Strykers Part II

[Tarquelne]

As for the previous poster's comments a couple above, once again anyone facing the most elementary facts is painted as butcher,

You left out a couple of significant bits. You didn't just "face facts. You cavilerly stated a village should be "blown to kingdom come" and any civilians present* deserved it. Those things are hardly objective matters of "fact."

But I am all for /various wonderful things/.

Anyone not obviously sociopathic would agree with the bare principle when so confronted.

Behold the power of sarcasm and tremble!

We'll see if the "principle" is ever discernible in one of your posts. When called on it before (RT's post) you seemed to retreat from it, if anything.

And NB: How nice for you, that it isn't obvious.

*Unless coerced. Then it's the other guys fault. (ie, it's _all_ gravy.)

EDIT:

Hmm... I notice you also agreed with JonS's post. In principle, and with a big qualifier.

I see you've bowed out of this, which is fair enough. But I suggest, Jason, that in the future you just go with "The end justifies the means." I think it's a very small step from your present position, removes the need for any "weaseling", and has the great cachet that comes with any classic.

[ August 22, 2007, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: Tarquelne ]

[JasonC]

Sorry. No one is morally required to sit still to be incinerated by a HEAT missile warhead because the guy firing it is standing next to somebody else. Just absurd, morally clueless, etc. Now I really will rest.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[JonS]

Originally posted by AdamL:

The Soviet view, ... is certainly a development of that view. It is at least worth noting that other superpower that once existed was operating on the principle that they were integral.

Paraphrasing:

Once, there was this superpower that operated on the principle that peace is a continuation of conflict. They aren't a superpower any more.

[Subcomandante]

War is more of a continuation of crime by other means.

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by JasonC:

[QB] Sorry. No one is morally required to sit still to be incinerated by a HEAT missile warhead because the guy firing it is standing next to somebody else. Just absurd, morally clueless, etc. Now I really will rest.

Well, duh. What about blowing up the whole village full of people who deserve it, though? Are you backtracking, recanting, weaseling, or just forgetful?

I thought your earlier exit was much better, btw. I felt you were going out on a much stronger "note." Was it really worth it to come back in with such an over-simplified strawman? Personally, I don't think so.

[ August 22, 2007, 07:39 PM: Message edited by: Tarquelne ]

[Molloy]

Although JonS' use of Clausewitz's famous line makes sense in the context of the discussion, I find it interesting to note how its common use strays far from the original intent. The following analysis is by Christopher Bassford:

"One of the main sources of confusion about Clausewitz's approach lies in his dialectical method of presentation. For example, Clausewitz's famous line that "War is merely a continuation of politics," ("Der Krieg ist eine bloße Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln") while accurate as far as it goes, was not intended as a statement of fact. It is the antithesis in a dialectical argument whose thesis is the point—made earlier in the analysis—that "war is nothing but a duel [or wrestling match, a better translation of the German Zweikampf] on a larger scale." His synthesis, which resolves the deficiencies of these two bold statements, says that war is neither "nothing but" an act of brute force nor "merely" a rational act of politics or policy. This synthesis lies in his "fascinating trinity" [wunderliche Dreifaltigkeit]: a dynamic, inherently unstable interaction of the forces of violent emotion, chance, and rational calculation."

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[RT North Dakota]

Originally posted by JasonC:

On "war crimes", sorry that is poppycock. If Hezbollah used coercion to keep civilians in a combat area then yes that would be a war crime. But simply targeting enemy forces in a populated area is not, especially if warning is given.

ROE creep these days is obviously absurd, and absurdly one sided of course. (Hezbollah fired more than 10000 projectiles at mass civilian targets deliberately etc).

...and you explain this to the BBC and CNN how? Ordering people to leave their villages so as you ca destroy the village would be framed as ethnic cleansing. Just because you have killed civilians on operations does not make it OK, to keep doing it, and the fact that the scum on the other side does it, it is what seperates you from them.

ROE is for the precise, proportionate and discriminating application of violence. In a well trained army, you adapt ROE and alter to circustance. The US writes very stupid ROE. The UK writes excellent ROE - and uses it very well. IDF ROE is a bit problematic... nuff said.

[JasonC]

"Israel dropped leaflets on southern Lebanon warning residents to immediately evacuate an area approximately 32km (20 miles) wide..."

Exactly what one is supposed to do. After that, if people stay anyway they take the consequences. And no, wasn't any crime. After the war, people can come back if they please and rebuild. If you don't want war in your country, don't play host to men firing 10000 rockets at your neighbors.

People just make up nonsense in a vain search for self righteousness, and to change the subject.

[JasonC]

As for Tarq, now you are just lying. No, I don't walk away when you start lying. I said to give notice, then hit the place yes - but the whole point of the notice is that it won't be full when you hit it. Having value as a military position, very likely fighters will still be there. There is no reason for a civilian to be. If they hang around, not the warning side's fault.

