Political Crossfire Forums

[Quicksurf]

Let me clarify something with all of you who may have posted in "Is Western Warfare becoming extinct? "

Western warfare, which is a fairly broad term, I am assuming is warfare that has been conducted by the United States and other European nations.

A lot of people seem to have the notion in their head that the United States is being defeated by the insurgents in Iraq and does not have the means to defeat them.

Let me remind you that Americans are playing down to the level of terrorists. Now more than ever has heavy equipment such as bomber planes, artillary, and even tanks become somewhat obsolete on the battlefront in the Middle East. (Now infantry and intelligence warfare are more crucial to success on the front lines)

However, the only reason that our equipment has become obsolete is because we choose to do so.

The United States has choosen to conduct the War in Iraq by the most humane means possible. When was the last time the US dropped bombs on the Iraqi cities?

My point is that the US could crush the insurgency if that was our only goal. However the War in Iraq is not just about "defeating the insurgents", it is about rebuilding Iraq and making it a functional democratic nation. We can't achieve these goals by bombing the cities of Iraq to rubble.

[Kumar]

Yes, that was already covered in the other thread. Why make another one stating the same thing?

It's faulty to assume that barbaric (well, more barbaric than usual) warfare can eliminate insurgencies. Even the Nazis couldn't eradicate Yugoslav partisans in WWII. Short of killing every human in Iraq, there's not much you can do. This is even more true for Afghanistan, where brute firepower is limited in its effectiveness.

[lilwolf]

I have been saying for years that as long as we keep playing by the rules we will lose. Take the gloves off and step into it, and use every nasty ass means at your disposal to hunt them down and end them. Short of hurting innocent people do what it takes to get the job done.

That also means telling the politcal clowns in DC (both sides of the aisle) to stay the hell out of it and let the soldiers do what they are damn good at....hunting down bad guys and killing them. Limit destruction and keep things in one piece if possible and get these folks on their feet and come home. :-|

[Quicksurf]

lilwolf wrote: I have been saying for years that as long as we keep playing by the rules we will lose. Take the gloves off and step into it, and use every nasty ass means at your disposal to hunt them down and end them. Short of hurting innocent people do what it takes to get the job done.

That's the problem. The insurgents have imbeded themselves into civilian areas. If the only goal was to simply defeat the insurgency, we would be done by now. Anyone with half a brain knows that the Iraq War is much more complex than that.

lilwolf wrote: That also means telling the politcal clowns in DC (both sides of the aisle) to stay the hell out of it and let the soldiers do what they are damn good at....hunting down bad guys and killing them.

I agree to a certain extent. Unfortunatley these "clowns in DC" are being held by the balls by the media, and any military action that takes placed is criticized and examined by the media. Distracting the rest of America from our actual golas in Iraq.

lilwolf wrote: Limit destruction and keep things in one piece if possible and get these folks on their feet and come home. :-|

It will happen. Iraq has shown tremendous progress sense 2003, and we are approaching our goal. Don't let everyone else change your mind, just remember, we are literally writing history in our democritization of Iraq, and our resolve to win has not changed.

[lilwolf]

There are ways and methods to remove the embedded insurgents from the people. Not all of them are good but they are highly effective. By meaning not all good....I am referring to the fact that if an entire area say 5 square blocks is surrounded and then literally a squeeze effect and work into the center thus forcing the bad guys out. This is effective only if after you have surrounded an area and let the people know that you are there and to remain in their homes. You now allow the insurgents one chance and only onechance to throw down the weapons. If they do not they are found and they are dealt with. The first time you do this and do it effectively there will be a test per say of those that say yea right. After the effectiveness is sahown and the people that "you have helped and not harmed" see the end result they will hand over the bad guys quicker and will be less worried about the insurgents and the militaries who are doing the work. But it must also be done with sanity and respect for the people there. Search each house (every house) with respect and dignity and that will help the overall picture to look better to the people in that area.
The overall strategy will be to give the people back their homes and their towns. It was actually quite effective in Somalia until that went to hell in a hand basket. There were not enough troops that were available to accomplish the total job. The folks there really did want their neighborhoods back and to be made safe. The vast majority really did help in getting rid of the warlords and their people.

The clowns in DC are on both sides of the aisle and they are only interested in their political careers. Unfortunately the military brass have little or no control over their own soldiers any longer. The media is always trying to distract what has happened and is happeneing in Iraq with regards to accomplishments...The reason is because success does not sell share of market viewers. That affects ratings and that means money. The politicals are there for only one reason...to make themselves appear like they are the good guys, when in fact they have effectively tied the hands of the men and womeen on the ground with BS that prohibits them from an honest "mission Accomplished".

Eventually the war will be over in Iraq and they will come home. With the honor they all deserve. In this war the military has gone a long way in limiting the destruction of unnessary targets. Iraq is changing into something that will benefit the people in Iraq. This is a step into something that has never really been achieved in the ME. It might not be like a democratic system compared to the US or any other western society but it will have to be adjusted into something that fits into their cultures. There is no other way on that.
In the past several years now there has been a great deal of success within Iraq and the media should be exploiting that over the negative, but alas it does not sell.

[Wizard From Oz]

Quote: There are ways and methods to remove the embedded insurgents from the people. Not all of them are good but they are highly effective. By meaning not all good....I am referring to the fact that if an entire area say 5 square blocks is surrounded and then literally a squeeze effect and work into the center thus forcing the bad guys out

You haven't had much to do with urban warfare have you?

