Create Post
Results 16 to 28 of 28
Thread: Denying the enemy....
-
02-21-11, 07:27 PM #16
-
02-21-11, 07:59 PM #17
He may not be hearing that, but the civilians that were put in harms way by the insurgent get a pretty good message.
That being that the Americans will not hurt you but the insurgent will. It is through that the population will slowly, and hopefully, stop believing in the insurgent. When the population cuts off the insurgency, they lose not only their AO but also their situational awareness as the population will call in threats, tell the Marines where threats are, not willingly give the enemy a place to stay.
It happened in Iraq, the Al-anbar awakening, although the Sheiks there were fully payed off and got a reasonable amount of clout throughout the entire country for their siding with the Americans.
Afghanistan is a whole different game, from everything that i've heard.
-
02-21-11, 08:11 PM #18
Yea because COIN ops work in a country where the population plays both sides. Most of these hajjis are Taliban anyway. This war is going to fail and the country is going to go right back into civil war after we leave.
Unless we find a way to constantly (ANA taking over after we leave) pay these people more than poppy is worth for the rest of for ever.
-
02-21-11, 10:33 PM #19
if someone is holding a hostage and shooting at me with the intent of killing me oh well im going to defend myself nuf said
-
02-22-11, 06:58 AM #20
-
02-22-11, 08:39 AM #21
This war IS winnable - but not the way our nation is currently conducting it. As it stands right now, 90% of what we are doing in fighting this war is with the military. We need to have about 25% of the effort falling on the military and 75% of it falling on diplomacy, reconstruction, aid, relief, etc. We are relying too heavily on the Afghanis to carry the load - we're operating in a political and diplomatic vaccuum over there.
If we have 100,000+ troops on the ground, we should have 200,000+ USAID, State Department, USHS, and other folks on the ground. This isn't a war that can be won by executing a national strategy focused on "getting out" and "not losing". As a nation, we're half-assing it over there. (Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that the military is half-assing it - they're carrying 99% of the load - the rest of the government isn't carrying their load.)
-
02-22-11, 08:52 AM #22
This is where we need our State Department and NGOs to step up. This needs to be on the front pages and headlines around the world - every friggen day. We need our Secretary of State and President on the news every day calling these cowards out for what they are. They need to show these talibs hiding behind women and children - there needs to be a constant, relentless, worldwide PR campaign to alienate the taliban's international support. Talib atrocities need to be unedited on the news every week. AQ and the Taliban has kicked our collective butts in the PR war for almost 10 years now - our information warfare - yes, our propaganda - has been sorely lacking.
As fighters, we all understand the concept of combined arms warfare and fire & movement. At a strategic level we need a combined arms approach that includes weapons other than direct and indirect fires - we need information and mis-information campaigns, we need relief and re-construction campaigns, we need diplomatic campaigns, we need logistical campaigns -- we need to attack at every level, every avenue, and every front - not just with bombs, bullets, and artillery shells. Until we do that - we're fighting with one hand tied behind our backs and both feet tied together. The military solution is only a partial solution.
-
02-22-11, 09:23 AM #23
As Marines, we have to stay within the published ROE. Nothing ever removes our right of self defense - and that's within the ROE. But the ROE does not allow for indiscriminate killing of non-combatants.
If non-combatants are being used to further an aggressive or offensive advantage - in a way that puts us or others in danger - then that situation is largely different than if the non-combatants are bystanders or are being used for an advantage to break contact - in which case we are obligated to take measures to ensure their protection.
The concept that "if we are cruel now and kill innocents in order to prevent suffering later" is right out of Machiavelli - it's been debated ad nauseum and never found valid.
Intentionally shooting a non-combatant when there are other options is, plain and simple, murder. I know that non-combatants die in combat - the so-called "collateral damage". Non-combatants have died in combat for as long as there's been combat - but the intentional killing of non-combatants cannot be tolerated or condoned.
-
02-22-11, 06:36 PM #24
Exactly correct. A study of the Combined Action Program in Vietnam will back that up. CAP was the most successful operation undertaken in Vietnam. About 5,000 Marines protected 144 villages for 7 years, and never lost a village. We lost a Hell of a lot of Marines, but we earned the trust of our civilians, and they were very willing to pass on intel.
-
02-22-11, 09:32 PM #25
Describe war then.
-
02-22-11, 10:18 PM #26
Winning in Afghanistan
This may be morphing the conversation, but the point was made that the war should only be x% military. To this, I completely agree.
My thought for winning the war is that we pay Americans to colonize Afghanistan. Americans won't live without the conveniences that they have become accustomed to living in America and Afghani's won't want to live without the higher standard of living they see the Americans have. Maybe we can call it the Walmart effect.
I think that this idea could be spread beyond just Afghanistan. We could export our standard of living, pay off the national debt, and be "lazy Americans". Who doesn't want double cheeseburgers for $1.19? My idea...
-
02-22-11, 11:25 PM #27
........PLEASE!.....this thread has been WAAAAAAY over-posted!!!
ATROCITIES, KILLING INNOCENTS, CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY?????...........better read your History books, AGAIN!!
Remember Dresden, Hamburg, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, TOKYO (firebombing!), MeLai, and that's just a FEW of the occasions that the United States military, is responsible for.
YES, other countries are guilty too! If our country gets into a WAR, why don't we EVER want to win?.......BECAUSE, we don't know, or remember HOW TO WIN!!.....
-
02-23-11, 05:24 AM #28
Are they capable of defending themselves? If so then, I guess I'll agree with you. A lot of the fighting over there is still a kinetic battle with the enemy.
Also, we don't really rely on the Afghan military at all. They suck at their job. If it wasn't for us, the only thing they would do is sit on their ass, smoking hashish and drinking chai.
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Ghost Of Iwo Jima
04-04-24, 11:35 PM in Open Squad Bay