Jump to content

Recommended Posts

d16f52ce0376cba50e220746ac315aac.jpg

You just aren't going to get to do WWII. We aren't going to have a giant national movement, there isn't going to be a draft that takes all the males (and now Females, = equals = ) to go over there and storm the place. Its not going to happen. We aren't going to carpet bomb them, or nuke them or anything like that.

If you could solve this with firepower it would have been solved about a 1,000 times over by now. You basically need money, men, firepower, and decades of patience and commitment from all involved. They have patience. We don't. within how many years was the US talking about withdrawal? Loose lips sink ships. We have made no secret of the fact that we are playing to leave not to win.

Remember when the Japanese thought Americans were all soft and they were going to beat us down? they were wrong then. But its right now. we are soft. We are not willing to do the things it will take to win. And ISIS knows that. Belgium is going to turn the other cheek, and that the west will generally get mad, then get bored, then move on. Watched it over and over. Bonus points for whatever opposition party senses the war weariness and seizes on it to gain power rather than standing united against evil. They will promise peace, shift blame, and basically offer something that can't be given but what the public wants. Then low and behold, the bad guys don't even respect the new government and attack anyway! these terrorists I tell ya!

If you aren't interested in doing the work, then you aren't going to win. There are no "life hacks" for this one. You need a cold war level of commitment. 50 years. Remember that ideological battle? united allies and political leaders the willingness to engage on every front, and you gotta be willing to do some screwed up stuff to win.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Details, really? On this forum? Figure it out slick.

Well ok,

1. Open a bunch of stores and or business selling over priced crap

2. Give them credit cards

3. Mortgages / rent

4.Take the sheets off the girlies! (This alone may stop the Jihad) but then again, maybe there's a reason why they cover up those girls��

But I regress.

5. Flood the Middle East with attorneys

6. Allow divorce, alimony, child support

7. Last but not least, stop praying all friggin day! Go out and get a job!

This could work. Plus you get all those anti depressants sold. Hoping Iraq is no worse than Mexico in 20 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'm very willing to break ties with some countries to handle ISIS. I would throw every other entity out of the skies with some generous F-22 use and that would be that. Only my trusted friends would be allowed to use that airspace, and may God help you if you challenge me. But I would only do that if I got every other nation that has been attacked since 9/11 on board.

This brings in the actual worries about fighting ISIS with force: the European countries I would like to include are the same countries that were afraid that WW3 would be fought on their territory and thus they are a little gun-shy with the US. The other side of that fear is that Russia threatens them regularly nowadays, so they are afraid to do anything that could attract a Russian attack. I understand this, but I would increase our military presence in Europe and Asia and let that speak for itself. I would shut down ISIS with a 1991-style coalition and we would take turns occupying Syria and Iraq for the next 20 years the same way we share Baltic policing duties.

I'm optimistic because I should be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I have to edit out one more political comment then that poster gets a two day sin bin stint.

The tragic events in Belgium can be discussed without bringing in politics and political statements no matter how you feel about it.

Think before you post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im told thay if we go too buck wild on ISIS we will make enemies. Ok who is their Ally that we are going to upset? Russia? France? Belgium? Canada? Jordan?

Just check the news and look up the components of the forces that pushed to try and liberate the city of Palmyra recently.

Strike through Russia and Syria Army, you should have your answer.

Hint: It starts with Hez and end up with bollah.

Yep, that's right, the Hezbollah, funded in great ways by the evil Iran, is helping the Syrian regime (and indirectly Western countries) to bust ISIS.

Of course!, you'll tell me, since Iran has an interest in keeping Assad, or pro Assad, in place there.

Now, would you want to make Shias and Sunnis form a coalition against Western countries due to blind and reckless bombing?

We are walking on eggs here (or thin ice if you're a vegan).

That was my collateral damage point.

Let's not forget that major Sunnis role players are only pretending to fight ISIS (Saudi Arabia and Qatar namely).

Throw in Turkey who will be getting 3 billion euros from the EU to not open the gates to migrants (maybe), and who has apparently been dealing with ISIS.

So, no, I don't think we can take the same binary approach as a WWII type conflict.

That's my opinion, you are free to not share it, to find it idiotic as well. No worries with that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright! #2 is dead...we're winning!

