brinktk
Active member
I suppose there are just some things that can't be explained to the uninitiated.
The argument that it would be cheaper is fallacious. More soldiers to supplement heavy equipment would probably cost about the same. Remember, it cost over several hundred thousand dollars to basically train a soldier. That's not counting MOS school, unit training, paying, clothing, feeding, and providing housing for the soldiers AND their families.
The result would not be "less desperate" terrorists. The result would be more successful terrorists. If you level the playing field then they have a real chance of winning. If you take away their means to resist, and their sactuaries, then you can secure the civilian population and bring them to your side.
The one thing that I've been trying to point out is that war is not black and white, and no matter what way you task organize a unit accidents will happen. There is way too much grey area. In a black and white world we could employ your thesis for the war on terrorism. But that's not the way it is, it's all shades of grey. That's how the military plans their missions and their doctrine, preparing for the unknown.
Do you really think a person being killed with a bayonet would resist less than a guy getting blow up by a tank. I'd say he would resist more because he knows I'm coming,no one wants cold steel in their bellies, the tank takes away his chance to resist and do any damage to us OR the civilian population.
Is it not just as deplorable to allow more soldiers to die when it could have been prevented.
We're NOT partaking in cannibalism, or rape, or pillaging. We're trying to do our jobs and SAVE lives. That's why we do what we do. Would you tell a mechanic how to fix an engine when you have no idea how to fix one. No you wouldn't, it's absurd. Leave the fighting and doctrine to the soldiers. Look at Iraq, it has taken time, but it's working. Be flexible, a no discrepency atmosphere does not breed success. You can't learn from your mistakes if you're not allowed to make any.
The suicide comment is just nonsense. Soldiers do commit suicide but you cannot quantify their reasons for doing this. Plus, the suicide rate within the military is not significantly different then their counterparts in the civilian world.
You need to do some research on tactics and LOGISTICS. A lot of what you are proposing is just not realistic.
The argument that it would be cheaper is fallacious. More soldiers to supplement heavy equipment would probably cost about the same. Remember, it cost over several hundred thousand dollars to basically train a soldier. That's not counting MOS school, unit training, paying, clothing, feeding, and providing housing for the soldiers AND their families.
The result would not be "less desperate" terrorists. The result would be more successful terrorists. If you level the playing field then they have a real chance of winning. If you take away their means to resist, and their sactuaries, then you can secure the civilian population and bring them to your side.
The one thing that I've been trying to point out is that war is not black and white, and no matter what way you task organize a unit accidents will happen. There is way too much grey area. In a black and white world we could employ your thesis for the war on terrorism. But that's not the way it is, it's all shades of grey. That's how the military plans their missions and their doctrine, preparing for the unknown.
Do you really think a person being killed with a bayonet would resist less than a guy getting blow up by a tank. I'd say he would resist more because he knows I'm coming,no one wants cold steel in their bellies, the tank takes away his chance to resist and do any damage to us OR the civilian population.
Is it not just as deplorable to allow more soldiers to die when it could have been prevented.
We're NOT partaking in cannibalism, or rape, or pillaging. We're trying to do our jobs and SAVE lives. That's why we do what we do. Would you tell a mechanic how to fix an engine when you have no idea how to fix one. No you wouldn't, it's absurd. Leave the fighting and doctrine to the soldiers. Look at Iraq, it has taken time, but it's working. Be flexible, a no discrepency atmosphere does not breed success. You can't learn from your mistakes if you're not allowed to make any.
The suicide comment is just nonsense. Soldiers do commit suicide but you cannot quantify their reasons for doing this. Plus, the suicide rate within the military is not significantly different then their counterparts in the civilian world.
You need to do some research on tactics and LOGISTICS. A lot of what you are proposing is just not realistic.