War With Restraints, Does it make sense?

#1

OrangeEmpire

The White Debonair
Joined
Nov 28, 2005
Messages
74,988
Likes
59
#1
Peter Worthington
Sun, November 26, 2006

War cannot be waged 'peacefully'

By PETER WORTHINGTON




Want to know why we (meaning the West) won't win the war on terror?

Look at Israel, arguably the toughest, least compromising of the democracies when it comes to combating terrorism. It has been fighting terrorism from the day it became a sovereign state, thanks to the UN.

Yet Israel, after failing to win the brief war with Hezbollah, is back to having to defend itself against rockets from Gaza, where Hamas rules when it isn't feuding with the Palestinian Authority.

The other day, after a rocket attack, Israel announced it was attacking the home of a suspected terrorist leader where explosives were stored. It gave the occupants 30 minutes warning to evacuate before war planes obliterated the house.

So what did the residents do? Well, not only did they not evacuate, but neighbours formed a human shield at the targeted house and, guess what?

The Israel war planes were called off. So now, every time the Israelis give the 30-minute warning which, apparently, is policy, the "human shields" of women and children head for the targeted house, secure in the knowledge that the Israelis won't attack.

This is madness -- no way to fight a war, or terrorists. And this is Israel -- the toughest democracy on the block. And yet Israel hasn't even gotten its kidnapped soldiers back from Hamas and Hezbollah, which provoked Israeli retaliation.

American, British, Canadian and NATO soldiers are even more restrained.

When the Americans had (or thought they had) insurgents in Iraq, mostly confined in Fallujah, a hotbed of enemy activity, rather than obliterate it (as they would have done in WWII) they gave a week's warning for civilians to depart before they attacked.

BAD GUYS DISPERSED

When the assault eventually went in, the bad guys were mostly gone -- dispersed to other areas to continue their slaughter of the innocent.

War cannot easily be waged peacefully. Restraints often mean prolonging the war and increasing its casualties.

Today, humane considerations are paramount. The symbol of peaceful protest is Mahatma Gandhi, the creator of passive resistance that anti-military activists like to cite as a way to thwart authority. Often overlooked, is that Gandhi's formula worked against the British. If he and his followers had lain down in front of Cossacks, the Wehrmacht or the Golden Horde of Genghis Khan, Gandhi would have become an asterisk of history rather than an icon.

A report out of Britain recalls that when American forces first went into Afghanistan, the first Taliban they caught were terrified --apparently convinced by their indoctrination that the American monsters would rip their livers out. Consequently, captives babbled like brooks and told all they knew.

Then they discovered that American soldiers feed you and generally abide by certain rules and ethics unknown to Taliban and al-Qaida.

Thereafter they shut up with no repercussions.

Remember the U.S. bombing of Baghdad prior to the 2003 invasion? Peace activists from the West pompously announced they'd be human shields around prospective targets.

Once the bombing started, these people fled -- outraged that the Americans could be so inhumane, even though none were targeted.

EX-HUMAN SHIELDS

As for Israel, if its government is nuts enough to give warnings of attacks, then it deserves what happens. The next warning should be that if human shields remain, they will quickly become ex-human shields.

One attack should be sufficient to persuade Palestinian human shields to take cover.

It's idiotic to give warning of an attack. Hezbollah and Hamas don't warn intended targets of rocket attacks and suicide bombings.

America lost the Vietnam War because it refused to do what was necessary to win -- a political decision that cost unnecessary lives on both sides, and achieved nothing.

Is that the future of Iraq? It seems so.

cite of source

I can't say I agree or disagree with him. Tentatively he makes some sense. However, one of the implications is that the death of innocent civilians is permissible for the purpose of eradicating the enemy when the two co-mingle (especially intentionally).

Carpet bombing an entire city where the enemy is known to hide among the civilian population is considered reprehensible by today's "alleged enlightened standards," whatever that phrase means. However, I wonder is it really so terrible? Isn't war, as Tecumseh Sherman and Lee observed, "Hell" and "Terrible".
 
#2
#2
Has anyone read the Iraq Study Group report? I think they had 79 recommendations, is that right? I doubt any of the 79 involved "taking the restraints off", let me know if I am wrong about that. If they didn't then it might as well be thrown in the garbage and burned.
 
#4
#4
Has anyone read the Iraq Study Group report? I think they had 79 recommendations, is that right? I doubt any of the 79 involved "taking the restraints off", let me know if I am wrong about that. If they didn't then it might as well be thrown in the garbage and burned.
Out of their 79 recommendations, they did not list one recommendation for succeeding in Iraq. All the recommendations concerned how to withdrawal our forces...
 
#5
#5
Out of their 79 recommendations, they did not list one recommendation for succeeding in Iraq. All the recommendations concerned how to withdrawal our forces...

So Real, does that mean they(committee) consider it a foregone conclusion that victory is off the table?
 
#6
#6
So Real, does that mean they(committee) consider it a foregone conclusion that victory is off the table?
I would take it as such. However, you have to understand, this group went to Iraq once and never stepped foot outside of the Green Zone.

