|
|
| Next: IE 8 does ..... what makes this happen? |
| Author |
Message |
dobbie6060
Joined: Aug 24, 2007
Posts: 551
|
 Posted: Fri May 29, 2009 4:59 pm Post subject: 'Our Bombs' : Hither& Thither |
|
|
via sam smith
http://ourbombs.com/striketracker#recent
Our Bombs is a website and documentary film that looks at the human cost and strategic implications of U.S. air strikes.
The film takes a unconventional look at the psychology behind military decision making, questioning how the technology and distance of aerial warfare affect our ethical and strategic judgements.
The aim of the project is not to broadly condemn bombing,
but to facilitate a better understanding
of America's preferred form of military action. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bern
Joined: Mar 12, 2007
Posts: 1432
Location: ann arbor
|
| Posted: Sat May 30, 2009 10:27 am Post subject: Re: 'Our Bombs' : Hither& Thither [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| dobbie6060 wrote: |
via sam smith
http://ourbombs.com/striketracker#recent
Our Bombs is a website and documentary film that looks at the human cost and strategic implications of U.S. air strikes.
The film takes a unconventional look at the psychology behind military decision making, questioning how the technology and distance of aerial warfare affect our ethical and strategic judgements.
The aim of the project is not to broadly condemn bombing,
but to facilitate a better understanding
of America's preferred form of military action. |
The real issue is whether we should be at war at all and this is obfuscation.
Once we are at war, I completely approve of tactics that minimise danger and harm to our troops.
In any war, "collateral damage" (read "civilian casualties") occurs; it is not clear to me that precision bombing is necessarily more hazardous to civilians than other means of engaging the enemy, especially an enemy that insists on using civilians as shields. In fact, an intense conventional battle in the midst of an occupied town where the civilians were not allowed to leave can have very high civilian casualties. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenmabmcc
Joined: Nov 20, 2003
Posts: 8181
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand.
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2009 6:40 am Post subject: Re: 'Our Bombs' : Hither& Thither [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| bern wrote: |
The real issue is whether we should be at war at all and this is obfuscation.
Once we are at war, I completely approve of tactics that minimise danger and harm to our troops.
In any war, "collateral damage" (read "civilian casualties") occurs; it is not clear to me that precision bombing is necessarily more hazardous to civilians than other means of engaging the enemy, especially an enemy that insists on using civilians as shields. In fact, an intense conventional battle in the midst of an occupied town where the civilians were not allowed to leave can have very high civilian casualties. |
This is not a war, it is an insurgency...as such the protection of civilians is the primary focus.
If we can protect and aid the civilians, we strangle the insurgents who need the civilian goodwill for the insurgency to continue.
Any precision guided weapon or bomb that kills civilians will increase the civilian aid to the insurgents.
After all the civilians that have been killed in Afghanistan,
it is no wonder that the Taliban have taken more ground
over the years that bush wasted in Iraq.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bern
Joined: Mar 12, 2007
Posts: 1432
Location: ann arbor
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:55 am Post subject: Re: 'Our Bombs' : Hither& Thither [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| kenmabmcc wrote: |
| This is not a war, it is an insurgency...as such the protection of civilians is the primary focus. |
Sure looks like a war to me. The term "insurgency" is used often as a euphanism for "civil war". The internationally recognized regime in Kabul is being supported by the US in its effort to defend itself in this civil war against Afghan and Pakistani fighters.
| kenmabmcc wrote: |
| If we can protect and aid the civilians, we strangle the insurgents who need the civilian goodwill for the insurgency to continue. |
Easy to say. But the Taliban are in with and among the civilians who are unarmed. They have no choice. Sending in aid indiscriminately helps the Taliban more than it hurts them. You are right in that this is a very delicate matter. But ultimately the Taliban will need to be driven out by force.
| kenmabmcc wrote: |
| Any precision guided weapon or bomb that kills civilians will increase the civilian aid to the insurgents. |
True. But massive invasion of a village with arms is much worse. And doing nothing is totally ineffective. It is well known that strength, not flexibility, is admired in the region. I continue to believe that precision bombing is the least bad alternative.
