in the world, but we are pretty haphazard nation builders. Still, when we're given a job, we execute orders. If the top general in A-stan says protect the population and bust our asses to conduct COIN, then that's what we need to be doing.
Re: Petraeus Tightens Rules of Engagement
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If the top general in A-stan says protect the population and bust our asses to conduct COIN, then that's what we need to be doing. </div></div>
Maybe, maybe not.
After announcing that we will start leaving Afghanistan in 2011, next year. Who do you think the locals are going to really support?
Ain't going to be us.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If the top general in A-stan says protect the population and bust our asses to conduct COIN, then that's what we need to be doing. </div></div>
Maybe, maybe not.
After announcing that we will start leaving Afghanistan in 2011, next year. Who do you think the locals are going to really support?
Ain't going to be us.
Re: Petraeus Tightens Rules of Engagement
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: apache kid</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If the top general in A-stan says protect the population and bust our asses to conduct COIN, then that's what we need to be doing. </div></div>
Maybe, maybe not.
After announcing that we will start leaving Afghanistan in 2011, next year. Who do you think the locals are going to really support?
Ain't going to be us. </div></div>
The higher-ups have been backing off that "timeline" ever since it came out. I completely agree once the drawdown begins, we'll be losing local allies left and right. However, the drawdown in Iraq took over 18 months to get going, and I'm sure it will be a while before any significant drop in troops happen.
The main variable in this equation is the Karzai government. After one of Karzai's top stooges overseeing anti-corruption campaigns got caught on tape taking a car to get a guy released from jail, Karzai's assumed control of the anti-corruption task force. Seeing as how he rigged the last election in his favor, I don't think we can expect him to crackdown on the graft within his administration unless we tie our withdrawal to his cooperation. Hell, the fact is that no matter what our military does, if the diplomats can't get Karzai's act together, it's a lost cause.
We don't control the single biggest factor for success in A-stan, just like we had no control over the Sunni Awakening. These aren't our wars anymore, they are national wars of control and governance. If we want victory and stability more than the parties involved, there isn't a strategy in the world that will help us win it. But until we actually commit to giving that nation up to the Taliban, we need to be fighting the best counterinsurgency campaign we can.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: apache kid</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If the top general in A-stan says protect the population and bust our asses to conduct COIN, then that's what we need to be doing. </div></div>
Maybe, maybe not.
After announcing that we will start leaving Afghanistan in 2011, next year. Who do you think the locals are going to really support?
Ain't going to be us. </div></div>
The higher-ups have been backing off that "timeline" ever since it came out. I completely agree once the drawdown begins, we'll be losing local allies left and right. However, the drawdown in Iraq took over 18 months to get going, and I'm sure it will be a while before any significant drop in troops happen.
The main variable in this equation is the Karzai government. After one of Karzai's top stooges overseeing anti-corruption campaigns got caught on tape taking a car to get a guy released from jail, Karzai's assumed control of the anti-corruption task force. Seeing as how he rigged the last election in his favor, I don't think we can expect him to crackdown on the graft within his administration unless we tie our withdrawal to his cooperation. Hell, the fact is that no matter what our military does, if the diplomats can't get Karzai's act together, it's a lost cause.
We don't control the single biggest factor for success in A-stan, just like we had no control over the Sunni Awakening. These aren't our wars anymore, they are national wars of control and governance. If we want victory and stability more than the parties involved, there isn't a strategy in the world that will help us win it. But until we actually commit to giving that nation up to the Taliban, we need to be fighting the best counterinsurgency campaign we can.
Re: Petraeus Tightens Rules of Engagement
We learned the lessons of overly liberal ROE when we lost some 234 Marines in Beirut on one Otober day so long ago.
Do not shoot first, no loaded magazine in the rifle, let them shott then ask them to stop...you get the idea. We have already gone through what this causes and now we are faced with a General who thinks a revisit of our history may be in order, or more than likely has not been schooled in this particular matter.
The only way to win the hearts and minds of Afghanistan is to kill each and every Taliban, and if a civilian is killed, remind them it is the Will of Allah which they so firmly believe. Once you tell a Muslim it is th ewill of allah, the argument stops
We learned the lessons of overly liberal ROE when we lost some 234 Marines in Beirut on one Otober day so long ago.
Do not shoot first, no loaded magazine in the rifle, let them shott then ask them to stop...you get the idea. We have already gone through what this causes and now we are faced with a General who thinks a revisit of our history may be in order, or more than likely has not been schooled in this particular matter.
The only way to win the hearts and minds of Afghanistan is to kill each and every Taliban, and if a civilian is killed, remind them it is the Will of Allah which they so firmly believe. Once you tell a Muslim it is th ewill of allah, the argument stops
Re: Petraeus Tightens Rules of Engagement
He also asked how many divisions the Pope had...
Artillery's great, but it ain't everything.
He also asked how many divisions the Pope had...
Artillery's great, but it ain't everything.
Re: Petraeus Tightens Rules of Engagement
We all saw what happened when we killed every Taliban we could find in 2001-2002: they retreated to Pakistan's FATA and NWFP (read: "Pashtunistan") and re-grouped. We are still fighting in Afghanistan because we only worried about killing bad guys, not eliminating the root causes that breed such an insurgency.
The US killed over 1 million NVA, VC, and their supporters during the Vietnam War, and still victory eluded us. In a conventional war between nations, it's about body counts and physically holding key terrain. In a counterinsurgency, there are no fronts or key terrain. The population is the lynchpin of fighting a counterinsurgency. Examine the Huk Rebellion and subsequent insurgencies in the southern Philippines, the Chinese Revolution, Algeria, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Iraq. Each one demonstrates that whomever the population supports is the eventual victor.
No one is saying troops can't conduct patrols or defend themselves. Petraeus is specifically decreasing the artillery and CAS because so many civilians have been killed. Despite all our skill and technology, we've not been nearly as surgical as we should have been. Petraeus' rules are to lessen civilian deaths, not to be more lenient on the Taliban. Kill the Taliban wholesale, for all I care. But do not confuse stricter rules of engagement as going easy on the enemy: it's really about holding ourselves to a higher standard of fire discipline. We're starting to gain ground again with the Afghan population, so much so that recently captured Taliban in Marjah and Kandahar had pamphlets outlining the Taliban's own "hearts and minds" campaign. We have to hold the line here, and not retreat to our comfort-zone perception that direct action wins all wars.
We all saw what happened when we killed every Taliban we could find in 2001-2002: they retreated to Pakistan's FATA and NWFP (read: "Pashtunistan") and re-grouped. We are still fighting in Afghanistan because we only worried about killing bad guys, not eliminating the root causes that breed such an insurgency.
The US killed over 1 million NVA, VC, and their supporters during the Vietnam War, and still victory eluded us. In a conventional war between nations, it's about body counts and physically holding key terrain. In a counterinsurgency, there are no fronts or key terrain. The population is the lynchpin of fighting a counterinsurgency. Examine the Huk Rebellion and subsequent insurgencies in the southern Philippines, the Chinese Revolution, Algeria, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Iraq. Each one demonstrates that whomever the population supports is the eventual victor.
No one is saying troops can't conduct patrols or defend themselves. Petraeus is specifically decreasing the artillery and CAS because so many civilians have been killed. Despite all our skill and technology, we've not been nearly as surgical as we should have been. Petraeus' rules are to lessen civilian deaths, not to be more lenient on the Taliban. Kill the Taliban wholesale, for all I care. But do not confuse stricter rules of engagement as going easy on the enemy: it's really about holding ourselves to a higher standard of fire discipline. We're starting to gain ground again with the Afghan population, so much so that recently captured Taliban in Marjah and Kandahar had pamphlets outlining the Taliban's own "hearts and minds" campaign. We have to hold the line here, and not retreat to our comfort-zone perception that direct action wins all wars.
