There it is "Boots On The Ground In Iraq"

[Cross]

Ashton Carter: U.S. to Begin 'Direct Action on the Ground' in Iraq, Syria

A clueless Administration that seems not be able to make up it's mind on a strategy.

"This is combat and things are complicated," Carter said.

The "Boots" will do their job but it's not a winning strategy at this point. It's a recipe for a long bloody stalemate with inherent mission creep.

Ashton Carter: U.S. to Begin 'Direct Action on the Ground' in Iraq, Syria

 

[TheOldSchool]

Wow. When will we ever learn...

 

[williepete]

Obama will eventually learn about this from the newspapers.

 

[Cross]

It's a total coincidence that the big recent press release of the US Special Forces soldier killed was on a rescue mission...

 

[MisterBeale]

Wow. When will we ever learn...

If by "we" you mean average citizens, voters, etc., then it really doesn't matter. Average folks have no say in this, so it really doesn't matter.

If this whole policy was put to a vote, the American people would vote to get every last bit of military out of the middle east.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And progressive sheeple won't say a fucking peep

 

[MisterBeale]

And progressive sheeple won't say a fucking peep

Nor will the neo-cons once they have power.

 

[RoccoR]

Cross, et al,

It is rather complicated. And it is just rife with Politically Correct and Humanitarian Land Mines.

"This is combat and things are complicated," Carter said.

The "Boots" will do their job but it's not a winning strategy at this point. It's a recipe for a long bloody stalemate with inherent mission creep.

Ashton Carter: U.S. to Begin 'Direct Action on the Ground' in Iraq, Syria

(COMMENT)

Since the end of WWII, the underdogs and down trodden have gained a very formidable weapon. This weapon effectively prevents either combatant in any given struggle a recognizable decisive victory.

It is, Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL). The rework and reinterpretation allows an aggressor to transgress any boundary and when the opposing force applies a competitive edge --- the aggressor claims a violation of Customary IHL and petitions the UN to arrange a ceasefire. That will allow the aggressor to reconstitute its forces and solidify its position.

The goal of any military engagement, from the perspective at the highest level, is to inflict such harm and such damage that the horror of war is realized and the will to continue the struggle is broken.

If any nation or coalition is not ready to press the combat engagement forward to such a degree that the backbone of the opposing force is broken and the will of the opposing nation to pursue the engagement further is chocked off, then: the best that can be achieved is a "stalemate." A prefect example of this scenario is the Arab-Israeli Conflict, where the international bodies have complicated the effective suppression of the asymmetric combatant to such a degree, that the conflict can not come to a successful conclusion.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[TheOldSchool]

Wow. When will we ever learn...

If by "we" you mean average citizens, voters, etc., then it really doesn't matter. Average folks have no say in this, so it really doesn't matter.

If this whole policy was put to a vote, the American people would vote to get every last bit of military out of the middle east.

Sadly, I don't think that's true. There are many people in this country who think being able to beat their chest is worth the price of any number of our soldiers' lives.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Bahhhhhh.. Bahhhhhhhhh bahhhh says code pink

 

[TheOldSchool]

Cross, et al,

It is rather complicated. And it is just rife with Politically Correct and Humanitarian Land Mines.

"This is combat and things are complicated," Carter said.

The "Boots" will do their job but it's not a winning strategy at this point. It's a recipe for a long bloody stalemate with inherent mission creep.

Ashton Carter: U.S. to Begin 'Direct Action on the Ground' in Iraq, Syria

(COMMENT)

Since the end of WWII, the underdogs and down trodden have gained a very formidable weapon. This weapon effectively prevents either combatant in any given struggle a recognizable decisive victory.

It is, Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL). The rework and reinterpretation allows an aggressor to transgress and boundary and when the opposing force applies a competitive edge --- the aggressor claims a violation of Customary IHL and petitions the UN to arrange a ceasefire. That will allow the aggressor to reconstitute its forces and solidify its position.

The goal of any military engagement, from the perspective at the highest level, is to inflict such harm and such damage that the horror of war is realized and the will to continue the struggle is broken.

If any nation or coalition is not ready to press the combat engagement forward to such a degree that the backbone of the opposing force is broken and the will of the opposing nation to pursue the engagement further is chocked off, then: the best that cn be achieved is a "stalemate." A prefect example of this scenario is the Arab-Israeli Conflict, where the international bodies have complicated the effective suppression of the asymmetric combatant, that the conflict can not come to a successful conclusion.

Most Respectfully,
R

So we should unapolagetically wipe out civilians by the hundreds of thousands and wipe entire cities off the map? Yeah, that won't inspire billions of people to take up arms against us.

Good lord there are some stupid people in this country.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Cross, et al,

It is rather complicated. And it is just rife with Politically Correct and Humanitarian Land Mines.

"This is combat and things are complicated," Carter said.

The "Boots" will do their job but it's not a winning strategy at this point. It's a recipe for a long bloody stalemate with inherent mission creep.

