User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/9/2014 7:10:45 AM EDT
[#1]
Yay, more wars.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2014 7:13:00 AM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
It seems that might be the best way to go. Work with the Kurds like we did the Northern Alliance. Provide them with air support, advisors and people to help them coordinate fire support. Do likewise with any other groups in Iraq who are actually willing to fight back against ISIS. There are only what, about 10,000 ISIS fighters in Iraq? It doesn't seem like it would require that much manpower to crush this bunch of goons provided they have ample backing from us. You don't need to start sending in BCTs to do that. I'm not talking about nation building here either. I'm simply talking about causing enough attrition among this bunch to make them impotent, then leaving. The Rumsfeld doctrine (aka the Dumsfeld doctrine) of going in light on the ground with air support is retarded. Look at how that turned out in Afghanistan and Iraq. Sure we can defeat the identifiable armed opponents that stand and fight... Most won't. Most will slip away and blend into the population. Then you have the awesome options of trying to rebuild and secure a destroyed country without enough forces, or leaving and turning it back over to the same guys you just "defeated." "defending the cities with front lines that can be targeted from the air will cause us terrible loss". Mullah Omar... He is now positioning himself to run for president in the next election. Yes the same guy who said fuck you I won't hand over Osama, and is the reason we invaded, might get a shot at leading the government we spent over a decade setting up. That's where the Dumsfeld doctrine gets you. To decisively win a war, you need land forces, and a lot of them. Too bad we decided to buy the F-35 and free healthcare for the FSA instead. We are giving out pink slips as fast as we can to all of our experienced warriors.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2014 7:13:14 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yay, more wars. I agree. It isn't exactly something I want to see either. But at this point I don't think we have a choice in the matter. The quicker this group is cut down to size, the safer the world will be. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2014 7:16:18 AM EDT
[#4]
There was strategy?
Remove ROEs and win a war against stone age opponent with AKs. Otherwise stay home. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2014 7:17:59 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Rumsfeld doctrine (aka the Dumsfeld doctrine) of going in light on the ground with air support is retarded. Look at how that turned out in Afghanistan and Iraq. Sure we can defeat the identifiable armed opponents that stand and fight... Most won't. Most will slip away and blend into the population. Then you have the awesome options of trying to rebuild and secure a destroyed country without enough forces, or leaving and turning it back over to the same guys you just "defeated." "defending the cities with front lines that can be targeted from the air will cause us terrible loss". Mullah Omar... He is now positioning himself to run for president in the next election. Yes the same guy who said fuck you I won't hand over Osama, and is the reason we invaded, might get a shot at leading the government we spent over a decade setting up. That's where the Dumsfeld doctrine gets you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It seems that might be the best way to go. Work with the Kurds like we did the Northern Alliance. Provide them with air support, advisors and people to help them coordinate fire support. Do likewise with any other groups in Iraq who are actually willing to fight back against ISIS. There are only what, about 10,000 ISIS fighters in Iraq? It doesn't seem like it would require that much manpower to crush this bunch of goons provided they have ample backing from us. You don't need to start sending in BCTs to do that. I'm not talking about nation building here either. I'm simply talking about causing enough attrition among this bunch to make them impotent, then leaving. The Rumsfeld doctrine (aka the Dumsfeld doctrine) of going in light on the ground with air support is retarded. Look at how that turned out in Afghanistan and Iraq. Sure we can defeat the identifiable armed opponents that stand and fight... Most won't. Most will slip away and blend into the population. Then you have the awesome options of trying to rebuild and secure a destroyed country without enough forces, or leaving and turning it back over to the same guys you just "defeated." "defending the cities with front lines that can be targeted from the air will cause us terrible loss". Mullah Omar... He is now positioning himself to run for president in the next election. Yes the same guy who said fuck you I won't hand over Osama, and is the reason we invaded, might get a shot at leading the government we spent over a decade setting up. That's where the Dumsfeld doctrine gets you. Things in Afghanistan didn't start turning to shit until we started bringing in large numbers of regular ground troops and setting up FOBs everywhere. The initial strategy used in late 2001 rolled up the Taliban/Al-Qaeda pretty quickly and with low casualties on our side. The mistake was staying there beyond that point trying to turn Afghanistan into another little American-like society. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2014 7:25:40 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Rumsfeld doctrine (aka the Dumsfeld doctrine) of going in light on the ground with air support is retarded. Look at how that turned out in Afghanistan and Iraq. Sure we can defeat the identifiable armed opponents that stand and fight... Most won't. Most will slip away and blend into the population. Then you have the awesome options of trying to rebuild and secure a destroyed country without enough forces, or leaving and turning it back over to the same guys you just "defeated." "defending the cities with front lines that can be targeted from the air will cause us terrible loss". Mullah Omar... He is now positioning himself to run for president in the next election. Yes the same guy who said fuck you I won't hand over Osama, and is the reason we invaded, might get a shot at leading the government we spent over a decade setting up. That's where the Dumsfeld doctrine gets you. To decisively win a war, you need land forces, and a lot of them. Too bad we decided to buy the F-35 and free healthcare for the FSA instead. We are giving out pink slips as fast as we can to all of our experienced warriors.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It seems that might be the best way to go. Work with the Kurds like we did the Northern Alliance. Provide them with air support, advisors and people to help them coordinate fire support. Do likewise with any other groups in Iraq who are actually willing to fight back against ISIS. There are only what, about 10,000 ISIS fighters in Iraq? It doesn't seem like it would require that much manpower to crush this bunch of goons provided they have ample backing from us. You don't need to start sending in BCTs to do that. I'm not talking about nation building here either. I'm simply talking about causing enough attrition among this bunch to make them impotent, then leaving. The Rumsfeld doctrine (aka the Dumsfeld doctrine) of going in light on the ground with air support is retarded. Look at how that turned out in Afghanistan and Iraq. Sure we can defeat the identifiable armed opponents that stand and fight... Most won't. Most will slip away and blend into the population. Then you have the awesome options of trying to rebuild and secure a destroyed country without enough forces, or leaving and turning it back over to the same guys you just "defeated." "defending the cities with front lines that can be targeted from the air will cause us terrible loss". Mullah Omar... He is now positioning himself to run for president in the next election. Yes the same guy who said fuck you I won't hand over Osama, and is the reason we invaded, might get a shot at leading the government we spent over a decade setting up. That's where the Dumsfeld doctrine gets you. To decisively win a war, you need land forces, and a lot of them. Too bad we decided to buy the F-35 and free healthcare for the FSA instead. We are giving out pink slips as fast as we can to all of our experienced warriors.
