no devils left in hell

[Nanker]

I know! Let's use the Buffet Rule windfall tax revenue to give grants to some companies in Greece to build automatic weapons, ammunition, RPGs, land mines, and grenades - you know - nothing too serious like nerve gas or biologics. Then when they've stockpiled enough we can give more of the windfall Buffet Rule money to insurgents around the world - you know - like the IRA, the Palestinians, the Muslim Brotherhood, Iranian dissidents, and let's not forget our newest subjugated downtrodden oppressed special interest group - the Syrian insurgents! We could give them a boatload of free money and Wow! Wow! just sit back and watch them grow their own democracy.

 

I'm going to get my popcorn ready.

[Adam]

profound,.and you, are you in support of helping the majority of syrians?...i'm pleased to see mccain support arming the rebels. annan has tried and failed. force appears necessary. besides your above brilliant insight, any other gems? what do you foresee happening? or do you just not care?

What is happening in Syria makes me sick. King Asaad is horrible and an absolute butcher. The problem is, if we go in and remove him, who takes his place- it may be him again, or worse. It is a catch 22

[meazza]

What is happening in Syria makes me sick. King Asaad is horrible and an absolute butcher. The problem is, if we go in and remove him, who takes his place- it may be him again, or worse. It is a catch 22

 

The always moderate Adam

[Adam]

The always moderate Adam

Well seriously- if they replace him and we don't stay there, what do you think will replace him? Someone just as oppressive or worse.

[meazza]

Well seriously- if they replace him and we don't stay there, what do you think will replace him? Someone just as oppressive or worse.

 

I volunteer. I look Arab so I fit the part.

[OCinBuffalo]

What is happening in Syria makes me sick. King Asaad is horrible and an absolute butcher. The problem is, if we go in and remove him, who takes his place- it may be him again, or worse. It is a catch 22

Yeah....but normally that depends on the next guy being worse, right? An argument can be made that the current guy:

1. Who supports terror

2. Has chemical/bio weapons

3. Is a surrogate of Iran

4. Is killing his own people indiscriminately

pretty much means the next guy can't be worse.

[birdog1960]

some relatively good news. will see how assad responds to demonstrations tomorrow. cameron's quote at the end of this link all but rules out military intervention from europe.

[Jauronimo]

Yeah....but normally that depends on the next guy being worse, right? An argument can be made that the current guy:

1. Who supports terror

2. Has chemical/bio weapons

3. Is a surrogate of Iran

4. Is killing his own people indiscriminately

pretty much means the next guy can't be worse.

Sounds an awful lot like Saddam or well, any other dictator in the region. Remember Uday and Qusay's extra curricular activities? Don't ever think it can't get worse in the Middle East.

[Adam]

Sounds an awful lot like Saddam or well, any other dictator in the region. Remember Uday and Qusay's extra curricular activities? Don't ever think it can't get worse in the Middle East.

+1 on this. It is more than horrifying enough. I am hoping they get rid of King Asaad, and I hope they find better. It always can get worse.

[birdog1960]

Difficult to be brief when you have so much to learn. First, does Fast and Furious sound familiar to you? Think.

 

I see you have given up on the "Germany will take care of this because they are more 'moral and compassionate'" plan. So there is hope for you, huh?

 

Anyway, let's assume your plan, and we pump more weapons in. Then what? China, Russia, and Iran will reciprocate. Escalation. Then, we go from things being fought at the squad level, to major engagements. That's pure terror for both sides. And, it has nothing to do with greed, or Machiavelli. It has to do with evil people seeking power, and us preventing it. It's far past time you accepted that reality.

 

You want to add weapons, but you are ignorant of what that does, and have no contingency for when it goes bad(<--biggest sin of the Bush admin). Here's how you and George W Bush are the same: both of you think it's possible to fight a war on the cheap, him in terms of money, you in terms of commitment to victory.

 

The upside of deploying our guys instead: We keep our weapons, we have disciplined commanders and troops which means 95% of time they won't be misused, and when it's over, we either take them back with us, or we destroy them. Nobody calls in artillery on a school for revenge, etc.

 

Also, what happens if these weapons are turned on Israel, or Turkey for that matter? Now civil unrest/war and small arms conflict has turned into full scale regional war, because your weapons are there to conduct it. Syria is already shooting at refugees over the border in Turkey as I write this. How much longer do you think Turkey is going to stand for that? But, you think that "alls we have to do is give em weapons"? You want us to fight a war by proxy with no way to control what happens to the weapons we provide after we give them up?

 

Again, I ask...does Fast and Furious sound familiar to you? Man, it's a good thing we don't have far-left people in the WH....oh, wait.