Watched the brief from the Pentagon a moment ago...they talked about the USMC artillery guys giving some support to Iraqi forces, when a reporter asked if this is a step up to using ground forces the Chairman of the Joints Chiefs was QUICK to dispel that idea.

Well done General, stick to the talking points.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright! #2 is dead...we're winning!

Watched the brief from the Pentagon a moment ago...they talked about the USMC artillery guys giving some support to Iraqi forces, when a reporter asked if this is a step up to using ground forces the Chairman of the Joints Chiefs was QUICK to dispel that idea.

Well done General, stick to the talking points.

Marine arty is getting better ranged all the time...

Next stop is the army's 4th "Advisor" division to step in

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would shut down ISIS with a 1991-style coalition and we would take turns occupying Syria and Iraq for the next 20 years the same way we share Baltic policing duties.

That might work, but no one wants to do it. And we occupied iraq for 5 solid years with international help, and it was rather violent and contested.

Lots of people would be unhappy with the occupation as well. We know this because we just tried it, and this time we would be super sizing it to include Syria

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I have to edit out one more political comment then that poster gets a two day sin bin stint.

The tragic events in Belgium can be discussed without bringing in politics and political statements no matter how you feel about it.

Think before you post.

What exactly is a political statement? If one posts a quote from a politician or refers to a comment by one that is merely a statement of fact.

Steve posted a comment regarding most Canadians are against the government pulling the jets out of the fight on terror. Is that not a political statement (which in no way offends me).

I personally think all these comments about political comments are blown out of proportion here at ARC. It is the posts that exhibit hostility to other members that should be dealt with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Going to War against who? ISIS? Think of the Viet Cong.....the US had superior "everything" and won every battle, but still lost the war.

Vietnam could have been easily won, had the politicians permitted the military to run the war.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Vietnam could have been easily won, had the politicians permitted the military to run the war.

How so? The White House allowed Westy to run the war in the South, which is what counted, about any way he pleased.

You couldn't have done between 1964 and 1971 what Nixon did in 1972 because Linebacker addressed the shift of the Communist forces from decentralized insurgents to a centralized conventional force. Conventional invasion of the North was out of the picture by 1964. I guess if you could have addressed the insurgency with a competent general other than Westmoreland, then it's possible you could have pacified the South and restored the legitimacy of the Southern government. Before Westy's appointment, 3 of his peers personally lobbied the Sec of the Army to appoint someone OTHER THAN Westmoreland based on his record, but he got the appointment because there were 4 slots filled for Brig General and the highest rated 3 went to work the Pentagon.

But if you're referring to winning the Vietnam War exlusively through air campaign, then I don't believe key figures have been widely proliferated enough. The CIA and DIA disagreed on the source of the insurgency, but the messages that ultimately reached LBJ stated that the source of the insurgency was Hanoi and this was wrong. The insurgency was southern grown and supplied. The main refutation against an air power alone solution is that, at its peak, the Viet Cong consumed no more than 34 tons of supplies from the North each month. Haiphong alone handled 4,000 tons, and the routes from China handled even more. At the peak of US bombing, we destroyed about 34% (IIRC) of the supplies we deemed necessary to maintain the southern insurgency. After the war we learned that we could have mined Haiphong, bombed the storage facilities, and cut the roads, resulting in theoretically destroying 95% of the supplies in the North and still not had an effect in the South because the source of their supplies was local. They needed only a tiny fraction of the remaining 5% from the North to continue the insurgency.

Then, the Pentagon adapted an old LeMay strategy to pressure the North because of the false belief that Hanoi was directing the insurgency. This was wrong until mid-1968 and therefore the bombing actually served to strengthen the relationship between Hanoi and the VC. Now the reason that the Tet Offensive failed because this marked a shift of strategy to the North using conventional forces to gain territory in the South, but this is the type of scenario the US excelled at handling. Hanoi became very timid about using it's regular army after Tet. They were stung hardcore. The reason 1972 worked isn't as much because bombing in the North, it's more because the North stretched it's supply lines very thinly after their conventional invasion, and this made the NVA vulnerable to aerial assault between the North and the South.

Short of finding better leadership to pacify the south and give the South Vietnamese government a chance to grow and operate, there is little the US could have done to win in Vietnam.