There was absolutely no light footprint in the south of Iraq in '03. Every general in history has always wanted more troops. Swratzcoff wants another corp before he crossed the LD and was told to execute by the then sec def (Chenney). What would Frank or Sanchez have done with two or three or four more divisions? More presence patrols? Larger MWR tents? More Slasa dancing classes at FOB gigantor? What we needed was more host nation, more actionable intelligence and faster political decision from CPA, we would not have had that if we invaded with another 50K English speaking army privates led by officer trying to re run Gulf War 1. We have bad generals trying to execute a mixed strategy in a text book NTC ARTEP manner. Also the Rumsfeld doctrine does not require democracy or free elections or chaos, you simply install a better dictator and support with small numbers of SOF and aviation assets. What we did in Iraq and Afghanistan was a hybrid of the Powell "you break it you buy it" doctrine and the Rumsfeld doctrine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2014 7:28:15 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Things in Afghanistan didn't start turning to shit until we started bringing in large numbers of regular ground troops and setting up FOBs everywhere. The initial strategy used in late 2001 rolled up the Taliban/Al-Qaeda pretty quickly and with low casualties on our side. The mistake was staying there beyond that point trying to turn Afghanistan into another little American-like society. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It seems that might be the best way to go. Work with the Kurds like we did the Northern Alliance. Provide them with air support, advisors and people to help them coordinate fire support. Do likewise with any other groups in Iraq who are actually willing to fight back against ISIS. There are only what, about 10,000 ISIS fighters in Iraq? It doesn't seem like it would require that much manpower to crush this bunch of goons provided they have ample backing from us. You don't need to start sending in BCTs to do that. I'm not talking about nation building here either. I'm simply talking about causing enough attrition among this bunch to make them impotent, then leaving. The Rumsfeld doctrine (aka the Dumsfeld doctrine) of going in light on the ground with air support is retarded. Look at how that turned out in Afghanistan and Iraq. Sure we can defeat the identifiable armed opponents that stand and fight... Most won't. Most will slip away and blend into the population. Then you have the awesome options of trying to rebuild and secure a destroyed country without enough forces, or leaving and turning it back over to the same guys you just "defeated." "defending the cities with front lines that can be targeted from the air will cause us terrible loss". Mullah Omar... He is now positioning himself to run for president in the next election. Yes the same guy who said fuck you I won't hand over Osama, and is the reason we invaded, might get a shot at leading the government we spent over a decade setting up. That's where the Dumsfeld doctrine gets you. Things in Afghanistan didn't start turning to shit until we started bringing in large numbers of regular ground troops and setting up FOBs everywhere. The initial strategy used in late 2001 rolled up the Taliban/Al-Qaeda pretty quickly and with low casualties on our side. The mistake was staying there beyond that point trying to turn Afghanistan into another little American-like society. Really? If the Taliban were so defeated in 2001, then why do they still exist as a legitimate threat to re-take the government of Afghanistan? That's the problem with airpower guys. They think that dropping a few bombs and killing a few people equates to defeating an enemy. All that happened was some got killed, the rest got displaced and put on the run. Then they regrouped. If we hadn't put more guys on the ground and FOBs, then the Taliban would have been back in control of the government as soon as our guys on the ground left. We have never tried to set up a little America. We are just trying to stand up a regime that can stay in power that isn't the Taliban. Easier said than done. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2014 7:30:22 AM EDT
[#8]
Really? If the Taliban were so defeated in 2001, then why do they still exist as a legitimate threat to re-take the government of Afghanistan?
If we didn't conduct de nazification in Germany in 1945 would it have been reasonable to say that we didn't defeat the Nazi's and the Wehrmacht? How can anyone possibly say that we defeated the Germans in World War one when we had to re fight them two decades later? We did defeat the Taliban, but then we let it recover because we didn't want to (aren't capable of) getting our hands dirty and finish the job. Also in most of these wars we tend to be very America centric. If the Taliban look like they are going to re take Kabul, then all we need to do is re form the northern Alliance, bomb any enemy concentrations and then let the locals do COIN with American advisors. Is there any doubt that the Peshmerga would be beating ISIS down right now if we armed them? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2014 7:35:12 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There was absolutely no light footprint in the south of Iraq in '03. Every general always wants more guys, what would Frank or Sanchez have done with two or three or four more divisions? We have bad generals trying to execute a bad strategy in a text book NTC ARTEP manner. Also the Rumsfeld doctrine does not require democracy or free elections or chaos, you simply install a better dictator and support with small numbers of SOF and aviation assets. What we did in Iraq and Afghanistan was a hybrid of the Powell "you break it you buy it" doctrine and the Rumsfeld doctrine. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It seems that might be the best way to go. Work with the Kurds like we did the Northern Alliance. Provide them with air support, advisors and people to help them coordinate fire support. Do likewise with any other groups in Iraq who are actually willing to fight back against ISIS. There are only what, about 10,000 ISIS fighters in Iraq? It doesn't seem like it would require that much manpower to crush this bunch of goons provided they have ample backing from us. You don't need to start sending in BCTs to do that. I'm not talking about nation building here either. I'm simply talking about causing enough attrition among this bunch to make them impotent, then leaving. The Rumsfeld doctrine (aka the Dumsfeld doctrine) of going in light on the ground with air support is retarded. Look at how that turned out in Afghanistan and Iraq. Sure we can defeat the identifiable armed opponents that stand and fight... Most won't. Most will slip away and blend into the population. Then you have the awesome options of trying to rebuild and secure a destroyed country without enough forces, or leaving and turning it back over to the same guys you just "defeated." "defending the cities with front lines that can be targeted from the air will cause us terrible loss". Mullah Omar... He is now positioning himself to run for president in the next election. Yes the same guy who said fuck you I won't hand over Osama, and is the reason we invaded, might get a shot at leading the government we spent over a decade setting up. That's where the Dumsfeld doctrine gets you. To decisively win a war, you need land forces, and a lot of them. Too bad we decided to buy the F-35 and free healthcare for the FSA instead. We are giving out pink slips as fast as we can to all of our experienced warriors.
There was absolutely no light footprint in the south of Iraq in '03. Every general always wants more guys, what would Frank or Sanchez have done with two or three or four more divisions? We have bad generals trying to execute a bad strategy in a text book NTC ARTEP manner. Also the Rumsfeld doctrine does not require democracy or free elections or chaos, you simply install a better dictator and support with small numbers of SOF and aviation assets. What we did in Iraq and Afghanistan was a hybrid of the Powell "you break it you buy it" doctrine and the Rumsfeld doctrine. It was several hundred thousand less than what the Army COS Gen Eric Shinseki said we would need to stabilize the country (400,000). Then after the invasion what happened? Things went into a downward spiral for years. Then we sent in 400,000 with Petraeus and the surge, and viola, stability. What would they have done with two or three or four more divisions? I don't know maybe squash the insurgency in it's infancy? Maybe stop the looting? Maybe have a large enough presence to convince the majority of the Iraqi population that there was a committed and formidable enemy that they couldn't defeat? Rumsfeld wanted to leave, but couldn't. Why was that? Maybe because Bush understood that leaving prematurely without doing it right, gets you exactly where we are at now.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2014 7:37:50 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Really? If the Taliban were so defeated in 2001, then why do they still exist as a legitimate threat to re-take the government of Afghanistan? If we didn't conduct de nazification in Germany in 1945 would it have been reasonable to say that we didn't defeat the Nazi's and the Wehrmacht? How can anyone possibly say that we defeated the Germans in World War one when we had to re fight them two decades later? We did defeat the Taliban, but then we let it recover because we didn't want to (aren't capable of) getting our hands dirty and finish the job. It has been well documented that the majority of the Taliban just hide among the population, or slipped over the border to Pakistan. You might call that defeat, I call it displacement. Considering the fact that they always had the intention of continuing the fight, I think claiming it as a defeat is some combination of arrogant and ignorant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2014 7:43:02 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If the Taliban look like they are going to re take Kabul, then all we need to do is re form the northern Alliance, bomb any enemy concentrations and then let the locals do COIN with American advisors. That is what we have been doing for the last 10+ years. Except we recognize that was pointless to try to leave at any time, as it is pointless to put everyone on planes and try to fly away today. They will just have to turn the plane around tomorrow to do COIN and advise. The Taliban are, and always have been the strongest entity in the country. Take away the US assistance, and we are right back where we started with the Taliban in control. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2014 7:47:04 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Rumsfeld doctrine (aka the Dumsfeld doctrine) of going in light on the ground with air support is retarded. Look at how that turned out in Afghanistan and Iraq. Sure we can defeat the identifiable armed opponents that stand and fight... Most won't. Most will slip away and blend into the population. Then you have the awesome options of trying to rebuild and secure a destroyed country without enough forces, or leaving and turning it back over to the same guys you just "defeated." "defending the cities with front lines that can be targeted from the air will cause us terrible loss". Mullah Omar... He is now positioning himself to run for president in the next election. Yes the same guy who said fuck you I won't hand over Osama, and is the reason we invaded, might get a shot at leading the government we spent over a decade setting up. That's where the Dumsfeld doctrine gets you. To decisively win a war, you need land forces, and a lot of them. Too bad we decided to buy the F-35 and free healthcare for the FSA instead. We are giving out pink slips as fast as we can to all of our experienced warriors.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It seems that might be the best way to go. Work with the Kurds like we did the Northern Alliance. Provide them with air support, advisors and people to help them coordinate fire support. Do likewise with any other groups in Iraq who are actually willing to fight back against ISIS. There are only what, about 10,000 ISIS fighters in Iraq? It doesn't seem like it would require that much manpower to crush this bunch of goons provided they have ample backing from us. You don't need to start sending in BCTs to do that. I'm not talking about nation building here either. I'm simply talking about causing enough attrition among this bunch to make them impotent, then leaving. The Rumsfeld doctrine (aka the Dumsfeld doctrine) of going in light on the ground with air support is retarded. Look at how that turned out in Afghanistan and Iraq. Sure we can defeat the identifiable armed opponents that stand and fight... Most won't. Most will slip away and blend into the population. Then you have the awesome options of trying to rebuild and secure a destroyed country without enough forces, or leaving and turning it back over to the same guys you just "defeated." "defending the cities with front lines that can be targeted from the air will cause us terrible loss". Mullah Omar... He is now positioning himself to run for president in the next election. Yes the same guy who said fuck you I won't hand over Osama, and is the reason we invaded, might get a shot at leading the government we spent over a decade setting up. That's where the Dumsfeld doctrine gets you. To decisively win a war, you need land forces, and a lot of them. Too bad we decided to buy the F-35 and free healthcare for the FSA instead. We are giving out pink slips as fast as we can to all of our experienced warriors.