 

Why do I feel like I'm writing a "Now do you get why your Iraq War arguments were retarded" essay? My only hope is that you take what I write here and share it with the rest of the "understanding and being realistic about war"-challenged community. Perhaps you could even "raise awareness" about Donald Rumsfeld making an accurate statement.

 

Listen to yourself. You've stated it. Think like a doctor, doctor. Doing more harm than good is the most likely outcome of your plan(as it is with most liberal plans), because it's based on emotion. Do you just give the immune system more weapons because "something has to be done right now", and hope it works, without regard to the consequences for the liver, kidneys, etc.? (BTW, I have no idea if that's right, I got it from House, The difference is: I don't go wading into medical arguments like I know WTF I am talking about, and, my knowledge base WRT war doesn't come largely from watching MASH)

 

You want to do something? Then the something is bring in our troops, get out of the way, and let them win. Yes civilians will be killed. Grow up and deal. Yes, terrible, unspeakable horror will occur. That's what happens in war. Grow up and deal. Cut domestic spending to pay for it, raise taxes, whatever, I don't care. I do care that we either fully commit to victory, or fully commit to staying home.

 

The real question: how much of your Medicare reimbursement are you willing to give up to see this injustice dealt with properly? Because that's where we are now. Insistence on ridiculous spending over the last 50 years has put us in that "one or the other" situation. And, even more ridiculous spending in Europe has put them in "do neither" mode.

 

But, that's only because the world doesn't need war, or warriors, anymore, instead it needs hand-outs, right? Is this the "moral and compassionate" wisdom us rednecks haven't learned from Europe/Canada yet? When is the right time for us to:

demand that the 500 million people of the EU "pay their fair share" when it comes to keeping the bad guys in check?

demand that the nonsense brokers in the EU STFU rather than complain about how we go about doing what they refuse/can't afford to provide for themselves?

 

When is it time for us to call Bullschit on European thinking in general? Isn't that what this country was fundamentally founded on?

ok oc, i actually carefully read this one and it makes a lot of sense....even the immunology analogy. i accept that arming the insurgents isn't a perfect answer. yeah, libya hasn't worked out so well. but as you stated, assad having these weapons isn't a better bargain. military strategy is as foreign to me as mongolia and i'm way out of my area of expertise (but obama does have experts counseling him). it's not like we haven't fought proxy wars before in far flung lands (and it's not turned out well). i don't know the answer. i don't think a 3rd active US war is it. i suspect our leaders are in the same boat and wait uncomfortably hoping to convince russia and china to act like decent humans (longshot, at best). i do accept that their are evil, power hungry sociopaths that run things in some places in the world and that some times they need to be violently rendered ineffective. given all that, what would you do?

[OCinBuffalo]

ok oc, i actually carefully read this one and it makes a lot of sense....even the immunology analogy. i accept that arming the insurgents isn't a perfect answer. yeah, libya hasn't worked out so well. but as you stated, assad having these weapons isn't a better bargain.

Assad having his weapons destroyed in the field, by people who know how to destroy only those weapons, and not the houses, etc. next to them, is optimal and is probably the only feasible thing.

 

Handing over the keys to a...let's just call it "mobile artillery vehicle", and training Achmed to shoot it within 3 miles of the target over the course of 2 months is hard enough. Expecting Achmed not to cause collateral damage, even after 6 months, is a pipe dream. Chances are he will never care, and will blame you when he Fs up. Such is the life of most SF(Green Berets) officers. Trying to do this on a massive level was difficult in Afghanistan. Doing it in populated countries like Syria with real cities? Nope.

(but obama does have experts counseling him).

You realize that you are now referring to the same people who advised Clinton to let Bin Laden get away? Those experts? On the State side, you mean the people who told Obama we could simply talk to people, and that would stop them from being the a-holes? Like, today...when N. Korea launched a rocket they said they wouldn't if we gave them food? Where's that engagement crap now, morons?

 

Experts? These people have exactly 0 credibility left. Hillary is about to schit a brick, and start cracking heads, and who can blame her? I guarantee that Susan Rice better start looking for a new job. Yeah, that Susan Rice....the current UN ambassador, and the very person who specifically advised Clinton on Bin Laden. The same assclown who came up with the "engagement" plan.

it's not like we haven't fought proxy wars before in far flung lands (and it's not turned out well).