Re: Petraeus Tightens Rules of Engagement
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And nobody mentions parallels with 'Nam....
</div></div>
The fact that we're losing due to our own stupidity? Or the fact that the indigenous people have superior tactics and a history of kicking everybody's ass?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And nobody mentions parallels with 'Nam....
</div></div>
The fact that we're losing due to our own stupidity? Or the fact that the indigenous people have superior tactics and a history of kicking everybody's ass?
Re: Petraeus Tightens Rules of Engagement
He said when he took over he would LOOSEN the rules.
He's a liberal, say one thing, do another.
He said when he took over he would LOOSEN the rules.
He's a liberal, say one thing, do another.
Re: Petraeus Tightens Rules of Engagement
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kraigWY</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I thing Stalin had it right:
"God is on the side of the guy with the most artillery"
</div></div>
But we dropped several million tons of bombs on Vietnam and still got our asses handed to us by guys with pointed hats and flip flops
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kraigWY</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I thing Stalin had it right:
"God is on the side of the guy with the most artillery"
</div></div>
But we dropped several million tons of bombs on Vietnam and still got our asses handed to us by guys with pointed hats and flip flops
Re: Petraeus Tightens Rules of Engagement
I don't care if he's a liberal or a conservative. Either way, I think when you're wrong, you're wrong; and admitting it is the first step toward correcting the problem. We keep learning the same lessons and then ignoring them.
I need a beer or ten...
I don't care if he's a liberal or a conservative. Either way, I think when you're wrong, you're wrong; and admitting it is the first step toward correcting the problem. We keep learning the same lessons and then ignoring them.
I need a beer or ten...
Re: Petraeus Tightens Rules of Engagement
Had we kept up the bombing and some semblance of an offense for a few months more, North Vietnam would have surrendered. Stay the course until it is over, is what we should have learned.
Had we kept up the bombing and some semblance of an offense for a few months more, North Vietnam would have surrendered. Stay the course until it is over, is what we should have learned.
Re: Petraeus Tightens Rules of Engagement
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: zink14</div><div class="ubbcode-body">great, soon we will be patrolling with air-soft and Red rider bb guns....</div></div>
.
Possibly the end goal in-mind . Is for you to be an 'Official' peacekeeper & you will be issued a nice new Blue Helmet .
.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: zink14</div><div class="ubbcode-body">great, soon we will be patrolling with air-soft and Red rider bb guns....</div></div>
.
Possibly the end goal in-mind . Is for you to be an 'Official' peacekeeper & you will be issued a nice new Blue Helmet .
.
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Petraeus Tightens Rules of Engagement
Problem with VN was we signed a no win pack before 1957 going in. We were there just to show the Russians an China how much we would bleed, for our thinking. Our main enemy was leadership, to which I fault Ike, JFK, LBJ, as well as tricky dick for. All were better men than that, before 1600 Penn ave, but something major happens to those that sleep there,... must be the water.
Problem with VN was we signed a no win pack before 1957 going in. We were there just to show the Russians an China how much we would bleed, for our thinking. Our main enemy was leadership, to which I fault Ike, JFK, LBJ, as well as tricky dick for. All were better men than that, before 1600 Penn ave, but something major happens to those that sleep there,... must be the water.
Re: Petraeus Tightens Rules of Engagement
Interestingly, in the last war we really won we hammered the enemy day and night and even nuked 'em--we forced the citizenry to comply we to did not ask them too, we did not win their hearts and minds we broke their fucking backs. Maybe one day we'll understand this lesson and apply it to the current conflicts.
My guess is that SunTzu would agree that there is no winning of hearts and minds just compelling them by the utilization of brute force and the threat of anhilation. When I hear this type of language coming from someone at the top I'll know the tide has changed, until then I can only watch in horror and pray for our men.
Interestingly, in the last war we really won we hammered the enemy day and night and even nuked 'em--we forced the citizenry to comply we to did not ask them too, we did not win their hearts and minds we broke their fucking backs. Maybe one day we'll understand this lesson and apply it to the current conflicts.
My guess is that SunTzu would agree that there is no winning of hearts and minds just compelling them by the utilization of brute force and the threat of anhilation. When I hear this type of language coming from someone at the top I'll know the tide has changed, until then I can only watch in horror and pray for our men.
Re: Petraeus Tightens Rules of Engagement
I swear for the last 9 years our unspoken policy has really been "provide targets for insurgents to shoot at in their own backyards so that don't have to fly planes into buildings within the US to kill US citizens"...
I wonder if our troops will be able to remove the orange saftey tips off their tacticool airsoft gear.
I swear for the last 9 years our unspoken policy has really been "provide targets for insurgents to shoot at in their own backyards so that don't have to fly planes into buildings within the US to kill US citizens"...
I wonder if our troops will be able to remove the orange saftey tips off their tacticool airsoft gear.
Re: Petraeus Tightens Rules of Engagement
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ZLBubba</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
No one is saying troops can't conduct patrols or defend themselves. Petraeus is specifically decreasing the artillery and CAS because so many civilians have been killed. Despite all our skill and technology, we've not been nearly as surgical as we should have been. Petraeus' rules are to lessen civilian deaths, not to be more lenient on the Taliban. Kill the Taliban wholesale, for all I care. But do not confuse stricter rules of engagement as going easy on the enemy: it's really about holding ourselves to a higher standard of fire discipline. We're starting to gain ground again with the Afghan population, so much so that recently captured Taliban in Marjah and Kandahar had pamphlets outlining the Taliban's own "hearts and minds" campaign. We have to hold the line here, and not retreat to our comfort-zone perception that direct action wins all wars. </div></div>
Thats just great, so when I deploy I'm not going to be doing my job but rather be just a body taking up space and collecting a paycheck. FML. I just want to call in one AC-130 cas mission. maybe request a brigade of 155s, enemy in the open, ICM in effect. Is that too much to ask for?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ZLBubba</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
No one is saying troops can't conduct patrols or defend themselves. Petraeus is specifically decreasing the artillery and CAS because so many civilians have been killed. Despite all our skill and technology, we've not been nearly as surgical as we should have been. Petraeus' rules are to lessen civilian deaths, not to be more lenient on the Taliban. Kill the Taliban wholesale, for all I care. But do not confuse stricter rules of engagement as going easy on the enemy: it's really about holding ourselves to a higher standard of fire discipline. We're starting to gain ground again with the Afghan population, so much so that recently captured Taliban in Marjah and Kandahar had pamphlets outlining the Taliban's own "hearts and minds" campaign. We have to hold the line here, and not retreat to our comfort-zone perception that direct action wins all wars. </div></div>
Thats just great, so when I deploy I'm not going to be doing my job but rather be just a body taking up space and collecting a paycheck. FML. I just want to call in one AC-130 cas mission. maybe request a brigade of 155s, enemy in the open, ICM in effect. Is that too much to ask for?
Re: Petraeus Tightens Rules of Engagement
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: lwrkeysfisher</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Interestingly, in the last war we really won we hammered the enemy day and night and even nuked 'em--we forced the citizenry to comply we to did not ask them too, we did not win their hearts and minds we broke their fucking backs. Maybe one day we'll understand this lesson and apply it to the current conflicts.
