Tactics forum

[MontyB]

Honestly, I'm inclined to let them. Seems we are damned either way, may as well be their blood and booty that is wasted.

Although I agree we haven't helped the middle east, I'm of the belief that the bloodbath was a long time coming. Islam needs an age of reason before they can really move forward into the modern world much like Christianity did. That is always going to be a bloody transition. We can't fix that for them, they need to wrestle through it themselves and we need to try to contain any collateral that will happen as a result.

I've noticed Americans are tired of trying to keep things stable. World police is something we have never really embraced. It was a reluctant role that was assumed because the alternatives were bad, badder, and baddest. I think my generation is seeing the writing on the wall and we are very much willing to hand over the torch because it simply isn't worth it anymore to do this. Again, if we do nothing we are bastards, if we do something, we are bastards with money and lives spent. So what is the point? I say let the Chinese, Russians, and Europe figure it out...or at least try to...I'm positive after they all spend hundreds of billions and thousands of lives they will reach similar conclusions I have...this is a Muslim problem that needs to be fixed by Muslims.

I am not sure I agree, the constant propping up of dodgy dictators and the constant meddling in the regions affairs has ensured that the region can not stabilise, to argue that this is a Muslim problem to fix ignores the fact that for the last 100 years the western world has gone out of its way to guarantee that it will never be fixed.

As for handing over the torch isnt that kind of saying "We came, we saw, we f**ked it up for everyone, were outta here"?

 

[brinktk]

I am not sure I agree, the constant propping up of dodgy dictators and the constant meddling in the regions affairs has ensured that the region can not stabilise, to argue that this is a Muslim problem to fix ignores the fact that for the last 100 years the western world has gone out of its way to guarantee that it will never be fixed.

As for handing over the torch isnt that kind of saying "We came, we saw, we f**ked it up for everyone, were outta here"?

Yes, out of political and economic interest, the West, to include the US, has meddled in the affairs of the Middle East. For the US part, the short sightedness of cold war policy to counter the Soviet Union has left us with quite a mess hasn't it? Look where that has got us.

To think that the people there weren't still living under dictator type rule 100+ years ago is quite a revision to history. The only difference is the elites in the Middle East were exploiting their people and not the West. There is a reason why some tribal/religious hatreds over there run far deeper than anything the West could possibly do. Things were not peas and carrots under Ottoman rule and the fractures within that civilization were readily apparent by the end of the 19th century. Many of the fault lines back then run eerily close to the fault lines we are seeing today. That is why I think this was a long time coming. To take their agency out of the picture completely and rest the blame squarely on the shoulders of the West is very much a revision to history.

The Middle East largely doesn't want our help and unless we are lining their pockets or arming them they simply don't want it. That's it. If other countries want to try to fix this problem then they are going to run into the same problems we did because they don't fundamentally understand the culture, region, or history of the area.

What would you have the US do? You said earlier you thought the Chinese or Russians should get involved to be a counter balance to us. Isn't that setting up for the propping of dodgy dictators all over again? My suggestion was to leave them to figure this stuff out altogether, they don't want our help, and our kind of help has only worsened the problems....I don't understand why that is such a bad thing.

 

[MontyB]

Yes, out of political and economic interest, the West, to include the US, has meddled in the affairs of the Middle East. For the US part, the short sightedness of cold war policy to counter the Soviet Union has left us with quite a mess hasn't it? Look where that has got us.

Where has it got us?
We are now stuck in a cycle of needing a bad guy to justify our own actions and if it isn't the Russians then it will be the Chinese and if we can't manipulate the people into disliking the Chinese we go for anyone that does not buckle under to "capitalism" for want of a better excuse and that will vary from Islam and drugs to Liberals it does not seem to matter as long as it is someone to fight a "war" against.

To think that the people there weren't still living under dictator type rule 100+ years ago is quite a revision to history. The only difference is the elites in the Middle East were exploiting their people and not the West. There is a reason why some tribal/religious hatreds over there run far deeper than anything the West could possibly do. Things were not peas and carrots under Ottoman rule and the fractures within that civilization were readily apparent by the end of the 19th century. Many of the fault lines back then run eerily close to the fault lines we are seeing today. That is why I think this was a long time coming. To take their agency out of the picture completely and rest the blame squarely on the shoulders of the West is very much a revision to history.