It depends on what the U.S. goal is in Iraq. If they want to keep the country together, then they will need to keep a large force on the ground, very true. But if the goal is to help the Kurds carve out their own country, then CAS with Special Forces embedded with the Kurds would work exceptionally well in this instance. The problem is the U.S. doesn't seem to have a coherent goal in mind. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2014 7:47:19 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It was several hundred thousand less than what the Army COS Gen Eric Shinseki said we would need to stabilize the country (400,000). Then after the invasion what happened? Things went into a downward spiral for years. Then we sent in 400,000 with Petraeus and the surge, and viola, stability. What would they have done with two or three or four more divisions? I don't know maybe squash the insurgency in it's infancy? Maybe stop the looting? Maybe have a large enough presence to convince the majority of the Iraqi population that there was a committed and formidable enemy that they couldn't defeat? Rumsfeld wanted to leave, but couldn't. Why was that? Maybe because Bush understood that leaving prematurely without doing it right, gets you exactly where we are at now. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It seems that might be the best way to go. Work with the Kurds like we did the Northern Alliance. Provide them with air support, advisors and people to help them coordinate fire support. Do likewise with any other groups in Iraq who are actually willing to fight back against ISIS. There are only what, about 10,000 ISIS fighters in Iraq? It doesn't seem like it would require that much manpower to crush this bunch of goons provided they have ample backing from us. You don't need to start sending in BCTs to do that. I'm not talking about nation building here either. I'm simply talking about causing enough attrition among this bunch to make them impotent, then leaving. The Rumsfeld doctrine (aka the Dumsfeld doctrine) of going in light on the ground with air support is retarded. Look at how that turned out in Afghanistan and Iraq. Sure we can defeat the identifiable armed opponents that stand and fight... Most won't. Most will slip away and blend into the population. Then you have the awesome options of trying to rebuild and secure a destroyed country without enough forces, or leaving and turning it back over to the same guys you just "defeated." "defending the cities with front lines that can be targeted from the air will cause us terrible loss". Mullah Omar... He is now positioning himself to run for president in the next election. Yes the same guy who said fuck you I won't hand over Osama, and is the reason we invaded, might get a shot at leading the government we spent over a decade setting up. That's where the Dumsfeld doctrine gets you. To decisively win a war, you need land forces, and a lot of them. Too bad we decided to buy the F-35 and free healthcare for the FSA instead. We are giving out pink slips as fast as we can to all of our experienced warriors.
There was absolutely no light footprint in the south of Iraq in '03. Every general always wants more guys, what would Frank or Sanchez have done with two or three or four more divisions? We have bad generals trying to execute a bad strategy in a text book NTC ARTEP manner. Also the Rumsfeld doctrine does not require democracy or free elections or chaos, you simply install a better dictator and support with small numbers of SOF and aviation assets. What we did in Iraq and Afghanistan was a hybrid of the Powell "you break it you buy it" doctrine and the Rumsfeld doctrine. It was several hundred thousand less than what the Army COS Gen Eric Shinseki said we would need to stabilize the country (400,000). Then after the invasion what happened? Things went into a downward spiral for years. Then we sent in 400,000 with Petraeus and the surge, and viola, stability. What would they have done with two or three or four more divisions? I don't know maybe squash the insurgency in it's infancy? Maybe stop the looting? Maybe have a large enough presence to convince the majority of the Iraqi population that there was a committed and formidable enemy that they couldn't defeat? Rumsfeld wanted to leave, but couldn't. Why was that? Maybe because Bush understood that leaving prematurely without doing it right, gets you exactly where we are at now. We never had 400,000 troops in Iraq. The surge added only 30'000. Also there was a political and intelligence surge that had a major effect. Squash the insurgency in its infancy? Not with the commanders we had. They didn't know who the insurgents were, didn't really want to know, and for a time prevented units from using the word rebel, insurgent or jihadist. Again if you think Patreus had 400'000 troops during the surge then doctrine, history and objective facts are probably not going to work. While reasonable people even veterans can argue about what the word defeat means taking the intellectually easy way out and blaming the problem on an scapegoat (the stab in the back, its was the jewish necons, it was the war profiteers, or the hippes and Cronkite turned on us) is not substitute for knowing what happened and how not to repeat the same thing. Units deployed[edit] The five U.S. Army brigades committed to Iraq as part of the surge were 1.2nd Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division (Infantry): 3,447 troops. Deployed to Baghdad, January 2007 2.4th Brigade, 1st Infantry Division (Infantry): 3,447 troops. Deployed to Baghdad, February 2007 3.3rd Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division (Heavy): 3,784 troops. Deployed to southern Baghdad Belts, March 2007 4.4th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division (Stryker): 3,921 troops. Deployed to Diyala province, April 2007 5.2nd Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division (Heavy): 3,784 troops. Deployed to the southeast of Baghdad, May 2007 This brought the number of U.S. brigades in Iraq from 15 to 20. Additionally, 4,000 Marines in Al Anbar had their 7-month tour extended. These included Marines from the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit, 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, the 2nd Battalion 4th Marines, the 1st Battalion 6th Marines and the 3rd Battalion, 4th Marines. Most of the 150,000 Army personnel had their 12-month tours extended as well. By July, 2007, the percentage of the mobilized Army deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan was almost 30%; the percentage of the mobilized Marine Corps deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan was 13.5% |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2014 7:49:41 AM EDT
[#14]
The problem with this is (other than the cost and timeline) is that it requires a local populace that values freedom and independence. Capitalism can help change this, but if anyone expects it to actually cause positive effect in less than 100 years (at least in this region), they are daft. Our problem is we went in handing out cash like it was going out of style. This caused an enabling mindset that prevented any real gains in the the last 10 years. Causing destruction and mayhem is several orders of magnitude easier than order and production. For any hope of long-term stability, he populace needs to be self-regulating and to achieve this, it requires seeing a better life if they adapt their lifestyles. Capitalism has proven time and again to be the best mechanism for this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2014 7:50:17 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yay, more wars. Yeah fuck em as they have no intention of attacking the West 
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=98e_1407527237 All they want to do is sit on their rock farms and enjoy all the peace that comes with the ROP. For instance the ex ISIS jihadi that came back from Syria and opened fire on the Jewish museum in Belgium was just a a loon and I am sure the rest of our bearded ROPer friends have no intention of doing such things. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2014 7:56:59 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The problem with this is (other than the cost and timeline) is that it requires a local populace that values freedom and independence. Capitalism can help change this, but if anyone expects it to actually cause positive effect in less than 100 years (at least in this region), they are daft. Our problem is we went in handing out cash like it was going out of style. This caused an enabling mindset that prevented any real gains in the the last 10 years. Causing destruction and mayhem is several orders of magnitude easier than order and production. For any hope of long-term stability, he populace needs to be self-regulating and to achieve this, it requires seeing a better life if they adapt their lifestyles. Capitalism has proven time and again to be the best mechanism for this. Yup, and we prevented locals from solving problems or making deals on their own. We are like a co dependent enabler. We prevented the Kurds from arming themselves and then we turn around and say how could this happen? We prevented Dostum and the Uzbecks from going warlord and brining the country under a control that locals will understand and respect and then turn around and wonder why the situation is unstable. Keep the big army at the FOB for QRF, keep the drones and B52s overhead and let SOF fight the war with locals. Tell State dept that they can be in charge when combat force leave and until then shut up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2014 8:02:42 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We never had 400,000 troops in Iraq. The surge added only 30'000. Also there was a political and intelligence surge that had a major effect. Squash the insurgency in its infancy? Not with the commanders we had. They didn't know who the insurgents were, didn't really want to know, and for a time prevented units from using the word rebel, insurgent or jihadist. Again if you think Patreus had 400'000 troops during the surge then doctrine, history and objective facts are probably not going to work. While reasonable people even veterans can argue about what the word defeat means taking the intellectually easy way out and blaming the problem on an scapegoat (the stab in the back, its was the