Kesse, I think we Scandinavians have the same perception about women rights to decide about their own lives. There are too many children living in hellish situations and when children have children......Adoptions may work in some cases. Although, I think it's much better to leave the decisions to the people involved, isn't that the democratic way or shall we decide how others shall live their lives.

I through out a question here. When the majority of the armed conflicts in the post WWII word have been asymmetric and during those conflicts the insurgents, guerrilla or whatever we want to call them have been successful in their strategical goals. Do you have an answer how to change it? Are we requiring too much of our military? How can we change their societies when they (insurgents) are not interested to change it?

It turned out to be more questions...

Originally Posted by 1st Lt. Kirzillian

There's something like condoms and the likes, Kesse.
IMHO: if you're mature enough to have sex, then certainly you are old enough to face any consequence.
As for financial reasons: adoption could be a solution.
Men walking away?
Nuter them with a hammer, no anesthesia.
A tad extreme, granted, but right now 13 year olds get pregnant, do an abortion, and go screw the next guy.
What do we teach them?
Food for thought....

I've heard all these arguments about abortion before and I don´t give a damn.
It´s the woman's choice and no one else - end of story.

Originally Posted by 1st Lt. Kirzillian

Combat situation:
Yes, I have been in combat situations, in Africa.
I've been threatened by a kid running up to us, a grenade in his hand.
I stopped him, the fast way.
Am I proud of that?
Hell no.
Does it bother me?
Hell yes, up to this day in age.
Each night I wake up seeing these movies play off in my head.
Would I do that again?
Hell yes I would.
We were tasked to eradicate warlords in Africa, destroy weapon caches, drug caches,...
I've been shot at, thrown grenades at, I've been through quite a bit.
Lost 3 good friends there.
Somehow, I got bloody lucky.
Until I went abseiling...

So I think I can say, that I've seen a bit of battle, yes.

So you've been in combat - congratulations - so have several of us.
Have you learned something?

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

Kesse, I think we Scandinavians have the same perception about women rights to decide about their own lives. There are too many children living in hellish situations and when children have children......Adoptions may work in some cases. Although, I think it's much better to leave the decisions to the people involved, isn't that the democratic way or shall we decide how others shall live their lives.

No we should not determine how others should live their lives and you´re right, it´s about freedom.
It's about a woman´s freedom to decide for herself what to do with her own body.

And nobody should be preaching their own morals to a woman who already is in a miserable situation and therefore also may be vulnerable.

It can never be fully democratic. It´s the woman´s body - her call.

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

I through out a question here. When the majority of the armed conflicts in the post WWII word have been asymmetric and during those conflicts the insurgents, guerrilla or whatever we want to call them have been successful in their strategical goals. Do you have an answer how to change it? Are we requiring too much of our military? How can we change their societies when they (insurgents) are not interested to change it?

It turned out to be more questions...

Look at the world history, how´s it gone?
We can´t militarily combat this problem. We can militarily keep it down, but it costs and we can´t afford it in the long run.

Information, education and a better standard of living is the answer. We should turn a foe to a friend.

If you win the trust of the population you´ll remove the raison d'être of a insurrectionary movement.

Easier said than done, but we must start somewhere.

In asymmetric warfare, the people are the terrain. Most people want to be left alone and simply live their lives. When insurgency or war comes to their doorstep, they have to make a decision..."do we support the insurgents, who likely will be living among us and can take action against me, my family, my village, my community? Or do I support the "coalition, invaders, self proclaimed good guys, or whatever you want to call them", who may or may not be here when the reckoning comes from the insurgents who are going to enact revenge for any cooperation percieved or otherwise?"

Killing the problem reinforces the insurgency. Security is the name of the game. Live in the villages and neighborhoods of the areas you are trying to protect while arming and teaching the locals to defend themselves and at the same time build local relationships that make us and them appear more human. Killing a human is much harder than killing a target or "bad guy". We must display restraint towards the locals which is going to show them who is REALLY on their side, so that when we leave they can and will take care of themselves. Once they have the tools to do so, people are much better at policing their own areas than I, you, or we ever could.

Having the sword be the only solution just means that it will cut both ways.

Or is it better to react to problems when they emerge and leave them alone between the conflicts? I am speculating, how the build societies is not a job for the military. The military can be used as the FD, use the resources when it's called for. I think we as a society need to find something else, because what we are doing is not working. As what Kesse said, we cannot afford it any longer. Historically, the major change in Europe and North America occurred during the industrial revolution and the social revolution which occurred more or less at the same time. The democratic states evolved during this process and it occurred from within. The American war of independence had an enormous impact on the European societies. The difference back then and now is, the US never forced it on Europe. The Europeans wanted it and they got it. Shall we use a similar approach?