We could also look at this from a more theoretical point of view using the inefficiency model of war. The North was supported by the USSR and China and the South was supported by the USA. Bargaining room was about who would control more area between the two capitals. It was easier for the North to make demands from the South because in the event of war it was harder to supply the South from the US then it was to supply the North from the PRC. Therefore the North theoretically holds the military advantage. This information really means the North could never reasonably commit to not attacking the South because of the balance of power favors the North in the long run. The US thought deterrence through an air campaign could make it too expensive to attack the South, but this didn't account for the Southern grown insurgency that dominated the first half of the war. Ultimately, when it became obvious to both sides that the US wouldn't be able to overcome the ease of supplying the North without involving China or the Soviet Union in a greater war, the US began making deals. Adding to the confusing situation was that the South needed to be completely rebuilt, from the countryside to the government, if it was ever going to be able to stand on its own.

Edited by Exhausted
Link to post
Share on other sites

What exactly is a political statement? If one posts a quote from a politician or refers to a comment by one that is merely a statement of fact.

Steve posted a comment regarding most Canadians are against the government pulling the jets out of the fight on terror. Is that not a political statement (which in no way offends me).

I personally think all these comments about political comments are blown out of proportion here at ARC. It is the posts that exhibit hostility to other members that should be dealt with.

Most of the posts that were very much political and blatant shots at nations and/or specific politicians or political candidates have been removed from this thread and were indeed stepping over ARC's "NO POLITICS" rules. They had no bearing on the theme of this thread. I'd bet almost 3/4 of a page worth of posts are long gone having been justifiably removed. So what's left is pretty much benign. But it was getting pretty heated there for a short while.

FWIW

:cheers:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Vietnam could have been easily won, had the politicians permitted the military to run the war.

Vietnam was supplied by China.....think of the Korean War. I don't think the idea of Victory was quite as clear cut as you think.

Here's a couple of things to consider.

#1 it appears the two major sects of Islam don't like each other. In fact they seem to enjoy slaughtering each other. Is this an Islamic civil war? why not just stand back and let them kill each other? Cold-hearted I know......just talking theory.

#2 Each World War seems to have fewer and fewer of our young people being slaughtered. There has been discussion among historians that we have had more than 2 World Wars. Is it possible that the War between Judaeo/Christian fighters and Islamic fighters is our current World War and has been going on for decades? In this conflict many, many militaries are involved including Armies, Air Forces and Navys. Quite a few countries have been invaded and destroy or had major disruptions (leadership changes and faction (tribal) turf wars etc) Iraq, Syria, Egypt etc. This is a global conflict with fighting in the Philippines and terror attacks in Australia and Bali to name just a couple. And ponder the number of casualities....very low....which fits nicely with the dropping casuality rates with each successive World War. WW1 was a slaughter house....WW2 was less mindless in the brass sending young men to be slaughtered....of course there are exceptions. In WW1 the Germans protected their troops with better bunkbers and in WW2 the Russians did use mass waves of Soviet conscripts to die needlessly in an effort to slow the German advance.

This current conflict looks like a Islamic civil war that we've bumbled into and it also looks like a World War between Judaeo/Christian fighters and Islamic fighters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the posts that were very much political and blatant shots at nations and/or specific politicians or political candidates have been removed from this thread and were indeed stepping over ARC's "NO POLITICS" rules. They had no bearing on the theme of this thread. I'd bet almost 3/4 of a page worth of posts are long gone having been justifiably removed. So what's left is pretty much benign. But it was getting pretty heated there for a short while.

FWIW

:cheers:/>

I made a post about what our PM said, I think it was best he didn't say anything at all, his words were insulting. That post is gone. I don't see how that is political.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Vietnam was supplied by China.....think of the Korean War. I don't think the idea of Victory was quite as clear cut as you think.

Here's a couple of things to consider.

#1 it appears the two major sects of Islam don't like each other. In fact they seem to enjoy slaughtering each other. Is this an Islamic civil war? why not just stand back and let them kill each other? Cold-hearted I know......just talking theory.

