Is it time to pull out?

[jasendorf]

So you agree with the administration's handling of the Iraqi war. :shocked: I truly misunderstood your position.

With the exception of the fact that it won't fund it properly due to partisan politics... I'm 100% behind it when it comes to tactics and objectives.

 

[jasendorf]

This isn't about this thread - this is about you in general...

So, in other words... you simply flipped your lid and just went off accusing me of things which aren't true, on this thread or any thread...

 

[dmp]

So, in other words... you simply flipped your lid and just went off accusing me of things which aren't true, on this thread or any thread...

My lid is not flipped. My lid is annoyed at people who whine and bitch but offer NO solutions. It's people like you who complain because he's GWB, not because he's done anything 'wrong'.

 

[jasendorf]

My lid is not flipped. My lid is annoyed at people who whine and bitch but offer NO solutions. It's people like you who complain because he's GWB, not because he's done anything 'wrong'.

I believe President Bush is playing politics with the funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is true. And, I did offer a solution... put an estimated amount in the annual budget for the wars we are fighting instead of continually, year-after-year, throwing emergency spending bills at the country. You think that is too much to ask? I don't.

 

[Gunny]

But will accidently killing innocent civilians due to a change of rules which allow him more leeway in fighting terrorists help him win and help him come home alive?

Most definitely. The downside of it is it won't do a damned thing for PR -- and this is a PR campaign. "Win the hearts and minds ..."
There's a point of diminishing returns when fighting an insurgency when it comes to brutalism. And, yes, the guy fighting over there doesn't have the luxury I have to spend time philosophizing about it. At what point is the balance even between killing terrorists and the colateral damage of accidently killing civilians? We can look at previous wars including our own Revolution for instances where excessively brutality (for lack of a better word) caused a fervor unteneble by the those who were brutal. Heck, Tarleton's main disaster was against soldiers and he still raised such a ruckus that we were able to raise three armies to fight Cornwallis in the south.

I don't where the point of diminishing returns is reached. Honestly, I don't know. But, somebody should probably figure it out... soon.

There is not a point of diminishing return within the enemy's camp when you get his attention. So far, we don't. They don't care if they die. The ONLY way to remove the threat of people who are not afraid to die, and in fact, consider it "glorious" to die murdering infidels, is to kill each and every one of them. Otherwise, they will ALWAYS be a threat.

 

[Gunny]

How is Congress preventing this? What tactics that you would like to see are they not being allowed to use? I guess I'm still a bit fuzzy on precisely what you want the military to be allowed to do that it can't right now.

I'm not being facetious here... and, I'm not trying to spill our other conversation into here. I'm truly interested.

I think I can safely assume you ARE NOT talking about tactics like blowing up school buses with IEDs or cutting the heads of non-combatants off (which are the tactics of scumbag terrorists)... so you must be talking about something else that I just don't know about. I'd like to learn.

I don't recall stating that Congress was preventing anything. I said politics is. Portraying ourselves as the "good guys" and "winning the hearts and minds" doesn't really include hunter-killer teams of Green Berets, Marine Recon, and/or Navy Seals running clandestine operations with impunity in the countryside.

What I'm talking about is a conventional, standing army in a guerilla war is nothing more than a target. The most successful counter-insurgency in Vietnam was conducted by the Marines. They lived with the villagers in small teams. They shared their lives, dangers, all that good stuff, and were far more accepted than a reinforced rifle company kicking everyone out of the village and torching because they suspected the VC were there.

And I am NOT trying to rehash the Vietnam War, just present an example fo something that worked, but was ignored by the beancounters.

 

[jasendorf]

I don't recall stating that Congress was preventing anything. I said politics is. Portraying ourselves as the "good guys" and "winning the hearts and minds" doesn't really include hunter-killer teams of Green Berets, Marine Recon, and/or Navy Seals running clandestine operations with impunity in the countryside.

What I'm talking about is a conventional, standing army in a guerilla war is nothing more than a target. The most successful counter-insurgency in Vietnam was conducted by the Marines. They lived with the villagers in small teams. They shared their lives, dangers, all that good stuff, and were far more accepted than a reinforced rifle company kicking everyone out of the village and torching because they suspected the VC were there.

And I am NOT trying to rehash the Vietnam War, just present an example fo something that worked, but was ignored by the beancounters.

I'm in full agreement with you. Having small force operations to kill terrorists where they hide and breed is definitely something we should be doing. I seriously wasn't attempting to change what you said or meant by politics.

If Gunny's explanation is what we are talking about by "taking off the kid gloves"... I'm all for it.