Because they rely on ideology, and not on competence, and common sense, the Obama NSC is paralyzed. They won't listen to the professional military, except for the empty suit yes men they have installed, and there's nobody left on their bench who knows what to do. Doing the right thing here...requires contradicting the nonsense ideology they have gradually deluded themselves into since the Cold War. Good luck!

i don't know the answer. i don't think a 3rd active US war is it. i suspect our leaders are in the same boat and wait uncomfortably hoping to convince russia and china to act like decent humans (longshot, at best). i do accept that their are evil, power hungry sociopaths that run things in some places in the world and that some times they need to be violently rendered ineffective. given all that, what would you do?

Well, get prepared, because you asked..... (can't wait to hear the whining about length of post, as if a military campaigns can be explained in a sentence.)

 

We do....WTF I wanted us to do, with Iraq. First, what we did in Iraq instead of what I wanted to do: re-fight WWII, as though some big tank action was going to happen, and we were repelling an invader from the countryside. The French wanted their entire country liberated and were just as offended by German presence 30, or 300 miles away, as they were 1 mile.

 

Defining the Problem

Forget all that. The Middle East is a tribal culture in general. They think in terms of acres, not square miles, not highways. If you blow by at 30 mph and "liberate" all these acres, treating them all the same, without understanding that each one has meaning for them, you achieve nothing. And, these folks think in terms of decentralized little fiefdoms, and villages, etc. If you go kill somebody 30 miles away, and don't kill anybody less than one mile away, that only proves what the "less than one mile away" people have been saying about the "30 miles away" people for years -->"told ya they ain't schit". This pervasive medieval thinking and mindset, requires compatible medieval military objectives. Otherwise, "victory" by our definition, has no meaning, by theirs.

 

Solution

Therefore, I build castles. Yes that may sound ridiculous, but think about it: what is a castle? A safe place. I don't try to make the entire country safe by driving tanks up a single road in 72 hours. Instead, I land Marines and I capture the right amount of acres, secure them, and STOP. Like chess, it is now the other side's move.....not really, but in the minds of the people it is. After all, this is land where chess comes from, and when people ask WTF did I stop, this is what I say. While they are thinking, I build my castle...I offer food, medical and security to anyone who will come to my safe area. I guard my walls and I let the people who are in my fief see that, and even fight along side if they want. I support their local tribal leader, with the ultimate goal of having him take over the fief....as my vassal, sort of.

 

Above all I take my time, and I don't move until I am sure these people are pacified, but also safe. Then, I attack again, and create another fief, and so on. I get whomever I need to help me constantly understand the tribal politics, and use that understanding to very carefully select the next fief, based on political reality, keeping the us vs. them to a minimum, and refocusing that onto the enemy, etc.

 

I make sure it's known that people in fiefs have it a lot better than those who aren't(psy ops job #1). And, pretty soon, the next time I go capture a fief...I roll in and find everything already set up and ready to go. Now I have people asking be the next fief, so I tell them "clear out the enemy and we'll see". People love order. If I show them that I am bringing order, but I am doing it slowly, and in a manner such that they can see the difference acre by acre....I'm there.

 

Now, I start training those who want to fight, and raise militia out of my fiefs. I use the militia mostly for securing their own land, and a few select guys to start forming a field grade officer cadre so that many fiefs can work together if necessary. As each fief gets farther and farther away from the front line, I allow them to desert, and go about their lives. Now they can say they defended their land....as men, which is a high honor, but I am not asking them to go 30 miles and defend somebody else's, unless they want to. I may even form a battalion of these guys, and they will be the starting point for the new national army. This army rapidly becomes veteran, because I demand that they fight in every engagement.

 

Sooner or later, I draw the enemy into a major engagement, because he can't melt away into my secured fiefs, unless he deserts(bonus!), and while he can run back into unsecured area...every time he does, he looks very bad to the "less than 1 mile away" people who live there(psy ops job #2). Sooner or later, he is going to refuse to go out, because he's tired of coming home and admitting he ran away...for the umpteenth time. Sooner or later his commanders are going to realize that they have to defeat me in the field, or by this time next week, they will have no army left.

 

Up till now, we've been doing this with a Marine division and Army SFs, Rangers, etc. As soon as the enemy forms for a major engagement, now we need the full weight of the Army. Ergo, an armored infantry division has been rolling along behind our line of fiefs, waiting for the big fight, since right after we secured the first fief. But they aren't blasting through people's houses. You aren't trying to blitz them, so you can afford to send them through slowly and carefully. They are our Queen on the chessboard, moving behind the pawns...which is doubly appropriate, as Infantry is the Queen of Battle. The last thing you want is to "shock and awe" people who are more curious than anything, and are shocked plenty by your command vehicle. Keep the big guns back. Let em know you've got em, but keep the tanks away from the kids wherever possible.

