Artillery from the receiving end

[JonS]

Quick, somebody pass me a bucket. I'm going to be sick.

[purpheart23]

Oh we have ourselves an elitist. Let me get that bucket first.

[purpheart23]

Anyways I'm done trying to hold an intelligent conversation, respond if you want I'm done with you.

[JonS]

An elitist? Is that better than a liberal? What about an elitist liberal - can I be one of those? That sounds like fun. Unfortunately I'm not a journalist, so I can't be liberal media.

But I do get so confused by all those big long words that you manly studs like to fling around. Should I be insulted now? Please advise.

[Dietrich]

Hey purpheart, remind me to say, if/when I enlist, that my reasons for enlisting were:

1. To enlist in the stead of some man who, being a husband and/or father, would have plenty of reason to not enlist (since his being maimed or killed in action would inflict grief, bereavement, and hardship on his loved ones).

2. To thumb my nose at all who paint soldiers as brainwashed tools (in all senses of the word) because they think that's the way to effectively express their dislike of their country's foreign policy.

Oooh-rah!

Besides, arguing is for people who don't have anything better to do.

[Battlefront.com]

Whoa now... step back from the edge gents and let's keep things civil.

The truth is what I said earlier. A nation state can not wage an expensive open ended war in a foreign land against a force which can operate indefinitely provided it has the morale and the warm bodies to keep the fight going.

Seriously... does ANYBODY disagree with this statement? If so, please list all of the foreign occupations that have succeeded in the past 100 years that were actively opposed (e.g. forget about Germany as an example).

So the question isn't "is relatively expensive counter battery fire tactically effective against relatively inexpensive enemy launchers" because if you're asking that question then chances are the expensive counter battery fire sucks and should be scrapped No, the question is... what are the more sustainable, cost effective means of dealing with an insurgent force so you don't have to use a $1000 hammer to smash in a $0.01 screw?

I've advanced one way and that is to have long term, professional "nation builders" in charge of making sure the insurgents don't have a friendly or complacent population to leach off and to quicken the creation of effective indigenous security forces to deal with them. Use the big, expensive military to secure the ground for these guys, then get them out ASAP. This not only radically reduces cost, but it prevents the sort of systemic problems the US is now facing in terms of total costs. And I include in that PTSD, economic disruption to families, increased wounded to take care of, reduced recruiting standards to meet quotas, massive spending to replace chewed up equipment, and worst of all... weakened strategic position because the armed forces are fully engaged.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Dietrich,

Besides, arguing is for people who don't have anything better to do.

Occasionally JonS has better things to do, like training people how to do those sorts of counter battery fire. Guess he's not blowing stuff up this week

Steve

[purpheart23]

Actually that's my job Steve. So let's try to restore some sanity here. Let's say we did have this nation building force to come in after the military "secures" said nation. It's going to come down to the time needed to put together the indigenous security forces, let's face it you probably don't want to pull just anybody off the street to be part of your security forces. In the long run I could see how it would probably be more cost effective but as a contractor or an individual working for this rebuilding department, I don't know if I'd want indigenous personnel providing security for me. So basically what this boils down too is the cost of operating a proxy army, while simultaneously rebuilding a nation. I can tell you right now, people would sit back and still complain, it doesn't matter.

[JonS]

I thought - and believe opinied - at the time of the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan that the US would've been a lot better off if they'd gone in loudly announcing to everyone with a microphone something along the lines of

"This country is a wreck, so we're going to break it some more. Then we're going to rebuild it, both materially and philosophically. But, see, that's going to take a really long time. So, our timeline stretches out longer than 20 years. That's right, we will be running this place as a colony for at least 20 years - a whole generation. Then we'll start looking at handing back power, a'la the Phillipines. We'll start with low-level local government. Once they get the hang of that we'll move up to regional government, and some time after that is working well we'll look at national government and full resumption of independance.

"But hear this: we will be here for at least 20 years. We will be vigourously enforcing our laws throughout that time. Don't expect or wait for us to just get tired, or bored, and go home. Because we aren't.

10 years to stamp out resistance and endemic corruption, followed by 10 years to train up the knowledge and experience to run a country, across a broad base of the population. 20 years so that kids grow up with an expectation of stability and functional government organs.

Granted it'd be expensive, and it'd have meant tying down subsequent presidents to something they never consented to, but it's not as if the path chosen was all that different, and there are plenty of other examples from last century of the same kind of forward passes.

[Battlefront.com]

Purpleheart23,

Actually that's my job Steve. So let's try to restore some sanity here. Let's say we did have this nation building force to come in after the military "secures" said nation. It's going to come down to the time needed to put together the indigenous security forces, let's face it you probably don't want to pull just anybody off the street to be part of your security forces.

Correct. And the mistakes made in Iraq (especially Iraq) and Afghanistan show this to be correct. Having religious death squads on the payroll and in uniform are definitely counter productive to the overall cause.