jewish necons, it was the war profiteers, or the hippes and Cronkite turned on us) is not substitute for knowing what happened and how not to repeat the same thing. Units deployed[edit] The five U.S. Army brigades committed to Iraq as part of the surge were 1.2nd Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division (Infantry): 3,447 troops. Deployed to Baghdad, January 2007 2.4th Brigade, 1st Infantry Division (Infantry): 3,447 troops. Deployed to Baghdad, February 2007 3.3rd Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division (Heavy): 3,784 troops. Deployed to southern Baghdad Belts, March 2007 4.4th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division (Stryker): 3,921 troops. Deployed to Diyala province, April 2007 5.2nd Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division (Heavy): 3,784 troops. Deployed to the southeast of Baghdad, May 2007 This brought the number of U.S. brigades in Iraq from 15 to 20. Additionally, 4,000 Marines in Al Anbar had their 7-month tour extended. These included Marines from the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit, 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, the 2nd Battalion 4th Marines, the 1st Battalion 6th Marines and the 3rd Battalion, 4th Marines. Most of the 150,000 Army personnel had their 12-month tours extended as well. By July, 2007, the percentage of the mobilized Army deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan was almost 30%; the percentage of the mobilized Marine Corps deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan was 13.5% Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It seems that might be the best way to go. Work with the Kurds like we did the Northern Alliance. Provide them with air support, advisors and people to help them coordinate fire support. Do likewise with any other groups in Iraq who are actually willing to fight back against ISIS. There are only what, about 10,000 ISIS fighters in Iraq? It doesn't seem like it would require that much manpower to crush this bunch of goons provided they have ample backing from us. You don't need to start sending in BCTs to do that. I'm not talking about nation building here either. I'm simply talking about causing enough attrition among this bunch to make them impotent, then leaving. The Rumsfeld doctrine (aka the Dumsfeld doctrine) of going in light on the ground with air support is retarded. Look at how that turned out in Afghanistan and Iraq. Sure we can defeat the identifiable armed opponents that stand and fight... Most won't. Most will slip away and blend into the population. Then you have the awesome options of trying to rebuild and secure a destroyed country without enough forces, or leaving and turning it back over to the same guys you just "defeated." "defending the cities with front lines that can be targeted from the air will cause us terrible loss". Mullah Omar... He is now positioning himself to run for president in the next election. Yes the same guy who said fuck you I won't hand over Osama, and is the reason we invaded, might get a shot at leading the government we spent over a decade setting up. That's where the Dumsfeld doctrine gets you. To decisively win a war, you need land forces, and a lot of them. Too bad we decided to buy the F-35 and free healthcare for the FSA instead. We are giving out pink slips as fast as we can to all of our experienced warriors.
There was absolutely no light footprint in the south of Iraq in '03. Every general always wants more guys, what would Frank or Sanchez have done with two or three or four more divisions? We have bad generals trying to execute a bad strategy in a text book NTC ARTEP manner. Also the Rumsfeld doctrine does not require democracy or free elections or chaos, you simply install a better dictator and support with small numbers of SOF and aviation assets. What we did in Iraq and Afghanistan was a hybrid of the Powell "you break it you buy it" doctrine and the Rumsfeld doctrine. It was several hundred thousand less than what the Army COS Gen Eric Shinseki said we would need to stabilize the country (400,000). Then after the invasion what happened? Things went into a downward spiral for years. Then we sent in 400,000 with Petraeus and the surge, and viola, stability. What would they have done with two or three or four more divisions? I don't know maybe squash the insurgency in it's infancy? Maybe stop the looting? Maybe have a large enough presence to convince the majority of the Iraqi population that there was a committed and formidable enemy that they couldn't defeat? Rumsfeld wanted to leave, but couldn't. Why was that? Maybe because Bush understood that leaving prematurely without doing it right, gets you exactly where we are at now. We never had 400,000 troops in Iraq. The surge added only 30'000. Also there was a political and intelligence surge that had a major effect. Squash the insurgency in its infancy? Not with the commanders we had. They didn't know who the insurgents were, didn't really want to know, and for a time prevented units from using the word rebel, insurgent or jihadist. Again if you think Patreus had 400'000 troops during the surge then doctrine, history and objective facts are probably not going to work. While reasonable people even veterans can argue about what the word defeat means taking the intellectually easy way out and blaming the problem on an scapegoat (the stab in the back, its was the jewish necons, it was the war profiteers, or the hippes and Cronkite turned on us) is not substitute for knowing what happened and how not to repeat the same thing. Units deployed[edit] The five U.S. Army brigades committed to Iraq as part of the surge were 1.2nd Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division (Infantry): 3,447 troops. Deployed to Baghdad, January 2007 2.4th Brigade, 1st Infantry Division (Infantry): 3,447 troops. Deployed to Baghdad, February 2007 3.3rd Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division (Heavy): 3,784 troops. Deployed to southern Baghdad Belts, March 2007 4.4th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division (Stryker): 3,921 troops. Deployed to Diyala province, April 2007 5.2nd Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division (Heavy): 3,784 troops. Deployed to the southeast of Baghdad, May 2007 This brought the number of U.S. brigades in Iraq from 15 to 20. Additionally, 4,000 Marines in Al Anbar had their 7-month tour extended. These included Marines from the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit, 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, the 2nd Battalion 4th Marines, the 1st Battalion 6th Marines and the 3rd Battalion, 4th Marines. Most of the 150,000 Army personnel had their 12-month tours extended as well. By July, 2007, the percentage of the mobilized Army deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan was almost 30%; the percentage of the mobilized Marine Corps deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan was 13.5% I meant to say 200,000 (that is ballpark what it was) and that was a significant increase in troops after the fight was "won." My point about trying to go in light, and having to build up troop levels later is valid. It happened in Korea (though we didn't really have a choice), Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. The policy of trying to do it with minimum force is fucking retarded. It's as intelligent as saying a .22lr can kill people, so that's what I use for HD. It's quieter, cheaper and less politically sensative.
What happens when you send too much force like we did in Desert Storm? Oh yeah you easily get what you want/need and choose your own terms for ending the war. What a horrible thought. Anyone saying we went in with the right troop levels into Afghanistan needs to read this graph and get back to me. 
Unless you are someone who wants to ignorantly argue that it is because boosh just wanted a war, you have to accept that we probably should have sent more guys to start with. There is something to be said about fighting decisively from the start. Going in light doesn't support that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2014 8:08:44 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It depends on what the U.S. goal is in Iraq. If they want to keep the country together, then they will need to keep a large force on the ground, very true. But if the goal is to help the Kurds carve out their own country, then CAS with Special Forces embedded with the Kurds would work exceptionally well in this instance. The problem is the U.S. doesn't seem to have a coherent goal in mind. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It seems that might be the best way to go. Work with the Kurds like we did the Northern Alliance. Provide them with air support, advisors and people to help them coordinate fire support. Do likewise with any other groups in Iraq who are actually willing to fight back against ISIS. There are only what, about 10,000 ISIS fighters in Iraq? It doesn't seem like it would require that much manpower to crush this bunch of goons provided they have ample backing from us. You don't need to start sending in BCTs to do that. I'm not talking about nation building here either. I'm simply talking about causing enough attrition among this bunch to make them impotent, then leaving. The Rumsfeld doctrine (aka the Dumsfeld doctrine) of going in light on the ground with air support is retarded. Look at how that turned out in Afghanistan and Iraq. Sure we can defeat the identifiable armed opponents that stand and fight... Most won't. Most will slip away and blend into the population. Then you have the awesome options of trying to rebuild and secure a destroyed country without enough forces, or leaving and turning it back over to the same guys you just "defeated." "defending the cities with front lines that can be targeted from the air will cause us terrible loss". Mullah Omar... He is now positioning himself to run for president in the next election. Yes the same guy who said fuck you I won't hand over Osama, and is the reason we invaded, might get a shot at leading the government we spent over a decade setting up. That's where the Dumsfeld doctrine gets you. To decisively win a war, you need land forces, and a lot of them. Too bad we decided to buy the F-35 and free healthcare for the FSA instead. We are giving out pink slips as fast as we can to all of our experienced warriors.