 

Here's the part you won't like. Make no mistake, I'd love it if the attrition of the fief tactic works all by itself. However, if and when that major battle is engaged, we show no mercy. This part is just as critical as the rest. They have to surrender, publicly, and swear not to take up arms again on whatever book is appropriate. If they try to melt into a fief after they lose...that's fine, the gradual fief approach means we will find them. Leaving them with no choice but death or personal surrender? That's how you win in chess and that's how we win this.

 

I will keep prisoners for as long as it suits me, until we process every single one for possible war crimes, and I make sure all this is known in the unsecured territory as well(psy ops job #3). They will leave my prison camp thankful that they fought with honor, and can return home as honorable in the eyes of their citizens. Or, they will leave it feet first, for fighting dishonorably. No exceptions. The machinations of the process will be up to the people, but the 2 outcomes are fixed. It has to be that way, so that the country can heal.

 

That's what I would do. Above all, it requires patience, and constant improvement, again, like chess. Not reckless aggression for aggression's sake.

 

This strategy takes more time, but costs a hell of lot less in money and lives. Who cares how long it takes, if we are always winning, and are sure that we don't have 30k ex-soldiers melting into the population and attacking our now-impossible to defend supply lines. It kills all the dead-enders, or puts them in prison. And it minimizes civilian casualties, as they are protected by each "castle". And, finally no, this is not the "firebase" strategy from Viet Nam.

 

That was about a misguided artillery officer protecting his artillery. This is about creating castles that protect the people.

Edited April 13, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[DC Tom]

Assad having his weapons destroyed in the field, by people who know how to destroy only those weapons, and not the houses, etc. next to them, is optimal and is probably the only feasible thing.

 

Handing over the keys to a...let's just call it "mobile artillery vehicle", and training Achmed to shoot it within 3 miles of the target over the course of 2 months is hard enough. Expecting Achmed not to cause collateral damage, even after 6 months, is a pipe dream. Chances are he will never care, and will blame you when he Fs up. Such is the life of most SF(Green Berets) officers. Trying to do this on a massive level was difficult in Afghanistan. Doing it in populated countries like Syria with real cities? Nope.

 

You realize that you are now referring to the same people who advised Clinton to let Bin Laden get away? Those experts? On the State side, you mean the people who told Obama we could simply talk to people, and that would stop them from being the a-holes? Like, today...when N. Korea launched a rocket they said they wouldn't if we gave them food? Where's that engagement crap now, morons?

 

Experts? These people have exactly 0 credibility left. Hillary is about to schit a brick, and start cracking heads, and who can blame her? I guarantee that Susan Rice better start looking for a new job. Yeah, that Susan Rice....the current UN ambassador, and the very person who specifically advised Clinton on Bin Laden. The same assclown who came up with the "engagement" plan.

 

Because they rely on ideology, and not on competence, and common sense, the Obama NSC is paralyzed. They won't listen to the professional military, except for the empty suit yes men they have installed, and there's nobody left on their bench who knows what to do. Doing the right thing here...requires contradicting the nonsense ideology they have gradually deluded themselves into since the Cold War. Good luck!

 

Well, get prepared, because you asked..... (can't wait to hear the whining about length of post, as if a military campaigns can be explained in a sentence.)

 

We do....WTF I wanted us to do, with Iraq. First, what we did in Iraq instead of what I wanted to do: re-fight WWII, as though some big tank action was going to happen, and we were repelling an invader from the countryside. The French wanted their entire country liberated and were just as offended by German presence 30, or 300 miles away, as they were 1 mile.

 

Defining the Problem

Forget all that. The Middle East is a tribal culture in general. They think in terms of acres, not square miles, not highways. If you blow by at 30 mph and "liberate" all these acres, treating them all the same, without understanding that each one has meaning for them, you achieve nothing. And, these folks think in terms of decentralized little fiefdoms, and villages, etc. If you go kill somebody 30 miles away, and don't kill anybody less than one mile away, that only proves what the "less than one mile away" people have been saying about the "30 miles away" people for years -->"told ya they ain't schit". This pervasive medieval thinking and mindset, requires compatible medieval military objectives. Otherwise, "victory" by our definition, has no meaning, by theirs.

 

Solution

Therefore, I build castles. Yes that may sound ridiculous, but think about it: what is a castle? A safe place. I don't try to make the entire country safe by driving tanks up a single road in 72 hours. Instead, I land Marines and I capture the right amount of acres, secure them, and STOP. Like chess, it is now the other side's move.....not really, but in the minds of the people it is. After all, this is land where chess comes from, and when people ask WTF did I stop, this is what I say. While they are thinking, I build my castle...I offer food, medical and security to anyone who will come to my safe area. I guard my walls and I let the people who are in my fief see that, and even fight along side if they want. I support their local tribal leader, with the ultimate goal of having him take over the fief....as my vassal, sort of.

