Jump to content

bitchen frizzy

Members
  • Content Count

    210
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About bitchen frizzy

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Converted

  • Location
    Houston, TX
  1. So you maintain that the differences I note are not relevant to this discussion; and if I claim that there's a substantial difference - say, in the minds of the populace - between the U.S. uninvited entry into Iraq and the PMG's invitation into Bougainville, I'm just being picky? You're being disingenuous. That does not become you. A glib generality. If that were so, then the U.S. does not err in applying the lessons of WWII to Iraq - using mech infantry to root out resistance in urban areas - since all conflicts are fundamentally similar. The one-size-fits all approach is the only r
  2. And since we're dealing with semantics, let's not forget that the very word "insurgent" is one of those nice euphemisms so often used to redefine the elephant in the living room as a coffee table. The "insurgents" might think of themselves as "guerrillas" or "resisters", and they might call the "insurgency" a "guerilla war." So what might their perspective of "hearts and minds" be? When the "insurgents" are the "good guys", don't we use the word "collaborator" to describe the civilians who buy into "hearts and minds"? And if the "insurgents" should be "policed", doesn't that mean we
  3. The source you provided me had this to say about the Peace Monitoring Group. ..."This group was made up of both civilian and defence personnel from Australia, New Zealand, Fiji and Vanuatu. Both sides of the conflict welcomed the group being on Bougainville. This support remained strong throughout the PMG's deployment." From that, I concluded that both sides of the conflict welcomed the group being on Bougainville. But, I was inspired to do some research, and it turns out that the PMG persuaded the sides to disarm after a bloody civil war that both sides were tired of fighting. Also,
  4. Fair enough. Will that altogether eliminate occurrences of incidents like the one this thread's about, or just reduce them? Are there better choices of weapons and tactics than Apaches providing interdiction?
  5. Well, it takes quite a bit of imagination to compare that example to Iraq. Your example is both sides of a dispute welcoming outside monitoring. Not even remotely the same as an invasion and occupation. Give it a name, then, if you don't like the word "war." Any euphemism you like. It doesn't change the history, and what's happening on the ground. That's one of my main points. It's not a case of their being "insurgents" and "civilians" that can be clearly distinguished from each other, especially in an urban area. You have to be deliberately obtuse to fail to understand h
  6. Very few, compared to the ones who haven't. And, in every long war in history, the violence gets worse and more inhumane as the conflict drags on. That's one other basic equation of warfare that many people believe we can somehow solve with the right training. No, times haven't changed. Why? Because if the occupier (soldiers and voters at home) doesn't have the stomach for killing the insurgents, the insurgents won't quit. A very simple equation, there, too. I said before, no successful "hearts and minds" campaign in history has ever gone the way that you argue they ought to.
  7. And where do those who hold the kid to blame fit in the analogy? Think about it...
  8. Diedrich and Emrys understand me correctly. I refer you to their responses. It's not that the universe is simple, it's that some things never change, but we - as a nation - keep expecting that they will. "In war, civilians get killed." Yes, that's simple. Almost a tautology. But just because something is simple, doesn't mean it's not true and immutable fact. 2+2=4 is also simple, but does believing that 2+2=4 make a person asimpleton who can't learn higher math, or is it necessary to first understand this in order to learn higher math? "Hearts and minds," post WWII, includes the
  9. Yes. Using mech infantry divisions to do police work, and expecting that to win hearts and minds while not harming civilians, is insanity. The willful blindness comes in when you steadfastly refuse to admit that civilian decisionmaking - and voting - has anything to do with that. You put it all on the military, and thus excuse the dog owners. In my analogy, the dog owners are the politicians and those who vote for them. "Polititicians" could include the Pentagon brass, who are essentially Washington beaurocrats who by definition work as least as closely with the civilian policyma
  10. Just as I said, you blame the hammer for breaking things, not the person wielding it. Who decides policy? Who sends the military to do "nationbuilding"? In all your posts, not one word about the accountability of those who misuse military force, and those who vote for them. I find that very telling. The military did not decide to go to Iraq, they don't get to define the overall mission, and they don't get to decide when to come back. "Hearts and minds," is a crock. It's political nonsense. It's the argument that the same hammer that wins battles can be used for every other job. It
  11. To various posters: 1) Tactical air support is not limited to shooting at those on the very front who are actually engaged in a firefight. It includes interdiction. You all know that very well. Retraining helicopter crews not to shoot at enemy near a firefight, and only those actually shooting, would be a fundamental rethink of air support doctrine in place since tacair developed. 2) Bigduke, you mentioned that the helicopters shouldn't have been there because the Bradley's should have been able to handle the insurgents themselves, so air support wasn't needed. That is simply absurd.
  12. Soldiers in a firefight do not always have that luxury. Think through what it would mean, in tactical terms, if soldiers were required to hold fire until positive no unintended harm would be done. How would "better supervision" help, in a situation like this? Rear-echelon approval for every NCO's decision? I know what you're saying, but you make it sound so easy, and it's not. And here is what I'm talking about - the illusion that we can get it right next time and not hurt any civilians, if only we could get the training and tactics right. EDIT because our posts crossed:
  13. ^What he said, along with my last post. This whole thing would have blown over a long time ago, if, at the time the incident happened, the military had said "Oops!" and let the media make a day of it. The coverup makes the story bigger.
  14. How so? I was more disturbed by some mainstream outlets heavily editing the video to remove some of the soldiers' most controversial actions and remarks.
  15. That will happen every time a civilian gets killed, often even when the civilian wasn't innocent. But that's a bigger problem than what happens in a given firefight. Voters and politicians have got to get over the delusion that fighting a nice friendly war with no collateral damage is just a matter of discovering the right combination of tactics and technology, then decide policy accordingly. In war, civilians WILL get killed, even by the "good guys." Why are we always shocked and saddened to discover that all over again? When will we ever learn?
×
×
  • Create New...