RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, wounds more than 30

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, wounds more than 30

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, wounds more than 30

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 4 [5]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, woun... - 9/7/2006 1:27:35 AM

Kedicat

Posts: 251
Joined: 3/13/2005
Status: offline

Some US military personnel are complaining in general about the poor command quality. Not only in firefights but every aspect of the US military. Civilian casualties are much higher than they need be. Coordination and even basic organization seem to be shakey. It could stem from the military operations being more political than militarily tactical. Confusion of the reasons leading to confusion of the actions.

Why are we here, and what the hell are we doing? Leads to sloppy work. Leads to useless death.

(in reply to MistressWolfen)

Profile

Post #: 81

RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, woun... - 9/7/2006 4:42:08 AM

KenDckey

Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kedicat

Some US military personnel are complaining in general about the poor command quality. Not only in firefights but every aspect of the US military. Civilian casualties are much higher than they need be. Coordination and even basic organization seem to be shakey. It could stem from the military operations being more political than militarily tactical. Confusion of the reasons leading to confusion of the actions.

Why are we here, and what the hell are we doing? Leads to sloppy work. Leads to useless death.

This is quite true. there will always be SOME regardless of whose army.

(in reply to Kedicat)

Profile

Post #: 82

RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, woun... - 9/7/2006 6:50:53 AM

CrappyDom

Posts: 1883
Joined: 4/11/2006
From: Sacramento
Status: offline

Kedicat,

The problems we are facing in Iraq are almost all due to incompetence at the top and the lack of understanding of guerilla warfare at a rather surprising level in some of the high ranking officers.

(in reply to Kedicat)

Profile

Post #: 83

RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, woun... - 9/7/2006 7:05:11 AM

MistressWolfen

Posts: 578
Joined: 6/20/2005
Status: offline

Yes, what you have pointed out appears to be the sad truth.

_____________________________

Quoth the raven

(in reply to Kedicat)

Profile

Post #: 84

RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, woun... - 9/7/2006 7:24:48 AM

KenDckey

Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom

Kedicat,

The problems we are facing in Iraq are almost all due to incompetence at the top and the lack of understanding of guerilla warfare at a rather surprising level in some of the high ranking officers.

Yeah that is probably true to some extent.

Another issue is how do you combat a thousand or ten thousand independently run (although they have some central contact) groups. The violence today is happening heather and yon. they all have short term aims and goals - mostly to spread fear for some purpose.

Take for example the Germans following WWII. They continued to fight as gurellas or patriots or whatever you want to call them. Most of the fighting was directed against their own citizens. It stopped when the citizens themselves put a stop to it. Unfortunately, the same may have to happen in Iraq. I hope not.

(in reply to CrappyDom)

Profile

Post #: 85

RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, woun... - 9/7/2006 7:28:39 AM

philosophy

Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline

"It stopped when the citizens themselves put a stop to it. Unfortunately, the same may have to happen in Iraq. I hope not."

......has there ever been a case where it wasn't ultimately the locals that stopped a guerilla war? Has anyone ever beaten a guerilla army? If so, how did they do it?

(i'm not a military historian, these are not rhetorical questions)

(in reply to KenDckey)

Profile

Post #: 86

RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, woun... - 9/7/2006 10:05:42 AM

KenDckey

Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

"It stopped when the citizens themselves put a stop to it. Unfortunately, the same may have to happen in Iraq. I hope not."

......has there ever been a case where it wasn't ultimately the locals that stopped a guerilla war? Has anyone ever beaten a guerilla army? If so, how did they do it?

(i'm not a military historian, these are not rhetorical questions)

I am not a military historian either, just like military history. The only case that I can think of was where the Roman Legions defeated the Jews at Masada. But that is still controversial.

The US also defeated the American Indians which were basicly non-traditionally armies but it too how long? From 1492 until the early 1900's and I am not so sure that they were really defeated. There is even one tribe that has a diplomatic mission to the holy see.

(in reply to philosophy)

Profile

Post #: 87

RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, woun... - 9/7/2006 10:10:30 AM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

I guess the British in Malaya won guerillas with a mixture of seek out and kill and winning the hearts and minds of the population.

(in reply to philosophy)

Profile

Post #: 88

RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, woun... - 9/7/2006 10:13:44 AM

KenDckey

Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline

I don't know. Like I said I am not a military Historian just like military history

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Profile

Post #: 89

RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, woun... - 9/7/2006 10:21:26 AM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

The Mayalan emergency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_Emergency

Hmm The British try not to call wars wars for some reason.