 

Above all I take my time, and I don't move until I am sure these people are pacified, but also safe. Then, I attack again, and create another fief, and so on. I get whomever I need to help me constantly understand the tribal politics, and use that understanding to very carefully select the next fief, based on political reality, keeping the us vs. them to a minimum, and refocusing that onto the enemy, etc.

 

I make sure it's known that people in fiefs have it a lot better than those who aren't(psy ops job #1). And, pretty soon, the next time I go capture a fief...I roll in and find everything already set up and ready to go. Now I have people asking be the next fief, so I tell them "clear out the enemy and we'll see". People love order. If I show them that I am bringing order, but I am doing it slowly, and in a manner such that they can see the difference acre by acre....I'm there.

 

Now, I start training those who want to fight, and raise militia out of my fiefs. I use the militia mostly for securing their own land, and a few select guys to start forming a field grade officer cadre so that many fiefs can work together if necessary. As each fief gets farther and farther away from the front line, I allow them to desert, and go about their lives. Now they can say they defended their land....as men, which is a high honor, but I am not asking them to go 30 miles and defend somebody else's, unless they want to. I may even form a battalion of these guys, and they will be the starting point for the new national army. This army rapidly becomes veteran, because I demand that they fight in every engagement.

 

Sooner or later, I draw the enemy into a major engagement, because he can't melt away into my secured fiefs, unless he deserts(bonus!), and while he can run back into unsecured area...every time he does, he looks very bad to the "less than 1 mile away" people who live there(psy ops job #2). Sooner or later, he is going to refuse to go out, because he's tired of coming home and admitting he ran away...for the umpteenth time. Sooner or later his commanders are going to realize that they have to defeat me in the field, or by this time next week, they will have no army left.

 

Up till now, we've been doing this with a Marine division and Army SFs, Rangers, etc. As soon as the enemy forms for a major engagement, now we need the full weight of the Army. Ergo, an armored infantry division has been rolling along behind our line of fiefs, waiting for the big fight, since right after we secured the first fief. But they aren't blasting through people's houses. You aren't trying to blitz them, so you can afford to send them through slowly and carefully. They are our Queen on the chessboard, moving behind the pawns...which is doubly appropriate, as Infantry is the Queen of Battle. The last thing you want is to "shock and awe" people who are more curious than anything, and are shocked plenty by your command vehicle. Keep the big guns back. Let em know you've got em, but keep the tanks away from the kids wherever possible.

 

Here's the part you won't like. Make no mistake, I'd love it if the attrition of the fief tactic works all by itself. However, if and when that major battle is engaged, we show no mercy. This part is just as critical as the rest. They have to surrender, publicly, and swear not to take up arms again on whatever book is appropriate. If they try to melt into a fief after they lose...that's fine, the gradual fief approach means we will find them. Leaving them with no choice but death or personal surrender? That's how you win in chess and that's how we win this.

 

I will keep prisoners for as long as it suits me, until we process every single one for possible war crimes, and I make sure all this is known in the unsecured territory as well(psy ops job #3). They will leave my prison camp thankful that they fought with honor, and can return home as honorable in the eyes of their citizens. Or, they will leave it feet first, for fighting dishonorably. No exceptions. The machinations of the process will be up to the people, but the 2 outcomes are fixed. It has to be that way, so that the country can heal.

 

That's what I would do. Above all, it requires patience, and constant improvement, again, like chess. Not reckless aggression for aggression's sake.

 

This strategy takes more time, but costs a hell of lot less in money and lives. Who cares how long it takes, if we are always winning, and are sure that we don't have 30k ex-soldiers melting into the population and attacking our now-impossible to defend supply lines. It kills all the dead-enders, or puts them in prison. And it minimizes civilian casualties, as they are protected by each "castle". And, finally no, this is not the "firebase" strategy from Viet Nam.

 

That was about a misguided artillery officer protecting his artillery. This is about creating castles that protect the people.

 

No, it's not the "firebase" strategy. It's the "Strategic Hamlet" strategy.

[birdog1960]

Assad having his weapons destroyed in the field, by people who know how to destroy only those weapons, and not the houses, etc. next to them, is optimal and is probably the only feasible thing.

 

Handing over the keys to a...let's just call it "mobile artillery vehicle", and training Achmed to shoot it within 3 miles of the target over the course of 2 months is hard enough. Expecting Achmed not to cause collateral damage, even after 6 months, is a pipe dream. Chances are he will never care, and will blame you when he Fs up. Such is the life of most SF(Green Berets) officers. Trying to do this on a massive level was difficult in Afghanistan. Doing it in populated countries like Syria with real cities? Nope.