#2 Each World War seems to have fewer and fewer of our young people being slaughtered. There has been discussion among historians that we have had more than 2 World Wars. Is it possible that the War between Judaeo/Christian fighters and Islamic fighters is our current World War and has been going on for decades? In this conflict many, many militaries are involved including Armies, Air Forces and Navys. Quite a few countries have been invaded and destroy or had major disruptions (leadership changes and faction (tribal) turf wars etc) Iraq, Syria, Egypt etc. This is a global conflict with fighting in the Philippines and terror attacks in Australia and Bali to name just a couple. And ponder the number of casualities....very low....which fits nicely with the dropping casuality rates with each successive World War. WW1 was a slaughter house....WW2 was less mindless in the brass sending young men to be slaughtered....of course there are exceptions. In WW1 the Germans protected their troops with better bunkbers and in WW2 the Russians did use mass waves of Soviet conscripts to die needlessly in an effort to slow the German advance.

This current conflict looks like a Islamic civil war that we've bumbled into and it also looks like a World War between Judaeo/Christian fighters and Islamic fighters.

I beg to differ on Vietnam. It was the first war that had extreme levels of political interference. It was also a war that didn't need to be fought in the first place. But there are too many details to argue this in a post. I had an uncle who fought two tours as a young infantry officer (82nd Airborne) in Vietnam. He was also a history professor and historian for the US military. He has work published, he taught me so much about the Vietnam War. He is buried in Punchbowl Cemetery in Hawaii.

The current fight we have on our hands is a tough one, with no clear ways to fight it. The best is through intelligence, but peace through superior firepower works too. The biggest hindrance is the danger of collateral damage, which I fully understand the need to prevent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I made a post about what our PM said, I think it was best he didn't say anything at all, his words were insulting. That post is gone. I don't see how that is political.

Can't speak to that one sorry. But the others were justified and not an overreaction in my opinion.

Meh... :cheers:.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I beg to differ on Vietnam. It was the first war that had extreme levels of political interference.

Are you serious? Have you read up on WW2 and the Korean War? Pretty sure that Korea was the first US war in which the supreme military commander was fired by his civilian boss. That seems pretty extreme to me. Political involvement made a huge impact on how that conflict was played out. WW2 was just as bad (Yalta comes to mind as one example).

Political interference goes hand in hand with the military's prosecution of a war. To be honest, I'm pretty good with that concept. I have no interest in giving the military a blank check to purchase a fighter jet let alone conduct a war.

Edited by 11bee
Link to post
Share on other sites

I beg to differ on Vietnam. It was the first war that had extreme levels of political interference. It was also a war that didn't need to be fought in the first place. But there are too many details to argue this in a post. I had an uncle who fought two tours as a young infantry officer (82nd Airborne) in Vietnam. He was also a history professor and historian for the US military. He has work published, he taught me so much about the Vietnam War. He is buried in Punchbowl Cemetery in Hawaii.

The current fight we have on our hands is a tough one, with no clear ways to fight it. The best is through intelligence, but peace through superior firepower works too. The biggest hindrance is the danger of collateral damage, which I fully understand the need to prevent.

Wars have always had extreme levels of political influence. Abraham Lincoln overruled Winfield Scott's strategy for the Civil War and then fired Scott when Lincoln's own strategy failed. He then fired McClellan and Halleck before appointing Grant as commander of the Union Army.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Vietnam was supplied by China.....think of the Korean War. I don't think the idea of Victory was quite as clear cut as you think.

Here's a couple of things to consider.

#1 it appears the two major sects of Islam don't like each other. In fact they seem to enjoy slaughtering each other. Is this an Islamic civil war? why not just stand back and let them kill each other? Cold-hearted I know......just talking theory.

#2 Each World War seems to have fewer and fewer of our young people being slaughtered. There has been discussion among historians that we have had more than 2 World Wars. Is it possible that the War between Judaeo/Christian fighters and Islamic fighters is our current World War and has been going on for decades? In this conflict many, many militaries are involved including Armies, Air Forces and Navys. Quite a few countries have been invaded and destroy or had major disruptions (leadership changes and faction (tribal) turf wars etc) Iraq, Syria, Egypt etc. This is a global conflict with fighting in the Philippines and terror attacks in Australia and Bali to name just a couple. And ponder the number of casualities....very low....which fits nicely with the dropping casuality rates with each successive World War. WW1 was a slaughter house....WW2 was less mindless in the brass sending young men to be slaughtered....of course there are exceptions. In WW1 the Germans protected their troops with better bunkbers and in WW2 the Russians did use mass waves of Soviet conscripts to die needlessly in an effort to slow the German advance.

