# Law of Armed Conflict and Small Wars



## tabernac (25 Sep 2009)

Just thinking out-loud here, and before anyone jumps down my throat, I know that our laws and morals are what separate, and elevate us from the those in the Taliban.

Why is it that we would go so far as to prosecute our own members for murder under the Criminal Code of Canada, let alone NDA 124 and NDA 93? That's assuming that the same regulations, or other regulations akin to it, IE the Geneva Convention would be applied to the enemy combatants, in this case the Taliban. Laws are created on the basis that they are applied equally to all parties, not unevenly as in this case. If laws are being applied unequally, and seemingly with bias, that means that A) Something is very, very wrong, or B) Seriously out of whack. Or both.

Taking a step back, I'll fully admit, and I agree that such behavior of the good Captain shouldn't be encouraged in a nation we are trying to lead forward, hence the need for the 124 and 93. However, the Criminal Code citations are just nonsense.


----------



## Infanteer (25 Sep 2009)

Technically, the charge is 130 of the NDA, so it is a military offence.

As for equal to both parties, I believe (although I can't find the reference) that non-adherence to Geneva or Hague Conventions does not excuse signatories from dropping their standard.  Someone can correct me on that if it is wrong.


----------



## tabernac (25 Sep 2009)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Technically, the charge is 130 of the NDA, so it is a military offence.
> 
> As for equal to both parties, I believe (although I can't find the reference) that non-adherence to Geneva or Hague Conventions does not excuse signatories from dropping their standard.  Someone can correct me on that if it is wrong.



I guess that the next question to ask/statement to make would be why we're adhering to a Convention that cripples us when warring with an opponent that doesn't have a "code of 'honour'" to dictate or guide actions on the battlefield. 

Remember, these Taliban "warriors" are from the the same stock as those that hung the burning entrails of American security personnel from a bridge over the Euphrates. The same Taliban who deliberately attack civilians with unconventional and cruel methods.


----------



## Infanteer (25 Sep 2009)

How are the Geneva and/or Hague Conventions crippling our efforts?


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Sep 2009)

cheeky_monkey said:
			
		

> I guess that the next question to ask/statement to make would be why we're adhering to a Convention that cripples us when warring with an opponent that doesn't have a "code of 'honour'" to dictate or guide actions on the battlefield.



Let me suggest an answer from a bit ealier in the thread:


			
				cheeky_monkey said:
			
		

> Just thinking out-loud here, and before anyone jumps down my throat, I know that *our laws and morals are what separate, and elevate us from the those in the Taliban.*


----------



## vonGarvin (25 Sep 2009)

cheeky_monkey said:
			
		

> I guess that the next question to ask/statement to make would be why we're adhering to a Convention that cripples us when warring with an opponent that doesn't have a "code of 'honour'" to dictate or guide actions on the battlefield.


I was posting an answer; however, milnews.ca beat me to it.

For what it's worth, our adherence to the laws of armed conflict hinders us in no way, shape or form.  If anything, it enhances our efforts.  We can show to the "non-decided" that though we are powerful, strong and can inflict great damage to our enemies, we do so with care so as to not harm the innocent.  Those times in which we have erred (e.g.: any instance in which civilians were hurt or killed) show what could happen to our efforts if we were to forego those laws.


----------



## Fusaki (25 Sep 2009)

> For what it's worth, our adherence to the laws of armed conflict hinders us in no way, shape or form. If anything, it enhances our efforts.



I'd go even further to say that it's critical to the success of this mission that we adhere to the laws of armed conflict.

Killing Taliban only helps us with force protection.  Our real offensive action takes place on the ideological plane by establishing the legitimacy of our actions, the actions of our allies, but most importantly the legitimacy of the Afghan Government we're supporting.

The the importance of holding physical highground pales in importance to the holding of the moral highground.


----------



## Kat Stevens (25 Sep 2009)

Sometimes when you hold the moral high ground, it ends up being the hill you die on.  Trying to fight an unconventional enemy by conventional means is pointless.  Break out the napalm and lets get this shit done already.