 

You realize that you are now referring to the same people who advised Clinton to let Bin Laden get away? Those experts? On the State side, you mean the people who told Obama we could simply talk to people, and that would stop them from being the a-holes? Like, today...when N. Korea launched a rocket they said they wouldn't if we gave them food? Where's that engagement crap now, morons?

 

Experts? These people have exactly 0 credibility left. Hillary is about to schit a brick, and start cracking heads, and who can blame her? I guarantee that Susan Rice better start looking for a new job. Yeah, that Susan Rice....the current UN ambassador, and the very person who specifically advised Clinton on Bin Laden. The same assclown who came up with the "engagement" plan.

 

Because they rely on ideology, and not on competence, and common sense, the Obama NSC is paralyzed. They won't listen to the professional military, except for the empty suit yes men they have installed, and there's nobody left on their bench who knows what to do. Doing the right thing here...requires contradicting the nonsense ideology they have gradually deluded themselves into since the Cold War. Good luck!

 

Well, get prepared, because you asked..... (can't wait to hear the whining about length of post, as if a military campaigns can be explained in a sentence.)

 

We do....WTF I wanted us to do, with Iraq. First, what we did in Iraq instead of what I wanted to do: re-fight WWII, as though some big tank action was going to happen, and we were repelling an invader from the countryside. The French wanted their entire country liberated and were just as offended by German presence 30, or 300 miles away, as they were 1 mile.

 

Defining the Problem

Forget all that. The Middle East is a tribal culture in general. They think in terms of acres, not square miles, not highways. If you blow by at 30 mph and "liberate" all these acres, treating them all the same, without understanding that each one has meaning for them, you achieve nothing. And, these folks think in terms of decentralized little fiefdoms, and villages, etc. If you go kill somebody 30 miles away, and don't kill anybody less than one mile away, that only proves what the "less than one mile away" people have been saying about the "30 miles away" people for years -->"told ya they ain't schit". This pervasive medieval thinking and mindset, requires compatible medieval military objectives. Otherwise, "victory" by our definition, has no meaning, by theirs.

 

Solution

Therefore, I build castles. Yes that may sound ridiculous, but think about it: what is a castle? A safe place. I don't try to make the entire country safe by driving tanks up a single road in 72 hours. Instead, I land Marines and I capture the right amount of acres, secure them, and STOP. Like chess, it is now the other side's move.....not really, but in the minds of the people it is. After all, this is land where chess comes from, and when people ask WTF did I stop, this is what I say. While they are thinking, I build my castle...I offer food, medical and security to anyone who will come to my safe area. I guard my walls and I let the people who are in my fief see that, and even fight along side if they want. I support their local tribal leader, with the ultimate goal of having him take over the fief....as my vassal, sort of.

 

Above all I take my time, and I don't move until I am sure these people are pacified, but also safe. Then, I attack again, and create another fief, and so on. I get whomever I need to help me constantly understand the tribal politics, and use that understanding to very carefully select the next fief, based on political reality, keeping the us vs. them to a minimum, and refocusing that onto the enemy, etc.

 

I make sure it's known that people in fiefs have it a lot better than those who aren't(psy ops job #1). And, pretty soon, the next time I go capture a fief...I roll in and find everything already set up and ready to go. Now I have people asking be the next fief, so I tell them "clear out the enemy and we'll see". People love order. If I show them that I am bringing order, but I am doing it slowly, and in a manner such that they can see the difference acre by acre....I'm there.

 

Now, I start training those who want to fight, and raise militia out of my fiefs. I use the militia mostly for securing their own land, and a few select guys to start forming a field grade officer cadre so that many fiefs can work together if necessary. As each fief gets farther and farther away from the front line, I allow them to desert, and go about their lives. Now they can say they defended their land....as men, which is a high honor, but I am not asking them to go 30 miles and defend somebody else's, unless they want to. I may even form a battalion of these guys, and they will be the starting point for the new national army. This army rapidly becomes veteran, because I demand that they fight in every engagement.

 

Sooner or later, I draw the enemy into a major engagement, because he can't melt away into my secured fiefs, unless he deserts(bonus!), and while he can run back into unsecured area...every time he does, he looks very bad to the "less than 1 mile away" people who live there(psy ops job #2). Sooner or later, he is going to refuse to go out, because he's tired of coming home and admitting he ran away...for the umpteenth time. Sooner or later his commanders are going to realize that they have to defeat me in the field, or by this time next week, they will have no army left.

