Shooting gallery
Husky
right now.
Just saw this in todays news..
Is someone getting paid to ignore the obvious ?
The shocking part is that a chinese fire drill is more orderly than
this invasion. What Officer is sending out the troops unarmed and
unescorted into the city and no longer questioning the safety or lack
of it ?
We may not be dropping bombs on the city any more, but this war isn't
even close to being over. I think I read a previous attack was a GI
buying souvenirs in a city market when he was shot.
These people (some of them) don't want us there. How is it the
officers don't know this ?
After the 1st gate crashing suicide bomber took out 6 marines they
should have had a clue that this was going to go on as long as we were
there..
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20030706/D7S471N00.html
U.S. Soldier Critically Hurt in Baghdad
Jul 6, 2:56 PM (ET)
By JAMIE TARABAY
(AP) Medics tend to a US soldier outside Baghdad University in
Baghdad, Iraq as a shooting suspect sits...
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - An assailant shot and critically wounded a U.S.
soldier waiting to buy a soft drink at Baghdad University on Sunday,
firing once from close range in the third such assault in nine days.
more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html
DGVREIMAN
"Husky" <cbm...@toast.net> wrote in message
news:advggvcnmfdlp9c3u...@4ax.com...
> I have to really question who's in charge of our military in
Iraq
> right now.
>
> Just saw this in todays news..
> Is someone getting paid to ignore the obvious ?
>
> The shocking part is that a chinese fire drill is more orderly
than
> this invasion. What Officer is sending out the troops unarmed
and
> unescorted into the city and no longer questioning the safety
or lack
> of it ?
>
> We may not be dropping bombs on the city any more, but this war
isn't
> even close to being over. I think I read a previous attack was
a GI
> buying souvenirs in a city market when he was shot.
>
> These people (some of them) don't want us there. How is it the
> officers don't know this ?
>
> After the 1st gate crashing suicide bomber took out 6 marines
they
> should have had a clue that this was going to go on as long as
we were
> there..
>
troops must be better protected. Yet it is not the Iraqis that
are trying to use guerilla tactics, it is the interlopers and
insurgents from Iran, Syria and elsewhere that are posing a minor
problem.
Guerilla's usually achieve most of their successes early, then
once our spies infiltrate their ranks, or our counter-insurgency
troops are deployed, then the Guerilla's end up dead and the
attacks stop. It will take a while, but I do agree that in the
interim our troops need to be better deployed. Posting a troop
as a stationary guard, or allowing them to roam the streets
unprotected, without even flankers to watch them or armor to back
them up, is not a sign of good officers.
Of course our young officers will learn, but they seem to be
learning at the expense of our troops. We already learned these
lessons in Vietnam the hard way, why are our officers failing to
use the same tactics we used in Vietnam to defeat the Viet Cong?
The most effective anti-guerilla tactic is to use Special Forces
type small group patrols and of course bait for the goons.
Flanking a bait patrol always works fairly well....except for
those in the bait patrol. But that tactic draws the goons out of
their nests. I say use the new Iraqi police as the bait patrols,
and our Special Forces as the flankers.
While we are hunting goons, we need to kKeep the rest of our
troops in their compounds and off the streets unless they are in
Armor. We should use Armor exclusively to patrol, and use the
Armor to block the view to any troop searching individual Iraqis.
We used to park a tank along side a building, and search VC in
the shadow of the tank. The only way a sniper could gain a clear
shot is if he is located on the top of a building, and our
flankers watched the tops of buildings like a hawk. We
manipulated and lured VC snipers and RPG users into positions
that we knew they had to take to get a shot, and then we killed
them.
The Australians and ROK (Korean) troops were really good at these
small group patrol tactics. We know better, and we had better
start using some of the tactics we know will defeat
guerillas...or start reliving some officers and find some that
understand their primary function is to complete their mission
while protecting their troops.
Doug Grant (Tm)
Husky
>> I have to really question who's in charge of our military in
>Iraq right now.