It depends on what the U.S. goal is in Iraq. If they want to keep the country together, then they will need to keep a large force on the ground, very true. But if the goal is to help the Kurds carve out their own country, then CAS with Special Forces embedded with the Kurds would work exceptionally well in this instance. The problem is the U.S. doesn't seem to have a coherent goal in mind. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I like the idea of carving out a Kurdistan, but Turkey, Iran, Syria, and Iraq don't. I think that would be like carving out a new Israel. You would be creating another State that is in perpetual war with all neighbors on all sides. That doesn't really change what has been going on, it just ensures we get responsibility for it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2014 8:10:29 AM EDT
[#19]
Another point to consider is that we can't afford too put enough boots on the ground for the decades it will take to work (even if the public would support it for that long, which they won't).
So, as option #2, I agree with Charging Handle- use their local boots and our air power. As time goes on, we will continue to help, only so long as they show a will to fight and take ground. I'm all ears for other options that will kill these fuckers. Doing nothing is not something I think will work out well in the long term. At the end of the book "Horse Soldiers" the author takes basically the same view about how we should have left it to the locals for most of the boots on the ground. As for the "all out unrestricted warfare" option. The American public doesn't have the stomach for it, and the American treasury can't support it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2014 8:14:39 AM EDT
[#20]
Why can't we just shock and awe the shit out of them and the only boots on the ground being SF to recon targets?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2014 8:16:35 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Another point to consider is that we can't afford too put enough boots on the ground for the decades it will take to work (even if the public would support it for that long, which they won't). So, as option #2, I agree with Charging Handle- use their local boots and our air power. As time goes on, we will continue to help, only so long as they show a will to fight and take ground. I'm all ears for other options that will kill these fuckers. Doing nothing is not something I think will work out well in the long term. At the end of the book "Horse Soldiers" the author takes basically the same view about how we should have left it to the locals for most of the boots on the ground. As for the "all out unrestricted warfare" option. The American public doesn't have the stomach for it, and the American treasury can't support it. Except it shouldn't take decades of a lot of boots if you properly assert yourself from the beginning. Start with 300,000 and trickle down to 30,000 over a decade. We've been doing it the other way around which is fucking retarded and 10X as hard. It's pretty tough to stand up to the local thugs when things are bad. But if you are the obvious powerful and committed entity, you'd be amazed at how many fewer enemies and fence sitters you have. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2014 8:19:07 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why can't we just shock and awe the shit out of them and the only boots on the ground being SF to recon targets? So you support the Clinton/Obama approach? 
That's a temporary solution, to a permanent problem. It may still be our best option since we've proven pretty inept at Nation building. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2014 8:26:02 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryI am sure the rest of our bearded ROPer friends have no intention of doing such things. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2014 8:29:41 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you support the Clinton/Obama approach?
That's a temporary solution, to a permanent problem. It may still be our best option since we've proven pretty inept at Nation building. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Why can't we just shock and awe the shit out of them and the only boots on the ground being SF to recon targets? So you support the Clinton/Obama approach?
That's a temporary solution, to a permanent problem. It may still be our best option since we've proven pretty inept at Nation building. Shock and Awe was Bush. I'm all for locals fighting their own battles and creating a nation worth living in for themselves but every time we supply arms it bites us. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2014 8:34:33 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Rumsfeld doctrine (aka the Dumsfeld doctrine) of going in light on the ground with air support is retarded. Look at how that turned out in Afghanistan and Iraq. Sure we can defeat the identifiable armed opponents that stand and fight... Most won't. Most will slip away and blend into the population. Then you have the awesome options of trying to rebuild and secure a destroyed country without enough forces, or leaving and turning it back over to the same guys you just "defeated." "defending the cities with front lines that can be targeted from the air will cause us terrible loss". Mullah Omar... He is now positioning himself to run for president in the next election. Yes the same guy who said fuck you I won't hand over Osama, and is the reason we invaded, might get a shot at leading the government we spent over a decade setting up. That's where the Dumsfeld doctrine gets you. To decisively win a war, you need land forces, and a lot of them. Too bad we decided to buy the F-35 and free healthcare for the FSA instead. We are giving out pink slips as fast as we can to all of our experienced warriors. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: It seems that might be the best way to go. Work with the Kurds like we did the Northern Alliance. Provide them with air support, advisors and people to help them coordinate fire support. Do likewise with any other groups in Iraq who are actually willing to fight back against ISIS. There are only what, about 10,000 ISIS fighters in Iraq? It doesn't seem like it would require that much manpower to crush this bunch of goons provided they have ample backing from us. You don't need to start sending in BCTs to do that. I'm not talking about nation building here either. I'm simply talking about causing enough attrition among this bunch to make them impotent, then leaving. The Rumsfeld doctrine (aka the Dumsfeld doctrine) of going in light on the ground with air support is retarded. Look at how that turned out in Afghanistan and Iraq. Sure we can defeat the identifiable armed opponents that stand and fight... Most won't. Most will slip away and blend into the population. Then you have the awesome options of trying to rebuild and secure a destroyed country without enough forces, or leaving and turning it back over to the same guys you just "defeated." "defending the cities with front lines that can be targeted from the air will cause us terrible loss". Mullah Omar... He is now positioning himself to run for president in the next election. Yes the same guy who said fuck you I won't hand over Osama, and is the reason we invaded, might get a shot at leading the government we spent over a decade setting up. That's where the Dumsfeld doctrine gets you. To decisively win a war, you need land forces, and a lot of them. Too bad we decided to buy the F-35 and free healthcare for the FSA instead. We are giving out pink slips as fast as we can to all of our experienced warriors. Uh wut? We toppled the Taliban government in a couple of weeks with minimal casualties. We augmented Special Forces teams with Air Assets and they got shit done. Give a guy with good radio, binoculars and he is basically a God in places like the middle east where our Aircraft have zero percent chance of being shot down. The problem wasn't taking down the Taliban government. The problem was rebuilding the country and getting people to want to be loyal to the corrupt Afghan government.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2014 8:34:35 AM EDT
[#26]
Unless you are someone who wants to ignorantly argue that it is because boosh just wanted a war, you have to accept that we probably should have sent more guys to start with. There is something to be said about fighting decisively from the start. Going in light doesn't support that. Numbers matter when compared to strategy and desired outcome. If we have a bad strategy then more troops will not help it. Think of your home defense analogy with a .22. If your choice is a .22 and a .44 magnum and the .44 will not hit the target then the .22 is actually superior. As far as the actual troop numbers for desert storm the strategy was to drive the Iraqis out of Kuwait and then leave a division minus in Kuwait until the locals got back on their feet, We probably had enough or slightly to many troops to the task. I say to many because there were whole armored brigades not employed because there wasn't the logistics or room to support them. If your talking about occupying without using local forces then there are no amount of troops we can field that will win it. 10 divisions in Iraq would have been just as ineffective from '0-4 to '07 as 5 divisions or 1 division. Shinseki's 400'000 number was just made up and has no statistical or doctrinal logic behind it. Why didn't Korea require 400'000 in 1954 ? Why didn't Japan require a million troops in 1945? Why were we able to draw down so fast in Italy or in Germany? There are a million factors and off the cuff remarks (Shinseki's) were tactics, troops and end states don't align are like 44 magnums that wont hit anyone. We shouldn't have sent more troops to Iraq, we should have sent better generals |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2014 8:37:19 AM EDT
[#27]
Again, this isn't a situation that necessitates nation building. We've already built Iraq up as a nation as much as we are going to be able to. What is needed at this point is enough US support to turn the tide in favor of the Kurds and the Iraqi Army. Yes, the Iraqi Army by themselves are a bunch of disloyal cowards. But back them up with the full might of the USAF and USN overhead and suddenly you will see them find a second wind. The Kurds would really find their stride with US support backing them. It is imperative that we provide the locals enough assistance so that they can push these guys back and kill enough of them to make them ineffective. But without significant US support, ISIS is soon going to have their own sizable nation in which to plan, train people for and launch state sponsored international terrorism from. That is simply unacceptable.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2014 8:47:36 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Uh wut? We toppled the Taliban government in a couple of weeks with minimal casualties. We augmented Special Forces teams with Air Assets and they got shit done. Give a guy with good radio, binoculars and he is basically a God in places like the middle east where our Aircraft have zero percent chance of being shot down. The problem wasn't taking down the Taliban government. The problem was rebuilding the country and getting people to want to be loyal to the corrupt Afghan government. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It seems that might be the best way to go. Work with the Kurds like we did the Northern Alliance. Provide them with air support, advisors and people to help them coordinate fire support. Do likewise with any other groups in Iraq who are actually willing to fight back against ISIS. There are only what, about 10,000 ISIS fighters in Iraq? It doesn't seem like it would require that much manpower to crush this bunch of goons provided they have ample backing from us. You don't need to start sending in BCTs to do that. I'm not talking about nation building here either. I'm simply talking about causing enough attrition among this bunch to make them impotent, then leaving. The Rumsfeld doctrine (aka the Dumsfeld doctrine) of going in light on the ground with air support is retarded. Look at how that turned out in Afghanistan and Iraq. Sure we can defeat the identifiable armed opponents that stand and fight... Most won't. Most will slip away and blend into the population. Then you have the awesome options of trying to rebuild and secure a destroyed country without enough forces, or leaving and turning it back over to the same guys you just "defeated." "defending the cities with front lines that can be targeted from the air will cause us terrible loss". Mullah Omar... He is now positioning himself to run for president in the next election. Yes the same guy who said fuck you I won't hand over Osama, and is the reason we invaded, might get a shot at leading the government we spent over a decade setting up. That's where the Dumsfeld doctrine gets you. To decisively win a war, you need land forces, and a lot of them. Too bad we decided to buy the F-35 and free healthcare for the FSA instead. We are giving out pink slips as fast as we can to all of our experienced warriors.