----------



## mariomike (25 Sep 2009)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Sometimes when you hold the moral high ground, it ends up being the hill you die on.  Trying to fight an unconventional enemy by conventional means is pointless.  Break out the napalm and lets get this shit done already.



300 Milpoints to you!


----------



## vonGarvin (25 Sep 2009)

mariomike said:
			
		

> 300 Milpoints to you!


Is _that_ how you get milpoints? OK, I'm in:
Nuke them all!


(Wait...._whom_ are we nuking?  Or does that matter?)   8)


----------



## Kat Stevens (25 Sep 2009)

In the not too distant future, the epitaph of Western Civilization(Tm) will read something like this;
  "We were morally correct.  We're extinct, but we were morally correct."


----------



## Fusaki (25 Sep 2009)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Sometimes when you hold the moral high ground, it ends up being the hill you die on.  Trying to fight an unconventional enemy by conventional means is pointless.  Break out the napalm and lets get this crap done already.



Napalm is as conventional as it gets. :

Unconventional is when you look for solutions outside of the cold war box and understand that we're not fighting massed conscripts in soviet trenches, but idealists who's strength comes from popular support of the people.


----------



## vonGarvin (25 Sep 2009)

[Off Topic Mini Rant]
For those who suggest that "Cold War Thinking" is a dirty thing, let me remind you all that war is war.  In the "dirty days" we did an estimate, and a key factor was the eleventy billion Soviet Tanks across the Inter German Border.   Let us not forget that for many Soviet soldiers, they were idealists whose strength came from the perceived popular support of the people.

As for the Taliban, many I suppose are idealists, but the popular support they are getting is from the end of a rifle.

[/Off Topic Mini Rant]

Now, _if_ the Captain in question did indeed commit the crimes with which he is accused, then I doubt that anyone here could suggest that it be condoned.  If we went around and ignored the wounded of the enemy and cared only for our own, then we would certainly be dropping the ball.

There is another method to fight a war, and we did so back in World War Two.  We industrialised our nation, and put everything into the fight.  EVERYTHING.   We bombed Germany back to the stone age, and killed hundreds of thousands of civilians to do so.  THAT is how you win a war in a matter of a few years.  I do not suggest that we go back to that.


----------



## Kat Stevens (25 Sep 2009)

:  Well whaddayaknow, I can  roll my eyes too.  These idealists get their strength by making the populace fear them.  Fine, let's break out the flame throwers instead. Dig the fuckers out and burn them root and branch.  Noble ideals are fine until the body count gets high enough that the people of Canada DEMAND a pullout.  Then where are you?  These zealots get control again, and the West ends up looking like the weak kneed bitch that couldn't deal with a bunch of dark aged thugs.  If these assholes want a "Holy War", I say we give them one, Old Testament style.


----------



## armyvern (25 Sep 2009)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> ...Noble ideals are fine until the body count gets high enough that the people of Canada DEMAND a pullout.  Then where are you?  These zealots get control again, and the West ends up looking like the weak kneed bitch that couldn't deal with a bunch of dark aged thugs.  ...



And the same-said civilian populace who DEMANDS that pullout screams bloody blue murder against their own government and is simply amazed when, a mere short time afterwards, these zealots land another 1 or 2 (or 25) successful attacks on North American soil.

"How could this happen?" they will scream while still never removing from their stuck-up noses those rose-coloured lens so snuggly perched through which they peer down upon us while inferring that "we" are the bad guys in all of this.

Guaranteed - How soon they will forget.


----------



## Fusaki (25 Sep 2009)

For the record, I'm not a moralist or an idealist.  I don't give a frig about changing the world and making it a better place for all.  What I do care about is winning this fight and making the world a more secure place for Canadians. 

