Interesting Drive through Iraq (video)

[BoarSpear]

http://www.break.com/index/humvee_driving_in_iraqi_traffic.html

"Guy was Fukkin' pickin his nose, without a care in the world" until...

[Tom Yum]

I read the responses, most of which were not well thought out.

A humvee is not going to be a sitting duck in the middle of traffic in a hostile territory.

[BoarSpear]

I read the responses, most of which were not well thought out.

A humvee is not going to be a sitting duck in the middle of traffic in a hostile territory.

Imagine how you would feel about people who drove like that and rammed you while you were caught in rush hour traffic...Hearts and minds Bro...I dunno about YOU But I'd probably be a dead mofo if that shit happened to me in the middle of traffic. The people of a land MUST support ANY action that happens there or it will not go as the military forces Dependant on their cooperation want...take that to the bank.

[Tom Yum]

Imagine how you would feel about people who drove like that and rammed you while you were caught in rush hour traffic...Hearts and minds Bro....

Good point.

While it may reduce the chances of our guys getting ambushed, it damages the psyche of non-combatants.

So what are the alternatives? What else can these men do to stay alive AND preserve the hearts and minds of the locals?

I dunno about YOU But I'd probably be a dead mofo if that shit happened to me in the middle of traffic. The people of a land MUST support ANY action that happens there or it will not go as the military forces Dependant on their cooperation want...take that to the bank.

A collision from a humvee could cause injury.

Isn't this kind of driving a learned behavior for survival? There's probably no SOP for it, just like how they zig-zag through overpasses...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Civillian Affairs and PSYOPs groups manage this?

[BoarSpear]

Good point.

While it may reduce the chances of our guys getting ambushed, it damages the psyche of non-combatants.

So what are the alternatives? What else can these men do to stay alive AND preserve the hearts and minds of the locals?

Welcome to reality Bro. Thing is NOTHING about the ENTIRE war was thought out or planned for. If we put in troops on foot they get hit with sniper and IED attacks for their trouble...put them in armored vehicles to move "safely" and they get hit when when they slow down or stop with RPGS, and IEDs.

See because the attackers blend into the crowd (who help them and don't stop or report them) We can't really do much, EXCEPT play their game and lose every bit of support we had (see how well it's working so far?) So long as THEY are free to roam and are accepted by the population...hell in many cases they ARE the population, and we HAVE to ride in armor we're making enemies because of the tactics we're forced to use. I'd say the outcome was evident before it started wouldn't you?

A collision from a humvee could cause injury.

Ya think? Rewatch the vid...notice how many children are almost run over! Cars slow to miss a pedestrian and the Humvee hits them and sends them into the people who have to dive for safety...thats going to cost more lives than it saves in the long run by making enemies. Is there a better option? NO...but it was clear these were going to be the tactics used since they are the same ones that have been used in the region since history has been recorded. They have ALWAYS forced invaders into fortresses and then slaughtered the convoys and patrols until the invaders gave up because it was too costly to run convoys/patrols...the only thing that changes are the idiots names who didn't know their enemy before starting a war they couldn't possibly win.

Isn't this kind of driving a learned behavior for survival? There's probably no SOP for it, just like how they zig-zag through overpasses...

Yep its SOP...that means its how WE normally drive.. Now STOP and imagine just how many vehicles we have doing that to them EVERY TIME they get in their car or walk anywhere!!!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Civillian Affairs and PSYOPs groups manage this?

Would it matter to YOU who was in charge of feeding you BS to make you feel better when this was the reality of driving to and from work or taking you kids to school EVERY DAY?!! Thats the point Bro, we weren't doing so well in the war in the first place or we wouldnt HAVE to drive like that, and every time we do, we make more people hate us...see the problem? We make more enemies every day than we can possibly make friends with behaving this way.

[Tom Yum]

Welcome to reality Bro. Thing is NOTHING about the ENTIRE war was thought out or planned for.

....as the Dutch would say, this causes us some "dark, brown feelings"...


[QUOTE=BoarSpear]
If we put in troops on foot they get hit with sniper and IED attacks for their trouble...put them in armored vehicles to move "safely" and they get hit when when they slow down or stop with RPGS, and IEDs. See because the attackers blend into the crowd (who help them and don't stop or report them) We can't really do much, EXCEPT play their game and lose every bit of support we had (see how well it's working so far?) So long as THEY are free to roam and are accepted by the population...hell in many cases they ARE the population, and we HAVE to ride in armor we're making enemies because of the tactics we're forced to use. I'd say the outcome was evident before it started wouldn't you? [/COLOR]

Are we fighting the war the right way?