Uh wut? We toppled the Taliban government in a couple of weeks with minimal casualties. We augmented Special Forces teams with Air Assets and they got shit done. Give a guy with good radio, binoculars and he is basically a God in places like the middle east where our Aircraft have zero percent chance of being shot down. The problem wasn't taking down the Taliban government. The problem was rebuilding the country and getting people to want to be loyal to the corrupt Afghan government. Again, displaced is not equal to defeat. Sure they did a good job, sure they killed a lot of bad guys. But that it didn't achieve our goal, or a strategic victory. It just gave us a naive false sense of satisfaction and accomplishment. Those that were not killed are still more powerful than any opposing force not backed by the US. Until that changes, the minute we leave, the Taliban are going to call the shots again. Would that be the case if we went in heavier and fully dominated from the start? Maybe, maybe not. One thing is for sure, the strategy of going light with advisors and indig forces supported from the air has failed a lot more than it has succeeded for us. It usually results in us sending more guys to fight a more capable and experienced enemy later. In other words it is stupid most of the time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2014 8:49:35 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But without significant US support, ISIS is soon going to have their own sizable nation in which to plan, train people for and launch state sponsored international terrorism from. That is simply unacceptable. Indeed. But all of the AEFs and ODAs in the world aren't going to fix that. Only the investment of sustained ground combat power will fix that. Peshmerga or Shia militias aren't going to fix that, either. Find me the Western politician ready to put 100k boots on the ground. Find me the Iranian politician ready to allow it without a fight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2014 8:51:01 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There was strategy? Remove ROEs and win a war against stone age opponent with AKs. Otherwise stay home. This is the solution^^^^. If we are to go -- go heavy hunt them down like the disease that they are -- kill every last cockroach and be done with it until the next disease pops up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2014 8:54:15 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Again, this isn't a situation that necessitates nation building. We've already built Iraq up as a nation as much as we are going to be able to. What is needed at this point is enough US support to turn the tide in favor of the Kurds and the Iraqi Army. Yes, the Iraqi Army by themselves are a bunch of disloyal cowards. But back them up with the full might of the USAF and USN overhead and suddenly you will see them find a second wind. The Kurds would really find their stride with US support backing them. It is imperative that we provide the locals enough assistance so that they can push these guys back and kill enough of them to make them ineffective. But without significant US support, ISIS is soon going to have their own sizable nation in which to plan, train people for and launch state sponsored international terrorism from. That is simply unacceptable. Why would we back the current Iraqi Army? They are nothing more than an Iranian proxy. Are they really the lesser of two evils? Protect the minorities and prevent atrocities, but backing either the Sunni terrorists, or the Iranian proxies seems stupid to me. I agree that the idea of a US backed inclusive central gov is pretty much dead at this point, and seemed like a stupid idea to start with. They are determined to have a civil war, let them have it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2014 8:55:01 AM EDT
[#32]
Nothing works or will work until one of the following happens:
A) You either decimate a population and ALL its resources till they cannot wage any effective campaign or such time until they ask for peace; or B) They want peace in the first place and you never have to go to war. These are the only two options. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2014 8:57:01 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Indeed. But all of the AEFs and ODAs in the world aren't going to fix that. Only the investment of sustained ground combat power will fix that. Peshmerga or Shia militias aren't going to fix that, either. Find me the Western politician ready to put 100k boots on the ground. Find me the Iranian politician ready to allow it without a fight. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
But without significant US support, ISIS is soon going to have their own sizable nation in which to plan, train people for and launch state sponsored international terrorism from. That is simply unacceptable. Indeed. But all of the AEFs and ODAs in the world aren't going to fix that. Only the investment of sustained ground combat power will fix that. Peshmerga or Shia militias aren't going to fix that, either. Find me the Western politician ready to put 100k boots on the ground. Find me the Iranian politician ready to allow it without a fight. GD seems to be full of people who play COD and jerk off to Curtis Lemay's pic. With that in mind, it's easy to see that they are convinced that an AOB with air support can accomplish anything.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2014 8:58:03 AM EDT
[#34]
Remember, ISIS and its ilk was funded while they were in Syria fighting Assad. Folks like Lindsey Graham, Biden and McCain touted them as heroes. Now they can be self-funded thanks to their incursion in Iraq.