Ashton Carter: U.S. to Begin 'Direct Action on the Ground' in Iraq, Syria

(COMMENT)

Since the end of WWII, the underdogs and down trodden have gained a very formidable weapon. This weapon effectively prevents either combatant in any given struggle a recognizable decisive victory.

It is, Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL). The rework and reinterpretation allows an aggressor to transgress and boundary and when the opposing force applies a competitive edge --- the aggressor claims a violation of Customary IHL and petitions the UN to arrange a ceasefire. That will allow the aggressor to reconstitute its forces and solidify its position.

The goal of any military engagement, from the perspective at the highest level, is to inflict such harm and such damage that the horror of war is realized and the will to continue the struggle is broken.

If any nation or coalition is not ready to press the combat engagement forward to such a degree that the backbone of the opposing force is broken and the will of the opposing nation to pursue the engagement further is chocked off, then: the best that cn be achieved is a "stalemate." A prefect example of this scenario is the Arab-Israeli Conflict, where the international bodies have complicated the effective suppression of the asymmetric combatant, that the conflict can not come to a successful conclusion.

Most Respectfully,
R

So we should unapolagetically wipe out civilians by the hundreds of thousands and wipe entire cities off the map? Yeah, that won't inspire billions of people to take up arms against us.

Good lord there are some stupid people in this country.

Yeah! How does a guy with a 109 IQ become "President" of Harvard Law Review?

 

[chao$]

Wow. When will we ever learn...

If by "we" you mean average citizens, voters, etc., then it really doesn't matter. Average folks have no say in this, so it really doesn't matter.

If this whole policy was put to a vote, the American people would vote to get every last bit of military out of the middle east.

Yes we do have the power, a bunch of college kids forced the war to end in Vietnam. But when these college kids graduated they landed good paying jobs with defense contractors and voted to run up the pentagon budget to $1 trillion a year so they could keep buying bigger houses in the burbs and new cars every 4 years. Now their grandkids are left to pay the bills and clean up the mess made by baby boomer greed and ignorance.

 

[RoccoR]

TheOldSchool, et al,

I don't advocate one position or another. But, conflict is a decision of last resort to start with.

So we should unapologetically wipe out civilians by the hundreds of thousands and wipe entire cities off the map? Yeah, that won't inspire billions of people to take up arms against us.

Good lord there are some stupid people in this country.

(COMMENT)

Currently there are 161 Rules that reflect the the prohibitions outlined in the Various codes and the principle articles in the International Criminal Code. No nation, to date, has actually managed to following them all; but, certainly some nations have done better than others.

Geneva Convention (I) on Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field,1949 and its commentary
13.08.1949

Geneva Convention (II) on Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked of Armed Forces at Sea, 1949 and its commentary
13.08.1949

Geneva Convention (III) on Prisoners of War, 1949 and its commentary
13.08.1949

Geneva Convention (IV) on Civilians, 1949 and its commentary
13.08.1949

Additional Protocol (I) to the Geneva Conventions, 1977 and its commentary
08.06.1977

Annex (I) AP (I), as amended in 1993 and its commentary
30.11.1993

Annex (I) AP (I), 1977 and its commentary
08.06.1977

Annex (II) AP (I), 1977 and its commentary
08.06.1977

Additional Protocol (II) to the Geneva Conventions, 1977 and its commentary
08.06.1977

Additional Protocol (III) to the Geneva Conventions, 2005 and its commentary
08.12.2005
​

Part of the decision model must discuss the risk assessment and the proportionality of losses your nation is going to absorb before it alters it goal, objectives and associated strategies. What are you willing to trade for the lives of your soldiers. Is it going to be a one for one exchange? (Rhetorical) Most probably not. If you have weapons that will guarantee victory but will inflict a disproportional number of hostile civilian casualties --- will you use it? (Again Rhetorical) Most Probably not. But, when discussion the decision to go to war, everything is on the table between these two extremes. Plus, how must pressure are you willing to place on your own domestic economy; but during the conflict and post-conflict.

If you are facing an adversary that will not implement Rule 23 (Location of Military Objectives outside Densely Populated Areas) and Rule 24 (Removal of Civilians and Civilian Objects from the Vicinity of Military Objective); then how may more of your casualties (or allied casualties) are you willing to sacrifice in order for achieving a higher confidence interval in the protection the civilians, of the hostile nation. And how do you justify that decision in the face of the domestic constituency? What would your constituency say if they knew that you sacrificed "X" number of your soldier, "Y" amount of material, and extend the conflict solely for the purpose of protection the citizenry of a hostile nation?

It is a very complex decision making model that ultimately impacts the conclusion as to whether or not a war is even political, economically, militarily and socially affordable. Remembering, that you will ultimately put a price tag on the lives of your soldiers, sailors and airmen (everything else can, at some point be replaced). Are you willing to go to war with an opponent that has already demonstrated that they will "use any and all means necessary" to oppose you and your forces?

Most Respectfully,
R