(in reply to KenDckey)

Profile

Post #: 90

RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, woun... - 9/7/2006 10:35:18 AM

TheTopHat

Posts: 39
Joined: 3/12/2006
Status: offline

If anyone here is actually interested in the aspects of guerilla warfare and how it has evolved and its effect today may I suggest picking up "War in the Shadows: A brief history of Guerilla Warfare" (I think it is by Robert Asprey). If there were just a single work I had to read to get properly acquainted with the topic this would be it.

Also someone made reference to Germany during the occupation post world war 2. There is one crucial, huge difference between the occupation of Germany (and Japan)as opposed to that of Iraq. Ironically though much more damage and destruction were done during war time, at the end of hostilities the allies had the good sense, in WW 2, to try and maintain order and rebuild. Yes there were Nazi's in the police force, civil service and everywhere else but nobody was dumb enough to disband entire services until they were ready to replace them. In Iraq post invasion the first thing that was done is everyone was sent home, and then occupation forces were suprised that having disbanded everything that there was chaos and looting, riots, power failures etc. and nobody available to help them.

(in reply to KenDckey)

Profile

Post #: 91

RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, woun... - 9/7/2006 10:46:51 AM

KenDckey

Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline

rofl yeah people that dont learn from history are doomed to repeat it

(in reply to TheTopHat)

Profile

Post #: 92

RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, woun... - 9/7/2006 10:57:24 AM

CrappyDom

Posts: 1883
Joined: 4/11/2006
From: Sacramento
Status: offline

dammit, I couldn't get the docs to download and now everyone beat me...here is the post I was trying to put together

Guerilla wars have been put down and the tactics are not obscure but they require that people put aside ideological blinders, something this administration finds impossible. Not to be flippant but take almost everything we have done, do the opposite and you would be doing the accepted counterinsurgency tactic.

First off, guerillas rarely "win" by defeating a sitting government or even an occupyer, it is the government/occupyer that loses them.

Guerilla wars have three basic phases

small group forms with the intent of overthrowing government
group does small hit and run attacks with the intention of getting the government to overreact and piss of the population
insurgents operate in the open and engage the military of the government in ground combat.

Greece
Malaysia
Iraq - under the Brits

The Brits put down an insurgency in Malaysia in the 1950s. They did it by having small teams in the field shoot anyone with a gun. They left the body and the gun where it fell and after there was a small pile of bodies the bad guys stopped picking up the guns. This tactic also prevents the killing of civilians, something the guerillas beg for the governement to do. Which is why as a guerilla you would put a single sniper at the top af a hospital and HOPE that the government blows up the hospital to kill the sniper, instantly everyone in the hospital is on your side.

Not to be flippant but take almost everything we have done, do the opposite and you would be doing the accepted counterinsurgency tactic.

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/biblio/CAC_counterinsurgency.asp

(in reply to KenDckey)

Profile

Post #: 93

RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, woun... - 9/7/2006 11:19:31 AM

KenDckey

Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom

dammit, I couldn't get the docs to download and now everyone beat me...here is the post I was trying to put together

Guerilla wars have been put down and the tactics are not obscure but they require that people put aside ideological blinders, something this administration finds impossible. Not to be flippant but take almost everything we have done, do the opposite and you would be doing the accepted counterinsurgency tactic.

First off, guerillas rarely "win" by defeating a sitting government or even an occupyer, it is the government/occupyer that loses them.

Guerilla wars have three basic phases

small group forms with the intent of overthrowing government
group does small hit and run attacks with the intention of getting the government to overreact and piss of the population
insurgents operate in the open and engage the military of the government in ground combat.

Greece
Malaysia
Iraq - under the Brits

The Brits put down an insurgency in Malaysia in the 1950s. They did it by having small teams in the field shoot anyone with a gun. They left the body and the gun where it fell and after there was a small pile of bodies the bad guys stopped picking up the guns. This tactic also prevents the killing of civilians, something the guerillas beg for the governement to do. Which is why as a guerilla you would put a single sniper at the top af a hospital and HOPE that the government blows up the hospital to kill the sniper, instantly everyone in the hospital is on your side.

Not to be flippant but take almost everything we have done, do the opposite and you would be doing the accepted counterinsurgency tactic.

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/biblio/CAC_counterinsurgency.asp

Yeah that works. Actually I think that we should send over all the cops. They are more effective than a military force. Military is like trained to search and destroy (usually on a grand scale). Cops go in and figure things out then go after the one or two or ten and get them. Each has their place. Soldiers from any country don't make good occupiers. they don't have the training and resources to do the job right.

(in reply to CrappyDom)

Profile

Post #: 94