The United States Military

[theintensifier 0]

As much as I love the Marine Corps, and all of the other branchs, I pray we never have to face China, or N.Korea/S.Korea. We wouldn't come back victorious. It'd be the end of the world, or at least, for the United States.

[2GOLD 0]

Yeah. That's a true statement. I used to be a 0811 strictly, but since my injury, I have been admin work. I have access to some "secret" / "top secret" information. But, it's nothing major, just who killed Kennedy and if there's really aliens or not.

 

Who? Come on, it'll be between just us...we'll never tell a soul. Promise!

[theintensifier 0]

His brother hired an assassin, who has half Cuban, and half Russian, and all man. He accomplished his mission. He killed Kennedy (helped), got away scott free, and was never heard of again.

[2GOLD 0]

His brother hired an assassin, who has half Cuban, and half Russian, and all man. He accomplished his mission. He killed Kennedy (helped), got away scott free, and was never heard of again.

 

Also sounds like a pretty bitchin plot for a tv series!

[theintensifier 0]

Why thank you, I thought it was pretty good myself.

[BruiserKC 0]

We're doing a great job over there...at least we're giving the people in Iraq and Afghanistan a chance to make their own choices, and at least the terrorists aren't blowing up buses in New York or Chicago.

 

Too bad we have clueless administration who should just take the handcuffs off our troops and let them do their jobs. For everyone screaming about how they should be home...if we let them kick ass as only our military knows how to do they'd be home well before today.

[theintensifier 0]

Amen.

[Lord of The Curry 0]

And by "kick ass" you're referring to what now?

[BruiserKC 0]

And by "kick ass" you're referring to what now?

 

I mean not to have to worry about being politically correct. Example...the whole ordeal in Najaf with Al-Sadr and his cronies holed up in the shrine taking potshots at our troops. In times of war, the second a church, school, etc...becomes a military installation or is used as one, it loses its protection and can be taken out. In the case of this shrine, you give them fair warning to get out...then if they won't you blow the son of a bitch up. But heaven forbid if we do that...we're the bad guys even though they were the ones who have defaced one of Islam's holiest shrines.

 

I don't cheer for war, don't get me wrong. Loss of life is horrible, although unavoidable. But the idea in war should be for us to strike hard and win. We're more interested in world opinion than winning this thing. To me, it would seem to reason that if we strike at the Iraqi insurgency viciously enough that it might be enough to break its back. But we can't seem to do that without the UN, Amnesty International, or some other group whining about the tactics used.

[buffybeast 0]

As much as I love the Marine Corps, and all of the other branchs, I pray we never have to face China, or N.Korea/S.Korea. We wouldn't come back victorious. It'd be the end of the world, or at least, for the United States.

 

Are you insane? I mean seriously, what could possibly give you the inclination to believe N. Korea or even China would destroy the US military? Both have nukes and the wherewithall to use them, I'll give you that. But do you honestly believe either one, particularly the Koreans, stand a chance against the greatest fighting force the planet has ever known???

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Yeah blowing up holy shrines is the way to win hearts & minds.

[Guest gthureson]

Re: Kicking Ass in Iraq

 

The root cause of all this lies in US military doctrine and a lack of foresight. By this, I mean that the operation in Iraq was conceived of as primarily an invasion, with little planning given to an occupation. US military doctrine in an invasion involves a lot "setting the table" for the ground troops. Attacking communications, logistics, supply, etc. Knocking out power, water and the rest. Bombing the everloving crap out of the places you want your troops to move into, shelling the shit out of a town before you attack. All of these things are fine and dandy if your only goal is to defeat the enemy. Which, I have to admit, the US military did very quickly and efficiently. The Iraqi army did not stand a chance, and was beaten quickly.

 

The problem lies in that an occupation was a necessity. Anyone who could say before the invasion of Iraq that the operation would a "quick in and out", let freedom reign and the boys will home in six months situation was a liar or an idiot. Take your pick. The doctrine needed to set the table for a successful occupation was not the same as the one needed to invade. To occupy, you NEED those communication centres, the power grid, operational water supply. Sending in Paul Bremer to declare "Iraq is open for business" and instituting radical free market capitalism before you have even turned the lights on for civilians was a monumental mistake. Whatever the American public may think of insurgents taking pot shots at American troops, it is nothing compared to the opinion the Iraqi public has to getting the crap bombed out of them for roughly ten years. There is a reason why Iraqi civilian deaths have not discussed until very recently. 2100 American soldiers dead and around 16000 wounded? A tragedy, and quite an unnecessary one. The occupation did not have to go the way it has. But there have been, if I remember the Bush quote correctly, roughly 30000 Iraqi CIVILIAN deaths, and likely twice that wounded. That is a big factor fuelling the increasing amount of insurgent activity.

 

And Bruiser is advocating that the Army should have the "gloves taken off"? Iraq is not an enemy state. Not any longer. It is a US occupied country, with a client government. It is, for all intents and purposes, an American possession at the moment, and because of that there is a certain responsibility towards it, and that responsibility does not include acting like a death squad.

 

What was the Hussein regime? Well, according to the current story, it was a police-state regime that arrested political dissidents and arrested those with "loyalty" issues, tortured, killed civilians, used chemical weapons against enemy states and its own citizens and imprisoned or "disappeared" unknown numbers of Iraqis while enriching itself.