My guess is that SunTzu would agree that there is no winning of hearts and minds just compelling them by the utilization of brute force and the threat of anhilation. When I hear this type of language coming from someone at the top I'll know the tide has changed, until then I can only watch in horror and pray for our men. </div></div>
Well put...
Why are we asking anything from these people. The "supposed" story is that we were attacked and we went to kill those that did it. Help or get out of the way. We should have been so brutal to have scared the shit out of anyone considering ever attacking us again. If they dont want our boots stomping all over them, then try and stop us and take the beating. If you want to avoid the beating then point out who we need to get, we'll do what we gotta do and be on our merry way.
This assumes that thats why we are there. Maybe instead were looking to build them bridges and shopping malls, thereby indebting them to us in a way they can never repay so we can hold sway over a new "democratic" western friendly government. I personally like the first idea better.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: lwrkeysfisher</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Interestingly, in the last war we really won we hammered the enemy day and night and even nuked 'em--we forced the citizenry to comply we to did not ask them too, we did not win their hearts and minds we broke their fucking backs. Maybe one day we'll understand this lesson and apply it to the current conflicts.
My guess is that SunTzu would agree that there is no winning of hearts and minds just compelling them by the utilization of brute force and the threat of anhilation. When I hear this type of language coming from someone at the top I'll know the tide has changed, until then I can only watch in horror and pray for our men. </div></div>
Well put...
Why are we asking anything from these people. The "supposed" story is that we were attacked and we went to kill those that did it. Help or get out of the way. We should have been so brutal to have scared the shit out of anyone considering ever attacking us again. If they dont want our boots stomping all over them, then try and stop us and take the beating. If you want to avoid the beating then point out who we need to get, we'll do what we gotta do and be on our merry way.
This assumes that thats why we are there. Maybe instead were looking to build them bridges and shopping malls, thereby indebting them to us in a way they can never repay so we can hold sway over a new "democratic" western friendly government. I personally like the first idea better.
Re: Petraeus Tightens Rules of Engagement
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: lwrkeysfisher</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Interestingly, in the last war we really won we hammered the enemy day and night and even nuked 'em--we forced the citizenry to comply we to did not ask them too, we did not win their hearts and minds we broke their fucking backs. Maybe one day we'll understand this lesson and apply it to the current conflicts.</div></div>
I agree with this methodology as well when it comes to warfare, however it will never happen again...least not under our flag. We are too concerned with world opinion & are a kinder and gentler fighting force than ever before.
Despite having the most state of the art technology & weapons, their is no doubt in my mind that our military is somewhat of a joke to nations around the world. We may carry a big stick....but everyone knows we wont wield it at anyone.
ZLBubba posts are spot-on per the COIN strategy which Petraeus is implementing, but I still call bullshit on the neutering of our troops ability to actively bring the fight to the enemy. It puts troops at risk...period.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: lwrkeysfisher</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Interestingly, in the last war we really won we hammered the enemy day and night and even nuked 'em--we forced the citizenry to comply we to did not ask them too, we did not win their hearts and minds we broke their fucking backs. Maybe one day we'll understand this lesson and apply it to the current conflicts.</div></div>
I agree with this methodology as well when it comes to warfare, however it will never happen again...least not under our flag. We are too concerned with world opinion & are a kinder and gentler fighting force than ever before.
Despite having the most state of the art technology & weapons, their is no doubt in my mind that our military is somewhat of a joke to nations around the world. We may carry a big stick....but everyone knows we wont wield it at anyone.
ZLBubba posts are spot-on per the COIN strategy which Petraeus is implementing, but I still call bullshit on the neutering of our troops ability to actively bring the fight to the enemy. It puts troops at risk...period.
Re: Petraeus Tightens Rules of Engagement
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: lwrkeysfisher</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-weight: bold">Interestingly, in the last war we really won we hammered the enemy day and night and even nuked 'em--we forced the citizenry to comply we to did not ask them too, we did not win their hearts and minds we broke their fucking backs. Maybe one day we'll understand this lesson and apply it to the current conflicts.</span>
My guess is that SunTzu would agree that there is no winning of hearts and minds just compelling them by the utilization of brute force and the threat of anhilation. When I hear this type of language coming from someone at the top I'll know the tide has changed, until then I can only watch in horror and pray for our men. </div></div>
No way. The last war we won? Are you kidding me? First Gulf War? Iraq? A selective remembering of history only compounds the problem here. "Forcing the citizenry to bend to our will?" Mao, Hitler, and Stalin all gave orders like that, and I'd much rather lose a war than sink to that kind of depravity. Your response reads like satire, but I'm pretty sure you're being literal.
Promoting the use of atomic weapons nonchalantly is just asinine, especially in that region of the world. If you thought 9/11 was a bad attack, just wait until we nuke a Muslim nation. We'll have suicide bombers in our malls and museums within 3 months, and a suitcase nuke in a major city would be a matter of time.
You do realize that 9/11 happened because the Taliban offered sanctuary to Al Qaeda, right? The Taliban took power around 1994 by eliminating warlords and terrifying everyone who stood in their path. The Taliban are primarily a Pashtun movement, which is why few Baluchis, Hazaris, Uzbeks, and Tajiks join their cause. It's not like the Taliban even have majority support. Far from it. But we keep alienating the population with stray bombs and 155s when we need the people to stand against the Taliban. You're the only one painting the Afghan people as the enemy here, and frankly, this is the first time I've heard anyone try to make such a nuanced, complex war into black and white. This isn't WWII, and they aren't Nazi Germany.
Sun Tzu would use the Taliban's vicious record ruling Afghanistan against them and would galvanize the population through propaganda and information campaigns, thereby denying the Taliban safe haven, support, and recruitment opportunities. Gaining solid intelligence is one of the primary components to victory, and COIN is a critical recruitment vehicle for us to have spies watching and reporting on the Taliban. Civilians can also serve as early warning indicators for IEDs, ambushes, and future attacks if they are on our side. You'd do better to cite Genghis Khan, he's more your style, but as far as I know, we aren't trying to spread our empire like Khan was.
The debate we should be having is whether Afghanistan is worth the time and money we're putting into it, not whether we agree with the rules of engagement.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: lwrkeysfisher</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-weight: bold">Interestingly, in the last war we really won we hammered the enemy day and night and even nuked 'em--we forced the citizenry to comply we to did not ask them too, we did not win their hearts and minds we broke their fucking backs. Maybe one day we'll understand this lesson and apply it to the current conflicts.</span>
My guess is that SunTzu would agree that there is no winning of hearts and minds just compelling them by the utilization of brute force and the threat of anhilation. When I hear this type of language coming from someone at the top I'll know the tide has changed, until then I can only watch in horror and pray for our men. </div></div>
No way. The last war we won? Are you kidding me? First Gulf War? Iraq? A selective remembering of history only compounds the problem here. "Forcing the citizenry to bend to our will?" Mao, Hitler, and Stalin all gave orders like that, and I'd much rather lose a war than sink to that kind of depravity. Your response reads like satire, but I'm pretty sure you're being literal.
Promoting the use of atomic weapons nonchalantly is just asinine, especially in that region of the world. If you thought 9/11 was a bad attack, just wait until we nuke a Muslim nation. We'll have suicide bombers in our malls and museums within 3 months, and a suitcase nuke in a major city would be a matter of time.