Fighting from the moral highground is tactically important.  We WILL NOT win this war if we are not seen as a force for good and I believe that more Canadians soldiers will die if we do NOT follow the laws of armed conflict, than if we do follow the laws.  I believe that if we start napalming villages we'll start seeing images like <a href=http://enticingthelight.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/napalm20girl.jpg>this</a> on the news and then we'll pull out and all the Canadians who've died in Afghanistan will have died for nothing. So don't suggest that I'm some sort of peacenik hippie who's more concerned about "Noble Ideals" over the lives of Canadian Soldiers.  I've lost friends in this war too.

If we're going to win, we need to think critically about the kind of fight we're in.   There is no place on the modern battlefield for those who think this is some sort of Holy Crusade.  That kind of self righteous bullshit just clouds your vision.  What I want are soldiers who are tactical analysts - who see past the physical ground and into real drivers behind this insurgency, who can set goals based on the REAL threat, and who are professional enough to carry out that mission with ruthless efficiency.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Sep 2009)

WB......well said.
Thanks.


----------



## mariomike (25 Sep 2009)

Midnight Rambler said:
			
		

> [Off Topic Mini Rant]
> We bombed Germany back to the stone age, and killed hundreds of thousands of civilians to do so.



About half the number of German civilians killed by starvation caused by the Royal Navy blockade of World War One.


----------



## armyvern (25 Sep 2009)

Lest there be any doubt, I agree 100% with Wonderbreads post; the point of my previous post being that if "we" (ie Canada) pull out of Afghanistan BEFORE this war is won (ie upon DEMAND by those who seemingly forget or view "us" as the bad guys instead), then I fully expect to hear same-said populace screaming "how could you let this happen" to their own government when the next successful attacks occur upon North American soil. And the next batch of fine Canadians will be on their way back over ... to start from scratch ... until the next DEMAND to come home occurs (most likely ~ again prematurely).

And, personally, there's not a doubt in my mind that they will occur.


----------



## Kat Stevens (25 Sep 2009)

If we're going to win, we need to think critically about the kind of fight we're in.   There is no place on the modern battlefield for those who think this is some sort of Holy Crusade.  That kind of self righteous bullshit just clouds your vision.  What I want are soldiers who are tactical analysts - who see past the physical ground and into real drivers behind this insurgency, who can set goals based on the REAL threat, and who are professional enough to carry out that mission with ruthless efficiency.

Half the guys on the battlefield do think it's crusade, they're called "the enemy".  What's self righteous bullshit is thinking you can win a war with a half assed effort, and THAT is an insult to every dead soldier that comes home.  Seeing past the guy on the ground is great, seeing the real drivers, then dropping a 2000 laser guided bomb down his chimney is just great.  Let's do more of that.  Ruthlessness is exactly what's missing, and find where I called you or even implied you were a peacenick, and I'll eat my laptop.  Don't put words in my mouth, there's barely enough room in there for my own.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Sep 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> For the record, I'm not a moralist or an idealist.  I don't give a frig about changing the world and making it a better place for all.  What I do care about is winning this fight and making the world a more secure place for Canadians.



I'm surprised at myself but I think I'm one of the idealist crusaders.

I think the world is heading on a crash course to global civil war and one of the main instigators is religion and religious zealots. People who kill you becuse you don't follow the same beliefs. 
Just check out youtube. You'll be hard pressed to find a video without comments SOMEWHERE contaning racist anti-gay anti-muslim anti-western remarks.  Hitler somehow is an all time super star when it comes to youtube comments.  Makes me wonder where young people are learning all this hate.

I like a comment I heard.  It's better to fight terrorists at home in their back yard on our terms than in our back yard on theirs.
In a perfect world everyone would get along but the truth is there are people there will will take steal rape and kill just because they can.  Either on an individual level or national.  

Unless the whole world is brought together under a banner of peace and tollerance we're always going to have Afghanistan's to deal with.

I can see where you're coming from when you say your only worried about Canada but what IS Canada?
A country where other nationalities come and demand we respect their traditions all the while ignoring our own?
I think we need to look beyond Canada.
It's silly but I enjoy a line I heard from a computer game of all things.

"Humanity has looked skyward for it's true path"
Since the dawn of time humans have looked skyward and wondered what's out there. We'll never find out until we take away the ability of making war from selfish people.

