Posted on 10/19/2006 7:11:53 PM PDT by kellynla
It appears that political correctness has infected many of our military brass, indeed even instructors in our military academies. It is one thing when politicians and cultural elites force it into our lives; it's quite dangerous, however, when those selected to protect us elevate political correctness over the necessity of vanquishing enemies intent on destroying us.
Many of us now believe that a much ballyhooed "higher morality" in the conduct of war is a major cause for America and the West not achieving its goal of destroying jihadist terrorisim. A new "counter-insurgency manual" provides evidence of a military guided not by the age-old assumption of an army's purpose being military victory over its enemy but, instead, attempts at sociology and "understanding" the enemy's culture, and the need to persuade the enemy of our goodness and noble intentions.
In the name of "compassion," our soldiers are at times asked to risk their lives, placing themselves in lethal fighting conditions, so as to spare the "innocents" among the enemy. Where bombing from above could easily destroy a terrorist hideout, young Americans are forced to fight treacherous hand-to-hand combat so that "innocents" mingled among the jihadists will not be harmed.
Because of this rule, more soldiers die than need be, creating, also, demoralization and hesitancy. Some, out of fear of later military reprimand, are reluctant to shoot at terrorist targets where civilians may also be. This, too, renders our war less effective than it could be. Beyond question, this new ethos stands in the way of victory. The Iraq war should have been won long ago. If soft political correctness remains a guiding military motif, the most powerful nation in the world will have defeated itself, given victory to a rag-tag al Qaeda band unworthy of being called fighting men.
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
B T T T
"We don't face half-hearted Marxists tired of living in the jungle, but religious zealots who behead prisoners to please their god and who torture captives by probing their skulls with electric drills. We're confronted by hatreds born of blood and belief and madmen whose appetite for blood is insatiable."
Bingo!
bttt
Arc-Light Arc-Brite !
Don't Need No Smart Bombs.
Game Over.
Seems the nature of war has changed. Seems like it started with Korea and the Iran hostage crisis seems like it was a major turning point.
It sure seems like a conventional war can no longer be won. It can only be used to gain turf.
Maybe it would be better to mothball all the carriers and tanks and just contract out with big bucks to insane "show no quarter" mercenary assasins who no one controls and no one knows where they came from or where to retaliate in the aftermath......(kind of like how Iran does it.)
It's not the enemy's culture we need to understand, but rather that of our major allies in the war on the terrorists. All we need to know about the terrorists is how to kill them. That's also what our allies need to know about them. Why to kill them, we both already know, all too well.
Actually you get more bang for the buck with guided weapons. A smaller lighter bomb, that hits or comes very close to it's target is a lot more effective than many larger bombs, only a few of which get close enough to targets of interest. And you can carry more of the smaller weapons per sortie.
Imagine an Arc-Light type strike, only with more bombs, each with it's individual target (although more than one might be devoted to larger/harder targets).
Rodger that. Says it all.
Winning saves lives, yours and usually your enemies as well.
Ping
Be sure and tell your son for me,
"Thank you for your service"
Semper Fi,
Kelly
1/5, 1st Mar. Div.
I agree completely (see tagline) that the B-52's should have been unleashed on the cities. Now Al-Sadr has taken over a city in southern Iraq. If it is not cordoned off and levelled, then we need to cut our losses and bring the troops home.
Silence. Guess someone had to cut and run.
This might be a short thread, but it's one of the best I've ever seen.
Thank you all-this heavy dose of reality is greatly appreciated.
Instead, why not explain why I’m wrong? Or did you post this thread just to fish for an excuse to point out that you are a Marine and a Vietnam Veteran? Right is right and wrong is wrong, whether you’re Audie Murphy or Jane Fonda. Nobody’s experience has anything to do with whether the author has a grasp of two simple points:
1) this manual is but one manual among many in the Army and Marine Corps doctrinal library and it does not speak to conventional warfighting
2) neither this manual nor any other Army or USMC manual advocates “the need to persuade the enemy of our goodness and noble intentions.” That is something completely different from drawing fence-sitters to our side and acknowledging that our enemies must be coerced or killed.
In regard to your cited experience from Vietnam, that is somewhat analogous to patrols in Iraq. If a patrol thinks that a suicide bomber is approaching them, then they avoid it or shoot it, though it is usually in the form of a vehicle. There is nothing wrong with that, it continues, and this manual won’t change that.
Back to the point, I see no evidence that the author of the article so much as skimmed the manual that he criticizes. If you want to peruse it, the June 2006 draft is available online here.
Note the two guys who signed off on it: LTG David Petraeus (USA) and LTG James Mattis (USMC). But I suppose that LTG James "It's fun to shoot some people" Mattis is too touchy-feely for you. If you want to play the game of comparing experiences in order to determine who is right or wrong then send an email to those guys. I'm sure that they will be heavily swayed by your argument of: I disagree, I was in Vietnam, therefore you're wrong.
before I continue dealing with you
answer my previous question
you've had TWO DAYS to come up with an answer
Have you had any combat experience.
If so, where and when?
Imagine a response to a terrorist attack where we swiftly and quietly go to the country which did the most to sponsor the terrorists. And where the private homes of each of the 100 most influencial citizens gets hit by a GBU-39.
And then the world gets told that from now on, the homes of anybody financially contributing to Jihad groups is on the target list
I'll just call it quits here. I don't care about whatever point you're attempting to make and you either don't care about or don't seem to understand mine.
just as I thought.
no combat experience.
next time you want to belittle others' combat experience I suggest you refrain.
cyaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.