| kenmabmcc wrote: |
After all the civilians that have been killed in Afghanistan,
it is no wonder that the Taliban have taken more ground
over the years that bush wasted in Iraq. |
I am glad you added that wink to show you are not serious about that comment. The previous statements by you suggested a real conversation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CowpokeBob
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
Posts: 1501
Location: South Carolina, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2009 10:36 pm Post subject: Re: 'Our Bombs' : Hither& Thither [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| kenmabmcc wrote: |
This is not a war, it is an insurgency...as such the protection of civilians is the primary focus.
Protection of the civilian population would be a primary purpose in any conflict but more so in a war as opposed to an insurgency. In an insurgency the best way to protect the civilian population is to remove the insurgents from within them. Precision guided weaponry provides the best all around method of achieving that purpose with a minimum of civilian casualties.
If we can protect and aid the civilians, we strangle the insurgents who need the civilian goodwill for the insurgency to continue.
I agree in principle with that. It's also much easier to do if the goodwill of the civilians is on your side and not the insurgents. And the problem is that you cannot protect or aid the civilian population while the insurgents are in their midst holding a gun to their heads. I should also point out that if the civilian population is actively or even passively aiding and supporting the insurgency with its so called goodwill they lose the distinction of being " innocent civilians".
Any precision guided weapon or bomb that kills civilians will increase the civilian aid to the insurgents.
Not necessarily true. It is just as likely that the civilian population will tire of being the victims of bombs aimed at the insurgency and take it upon themselves to begin aiding in removing the insurgents. No insurgents=no bombs.
After all the civilians that have been killed in Afghanistan,
it is no wonder that the Taliban have taken more ground
over the years that bush wasted in Iraq.
Should have known you could get through a single post without some juvenile statement. And I bet you wonder why nobody takes your posts seriously.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenmabmcc
Joined: Nov 20, 2003
Posts: 8181
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand.
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:00 am Post subject: Re: 'Our Bombs' : Hither& Thither [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| bern wrote: |
Sure looks like a war to me. The term "insurgency" is used often as a euphanism for "civil war". The internationally recognized regime in Kabul is being supported by the US in its effort to defend itself in this civil war against Afghan and Pakistani fighters. |
The Kabul regime governs Kabul and little else.
The Governors (ex warlords) have effective control of everything else.
All are corrupt and although much aid was promised in the early days,
little has trickled down to the ordinary Afghani.
| bern wrote: |
Easy to say. But the Taliban are in with and among the civilians who are unarmed. They have no choice. Sending in aid indiscriminately helps the Taliban more than it hurts them. You are right in that this is a very delicate matter. But ultimately the Taliban will need to be driven out by force.
True. But massive invasion of a village with arms is much worse. And doing nothing is totally ineffective. It is well known that strength, not flexibility, is admired in the region. I continue to believe that precision bombing is the least bad alternative. |
As an insurgency, the rules are different, the aid goes to those who can be protected from the Taliban,
this takes a lot of troops, as boots on the ground can enforce the rule of law.
The idea is to cut off the Taliban from any support.
This was done by the British in the Malaysian Emergency.
The welfare of the ordinary Afghani should be paramount,
the imprecise killing with precision bombs drives them back to the Taliban.
| bern wrote: |
| kenmabmcc wrote: |
After all the civilians that have been killed in Afghanistan,
it is no wonder that the Taliban have taken more ground
over the years that bush wasted in Iraq. |
I am glad you added that wink to show you are not serious about that comment. |
It is always better to fix the primary problem,
than put a bandage on it and go off to make another problem.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenmabmcc
Joined: Nov 20, 2003
Posts: 8181
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand.
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 6:19 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
I see that General McChrystal agrees with me..... 
U.S. Report Finds Airstrike Errors in Afghan Deaths
| Quote: |
It will give new ammunition to critics, including many Afghans, who complain that American forces too often act indiscriminately in calling in airstrikes, jeopardizing the United States mission by turning the civilian population against American forces and their ally, the Afghan government.