>>
>Of course our young officers will learn, but they seem to be
>learning at the expense of our troops. We already learned these
>lessons in Vietnam the hard way, why are our officers failing to
>use the same tactics we used in Vietnam to defeat the Viet Cong?
Well I thought about it, The reason is cause this invasion is
primarily supported by weekend warriors.
They're in it for the free education and monthly check. They have to
learn a bare minimum to get by and keep getting the checks, but this
is asinine..
They aren't trained for this.
But they should at least have a few veteran advisors there. Bring back
the warrant officers ranks if nothing else.
>While we are hunting goons, we need to kKeep the rest of our
>troops in their compounds and off the streets unless they are in
>Armor. We should use Armor exclusively to patrol, and use the
That's what makes no sense at all. A news man 2 weeks in the country.
Dead. Shot in the back of the head at close range. His crime ? Wasn't
born over there..
This is the OBVIOUS that they need to drum into the U.S. born citizens
that are in that country now.
The rednecks over there don't bother with just painting graffiti on
the homes.
No one is telling these people what to do. The travel bureaus hand out
better advisories.
Armors only going to work on patrols. Downtown should be off limits
entirely.
DGVREIMAN
> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 00:02:12 GMT, "DGVREIMAN"
>
> >> I have to really question who's in charge of our military in
> >Iraq right now.
> >>
>
> >Of course our young officers will learn, but they seem to be
> >learning at the expense of our troops. We already learned
these
> >lessons in Vietnam the hard way, why are our officers failing
to
> >use the same tactics we used in Vietnam to defeat the Viet
Cong?
> Well I thought about it, The reason is cause this invasion is
> primarily supported by weekend warriors.
>
> They're in it for the free education and monthly check. They
have to
> learn a bare minimum to get by and keep getting the checks, but
this
> is asinine..
> They aren't trained for this.
>
> But they should at least have a few veteran advisors there.
Bring back
> the warrant officers ranks if nothing else.
Doug Says: You might be right about this in some respects, but
the 101st, 82nd and certainly the mighty 4th and 3rd Infantry
Divisions are not "week end warriors." Their officers received
their training at Infantry Hall or at Ft. Bragg where I did. I
know they know what to do. Something else is in the mix here
. In Somalia, as an example, the field commanders were screaming
for more Armor, but Les Aspin and President Clinton said that
"tanks would not reflect their true humanitarian mission"
therefore our troops had to operate without Armor. After those
18 men were killed in the "Blackhawk Down" debacle because the
commanders did not have Armor, there was such an outcry that
President Clinton threw Les Aspin to the wolves (forced him to
resign) - but of course we all know it was Clinton that hated the
US Military and gave the order to not protect them.
I hope, no pray, that our field commanders are getting the
Armor they need, and I also hope the politicians are listening to
what they are complaining about. I hear the main problem is the
civilian authority. The civilian authority wants our troops to
patrol like Cops, and that is NOT what they are trained to do.
We have a military operation that is being controlled by a
civilian authority that knows very little about military
operations. Mr. Breamer needs to defer to the Generals and the
field commanders, or he will find himself in the same club as Les
Aspin.
Note when the Guerilla attacks started in earnest: After General
Garner left and Mr. Breamer took over. Our troops are not meant
to "show the flag" in sniper country - I know and can almost
smell the frustration of the field commanders and the senior
NCO's in respect to what is going on in Iraq right now.
The reason the Marshall plan worked so well in Germany and Japan
was because the Supreme Commander was a military officer, NOT a
civilian appointee.
Doug Grant (Tm)
Husky
<dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> They aren't trained for this.
>>
>Doug Says: You might be right about this in some respects, but
>the 101st, 82nd and certainly the mighty 4th and 3rd Infantry
>Divisions are not "week end warriors." Their officers received
>their training at Infantry Hall or at Ft. Bragg where I did. I
>know they know what to do. Something else is in the mix here
Viet Nam didn't even have the benefit of weekend warriors.
Those guys were primarily 'just out of boot camp' I know I shuttled
thousands of them.
Somehow I can't believe they have any officers trained for this over
there now.