 

What has replaced the Hussein regime? A police-state (the US military routinely performs night-time arrests of suspected "insurgents", most of them innocent), that tortures (Abu-Gharib) and kills civilians (bombs don't ask who you support), uses chemical weapons (shake and bake tactics using Willy Pete) and has imprisoned or "disappeared" an unknown number of Iraqis.

 

The lack of foresight in planning for an occupation of Iraq has lead the United States to essentially agree with Hussein in how to govern Iraq. The US has been using the iron fist, and it hasn't worked. Dismissing the Iraqi army did not help. Whatever you may have thought of them, they would have been useful in maintaining order in the country while things got sorted out. Instead, you have over a hundred thousand men with military training getting kicked out of decent job and thrown into a country in chaos. Easy recruiting for an insurgency. The carpet-bagging that has been allowed to occur (what did happen to the few billion Haliburton can't account for?) while the electricity is still off, the water still does not run, and there is still not a signifigant police presence does not inspire much confidence in the new Iraqi government, which will be seen as an American puppet.

 

These are not issues that can be solved by "kicking more ass". Perhaps the election will be received as legitimate by enough Iraqis, and the new government can start exerting control over enough territory that order can be maintained. However, there are not enough Iraqi troops and police to do the job yet, almost 3 years after Hussein's government fell.

 

Thus, the dilemma: The US can remain, and support the new government or they can leave and let them fend for themselves. Supporting the new government means just that. It does not mean running a seperate US anti-insurgency program while ignoring the Iraqi government. That will only fuel an insurgency, as it immediately delegitmizes the government. If the only US solution to the insurgency is to "take the gloves off and kick ass", then they might as well leave, as they will be doing the new government no favours. They might even help it if the worked with them and left at their request. But the US military has been kicking ass and taking names since they got there, and it has done them no good. Believe it or not, the doctrine of "We will keep killing Iraqis until morale improves" stands very little chance of succeeding.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

In other words, "kicking ass" is, arguably, inversely proportional to the larger goal of establishing a democracy. Also, I think that no matter how well the US military performs, there is no guarantee that the larger objective will be accomplished. Like in Vietnam, we are using military methods to achieve political goals. Also, the larger military strategy (transferring responsibilities over to the Iraqi military and police) is unrelated to the overall goal of establishing a democratic Iraq.

Edited January 2, 2006 by bigolsmitty

[Cowboy Battlenuts 0]

I have a feeling we're in bad standing with a lot of nations because of our "kick ass" attitude when it comes to dealing with mass amounts of human life.

[Guest Boobie]

double post

[Guest Boobie]

My rackmate from boot camp, and MCT have both died in Iraq, as did one of my friends from Fort Sill. It hits home. They're heroes.

 

Intensifier, I know what you mean, I lost my brother last Feb 11.

 

http://www.dixiesappers.org/heroes/mcnail.html

Edited January 5, 2006 by Boobie

[Zorin Industries 0]

His brother hired an assassin, who has half Cuban, and half Russian, and all man. He accomplished his mission. He killed Kennedy (helped), got away scott free, and was never heard of again.

 

Maybe your closer than you realise

[SuperJerk 0]

His brother hired an assassin, who has half Cuban, and half Russian, and all man. He accomplished his mission. He killed Kennedy (helped), got away scott free, and was never heard of again.

 

Maybe your closer than you realise

 

[Crimson G 0]

In other words, "kicking ass" is, arguably, inversely proportional to the larger goal of establishing a democracy.

 

Who cares? Democracy sucks. Maybe the United States needs to hear about a little thing called "national sovereignty" before it continues to spread it "democracy" to the rest of the world. Also, to perhaps stir up some more trouble and relate this back to the original argument in the thread: I don't think the country (or any country, for that matter) should have standing armies in time of peace. What do you guys think?

[theintensifier 0]

I wasn't making that up.....

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Who cares? Democracy sucks.

 

Brilliant analysis.

 

 

Maybe the United States needs to hear about a little thing called "national sovereignty" before it continues to spread it "democracy" to the rest of the world.

 

I wasn't commenting on the wisdom of exporting democracy, I was commenting on the incompatibility of the military strategy in Iraq with the policy of democratization.

[Crimson G 0]

I wasn't commenting on the wisdom of exporting democracy, I was commenting on the incompatibility of the military strategy in Iraq with the policy of democratization.

 

I understand, I am, after all, not a moron. I was simply using your post for a jumping point of my argument that "democracy" stands for so much more than some would have you believe and not a lot of it has to do with the original idea of democratic governing. Also, my "democracy sucks" line wasn't meant to be any big insight, but, rather, my opinion (shared by many others over the course of history, but quite unpopular currently) that democracy is the worst form of government other than a tyranny (which is simply any sort of government gone bad.)

[Art Sandusky 0]

I think if we were worried about what other countries thought more than what we wanted to do, we wouldn't be in Iraq in the first place.

 

That always bugged me anyway, phrasing it like that. "Caring what other countries think" isn't as petty as it sounds. It should really be "taking global conditions into consideration" or something like that.