Fighting on the enemies terms

[Kesse81]

The current doctrine (the military and the political/strategical) doesn't work, so I think the Belgian Lt. is talking about a general approach and it must be ad hoc to make it work. Hit hard when there is a threat to us and leave them alone regardless what happens in that country. Like how the world ignored the genocide in Rwanda, their problem, not ours.

We create a hell of a lot more enemies with that method.

 

[crazytanker]

Just going to add two cents here. The problem with a massive show of force is that A. Civilians get killed in the crossfire and B. It creates a negative attitude from the inhabitants to the "defenders". Both of those are going to make the problem worse, because people who were not involved have become so pissed that now they get involved and start shooting back. Someone who offered you a bed and a hot meal might only have hot lead to offer now.

 

[JOC]

The symmetric war theories and doctrines don't work on insurgents, unless we kill them all. The cost of sending the military in a size of what the Germans and others had during the Second World War is not realistic.

We need to find something that works, we can kill them all or put out the fire, but we can not take the responsibility for their own countries.

This is an interesting discussion

It's interesting to note that the Germans had significant partisan conflicts going on behind the lines. Even though the main conflict was heads on conventional war against the Allies and the Red Army, significant forces stayed behind the lines and fought partisans who used guerilla tactics. The French Italians, Greeks, Poles and to a larger degree Soviets and Yugoslavs all resisted at great peril. In fact all occupied countries resisted to a degree. Their generally severe treatment of people in areas with partisan activity generally resulted in more partisan activity. I.e. killed 10 to 100 for every German or SS soldier killed, or wiping out a village that had supposedly supported partisans. In the USSR the eradication of partisans was generally used as part of their ethnic cleansing policy against the Slavs where antipartisans attacks resulted in the deaths of millions.

 

[Kesse81]

The view we have on the Middle East today is how we define the Middle East's future

The perception of the Middle East are too many in the West characterized by very specific and often negative images which may limit our ability to eye the opportunities that still exist in the region

The future is not something that is; it is something that we create.

The initiatives and actions that we take today can help shape the future of the region. Investment in the construction industry, for example, can help to develop a future high-tech architectural mecca, which may even surpass Dubai and the United Arab Emirates. Thus, investment and other forms of participation in the region will help to influence the Middle East's future and develop a market which opens up further opportunities for investment, trade and ultimately peace.

The Crusader period has passed.

Sometimes I wish that politicians would listen to us who have been there and seen and heard when the locals talk about their dreams for the future

 

[brinktk]

Actually, it will show them we mean it.
Also, when you are in an area that is known to be infested, they show themself.
Or run hiding.
We have trained individuals that know about suspicious behavior or even hostile behavior.
Arresting those and interrogating them will find most, if not all.
Aside: folks like the morons in ISIS showed, they refuse to learn, and force their view on others.
If we let them do, They WILL come to our doorstep, brother.
They already did: remember 9/11?
If you do not want a repitition, then we must act, and hard.
Since, they won't go away, unless we make them go away.


Wait a bloody second: you compare abortion with killing terrorists?????
wudafuque?
Are you actually serious here?
Let me give you a more correct comparison of abortion: that's me, going out with a shotgun, killing a random poor fudge for being there.
THAT, brother, is abortion!!!


But they will be massacred FOR SURE when weaponized.
Since, when wearing arms, they are considered a threat, not when they are not armed.


No, it's not coincidence, it's stupidity from our sight.
we DID foresee this, and did nothing about this.
Basically, we PROMOTED this.
Why, beats me...
I never understood politics.
Which is why I am such an extreme, they toyed too long with our nuts.


I agree.
Only through showing force and rolling muscle (or let me rephrase: they only seem to understand one language: violence!, so let's roll up our sleeves, pick up a lead bar, drive a few 9inch nails through them, and go hunting: neanderthal style) we can bring these down.
Sad, but true, nonetheless.
Look at ISIS as example.

[/FONT][/COLOR]
Saddest part is, that the governments foreseen this, and let it happen.
Smart...