The conventional military is taking out insurgents, but it seems like they are pulling unlimited supply of fresh recruits from anywhere in the region. The enemy's motivation is literally to protect their own land from being invaded since we're in their backyard.This isn't a conventional war, as far as I see it.

We defeated Saddam's army long ago, and captured him a little over a year ago. Now we're trying to pacify the civil war between Kurds/Shiites and Sunnis while taking out any insurgents.

The real war isn't a conventional war in my opinion, its something else.

Ya think? Rewatch the vid...notice how many children are almost run over! Cars slow to miss a pedestrian and the Humvee hits them and sends them into the people who have to dive for safety...thats going to cost more lives than it saves in the long run by making enemies. Is there a better option? NO...but it was clear these were going to be the tactics used since they are the same ones that have been used in the region since history has been recorded. They have ALWAYS forced invaders into fortresses and then slaughtered the convoys and patrols until the invaders gave up because it was too costly to run convoys/patrols...the only thing that changes are the idiots names who didn't know their enemy before starting a war they couldn't possibly win.

Where was Sun Zi through all of this?

[QUOTE=BoarSpear]
Yep its SOP...that means its how WE normally drive.. Now STOP and imagine just how many vehicles we have doing that to them EVERY TIME they get in their car or walk anywhere!!!

Would it matter to YOU who was in charge of feeding you BS to make you feel better when this was the reality of driving to and from work or taking you kids to school EVERY DAY?!! Thats the point Bro, we weren't doing so well in the war in the first place or we wouldnt HAVE to drive like that, and every time we do, we make more people hate us...see the problem? We make more enemies every day than we can possibly make friends with behaving this way.

You've got a helluva lot more experience and wisdom in these matters than most of us - so I have to ask: if tomorrow you were promoted to Gen. Boar A. Spear and you were to initiate a war to take out the Taliban, Al-Qaeda cells and find out UBL's whereabouts- how would you do it?

[gregimotis]

To follow up on TY's question Boar -


If you were king, what do we do now? Regardless of what we should or should not have done in the first place, the problem now is how are we going to get the best resolution....


I've been tempted to support the McCain troop surge (as opposed to the Bush 'oops, lost an election maybe I'd better try something else' troop surge). I see your point though that just being there is a problem.
On the third hand, if we were to pack it up and leave and the place devolved into a Beirut or a Balkans-esque bloody horror, I think we'd have to take a large chunk of credit for it.

I think it's clear you think it can't be won - is there a least bad way forward in your opinion?

[Tom Yum]

To follow up on TY's question Boar -

If you were king, what do we do now? Regardless of what we should or should not have done in the first place, the problem now is how are we going to get the best resolution....

It seems like the wars are fought in the White House and not from the ground-up.

I did a quick review of Gen. Shinseki's recommendations about the Iraq war strategy in 2001, troop numbers required to occupy post-invasion Iraq and the infighting it caused with former Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld.

Shinseki recommended that a force of several hundred thousand troops be depolyed to post-war occupation of Iraq to maintain political and civil stability.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3432146.html

The two clashed heads and personalities.

Gen. Shinseki was described as being quiet yet persistent in his recommendations on troop size. Rumsfeld disagreed publicly, showed him who was in charge and sent the General into early retirement.

This seemed to upset the military brass - as Shinseki was well respected by his fellow senior officers, and lead to several in top brass calling for Rumsfeld's resignation.

In Making the Corps by Thomas Ricks, written in the mid 90's, Ricks mentions that mainstream American culture and the U.S. military are becoming more and more isolated from one another and that fewer and fewer politicians understand the military or come from a military background. Military service is becoming something that "the other guy's kid does."

The end result, as Ricks states, are future generations of leaders who do not understand the military's capabilities but ready to engage in war.

I'm just a kid on the side-lines compared to today's leaders but the book makes a good point.

[Tom Yum]

According to Sun Zi Ping fa (The Art of War)

"In the operations of war, where there are in the field a thousand swift chariots, as many heavy chariots, and a hundred thousand mail-clad soldiers, with provisions enough to carry them a thousand li, the expenditure at home and at the front, including entertainment of guests, small items such as glue and paint, and sums spent on chariots and armor,will reach the total of a thousand ounces of silver per day. Such is the cost of raising an army of 100,000 men."