It is in fact more than the law requires in such matters. The law allows any targeting of enemy military force engaging your own, and condemns the side the fights from among civilians not the reverse. I suppose it is too much to expect people who raise the subject to actually know the slightest thing about it, though.

[JasonC]

Subcom - all the justice you have ever experienced was due to the prior justice and valor of civilized armed men.

[RT North Dakota]

Originally posted by JasonC:

On TOW, there is revising spin about how much you love it, and then there is "loose (sic) any ability to leverage the terrain advantage" and "you clearly have little experience/knowledge of either system" aka what you actually said, against it. You can formally retract such distortions (and the minimum range mistake) at any time. Until then, you are just spinning crazily and looking foolish.

What don't you get? TOW is a good system. Javelin is better at certain things, while TOW is better at other things.

The "minimum range mistake" - let me guess, you googled the TOW min range from the FM? I could have done the same. I didn't because I don't need google to tell me the operating limitations of a SACLOS system.

Let me give you some insight. Suppose you want to target a HAMASNIC who is in a village somewhere. You have a choice of two firing points. One at 65m and one at 300m. At 65m you can fix the launch stadia on the target and just do a ballistic shoot, at a static target. At 300m, as this is a SACLOS system, you can guarentee to have the missile under guidance, and be able to steer if the car moves. - Javelin is FIRE AND REGRET.

TOW time of flight to 65m would be < 1.5 sec, not enough time to do anything.

[RT North Dakota]

Originally posted by JasonC:

"Israel dropped leaflets on southern Lebanon warning residents to immediately evacuate an area approximately 32km (20 miles) wide..."

..and HEZBOLLAH say, "Look the Jews are coming to steal your homes. Remember 67 and 82." - It was a silly thing to do. - and don't get me started on the whole war. - madness.

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by JasonC:

[QB] As for Tarq, now you are just lying.

Hmm?

No, I don't walk away when you start lying. I said to give notice, then hit the place yes - but the whole point of the notice is that it won't be full when you hit it.

It won't? You're taking that as a _given_? The roads are good, the people are uncoerced, they understood the notice, they believed the notice, they had time to leave, they had someplace better to go.

If you think that should be taken as a "given" you're lying to yourself.

And the whole idea seems undermined by your statement that those left should just "take the consequences", end of story. If the place is blown to kingdom come regardless of the civilian presence - we gave notice, so it's all up to them now - then the notice was just going through the motions. Just CYA, not restraint.

Maybe that's the best you can do sometimes. I get the strong impression, though, that it's the sort of behavior you think we should embrace. That what we need is more, heavier, less discriminating bombardments of larger areas. Civilian casualties shouldn't be given much weight.

Just give notice first.

Having value as a military position, very likely fighters will still be there. There is no reason for a civilian to be. If they hang around, not the warning side's fault.

Well, if it's a village I think they _do_ have reason to be there. I'm guessing they live there, work there, all that civilian stuff. Have babies, whatever.

Sure, it's not the warning side's fault if they're still there. That still doesn't address the necessity of hitting targets in the village. But lets take that as a given: There's still "blowing it to kingdom come," - given your other posts it sounds like you've thrown the idea of proportionate response, at any level, out the window. Nor does it address the idea that massive civilian casualties is just the civvies "taking the consequences". That throws the idea of civilization out the window. Hiding behind the letter of the law ("We gave notice") isn't civilization. It's just barbarism wearing a tie and charging you $100 an hour.

It is in fact more than the law requires in such matters.

You can imagine my relief. As long as those "i"s are dotted, yes?

[ August 23, 2007, 06:40 AM: Message edited by: Tarquelne ]

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Subcom - all the justice you have ever experienced was due to the prior justice and valor of civilized armed men.

By "civilized" do you mean "obeyed the letter of the law"? That's the way it's looking, and that's a very, very low bar to set.

[Woodey]

Civilized? If one is going to be civilized then one can just surrender whatever was going to be fought over. WWI was not civilized, WWII was even less civilized and I am talking about the Americans and British. They killed millions of civilians and knew they were doing so. Were they wrong? In individual cases yes, absolutely. Over all, no, not at all. War is the art of achieving ones objectives by killing enough of the opponent that they stop. All else is fluff. If ones ROE causes the routine death of ones own forces and no disadvantage to the oponent then that is a mistake and if continued a betrayal of those in harms way. War isn't pretty, it isn't fun. It is the worst thing in the world.

Save lose of liberty.

(Liberty is America's conciet in that we believe we can visit it upon others who often want none of it if it means their neighbors get it too.)

[Pascal DI FOLCO]

Originally posted by JasonC:

"Israel dropped leaflets on southern Lebanon warning residents to immediately evacuate an area approximately 32km (20 miles) wide..."

Exactly what one is supposed to do. After that, if people stay anyway they take the consequences. And no, wasn't any crime. After the war, people can come back if they please and rebuild. If you don't want war in your country, don't play host to men firing 10000 rockets at your neighbors.

People just make up nonsense in a vain search for self righteousness, and to change the subject.