 

Up till now, we've been doing this with a Marine division and Army SFs, Rangers, etc. As soon as the enemy forms for a major engagement, now we need the full weight of the Army. Ergo, an armored infantry division has been rolling along behind our line of fiefs, waiting for the big fight, since right after we secured the first fief. But they aren't blasting through people's houses. You aren't trying to blitz them, so you can afford to send them through slowly and carefully. They are our Queen on the chessboard, moving behind the pawns...which is doubly appropriate, as Infantry is the Queen of Battle. The last thing you want is to "shock and awe" people who are more curious than anything, and are shocked plenty by your command vehicle. Keep the big guns back. Let em know you've got em, but keep the tanks away from the kids wherever possible.

 

Here's the part you won't like. Make no mistake, I'd love it if the attrition of the fief tactic works all by itself. However, if and when that major battle is engaged, we show no mercy. This part is just as critical as the rest. They have to surrender, publicly, and swear not to take up arms again on whatever book is appropriate. If they try to melt into a fief after they lose...that's fine, the gradual fief approach means we will find them. Leaving them with no choice but death or personal surrender? That's how you win in chess and that's how we win this.

 

I will keep prisoners for as long as it suits me, until we process every single one for possible war crimes, and I make sure all this is known in the unsecured territory as well(psy ops job #3). They will leave my prison camp thankful that they fought with honor, and can return home as honorable in the eyes of their citizens. Or, they will leave it feet first, for fighting dishonorably. No exceptions. The machinations of the process will be up to the people, but the 2 outcomes are fixed. It has to be that way, so that the country can heal.

 

That's what I would do. Above all, it requires patience, and constant improvement, again, like chess. Not reckless aggression for aggression's sake.

 

This strategy takes more time, but costs a hell of lot less in money and lives. Who cares how long it takes, if we are always winning, and are sure that we don't have 30k ex-soldiers melting into the population and attacking our now-impossible to defend supply lines. It kills all the dead-enders, or puts them in prison. And it minimizes civilian casualties, as they are protected by each "castle". And, finally no, this is not the "firebase" strategy from Viet Nam.

 

That was about a misguided artillery officer protecting his artillery. This is about creating castles that protect the people.

sounds a bit like how the civil war in libya was fought except the rebels didn't have any help initially and kept losing their castles. do you think if they were armed, trained and overseen rather than what was actually done, things would now be different?

 

it also reminds me of how the roman empire worked when it did work. the only thing missing is to put in place an oppressive governer and later publicly disgrace him and replace him later to gain the admiration of the people. cynical but effective.

[GG]

No, it's not the "firebase" strategy. It's the "Strategic Hamlet" strategy.

 

Or the Baghdad Green Zone?

[OCinBuffalo]

No, it's not the "firebase" strategy. It's the "Strategic Hamlet" strategy.

Yes. Or, the Happy Fort, or, the Peacful Province strategy. Military strategy that can be distilled down to being explainable to an 8 year old, in Saturday Morning cartoon format...is what is required given the number of clowns who bumbled around here and elsewhere saying that they "knew" The Surge wouldn't work.

 

The nice part about this strategy it is serves 2 agendas simultaneously: at first it confuses the actual enemy, then it goads them, and ultimately draws them out into a fight they will lose....but, it also does the exact same thing with those who are looking to score political points by "opposing the war".

 

You are one of the few posters here who should get how the second part would work in combination with the first.

sounds a bit like how the civil war in libya was fought except the rebels didn't have any help initially and kept losing their castles. do you think if they were armed, trained and overseen rather than what was actually done, things would now be different?

 

it also reminds me of how the roman empire worked when it did work. the only thing missing is to put in place an oppressive governer and later publicly disgrace him and replace him later to gain the admiration of the people. cynical but effective.

Last part first: actually it's a variation on how Alexander took, and HELD, what is now most of Afghanistan. This has little in common with Roman methods. The Romans wanted to squeeze the territory they conquered. We, and Alexander, couldn't care less about that, and were/are far more interested in pacifying it such that he/we could focus on the real enemy, the Persians(now Iranians/Pakistani nuts), and not have his/our supply lines harassed.

 

The civil war in Libya has little, if any, in common with this. I do think if we had been able to secure an initial "castle" in Libya, and train their troops there, we might have been able to put responsible, disciplined Libyan soldiers in the field, and have them do the front line fighting/creating the next castle, etc. However, the major difference is: the "army" is not sworn to the law. It is sworn to whoever is paying it and/or who it identifies with politically. That's dangerous. And, as you saw(I still refuse to watch the video) with how Kadafi died, it has no basis in law.