They're now involved in hand to hand, but the enemy doesn't show and
they need to let them know the war is still going on.
Maybe they're looking for uniforms ? Might be the largest part of the
problem.
They're fighting people that use their own families and neighbors as
shields. Uniforms would be more trouble to them by being an advantage
to or side.
What they need now is city police training.
Agkistrodon
> "Husky" <cbm...@toast.net> wrote in message
> news:1a8kgv08ke5u2h471...@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 00:02:12 GMT, "DGVREIMAN"
>
> . In Somalia, as an example, the field commanders were screaming
> for more Armor, but Les Aspin and President Clinton said that
> "tanks would not reflect their true humanitarian mission"
> therefore our troops had to operate without Armor.
This is not true. The only one who asked for armor was the general
commanding the 10th Mountain and not the one commanding the Rangers or
any other commander. Further, the armor was not asked for until late
September and there is no indication it couldhave possibly arrived
prior to 3 October. Add to that the fact that it would have gone to a
different unit stationed across town and unfamiliar with Ranger and
Delta tactics and you come to the conclusion that any armor would have
made absolutely no difference. The fact is that the Rangers and
Deltas used tactics that did not need anything but speed and skill and
a helicopter that was impervious to RPGs. Apparently no one believed
that a Blackhawk could be downed by the Somalis, much less two of
them! They based their operational tactics and planning on their
previous experience and that had been always successful so the Rangers
had no need for tanks and Bradleys. The problems (and most of the
deaths) occurred so early in the fight that armor would have changed
nothing about the scenario. It is also true that there was armor
available, Pakistani tanks and Malaysian APCs finally did get into the
rescue of the men. American tanks and Bradleys would have taken just
as long and have been of just as little help.
After those
> 18 men were killed in the "Blackhawk Down" debacle because the
> commanders did not have Armor, there was such an outcry that
> President Clinton threw Les Aspin to the wolves (forced him to
> resign) - but of course we all know it was Clinton that hated the
> US Military and gave the order to not protect them.
Clinton's problem was he inherited Somalia from Bush and his failure
was in not sticking to Somalian nation-building (started by Bush and
not possible to abandon by Clinton) commitment and building up a force
sufficient to destroy Aidid's powerbase after the October skirmish.
He should increased the resolve and not chickened out because some men
whose job was to risk getting killed actually got killed. Why is it
that Americans don't get the idea that the military is about killing
and getting killed. Is it that we'll fight the enemy on the beaches,
on the mountain tops, and in the streets... as long as they don't
fight back? What the hell do Americans want? A safe war? May as
well take up video games.
>
> I hope, no pray, that our field commanders are getting the
> Armor they need, and I also hope the politicians are listening to
> what they are complaining about. I hear the main problem is the
> civilian authority.
That depends upon what you mean by "problem." In any scenario
involving different groups of people, military force and the use of
troops in terms of commitment and command ALWAYS has a political
consideration. Political considerations put them there in the first
place and the civilian political authorities must take not only troop
safety into consideration but also the political ends that our
interests seek. Sometimes these are at odds.
In Somalia, the use of one of those C130 gunships could have opened a
level 300 meter wide corridor all the way from the crash sites back to
the Ranger/Delta base but to have done so would have made for many
more subsequent problems than say losing ten or fifteen more men. The
bottom line is that soldiers exist not for military purposes but,
ultimately for political purposes because if there were no political
purposes, there would be no need for military organizations
whatsoevern and there would be no armies.
Snip to end.
Agkistrodon
Husky
>He should increased the resolve and not chickened out because some men
>whose job was to risk getting killed actually got killed. Why is it
>that Americans don't get the idea that the military is about killing
>and getting killed. Is it that we'll fight the enemy on the beaches,
>on the mountain tops, and in the streets... as long as they don't
>fight back? What the hell do Americans want? A safe war? May as
>well take up video games.
What an ass. The no one WANTS WAR. A safe war, on the game board yes that would
be the best solution.
Only one that wants war is the vultures and undertakers.