I'm going off on a tangent though, apologies.


----------



## Ralph (25 Sep 2009)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Sometimes when you hold the moral high ground, it ends up being the hill you die on.  Trying to fight an unconventional enemy by conventional means is pointless.  Break out the napalm and lets get this crap done already.



Hey Kat, you tell me how to drop some napalm on the compound housing three bad guys without injuring the friendlies/neutrals living in the surrounding compounds and I'll give it a go...


----------



## vonGarvin (25 Sep 2009)

Ralph said:
			
		

> Hey Kat, you tell me how to drop some napalm on the compound housing three bad guys without injuring the friendlies/neutrals living in the surrounding compounds and I'll give it a go...


It's called "Hellfire"


----------



## George Wallace (25 Sep 2009)

The thing that you are overlooking is that some, if not many, of these "friendlies/neutrals" are only friendly or neutral when they don't have their wpns handy........When they pick up their wpns, they aren't so "friendly".  They can be one thing today, and something else tonight.  I am sure that many dead combatants suddenly became "innocents" when their wpns were smuggled out of the area as the MSM arrived.  One of the problems faced in fighting this type of Warfare.


----------



## Kat Stevens (25 Sep 2009)

Ralph said:
			
		

> Hey Kat, you tell me how to drop some napalm on the compound housing three bad guys without injuring the friendlies/neutrals living in the surrounding compounds and I'll give it a go...



I don't have to know how, I'm just a dumb ol' ex lifer corporal.  We send very smart people to very expensive schools for long periods of time and pay them a metric ass load to figure these things out.  I don't need to know how to fix my TV to see it's not working.


----------



## Fusaki (25 Sep 2009)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Half the guys on the battlefield do think it's crusade, they're called "the enemy".



And that mentality does nothing but hurt their cause.  By and large, the world sees them as medieval thugs and religious fanatics.  Their extreme views have alienated them from the rest of the world, and I believe that if we can bring up the levels of literacy and education in Afghanistan, it will alienate them from the people there too.



> What's self righteous bullshit is thinking you can win a war with a half assed effort, and THAT is an insult to every dead soldier that comes home.  Seeing past the guy on the ground is great, seeing the real drivers, then dropping a 2000 laser guided bomb down his chimney is just great.



I'm not suggesting that we half-ass anything.  What I'm saying is that winning this war will take a holistic approach, combining politics and the development of infrastructure and education of the Afghan people, along with combat.  This isn't about "going easy on the badguys".  It's about selection and maintenance of aim.  It's about fighting smarter, and not just sending more troops over the top and trying to win by attrition.



> Let's do more of that.  Ruthlessness is exactly what's missing...



Don't confuse ruthlessness with blind rage. We should be professionals: cold and calculating.  No sympathy, and no remorse, because it's all business.  Once you bring emotion into it you risk being seen as a thug, which undermines our credibility and it undermines the legitimacy of the mission.


----------



## Loachman (25 Sep 2009)

Ralph said:
			
		

> Hey Kat, you tell me how to drop some napalm



Not that we use napalm anymore.


----------



## Kat Stevens (25 Sep 2009)

I don't disagree, no remorse.  So why are we discussing charging this Officer for dispatching a badly wounded person who moments ago was more than willing to dispatch him?  Fuck 'em all.


----------



## Loachman (25 Sep 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> And that mentality does nothing but hurt their cause.  By and large, the world sees them as medieval thugs and religious fanatics.  Their extreme views have alienated them from the rest of the world



Regrettably, most of the world is completely unwilling to do anything about such thugs and fanatics, or else we would not have much need to be discussing them.


----------



## mariomike (25 Sep 2009)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Not that we use napalm anymore.



Apparently the U.S. does, or did, use a similar concoction:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20030805-9999_1n5bomb.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_77_bomb#cite_ref-globalsecurity_1-1


----------



## Old Sweat (25 Sep 2009)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Apparently the U.S. does, or did, use a similar concoction:
> http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20030805-9999_1n5bomb.html



Wait a minute. We have this one report in a source from 2003, but nothing since then. If this weapon was available, there should be clips of it being used or other reports. The media would be all over it like ants on a blob of jam on the patio. Instead we have not seen or heard of any "fire" or "naplam" type weapons being used. How say those with time in theatre?