Can we fight a war with adequate men, supplies AND pay for it?

1. The financial cost of deploying 100,000+ may have been one of Rumsfeld's concerns as increased borrowing from China would bring more political heat in his direction.

2. Paying more to increase troop numbers and to more effectively manage the post-war chaos might win more hearts and minds at home and abroad, right?

[gregimotis]

Good posts, TY.

[BoarSpear]

Are we fighting the war the right way?

Seeing as We shouldn't have ever STARTED a war in Iraq....NO.

The conventional military is taking out insurgents, but it seems like they are pulling unlimited supply of fresh recruits from anywhere in the region. The enemy's motivation is literally to protect their own land from being invaded since we're in their backyard.This isn't a conventional war, as far as I see it.

We defeated Saddam's army long ago, and captured him a little over a year ago. Now we're trying to pacify the civil war between Kurds/Shiites and Sunnis while taking out any insurgents.

I'd say the troops did an amazing job, especially in light of the lack of tools and training for the job and a leadership without an ounce of common sense.

The real war isn't a conventional war in my opinion, its something else.

Look up generational warfare...what you're seeing is the realization by the rest of the world that the biggest standing army means diddly these days.

4th and 5th generation warfighting is where all the conflicts will be won.

Where was Sun Zi through all of this?

Opposite EVERY freakin' decision made by the "Decider".

You've got a helluva lot more experience and wisdom in these matters than most of us - so I have to ask: if tomorrow you were promoted to Gen. Boar A. Spear and you were to initiate a war to take out the Taliban, Al-Qaeda cells and find out UBL's whereabouts- how would you do it?

I'd laugh...and Bush would replace me like everyone else who told him he was complete moron with no comprehension of war if he thought he could "win" on any of these fronts never mind all of them at once. ALL of them are "deadly Ground"

Aside from the fact we aren't even prepared to fight a 5th generation war..you cant beat those opponents with huge standing armies and bombers no matter how many people you kill...

Cultural boundaries and lines in the dirt dissolve once you reach a certain point in warfare, we passed that point awhile ago...Our enemies have learned its not too bright to group together and thus allow us to bomb them into oblivion...If they don't field huge armies we cant kill them without creating more enemies than we started with...it's all about the hearts and minds in the long run.

[BoarSpear]

To follow up on TY's question Boar -


If you were king, what do we do now? Regardless of what we should or should not have done in the first place, the problem now is how are we going to get the best resolution....


I've been tempted to support the McCain troop surge (as opposed to the Bush 'oops, lost an election maybe I'd better try something else' troop surge). I see your point though that just being there is a problem.
On the third hand, if we were to pack it up and leave and the place devolved into a Beirut or a Balkans-esque bloody horror, I think we'd have to take a large chunk of credit for it.

I think it's clear you think it can't be won - is there a least bad way forward in your opinion?

Honestly I doubt there is any acceptable or even workable plan at this point, Once the people actually suffering from the bombings and home invasions/searches and all the other BS develop a distaste for you and your tactics it doesn't matter what the fat cats sitting in air conditioned buildings wearing 5000 dollar suits decide...the will of the people decides whether hostilities stop...if they hate you, they hate you.

Either you improve peoples lives quickly or you just become their current problem... Hell even during the Berlin Airlift when without us all of Germany would have fallen into Russian hands people were less than enthused to hear our planes overhead even though this time they were bringing life instead of death...most said they never got over the fear of allied aircraft even years after the war...We had to target the children to try to turn their opinions of us...good luck with that in our current conflicts.

So long as we provide weapons to Israel which they use on civilians (in violation of agreements with us) And we give aid to Israel we WILL have enemies in the region, period. So long as Israel stands her enemies will attempt to remove it from the map, and as long as we offer support we are a target.

You cant clean that mess up by killing more people, Never forget the world is a stage, we have multiple countries who ain't exactly fond of us these days...
Until we improve relations and admit mistakes and stop creating these problems no military solution will ever be viable.

[Tom Yum]

Seeing as We shouldn't have ever STARTED a war in Iraq....NO..

We started the war in Afghanistan to capture UBL and stunt the growth of radical Taliban.

