repeter
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2009
- Messages
- 3,445
- Reaction score
- 682
- Location
- California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
So, please, tell us what tactical, or strategic doctrine, or theory your basing your opion on.
Basing what part of it? Or all of it?
You've said that everything I've stated, so far, is impossible. You zero wiggle room for my conclusions to be correct. Therefore, you must have some doctrine, theory, or historical exmaple to support your conclusions. Care to share them with us?
What I'm saying about yours is that you are stereo-typing all warfare, and while the basic elements stay the same, the situation differs greatly. I'll get back to you on the doctrine thing, I need to go, and won't have time until tomorrow now.
"...the basic elements stay the same", is all I've been saying.
I look forward to your docs.
That doesn't help the smallest bit. At least I'm saying what we could possible do. And I quite frankly don't have the patience to go look for an actual doctrine related to what I'm saying. It's understood that you need to establish a presence, and then increase the presence when performing counter-insurgnecy, correct?
Warfare, is warfare, is warfare. The objective is counter insurgency operations is the same as with any other type of land warfare. You have to deny the enemy the ability to operate. Granted, when fighting an unconventional force, cooperation with the local personel is more important than in most other scenarios and that adds a new twist to the strategy that a commander would employ in his theater of operations. However, that doesn't take away from the fact that you have to defeat the enemy. The locals aren't going to defeat the enemy for you. If that were the case, you and your soldiers wouldn;t even be there.
Don't worry about the supporting docs, because I know you can't find any, creible, or not, to support your point of view.
Don't forget that it is implausible to remove the enemy supply, and the enemy's will to fight you. All of those attributed to counter-insurgency would force a commander to think and act very differently from say a defensive war in Germany.
And I frankly don't care enough about a petty dispute to waste time scrolling through pages of results for something like this. And you might make yourself a bit more "creible" if you spelt it right, or took the time to fix it ( something close to 7 or 8 seconds).
It's not impluasible. They're humans, not super men and definitely not invincible.
It doesn't matter how you do it, destroying the enemy's ability to fight is the number one priority and, that's a fact. Unless you can provide some documentation that proves that not destroying the enemy's ability to fight is a good idea. Let me save you the trouble; such documentation doesn't exist.
Maybe you don't understand what I'm saying. What I am saying is that wasting time going after imported weapons, as you said we should, would be a waste of time. Trying to stop the inflow of fighters, as you said, would also be a waste of time. They are going to simply keep coming , and all we can really do is hunker down, and wait for them to come and die. Besides that, we can't really do much.
See: Meade @ GettysburgI would love to see the tactical doctrine that says, "hunkering down", and waiting for the enemy to come to you is a good idea.
See: Meade @ Gettysburg
Yes.Sure, "Granny", Meade showed up with his thumb in his ass, but some of his division and brigade commaders took the initiative and denied the Confederates the advantage of terrain. Buford's action on the first day is still used as the textbook example of the cavalry's mission.
Yes.
Point being, and as you illustrate, there are any number of situations where sitting tight and letting the enemy come to you is the prudent thing to do.
Not even just then. Depending on the technology and the terrain, it may very well be that the tactical defensive is a generally better choice than the tactical offensive.In an ambush, or an entrapment style plan, yeah.
Two concepts here:Holing up in a static base, with zero control over what goes on outside the base is the worst idea possible. A unit must remain fluid and control of the terrain, in order to exploit tactical misteps made by the enemy.
Yes.
Point being, and as you illustrate, there are any number of situations where sitting tight and letting the enemy come to you is the prudent thing to do.
I was not suggesting we should. I was simply responding to the implication that "'hunkering down' and waiting for the enemy to come to you" is never a good idea.Attempting to apply this to terrorist is beyond naive; it will lead to more innocent lives lost.
Not even just then. Depending on the technology and the terrain, it may very well be that the tactical defensive is a generally better choice than the tactical offensive.
Two concepts here:
-Strategic/operational offense and tactical defense are not mutually exclusive. Strategically or operationally putting your force someplace the enemy cannot afford to let you stay forces him to attack you. If, tactically, you're better off on the defense, this is a better option that a simple offensie action where you seek out an emplaced enemy.
-Counter attacks and/or exploting 'exploit tactical misteps made by the enemy' are a natural part of the tactical defensive. Being on the tactical defensive necessitates, rather than precludes, their use.
I was not suggesting we should. I was simply responding to the implication that "'hunkering down' and waiting for the enemy to come to you" is never a good idea.
I dont think we disagree here...I was responding to your incorrect annalogy in a thread about terrorism and insurgencies. We are usually in pretty close agreement most of the time. :2wave:
:ytObviously, it's MET-T, but you can't dispose of your unit's ability to shoot and move so as to take the initiative, when the oppurtunity presents itself. I understand your point and you're right.
Yes.However, what Repter is suggesting, is that we confine our forces to a static defense and disregard efforts to interrupt the enemy's flow of logistics and/or his ability to maneuver at will.
Yes.
As noted before, I was simply taking exception to your implication that you should never hunker down and wait for the enemy to come to you
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?