I look forward to reading the rest of the report, however, I doubt anyone who is actually involved in the making of strategy will seriously consider implementing the recommendations.
 
#7
#7
...I doubt anyone who is actually involved in the making of strategy will seriously consider implementing the recommendations.

Given that the President's rhetoric and body language remains diametrically opposite to the tone of the report, that doesn't seem to be much of a stretch. Still, the White House will have to make an effort to appear to be incorporating actual recommendations. A speech, and a talking points campaign touting the "new way forward', will not be enough I don't think...
 
#8
#8
i agree to some extent... you can't "sugar coat" war. The more we try, the more it's gonna be used against us...
 
#9
#9
Out of their 79 recommendations, they did not list one recommendation for succeeding in Iraq. All the recommendations concerned how to withdrawal our forces...

That's what I figured. The castration process must be the worst part of becoming an elected official.
 
#10
#10
When are they going to figure out that this war can't be fought in the media? Its kind of like what happens on this board! Some want Fulmer's head, some want just some minor changes, some want no changes at all and each faction has some great points and some are really stupid!
At the end of the day? Nothing ever changes!
 
#11
#11
When are they going to figure out that this war can't be fought in the media? Its kind of like what happens on this board! Some want Fulmer's head, some want just some minor changes, some want no changes at all and each faction has some great points and some are really stupid!
At the end of the day? Nothing ever changes!

:good!:
 
#14
#14
Neither has most of the Bush Administration when they have gone to visit..
...and they are letting General Casey run the show how he sees fit in Iraq.


Basically, the ISG had a Golden Opportunity to actually affect policy change. Instead, they loaded a panel with politicians (not one General in the Group) and limited themselves to one visit to the theatre, upon which they never stepped outside of the Green Zone.
 
#15
#15
...and they are letting General Casey run the show how he sees fit in Iraq.
quote]

Tell me more, is that really the case? What are the rules of engagement in this war as far as the US is concerned? What is required before a US solider can fire his weapon in Iraq at someone? I feel like politicians are running the show, not military people. I would think if this was truly being run by military people, this would have long been over. Not being a smartass with you, I know you know your military stuff, so I am asking.
 
#16
#16
...and they are letting General Casey run the show how he sees fit in Iraq.
quote]

Tell me more, is that really the case? What are the rules of engagement in this war as far as the US is concerned? What is required before a US solider can fire his weapon in Iraq at someone? I feel like politicians are running the show, not military people. I would think if this was truly being run by military people, this would have long been over. Not being a smartass with you, I know you know your military stuff, so I am asking.
Most of the ROE and policy was coming out of the office of the Secretary of Defense. However, his expert on counterinsurgency, Col. Nagl, is also pretty much known as the Army expert on counterinsurgency. From speaking with Col. Nagl and reading his book, Learning to eat soup with a knife, I can guarantee you that while at the tactical level of the military, the troops would like to see the gloves come off, however at the strategic levels most commanders these days understand that completely taking the gloves off is actually counterproductive.

On a side note, I would still love to see the gloves come off. However, I am by no means an expert on counterinsurgency.
 
#17
#17
Most of the ROE and policy was coming out of the office of the Secretary of Defense. However, his expert on counterinsurgency, Col. Nagl, is also pretty much known as the Army expert on counterinsurgency. From speaking with Col. Nagl and reading his book, Learning to eat soup with a knife, I can guarantee you that while at the tactical level of the military, the troops would like to see the gloves come off, however at the strategic levels most commanders these days understand that completely taking the gloves off is actually counterproductive.

On a side note, I would still love to see the gloves come off. However, I am by no means an expert on counterinsurgency.

Do you not think this is a case of highly intelligent people overthinking things sometimes? I doubt we will win this battle unless we DO start taking the gloves off.
 
#18
#18
Do you not think this is a case of highly intelligent people overthinking things sometimes? I doubt we will win this battle unless we DO start taking the gloves off.
I think right now the problem is that there has been a compromise reached between our combatants on the ground and the policy directors in the rear. I believe that we could win the war by taking the gloves off, I also believe that we could win the war by standing up secure areas, integrating our soldiers with Iraqi's on patrols (combined action platoons), etc. However, right now the compromise leaves us in limbo and takes away any momentum we have. In turn, the people we are fighting over there have plenty of momentum, and are definitely bold enough to seize initiatives. One thing holds true though, we must do something different.
 
#19
#19
I think right now the problem is that there has been a compromise reached between our combatants on the ground and the policy directors in the rear. I believe that we could win the war by taking the gloves off, I also believe that we could win the war by standing up secure areas, integrating our soldiers with Iraqi's on patrols (combined action platoons), etc. However, right now the compromise leaves us in limbo and takes away any momentum we have. In turn, the people we are fighting over there have plenty of momentum, and are definitely bold enough to seize initiatives. One thing holds true though, we must do something different.

That is sad. Sounds as if politicians getting in the way as usual. It is more than about Bush, it is about all the wrangling and talking all the politicians do. More concerned with their image and getting votes than letting the military do it's job. Oh well, babbling cause I am pissed of now.......
 