In the long run I could see how it would probably be more cost effective but as a contractor or an individual working for this rebuilding department, I don't know if I'd want indigenous personnel providing security for me.

Obviously the neo-con notion that everything will magically fix itself within a few months (that is what we were told in 2002, 2003, and even 2004) is completely discredited. As JonS said, it probably takes 5-10 years MINIMUM to get that sort of situation set up. The difference is that if you start working towards that goal on Day 1 of the post-occupation period then you'd get there that much sooner. If you look at the progress that's been made in Iraq, it's progress that followed colossal incompetent decision making (when decisions were actually made, that is). If there had been a realistic plan at the ready, with realistic personnel allocated to it from the start, we'd be 6 years into that 5-10 year minimum period. And, theoretically it never would have got as bloody as it did because order would have been clear and sensible from the start instead of haphazard, naive, vastly under resourced, and grossly mismanaged.

So basically what this boils down too is the cost of operating a proxy army, while simultaneously rebuilding a nation. I can tell you right now, people would sit back and still complain, it doesn't matter.

Sure, people would still complain BUT things would be much better than with a foreign military flailing about unsure of how to carry out ill defined objectives. And they'd certainly be a lot less bitchy if death squads weren't roaming their streets or foreign terrorists didn't have more power than the local forces.

Basically, my argument boils down to this. If you go in you'd better be prepared for the long haul and resource your mission so that it can be achieved. If you can't do that, or are unwilling to do that, then don't go into that country in the first place. This is what Colin Powell warned prior to the invasion of Iraq. Something along the lines of "if we break it, we own it". Advice that, sadly, was summarily dismissed as being out of touch. So the US Military (as the majority force) was thrown into a situation which was doomed to produce poor results from before the first soldier ever set foot in Iraq. Personally, I think the US forces have done extremely well considering how FUBAR their mission has been for so many years.

Getting back to the artillery thing... at this point in the occupation there should be no insurgency. There would be criminal gangs, corruption, incompetent leadership, squabbling over resources, etc. within the Iraq and Afghan. No doubt. But broad based open warfare? That should have been stamped out within the first year or two. If it was you wouldn't still be using 155s or what not to squash unmaned rocket attacks. Instead you'd find out the names of the guys that did it and arrest them. Which is why there wouldn't be many unmaned rocket attacks to squash, which in turn makes the defense budget a much less painful thing to look at

Steve

[theFightingSeabee]

I found myself writing a large essay just now, so I decided to delete the more emotional parts and keep it simple .

I think our guys are the three amigos, and bin laden is El Guapo. At least I'd like to think of ourselves as Knights; the only ones who can stand up to barbarians. And if we have to suck it up and go deeper into recession, then fine, let's give our guys the ammo they need to continue their meatgrinder strategy (taliban being the meat). Rather than telling them to shoot less, let's find a way to lower the cost of the shells!

While we are losing the war politically, these taliban guys are just getting hammered. The more troops we have over there, the more they get hammered. Without our full commitment, it's just going to continue being a blood bath.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=787_1239620177

[Splinty]

You are a tool of foreign policy, not the vice versa. If you aren't advancing foreign policy at an acceptable cost, you're failing. If you don't like the job, quit.

There's an old saying that runs something like "If you can't take a joke, you shouldn't have joined up." Soldiers are tools. Tools get abused. Deal with it, and stop behaving like a whiny little b!tch.

Go through what we soldiers go through and then get back to us.

[JonS]

Yeah. Ok. I'll get right on that

In the meantime, how's about you tell the rest of us what the military exists for, if it isn't as a tool of foreign policy? Maybe it's really just a jobs scheme for thicko jocks?

[Clavicula_Nox]

Everyone in the military is a "thicko jock"?

[JonS]

Dunno. I don't think so, not everyone, but you'll need to ask Splinty.

[Clavicula_Nox]

Why would I have to do that? I am neither "thicko" nor a "jock".

Anyways, the military is, of course, a tool of foreign policy. Doesn't mean that you shouldn't take care of your tools. Do some research on the number of psychological casualties the US evacuated from the ETO during WW2; I think the number would shock you.

Someone being concerned about how they're treated while putting themselves into harms way isn't being a "whiney b!tch".

[JonS]

Doesn't mean that you shouldn't take care of your tools.

To a degree. What's more important - the job, or the tool?

I think the number would shock you.

I think it wouldn't, for reasons you obviously can't even begin to fathom.

Someone being concerned about how they're treated while putting themselves into harms way isn't being a "whiney b!tch".

I believe that post hoc changing the frame of the debate is generally considered poor form. Besides, IIRC it was wearshisheartonhissleeve23 that was being a whiney b!tch, not splinty.

[Clavicula_Nox]

Relax, dude. You're very combative and for no reason. What's going on? Everything okay?

[JonS]

Copacetic thanks. In fact I'm having a great laugh. You?