Do you think keeping the war there would have been more strategic? Sun Zi says that the first to arrive in the battlefield have the upperhand, whilst the enemy exhausts their resources getting there?

Putting more umph and propaganda on the war in Afghanistan would certainly draw insurgents from the mid east, especially as they would consider it a holy war and cost them in terms of getting there. Not to mention that travelling such a long distance, for such a length of time would be easier to monitor than say a 15 mile adrive across a border?

Maybe I've oversimplified this and assumed too much...

I'd say the troops did an amazing job, especially in light of the lack of tools and training for the job and a leadership without an ounce of common sense.
Look up generational warfare...what you're seeing is the realization by the rest of the world that the biggest standing army means diddly these days.
4th and 5th generation warfighting is where all the conflicts will be won. ..

I've always thought that this war might be more suitable for SF, rather than a conventional army. Apparently this was the thought considering that the Navy and Army have made SF a direct career path for those enlisting into the military and have upped recruiting for MOSs in these groups.

I'd laugh...and Bush would replace me like everyone else who told him he was complete moron with no comprehension of war if he thought he could "win" on any of these fronts never mind all of them at once. ALL of them are "deadly Ground"

Aside from the fact we aren't even prepared to fight a 5th generation war..you cant beat those opponents with huge standing armies and bombers no matter how many people you kill...

Cultural boundaries and lines in the dirt dissolve once you reach a certain point in warfare, we passed that point awhile ago...Our enemies have learned its not too bright to group together and thus allow us to bomb them into oblivion...If they don't field huge armies we cant kill them without creating more enemies than we started with...it's all about the hearts and minds in the long run.

But this is pretty much a 4th generation war, no? Not a 5th generation.

So going forward, since we are already there we have to make sure that the Iraqi army can police its own nation. I've seen that the Iraqi army is becoming more of an independent force since they recently attacked a large group of insurgents. Seems like they are starting to getting their hands on the reigns.

This is good news for them.

If we withdraw troops, Al-Qaeda would label this as a "victory," try to rally up their insurgents and use their freed up resources to target North America?

Hmmm...playing arm-chair general here, why not pull out conventional troops once the Iraqi army wins a few more battles and proves their ability to function independently and replace the conventional troops with SF troops incase something flares up.

This may take years though.

[BoarSpear]

We started the war in Afghanistan to capture UBL and stunt the growth of radical Taliban.

And we haven't accomplished either one, not even close.

Do you think keeping the war there would have been more strategic? Sun Zi says that the first to arrive in the battlefield have the upperhand, whilst the enemy exhausts their resources getting there?

I don't think occupying either one is going to prove beneficial...Opium production is at the highest level in decades in Afghanistan NOW...Hmmm ever notice whatever drug the people we fight grow ends up flourishing?

If we kill their crops we piss off the locals who depend on it for survival...If we dont someone somewhere may use SOME of those profits to fight us, If we attack their income source they devote ALL their assets to fighting us...

Putting more umph and propaganda on the war in Afghanistan would certainly draw insurgents from the mid east, especially as they would consider it a holy war and cost them in terms of getting there. Not to mention that travelling such a long distance, for such a length of time would be easier to monitor than say a 15 mile adrive across a border?

Nothing would please our enemies more than being able to draw us into their tribal lands for slaughter, there are areas we CANT go and come out alive (or without creating 100 times the problems we have)
They are actually baiting us into these zones now...

Maybe I've oversimplified this

that makes two of us...

Which Generation of warfare is being used depends on how far you follow the money, and which problems you see as the real issue.

[Tom Yum]

And we haven't accomplished either one, not even close.

I don't think occupying either one is going to prove beneficial...Opium production is at the highest level in decades in Afghanistan NOW...Hmmm ever notice whatever drug the people we fight grow ends up flourishing?

If we kill their crops we piss off the locals who depend on it for survival...If we dont someone somewhere may use SOME of those profits to fight us, If we attack their income source they devote ALL their assets to fighting us.

Doesn't mean we should ever stop or give up. Change of game plan maybe but Al-Qaeda sure as hell won't stop and wait for us...

Nothing would please our enemies more than being able to draw us into their tribal lands for slaughter, there are areas we CANT go and come out alive (or without creating 100 times the problems we have)They are actually baiting us into these zones now..

It sounds like you should be directing traffic for our men, Boar...unless you already are