----------



## X-mo-1979 (25 Sep 2009)

I havent seen napalm,however I did have a supertanker of fuel get hit with a RPG 100m to my front.that was the coolest explosion I have ever saw.

I think we should be using napalm on all the dope and opium fields.Be too easy.As the poppy eradication team....well they didnt eradicate anything in my area.Wanna win the war destroy the money crops,stop the funding.I didnt understand why we didnt destroy these.Not destroying these crops "as its their lively hood is fing B/S in my opinion."It's like saying your not goning to bust the crack dealer in town as he's only small league.Destroy production,destroy their ability to fund themselves.

When  I was fighting bushfires back in the day I seen a helo drop napalm stuff to build a firebreak.Lets send over a couple more helo's and use em to drop napalm on weed,and opium crops.

The Poppy eradication team did nothing in Zhari/Panj from what I could see.Even though we were told they were coming to our area in a brief during our tour.


----------



## jollyjacktar (26 Sep 2009)

I agree with most that is being said.  But I believe the other side does not give one shit that we believe we have to moral high ground or that we adhere to LOAC.  I believe they find this a weakness on our behalf and they believe that they not us have the moral high ground according to their beliefs.

You don't necessarily have to take out whole villages to fight fire with fire.  Conventional means have never been successfull against any insurgency.  They either had to go unconventional themselves or try other means.  We are taking these steps right now with Kallay and others are trying to mimic our efforts.  Are they working ? That is not for me to say, I hope so as I took part in some of it and it would be good to know that I did not waste my time there.

However, another example was given to me many years ago of going unconventional.  Someone I knew was at the Canadian Embassy in Beruit in 85 or so.  At this time it was a regular occurance for Western personnel to be kidnapped by some group or another and demands for randsom made, or just outright wacking the infilels.  One group kidnapped some of the Soviet Embassy staff, demands for randsom were made and refused.  A couple of hours later one of the workers bodies was dumped outside the Embassy as a warning.  The Russians brought in a Spetnaz wet team who found out who was responsible, who their families were and where they were all located.  In due course, the kidnappers had several bags containing the bodies of selected members of their familes dumped outside their hidy hole area with a demand to release the victims or more would follow.  All of the victims were quickly released and no one screwed with the Russians after that.  They went for the more morally high ground folks.... like the Yanks.  Not nice stuff, but it went down to their level of understanding and it worked.  Beautifully.


----------



## Infanteer (26 Sep 2009)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Sometimes when you hold the moral high ground, it ends up being the hill you die on.  Trying to fight an unconventional enemy by conventional means is pointless.



How is the enemy unconventional?  Is a small arms ambush or a stand off explosive an uncoventional method of fighting?  We teach this to our soldiers and utilize these techniques against our enemy.  



> Break out the napalm and lets get this shit done already.



How would napalm work more effectively than the numerous different munitions we utilize in theater?


----------



## Kat Stevens (26 Sep 2009)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> How is the enemy unconventional?  Is a small arms ambush or a booby trap an uncoventional method of fighting?  We, we teach this to our soldiers.
> 
> How would napalm work more effectively than the numerous different munitions we utilize in theater?



We teach the indiscriminate use of concealed explosive devices with no regard to the outcome?  We teach our soldiers to dress like and hide among the civilian populace with a Kalashnikov stashed up their kilt?  We teach our soldiers to throw acid in the face of little girls, to "discourage the others", to twist a phrase?  Wow, the army really has changed a lot in the last 7 years.  I think you understand my intent with the napalm comment, as do the others who jumped on that little tidbit.

*edited to remove unnecessarily inflammatory content*


----------



## mariomike (26 Sep 2009)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> How would napalm work more effectively than the numerous different munitions we utilize in theater?



