Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ben on December 08, 2017, 10:51:44 AM
-
I'm interested in the thoughts of combat vets here. I don't have the knowledge to comment, other than it appears that Trump just letting Mattis do his thing and keeping the politicians out of the way has created an efficient machine that is walking ISIS and terrorism back in a relatively short time span.
I have to wonder how things would be in that region if this had happened eight years ago, when we were told ISIS was the "JV team", and the military was severely restricted from doing their jobs. Plus having command personnel constantly having to second guess themselves because they never knew when a non-PC decision would get them fired, or worse.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/12/08/trump-mattis-turn-military-loose-on-isis-leaving-terror-caliphate-in-tatters.html
-
I was in Vietnam in 1968. Even then, it was a common understanding (whether or not strictly true or correct, but I suspect it was mostly both) that with the number of troops we had there and the amount of firepower at our disposal we could have completely routed the NVA and destroyed the Viet Cong within six months -- if we had been allowed to cut loose. But we were restrained and hamstrung by rules of engagement.
-
During classes at West Point, we discussed this kind of thing from the perspective of combat tactics versus moral/ethics of leadership. The takeaway was that when planning for battle, you come up with your initial plan, which will defeat the enemy, no holds barred. You then begin to impose restrictions on that plan, such as minimizing collateral damage to civilians, complying with the rules of engagement. You then engage the enemy, throw the plan out the window, and adapt/improvise/overcome.
-
I was in Vietnam in 1968. Even then, it was a common understanding (whether or not strictly true or correct, but I suspect it was mostly both) that with the number of troops we had there and the amount of firepower at our disposal we could have completely routed the NVA and destroyed the Viet Cong within six months -- if we had been allowed to cut loose. But we were restrained and hamstrung by rules of engagement.
This was hit constantly in my professional military training like ALS and NCO Academy. The amount of political hampering in Vietnam is seen as a principle reason why we couldn't have at least forced a NK type 50-50 split, if not outright won.
Then we had Desert Storm where the politicians gave us goals and otherwise mostly stayed out of the way, not dictating stuff down to rules of engagement and approving or denying individual attacks. Where the military was extremely successful in executing said goals until it got political again with the occupation.
-
Then we had Desert Storm where the politicians gave us goals and otherwise mostly stayed out of the way, not dictating stuff down to rules of engagement and approving or denying individual attacks. Where the military was extremely successful in executing said goals until it got political again with the occupation.
The occupation was lost before we even started the campaign. During the run-up, the U.S. general advising the administration said he could win the war but that to keep the peace after the invasion he would need 300,000 pairs of boots on the ground. The administration gave him 120,000 (or was it 150,000?), and the rest -- as they say -- is history. We are still paying for that short-sighted decision.
-
That tank, or whatever it was, drifting. :rofl:
-
That tank, or whatever it was, drifting. :rofl:
I had no idea you could do donuts with a tank............. :O