- Joined
- Apr 8, 2008
- Messages
- 19,883
- Reaction score
- 5,120
- Location
- 0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
Well, I'm not going to pour out the insults the way you do
but are you seriously suggesting that if the enemy is killing more of your soldiers than you are of the enemy, you wouldn't see that a bad thing and make adjustments to your operations?
Thank God!, you never served in the military.
You're not serious?!?...:rofl
Epic Fail!
In terms of understanding attrition on a cost basis, it does serve as a useful example, be it two extreme ones. Of course it does not address the human cost of conflict, but right now that isn't the subject of the discussion.
The point was to highlight the issue of attrition, something you have just recently shown you have no understanding of.
Ever hear of the Korean War? How about period in the Iraq-Iran war where Iraq sued for peace? Attrition at play. You insult me for allegedly not knowing, but you don't even have a grasp of the concepts.
yeah, I know, you got it all figured out. No point in even talking to you.
Yes, that does happen. From my experience it was rare.
So do you concede your original point?
You said that when U.S. forces cause collateral damage they are terrorists, which, of course, is insane.
Just be glad some of the people who like to indulge in these more extreme examples of moral equivalence aren't writing our laws.
If they did, a person whose foot slipped off the brakes causing his car to run over a person would receive the same sentence as one who tortured somebody to death.
Are you seriously agreeing that a negative body count is no big deal? That you can deal with the enemy doing more damage to your combat power, than you're doing to his? Is that what you're suggesting, "Captain"?
Please, tell me it isn't.
Nope I don't. Cause as you just admitted it does happen. Even if it is rare. Those people obviously think that the US are the terrorists.
That wasn't the argument I responded to. You are changing the subject. That's not what I said. I said that killing many enemy fighters isn't as critical to victory in a COIN environment than you would think. In fact, it's not really important at all.
In Iraq and AFG, it is very common for COIN units to take more casualties than the insurgent force. Especially in Iraq, when units were plagued with IED attacks, taking multiple casualties at a time, and often, not killing or capturing any enemy during the attack. "Body Count" is a seriously antiquated term...I would include friendly injuries and enemy captured as well because they are taken out of the fight.
Sarge, please don't put words in my mouth. Your "body count" premise shows how out of touch you are. As far as you should be concerned, I am a walking COIN library. I can answer any of your questions. If you aren't up to speed on the Contemporary Operating Environment, it's OK. Just ask the questions, I'll give you the answers.
That's because you responded to a comment made to another poster. Go back and read the posts, in their proper contexts, then try again.
Counterinsurgency Field Manual said:1-14. Before most COIN operations begin, insurgents have seized and exploited the initiative, to some
degree at the least. Therefore, counterinsurgents undertake offensive and defensive operations to regain
the initiative and create a secure environment. However, killing insurgents—while necessary, especially
with respect to extremists—by itself cannot defeat an insurgency. Gaining and retaining the initiative requires
counterinsurgents to address the insurgency’s causes through stability operations as well. This initially
involves securing and controlling the local populace and providing for essential services. As security
improves, military resources contribute to supporting government reforms and reconstruction
projects. As counterinsurgents gain the initiative, offensive operations focus on eliminating the insurgent
cadre, while defensive operations focus on protecting the populace and infrastructure from direct attacks.
As counterinsurgents establish military ascendancy, stability operations expand across the area of operations
(AO) and eventually predominate. Victory is achieved when the populace consents to the government’s
legitimacy and stops actively and passively supporting the insurgency.
http://www.usgcoin.org/library/doctrine/COIN-FM3-24.pdf
I read this and other statements in the Counterinsurgency Field Manual as stating that killing insurgencts, especially the extremists, is an important part of COIN. But it is not the main thrust of COIN - protecting the populace and rebuilding institutions is.
OK, buddy; whatever you say.
It's ok to just say that you are to proud to admit that you made a poor argument and was summarily destroyed in front of everyone.
We all know anyway.
Yes, that does happen. From my experience it was rare.
So do you concede your original point?
You said that when U.S. forces cause collateral damage they are terrorists, which, of course, is insane.
Oh look everyone! An I WIN! post! :roll:
Seriously dude? Despite you saying this...
You're saying that I was "destroyed"? Instead of trying to say "I WIN!" try and actually look at it from their point of view. You know the ones that go to the terrorists side to get revenge for a fallen loved one?
The only thing that you destroyed was your credibility by trying to say "I WIN!"
You called American Soldiers terrorists. I said they weren't.
I think I win. You lose.
A case could be made for any country or group of people to be considered a terrorist. As far as I'm concerned the term "terrorist" is purely subjective.
Purdy much what I've been saying all along, but reality doesn't mean much to some folks.
There are some folks in this world that read a couple of Libbo articles, then they are suddenly Liddell Hart, or something.
Yet, they have zero comprehension of the principles of warfare, nor the elements of combat power.
