Transformation of the US Army

[abneo3sierra]

Tuomio-

Unless you have been there you probably should reserve your opinion for another place. I do not mean this to be rude, but that whole comment showed a massive misunderstanding of the entire mission there that could take pages to explain, and this is a forum for a game, so it wouldn't be right to give that whole argument here.

Thanks

[ March 20, 2008, 04:36 AM: Message edited by: abneo3sierra ]

[hoolaman]

The forum is not restricted to members with tours in Iraq, but you are right that such political discussion is out of place here.

In conclusion, Tuomio, you are right, an army should ideally not be set up as a police force, but it has always been a blurry line in occupied countries. You either send police ill-equipped for combat, or soldiers ill-equipped for enforcement of civilian laws.

[Clavicula_Nox]

Originally posted by Tuomio:

I don't think the actual war waging is much different than it has ever been. You just shoot until nobody shoots back, move on and repeat if necessary. Things that are left behind belong to some other entity. Death and destruction is the things that will always wait in there, for political hands-on approach.

Personally i see the whole insurgency-against-military a hologram, which is generated to evade the tough underlying POLITICAL questions. The situation in Iraq is not the kind of which military can bring answers for. Maybe we don't event HAVE to answer all questions (as they might never end), world keeps on turning even if the mechanisms are not fully understood.

The actual 30 days of Iraq war was excelent, non-hypochritical military action, which succeeded well (good preparation & excecution). It all should've ended there, pack the gear and get the hell out.

I see the rest of it (military making love with the population) as pure political BS which has no reason to exist, other than to feed itself, bloat and eventually explode. Every penny in there is like blowing air into a balloon. Cultural salvation is a internal process and savage ("Thin") cultures will not get any better because they just are not there yet. World Wars saw collapse of many infrastructures, but when you have strong culture, it will rise from the ashesh out on its own. You can install homes, but you cant install self-esteem, pride and comfort-seeking, because those things run in family lines, are passed on from parent to a child.

If one would start to train its military for proxy counter-insurgency tool, it would be like sharpening a hammer so you can cut bread with it. Crap in, crap out.

The military and the Iraqis aren't failing; the US and Iraqi governments are.

[pickeral]

the soldiers were trained to kill people. they were not trained to be a substitute police force.bottom line.the dubna listened to his toadies who told him,oh it'll be over in six months. well, look where we are now.

[abneo3sierra]

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

The forum is not restricted to members with tours in Iraq, but you are right that such political discussion is out of place here.

Sorry. I had not meant to imply the former, but did entirely mean to imply the latter. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.

As to the rest of your post, fairly accurate.

[Clavicula_Nox]

Originally posted by abneo3sierra:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hoolaman:

The forum is not restricted to members with tours in Iraq, but you are right that such political discussion is out of place here.

Sorry. I had not meant to imply the former, but did entirely mean to imply the latter. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.

As to the rest of your post, fairly accurate. </font>

[Tuomio]

Hey, i am not even from USA, i was commenting on a more general scope. It's clearly becoming a trend to say, that military is obsolete, because it cannot get a power grip when facing hostile fanatical population. Military incapacitates hostiles, it does not try to preserve them or live amongst them.

If military is too strong and police is too weak, it begs the question that somebody is trying to do something he should not be doing. If you want static, bogged down campaings, go dig up some old Cromwell tanks and water cooled machineguns, no need to invent the wheel again you know.

The whole thing might give wrong impressions to the other thinly cultured nations nearby. They might think, that they have fighting chance, which of course is true if thick target as US army is used as a babysitter.

[abneo3sierra]

Originally posted by Tuomio:

Hey, i am not even from USA, i was commenting on a more general scope. It's clearly becoming a trend to say, that military is obsolete, because it cannot get a power grip when facing hostile fanatical population. Military incapacitates hostiles, it does not try to preserve them or live amongst them.

If military is too strong and police is too weak, it begs the question that somebody is trying to do something he should not be doing. If you want static, bogged down campaings, go dig up some old Cromwell tanks and water cooled machineguns, no need to invent the wheel again you know.

The whole thing might give wrong impressions to the other thinly cultured nations nearby. They might think, that they have fighting chance, which of course is true if thick target as US army is used as a babysitter.

I would agree with that sentiment somewhat. A lot of progress has actually been made in Iraq however, which was the reason I had said about if you had been there. Most of what is reported from what I can see is heavily biased already against the entire op, so good news is never reported, or only reported as a prelude to bad news, which is usually overblown.

Anyway, no hard feelings, I do understand most of what your point was.

[Combatintman]

So ... just for sh!ts and giggles why was the original post from Tuomi inappropriate. If that is an argument then what about the thread as a whole?

Stability operations have been around for years and armies need to know how to deal with them - the fact that more doctrine and training for it goes on is good. If you ask anyone in the army (well mine anyway) they'll say that warfghting is easy. Stability operations are infinitely more complex - can we deal with them - of course we can.

So lets bring a game context in - are we happy with the way Uncons are modelled? Much as I love this game I would have to say no - the abstraction concept does not work for me at all I'm afraid. I would love to see civilians modelled in CMSF so that we can have 'background noise' to realistically create stability operations scenarios.

[abneo3sierra]

Originally posted by Combatintman:

So ... just for sh!ts and giggles why was the original post from Tuomi inappropriate. If that is an argument then what about the thread as a whole?

Stability operations have been around for years and armies need to know how to deal with them - the fact that more doctrine and training for it goes on is good. If you ask anyone in the army (well mine anyway) they'll say that warfghting is easy. Stability operations are infinitely more complex - can we deal with them - of course we can.

So lets bring a game context in - are we happy with the way Uncons are modelled? Much as I love this game I would have to say no - the abstraction concept does not work for me at all I'm afraid. I would love to see civilians modelled in CMSF so that we can have 'background noise' to realistically create stability operations scenarios.

Which army is yours combat?

And yes, more possible collateral damage, more IFF decision making would be alot more realistic as far as simulation goes...if they are just marketing 'game' rather than 'simulator' however, this engine is fine.

[Combatintman]

abneo - well not mine obviously - Her Majesty The Queen owns it.

As to the game stuff - agreed about collateral damage although I must admit I do like the 'protect' objective concept in the editor - that does capture some of the essence of collateral damage. IFF I'm not sure about having just had a Bradley brassed up by an Apache in Mission 3 of TF Narwick (and trust me that vehicle was deployed well within safety distance norms)!

[abneo3sierra]

Originally posted by Combatintman:

abneo - well not mine obviously - Her Majesty The Queen owns it.

As to the game stuff - agreed about collateral damage although I must admit I do like the 'protect' objective concept in the editor - that does capture some of the essence of collateral damage. IFF I'm not sure about having just had a Bradley brassed up by an Apache in Mission 3 of TF Narwick (and trust me that vehicle was deployed well within safety distance norms)!

Ah, I had not really messed with protect yet, but that answers my question about it. Good deal.

Bad luck on the Brad..we have lost plenty IRL, usually not to helos though, usually the fast movers are what you worry about as far as "friendly"fire..bit ironic, that term.

[Combatintman]

Abneo - not really got too far into mission creation yet but 'protect' is good for collateral damage. Any mosque on a map I will always make a protect objective for blue and then hide it to the player because under the Law of Armed Conflict you shouldn't engage it. Obviously if you look at insurgent behaviour you'll know that they will exploit this and this is pretty much set out in the US Army's COE pamphlet for a starter. To take our own experience, the locals in Aden in the 60s were hiding in mosques because they knew our ROE wouldn't allow us to touch them. There are plenty of examples of that going on in Iraq right now and it is the classic example of assymetric warfare. So 'protect' unknown to blue added with an enemy force located in the structure is a pretty good way of simulating the problem.

[abneo3sierra]

Originally posted by Combatintman:

Abneo - not really got too far into mission creation yet but 'protect' is good for collateral damage. Any mosque on a map I will always make a protect objective for blue and then hide it to the player because under the Law of Armed Conflict you shouldn't engage it. Obviously if you look at insurgent behaviour you'll know that they will exploit this and this is pretty much set out in the US Army's COE pamphlet for a starter. To take our own experience, the locals in Aden in the 60s were hiding in mosques because they knew our ROE wouldn't allow us to touch them. There are plenty of examples of that going on in Iraq right now and it is the classic example of assymetric warfare. So 'protect' unknown to blue added with an enemy force located in the structure is a pretty good way of simulating the problem.

I lost a few good men in my unit to that tactic as well in Iraq.

I have only messed with this game really a few days. Are you saying they programmed the AI to use that tactic?

[John Kettler]

The current issue of NEWSWEEK has the cover feature,

"The Petraeus Generation," which features a series of very good articles on the new kind of war the Army's fighting in Iraq and the sometime wrenching impact this has on the soldiers. Great pics for the modders, too!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Combatintman]

Originally posted by abneo3sierra:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Combatintman:

Abneo - not really got too far into mission creation yet but 'protect' is good for collateral damage. Any mosque on a map I will always make a protect objective for blue and then hide it to the player because under the Law of Armed Conflict you shouldn't engage it. Obviously if you look at insurgent behaviour you'll know that they will exploit this and this is pretty much set out in the US Army's COE pamphlet for a starter. To take our own experience, the locals in Aden in the 60s were hiding in mosques because they knew our ROE wouldn't allow us to touch them. There are plenty of examples of that going on in Iraq right now and it is the classic example of assymetric warfare. So 'protect' unknown to blue added with an enemy force located in the structure is a pretty good way of simulating the problem.

I lost a few good men in my unit to that tactic as well in Iraq.

I have only messed with this game really a few days. Are you saying they programmed the AI to use that tactic? </font>