Not in short term, true.
But we need to think long term now, and in long term it is beneficial over current tactics.
I was thinking to spread the load upon all that takes part.
In the end, this is a global threat.

I am hoping someone will come with a different option.
Seems my point of view is unrealistic, so is the current one.
But then how do we solve this puzzle?

Originally Posted by Kesse81

Please enlighten me.
How are conditions different.

For one, the weapons are different on both sides.
In Africa we did not have jets, cannons, or similar bigger systems.
We did not have huge open deserts, or towns.
We had no mountains where the eney buried himself in.
We were in large forests, more like Vietnam.
All we had as weapons, was brains, rifles/SAW, and a few greneades.
All these conditions require a different approach, tactical-wise.

Iraq, Afghanistan and the likes require a more open warfare, both from landforce and airforce.
Drones, Jets, Tanks, you get my point.

Originally Posted by 1st Lt. Kirzillian

Not in short term, true.
But we need to think long term now, and in long term it is beneficial over current tactics.
I was thinking to spread the load upon all that takes part.
In the end, this is a global threat.

I am hoping someone will come with a different option.
Seems my point of view is unrealistic, so is the current one.
But then how do we solve this puzzle?

You want to hit hard when there is a threat, quite similar as how we deal with Al Shabbab?

That would be the global idea, aye.
Strike hard and fast.

However, you used Al Shabbab as example, but that was not a good one.
Also a lengthened battle, that up untill now exists.

Originally Posted by 1st Lt. Kirzillian

That would be the global idea, aye.
Strike hard and fast.

Like how fire fighters deal with fires...I think I understand your line of thoughts now.

That, my brother, is a marvelous comparison.

It is pretty close what I am doing for a living.....respond to issues and do nothing between the issues.

I have worked a lot with fire fighters, mostly during forest fires

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

Like how fire fighters deal with fires...I think I understand your line of thoughts now.

Depends on what burns. A backdraft can occur.

Originally Posted by Kesse81

Depends on what burns. A backdraft can occur.

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.

Originally Posted by 1st Lt. Kirzillian

Not in short term, true.
But we need to think long term now, and in long term it is beneficial over current tactics.
I was thinking to spread the load upon all that takes part.
In the end, this is a global threat.

I am hoping someone will come with a different option.
Seems my point of view is unrealistic, so is the current one.
But then how do we solve this puzzle?


For one, the weapons are different on both sides.
In Africa we did not have jets, cannons, or similar bigger systems.
We did not have huge open deserts, or towns.
We had no mountains where the eney buried himself in.
We were in large forests, more like Vietnam.
All we had as weapons, was brains, rifles/SAW, and a few greneades.
All these conditions require a different approach, tactical-wise.

Iraq, Afghanistan and the likes require a more open warfare, both from landforce and airforce.
Drones, Jets, Tanks, you get my point.

The tactics you used in Africa wasn't it COIN?

Exactly.
Why would be in Godknowswhere-istan, if we're not needed there?
Much like with firefighting (AWESOME comparison) we go out in strength, deal with the problem, and then go home for a beer.
If all NATO and like-minded go over the same line, we can end the threat in no time, thus save money and resources in long term.