You do realize that 9/11 happened because the Taliban offered sanctuary to Al Qaeda, right? The Taliban took power around 1994 by eliminating warlords and terrifying everyone who stood in their path. The Taliban are primarily a Pashtun movement, which is why few Baluchis, Hazaris, Uzbeks, and Tajiks join their cause. It's not like the Taliban even have majority support. Far from it. But we keep alienating the population with stray bombs and 155s when we need the people to stand against the Taliban. You're the only one painting the Afghan people as the enemy here, and frankly, this is the first time I've heard anyone try to make such a nuanced, complex war into black and white. This isn't WWII, and they aren't Nazi Germany.
Sun Tzu would use the Taliban's vicious record ruling Afghanistan against them and would galvanize the population through propaganda and information campaigns, thereby denying the Taliban safe haven, support, and recruitment opportunities. Gaining solid intelligence is one of the primary components to victory, and COIN is a critical recruitment vehicle for us to have spies watching and reporting on the Taliban. Civilians can also serve as early warning indicators for IEDs, ambushes, and future attacks if they are on our side. You'd do better to cite Genghis Khan, he's more your style, but as far as I know, we aren't trying to spread our empire like Khan was.
The debate we should be having is whether Afghanistan is worth the time and money we're putting into it, not whether we agree with the rules of engagement.
Re: Petraeus Tightens Rules of Engagement
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ZLBubba</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you thought 9/11 was a bad attack, just wait until we nuke a Muslim nation. We'll have suicide bombers in our malls and museums within 3 months, and a suitcase nuke in a major city would be a matter of time.</div></div>
This will probably happen in a matter of time in any case, however I agree a preemptive nuclear strike would be unethical.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ZLBubba</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The debate we should be having is whether Afghanistan is worth the time and money we're putting into it, not whether we agree with the rules of engagement.</div></div>
I agree that it would make for another good debate...but despite our commitment to be there, the constricting ROE in Afghanistan certainly is an issue to anyone/everyone who has ever done anything there.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ZLBubba</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you thought 9/11 was a bad attack, just wait until we nuke a Muslim nation. We'll have suicide bombers in our malls and museums within 3 months, and a suitcase nuke in a major city would be a matter of time.</div></div>
This will probably happen in a matter of time in any case, however I agree a preemptive nuclear strike would be unethical.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ZLBubba</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The debate we should be having is whether Afghanistan is worth the time and money we're putting into it, not whether we agree with the rules of engagement.</div></div>
I agree that it would make for another good debate...but despite our commitment to be there, the constricting ROE in Afghanistan certainly is an issue to anyone/everyone who has ever done anything there.
Re: Petraeus Tightens Rules of Engagement
Petraeus' guidance helped us win in Iraq, why doubt him now? Give him a chance to make this shitty situation work, I think he deserves that much.
I've got a company of buddies in Iraq right now that are taking up space and collecting a paycheck. Since when did we ever get a say in where we were going or what we're doing in the military? No unit I was ever in was a democracy. We receive orders, and then execute the mission. It's as simple as that.
I highly doubt anyone be in trouble for calling in fire on a bunch of Taliban in the open, but the ROE isn't talking about that. It's talking about the ambiguous times when it's not so cut-and-dried. We do more getting the population on our side and using them against the Taliban than by some crazy scorched-earth policy. Not to mention, we'd need 200k more ground troops to implement anything like that.
Petraeus' guidance helped us win in Iraq, why doubt him now? Give him a chance to make this shitty situation work, I think he deserves that much.
I've got a company of buddies in Iraq right now that are taking up space and collecting a paycheck. Since when did we ever get a say in where we were going or what we're doing in the military? No unit I was ever in was a democracy. We receive orders, and then execute the mission. It's as simple as that.
I highly doubt anyone be in trouble for calling in fire on a bunch of Taliban in the open, but the ROE isn't talking about that. It's talking about the ambiguous times when it's not so cut-and-dried. We do more getting the population on our side and using them against the Taliban than by some crazy scorched-earth policy. Not to mention, we'd need 200k more ground troops to implement anything like that.
Re: Petraeus Tightens Rules of Engagement
Petraeus is just carrying out the policy of a libtard OHB admin. He is just the same as a gun grabbing chief of police for a f**K'n big city mayor. Our soldiers are going to get hurt, protecting some backwoods baboon. What the hell are we doing there. Bring them home now. The media and history will never say anything bad about this clown we have as prez. Bring them home.
VPD of a deployed Grunt
3/7 Lima Co. Camp Delaram Afghanistan.
Petraeus is just carrying out the policy of a libtard OHB admin. He is just the same as a gun grabbing chief of police for a f**K'n big city mayor. Our soldiers are going to get hurt, protecting some backwoods baboon. What the hell are we doing there. Bring them home now. The media and history will never say anything bad about this clown we have as prez. Bring them home.
VPD of a deployed Grunt
3/7 Lima Co. Camp Delaram Afghanistan.
Re: Petraeus Tightens Rules of Engagement
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ZLBubba</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Petraeus' guidance helped us win in Iraq, why doubt him now? </div></div> I guess it's all relative...I was in Iraq in the beginning of the war and I am here right now...it ain't that different.
You know as well as I do that Iraq and Afghanistan are two totally different animals anyways...be nice if the strategies could successfully mirror eachother, but it doesn't always work that way. As soon as we officially unass both theatres, chaos will rule supreme anyways.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ZLBubba</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Petraeus' guidance helped us win in Iraq, why doubt him now? </div></div> I guess it's all relative...I was in Iraq in the beginning of the war and I am here right now...it ain't that different.
You know as well as I do that Iraq and Afghanistan are two totally different animals anyways...be nice if the strategies could successfully mirror eachother, but it doesn't always work that way. As soon as we officially unass both theatres, chaos will rule supreme anyways.
Re: Petraeus Tightens Rules of Engagement
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ZLBubba</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: lwrkeysfisher</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-weight: bold">Interestingly, in the last war we really won we hammered the enemy day and night and even nuked 'em--we forced the citizenry to comply we to did not ask them too, we did not win their hearts and minds we broke their fucking backs. Maybe one day we'll understand this lesson and apply it to the current conflicts.</span>
My guess is that SunTzu would agree that there is no winning of hearts and minds just compelling them by the utilization of brute force and the threat of anhilation. When I hear this type of language coming from someone at the top I'll know the tide has changed, until then I can only watch in horror and pray for our men. </div></div>
No way. The last war we won? Are you kidding me? First Gulf War? Iraq? A selective remembering of history only compounds the problem here. "Forcing the citizenry to bend to our will?" Mao, Hitler, and Stalin all gave orders like that, and I'd much rather lose a war than sink to that kind of depravity. Your response reads like satire, but I'm pretty sure you're being literal.
Promoting the use of atomic weapons nonchalantly is just asinine, especially in that region of the world. If you thought 9/11 was a bad attack, just wait until we nuke a Muslim nation. We'll have suicide bombers in our malls and museums within 3 months, and a suitcase nuke in a major city would be a matter of time.
You do realize that 9/11 happened because the Taliban offered sanctuary to Al Qaeda, right? The Taliban took power around 1994 by eliminating warlords and terrifying everyone who stood in their path. The Taliban are primarily a Pashtun movement, which is why few Baluchis, Hazaris, Uzbeks, and Tajiks join their cause. It's not like the Taliban even have majority support. Far from it. But we keep alienating the population with stray bombs and 155s when we need the people to stand against the Taliban. You're the only one painting the Afghan people as the enemy here, and frankly, this is the first time I've heard anyone try to make such a nuanced, complex war into black and white. This isn't WWII, and they aren't Nazi Germany.