This current conflict looks like a Islamic civil war that we've bumbled into and it also looks like a World War between Judaeo/Christian fighters and Islamic fighters.

I agree with most of your post. But what your missing is the fact that it's more then a civil war. These fellers want to take over a large part of the world. And do not so nice things to other people's.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wars have always had extreme levels of political influence. Abraham Lincoln overruled Winfield Scott's strategy for the Civil War and then fired Scott when Lincoln's own strategy failed. He then fired McClellan and Halleck before appointing Grant as commander of the Union Army.

Agreed. Heck the Army of the Potomac went through commanders so fast it was hard to keep track! McDowell, McClellan, Burnside, Hooker, Meade, Grant...whew all that in 4ish years and the majority for political reasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with most of your post. But what your missing is the fact that it's more then a civil war. These fellers want to take over a large part of the world. And do not so nice things to other people's.

Not not only not just a civil because they aren't conducting a revolution, it's also not just a civil war because outside countries have high military interest in how this war ends. The powers are driving the various sides in the civil war through hidden and blatant means. Calling it a civil war at this point diminishes the role of outside parties and the role of ISIS in Iraq, yet labeling it as another part of the War on Terror ignores the the giant geo-political shift this war's end will eventually bring about. We don't have a name for it because we in the West are being slow to decide what we want to make of it all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you serious? Have you read up on WW2 and the Korean War? Pretty sure that Korea was the first US war in which the supreme military commander was fired by his civilian boss. That seems pretty extreme to me. Political involvement made a huge impact on how that conflict was played out. WW2 was just as bad (Yalta comes to mind as one example).

Political interference goes hand in hand with the military's prosecution of a war. To be honest, I'm pretty good with that concept. I have no interest in giving the military a blank check to purchase a fighter jet let alone conduct a war.

Tactically though? Even Patton who was a notorious autocratic said "we tell people what to do, but not how to do it"

I understand there are limitations but even LBJ braged they couldn't bomb an outhouse without his say so. The white house famously forbid attacking an in progress SAM sight, then authorized an attack only after it was completed causing the loss of multiple aircraft. That would be civilian interference that is very different from not wanting to nuke China.

Nearly All the company and field grade officers at the time could tell you first person accounts of being hindered in their conduct of the war.

There is a difference between strategic direction and tactical execution. You should need the civilians for launching nukes but not if it's ok to bomb an outhouse only with white house permission. And not surprisingly, vietnam looked like a war run by amateurs from thousands of miles away and the us military spent 20 years rebuilding and chanting "never again" nearly every general in the first gulf war has a story about having his resignation ready if the white house ignored their advice or started with the old ways. They just couldn't do it again in good conscience and many of them are as mad at the Generals at the time that allowed the white house to mismanage the war without more of a fight

The current ROE and EOFs aren't pleasant and I've talked to a lot of people who have missed targets because authorization was late. I think I was told an O-6 had to approve even a 250lb bomb in iraq in 2006? My memory is fuzzy on that and I am no longer in touch with the JTAC who told me about it originally.

I don't know how one can have it both ways when you say the military shouldn't be running the show, but if they lose the military lost it since they were ultimately responsible?

I don't think that's how responsibility works. Last I checked it you got blamed for the good and bad. And the civilian leadership runs the military. In many cases that's great, in other cases it's not so great. Vietnam was very much a "not so great" example.

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about "easily won" but we managed to preserve a south Korea not long before that

While Vietnam is an excellent example of politics being overbearing on good sense, the Korean war is a actually a prime example of when politicians should have done a lot more sooner. The politicians should have stepped in October 1950 when MacArthur was letting UN troops move ahead of the best defensive line because China warned it would attack if UN troops went too far north. If the Sec of State had his way, MacArthur would have dug defensive positions in the narrowest part of the peninsula and let the South Koreans finish the North off alone. Political leadership wasn't as strong as it should have been because a lot of WWII personalities began filling cabinet positions and ultimately the war became a stalemate when the Chinese decided to counter MacArthur's personal goal of destroying the NK army despite his mission being to restore the border at the 38th parallel.

So probably somewhere between Korea and Vietnam is an appropriate level of political and military control.

Edited by Exhausted
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...