Wikipedia had this to say: "The Marines used fire as both a casualty weapon as well as a psychological weapon. They found that Japanese soldiers would abandon positions in which they fought to the death against other weapons. Prisoners of war confirmed that they feared napalm more than any other weapon utilised against them."
"The substance used now is a different incendiary mixture, but sufficiently analogous in its effects that it is still a controversial incendiary, and can still be referred to colloquially as 'napalm.'"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napalm


----------



## Infanteer (26 Sep 2009)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> We teach the indiscriminate use of concealed explosive devices with no regard to the outcome?



The shitty insurgents are indiscriminate, but the good ones have a targeting methodology that is no different then us emplacing a high-density minefield or utilizing an airstrike to kill our target.



> We teach our soldiers to dress like and hide among the civilian populace with a Kalashnikov stashed up their kilt?  We teach our soldiers to throw acid in the face of little girls, to "discourage the others", to twist a phrase?  Wow, the army really has changed a lot in the last 7 years.



Ohhhh...so this is about how they dress.  So is an "unconventional" conflict based strictly on what one wears when he gets in a shoot out?

As for acid in the face, what does a domestic criminal act against another civilian have anything to do with how we prosecute our campaign against the enemy?



> I think you understand my intent with the napalm comment, as do the others who jumped on that little tidbit, or are you being deliberately obtuse?



No, I don't really understand your intent.  Are you saying we should simply reduce districts like Panjwayi to a wasteland?  Before you answer, remember that although they didn't go all the way, the Soviet's used a "gloves off" approach.

I have been obtuse with my last two posts.  I've asked basic questions that haven't been answered.  I've seen people rail against our current campaign with the usual pithy "kill 'em all and let god sort them out" post, but I've seen no real answer to the question as to how the Law of Armed Conflict interferes with how we do business.

Remember not to mix tactics with the operational level.  Where are folks saying that we are falling short at?  At the tactical level - remember; we've killed a lot of insurgents over the last 4 years.  How would "taking the gloves off" improve our tactical approach?

If you're discussing the operational level, and advocating wholesale slaughter or internment of the populace to "root out" a few insurgents than we can take the discussion there.  My question for you, Brigadier General Kat Stevens Commander Task Force Afghanistan, is are you willing to give an order to kill so many for the sake of nailing so few (that we will eventually kill anyways)?


----------



## Kat Stevens (26 Sep 2009)

I don't have any answers, as I honestly admitted several posts back.  But something clearly isn't working.   Yes, we've killed zillions of them, but I can only guess at that, all I see on my TV is NATO soldiers being killed, and  there doesn't appear to be any shortage of guys willing to step up and strap on some SEMTEX underoos.    Domestic criminal act or not, the acid attack is an indicator of the scope of the Taliban mentality, and they're everywhere.  I will bow out of this, and keep my plainly horrifying opinion to myself.


----------



## gcclarke (27 Sep 2009)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I don't have any answers, as I honestly admitted several posts back.  But something clearly isn't working.   Yes, we've killed zillions of them, but I can only guess at that, all I see on my TV is NATO soldiers being killed, and  there doesn't appear to be any shortage of guys willing to step up and strap on some SEMTEX underoos.    Domestic criminal act or not, the acid attack is an indicator of the scope of the Taliban mentality, and they're everywhere.  I will bow out of this, and keep my plainly horrifying opinion to myself.



Well then I guess the question is, are they running out of people faster than we're running out of the will to fight? Or, perhaps even better, are they running out of people faster than the time it would take to stand up the Afghan Army to deal with the situation on their own assuming that we don't run out of the will to fight before that happens. 

Anyways, yes, I agree, the whole acid attack thing is quite horrific. Not quite as horrific as the earlier suggestion to use napalm on the same people who are getting acid thrown at them, but still.


