View Full Version : Someone please enlighten me
Prior to joining this forum I noticed that there are quite a few Military, both active, veterans, and retirees, that are members here.
I was only an enlisted man so maybe I need someone of a high officer rank to explain something to me: What was the thinking behind letting the whole world know about the recent invasion of the Marjah area of Afghanistan?
Whatever happened to secrecy to protect the lives of our soldiers? Why was notice given? So the Taliban had time to carefully place IEDs and other booby traps?
I read an account Sunday that said the first troops went in by chopper, pre-dawn, to set up for the majority of the troops who were coming in overland. Yet the majority of the troops had to go slowly due to the large amounts of booby traps and ieds that were in their way. I understand that an airborne (chopper) assault may not have been practical, but with all of the notice that was given why would you come in by truck??
Remember D-Day?? Its location was one of the best kept secrets of WWII, and even when the invasion started the Germans weren't certain that it was the main event. It was a secret in an attempt to save as many Allied lives as possible.
More recently Schwartzkopf did not telegraph the "hail-mary" maneuver nor did he publicize the date of that invasion. Saddam knew something was comng but not when and obviously not what.
And here, in Afghanistan, our forces tell the why, when and how, ostensibly to reduce civilian causalities, yet it only increases our soldiers' danger.
Then I hear that, especially in this action, our Marines and our Army have so many rules of engagement that they are hardly able to protect themselves, especially given that the Taliban have no rules of engagement.
I was no hippie, and am certainly no liberal, but if someone were to form up a peace movement I believe that I would march in those demonstrations. Either fight a war as a war (unrelenting violence until the enemy capitulates or is destroyed) or bring everyone home, rearm and re-outfit the military and let these "kids" have a life.
Please, if there is a General Officer out there or even field grade, please explain the logic behind this debacle.
Sorry for the rant but, yes, I do feel better now.:cool:
P.S.-I am not looking for nasty or crude remarks about our "leaders", but rather I am trying to understand the thinking behind this.
I'm no general but I think it's purely political. Obama and friends decided to send more troops and now they want to make sure that everybody knows that there was a reason for it and to make sure the public opinion doesn't go against them like it did under Bush. They're playing with fire by trying to play both sides, by that I mean saying that it was wrong under Bush but now that they're in charge it's ok.
It blows because some of our boys will die as a direct result of this plan to let this kind of info out, but to them everyone of us that dies is just a number so they might as well get reelected off of it.:mad:
SeriousStudent
02-16-10, 20:56
I was a lowly enlisted swine myself, a Marine rifle squad leader.
Like you, I was also baffled. But apparently I am easily baffled.
goodoleboy
02-16-10, 21:13
To concur with what has already been mentioned, I was a lower enlisted man myself. I can't understand what is going on.
I guess people aren't concerned about this, or the underestimate our enemy. I keep thinking of the old WWII philosophy: "Loose Lips Sink Ships." I feel that this is something that Americans might want to know about it, after the fact. Embeded reporters are a liability, in my mind. A friend of mine was involved in the initial assault on Fallujah. They had an embeded reporter with his platoon that opened up a cell phone under total blackout conditions in a city with all the power cut-off. When he opened it, it looked like a bright spotlight. He was subsequently tackled, tied up, and gagged, but not before the insurgents got off a few mortar rounds that landed in the general location.
Why don't we understand that our lust for information risks the lives of the very people that put themselves in harms way to protect our way of life? I just can't understand it. But, that's the old E-4 coming out in me, i guess.
i'm also no general, nor officer. but it's pretty simple, at least at the most basic level.... the reason we haven't "won" in a'stan, the join chiefs say, is because we failed to win the hearts-and-minds of the potatoheads. so we're now going waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of our way to kiss ASS to the peoples and avoid any more "civilian" casualties, in an effort to keep them from running off to join the towlieban.
it makes sense... it doesn't, not at all, but it does, obviously. for every "civilian" we kill, even though he was holding an AK and shooting at us, 5 of his brothers join the towlieban. what's a guy to do?
i just think if we were gonna trying to win some hearts and minds, the time was long, long ago. seems to me we need to kill or leave, now.. kill everyone who looks at us mean, or go home.
and going home, right now, isn't even that bad of an option, in my mind.. that gives them a chance to regroup. while it's traditionally been a BAD thing to let your enemy regroup, i think today it's not such a bad thing... fighting shadows is too hard, takes way too many men, requires an occupation, wears us down. its better just to let them mass into semblances of "armies" that we can see better, track better, and kill more efficiently.
we should leave, let the towlieban take over, reign over the potatoheads with an iron fist so they start to miss us, then come on back in and **** 'em all over again. then bail... repeat as necessary. occupations are stupid.
