Skip to comments.
Face The Facts: Bombing Works
Newsweek ^
| 26 Nov 2001
| Fareed Zakaria
Posted on 11/26/2001 3:35:45 AM PST by ChuckHam
Edited on 09/03/2002 4:49:35 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
Dec. 3 issue
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.com ...
TOPICS: Editorial; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Bombs away!
1
posted on
11/26/2001 3:35:45 AM PST
by
ChuckHam
To: ChuckHam
BUMP
To: ChuckHam
I don't care if the 'pundits' don't get it, as long as our military and our leaders do. Let the enemy go on thinking about massed infantry and armour.
Let them die from the air in ignorance.
3
posted on
11/26/2001 3:52:55 AM PST
by
Blueflag
To: ChuckHam
Yes Bombing Does Work - Bombs Away - Let's Roll!
To: ChuckHam
It's being able to gain total air superiority that works.
5
posted on
11/26/2001 4:16:28 AM PST
by
JoeGar
To: RippleFire
Another thought on this. By starting a conflcit on our terms (aerial) and prosecuting it from 5000 - 500000 feet, our acceptible losses can be counted on one hand, while the OPFOR's losses are in the thousands.
Why try to glorify trench warfare when the object is to kill 'them' and break their stuff.
6
posted on
11/26/2001 4:31:44 AM PST
by
Blueflag
To: ChuckHam
Let's have a round of applause for American engineering.
7
posted on
11/26/2001 4:45:00 AM PST
by
randog
To: ChuckHam
Daisy, Daisy, all for the love of you...
To: ChuckHam
Face The Facts: Bombing WorksAND HOW!!!!!!
9
posted on
11/26/2001 4:50:28 AM PST
by
makoman
To: ChuckHam
For those who like to state that air raids are ineffective and that we should focus on ground troops, think of how effective our ground assault would have been in Iraq had we not first conducted those 40 days of air strikes. The reason we were able to win the war on the ground in four days is because we had complete control of the skies and the troops on the ground (Iraqi troops) were demoralized and shell-shocked.
Same in Afghanistan. Granted you need ground troops to gain and hold territory, but without air superiority and without the U.S. having the ability to pulverize enemy troops on the ground at will, the Northern Alliance would not have been able to take any territory at all.
The superiority of the United States air weapons has made it possible to win wars with an incredibly low number of battlefield casualties.
To: ChuckHam
Everyone is losing sight of the fact that in each there have been ground troops. Think NA and Albanians. It is just that US forces were not on the ground. In the Gulf war, it still took ground troops to liberate Kuwait. In every war it has always been thus. It is just we are more efficient and accurate in our bombing, so can reduce opposition and make it easier for our guys.
To: ChuckHam
Invented and perfected by Curtis LeMay.
To: ChuckHam
Since when does it have to be
either air or land? The fact is that neither air power or ground force on it's own is entirely effective, but when used in close coordination, it's virtually unstoppable. That why our military doctrine is known as Air Land.
The author of the article is sadly mistaken if he thinks there was only "scattered" fighting in the Gulf War. He sounds like an Air Force homer angling for a larger piece of the defense budget.
13
posted on
11/26/2001 7:29:05 AM PST
by
mvscal
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson