Collateral Damage

[finkster]

The generals in the Pentagon ought to play this sim. It clearly demonstrates that the way to decisive and unambiguous victory is to kill as many as possible, as quickly as possible using every asset available, especially air and artillery. Failure to do so results in unsustainable losses.

Of course, the use of these winning methods is strictly prohibited for US forces by our Rules of Engagement. These rules, among other failures, call for an investigation by the CID [Criminal Investigation Division] of the invovled branch every time a person is killed in Iraq! Imagine - if a soldier/marine shoots someone in the line of duty, he is subject to a criminal investigation. To the extent that it is well understood that criminal investigators tend to find criminals, it deters our soldiers and marines from doing their job. [After the 2nd battle of Fallujah, the CID was called in because "too many" of the enemy were killed with head shots, which led the JAG lawyers to believe that they were (gasp!) executed. Come to find out that they were hiding, and only exposing their heads and the Marines were good shots.]

We may be able to extract a draw using our current "civilized" methods of warfare, but a draw is as good as a loss.

There is no substitue for victory.

Douglas MacArthur [True then, and true now.]

[Pandur]

We may be able to extract a draw using our current "civilized" methods of warfare, but a draw is as good as a loss.

hm, what would a win look like for you!? i can hardly imagine a classical "victory" there. :confused:

take the draw

[finkster]

>>what would a win look like for you!?

Victory would look like Germany and Japan in 1945. Both were highly movitated, determined antagonists with a thousand year history of militarism. Japan, in particular, raised military suicide to a national duty. When we were done with them, we defeated them so decisively that these countries were not the same, nor would they ever be the same.

We did something unique in military history - we changed their minds, and altered their societies and mentalities from militaristic to pacifistic. You won't find many volunteers in either Germany or Japan for the next war.

>>take the draw

A draw, on the other hand, looks exactly what it is - namely, defeat. A draw was precisely what Japan was hoping for after the Battle of the Phillipine Sea, which destroyed every hope of victory. Japan fought on for a year and a half sustaining enormous military and civilian casualties, and inflicting serious casualties on the United States, especially at Iwo Jima and Okinawa. It was Japan's vain hope that by continuing the fight even after victory was no longer possible that the prospect of even more American casualties would persuade the United States to accept a "draw".

The decision to nuke Japan completely changed the calculus of the war. Japan hoped for a favorable casualty ratio to deter us from our stated goal of unconditional surrender, and what it got for its trouble was a lesson in mathematics, viz, the denominator of the casualty ratio [like any fraction] cannot be zero. We were both capable and willing to wipe out the Japanese genome, suffering zero casualties along the way. So much for their math.

If a tiny band of terrorists can extract a draw from the United States [or any other super power] in a military engagment by protracting that enagement and inflicting reletively trivial casualties it will only encourage others to follow suit. The military policy of the United States should be deterrence, i.e. any potential enemy should so fear the consequences of going to war with us that they decide not to.

si vis pacem para bellum [if you want peace, prepare for war]

Vegetius (late Roman empire)

[Pandur]

hm, than someone would have to stuff all the insurgents into an uniform so their clear visible, put em in a insurgent country, than all would have been over allready isnt it!?

at least i would think so...

but as it is, fighting a hydra is quiet challenging.

EDIT:

after reading the end of your post again...

so you want to use their methods as an 1st world army!? terror!?

that doesnt work...all have to stay clean and nice(more or less), otherwhise the people responsible for it are deinstalled verry fast.

We did something unique in military history - we changed their minds, and altered their societies and mentalities from militaristic to pacifistic.

well, to get back to todays time, installing an new government, changing their laws and enforcing this for some times isnt so new in military history i think...and it doesnt sound half as nice as you said it

[ July 31, 2007, 08:12 AM: Message edited by: Pandur ]

[TheTris]

Hey,

If those with power and influence in the armies of the US and her allies currently in Iraq even started to think like you Finkster, I believe that we would already have lost.

Tris

[lilwillie]

I see what he is getting at with his posts

For example, I was playing hotseat with my brother(a Marine, Abrams Tanker) and I was Bluefor he was Opfor. He held a small town I needed to clear and occupy.

