Re: So the war on Iraq was decided before 9/11

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civilian

You fail at the dictionary thing too. Fits the rest of your life I guess. I think I'll continue my bitching. That wasn't three pages like I asked paragon, give me two more pages so you can really make your point.

 

lichking - Yes, that "is" should be "are." I realized that after I posted it but was too lazy to correct myself. Also, correcting grammar is the lowest form of internet arguing and has nothing to do with the discussion. So, you're off topic.

NateSMZ - Bitch away. You have nobody to bitch to now. Since you don't want to continue to actually discussion, there are no more points that I need to bring to the table.

 

Which I'm sure is months old.

 

shut up paragon, dont make senseless spammy posts

 

Dear paragon, what is there to discuss? In your own words:

I am sorry to act childish... but LMAOOOOOOOO. That has got to be the greatest faceplant ever.

The only points you bring to tables are on the end of knives and forks. Get out of here and try to save what's left of your dignity.

 

Whay would he do that? He would argue with you that the Earth is flat if he felt like it.

 

"Greater Baghdad covers a full 2000 square miles. If the other Iraqi cities had a combined footprint that was roughly equivalent, the total area could be covered by 10,000 platoon-sized patrol bases at 1000 meter intervals. If each base were manned by 12 Coalition troops, 12 Iraqi National Guardsmen, and 12 Iraqi police, then only 120,000 Coalition troops would be needed. That would leave the other 50,000 to move around the satellite-monitored countryside by helicopter. With a little advanced infantry technique, every combat supporter and combat service support Marine or soldier could join in. While at a patrol base, each could help with that part of the local infrastructure/economy that best matched his or her occupational specialty. For example, engineers might work on water or sewage problems, bulk fuel men on a gas station, or typists on a local newspaper. The level of contribution would be less important than its underlying message. During the day, all patrol base members - whether Coalition or Iraqi - would provide basic services. After sunset, all would enforce a curfew."
"As most Iraqi police stations have been assaulted by better-than-average combatants, one can expect that most of those combatants are Baathist, al-Qaeda, Iranian Revolutionary Guard, or Lebanese Hezbollah recruiters/trainers. Thus, every successful defense of a patrol headquarters would make a strategic contribution to the war effort. The enemy's early warning apparatus is better than that of the Viet Cong. To find/remove the Muslim advisers/trainers, U.S. forces must lure them away from their familiar surroundings. They have already demonstrated an intention to overrun as many security headquarters as they can. Let us create headquarters that are too tempting to resist and engage their base with the following tactical technique.
"The platoon headquarters will be only superficially conventional. It will have "safe rooms" at diagonally opposite corners. Hidden within the walls of the other rooms and hallways will be command-detonated claymore mines. When people are badly outnumbered, they fight with explosive devices to confound their adversary. To him, explosions mean mines or "incoming," not a human presence. Thus, Coalition squads will depend more on claymores and grenades than on small arms to enforce their curfew. Only inside the American headquarters building will small arms possibly play a role."
"To counter the threat of turncoats, all three squads need separate nighttime missions and AOs. Additionally, no Iraqi buddy team will know where any others are. Around the outer periphery of the kilometer-square TAOR will be the national guardsmen. With the most military training, they should be the first line of defense and liaison with adjoining sectors. The next concentric set of blocks will be manned by Iraqi police. With a little paramilitary training, they should be able to conduct a two-man ambush."
-H. John Poole, Militant Tricks: Battlefield Ruses of the Islamic Insurgent

 

That right there is fucking genius. True modern day adaptation of Sun Tzu, i'm very impressed with this Poole fellow. I've come to my conclusion that if the argument is about whether or not we should stay in Iraq with Nate and others saying no and Paragon saying yes then Paragon is wrong, if the argument is about which tactics to employ, Paragon just crushed the whole lot of you. owerup: on a good post Paragon.

 

oh please - how many times do you think that's going to work? they're just going to keep charging into headquarters and getting blown up?

it's a clever trick - but it's of limited use - not to mention the lawless elements have many more targets than simply overrunning american headquarters... one of their favorites is bombing patrols - another is sniping patrols - another has nothing to do with the americans and is engaging other Iraqi enemies and/or massacring civilians from other factions

if this guy is supposed to have got his experience from Vietnam... well, we lost Vietnam - so that's not exactly much of a card in the hat

secondly, saying what could've worked in Vietnam will work in Iraq is just foolish. Just because the problem is the same general thing - insurgency - doesn't mean there's a cure all solution. Vietnam isn't Iraq. Malaysia isn't Iraq. You might as well claim you can put all fires out the same way, just because they share the common element of being hot.

lastly, the main reason you can't use Iraqi forces to preserve our vision of law and order is the majority of Iraqis are not loyal to the country of Iraq. Their loyalties are personal. To a particular warlord, chieftain, group, faction, clan, etc... Which actually goes back to European meddling once again. The League of Nations in their infinite wisdom decided to jam a bunch of people who hate each other together into one country. Surprise - there's chaos. The only way to control the country was with an iron fist. Saddam supplied that. Not saying he was a good guy - he was certainly a bad guy - but he kept order. Now the Western world goes meddling again, and once again there is chaos, and there will be chaos until either the entire culture of the area changes, or once again there is a leader with an iron fist.