I'm quite aware of the threat. I may have spent a little time in the region dealing with the people you are speaking of. You are overly simplifying the problem in order to sell an overly simplified solution.

I come from a place that spouts virtues such as freedom, reason, honor, integrity, morality, compassion, and opportunity. I did not join the military to stoop to the level of evil that ISIS is. I don't massacre people and I try to protect those who cannot protect themselves. What you prescribe makes us like them...it makes us indistinguishable. That is unacceptable to me.

I'm a professional...an officer. I take my oath and my values very seriously. How we win this matters. It determines the way forward...or backwards.

I find it interesting that the people with the most experience on this site here in the subject matter (literally years of experience) are the ones who most openly resist your "solution". But, the powers that be haven't listened to us for years so it is no surprise that every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks they know the resolution tomthis very complicated problem.

 

[JOC]

Just going to add two cents here. The problem with a massive show of force is that A. Civilians get killed in the crossfire and B. It creates a negative attitude from the inhabitants to the "defenders". Both of those are going to make the problem worse, because people who were not involved have become so pissed that now they get involved and start shooting back. Someone who offered you a bed and a hot meal might only have hot lead to offer now.

However that's how we defeated Germany. If they were holed up in a building and we couldn't get the civilians out we shelled it or hit it with tank fire. If a town or city was a German stronghold we bombed it to hell despite thousands of civilian deaths. Now the enemy was much worse so the civilians welcomed us with open arms despite the destruction and civilian casualties. In this case we had no choice we had to win regardless this was true for all the fighting by the Allies across western Europe and Italy. I think a lot of people still have this mentality in the US.

I don't know that they view the US as going in as the great liberator the way they did in WW2 (that is say the Afghans or Iraqi's). So what you are saying is that you must win over the peoples trust not just Lord over them with numbers and firepower.

 

[Kesse81]

However that's how we defeated Germany. If they were holed up in a building and we couldn't get the civilians out we shelled it or hit it with tank fire. If a town or city was a German stronghold we bombed it to hell despite thousands of civilian deaths. Now the enemy was much worse so the civilians welcomed us with open arms despite the destruction and civilian casualties. In this case we had no choice we had to win regardless this was true for all the fighting by the Allies across western Europe and Italy. I think a lot of people still have this mentality in the US.

I don't know that they view the US as going in as the great liberator the way they did in WW2 (that is say the Afghans or Iraqi's). So what you are saying is that you must win over the peoples trust not just Lord over them with numbers and firepower.

In WWII it was “kill them all” Today it´s “kill them with kindness”

And to those who think it doesn’t work - been there, done that and it works.
But the process requires patience. It may take several generations and are we willing to devote the time and funds for so long?

 

[crazytanker]

However that's how we defeated Germany. If they were holed up in a building and we couldn't get the civilians out we shelled it or hit it with tank fire. If a town or city was a German stronghold we bombed it to hell despite thousands of civilian deaths. Now the enemy was much worse so the civilians welcomed us with open arms despite the destruction and civilian casualties. In this case we had no choice we had to win regardless this was true for all the fighting by the Allies across western Europe and Italy. I think a lot of people still have this mentality in the US.

I don't know that they view the US as going in as the great liberator the way they did in WW2 (that is say the Afghans or Iraqi's). So what you are saying is that you must win over the peoples trust not just Lord over them with numbers and firepower.

The problem here is that you're trying to compare apples to oranges. Things are quote drastically different between now and then. For one, we had the man power them to catch them in a vice. Here, that's nearly impossible.

 

[JOC]

The problem here is that you're trying to compare apples to oranges. Things are quote drastically different between now and then. For one, we had the man power them to catch them in a vice. Here, that's nearly impossible.

Simply put, but makes sense CT.

 

[JOC]

In WWII it was “kill them all” Today it´s “kill them with kindness”

And to those who think it doesn’t work - been there, done that and it works.
But the process requires patience. It may take several generations and are we willing to devote the time and funds for so long?

It likely requires less than the millions of troops solution one would think.