Since the raid, American military commanders have promised to address the problem. On Tuesday, Lt. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, nominated to be the American commander in Afghanistan, vowed that reducing civilian casualties was “essential to our credibility.”
Any American victory would be “hollow and unsustainable” if it led to popular resentment among Afghanistan’s citizens, General McChrystal told the Senate Armed Services Committee during a confirmation hearing. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xavierx
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 5427
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 6:28 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
Maybe NZ can send enough forces so that we can leave.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenmabmcc
Joined: Nov 20, 2003
Posts: 8181
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand.
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 7:00 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| xavierx wrote: |
Maybe NZ can send enough forces so that we can leave.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenmabmcc
Joined: Nov 20, 2003
Posts: 8181
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand.
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 6:47 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
Measuring Success in Afghanistan
| Quote: |
Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, President Obama’s choice to be the next military commander in Afghanistan, has defined America’s essential goals there in a way that represents an overdue change in military strategy. He told senators last week that “the measure of effectiveness will not be the number of enemy killed. It will be the number of Afghans shielded from violence.”
If General McChrystal can carry it off, he will have a far better chance of turning around a war America has not been winning — but must.
It isn’t just Taliban violence that Afghans need shielding from. Errant American fire has taken an unacceptably high toll, especially from the airstrikes that American commanders came to rely on because they lacked sufficient ground troops. One particularly deadly episode last month killed dozens of civilians (the Pentagon says 20 to 30; the Afghan government says 140).
Last week, The Times reported on the initial conclusions of a Pentagon investigation, citing significant errors by military personnel that contributed to the high civilian death toll. These included ignoring a rule against bombing high-density residential areas in the absence of imminent threat and failing to reconfirm a target after a bombing delay.
Such mistakes are costly, not just in civilian lives but in broader support for the presence of American troops and the military campaign against the Taliban. |
From the Generals remarks, I see that he regards this "war" as an insurgency,
when he says the civilians are to be shielded from violence...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bern
Joined: Mar 12, 2007
Posts: 1432
Location: ann arbor
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 8:12 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| kenmabmcc wrote: |
From the Generals remarks, I see that he regards this "war" as an insurgency,
when he says the civilians are to be shielded from violence...
|
You condemn all airstrikes in your posts.
The General condemns badly planned and executed air strikes, with which I agree. Nobody is suggesting stopping air strikes altogether.
Your insistence on use of the word "insurgency" is interesting to me. I looked up a bunch of definitions and conclude that it is a distinction without a difference: Groups fight each other and lots of folks die, including innocents. Please explain how what you call it makes a difference. You implied that in a war you can kill anybody, but in an insurgency you need to spare civilians. But in the last several "wars" we have been involved in, great effort (sometimes with limited success) has been taken to spare civilians. In fact, sparing civilians has been important since 1946 at least. So how is this different? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CowpokeBob
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
Posts: 1501
Location: South Carolina, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 8:24 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| kenmabmcc wrote: |
Measuring Success in Afghanistan
| Quote: |
Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, President Obama’s choice to be the next military commander in Afghanistan, has defined America’s essential goals there in a way that represents an overdue change in military strategy. He told senators last week that “the measure of effectiveness will not be the number of enemy killed. It will be the number of Afghans shielded from violence.”
If General McChrystal can carry it off, he will have a far better chance of turning around a war America has not been winning — but must.
It isn’t just Taliban violence that Afghans need shielding from. Errant American fire has taken an unacceptably high toll, especially from the airstrikes that American commanders came to rely on because they lacked sufficient ground troops. One particularly deadly episode last month killed dozens of civilians (the Pentagon says 20 to 30; the Afghan government says 140).
Last week, The Times reported on the initial conclusions of a Pentagon investigation, citing significant errors by military personnel that contributed to the high civilian death toll. These included ignoring a rule against bombing high-density residential areas in the absence of imminent threat and failing to reconfirm a target after a bombing delay.