Sun Tzu would use the Taliban's vicious record ruling Afghanistan against them and would galvanize the population through propaganda and information campaigns, thereby denying the Taliban safe haven, support, and recruitment opportunities. Gaining solid intelligence is one of the primary components to victory, and COIN is a critical recruitment vehicle for us to have spies watching and reporting on the Taliban. Civilians can also serve as early warning indicators for IEDs, ambushes, and future attacks if they are on our side. You'd do better to cite Genghis Khan, he's more your style, but as far as I know, we aren't trying to spread our empire like Khan was.
The debate we should be having is whether Afghanistan is worth the time and money we're putting into it, not whether we agree with the rules of engagement. </div></div>
What was it again that we won from the first gulph war and from Iraq?
The Mao and Hitler comparison, while dramatic, is shit. Those names invoke memories of atrocities, and are good for shutting people down who dont want to be viewed harshly, much like calling someone a racist. Its a good politicaly correct door slam in the face, but means nothing in this instance.
I think you do actually know that he wasnt advocating ruling our country, or expanding our "empire" by breaking the citizens backs. What I understood from his post was that we are waging war upon these people, and brutal war is what they should get. Let the victory be swift and complete so we can get back to our peacetime slumber.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ZLBubba</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: lwrkeysfisher</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-weight: bold">Interestingly, in the last war we really won we hammered the enemy day and night and even nuked 'em--we forced the citizenry to comply we to did not ask them too, we did not win their hearts and minds we broke their fucking backs. Maybe one day we'll understand this lesson and apply it to the current conflicts.</span>
My guess is that SunTzu would agree that there is no winning of hearts and minds just compelling them by the utilization of brute force and the threat of anhilation. When I hear this type of language coming from someone at the top I'll know the tide has changed, until then I can only watch in horror and pray for our men. </div></div>
No way. The last war we won? Are you kidding me? First Gulf War? Iraq? A selective remembering of history only compounds the problem here. "Forcing the citizenry to bend to our will?" Mao, Hitler, and Stalin all gave orders like that, and I'd much rather lose a war than sink to that kind of depravity. Your response reads like satire, but I'm pretty sure you're being literal.
Promoting the use of atomic weapons nonchalantly is just asinine, especially in that region of the world. If you thought 9/11 was a bad attack, just wait until we nuke a Muslim nation. We'll have suicide bombers in our malls and museums within 3 months, and a suitcase nuke in a major city would be a matter of time.
You do realize that 9/11 happened because the Taliban offered sanctuary to Al Qaeda, right? The Taliban took power around 1994 by eliminating warlords and terrifying everyone who stood in their path. The Taliban are primarily a Pashtun movement, which is why few Baluchis, Hazaris, Uzbeks, and Tajiks join their cause. It's not like the Taliban even have majority support. Far from it. But we keep alienating the population with stray bombs and 155s when we need the people to stand against the Taliban. You're the only one painting the Afghan people as the enemy here, and frankly, this is the first time I've heard anyone try to make such a nuanced, complex war into black and white. This isn't WWII, and they aren't Nazi Germany.
Sun Tzu would use the Taliban's vicious record ruling Afghanistan against them and would galvanize the population through propaganda and information campaigns, thereby denying the Taliban safe haven, support, and recruitment opportunities. Gaining solid intelligence is one of the primary components to victory, and COIN is a critical recruitment vehicle for us to have spies watching and reporting on the Taliban. Civilians can also serve as early warning indicators for IEDs, ambushes, and future attacks if they are on our side. You'd do better to cite Genghis Khan, he's more your style, but as far as I know, we aren't trying to spread our empire like Khan was.
The debate we should be having is whether Afghanistan is worth the time and money we're putting into it, not whether we agree with the rules of engagement. </div></div>
What was it again that we won from the first gulph war and from Iraq?
The Mao and Hitler comparison, while dramatic, is shit. Those names invoke memories of atrocities, and are good for shutting people down who dont want to be viewed harshly, much like calling someone a racist. Its a good politicaly correct door slam in the face, but means nothing in this instance.
I think you do actually know that he wasnt advocating ruling our country, or expanding our "empire" by breaking the citizens backs. What I understood from his post was that we are waging war upon these people, and brutal war is what they should get. Let the victory be swift and complete so we can get back to our peacetime slumber.
Re: Petraeus Tightens Rules of Engagement
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: doorkicker</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ZLBubba</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you thought 9/11 was a bad attack, just wait until we nuke a Muslim nation. We'll have suicide bombers in our malls and museums within 3 months, and a suitcase nuke in a major city would be a matter of time.</div></div>
This will probably happen in a matter of time in any case, however I agree a preemptive nuclear strike would be unethical.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ZLBubba</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The debate we should be having is whether Afghanistan is worth the time and money we're putting into it, not whether we agree with the rules of engagement.</div></div>
I agree that it would make for another good debate...but despite our commitment to be there, the constricting ROE in Afghanistan certainly is an issue to anyone/everyone who has ever done anything there.
</div></div>
I'll be in A-stan in the fall. This isn't academic to me, and I've lost a number of friends in Afghanistan like many of us have. The data that I cited in an earlier post clearly shows US troops are safer when we curtail civilian casualties.
Last year on deployment, I had two friends die because we launched an aerial raid on a spot where we thought the bad guys were. Turned out we got 1 LVT and a bunch of civilians. Within a week we had more IEDs on the roads, more ambushes on HN personnel, and a monster IED that got my two friends who were working on a schoolhouse. I'm sure others have different experiences downrange, but I can personally attest that public support for the enemy leads to more American deaths. It's easy to talk about collateral damage on an internet forum, but harder when you see two good dudes go down because we were so anxious to kill bad guys that we turned the public against us.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: doorkicker</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ZLBubba</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you thought 9/11 was a bad attack, just wait until we nuke a Muslim nation. We'll have suicide bombers in our malls and museums within 3 months, and a suitcase nuke in a major city would be a matter of time.</div></div>
This will probably happen in a matter of time in any case, however I agree a preemptive nuclear strike would be unethical.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ZLBubba</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The debate we should be having is whether Afghanistan is worth the time and money we're putting into it, not whether we agree with the rules of engagement.</div></div>
I agree that it would make for another good debate...but despite our commitment to be there, the constricting ROE in Afghanistan certainly is an issue to anyone/everyone who has ever done anything there.
</div></div>
I'll be in A-stan in the fall. This isn't academic to me, and I've lost a number of friends in Afghanistan like many of us have. The data that I cited in an earlier post clearly shows US troops are safer when we curtail civilian casualties.
Last year on deployment, I had two friends die because we launched an aerial raid on a spot where we thought the bad guys were. Turned out we got 1 LVT and a bunch of civilians. Within a week we had more IEDs on the roads, more ambushes on HN personnel, and a monster IED that got my two friends who were working on a schoolhouse. I'm sure others have different experiences downrange, but I can personally attest that public support for the enemy leads to more American deaths. It's easy to talk about collateral damage on an internet forum, but harder when you see two good dudes go down because we were so anxious to kill bad guys that we turned the public against us.
Re: Petraeus Tightens Rules of Engagement
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: doorkicker</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ZLBubba</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Petraeus' guidance helped us win in Iraq, why doubt him now? </div></div> I guess it's all relative...I was in Iraq in the beginning of the war and I am here right now...it ain't that different.