 

Yes, it is about tactics to employ Hadean.


People as a whole generally do not like living in fear their entire life. The massive civilian population that doesn't take part in the actual fighting is what you need on your side. Poole says that the bombs and the overreacting with overwhelming force is what is driving the civilian population of Iraq away from us. I'm sure nobody will disagree with that fact. This change in tactics and strategy takes away all the overreacting and overwhelming force and puts the troops right there helping the civilians. If we can get the greater whole of the Iraqi population on our side by providing them protection and services then they will shun the insurgents instead of supporting them. Right now it is the insurgents who provide security and services for parts of the civilian population.

 

Sir Michael has written a book drawing similarities between the tactics of insurgents and George Washington's men in America's War of Independence.

He told Newsnight: "As Lord Chatham said, when he was speaking on the British presence in North America, he said 'if I was an American, as I am an Englishman, as long as one Englishman remained on American native soil, I would never, never, never lay down my arms'.

"The Iraqi insurgents feel exactly the same way."

He said it was time to bring troops home.

"It is the soldiers who have been telling me from the frontline that the war they have been fighting is a hopeless war, that they cannot possibly win it and the sooner we start talking politics and not military solutions, the sooner they will come home and their lives will be preserved."

This meant the UK government would have to admit defeat, he added.

"The British admitted defeat in North America and the catastrophes that were predicted at the time never happened," the ex-Bosnia UN chief said.

"The catastrophes that were predicted after Vietnam never happened.

"The same thing will occur after we leave Iraq."

 

The catastrophes that were predicted after the Vietnam war were that the neighboring states would become Communist. They did. Additionally, there were two bloody wars right after the Vietnam War in that area. One was the Cambodian-Vietnamese War which resulted in about 40,000 deaths and the other was the Sino-Vietnamese War which resulted in about 60,000 - 120,000 killed in less than one month. That sounds like a catastrophe to me.

 

How many nations are communist now? Some catastrophe. =/

----------
The madness of war with Iraq

by General Sir Michael Rose

(...)

Even if an attack against Iraq did meet with early success, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein would not, of course, succeed in eliminating the possibility of terrorist attack against the West. International terrorism is not just a product of tyrants or rogue states, - nor can it be defeated by conventional military means, no matter how superior US weapons technology might be. As Northern Ireland showed us, terrorists can only be defeated when they lose the support of the people. Resolving political, economic and social grievances is therefore a far more important aspect of counter terrorist wars than direct military action, which often adds to the numbers of people prepared actively to support the terrorists.

Sadly, because the US is seen as condoning Israeli policy towards the Palestinians, hostility towards America and the West is mounting, providing fertile ground for extremist Islamic terrorist organisations among the one billion Muslims around the world. Addressing the basic question of the Palestinian grievance would do far more to defeat terrorism than the use of the kinetic energy weapons so favoured by President Bush.

 

There's a not so old quote that goes along the lines of "You learn more from losing than winning." I would think that would apply here. And of course you can't only do one strategy, and from the title of the source one would think there are much more tricks and strategies than only this.

 

Vietnam, for one, is still communist. As is Laos.

The point of Poole's ideas for changes in strategy and tactics is to get the support of the people which I stated in reply #140.

As for Palestine:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...ost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46469-2004Nov12.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200710/POL20071017b.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7044914.stm
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1189411478726

 

The point of that quote being that after losing, one realizes weaknesses and the need to CHANGE strategies.

And paragon... I could go on debunking you, but I'm tired... when you can't even use a dictionary properly, what's the point?

 

I've decided to stop using personal attacks. Maybe you will do the same.

 

Now that you actually have self-sustaining counter-arguments you decided to stop with personal attacks. Amazing.

I just had to say that, even though I said I won't be posting here anymore... lol

 

Funny I seem to remeber Paragon saying the same thing (here being the forums as a whole) and yet here he is.

 

Z-BosoN - I always had self-sustaining counter arguments...