Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

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.

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.

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

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.

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

Originally Posted by 1st Lt. Kirzillian

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] [COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]
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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by JOC

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?

Originally Posted by JOC

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.

Originally Posted by crazytanker

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.

Originally Posted by Kesse81

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.