 

[1st Lt. Kirzillian]

We create a hell of a lot more enemies with that method.

How so?
If we have a mass of soldiers, we can act for more pinpointed.
The civilians would have far less casualties, I reckon.

Just going to add two cents here. The problem with a massive show of force is that A. Civilians get killed in the crossfire and B. It creates a negative attitude from the inhabitants to the "defenders". Both of those are going to make the problem worse, because people who were not involved have become so pissed that now they get involved and start shooting back. Someone who offered you a bed and a hot meal might only have hot lead to offer now.

Civilians are not meant to be in the crossfire.
If the shooting starts, the civilians should go into their houses.
When the enemy sees us coming, they to will head for cover, that's when we start the door to door check.
I foresee far less innocent lifes spilled this way.
Now, sadly, with some operations there will be loss of civilian life, no matter what you try.
And when the perps use human shields... they basically leave us no choice, but then the casualties are on their book, not ours.

I.e. killed 10 to 100 for every German or SS soldier killed, or wiping out a village that had supposedly supported partisans.

Now, that is more ISIS methods than ours.
Although I am for a swift and hard strike, I do not like this method to be used by us.
In the end, ISIS doesn't care, Al Qaeda does not care, Boku Haram does not care for civilian loss.
Life of others has no value to them.
Heck, in many a case, not even THEIR OWN life has value.

The view we have on the Middle East today is how we define the Middle East's future.

I agree completely.
But this ALSO means we need to get rid of the terrorist movements, these people ASK for our help, and we do useless actions to what end?
These cost enormous amounts of finance, resource and personnel.
And we get NOWHERE!

The future is not something that is; it is something that we create.

I agree again.
But we cannot help them if these terrorists are still around, now can we?
First things first.
You do not build a house if you laeve a rotten foundation, right?
And the foundation is bloody rotten ATM.

The initiatives and actions that we take today can help shape the future of the region. Investment in the construction industry, for example, can help to develop a future high-tech architectural mecca, which may even surpass Dubai and the United Arab Emirates. Thus, investment and other forms of participation in the region will help to influence the Middle East's future and develop a market which opens up further opportunities for investment, trade and ultimately peace.

True, buty again, first we need to root out the rotten foundation, before we begin to build.
Or am I wrong here?

The Crusader period has passed.

I disagree here, respectfully.
Sure, we can sit back and watch the show, sure we can.
But I think, THAT waould be a VERY bad idea.
Don't you?
I mean, what example would we set doing such???

Sometimes I wish that politicians would listen to us who have been there and seen and heard when the locals talk about their dreams for the future

And again I agree.
But they never listen, do they...

I'm quite aware of the threat. I may have spent a little time in the region dealing with the people you are speaking of. You are overly simplifying the problem in order to sell an overly simplified solution.

I come from a place that spouts virtues such as freedom, reason, honor, integrity, morality, compassion, and opportunity. I did not join the military to stoop to the level of evil that ISIS is. I don't massacre people and I try to protect those who cannot protect themselves. What you prescribe makes us like them...it makes us indistinguishable. That is unacceptable to me.

I'm a professional...an officer. I take my oath and my values very seriously. How we win this matters. It determines the way forward...or backwards.

I find it interesting that the people with the most experience on this site here in the subject matter (literally years of experience) are the ones who most openly resist your "solution". But, the powers that be haven't listened to us for years so it is no surprise that every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks they know the resolution tomthis very complicated problem.

I understand.
And I respect your point of view.
I am not here to sell something, but I am defending my POV since I see no counter suggestion.
Again, I am not here to make a fight, but to change ideas, to learn, to make others think.
I have been over-thinking this problem for LONG time, but whatever alternate tactic I came up with, it does not get result in short term bases, or a "normalized cost" in finance, resource and personnel.
I heard a few things like "preventing through education", but people in terrorist factions are not willing to learn.
Thus, this is not a viable solution in my book.
And I am looking for solutions.