I understand that many want to use a humane approach to the Middle East conflict, but " hearts and minds" will not work in this situation for the reason that the people in that region know that no matter what the Westerners do for them or say to them, in the end the Westerners will go home and then they will have to deal with the former insurgents.
They cannot have any longterm protection from those cutthroats so they aren't listening, They aren't buying it, even if their dislike of Westerners for cultural, historic, linguistic and religious differences could be overcome, ( and they can't).
So the only solution is to kill ( or attrit - a Pentagon term) the insurgents. meaning in plain language, kill the insurgents. Air power is an ideal tool for this purpose if it is used with, shall we say, robust rules of engagement. There are no imbedded reporters in the cockpit so you can show the media what you want to show them. Show them the video of the obviously armed insurgent band being obliterated. Don't show them the video of the cluster bomb unit that went astray and took out the orphanage (oops). A veteran U.S. Army officer of the Moro War said many years later that coddling the Moro insurgents worked sometimes, but on balance, he wishes he had killed more of them.

Originally Posted by Remington 1858

I understand that many want to use a humane approach to the Middle East conflict, but " hearts and minds" will not work in this situation for the reason that the people in that region know that no matter what the Westerners do for them or say to them, in the end the Westerners will go home and then they will have to deal with the former insurgents.
They cannot have any longterm protection from those cutthroats so they aren't listening, They aren't buying it, even if their dislike of Westerners for cultural, historic, linguistic and religious differences could be overcome, ( and they can't).
So the only solution is to kill ( or attrit - a Pentagon term) the insurgents. meaning in plain language, kill the insurgents. Air power is an ideal tool for this purpose if it is used with, shall we say, robust rules of engagement. There are no imbedded reporters in the cockpit so you can show the media what you want to show them. Show them the video of the obviously armed insurgent band being obliterated. Don't show them the video of the cluster bomb unit that went astray and took out the orphanage (oops). A veteran U.S. Army officer of the Moro War said many years later that coddling the Moro insurgents worked sometimes, but on balance, he wishes he had killed more of them.

The policy during Vietnam was to win in a war of attrition....kill them until they quit. Well, that is almost impossible when they control the initiation of over 90% of all major combat engagements. Which, in essence, means they controlled the casualties on both sides to where they could sustain them indefinitely while we continued to look at our watches impatiently.

The Marines had a program for the first few years of the war that was called the combined action platoon program. Or "CAP". Essentially, a squad lived in a village with the people and helped train civil irregular defense corps (CIDG), IE locals, in patrolling, ambushing, weapons proficiency etc. When the program was scrapped by Westmorland because he wanted more maneuver battalions looking for the "big fights", over 90% of all the villages that were friendly to the Republic of Vietnam in I corps had CAP platoons in them.

Also, we were trying to attrit them in Iraq in Al Anbar province up until the Sunni Awakening. The only reason the most dangerous place in the world(at the time) turned around was because we switched our tactics to focus much more on counter insurgency and "terrain denial" (access to the people) while at the same time working closely with the desert sheiks, training their militias,and allowing them to become police in their own neighborhoods. It can work and create a lasting solution if we would be willing to assume a little risk (we as in the military) and we are givin the freedom and timeline to facilitate it. It wouldn't take a ton of forces and would be a helluva lot cheaper than invading a country every 10 years. Just some food for thought.

As the Afghans like to say "you have all the watches....we have all the time".

Originally Posted by Kesse81

I've heard all these arguments about abortion before and I don´t give a damn.
It´s the woman's choice and no one else - end of story.

I respect your opinion.
But what will our children for one learn of this?
Life has no value, and we can do whatever we want, we can fix things anyway.
You DO know that these children are our future, right?

Originally Posted by Kesse81

I've heard all these arguments about abortion before and I don´t give a damn.
It´s the woman's choice and no one else - end of story.

So you've been in combat - congratulations - so have several of us.
Have you learned something?

Well, I did yes: run away from grenades, and point the end of your weapon to the target.
Both helped me out quite a bit. *grins*

Originally Posted by Kesse81

Look at the world history, how´s it gone?
We can´t militarily combat this problem. We can militarily keep it down, but it costs and we can´t afford it in the long run.

Information, education and a better standard of living is the answer. We should turn a foe to a friend.

You forgot a very important fact here: we are HUMAN.
Many will choose NOT to learn, NOT to cooperate, NOT to be civil.