I read this and other statements in the Counterinsurgency Field Manual as stating that killing insurgencts, especially the extremists, is an important part of COIN. But it is not the main thrust of COIN - protecting the populace and rebuilding institutions is.
Which serves to eliminate the insurgency via eliminating its support. As I have stated before (and as Apdst crudely insulted me on without understanding) that by removing the water from the fish, an insurgency dies. Economic development and security removes reasons to support an insurgency and as the FARC have known for years, without support of the locals, there can be no insurgency.
The notion that killing is key is pretty asinine.
Here's Afghanistan Math:
If there are 10 terrorists and you kill 2, how many do you have left?
A) 8
B) 0, as none want to fight anymore
C) 50 as you pissed off all of their friends and family who now want to kill you
Ignoring the basis for COIN, as Apdst has done repeatability here in favor of killing rather then development is why we'll be in Afghanistan forever. Unless you want to kill everyone, which I don't put past some people here, the focus really should be on security and development. Not seek and destroy.
Besides the Counterinsurgency Field Manual, another good text is Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice by David Galula. It is about the French experience in Algeria in the 50s. Which they ultimately got their butts kicked and lost.
I do think that we (US soldiers) are being conservative with our fire and getting mainly insurgents, not civilians. But the insurgents do have a very effective recruiting/training pipeline, whether that is recruiting Afghans or Pakistani Taliban, I don't know.
The problems in Afghanistan as I see it, are two-fold...
First is the sanctuaries: they are running training and reconstitution in Pakistan and we really can't get at them.
Second is the cultural divide: Coalition Afghanis are Tajik, urban, secular (more so than religious), educated, not typically the rules of Afghanistan. The Taliban insurgent forces are Pashtun, rural, religious, illiterate, usually the rules of Afghanistan. How do we get the Pashtun population to turn against their brothers, the Taliban? How do get the Pashtun to enter a consensual government?
I don't what?You don't.
I agree. To what?The approach has to be changed..
Such as?And there are similarities with Vietnam - where evidently nothing has been learned..
Which serves to eliminate the insurgency via eliminating its support. As I have stated before (and as Apdst crudely insulted me on without understanding) that by removing the water from the fish, an insurgency dies. Economic development and security removes reasons to support an insurgency and as the FARC have known for years, without support of the locals, there can be no insurgency.
The notion that killing is key is pretty asinine.
Here's Afghanistan Math:
If there are 10 terrorists and you kill 2, how many do you have left?
A) 8
B) 0, as none want to fight anymore
C) 50 as you pissed off all of their friends and family who now want to kill you
Ignoring the basis for COIN, as Apdst has done repeatability here in favor of killing rather then development is why we'll be in Afghanistan forever. Unless you want to kill everyone, which I don't put past some people here, the focus really should be on security and development. Not seek and destroy.
What we disagree with is your position that it is the primary goal and how a COIN operation is judged.
When in combat, you can't not kill the enemy and expect to win.
Your unit's integrity will fall apart and become totally combat ineffective.
I never said that. Perhaps it's you that needs to learn to read.
You still don't get it.
You don't need to kill your enemy necessarily. You just need them to stop fighting you. That can be accomplished in many ways as Iraq and Malaya showed. Is killing necessary sometimes? Absolutely, especially for certain types of insurgents. It is necessary to kill all of your enemies? No. But it is not the primary goal of a COIN operation. Perhaps if you bothered to read (or understand) what you allegedly have claimed to have read, you'd understand that. I'd ask you to show in the literature of COIN something that supports your argument, but I know you haven't read a single thing. You are talking out of your rear and it is obvious to everyone.
Tell that to the British who succeed beyond their dreams in Malaya (still having trouble finding that on the map aren't you? :rofl).
It is still hysterical how you say I don't have a clue yet everything I've said is echoed in the manuals and literature you claim you support.
There is a reason why I back Bhkad on this despite disagreeing with mostly everything else. He understands what COIN is. It is not about killing your enemy as a primary goal. You still haven't understood that basic concept despite your claims that you have argued what the COIN manuals from the Army state. I suspect you haven't even bothered to read a single thing on COIN given your insistence upon killing.
Sure you didn't. You just only discussed killing to the point you deliberately ignored all discussion about the other points of COIN. In fact, you insulted me for even mentioning the other aspects of COIN. Sure you never argued that. You just deliberately pretended all other aspects of COIN didn't matter. Sure you never argued that, you just treated everyone who argued that killing wasn't the primary goal of COIN as an idiot.
Pretend all you want you never argued that. Too bad you can't go back and edit your posts to support the claim you are making here.
You haven't shown you even know what the letters in COIN mean.
And, the quickest way to make them stop fighting you, is to take way their combat power. The quickest way to take away their combat power, is to kill them. Do you understand what combat power is? Prolly not, huh?
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?