<span style="font-weight: bold">You know as well as I do that Iraq and Afghanistan are two totally different animals anyways...be nice if the strategies could successfully mirror eachother, but it doesn't always work that way. As soon as we officially unass both theatres, chaos will rule supreme anyways. </span></div></div>
That's a solid point. You can't use cookie cutter strategies in different wars, but that doesn't mean we can't give the guy a chance. And in the end, I can't say that I think there's any way to create a stable Afghanistan with China, Iran, Pakistan, and India all jockeying for influence (and where's their troops, might I ask?). Still, COIN is the only chance for trying to accomplish our objectives of rooting out AQ and Taliban leaders, and giving the Afghan people the best chance for reclaiming their country.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: doorkicker</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ZLBubba</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Petraeus' guidance helped us win in Iraq, why doubt him now? </div></div> I guess it's all relative...I was in Iraq in the beginning of the war and I am here right now...it ain't that different.
<span style="font-weight: bold">You know as well as I do that Iraq and Afghanistan are two totally different animals anyways...be nice if the strategies could successfully mirror eachother, but it doesn't always work that way. As soon as we officially unass both theatres, chaos will rule supreme anyways. </span></div></div>
That's a solid point. You can't use cookie cutter strategies in different wars, but that doesn't mean we can't give the guy a chance. And in the end, I can't say that I think there's any way to create a stable Afghanistan with China, Iran, Pakistan, and India all jockeying for influence (and where's their troops, might I ask?). Still, COIN is the only chance for trying to accomplish our objectives of rooting out AQ and Taliban leaders, and giving the Afghan people the best chance for reclaiming their country.
Re: Petraeus Tightens Rules of Engagement
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ZLBubba</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'll be in A-stan in the fall. This isn't academic to me</div></div>
I agree, I have a couple of a couple years in the 'Ghan and can attest to the importance of having the local support for a variety of reasons. I know the relationships that I established with the local yokals kept me safe more than a time or two when I lived out in the middle of nowhere, Afghanistan.
With that being said though, I still think that further restricting the ROE endangers troops...I've seen it. PV2 Joe Snuffy is so scared to use his weapon for fear of being in trouble that he doesn't realize that he's about to be vaporized & reduced to spaghetti. Actually, not only have I seen it...but I've seen it OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER again unfortunately.
I'm not advocating running around and tearing up the countryside, because that's counter-productive to everything we're trying to accomplish...but what I am advocating, is the ability to accomplish missions by whatever means necessary within reason to achieve success (success all around...not just the tree in the forest).
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ZLBubba</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'll be in A-stan in the fall. This isn't academic to me</div></div>
I agree, I have a couple of a couple years in the 'Ghan and can attest to the importance of having the local support for a variety of reasons. I know the relationships that I established with the local yokals kept me safe more than a time or two when I lived out in the middle of nowhere, Afghanistan.
With that being said though, I still think that further restricting the ROE endangers troops...I've seen it. PV2 Joe Snuffy is so scared to use his weapon for fear of being in trouble that he doesn't realize that he's about to be vaporized & reduced to spaghetti. Actually, not only have I seen it...but I've seen it OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER again unfortunately.
I'm not advocating running around and tearing up the countryside, because that's counter-productive to everything we're trying to accomplish...but what I am advocating, is the ability to accomplish missions by whatever means necessary within reason to achieve success (success all around...not just the tree in the forest).
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Petraeus Tightens Rules of Engagement
Here is a straight up question,
If they had our Military and it's stores, what would they do?
Hearts and minds my ass, we got fucked over that once before. Grab them by their ass,and their minds will follow. We proved that in SE/A as well, but cocksuckers up the line wanted to make grade, hence C/M's for some.
Across the line it was game on, we never lost a gig and the so called tough guys beat feet every time we came to play.
Here is a straight up question,
If they had our Military and it's stores, what would they do?
Hearts and minds my ass, we got fucked over that once before. Grab them by their ass,and their minds will follow. We proved that in SE/A as well, but cocksuckers up the line wanted to make grade, hence C/M's for some.
Across the line it was game on, we never lost a gig and the so called tough guys beat feet every time we came to play.
Re: Petraeus Tightens Rules of Engagement
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here is a straight up question,
If they had our Military and it's stores, what would they do?
Hearts and minds my ass, we got fucked over that once before. Grab them by their ass,and their minds will follow. We proved that in SE/A as well, but cocksuckers up the line wanted to make grade, hence C/M's for some.
Across the line it was game on, we never lost a gig and the so called tough guys beat feet every time we came to play. </div></div>
What war are you talking about? Vietnam? That's a fairly generous view of history. The failures of the Diem regime in Vietnam bear striking similarities to Karzai's. Both insurgencies were spurred on by corrupt central governments and make or made our missions very difficult to accomplish. While we love to make these wars all about us, at the end these wars boil down to the populations within the respective nations owning their situations and using the security our forces bring to establish stable conditions. These wars aren't about us anymore.
I agree with doorkicker's point. I don't want PV2 Snuffy to be worried about a court martial if he fires his weapon, and that's where low level leaders have to define the standards clearly to their guys. The ROE speaks more to senior NCOs and field grade officers being more discerning about using the big guns. Petraeus hopefully emphasizes that as the order spreads throughout the troops. A soldier should never feel afraid to protect himself.
By the way doorkicker, I do appreciate the wise nuance you bring to this debate.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here is a straight up question,
If they had our Military and it's stores, what would they do?
Hearts and minds my ass, we got fucked over that once before. Grab them by their ass,and their minds will follow. We proved that in SE/A as well, but cocksuckers up the line wanted to make grade, hence C/M's for some.
Across the line it was game on, we never lost a gig and the so called tough guys beat feet every time we came to play. </div></div>
What war are you talking about? Vietnam? That's a fairly generous view of history. The failures of the Diem regime in Vietnam bear striking similarities to Karzai's. Both insurgencies were spurred on by corrupt central governments and make or made our missions very difficult to accomplish. While we love to make these wars all about us, at the end these wars boil down to the populations within the respective nations owning their situations and using the security our forces bring to establish stable conditions. These wars aren't about us anymore.
I agree with doorkicker's point. I don't want PV2 Snuffy to be worried about a court martial if he fires his weapon, and that's where low level leaders have to define the standards clearly to their guys. The ROE speaks more to senior NCOs and field grade officers being more discerning about using the big guns. Petraeus hopefully emphasizes that as the order spreads throughout the troops. A soldier should never feel afraid to protect himself.
By the way doorkicker, I do appreciate the wise nuance you bring to this debate.
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Petraeus Tightens Rules of Engagement
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ZLBubba</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While we love to make these wars all about us, at the end these wars boil down to the populations within the respective nations owning their situations and using the security our forces bring to establish stable conditions. These wars aren't about us anymore.</div></div>
If any war we are a player in is not about us, we need to pack up an leave, because we should have never been there in the first place. We are not the Police Force of this rock.
My question still stands,..If they had our Military and it's stores, what would they do?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ZLBubba</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While we love to make these wars all about us, at the end these wars boil down to the populations within the respective nations owning their situations and using the security our forces bring to establish stable conditions. These wars aren't about us anymore.</div></div>
If any war we are a player in is not about us, we need to pack up an leave, because we should have never been there in the first place. We are not the Police Force of this rock.
My question still stands,..If they had our Military and it's stores, what would they do?
Re: Petraeus Tightens Rules of Engagement
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ZLBubba</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While we love to make these wars all about us, at the end these wars boil down to the populations within the respective nations owning their situations and using the security our forces bring to establish stable conditions. These wars aren't about us anymore.</div></div>
If any war we are a player in is not about us, we need to pack up an leave, because we should have never been there in the first place. We are not the Police Force of this rock.