Well, imagine an Arab plane drops such on leaflet on your area... What will you do ? :mad:

[dan/california]

Two articles about this very subject. The first is a NYT editorial by seven NCOs in the 82nd, one of which has been badly wounded since it was written. The second is sort of about the first but you don't need a subscription to read it, which the NYT requires.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19jayamaha.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all

http://www.slate.com/id/2172636/

[Subcomandante]

Bah, forget it. Too much politics.

[ August 23, 2007, 09:29 AM: Message edited by: Subcomandante ]

[James Bailey]

What happened to the Stryker discussion?

how many REMFs does it take to sustain a deployed Stryker rifleman for a month?

10:1?

20:1?

30:1?

[Asok]

Originally posted by Subcomandante:

Of course the Hezbollah, once they forwarned his people, wouldn't be responsible for any civilian death in his area, anything else is poppycock and morally clueless.

Yes, he would, if the deaths are a result of his coercing the people to stay put when they try to leave. Using human shields is not ok.

The situation is actually pretty simple.

The Hezbollah fire rockets from Lebanon into Israel. It is obviously morally ok for Israel to remove this threat. It's ok for Israel to use military force to do so. Wherever the Hezbollah fire their rockets from is a legitimate target for Israel. If it's a hilltop, it's a target. If it's a village, it's a target. If it's a kindergarten, it's a target. This is not hard. Both the customary laws of war and the actual signed treaties go with what I just wrote.

Obviously, the above does not mean that any village or kindergarten is a target, and the treaties are clear on this as well. It is not ok to shoot at an undefended civilian target (e.g. Hague IV, article 25). If there are targets in a town, for example, it is generally a requirement for the attacker to give due notice to "the authorities" prior to shooting (e.g. Hague IV, article 26 and Hague IX, article 6). Why is this? Again, the answer is not hard to figure out. The authorities are supposed to evacuate the place to save the populace from the effects of upcoming attacks. If the authorities fail to do so, it's not the fault of the attacker. He has upheld his part of the deal.

Now, suppose the inhabitants of a defended village do not leave it after being given notice. The village is hit with arty and non-combatants die. Who is to blame? The shooter, who chose to give notice? The authorities, who chose to disregard it? The answer is clear. The authorities are to blame. The treaties are there to minimize the suffering. The attacker did his part to minimize it. The defender did not.

We haven't looked into the motives of the village authorities, yet. Let's first assume that they tried to evacuate the place, but failed. In this case, they were incompetent or unlucky. If the incompetence was not gross, we can chalk it up for bad luck. If it was gross, we can still hold them responsible.

Let's then assume that it was so that non-combatants would die and they could call CNN and BBC and gain sympathy for their cause. Does this raise or lower their responsibility? Again, not a difficult question. They are more to blame for this motive.

Let's then assume that they hate the attacker so much that they choose to resist him. In this case, the inhabitants are no longer non-combatants and are fair game for the attacker.

Originally posted by Subcomandante:

He's openly sympathizing with their enemies, he got it coming anyway. After wall, war is just killing large numbers of people, no further questions asked. Who cares about background and history. There's a war on.

No. The whole point of the Laws of War is that although war is very bad, it does not have to be as bad as possible. We want to minimize the suffering caused by war, even when it is too terrible to think about in the first place.

It's gangster politics: "It's their fault if they don't do what we say. We said we would kill them."

If that is the justice of civilized and valourous men, you can keep it.

This does not really merit a response, but do you think the police are evil? After all, the police use violence to make people do what they want.

[Tarquelne]

W:

All else is fluff.

Wow! That's a lot of fluff. Not burning prisoners alive while their daughters and livestock are raped, for example.

No wonder you say war isn't "civilized." Civilization - and more - is all fluff as far as you're concerned.

A:

The situation is actually pretty simple.

The only factors I think you left out are the size of the response, and to what degree the "attacker" (the one about to drop some ordinance) is responsible for narrowing-down the target area.

Unfortunately, that's where it gets complicated. It's where people have to start making judgment calls. It's where the "fluff" kicks in.

Requiring that only the exact amount of force needed to neutralize the enemy hardware be used, and applied exactly on target, is absurd. The other extreme isn't absurd, but it is monstrous.

***

That's all for me. And, unlike JasonC, I can say "enough" and mean it. Moderation in all things - posting AND carpet bombing.

[Asok]

Originally posted by Tarquelne:

The only factors I think you left out are the size of the response, and to what degree the "attacker" (the one about to drop some ordinance) is responsible for narrowing-down the target area.

Unfortunately, that's where it gets complicated. It's where people have to start making judgment calls. It's where the "fluff" kicks in.

Good criticism. However, I do not need to make my opponent's point in a debate There are cases where the attacker is acting in bad faith (easy to call, given known motives) or where he makes an "evil" tradeoff (thousands of "collateral damage" enemy civvies against a few friendly KIA soldiers). Drawing the line in the latter case is admittedly extremely difficult. Exactly like you said, that's what all the "fluff" is about.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request