[lilwolf]

MG1962 wrote: Quote: There are ways and methods to remove the embedded insurgents from the people. Not all of them are good but they are highly effective. By meaning not all good....I am referring to the fact that if an entire area say 5 square blocks is surrounded and then literally a squeeze effect and work into the center thus forcing the bad guys out

You haven't had much to do with urban warfare have you?


Sure....28 years Army and most all of it scraps with urban terrain, so I guess I have a little experience. Not that it matters, but I do know what has worked in the past. :lol: :lol:

[Wizard From Oz]

Quote: Sure....28 years Army and most all of it scraps with urban terrain, so I guess I have a little experience. Not that it matters, but I do know what has worked in the past.

Then you should have an excellent grasp on the sort of casualty rates an American squeeze play will encounter against an un-identified opposition in a close quarter urban envirnoment

[lilwolf]

MG1962 wrote: Quote: Sure....28 years Army and most all of it scraps with urban terrain, so I guess I have a little experience. Not that it matters, but I do know what has worked in the past.

Then you should have an excellent grasp on the sort of casualty rates an American squeeze play will encounter against an un-identified opposition in a close quarter urban envirnoment

actually casualty rates were not that high in Somalia during a move to catch a few bad guys. We actually surrounded 75 homes and moved it inwards. All homes were searched and we got the bad guys and only 5 people wounded (innocent) and although we got the bad guys we wanted we also got 32 others that decided to get stupid and fight. That is an example of control over your people and that say command and structure. It can work well and it can also have problems but it does work pretty damn good and eliminates a lot of innocent people getting hurt.

[bigstick61]

The US has defeated many insurgencies in modern times. Provided the right tactis and strategy are used on a large enough scale (they are only being used on a small scale), we could in handily.

[superskippy]

Quote: Then you should have an excellent grasp on the sort of casualty rates an American squeeze play will encounter against an un-identified opposition in a close quarter urban envirnoment

The Americans have engaged them before in this type of scenario. At Fallujah they fought through the city a heavy urban environment and after several weeks of fighting the Americans suffered 92 dead 600 wounded. Accordingly they killed some 1,200 insurgents wounding an unknown quantity and capturing hundreds of others. As I have said it could have been much more succesful if the speed and amount of force applied had been increased.

[lilwolf]

superskippy wrote: Quote: Then you should have an excellent grasp on the sort of casualty rates an American squeeze play will encounter against an un-identified opposition in a close quarter urban envirnoment

The Americans have engaged them before in this type of scenario. At Fallujah they fought through the city a heavy urban environment and after several weeks of fighting the Americans suffered 92 dead 600 wounded. Accordingly they killed some 1,200 insurgents wounding an unknown quantity and capturing hundreds of others. As I have said it could have been much more succesful if the speed and amount of force applied had been increased.


The entire time frame was wrong and it was like telling the bad guys hey we're going to be there tomorrow at 10AM.
If they had hit with 3 to 5 times the manpower and moved quickly this would have been a great deal more effective and less of a time consuming
effort on our part.

[superskippy]

Exactly. They had the capacity to move in by day 3 at the latest, but they didnt know if they even wanted to make a move on the city. And after months and months of "Siege" with basic supplies allowed into the city, and letting to my utter disbelief when I saw it on TV of males of combat age to leave the city. So basically any terrorist, officer, or supporter could leave so long as he left his rifle and ammunition behind for the insurgents who were going to fight. After months of waiting the US finally made a move on the city and by that time the real capacity to deal a knockout blow to the insurgents in the region had passed. I am still shocked by how it was reported in CNN, completely failing to address the months of waiting before any action was taken on the city for a conclusion to the "siege".

[lilwolf]

superskippy wrote: Exactly. They had the capacity to move in by day 3 at the latest, but they didnt know if they even wanted to make a move on the city. And after months and months of "Siege" with basic supplies allowed into the city, and letting to my utter disbelief when I saw it on TV of males of combat age to leave the city. So basically any terrorist, officer, or supporter could leave so long as he left his rifle and ammunition behind for the insurgents who were going to fight. After months of waiting the US finally made a move on the city and by that time the real capacity to deal a knockout blow to the insurgents in the region had passed. I am still shocked by how it was reported in CNN, completely failing to address the months of waiting before any action was taken on the city for a conclusion to the "siege".


Precisely, it was a cluster **** from the word go. The timing s*cked and way to much time was allowed before they were allowed to move in. My feeling is that they could have possibly gotten a large amount of the bad guys that got out had they handled it better. But all in all it was a screwed up job.
But warfare has to evolve into what we are fighting and nothing less thatn a full out and out taking off of the gloves and if needed get into the mud and blood with the bad guys and eliminate them as you find them. To much politice and wanting to be politically correct..You cannot fight a war that way and I think that many politicals are learning that. :-D

[Ardent]

The trouble with Iraq is that there are several waring Muslim Tribes who are on the brink of Civil War and have targeted each other. There is no united Muslim force against America.

I am sure that most people in Iraq probably want to just lead peaceful lives.

Personally I think Bin Laden is dead, if he was hiding in the caves in Afghanistan when the US were using their cave and bunker busting weapons he most certainly is.

Also it's interesting to note that on the 5th Anniversary of 9/11 it is his Deputy Speaking and not Bin Laden his self.

[Sixgun_Symphony]

bigstick61 wrote: The US has defeated many insurgencies in modern times. Provided the right tactis and strategy are used on a large enough scale (they are only being used on a small scale), we could in handily.

Excellent point,


The main thing is not to let the peaceniks drag US down.