I'm trying to get to the crux of it: who in their right mind tells the enemy that you are about to attack?
It is clear to us former EM but not to the Generals or SecDef or Pres? I do not believe that our military leadership is that stupid. So what was the motivation?? Saving civilian lives is noble. Saving our soldiers' lives is even more noble.
It is interesting that in 2001, about 300 special forces troops routed the Taliban by unusual means, beards, native clothes, horses etc. but 40-60,000 regular troops are bogged down and do not appear to be getting anywhere. It is no wonder if the same people directing operations are the same people that notified the Talis when we were attacking.
I am also appalled at the fact that there has not been a big out cry about this.
As I understand it, it was primarly for the psychological effect on the enemy. It was said that by telegraphing the attack to the enemy, it would make them look weak, because most would not stay and fight and those that did wouldn't stand much of a chance. I suppose I can see where that might have the desired effect. As long as the civilians can largely stay out of it.
That said, I don't think there's any question it puts the boots on the ground in more danger. Time will tell if it was worth it.
According to the news reports (I am not saying I agree with this), the idea was twofold:
* one, since the goal is to not kill Taliban, but rather to protect the civilians, telling the Taliban that we are coming was supposed to encourage many of them to run away and hide to live and fight another day instead of resisting. Try and take the area without them fighting back since the Taliban try not to fight superior forces anyway (supposedly)
* encourage civilians to flee so they don't get caught up in the fighting
---
this is what the news reports I read about it claimed.
Prior to joining this forum I noticed that there are quite a few Military, both active, veterans, and retirees, that are members here.
I was only an enlisted man so maybe I need someone of a high officer rank to explain something to me: What was the thinking behind letting the whole world know about the recent invasion of the Marjah area of Afghanistan?
Whatever happened to secrecy to protect the lives of our soldiers? Why was notice given? So the Taliban had time to carefully place IEDs and other booby traps?
I read an account Sunday that said the first troops went in by chopper, pre-dawn, to set up for the majority of the troops who were coming in overland. Yet the majority of the troops had to go slowly due to the large amounts of booby traps and ieds that were in their way. I understand that an airborne (chopper) assault may not have been practical, but with all of the notice that was given why would you come in by truck??
Please, if there is a General Officer out there or even field grade, please explain the logic behind this debacle.
Sorry for the rant but, yes, I do feel better now.:cool:
P.S.-I am not looking for nasty or crude remarks about our "leaders", but rather I am trying to understand the thinking behind this.
Simple put we wanted to warn the civilians so that they would leave the town. This creates a free fire area and allows our combatants the chance to react more quickly to threats. There is nothing worse than trying to figure out if the guy coming towards you is a friend or foe. The Marines's rules of engagement probably allow them to engage anyone or anything that presents a threat. The setup allows us to fight more conventionally. When I was in Mosul we had a curfew in effect at night that ended at 0500. When we did night OPS anyone outside was considered fair game and could be taken out or detained. I always felt safer at night because I knew that I could shoot at anyone/anything that moved in sector. This tactic (clear and hold) was successful in Fallujah and Tal Afar. We minimized civilian casualties and maximized insurgent causalities.
DaBears_85
02-17-10, 03:56
As I understand it, it was primarly for the psychological effect on the enemy. It was said that by telegraphing the attack to the enemy, it would make them look weak, because most would not stay and fight and those that did wouldn't stand much of a chance. I suppose I can see where that might have the desired effect. As long as the civilians can largely stay out of it.
That said, I don't think there's any question it puts the boots on the ground in more danger. Time will tell if it was worth it.
Violence of action... That's about the only thing I could come up with. It is crazy though how much they actually broadcast it to the world. I don't even watch the news (mostly becuase the bias and spin that comes with it pisses me off) and I somehow know all about the technical/strategical details of the offensive. If they were trying to scare off the enemy beforehand, it seems they could have done so through other channels within the country itself and not by way of Ted Turner and friends. So that leads me to believe it's mostly political, hopefully it doesn't get any of our boys killed. Just my $.02
John_Wayne777
02-17-10, 07:37
Half of warfare (these days, anyway) is PR on the homefront.
RogerinTPA
02-17-10, 08:09
Not a EM/O question (I was both), but a common sense one. Gen Mackristal is a killer, but is hamstrung by this Administration, and the complaints by the host nation's leadership.