As we started I took some losses going in the politically correct, conventional way. His RPG's put a hurt on my first two Strykers. So I laid back. Looked at the obvious defense posistions he would have. And then proceeded to pound them into the ground with Art, Rockets, Tanks, and aircraft strikes.

To top it off, I leveled the mosque he had a huge force hiding in.

When he took the turn that saw the Mosque leveled He hollered out "You can't do that!.....Wait, you can, cause BS politics are out the window, damn, that was a nice move!"

For a moment his mind flashed back to his time in country and how they where hampered by rules of engagement. They knew the tangos where in there, but couldn't do much about it.

I'm not saying, nor my brother, pounding all Mosques into the ground is the right move, but I have no problem of paticular targets being destroyed if it means a high value individual is taken out, or Bluefor lives are saved because of it.

[CRourke]

I don't think the iraqis would still be fighting us if we'd just blown up more mosques.

Nuke'm now, and they'll be making efficient reliable automobiles for us in just 30 short years.

[Sergei]

Ah, what a beautiful political claptrap smuggled into tactics forum we have here. Just remember, CM:SF is a game of active warfare. The current Iraqi situation is a different animal, as the US troops are there to support the Iraqi government, not to oust it.

[InvaderCanuck]

Originally posted by finkster:

>>what would a win look like for you!?

Victory would look like Germany and Japan in 1945. Both were highly movitated, determined antagonists with a thousand year history of militarism. Japan, in particular, raised military suicide to a national duty. When we were done with them, we defeated them so decisively that these countries were not the same, nor would they ever be the same.

We did something unique in military history - we changed their minds, and altered their societies and mentalities from militaristic to pacifistic. You won't find many volunteers in either Germany or Japan for the next war.

>>take the draw

A draw, on the other hand, looks exactly what it is - namely, defeat. A draw was precisely what Japan was hoping for after the Battle of the Phillipine Sea, which destroyed every hope of victory. Japan fought on for a year and a half sustaining enormous military and civilian casualties, and inflicting serious casualties on the United States, especially at Iwo Jima and Okinawa. It was Japan's vain hope that by continuing the fight even after victory was no longer possible that the prospect of even more American casualties would persuade the United States to accept a "draw".

The decision to nuke Japan completely changed the calculus of the war. Japan hoped for a favorable casualty ratio to deter us from our stated goal of unconditional surrender, and what it got for its trouble was a lesson in mathematics, viz, the denominator of the casualty ratio [like any fraction] cannot be zero. We were both capable and willing to wipe out the Japanese genome, suffering zero casualties along the way. So much for their math.

If a tiny band of terrorists can extract a draw from the United States [or any other super power] in a military engagment by protracting that enagement and inflicting reletively trivial casualties it will only encourage others to follow suit. The military policy of the United States should be deterrence, i.e. any potential enemy should so fear the consequences of going to war with us that they decide not to.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />si vis pacem para bellum [if you want peace, prepare for war]

Vegetius (late Roman empire)

</font>

[Sgt Joch]

To echo what Sergei said, there is no parallel. CMSF simulates a hot conventional war, while Iraq is a counter-insurgency/police operation where different (i.e. political) considerations come into play. This should really be in the GF.

[Linuss]

"It clearly demonstrates that the way to decisive and unambiguous victory is to kill as many as possible, as quickly as possible using every asset available, especially air and artillery. "

You obviously have forgotten about the battle for Fallujah...

Whole city was told to evacuate. Those that did not were told to stay within their homes and not drive their cars, and a round the clock curfew was placed by the Iraqi Govt.

This meant that any one on the street was to be considered a hostile.

And last I checked.. this battle plan worked perfectly.

SO what your problem with us using all the power deemed necessary?

[ChrisND]

Originally posted by CRourke:

I don't think the iraqis would still be fighting us if we'd just blown up more mosques.

Nuke'm now, and they'll be making efficient reliable automobiles for us in just 30 short years.

Callous and wrong or not, I have to admit that made me laugh.