----------



## Kat Stevens (27 Sep 2009)

Okay, let me state my position a little more clearly for the very last time, and withdraw the flippant napalm remark that seems to be the only ball anyone picked up and ran with.  Soo here it is:

  You can't win the game, any game, when you're the only one playing by the rules.  If it were up to me, not one drop of medevac chopper fuel, not one minute of a doctors already busy day, not one centimetre of suturing, would be expended on wounded enemy combatants.

Now I truly am done in here.


----------



## Infanteer (27 Sep 2009)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> You can't win the game, any game, when you're the only one playing by the rules.



What are the rules and what is winning the game?  Your allegory is suspect as it makes no attempt to define to problem.  Are you saying we would be winning the war if we were planting IEDs and driving around in civilian vehicles?



> If it were up to me, not one drop of medevac chopper fuel, not one minute of a doctors already busy day, not one centimetre of suturing, would be expended on wounded enemy combatants.



Again, how does this impact our ability to kill bad guys or defeat his campaign?



> Now I truly am done in here.



Sure, by all means.  However, I still haven't the foggiest on what sort of logic you are basing your argument on because you refuse to expand your posts beyond simple jingoism.


----------



## Kat Stevens (27 Sep 2009)

Never mind.  Please wave your magic mod wand and remove any trace of my existence in this thread, or any other for that matter.


----------



## gcclarke (27 Sep 2009)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> What are the rules and what is winning the game?  Your allegory is suspect as it makes no attempt to define to problem.  Are you saying we would be winning the war if we were planting IEDs and driving around in civilian vehicles?
> 
> Again, how does this impact our ability to kill bad guys or defeat his campaign?
> 
> Sure, by all means.  However, I still haven't the foggiest on what sort of logic you are basing your argument on because you refuse to expand your posts beyond simple jingoism.



The crux of the matter is the definition of "Victory". If the only goal is to kill all the Taliban, then hey, let's just pull out and nuke the entire region. That should get them. 

But no. I believe the goal is to stabilize the region until such time as the local, friendly, Afghan government is able to do so without our assistance. When we can pull out without fear of things going to hell in a handbasket, then we have won. And, I also think it's safe to say that acting like Barbarians ourselves would be detrimental to this goal.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Sep 2009)

I agree with those that demand we keep the moral high ground, but I also find myself agreeing with those that argue we are facing an enemy bolstered by their belief that they are engaged in a Holy Crusade.  That belief, that Mysticism if you will contributes to the staying power of the enemy forces and their ability to absorb defeat and keep coming back.  We need some of that.  And by "We" I refer to the entire post-modern, liberal community.  Without that staying power, without that core "intolerance" (??? - dam I hate when I end up contradicting myself) then the liberal world we find to be so right may well end up going the way that Kat and Mario suggest.

Toleration when necessary but not necessarily toleration.  ;D


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (27 Sep 2009)

Kat, I understand your frustration as we see our soldiers being wounded/killed and though it would appear via the media coverage that we are just over there taking a shit-kickin', I have much faith in the fact the bad guys are going byebye at a very rapid rate.

1. I don't want those videos/pictures splashed all over the media for those who think taking out baby killers is wrong to use against us.

2. Better those types die or get taken prisoner there than get caught/die here and then get all nice and comfy in our cushy prison system with taxpayer supplied lawyers/food /health care here.


----------



## Infanteer (27 Sep 2009)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Without that staying power, without that core "intolerance" (??? - dam I hate when I end up contradicting myself) then the liberal world we find to be so right may well end up going the way that Kat and Mario suggest.



German and Japanese forces had all the fanaticism to carry them in their conquests and we literally obliterated their societies.  I've seen one historian argue that the only thing that defeated German fanaticism was a more ferocious Soviet fanaticism.  But we've also confined those guys to the dustbin of history as well.

I don't think the Liberal Democratic West gets enough credit.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Sep 2009)

Point taken.  But I also think that we ignore at peril the "faith" that sustained much of our parents' and grandparents' generations.  Many of them, during the campaigns against those "fanatical" hordes of Huns and Nips found a quite solace in their faiths - their churches and their Gods.  That faith may not (or in the case of some -Wingate? Harris? -may) have driven them to fanatical behaviour themselves, but it allowed them to endure.