On top: my term in the army was in a completely different generation.
Back in the days where we hunted these warlords, we used what I now would call the Firemen approach.
We went to hot zones, literally eradicated the problem by the roots, and moved back.
Our linie had ZERO civilian casualties (note: with zero casualties I do not count lethal threats, those sadly happened of quite a few occasions), and we were proud of that.
Very even.
We were thought to be extreme.
Boxing with steel gloves, if you like.

But still: we have a non-functional style of operating.
How can we deal with this?

I'll refrain from posting a bit, since I get the feeling that a few are getting angry on what I write, and that was not my intention.
Reading for a while now.

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

In WWII it was “kill them all” Today it´s “kill them with kindness”

And to those who think it doesn’t work - been there, done that and it works.
But the process requires patience. It may take several generations and are we willing to devote the time and funds for so long?

No, we cannot afford to stay very long. Governments and the public wants short term solutions even if the short term solution is unrealistic. But that is how the world works

The huge military intervention theory with an army a la the Second World War or even from the Cold War will not work either. The armies of today are much smaller in size than they were in the 1980s. There is not a political interest to increase the size.

The methods used in Iraq worked quite good when the US military was stationed there. But when they left Iraq a power vacuum was created and maybe the same will happen in Afghanistan.

So either we (North America, Europe) stay in a country for decades or even longer. The financial cost will be very high and without visible results the support by the public and the governments will decline rapidly. With a hit hard and leave kind of doctrine, we may create more power vacuums and these will be filled by something we do not really want.

I also think it is better to have different approaches depending on where and who we are dealing with. Striking against the leadership and other assets like what the US and probably others are doing toward Al Shabab but not a major intervention with ground forces. ECOWAS and AU are in Somalia and they are dealing with the threat on the ground, how successful they are? Well I don't know. The African military and especially the Nigerian military has made corruption to an art. However, this may not work else where.

 

[1st Lt. Kirzillian]

Hmm...
I stop, everyone stops?
Want me to continue to shock you to get responses? XD
JK.

 

[tetvet]

The term innocent civilians in a belligerent society does not correlate since all civilians contribute to the war effort though civilians can be a hindrance and should be evacuated as in example Berlin in 1945 but Hitler being crazy felt all should go down the tube with him and they did .

 

[brinktk]

The term innocent civilians in a belligerent society does not correlate since all civilians contribute to the war effort though civilians can be a hindrance and should be evacuated as in example Berlin in 1945 but Hitler being crazy felt all should go down the tube with him and they did .

What belligerent society today do you speak of?

 

[1st Lt. Kirzillian]

Let's discuss civil.
Since, civil ain't that civil after all...
Crooks, whackos, terrorists...
Yeah, civility is gone.

 

[tetvet]

I don't think I was speaking about any particular society other than civilians that support a government that is hell bent on doing harm to others should have to share in the outcome , I hope this clears up any confusion .

 

[1st Lt. Kirzillian]

Question: when civilians support a criminal faction, say ISIS, can they be considered innocent?
Maybe they do not kill, or do anything inhumane, but supporting a faction such as ISIS is -IMHO- just as criminal.
Basically it is like housing a murderer, which in our western world is punishable as crime?

 

[Kesse81]

Question: when civilians support a criminal faction, say ISIS, can they be considered innocent?
Maybe they do not kill, or do anything inhumane, but supporting a faction such as ISIS is -IMHO- just as criminal.
Basically it is like housing a murderer, which in our western world is punishable as crime?

Yes!
When you live in a democratic country, then sympathy and ideology is not illegal.
Another thing is if you actively support with money, then it could possibly be that it becomes criminal.

You can´t control people´s thoughts - you can suppress them, and that´s it
And who should decide who´s a terrorist or freedom fighter

Che Guevara, what was he?

 

[1st Lt. Kirzillian]

I agree, up to the point that it is not illegal.
Question: when a man tries to convince a teenager to join "the holy war" for ISIS, is that legal?
Or when ISIS-fans try to put others into terrorist acts (the military killed in England, for example), is that legal?
Thus, is supporting such terrorist factions legal?

It's not here in Belgium!