My question still stands,..If they had our Military and it's stores, what would they do?
</div></div>
Your question is irrelevant. As an old SWC cadre used to ask us in response to our hypothetical questions, "Well, what if a monkey flew out of my butt? It ain't ever gonna happen so who cares?" A wise man he was.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ZLBubba</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While we love to make these wars all about us, at the end these wars boil down to the populations within the respective nations owning their situations and using the security our forces bring to establish stable conditions. These wars aren't about us anymore.</div></div>
If any war we are a player in is not about us, we need to pack up an leave, because we should have never been there in the first place. We are not the Police Force of this rock.
My question still stands,..If they had our Military and it's stores, what would they do?
</div></div>
Your question is irrelevant. As an old SWC cadre used to ask us in response to our hypothetical questions, "Well, what if a monkey flew out of my butt? It ain't ever gonna happen so who cares?" A wise man he was.
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Petraeus Tightens Rules of Engagement
Irrelevant, I don't think so. They would turn this country to glass as fast as they could, you and everyone else knows that. What kind of speech well be given when a 3-4K ton yield goes up on our dirt,...
I don't care about the unborn of theirs myself, an they did not care about ours on 9/11, I am a strong supporter of first strike, where ever it needs to be. I played by the rules once, and was almost handed my ass for it, never again. If your not in it to win don't start something in the first place.
We started some of this shit in the mid 80's, blindly wanting to kill Russians and fucked up that end game so bad no one ever seen this coming? I submit many knew what was going to happen an let it play out, for their own reasons.
Irrelevant, I don't think so. They would turn this country to glass as fast as they could, you and everyone else knows that. What kind of speech well be given when a 3-4K ton yield goes up on our dirt,...
I don't care about the unborn of theirs myself, an they did not care about ours on 9/11, I am a strong supporter of first strike, where ever it needs to be. I played by the rules once, and was almost handed my ass for it, never again. If your not in it to win don't start something in the first place.
We started some of this shit in the mid 80's, blindly wanting to kill Russians and fucked up that end game so bad no one ever seen this coming? I submit many knew what was going to happen an let it play out, for their own reasons.
Re: Petraeus Tightens Rules of Engagement
Gunfighter: thats a simple question, they would act just like Rome did to Carthage and raze everything to the ground and salt the earth so that nothing would ever grow back.
I like doorkicker know all to well that Pvt snuffy will do just that, hesitate at the moment of truth. One instance that comes to my mind most clearly, my buddies are out on patrol, totally incompatent Squad Leader, they were just south of Baghdad, along the edge of the river. They start taking fire from across the river, couple of guys with AKs in a palm grove, my one buddy was the gunner of the ASV and was able to clearly make out a number of the shooters. Squad leader, instead of actually making a command call (he was incapable) he called up the CP and asked for guidance, they told him to just drive away, as there could have been civilians in the palm grove as well.
I heard all this going on over the net as I was out with my squad, I simply couldn't believe what I was hearing. My buddy should have let loose with the .50 and used the optics of the ASV to direct well aimed fire on those shooters, but he was afraid to do so because the whole command was Fucked and his squad leader was a vindictive asshole who took everything personal and held grudges like crazy, and would have crucified my bud if he had taken the initiative to actually do the simple task of returning fire.
Gunfighter: thats a simple question, they would act just like Rome did to Carthage and raze everything to the ground and salt the earth so that nothing would ever grow back.
I like doorkicker know all to well that Pvt snuffy will do just that, hesitate at the moment of truth. One instance that comes to my mind most clearly, my buddies are out on patrol, totally incompatent Squad Leader, they were just south of Baghdad, along the edge of the river. They start taking fire from across the river, couple of guys with AKs in a palm grove, my one buddy was the gunner of the ASV and was able to clearly make out a number of the shooters. Squad leader, instead of actually making a command call (he was incapable) he called up the CP and asked for guidance, they told him to just drive away, as there could have been civilians in the palm grove as well.
I heard all this going on over the net as I was out with my squad, I simply couldn't believe what I was hearing. My buddy should have let loose with the .50 and used the optics of the ASV to direct well aimed fire on those shooters, but he was afraid to do so because the whole command was Fucked and his squad leader was a vindictive asshole who took everything personal and held grudges like crazy, and would have crucified my bud if he had taken the initiative to actually do the simple task of returning fire.
Re: Petraeus Tightens Rules of Engagement
While I was downrange there were few things that frustrated me more on our side than combat arms guys that were completely clueless about FID and how their actions ultimately made our strategic mission that much harder to complete. The only way to fight insurgents effectively if you don't want to stay there forever is to earn the support of the local population, but because most of the guys in line units don't get that or don't care, they throw their hands in the air and make stupid statements about just leveling the place, killing everyone and leaving. They should be driving supply trucks back on the FOB instead, in my opinion.
While I was downrange there were few things that frustrated me more on our side than combat arms guys that were completely clueless about FID and how their actions ultimately made our strategic mission that much harder to complete. The only way to fight insurgents effectively if you don't want to stay there forever is to earn the support of the local population, but because most of the guys in line units don't get that or don't care, they throw their hands in the air and make stupid statements about just leveling the place, killing everyone and leaving. They should be driving supply trucks back on the FOB instead, in my opinion.
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Petraeus Tightens Rules of Engagement
We had guys like that back then as well, but they seem to find life elsewhere most of the time. What goes on past the wire, stays past the wire. We were not out there to be targets, or pages/chapters in a book. Either your for the mission and protecting your buds, or it's best to stay on the porch.
I don't know who in Korea started this fairness on the battlefield crap, but a lot of good an true Americans have died because of it.
We had guys like that back then as well, but they seem to find life elsewhere most of the time. What goes on past the wire, stays past the wire. We were not out there to be targets, or pages/chapters in a book. Either your for the mission and protecting your buds, or it's best to stay on the porch.
I don't know who in Korea started this fairness on the battlefield crap, but a lot of good an true Americans have died because of it.
Re: Petraeus Tightens Rules of Engagement
Dogtown: To be more clear, I have no problem with playing nice and being social with the locals that just want to be left alone and live their lives in peace, they are just like everyone else. However I have absolutely no problem with bringing the wrath of Thor down upon those who wish to do me harm. I just want to have the ability to bring death and destruction to my enemies and not just have to stand there and play target so some officer can advance his career.
Dogtown: To be more clear, I have no problem with playing nice and being social with the locals that just want to be left alone and live their lives in peace, they are just like everyone else. However I have absolutely no problem with bringing the wrath of Thor down upon those who wish to do me harm. I just want to have the ability to bring death and destruction to my enemies and not just have to stand there and play target so some officer can advance his career.
Re: Petraeus Tightens Rules of Engagement
Well, the point of the ROE is to set a minimum standard of qulaifiers that must be met before calling in Thor to prevent us from winning the battle but losing the war. People are talking like this will just neuter gunfighters ability to defend themselves - that's not true. It's not like they're saying, "sorry, if you get overrun that's your own problem." What they're trying to do is prevent tactical commanders from overstepping the escalation of force when there's very real potential for collateral damage.
By all means, defend yourself - but that doesn't mean call in a JDAM when you take sniper fire from a village. Protecting the population is vital in this fight and unfortunately if preventing a village turning against you means letting a couple bad guys get away, I'm sorry but that's going to be necessary sometimes. Think of it along the lines of restricting high speed police chases in built up areas where the risks of collateral damage outweigh the cost of catching that one dude.
