Fighting on the enemies terms

JOC said:
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?
Click to expand...
I agree, and to answer: a paert of it came to be through abortion clinics being attacked in Sweden.
This brought the conversation to abortion.
I kind of like the side track.

I3BrigPvSk said:
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
Click to expand...
Someone put it quite good: Fighting on the enemies terms.
Now, they "drive" us to a lenghtened battle, knowing we simply cannot hold on to that.
The cost is too immense.
Which is why I think that we should play darts with nukes (hyperbole here, to make a point).
We should amass all military personel everywhere and do a door to door search.
With enough people it will take aboutish 2 months, but then we got them ALL!
Also, we still allow money flow to ISIS and the likes, we should deprive them from ALL resources, both financial as material.
They sell oil? Kill oil wells!
They manage to buy weapons? Kill weapon transactions!
They manage to do whatever? Act armed with a minigun (Hyperbole)!
IMHO, this is the only way to act.
Thoughts?
 
1st Lt. Kirzillian said:
I agree, and to answer: a paert of it came to be through abortion clinics being attacked in Sweden.
This brought the conversation to abortion.
I kind of like the side track.

Someone put it quite good: Fighting on the enemies terms.
Now, they "drive" us to a lenghtened battle, knowing we simply cannot hold on to that.
The cost is too immense.
Which is why I think that we should play darts with nukes (hyperbole here, to make a point).
We should amass all military personel everywhere and do a door to door search.
With enough people it will take aboutish 2 months, but then we got them ALL!
Also, we still allow money flow to ISIS and the likes, we should deprive them from ALL resources, both financial as material.
They sell oil? Kill oil wells!
They manage to buy weapons? Kill weapon transactions!
They manage to do whatever? Act armed with a minigun (Hyperbole)!
IMHO, this is the only way to act.
Thoughts?
Click to expand...

So you somehow manage to mobilize the millions of soldiers to kick in the doors....now what? You still don't know who is bad and who is good. How do you set up the logistics to supply all these guys? What happens when these soldiers leave and there is noone there to police the local situation? You will never find all of them and you will certainly create more of them. If we are going to be over there, that approach is a terrible idea.

So we shouldn't teach our children to abort fetuses because life has value....of course unless we invade a country and a brown person looks suspicious and then it is "law darts with nukes"...how does one reconcile that response? Either life is valuable across the board and we have to treat it as such, or we let people make their own choices and then have them live with the consequences.

Those same civilians that are "weaponized" would be massacred if they didn't have this "weaponization". Or they would be picking up arms and using them against us because the other side killed the village elder and his family to make an example of them so the rest of the village will play ball.

Iraq is in the predicament it is in because of the instability the Syrian civil war provided and because the Maliki government (shia) marginalized the very tribes we managed to bring to our side back in 06-07(sunni) and then actively disarmed them after we left. So when ISIS (sunni)comes to prominence in Syria and crosses over into Iraq, which areas are overrun? The Sunni areas, that are marginalized, unarmed, and pissed off.... Coincidence? I think not...
 
brinktk said:
So you somehow manage to mobilize the millions of soldiers to kick in the doors....now what? You still don't know who is bad and who is good. How do you set up the logistics to supply all these guys? What happens when these soldiers leave and there is noone there to police the local situation? You will never find all of them and you will certainly create more of them. If we are going to be over there, that approach is a terrible idea.

So we shouldn't teach our children to abort fetuses because life has value....of course unless we invade a country and a brown person looks suspicious and then it is "law darts with nukes"...how does one reconcile that response? Either life is valuable across the board and we have to treat it as such, or we let people make their own choices and then have them live with the consequences.

Those same civilians that are "weaponized" would be massacred if they didn't have this "weaponization". Or they would be picking up arms and using them against us because the other side killed the village elder and his family to make an example of them so the rest of the village will play ball.

Iraq is in the predicament it is in because of the instability the Syrian civil war provided and because the Maliki government (shia) marginalized the very tribes we managed to bring to our side back in 06-07(sunni) and then actively disarmed them after we left. So when ISIS (sunni)comes to prominence in Syria and crosses over into Iraq, which areas are overrun? The Sunni areas, that are marginalized, unarmed, and pissed off.... Coincidence? I think not...
Click to expand...