Such mistakes are costly, not just in civilian lives but in broader support for the presence of American troops and the military campaign against the Taliban. |
From the Generals remarks, I see that he regards this "war" as an insurgency,
when he says the civilians are to be shielded from violence...
|
I get it now. According to your logic we should declare war on the Taliban. That way we can go in with the tanks and heavy artillery the way Pakistan did against the Taliban elements in their country recently. By fighting this insurgency as you prefer to call it and being as careful as possible to avoid civilian casualties we seem to be losing both support and ground. However if we were to go in and carpet bomb the area then move in with the heavy armor and shoot anyone left alive (those remaining who run are obviously enemy combatants considering we will be at war and those that don't run are just well disciplined enemy combatants) Why we could end this "war" in record time. After all, even if we don't get all the Taliban (or the civilians for that matter) we will take out a majority of both. It's fair to say any surviving civilians are going to beat feet out of the area as fast as they can and without its civilian support, according to you, the insurgency can't survive. It's brilliant Ken! When do we start? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenmabmcc
Joined: Nov 20, 2003
Posts: 8181
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand.
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 6:12 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| CowpokeBob wrote: |
I get it now. According to your logic we should declare war on the Taliban. That way we can go in with the tanks and heavy artillery the way Pakistan did against the Taliban elements in their country recently. By fighting this insurgency as you prefer to call it and being as careful as possible to avoid civilian casualties we seem to be losing both support and ground. However if we were to go in and carpet bomb the area then move in with the heavy armor and shoot anyone left alive (those remaining who run are obviously enemy combatants considering we will be at war and those that don't run are just well disciplined enemy combatants) Why we could end this "war" in record time. After all, even if we don't get all the Taliban (or the civilians for that matter) we will take out a majority of both. It's fair to say any surviving civilians are going to beat feet out of the area as fast as they can and without its civilian support, according to you, the insurgency can't survive. It's brilliant Ken! When do we start? |
The last time that was tried was in Vietnam...
...and we all know how that turned out....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenmabmcc
Joined: Nov 20, 2003
Posts: 8181
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand.
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:24 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| bern wrote: |
You condemn all airstrikes in your posts.
The General condemns badly planned and executed air strikes, with which I agree. Nobody is suggesting stopping air strikes altogether. |
Air strikes against insurgents who are separated from the civilians are fine,
and enable troops to defeat them...that's not a problem...
| bern wrote: |
| Your insistence on use of the word "insurgency" is interesting to me. I looked up a bunch of definitions and conclude that it is a distinction without a difference: Groups fight each other and lots of folks die, including innocents. Please explain how what you call it makes a difference. |
War is one state against another.
An insurgency is a group in a state, that is trying to remove the legal government in that state, by armed force.
| bern wrote: |
| You implied that in a war you can kill anybody, but in an insurgency you need to spare civilians. But in the last several "wars" we have been involved in, great effort (sometimes with limited success) has been taken to spare civilians. In fact, sparing civilians has been important since 1946 at least. So how is this different? |
After the short war in Iraq in 2003, there was a multi-polar insurgency,
in combating that, far to many civilians died.
That is why Iraq has remained in turmoil for so long.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bern
Joined: Mar 12, 2007
Posts: 1432
Location: ann arbor
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:56 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| kenmabmcc wrote: |
| bern wrote: |
You condemn all airstrikes in your posts.
The General condemns badly planned and executed air strikes, with which I agree. Nobody is suggesting stopping air strikes altogether. |
Air strikes against insurgents who are separated from the civilians are fine,
and enable troops to defeat them...that's not a problem... |
Since the insurgents often insert themselves into civilian areas, and house to house fighting can also exact a severe civilian toll, especially if the civilians are not allowed to leave by the insurgents, other means of engaging the insurgents cannot be ruled out. The rules regarding air strikes seem to me to be good. The problem is they were not always followed. That will change.