Our ways of dealing with the problems is the problem.
We make micro-attacks over a very long time, instead of going for a mass-cleaning up.
One massive assault I think could turn the tide.
Also expensive, but far less compared to what we do right now.

Originally Posted by brinktk

In asymmetric warfare, the people are the terrain. Most people want to be left alone and simply live their lives. When insurgency or war comes to their doorstep, they have to make a decision..."do we support the insurgents, who likely will be living among us and can take action against me, my family, my village, my community? Or do I support the "coalition, invaders, self proclaimed good guys, or whatever you want to call them", who may or may not be here when the reckoning comes from the insurgents who are going to enact revenge for any cooperation percieved or otherwise?"

Killing the problem reinforces the insurgency. Security is the name of the game. Live in the villages and neighborhoods of the areas you are trying to protect while arming and teaching the locals to defend themselves and at the same time build local relationships that make us and them appear more human. Killing a human is much harder than killing a target or "bad guy". We must display restraint towards the locals which is going to show them who is REALLY on their side, so that when we leave they can and will take care of themselves. Once they have the tools to do so, people are much better at policing their own areas than I, you, or we ever could.

Question: weaponizing and militarizing civilians: do you actually believe that this is the solution?
Look at Iraq: it isn't going well there is it?
IMHO: civilians shouldn't be turned into military/police forces.
That would result in an even higher bodycount on the civilian side.
Thoughts?

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

As what Kesse said, we cannot afford it any longer.

I understand, but again, it's the way that we try to deal with this, that makes us poor.
AND: the enemy was counting on this.
It's a weakness, this cost.
It'll go far worse, if we do not act.
Mark my words...

Originally Posted by Remington 1858

I understand that many want to use a humane approach to the Middle East conflict, but " hearts and minds" will not work in this situation for the reason that the people in that region know that no matter what the Westerners do for them or say to them, in the end the Westerners will go home and then they will have to deal with the former insurgents.
They cannot have any longterm protection from those cutthroats so they aren't listening, They aren't buying it, even if their dislike of Westerners for cultural, historic, linguistic and religious differences could be overcome, ( and they can't).
So the only solution is to kill ( or attrit - a Pentagon term) the insurgents. meaning in plain language, kill the insurgents. Air power is an ideal tool for this purpose if it is used with, shall we say, robust rules of engagement. There are no imbedded reporters in the cockpit so you can show the media what you want to show them. Show them the video of the obviously armed insurgent band being obliterated. Don't show them the video of the cluster bomb unit that went astray and took out the orphanage (oops). A veteran U.S. Army officer of the Moro War said many years later that coddling the Moro insurgents worked sometimes, but on balance, he wishes he had killed more of them.

Aye.
And humans will always find a way to make conflict.
If it isn't about resources, land or religion, it will be because of clothing colours, or wearing glasses or not.
We consider ourselves so smart, how then haven't we learned in 300K years how to live in balance with nature or in coexistence with one another and ourselves?

Originally Posted by brinktk

As the Afghans like to say "you have all the watches....we have all the time".

This was what I am referring to.
Our micro-attacks do no damage, no real damage.
And they prey on this factor, they KNOW, and use that against us.
Which in turn made me think that our approach of the problem in heavily problematic...


On a side note:
I do not intend to anger anyone, I am stating thoughts, with a 2-way idea: to make people think, and to gain insights.
I have learned interesting things in this thread, and I truly hope this thread will continue onwards.
Thank you all.

Originally Posted by Kesse81

I've heard all these arguments about abortion before and I don´t give a damn.
It´s the woman's choice and no one else - end of story.

Originally Posted by Kesse81

No we should not determine how others should live their lives and you´re right, it´s about freedom.
It's about a woman´s freedom to decide for herself what to do with her own body.

The man and woman have responsibility in this. Are they not consenting individuals, can they not use protection. In the US there are more people wanting to adopt than their are abortions. Due to the # of abortions they often have to adopt children from overseas. Of course their are special cases rape and so on. What about the potential for the unborn baby. Besides what has this to do with fighting the enemy?

So what shall we do? We can militarily intervene in countries and more or less stay there forever. The price for it is very high, not only the economic even the human price will be high.

The Middle East has another vital thing which is significant for the world. The oil and it influence the our behavior toward the region. So with ISIS now, shall we put out the fire and let them be until the next time? The nation building in Syria and Iraq is their problem not ours. I am a believer of the change of a society must come from inside and not outside. The grievances in these countries must be solved by the people residing there