The mobilization of millions was the solution to enemies like Germany and Japan who had large set piece armies and fought large conventional battles. The enemy was obvious and in your face.
Although a certain minimum amount of soldiers are needed in these later wars I believe you have a point that you have to make peace with the people and or have them make peace with themselves to a large degree. It’s certainly possible look at Tunisia and Turkey as countries with strong democracies in the neighborhood.
The Maliki government only alienated the Sunni’s by putting his cronies in office both politically and militarily setting up Iraq for the present disaster.
Treating all colors, races, sexes and ethnic groups with equality is paramount. I’ll say I seen progress in the US in my lifetime towards this end. I can still remember when blacks, foreigners and women were sometimes treated as 2nd class citizens.
 
brinktk said:
So you somehow manage to mobilize the millions of soldiers to kick in the doors....now what? You still don't know who is bad and who is good. How do you set up the logistics to supply all these guys? What happens when these soldiers leave and there is noone there to police the local situation? You will never find all of them and you will certainly create more of them. If we are going to be over there, that approach is a terrible idea.
Click to expand...
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.

brinktk said:
So we shouldn't teach our children to abort fetuses because life has value....of course unless we invade a country and a brown person looks suspicious and then it is "law darts with nukes"...how does one reconcile that response? Either life is valuable across the board and we have to treat it as such, or we let people make their own choices and then have them live with the consequences.
Click to expand...
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!!!

brinktk said:
Those same civilians that are "weaponized" would be massacred if they didn't have this "weaponization". Or they would be picking up arms and using them against us because the other side killed the village elder and his family to make an example of them so the rest of the village will play ball.
Click to expand...
But they will be massacred FOR SURE when weaponized.
Since, when wearing arms, they are considered a threat, not when they are not armed.

brinktk said:
Iraq is in the predicament it is in because of the instability the Syrian civil war provided and because the Maliki government (shia) marginalized the very tribes we managed to bring to our side back in 06-07(sunni) and then actively disarmed them after we left. So when ISIS (sunni)comes to prominence in Syria and crosses over into Iraq, which areas are overrun? The Sunni areas, that are marginalized, unarmed, and pissed off.... Coincidence? I think not...
Click to expand...
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.

JOC said:
The mobilization of millions was the solution to enemies like Germany and Japan who had large set piece armies and fought large conventional battles. The enemy was obvious and in your face.
Although a certain minimum amount of soldiers are needed in these later wars I believe you have a point that you have to make peace with the people and or have them make peace with themselves to a large degree. It’s certainly possible look at Tunisia and Turkey as countries with strong democracies in the neighborhood.
Click to expand...

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.
JOC said:
The Maliki government only alienated the Sunni’s by putting his cronies in office both politically and militarily setting up Iraq for the present disaster.
Click to expand...
JOC said:
Treating all colors, races, sexes and ethnic groups with equality is paramount. I’ll say I seen progress in the US in my lifetime towards this end. I can still remember when blacks, foreigners and women were sometimes treated as 2nd class citizens.
Click to expand...
Saddest part is, that the governments foreseen this, and let it happen.
Smart...
 
To read your responses in combating insurgents leads me to doubt whether you are an officer or soldier at all.

You lack a fundamental understanding of the methods that both brinktk and I have worked with, respectively in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Not even someone in basic training would suggest something as utopian as this:

"We should amass all military personel everywhere and do a door to door search.
With enough people it will take aboutish 2 months, but then we got them ALL!"
 
Both Iraq and Afghanistan are beyond my service.
I was dropped in Africa, where conditions were quite different, but nonetheless equally, if not more brutal.
When folks send in a 6 year girl with a grenade...
Just to mention one thing.

I am slightly baffled by the fact that you do not see the effectiveness of a mass strike.
It has been bloody effective in quite a few wars.

You CANNOT disagree that our current assault system is totally ineffective, right?
 
1st Lt. Kirzillian said:
Both Iraq and Afghanistan are beyond my service.
I was dropped in Africa, where conditions were quite different, but nonetheless equally, if not more brutal.
When folks send in a 6 year girl with a grenade...
Just to mention one thing.

I am slightly baffled by the fact that you do not see the effectiveness of a mass strike.
It has been bloody effective in quite a few wars.

You CANNOT disagree that our current assault system is totally ineffective, right?
Click to expand...

Maybe because the symmetric war approach doesn't work on asymmetric wars.
 
Aye.

Now, the Germans understood the effectiveness of their Blitzkrieg.
Why NOT try it?
As it goes now, it will end badly, both financial and resource-wise.
We simply cannot keep our current attack form up.
What after that?

Basically, we lost the wars before they even begun, by playing on the enemies terms...
Time to use different methods.
 
1st Lt. Kirzillian said:
Aye.

Now, the Germans understood the effectiveness of their Blitzkrieg.
Why NOT try it?
As it goes now, it will end badly, both financial and resource-wise.
We simply cannot keep our current attack form up.
What after that?

Basically, we lost the wars before they even begun, by playing on the enemies terms...
Time to use different methods.
Click to expand...

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
 
Please enlighten me.
How are conditions different.

If you're a Belgian para-commando officer, you would be trained in this kind of combat and understand its potential.
 
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?

Kesse81 said:
Please enlighten me.
How are conditions different.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
1st Lt. Kirzillian said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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
 
Kesse81 said:
Depends on what burns. A backdraft can occur.
Click to expand...

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.
 
1st Lt. Kirzillian said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top