#22
#22
where is patton when you need him??? oh i forgot we are not allowed to really fight a war cause somebody might get killed!!! thank God these idiots were not around on d-day or else we would all be speaking German right now.
 
#23
#23
WAR is always waged with restraint.

There are restraints of objectives, resources, available forces, time, distance and, of course, enemy activity.

Political restraints always rear their head as well. Ike pulled up his forces at the Elbe in WWII, in large part because he had no desire to take the kind of casualties necessary for an American/British capture of Berlin in 1945 just to turn 1/2 of the city over to Russians after the war. It cost the Red Army an estimated 150,000 casualties to take Berlin and then THEY had to turn 1/2 of the town over to SHAEF. Kyoto was spared fire-bombing due to its status a the ancient capitol of Japan.

WAR is always waged with restraint.

COMBAT, on the other hand, is the actual thrust of this piece.

Combat operations must be waged with maximum violence and with little regard for "collateral" of "civilan" damage. Many, many, French civilans died under American guns when the houses and towns they were hiding in were blasted to clear out a nest of German resistance. Prominent buildings (multi-story and especially church steeples) were targeted "on general principle" as these promontories were favored places for German artillery observers and snipers. Many on this board have seen the gun-camera film of trains being shot up by low-flying allied fighters. Virtually all of these trains had French/Dutch/Belgian crews.

If you and your family were hiding in the cellar while a Kraut MG crew was working on the upper floor and an American FO called in a load of 155mm whoop-a** on the Germans, well, that was just too damned bad. Patton's 3rd Army routinely used a tactic called "reconnaissance by fire." Likely enemy positions were hosed with MG or tank cannon fire to determine if the positions were occupied. This took advantage of the theory that no matter how well hidden, troops recieving direct fire will shoot back, revealing their position.

Much umbrage was taken in the 1990s over an incident in the Korean War at a bridge near the town of No-Gun Ri. Supposedly the American troops there callously fired into a crowd of helpless Korean civilians pushing through the underpass. EVERY after-action report refers to the common NKPA and Chinese tactic of rounding up civilians and herding them in front of combat formations. An American platoon leader had a stark choice: Blast the civilians to clear fire lanes into the enemy troops or allow the civilians and the troops immediately behind and/or mixed in with them to close his position and risk the annihilation of his command.

OK, Lt. Dumbjohn, was nun?* (*what next?)

Combat is chaotic and snap decisions are made by young men under stress with limited and, in many cases, wrong information. That is why, in an ideal world, training focuses on simulating those conditions and teaching methods to deal with them (doctrine).

In retrospect, Fallujah should have been FLATTENED after the incident where American contractors were murdered and their disfigured bodies hung from a bridge. By giving a half-hearted and limp-wristed response, the American command from Bush down to the Green Zone, encouraged the Iranians and their Iraqi and al-Qaeda minions to regard the Coalition as a toothless dog and helped the terrorist cause beyond anything they could have hoped for. That single decision, IMO, has cost the Coalition an additional 2000-4000 casualties.

Sometime a sledgehammer IS the best answer. It may not be precise, it may not be politically correct, but general, if you want the job (break things and/or beat the he** out of something) done in a hurry, it's the best option

In some ways, our pre-occupation with precision targeting has played into the hands of the terrorists. For the surrounding population (Mao once said guerrillas are fish that swim in the ocean of the peasantry) THERE IS NO CONSEQUENCE FOR PASSIVE SUPPORT OF THE TERRORISTS. Sure, old Mahmoud's house mught get some bullet or shrapnel dameage, but, hey, the coalitionwrote him a check! "Hey, Ahmed! Why don't you guys put that RPG in my yard?"

Absent a decision to "make Iraq howl" maybe it is time to leave.
 
#24
#24
Crimedawg, they don't want to figure that out. "They" live, breathe, eat and sleep public opinion.

The war has stretched on, and Americans cannot abide a lengthy conflict. Go back and research some of the rhetoric that President Lincoln faced from his Democrat opponents in 1863 and 1864. Despite the successes in the west, the war dragged on and on, and there were many who simply wanted to quit.

There were some who felt the same in WWII. Korea was fought to a tie for this reason, and we all know what happened in Vietnam.

Now we see history repeating. "Stabalize the situation, withdraw, wait a few months, then yank all support and blame the Republicans for the collapse and humiliation."

The same playbook at work here as in Vietnam. With the same sort of results, to America's shame.

Whatever you think of the war and the reasons we are there, this sort of political power-mongering and abandonment of both our best interest and the best interterests of the region for the simple goal of winning control of the US government is shameful.

That it would happen twice in a generation is intolerable and raises the question of the continued existance of the USA. If we'll fold in the face of such a threat simply because we can win a short-term trip to the seat of power...

*sigh*
 
#25
#25
Here's my idea: pull out of Baghdad and all the other major cities in Iraq and bomb them until there isn't anything there but a hole in the ground. Problem solved.
 

VN Store



Back
Top