 

The problem with Libya, and Egypt, now, is: we don't have any way to control who is doing what. Nobody owes us a thing, and therefore we have no stake to sit at the table and play. Before you B word about "why should we control who is doing what?"....answer your own question: who will do anything positive and competent besides us? You already know the answer to that question via "who is doing something about Syria"? And, what will Iran/Russia/China be doing, and what happens if we don't do something to counter that? You are fooling yourself if you think these other countries haven't already bought themselves a seat at the table.

 

The only way we are successful now in these countries? Our spies. Now, because we refused to do the smart thing, the spies have to do an incredible job, against large odds.

Or the Baghdad Green Zone?

No. Not even close. That was Viet Nam all over again. This time, instead of artillery, it was protect the Democracy Bureaucracy, rather than the people of the country. You would think we would have learned from Viet Nam, that protecting "things", or ideas, instead of people, is fundamentally flawed.

Edited April 18, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[DC Tom]

Yes. Or, the Happy Fort, or, the Peacful Province strategy. Military strategy that can be distilled down to being explainable to an 8 year old, in Saturday Morning cartoon format...is what is required given the number of clowns who bumbled around here and elsewhere saying that they "knew" The Surge wouldn't work.

 

The nice part about this strategy it is serves 2 agendas simultaneously: at first it confuses the actual enemy, then it goads them, and ultimately draws them out into a fight they will lose....but, it also does the exact same thing with those who are looking to score political points by "opposing the war".

 

You are one of the few posters here who should get how the second part would work in combination with the first.

 

Last part first: actually it's a variation on how Alexander took, and HELD, what is now most of Afghanistan. This has little in common with Roman methods. The Romans wanted to squeeze the territory they conquered. We, and Alexander, couldn't care less about that, and were/are far more interested in pacifying it such that he/we could focus on the real enemy, the Persians(now Iranians/Pakistani nuts), and not have his/our supply lines harassed.

 

The civil war in Libya has little, if any, in common with this. I do think if we had been able to secure an initial "castle" in Libya, and train their troops there, we might have been able to put responsible, disciplined Libyan soldiers in the field, and have them do the front line fighting/creating the next castle, etc. However, the major difference is: the "army" is not sworn to the law. It is sworn to whoever is paying it and/or who it identifies with politically. That's dangerous. And, as you saw(I still refuse to watch the video) with how Kadafi died, it has no basis in law.

 

The problem with Libya, and Egypt, now, is: we don't have any way to control who is doing what. Nobody owes us a thing, and therefore we have no stake to sit at the table and play. Before you B word about "why should we control who is doing what?"....answer your own question: who will do anything positive and competent besides us? You already know the answer to that question via "who is doing something about Syria"? And, what will Iran/Russia/China be doing, and what happens if we don't do something to counter that? You are fooling yourself if you think these other countries haven't already bought themselves a seat at the table.

 

The only way we are successful now in these countries? Our spies. Now, because we refused to do the smart thing, the spies have to do an incredible job, against large odds.

 

No. Not even close. That was Viet Nam all over again. This time, instead of artillery, it was protect the Democracy Bureaucracy, rather than the people of the country. You would think we would have learned from Viet Nam, that protecting "things", or ideas, instead of people, is fundamentally flawed.

 

Please don't take my lack of participation in this discussion as acquiescence to your point of view. Rather, look at it as what it truly is: my complete unwillingness to discuss the subject with someone who clearly learned history from Archie comic books.

 

Alexander conquered Afghanistan with castles? Really? That would be news to Alexander.

[OCinBuffalo]

Please don't take my lack of participation in this discussion as acquiescence to your point of view. Rather, look at it as what it truly is: my complete unwillingness to discuss the subject with someone who clearly learned history from Archie comic books.

 

Alexander conquered Afghanistan with castles? Really? That would be news to Alexander.

 

Yeah, that's what I said....

 

and...

 

my reference to "mobile artillery vehicle" didn't tip you off to the target audience?

 

I guess you aren't as smart as I thought.

 

Edit: perhaps If I had added a "thingy" in there......?

Edited April 18, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[birdog1960]

looks like romey wants us to engage militarily. anybody seen details of what he's proposing or is it just saber rattling from afar?

[WorldTraveller]

looks like romey wants us to engage militarily. anybody seen details of what he's proposing or is it just saber rattling from afar?

I think what he said was to " arm" them and my guess is that is what Obama will decide.

[/dev/null]

I think what he said was to " arm" them and my guess is that is what Obama will decide.

Yeah but Obama will only do it because it's what Romney would do if elected, thereby absolving Obama of responsibility