First step, if the State Department/CIA are still funding ISIS and the Syrian rebels, stop it. Let Assad's forces kill them all. Second, if the Iranians want to kill ISIS, let them. Iran is more tolerant of Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians than ISIS is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2014 9:04:41 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I like the idea of carving out a Kurdistan, but Turkey, Iran, Syria, and Iraq don't. I think that would be like carving out a new Israel. You would be creating another State that is in perpetual war with all neighbors on all sides. That doesn't really change what has been going on, it just ensures we get responsibility for it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It depends on what the U.S. goal is in Iraq. If they want to keep the country together, then they will need to keep a large force on the ground, very true. But if the goal is to help the Kurds carve out their own country, then CAS with Special Forces embedded with the Kurds would work exceptionally well in this instance. The problem is the U.S. doesn't seem to have a coherent goal in mind. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I like the idea of carving out a Kurdistan, but Turkey, Iran, Syria, and Iraq don't. I think that would be like carving out a new Israel. You would be creating another State that is in perpetual war with all neighbors on all sides. That doesn't really change what has been going on, it just ensures we get responsibility for it. And . . . ? Since when does the U.S. give or should give a shit what other countries think, especially since each of the countries you have named are hostile to varying degrees towards the U.S. We need to do what is right for us. Those countries would have to choose to be at war. Israel is a bad analogy since the Kurds are already physically there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2014 9:05:24 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Again, displaced is not equal to defeat. Sure they did a good job, sure they killed a lot of bad guys. But that it didn't achieve our goal, or a strategic victory. It just gave us a naive false sense of satisfaction and accomplishment. Those that were not killed are still more powerful than any opposing force not backed by the US. Until that changes, the minute we leave, the Taliban are going to call the shots again. Would that be the case if we went in heavier and fully dominated from the start? Maybe, maybe not. One thing is for sure, the strategy of going light with advisors and indig forces supported from the air has failed a lot more than it has succeeded for us. It usually results in us sending more guys to fight a more capable and experienced enemy later. In other words it is stupid most of the time. Our goal from the beginning was unrealistic. Yeah, we are great at killing people. But a real challenge is getting the majority of people to side with the government. You can kill people, but you can't force them to be something they don't want to be. We never should have started thinking about "nation building" and just kept it a strictely anti-terror campaign. Meaning, bombing terrorist training camps and all that. Not to mention, things were pretty quiet in Afghanistan. But once the people sitting on the fence knew the United States and NATO wasn't going to stay for the long haul, they traded allegiances because they knew them and their families would be killed once Coalition forces left. The best way to "fix" Afghanistan is to breed out all the ones that live there now and are comfortable living in their current state. Sort of like how we "settled" the Western USA, was to move a bunch of our people there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2014 9:09:00 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Remember, ISIS and its ilk was funded while they were in Syria fighting Assad. Folks like Lindsey Graham, Biden and McCain touted them as heroes. Now they can be self-funded thanks to their incursion in Iraq. First step, if the State Department/CIA are still funding ISIS and the Syrian rebels, stop it. Let Assad's forces kill them all. Second, if the Iranians want to kill ISIS, let them. Iran is more tolerant of Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians than ISIS is. They probably figure that since the U.S. will step in that they don't need to waste their blood and their gold. Or at least they are waiting to see what the U.S. does. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2014 9:10:25 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Our goal from the beginning was unrealistic. Yeah, we are great at killing people. But a real challenge is getting the majority of people to side with the government. You can kill people, but you can't force them to be something they don't want to be. We never should have started thinking about "nation building" and just kept it a strictely anti-terror campaign. Meaning, bombing terrorist training camps and all that. Not to mention, things were pretty quiet in Afghanistan. But once the people sitting on the fence knew the United States and NATO wasn't going to stay for the long haul, they traded allegiances because they knew them and their families would be killed once Coalition forces left. The best way to "fix" Afghanistan is to breed out all the ones that live there now and are comfortable living in their current state. Sort of like how we "settled" the Western USA, was to move a bunch of our people there. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Again, displaced is not equal to defeat. Sure they did a good job, sure they killed a lot of bad guys. But that it didn't achieve our goal, or a strategic victory. It just gave us a naive false sense of satisfaction and accomplishment. Those that were not killed are still more powerful than any opposing force not backed by the US. Until that changes, the minute we leave, the Taliban are going to call the shots again. Would that be the case if we went in heavier and fully dominated from the start? Maybe, maybe not. One thing is for sure, the strategy of going light with advisors and indig forces supported from the air has failed a lot more than it has succeeded for us. It usually results in us sending more guys to fight a more capable and experienced enemy later. In other words it is stupid most of the time. Our goal from the beginning was unrealistic. Yeah, we are great at killing people. But a real challenge is getting the majority of people to side with the government. You can kill people, but you can't force them to be something they don't want to be. We never should have started thinking about "nation building" and just kept it a strictely anti-terror campaign. Meaning, bombing terrorist training camps and all that. Not to mention, things were pretty quiet in Afghanistan. But once the people sitting on the fence knew the United States and NATO wasn't going to stay for the long haul, they traded allegiances because they knew them and their families would be killed once Coalition forces left. The best way to "fix" Afghanistan is to breed out all the ones that live there now and are comfortable living in their current state. Sort of like how we "settled" the Western USA, was to move a bunch of our people there. I think I have a solution: Deport all illegals to Afghanistan! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2014 9:13:07 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Unless you are someone who wants to ignorantly argue that it is because boosh just wanted a war, you have to accept that we probably should have sent more guys to start with. There is something to be said about fighting decisively from the start. Going in light doesn't support that. Numbers matter when compared to strategy and desired outcome. If we have a bad strategy then more troops will not help it. Think of your home defense analogy with a .22. If your choice is a .22 and a .44 magnum and the .44 will not hit the target then the .22 is actually superior. As far as the actual troop numbers for desert storm the strategy was to drive the Iraqis out of Kuwait and then leave a division minus in Kuwait until the locals got back on their feet, We probably had enough or slightly to many troops to the task. I say to many because there were whole armored brigades not employed because there wasn't the logistics or room to support them. If your talking about occupying without using local forces then there are no amount of troops we can field that will win it. 10 divisions in Iraq would have been just as ineffective from '0-4 to '07 as 5 divisions or 1 division. Shinseki's 400'000 number was just made up and has no statistical or doctrinal logic behind it. Why didn't Korea require 400'000 in 1954 ? Why didn't Japan require a million troops in 1945? Why were we able to draw down so fast in Italy or in Germany? There are a million factors and off the cuff remarks (Shinseki's) were tactics, troops and end states don't align are like 44 magnums that wont hit anyone. We shouldn't have sent more troops to Iraq, we should have sent better generals Shinseki's numbers were better than what we did. He probably knew there was no way he would get what he wanted, so he did what all negotiators do, he started with a high number. Even if we did send too many, what is the big deal? Too many available re-enforcements? Is it cheaper to send 150,000-200,000 for 10 years, and fail, or send 400,000 and succeed? Not to mention casualties. After the surge got control of things, the amount of men and material lost dropped dramatically. Imagine if we had the required resources from the start. There may be hundreds if not thousands of our men killed and wounded alive and well today. We actually did send more troops to Iraq (eventually). Because they were needed. They were actually needed much earlier. We had a pretty dam good General named Tommy Franks. But like almost all the good Generals of his generation, he quit early because Rumsfeld was one of the worst Sec Defs in the history of this country. Naturally, no talented general was looking to take charge of that disaster. Anyone with half a brain could see it wasn't going well and Rumsfeld backed by Bush was the root of the problem. Not until Gates replaced Rumsfeld, did we get another good general to sign up for it. Sure the Army wasn't prepared for a COIN fight against two factions wanting a civil war. All of that might have been avoided if we had the troop numbers we needed from the start, and if Paul Bremer had listened to another good retired General named Jay Garner who told him to not disband the Army, and create more enemies than we already had. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2014 9:17:29 AM EDT
[#40]
I didn't know ISIS had WMD's! Is that what the NSA, CIA, FBI, DEA, and Homeland Security have found?