All true however we never had anywhere near the issues until we started trying to impose western society onto a people that obviously have one they are happy to live within. It really started with Britain and France drawing arbitary lines on a map to create the Middle East as we know it now and it has gone down hill ever since.

The Middle East largely doesn't want our help and unless we are lining their pockets or arming them they simply don't want it. That's it. If other countries want to try to fix this problem then they are going to run into the same problems we did because they don't fundamentally understand the culture, region, or history of the area.

Of course this is the case but our own ideologies wont allow us to leave them alone, if we arent trying to convert them to Christianity were trying to impose western values on them and we do it in an incredibly condescending way.

What would you have the US do? You said earlier you thought the Chinese or Russians should get involved to be a counter balance to us. Isn't that setting up for the propping of dodgy dictators all over again? My suggestion was to leave them to figure this stuff out altogether, they don't want our help, and our kind of help has only worsened the problems....I don't understand why that is such a bad thing.

It is but but I would sooner have three groups counter balancing each other than the single agent of chaos we have now.

As for what I would have the US do, I have held off answering it as I figured I would ask a couple of the Afghans we have at work their opinion and the answer was interesting as they agreed that you should be the country you claim to be rather than the one you are.
This was followed with stories of what is a really just a spiders web of balls ups and deciet and a break down of "good" Taliban and "bad" Taliban and the support and instalation of pro-US leaders rather than those the Afghans would prefer.

 

[JOC]

Man for a discussion on military tactics which for the most part one has to belong to that section of the military that is privy to tactical training to know anything about and which are often secure in nature. (Of which my military training as a missile mechanic did not put me at such a high level position). Has this conversation strayed.

 

[MontyB]

Man for a discussion on military tactics which for the most part one has to belong to that section of the military that is privy to tactical training to know anything about and which are often secure in nature. (Of which my military training as a missile mechanic did not put me at such a high level position). Has this conversation strayed.

Yep but it is an interesting converstaion if nothing else.

 

[Remington 1858]

Okay, let's go with something really basic; the infantry concept of fire and movement. It's been around since at least the American Civil War. It was intended to replace the linear tactics in use early in the C.W and which had caused enormous casualties. Rather than everyone standing up, advancing in a line formation to overwhelm a defender, the concept of fire and movement is intended to overwhelm a defense by splitting the defenders attention.
In a nutshell, one part of the attacking infantry unit becomes the base of fire. They lay down heavy fire on the enemy position, pinning them in place and suppressing their fire.
The second part of the infantry unit, the movement element moves around the flank or rear of the enemy location, taking advantage of cover, and attacks the enemy in the flank or rear. The movement element can assault by fire, in other words shooting into the enemy position or it can assault using close combat.
Close combat means, grenades, rifle butts, bayonets, and other nasty things.
This technique often works and was brought to perfection by the WWII German infantry squad. Each German infantry squad was equipped with a general purpose, belt-fed machinegun. Either an MG-34 or later an MG-42. The gun could either be the base of fire, as was the usual case or it could be brought into position to assault by fire.
But,there were plenty of places during WWII where fire and movement didn't work.
One example was Buna-Bouganville. The Japanese were occupying the only high ground, they had had plenty of time to dig in and conceal their positions. They had read the same book about fire and movement and they covered every single avenue of approach with mines or concealed machineguns. You also had an enemy who was not afraid to die. In fact, was eager to die for the Emperor.
The only answer then was tanks, flamethrowers, demolition charges and being prepared to take casualties.

 

[Tuan]

Tactics/Techniques can often be considered classified information in many nations, so it's quite hard to discuss that without revealing/spreading info that shouldn't be available online..
"those who knows does not tell, and those who tells does not know"...

Agree with you! The wise man keeps silent and the more he kept silent the more he heard!!! You don't kiss and tell, no true professional talks, (except beating around the bush ) because after having spoken, he becomes a non-entity.