[Clavicula_Nox]

I'm okay; can't sleep as per usual, but otherwise fine. To answer your questions above, the job is more important; but if you have 2 jobs to fulfill, but ruin your tools while completing the first job..you still have a 2nd job and no tools. I'm not talking about babying and handholding, certainly not, but a degree of care is needed.

Why do you think I "obviously can't begin to fathom" your level of shock, or lack thereof, with regards to psych casualties in WW2? I have found that I am capable of "fathoming" a great deal of things.

[Bigduke6]

But that's the essence of the problem. You get some mortar rounds coming in, Poof! Poof! Poof!;the big guns respond, BLAM! BLAM! BLAM!; and Joe's morale is great because he knows the Hand of God is on his side.

Then the mortar rounds come again a night or two later. Again the howitzers fire back, and again Joe gets a warm fuzzy because all those big bad explosions are on his side.

Then the morars come again. This time Joe makes jokes about Mohammed the Mortarman, who can't hit anything.

Then the mortars come again. And again. And again.

Now Joe is losing sleep, he has never seen an insurgent, and he's hot and tired and because of his job he's the low man on the totem pole, and oh-by-the-way he's a US male in his late teens or early 20s. His bosses keep telling him the war is going great, but Joe, he's starting to wonder how it is all this greatness can't keep the bad guys from mortaring him.

How is Joe's morale now?

Well, one school of thinking would say it doesn't make much difference, he has a job to do and there are tons of resources and managers and rules making sure he does his job right, no one cares what he feels. And if Joe actually has to fight, well, the only people in the world he knows right now are his buddies, and so he'll fight fine to keep them alive.

But the other school of thought would say, a Joe getting mortared with impunity might consider several individual acts contrary to the overall counter-insurgency mission, like take out his frustration on some locals, or maybe undermine the orders of some irritating lieutenant, or complain in e-mails to his family who tell their Congressman, gripe to a reporter, or just screw around with live ammo because he's bored and irritated.

Morale is a tricky thing.

Your right, we're out there to get blown up, shot, and burned. To hell with morale. Lets let em hammer us all day. Pissing about a couple of artillery shells. You want to see your tax dollars hard at work go down to the social security/welfare offices on the 1st and the 15th of each month.

Back OT: This is a single cannon delivering these rounds. A platoon/battery counter fire mission would be much more devastating. As far as swatting a fly with a sledge hammer, im assuming "we" should let the "fly" buzz around all day doing whatever it likes without a single thought that it might get swatted. In my experience that is not the answer.

P.S. I'm a Soldier and I pay taxes

[Clavicula_Nox]

But the other school of thought would say, a Joe getting mortared with impunity might consider several individual acts contrary to the overall counter-insurgency mission, like take out his frustration on some locals, or maybe undermine the orders of some irritating lieutenant, or complain in e-mails to his family who tell their Congressman, gripe to a reporter, or just screw around with live ammo because he's bored and irritated.

I know what you mean. We have the wrong guys in country doing the wrong mission. I don't know if the situation can be fixed at this point, our "street cred" over there is so drained that I don't see a real victory being too likely. I don't define the number of attacks on US troops as a measure of victory.

It just took too long for the brass to start defining the centers of gravity as something other than straight-up conventional military objectives.

[JonS]

... the job is more important; but if you have 2 jobs to fulfill, but ruin your tools while completing the first job..you still have a 2nd job and no tools. I'm not talking about babying and handholding, certainly not, but a degree of care is needed.

We agree then. You'll need to explain it to your mates though.

BTW, I haven't seen much evidence of 'care for the tool' at the high level, what with stop-loss, uber high optempo, etc. But that's just part of the joke when you sign up, eh?

Why do you think I "obviously can't begin to fathom" your level of shock, or lack thereof, with regards to psych casualties in WW2? I have found that I am capable of "fathoming" a great deal of things.

Your working assumption appears to be that you are the only person, or part of a very select band, who's researched those numbers. That working assumption would be wrong.

I wouldn't find the psych cas figures from NWE shocking because I'm already reasonably familiar with them, and their ups and downs due to changes in success at the operational level and the weather.

[Clavicula_Nox]

BTW, I haven't seen much evidence of 'care for the tool' at the high level, what with stop-loss, uber high optempo, etc. But that's just part of the joke when you sign up, eh?

No arguments here! I would add "Net Centric Warfare" to your list, as well. God do I despise that crap.

Your working assumption appears to be that you are the only person, or part of a very select band, who's researched those numbers. That working assumption would be wrong.

I wouldn't find the psych cas figures from NWE shocking because I'm already reasonably familiar with them, and their ups and downs due to changes in success at the operational level and the weather.

Okay, I get you. You're right, I assumed you were unfamiliar and that's bad on my part, sorry for that.

[JonS]

I would add "Net Centric Warfare" to your list, as well. God do I despise that crap.

Huh. Not that's interesting to me. I'm highly sceptical of NCW and its ilk, but I don't really know enough to feel too strongly about it one way or the other. If you're of a mind to bang your drum about your reasons for despising it, I'm of a mind to listen attentively.

Regards

Jon