What does Dick Chaney say?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2014 9:23:51 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Our goal from the beginning was unrealistic. Yeah, we are great at killing people. But a real challenge is getting the majority of people to side with the government. You can kill people, but you can't force them to be something they don't want to be. We never should have started thinking about "nation building" and just kept it a strictely anti-terror campaign. Meaning, bombing terrorist training camps and all that. Not to mention, things were pretty quiet in Afghanistan. But once the people sitting on the fence knew the United States and NATO wasn't going to stay for the long haul, they traded allegiances because they knew them and their families would be killed once Coalition forces left. The best way to "fix" Afghanistan is to breed out all the ones that live there now and are comfortable living in their current state. Sort of like how we "settled" the Western USA, was to move a bunch of our people there. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Again, displaced is not equal to defeat. Sure they did a good job, sure they killed a lot of bad guys. But that it didn't achieve our goal, or a strategic victory. It just gave us a naive false sense of satisfaction and accomplishment. Those that were not killed are still more powerful than any opposing force not backed by the US. Until that changes, the minute we leave, the Taliban are going to call the shots again. Would that be the case if we went in heavier and fully dominated from the start? Maybe, maybe not. One thing is for sure, the strategy of going light with advisors and indig forces supported from the air has failed a lot more than it has succeeded for us. It usually results in us sending more guys to fight a more capable and experienced enemy later. In other words it is stupid most of the time. Our goal from the beginning was unrealistic. Yeah, we are great at killing people. But a real challenge is getting the majority of people to side with the government. You can kill people, but you can't force them to be something they don't want to be. We never should have started thinking about "nation building" and just kept it a strictely anti-terror campaign. Meaning, bombing terrorist training camps and all that. Not to mention, things were pretty quiet in Afghanistan. But once the people sitting on the fence knew the United States and NATO wasn't going to stay for the long haul, they traded allegiances because they knew them and their families would be killed once Coalition forces left. The best way to "fix" Afghanistan is to breed out all the ones that live there now and are comfortable living in their current state. Sort of like how we "settled" the Western USA, was to move a bunch of our people there. I believe our goal was to replace the Taliban with a more acceptable regime. We didn't give a shit about the Taliban until they refused to give over Osama and his contingent. We never wanted to build up the entire country, we just failed to recognize that would be the only other option. We assumed that some other entity would step up and be more capable, powerful and acceptable than the Taliban. That was a bad assumption, and has forced our hand at nation building. And we have proven to suck at it. That part in bold is important. What do you think is more convincing about resolve? Reading about few AOB's with air support, or several hundred thousand troops? Some of whom you can see out your window if you look. With that level of security, now you can move on to the political, economic and social success of which you speak. Do you think any foreign influence is going to move in when the area is hotly contested? Nope. If we had the right amount of troops, then we'd get security, and the things that follow it. We never made it that far, because we never had enough troops for real security for any real length of time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2014 9:24:46 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think I have a solution: Deport all illegals to Afghanistan! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Again, displaced is not equal to defeat. Sure they did a good job, sure they killed a lot of bad guys. But that it didn't achieve our goal, or a strategic victory. It just gave us a naive false sense of satisfaction and accomplishment. Those that were not killed are still more powerful than any opposing force not backed by the US. Until that changes, the minute we leave, the Taliban are going to call the shots again. Would that be the case if we went in heavier and fully dominated from the start? Maybe, maybe not. One thing is for sure, the strategy of going light with advisors and indig forces supported from the air has failed a lot more than it has succeeded for us. It usually results in us sending more guys to fight a more capable and experienced enemy later. In other words it is stupid most of the time. Our goal from the beginning was unrealistic. Yeah, we are great at killing people. But a real challenge is getting the majority of people to side with the government. You can kill people, but you can't force them to be something they don't want to be. We never should have started thinking about "nation building" and just kept it a strictely anti-terror campaign. Meaning, bombing terrorist training camps and all that. Not to mention, things were pretty quiet in Afghanistan. But once the people sitting on the fence knew the United States and NATO wasn't going to stay for the long haul, they traded allegiances because they knew them and their families would be killed once Coalition forces left. The best way to "fix" Afghanistan is to breed out all the ones that live there now and are comfortable living in their current state. Sort of like how we "settled" the Western USA, was to move a bunch of our people there. I think I have a solution: Deport all illegals to Afghanistan! Are you trying to breed a super cartel?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2014 9:29:39 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I didn't know ISIS had WMD's! Is that what the NSA, CIA, FBI, DEA, and Homeland Security have found? What does Dick Chaney say? They actually have seized radioactive materials |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2014 9:44:08 AM EDT
[#44]
The problem with boots on the ground, no matter how many of them you send, is eventually they have to return home. Iraq was in pretty stable condition when the last of our forces left there. We could no doubt go in with another 100,000 troops and clear out this ISIS rabble. But someday those troops would have to be brought home. At some point, the locals there are going to have to take control of their own destiny. They can't and will never learn to do that if we do everything for them. I am all for offering them whatever support they need to defeat ISIS. But it will have to be Iraqis themselves doing the lifting on the ground. The key is to provide them with enough support to make them feel like super man so they'll fight effectively.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2014 9:47:25 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The problem with boots on the ground, no matter how many of them you send, is eventually they have to return home. Iraq was in pretty stable condition when the last of our forces left there. We could no doubt go in with another 100,000 troops and clear out this ISIS rabble. But someday those troops would have to be brought home. At some point, the locals there are going to have to take control of their own destiny. They can't and will never learn to do that if we do everything for them. I am all for offering them whatever support they need to defeat ISIS. But it will have to be Iraqis themselves doing the lifting on the ground. They are doing that now. Don't like it? Well you are going to have to send someone to change things. A perfumed prince in the sky at 20,000 feet dropping ordinance is a mainly uneducated manner is not as convincing as GD thinks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2014 9:48:09 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They actually have seized radioactive materials Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I didn't know ISIS had WMD's! Is that what the NSA, CIA, FBI, DEA, and Homeland Security have found? What does Dick Chaney say? They actually have seized radioactive materials Where is Colin Powell when you need him?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2014 9:57:08 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They are doing that now. Don't like it? Well you are going to have to send someone to change things. A perfumed prince in the sky at 20,000 feet dropping ordinance is a mainly uneducated manner is not as convincing as GD thinks. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The problem with boots on the ground, no matter how many of them you send, is eventually they have to return home. Iraq was in pretty stable condition when the last of our forces left there. We could no doubt go in with another 100,000 troops and clear out this ISIS rabble. But someday those troops would have to be brought home. At some point, the locals there are going to have to take control of their own destiny. They can't and will never learn to do that if we do everything for them. I am all for offering them whatever support they need to defeat ISIS. But it will have to be Iraqis themselves doing the lifting on the ground. They are doing that now. Don't like it? Well you are going to have to send someone to change things. A perfumed prince in the sky at 20,000 feet dropping ordinance is a mainly uneducated manner is not as convincing as GD thinks. Would the Kurds and Iraqi Army benefit greatly if they just had US air support and maybe some intel (and in the case of the Kurds, heavier weapons)? Nobody is saying that dropping bombs from aircraft alone is going to decisively defeat ISIS. But having that level of support would give them a much better chance of getting this situation under control than they would have otherwise. I don't think the locals can hold against ISIS without assistance. But with US air support, I think their odds of doing just that go way up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2014 10:04:28 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Would the Kurds and Iraqi Army benefit greatly if they just had US air support and maybe some intel (and in the case of the Kurds, heavier weapons)? Nobody is saying that dropping bombs from aircraft alone is going to decisively defeat ISIS. But having that level of support would give them a much better chance of getting this situation under control than they would have otherwise. I don't think the locals can hold against ISIS without assistance. But with US air support, I think their odds of doing just that go way up. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The problem with boots on the ground, no matter how many of them you send, is eventually they have to return home. Iraq was in pretty stable condition when the last of our forces left there. We could no doubt go in with another 100,000 troops and clear out this ISIS rabble. But someday those troops would have to be brought home. At some point, the locals there are going to have to take control of their own destiny. They can't and will never learn to do that if we do everything for them. I am all for offering them whatever support they need to defeat ISIS. But it will have to be Iraqis themselves doing the lifting on the ground. They are doing that now. Don't like it? Well you are going to have to send someone to change things. A perfumed prince in the sky at 20,000 feet dropping ordinance is a mainly uneducated manner is not as convincing as GD thinks. Would the Kurds and Iraqi Army benefit greatly if they just had US air support and maybe some intel (and in the case of the Kurds, heavier weapons)? Nobody is saying that dropping bombs from aircraft alone is going to decisively defeat ISIS. But having that level of support would give them a much better chance of getting this situation under control than they would have otherwise. I don't think the locals can hold against ISIS without assistance. But with US air support, I think their odds of doing just that go way up. ISIS wouldn't have made it 10 miles past the border without local support. ISIS in Iraq at this point is all the Sunnis pissed off at the Central government. Why should we back the inept Shia's who've systematically excluded them from the process at the behest of Iran since we left? You are essentially advocating air striking Peter to save Paul at this point so to speak. Arming and supporting the Yzedi and Kurds is probably the best and safest bet at this point. It is also smart of the admin to be claiming it is to prevent genocide. If we claim or are seen as supporting an independent Kurdistan, that opens up another huge shitstorm and pisses off a lot more people, including some pretty powerful NATO allies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2014 12:30:10 PM EDT
[#49]
There is no argument that it is a tangled mess. I just don't want to go broke sending 100's of thousands of our warriors over there to try to stomp out an idea.
Also, I'm not talking about a few bombs from 20,000 feet. I am talking about full air support for as many of their ground forces as we can effectively manage. Help the Kurds and Iraqis push them back into Syria, then regroup to see what makes sense next. Regarding their local support; I have a feeling that once ISIS gets all set up and starts enforcing it's version of "modern living", some of their local support is going to dry up pretty quickly. If I am wrong about that point, then you are right Rooster- the only way to beat them would be with lots of skilled troops. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2014 12:47:36 PM EDT
[#50]
ISIS would be crushed in weeks if we hit them with an all-out air campaign with limited eyes on ground identifying targets for CAS aircraft and supporting the Kurds with Apaches. Fuck Maliki's government, we should support the Kurds advancing and taking control of everything north of Tikrit. Not a minute should go by without some type of ordinance hitting an Islamic state target, day and night. Liberal use of these anywhere in ISIS controlled Iraq and Syria where we can identify groups of armed individuals and vehicles would break their will or ability to fight.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