Ultimately I find the secret to success in many wars to have been the ability to stand fast and endure, or as Inglis of the 57th would have it, to hold and "Die Hard".

It is not the ability to slaughter the enemy in large numbers that is critical to success so much as the ability to absorb punishment.  That ability gives Commanders time and space.  Space in that it provides a firm, secure base of operations and time to run three or four more OODAs to find a successful counter to the counter.


----------



## mariomike (27 Sep 2009)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> But I also think that we ignore at peril the "faith" that sustained much of our parents' and grandparents' generations.  Many of them, during the campaigns against those "fanatical" hordes of Huns and Nips found a quite solace in their faiths - their churches and their Gods.  That faith may not (or in the case of some -Wingate? Harris? -may) have driven them to fanatical behaviour themselves, but it allowed them to endure.



History has not been very kind to Bomber Harris or Gen. LeMay. But, in 1945 they were heroes. Since Vietnam, publication of enemy body counts is frowned upon.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Sep 2009)

mariomike said:
			
		

> History has not been very kind to Bomber Harris or Gen. LeMay. But, in 1945 they were heroes. Since Vietnam, publication of enemy body counts is frowned upon.



Agreed Mariomike - Bomber is going through the same twilight that Haig wandered through for a while.


----------



## mariomike (27 Sep 2009)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Agreed Mariomike - Bomber is going through the same twilight that Haig wandered through for a while.



Haig didn't have the Lancasters and Super Fortresses available a generation later. He did the best he could with what he had. Incidentally, I see that Gen Haig's son passed away this summer. He was in the news in 2006 regarding the pardoning of soldiers shot for cowardice:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1528044/Haigs-son-attacks-pardoning-of-306-soldiers-shot-for-cowardice.html


----------



## wildman0101 (29 Sep 2009)

cheeky-monkey
the capt your refering to is?????
and if so was he convicted or proven innocent.. 
just a question as i hevent heard or seen anything 
otherwise,,,,
midnight rambler i hear ya was there lahr rcd (intel)
cold war and those numbers scared me all to hell..
cant say much more as my sec clearance was secret...
well back in the day...probably still is.... 

                      scoty b
am i allowed to tell that (regards my sec clearance)
f**k it bluidy old old news so if they want me they can
come get me,,, hell ill even buy the beer...







9


----------



## Infanteer (29 Sep 2009)

wildman0101 said:
			
		

> cant say much more as my sec clearance was secret...


----------



## GAP (29 Sep 2009)

Gee.....I think I need a cryptographer to read that....must be a secret message in there somewhere..... :


----------



## Yrys (29 Sep 2009)

(slight derailment)

I think wildman0101 has the soul of a poet,
because he write like one   ...


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Sep 2009)

wildman0101 said:
			
		

> midnight rambler i hear ya was there lahr rcd (intel)
> cold war and those numbers scared me all to hell..
> cant say much more as my sec clearance was secret...
> well back in the day...probably still is....


You are no longer cleared secret, if the last time you were "secret" was Lahr RCD.  As for the numbers of Soviets opposite the Federal Republic of Germany (pre-reunification), it's pretty well all open-source.  Two fronts in the German Democratic Republic, and one front in the CSSR, with another in Poland.  A minimum of four tank armies, each with four tank divisions.  That alone is 4320 or so tanks just in the tank divisions that were resident in tank armies.  Another eight tank divisions in the Combined Arms Armies, for a further 2160 or so tanks there.  Then there were the tank regiments in the motor rifle divisions.  That's roughly 1920 more tanks there.  So far, in the first echelons, you would have seen some 8400 tanks.  Just throwing that out there.


----------



## Jammer (30 Sep 2009)

October Revolution parade in Beijing tommorrow.
Should be a good one.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Sep 2009)

Jammer said:
			
		

> October Revolution parade in Beijing tommorrow.
> Should be a good one.



Drifting further off topic: see here.

Back to the topic at hand.


----------