I am glad to hear you are not ruling out air strikes altogether.
| kenmabmcc wrote: |
| "]An insurgency is a group in a state, that is trying to remove the legal government in that state, by armed force. |
That is one of the definitions I found. It does not, however, explain your idea that the tactics need to be different.
| kenmabmcc wrote: |
| bern wrote: |
| You implied that in a war you can kill anybody, but in an insurgency you need to spare civilians. But in the last several "wars" we have been involved in, great effort (sometimes with limited success) has been taken to spare civilians. In fact, sparing civilians has been important since 1946 at least. So how is this different? |
After the short war in Iraq in 2003, there was a multi-polar insurgency,
in combating that, far to many civilians died.
That is why Iraq has remained in turmoil for so long.
|
I am glad your world is so simplified. I see it as far more complex. I would add to your single cause, the additional ideas that there is a religious issue that has been festering for hundreds of years, the interests of Iran to keep things in a turmoil rather than have a democratic state nearby, the interests of the Bin Laden group to "defeat" the West, the desire of local war lords to augment their own power, The desire of the Taliban to keep the US occupied elsewhere than in Afghanistan, just for starters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xavierx
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 5427
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 6:06 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| kenmabmcc wrote: |
| An insurgency is a group in a state, that is trying to remove the legal government in that state, by armed force. |
Wait a minute, Ken. I thought you said the government in Iraq was illegal and illegitimate, but you insist on calling the terrorists "insurgents". Please explain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenmabmcc
Joined: Nov 20, 2003
Posts: 8181
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand.
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 6:59 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| xavierx wrote: |
| kenmabmcc wrote: |
| An insurgency is a group in a state, that is trying to remove the legal government in that state, by armed force. |
Wait a minute, Ken. I thought you said the government in Iraq was illegal and illegitimate, but you insist on calling the terrorists "insurgents". Please explain. |
Perhaps I should have said "the government", legal or illegal.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CowpokeBob
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
Posts: 1501
Location: South Carolina, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:48 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| kenmabmcc wrote: |
| CowpokeBob wrote: |
I get it now. According to your logic we should declare war on the Taliban. That way we can go in with the tanks and heavy artillery the way Pakistan did against the Taliban elements in their country recently. By fighting this insurgency as you prefer to call it and being as careful as possible to avoid civilian casualties we seem to be losing both support and ground. However if we were to go in and carpet bomb the area then move in with the heavy armor and shoot anyone left alive (those remaining who run are obviously enemy combatants considering we will be at war and those that don't run are just well disciplined enemy combatants) Why we could end this "war" in record time. After all, even if we don't get all the Taliban (or the civilians for that matter) we will take out a majority of both. It's fair to say any surviving civilians are going to beat feet out of the area as fast as they can and without its civilian support, according to you, the insurgency can't survive. It's brilliant Ken! When do we start? |
The last time that was tried was in Vietnam...
...and we all know how that turned out....
|
Yes we do all know how well that worked. The tactic I proposed was used by Nixon to bring an end to the Vietnam War and it worked extremely well. Up to that point we were holding our military back to prevent unnecessary civilian casualties preferring instead to practice something similar to the kind of tactics being practiced in Afghanistan and Iraq today...the winning of hearts and minds. And yes, we know all too well how well that worked too.
I believe a better example of what I wrote of would be Japan circa WWII. In that example we chose to prosecute the war against the Japanese by taking it directly to the civilian population in the strongest terms possible and in so doing brought the war to an end much sooner and at far less cost in lives than might have been the case. Amazing what you can accomplish with a couple of well placed air strikes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenmabmcc
Joined: Nov 20, 2003
Posts: 8181
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand.
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 10, 2009 7:03 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| CowpokeBob wrote: |
| Yes we do all know how well that worked. The tactic I proposed was used by Nixon to bring an end to the Vietnam War and it worked extremely well. Up to that point we were holding our military back to prevent unnecessary civilian casualties preferring instead to practice something similar to the kind of tactics being practiced in Afghanistan and Iraq today...the winning of hearts and minds. And yes, we know all too well how well that worked too. |
In Vietnam counter-insurgency operations occured at a low level
and were never given general backing.
Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife
| Quote: |
| the Vietnam-era Army as an organization that failed to learn from its mistakes and tried vainly to fight guerrilla insurgents the same way it fought World War II. |
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_10/iss_2/CAJ_vol10.2_20_e.pdf
| Quote: |
A different conclusion is presented for Vietnam.
Nagl's analysis paints an organizational culture
that precluded the US Army from being a learning institution during the Vietnam war.
In fact, the blind resistance of US Army brass to desperately needed
reform is astonishing at points.
Nagl shows us that the warnings were there, the advice was plentiful, and the evidence was solid—
but US generals like Abrams and Westmoreland thundered down their path of destruction,
actually reducing their own chances for success.
We see the resistance of US Army leadership to adjust for counterinsurgency (even on the orders of the President)
and move away from their conventional mindset.
Some of the quotations the Nagl uses to illustrate seem nearly absurd in hindsight,
clearly showing that there were entire concepts that were completely missed.
The passage presents a textbook case of close-mindedness.
Nagl is careful to ensure that the cases of US Army innovation that did occur are not missed.
He speaks of the Marine combined action platoons and civic action teams and
refers to journal articles and the correspondence of dissenters,
showing that at lower levels, some people had the right idea.
Nagl also notes that there were several breakthroughs on the technological and tactical levels
that are still employed today. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CowpokeBob
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
Posts: 1501
Location: South Carolina, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 10, 2009 9:20 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| kenmabmcc wrote: |
| CowpokeBob wrote: |
| Yes we do all know how well that worked. The tactic I proposed was used by Nixon to bring an end to the Vietnam War and it worked extremely well. Up to that point we were holding our military back to prevent unnecessary civilian casualties preferring instead to practice something similar to the kind of tactics being practiced in Afghanistan and Iraq today...the winning of hearts and minds. And yes, we know all too well how well that worked too. |
In Vietnam counter-insurgency operations occured at a low level
and were never given general backing.
Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife
| Quote: |
| the Vietnam-era Army as an organization that failed to learn from its mistakes and tried vainly to fight guerrilla insurgents the same way it fought World War II. |
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_10/iss_2/CAJ_vol10.2_20_e.pdf
| Quote: |
A different conclusion is presented for Vietnam.
Nagl's analysis paints an organizational culture
that precluded the US Army from being a learning institution during the Vietnam war.
In fact, the blind resistance of US Army brass to desperately needed
reform is astonishing at points.
Nagl shows us that the warnings were there, the advice was plentiful, and the evidence was solid—
but US generals like Abrams and Westmoreland thundered down their path of destruction,
actually reducing their own chances for success.
We see the resistance of US Army leadership to adjust for counterinsurgency (even on the orders of the President)
and move away from their conventional mindset.
Some of the quotations the Nagl uses to illustrate seem nearly absurd in hindsight,
clearly showing that there were entire concepts that were completely missed.
The passage presents a textbook case of close-mindedness.
Nagl is careful to ensure that the cases of US Army innovation that did occur are not missed.
He speaks of the Marine combined action platoons and civic action teams and
refers to journal articles and the correspondence of dissenters,
showing that at lower levels, some people had the right idea.
Nagl also notes that there were several breakthroughs on the technological and tactical levels
that are still employed today. |
|
The North Vietnamese army was most certainly not an insurgent group although it often fought and coordinated with the Viet Cong, which could be called an insurgent group though they were more of a special forces organization in reality. Regardless the war was going nowhere until Nixon ordered the unrestricted bombing of North Vietnam.
I've no idea what you were trying to accomplish by those links since they provide nothing of substance to the conversation but that has never stopped you before. They are also full of inaccuracies but that too is beside the point.
Allow me to say it again. History has shown that attempting to avoid civilian casualties and win the people over against any enemy whether you call them insurgents, opposing army, or enemy combatant.has never worked very well if at all. The clearest and fastest way to end a conflict is with massive and overwhelming force. It's one of the few things I agree with Colin Powell about. You are welcome to post all the commentary you like Ken but back yard generals aside history paints a different picture.than yours on the best way to end a conflict. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
| |
|
|
General