Several reasons:
It's purely a political move.
Satisfies host nation's concerns (Karzi) to collateral damage. (When we **** up a CAS or Fire Support mission, we do it in spades, and kill lots of folks, whether combatants or not.)
Telegraphing the offensive to reduce collateral damage (both people and property) in the area.
Result:
Most Civilians got out of the way, buildings are spared.
Taliban had time to properly prepare positions, IEDs, booby traps, etc... and develop tactics (use remaining civilians as human shields), understand and use US Forces ROE against them.
Taliban laughs at us.
I was never in the military, almost though, nominated to the USNA in 2001 [should have gone, regret it every day of my life] but I do have an oppinion lol.
As said before the move to let people know what we are doing is strictly political. No military planner would ever let anyone know when and where an invasion or any kind of troop movement will take place. No good noe at least. This is just another way that the government tells our military leaders to go win a war, then ties both hands and one leg behind there back. So they go, hopping away to win an unwinable war.
And yes, the war in Afghanistan is unwinable in its current form. Im sure you guys remember when the Soviet Army went into Afghanistan, but I heard it from the Soviet side. My father was a Captain in the Soviet Air Force, he did not go because he was in the strategic bomber wing, [Tu-95 Bear Board Engineer] but I heard many stories over many dinners with his friends, one was a Mi-24 pilot and one was a tank comander in a T72 or T62, cant remember which tank. From the stories they told, and looking at the US rules of engagement, I can easily say that if the Soviets did not win with the way they brutaly fought, then we will never win our PC-CNN Covered-Winning of hearts and minds-War.
Between how restricted our boys are over there, and our leaders letting Hadji know exactly what we are doing, its no wonder it has been ~8years with no end in sight.
Violence of action... That's about the only thing I could come up with. It is crazy though how much they actually broadcast it to the world. I don't even watch the news (mostly becuase the bias and spin that comes with it pisses me off) and I somehow know all about the technical/strategical details of the offensive. If they were trying to scare off the enemy beforehand, it seems they could have done so through other channels within the country itself and not by way of Ted Turner and friends. So that leads me to believe it's mostly political, hopefully it doesn't get any of our boys killed. Just my $.02
Half of warfare (these days, anyway) is PR on the homefront.
With media saturation in everything we do these days, you have to win the hearts and minds, both in country and back home. As for our tactics, I don't give a damn what they are so long as we don't end up like the hammer and sickle's mighty army thirty years ago.
Memory is hazy, but didn't we use a similar tactic in Fallujah the second time?
Belmont31R
02-17-10, 09:26
With media saturation in everything we do these days, you have to win the hearts and minds, both in country and back home. As for our tactics, I don't give a damn what they are so long as we don't end up like the hammer and sickle's mighty army thirty years ago.
Memory is hazy, but didn't we use a similar tactic in Fallujah the second time?
Sorta but the ROE allowed our troops to actually shoot people in Fallujah.
Now its so restrictive people can shoot at you from their house, put their gun down, and walk outside not to be touched. Our troops can be getting shot at, and not able to do anything but sit there.
The Marines's rules of engagement probably allow them to engage anyone or anything that presents a threat.
Unfortunately not. You have to see them with a weapon and/or they have to be directly firing at you. Something like that. They can shoot at you all they want from a house, hidden, put down the weapon and walk out the front door and you cannot hurt them. Or an unarmed one can be standing in plain sight directing fire and you cannot hurt them.
screwed up ROE if you ask me
parishioner
02-17-10, 15:39
They can shoot at you all they want from a house, hidden, put down the weapon and walk out the front door and you cannot hurt them. Or an unarmed one can be standing in plain sight directing fire and you cannot hurt them.
screwed up ROE if you ask me
These scumbags are fully aware of our ROEs and I don't doubt for a second that they use them to their full advantage.
Now I'm not going to say that the brass intentionally set them up this way so that our boy's will get get killed because I know they have functioning brains but at what point do they sit down and weigh the benefit to cost ratio of those decisions?
Its just frustrating that we are there to kill our enemies but the task is hindered not only by the inherent nature of war and the particular enemy we are fighting but, ourselves. There has to be a logical explanation.
I guess we aren't the only ones to notice:
http://www.detnews.com/article/20100221/OPINION03/2210312/Finley--New-Afghanistan-strategy-sacrifices-troops
Outlander Systems
02-21-10, 14:50
Half of warfare (these days, anyway) is PR on the homefront.
Which, as I learned from Sid Meier's Civilisation, War + Democracy is a pain in the ass.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.