And that's only part of the FID game - convincing the population that they can trust us and the host government is a WHOLE other ball of wax entirely. Difficult, yes, but impossible? No.
Well, the point of the ROE is to set a minimum standard of qulaifiers that must be met before calling in Thor to prevent us from winning the battle but losing the war. People are talking like this will just neuter gunfighters ability to defend themselves - that's not true. It's not like they're saying, "sorry, if you get overrun that's your own problem." What they're trying to do is prevent tactical commanders from overstepping the escalation of force when there's very real potential for collateral damage.
By all means, defend yourself - but that doesn't mean call in a JDAM when you take sniper fire from a village. Protecting the population is vital in this fight and unfortunately if preventing a village turning against you means letting a couple bad guys get away, I'm sorry but that's going to be necessary sometimes. Think of it along the lines of restricting high speed police chases in built up areas where the risks of collateral damage outweigh the cost of catching that one dude.
And that's only part of the FID game - convincing the population that they can trust us and the host government is a WHOLE other ball of wax entirely. Difficult, yes, but impossible? No.
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Petraeus Tightens Rules of Engagement
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dogtown</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While I was downrange there were few things that frustrated me more on our side than combat arms guys that were completely clueless about FID and how their actions ultimately made our strategic mission that much harder to complete. The only way to fight insurgents effectively if you don't want to stay there forever is to earn the support of the local population, but because most of the guys in line units don't get that or don't care, they throw their hands in the air and make stupid statements about just leveling the place, killing everyone and leaving. They should be driving supply trucks back on the FOB instead, in my opinion. </div></div>
There is a major difference between being, Respected, Feared, an laughed at. The trick is them knowing what is going to happen, based on their actions.
If you have to think about pulling the trigger, or ask for permission prior to, your going to lose the war. You may win the battles your "Allowed" to take part in, but your going to lose the war. This is one war we can not lose, no matter what. Unless you want them here in a larger force than is already here. These people have been fighting for 5K years and we are just another also ran to them. The Russians had their shot and were no better at it than we were in V/N. The Russians never play fair and they lost, because they tried a limited war as well. This foe has no respect for life, I submit that's the way we need to engage him as well.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dogtown</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While I was downrange there were few things that frustrated me more on our side than combat arms guys that were completely clueless about FID and how their actions ultimately made our strategic mission that much harder to complete. The only way to fight insurgents effectively if you don't want to stay there forever is to earn the support of the local population, but because most of the guys in line units don't get that or don't care, they throw their hands in the air and make stupid statements about just leveling the place, killing everyone and leaving. They should be driving supply trucks back on the FOB instead, in my opinion. </div></div>
There is a major difference between being, Respected, Feared, an laughed at. The trick is them knowing what is going to happen, based on their actions.
If you have to think about pulling the trigger, or ask for permission prior to, your going to lose the war. You may win the battles your "Allowed" to take part in, but your going to lose the war. This is one war we can not lose, no matter what. Unless you want them here in a larger force than is already here. These people have been fighting for 5K years and we are just another also ran to them. The Russians had their shot and were no better at it than we were in V/N. The Russians never play fair and they lost, because they tried a limited war as well. This foe has no respect for life, I submit that's the way we need to engage him as well.
Re: Petraeus Tightens Rules of Engagement
The Russians had a rather brute force approach; nothing along the lines of the FID mission we've been attempting (rather under resourced, I might add) for years. Of course they never won over the local population and no doubt they were feared. Every local they killed just created more bad guys for them to fight.
You have to be careful not to paint the entire Afghan population with the same "bad guy" brush. That was a huge problem for us in Iraq and again, the source of major strategic setbacks caused by very poor tactical decisions.
The Russians had a rather brute force approach; nothing along the lines of the FID mission we've been attempting (rather under resourced, I might add) for years. Of course they never won over the local population and no doubt they were feared. Every local they killed just created more bad guys for them to fight.
You have to be careful not to paint the entire Afghan population with the same "bad guy" brush. That was a huge problem for us in Iraq and again, the source of major strategic setbacks caused by very poor tactical decisions.
Re: Petraeus Tightens Rules of Engagement
Actually, outside of calling in a sniper to elimate the enemy sniper, a JDAM is actually a pretty good choice of munitions due to its high accuracy and limited collateral damage. I can think of a few other choice munitions that would be equally effective, one coming out of the 155.
Actually, outside of calling in a sniper to elimate the enemy sniper, a JDAM is actually a pretty good choice of munitions due to its high accuracy and limited collateral damage. I can think of a few other choice munitions that would be equally effective, one coming out of the 155.
Re: Petraeus Tightens Rules of Engagement
Yeah, but the problem is all too often guys were having a hard time flushing a sniper out of a village so they dropped a JDAM and in the process killed a family, pissed off the entire village and gave the bad guys a fantastic IO opportunity. In other words, one step forward, four steps back.
Yeah, but the problem is all too often guys were having a hard time flushing a sniper out of a village so they dropped a JDAM and in the process killed a family, pissed off the entire village and gave the bad guys a fantastic IO opportunity. In other words, one step forward, four steps back.
Re: Petraeus Tightens Rules of Engagement
We have been in Afghanistan for more years than it took us to win both WWI and WWII combined.
To me that means we do not have the will to win.
We are there for other reasons: big business, politics, nation building, who can say for sure.
Personally I think it is time to bring our troops home.
We have been in Afghanistan for more years than it took us to win both WWI and WWII combined.
To me that means we do not have the will to win.
We are there for other reasons: big business, politics, nation building, who can say for sure.
Personally I think it is time to bring our troops home.
Re: Petraeus Tightens Rules of Engagement
I don't disagree with you there Dogtown, I'm just thinking, chances are the family that is killed would generally be the snipers family. In being the head of the household, what he says goes, and thusly his actions effect his family, whether it be by shooting at our forces or what have you.
To be honest, I've never been good at any of this sort of stuff, I have very little tact and am more of a "see bad guy, kill bad guy, give local kids teddy bears and lolly pops, end of story" type of guy.
I don't disagree with you there Dogtown, I'm just thinking, chances are the family that is killed would generally be the snipers family. In being the head of the household, what he says goes, and thusly his actions effect his family, whether it be by shooting at our forces or what have you.
To be honest, I've never been good at any of this sort of stuff, I have very little tact and am more of a "see bad guy, kill bad guy, give local kids teddy bears and lolly pops, end of story" type of guy.
Re: Petraeus Tightens Rules of Engagement
I disagree, Tigerbikes - the evidence shows that from mid-2002 to recently we didn't allocate the proper resources to prosecute the war successfully. In that environment the longer we stay with little or no progress to show for it, the more the population will turn against us. All FID conflicts have to have a time table for progress, otherwise they can turn into UW conflicts gradually. And unfortunately the situation in A'stan is compounded by the situation in Pakistan. We have fumbled ourselves into a VERY difficult situation, I'm afraid.
However I think this fight is vital because we can't allow groups like Al-Qaeda to have a safe haven like they did in the 90s. Period.
I disagree, Tigerbikes - the evidence shows that from mid-2002 to recently we didn't allocate the proper resources to prosecute the war successfully. In that environment the longer we stay with little or no progress to show for it, the more the population will turn against us. All FID conflicts have to have a time table for progress, otherwise they can turn into UW conflicts gradually. And unfortunately the situation in A'stan is compounded by the situation in Pakistan. We have fumbled ourselves into a VERY difficult situation, I'm afraid.
However I think this fight is vital because we can't allow groups like Al-Qaeda to have a safe haven like they did in the 90s. Period.
Similar threads
