ISIS Takes Control of Mosul

That's what I thought you meant, but I was going to give you the opportunity to clarify first.

See, the thing is, today, we have these things called "smart bombs" that are supposed to minimize collateral damage. If the US decides to go poking its nose into things that may or may not be its business, we at least want to look like we have some concern for the innocent civilian population rather than bombing the hell out of them.

And just because things were done a certain way in the past doesn't mean they should be done that way today. This is a false argument.

This post is full of fail. The dems have prosecuted or had a heavy hand in all the wars since WWII except Desert Storm. We have lost or tied all of them except Desert Storm. The "old" way of fighting a war is the only way of fighting a war. Go in to win and then leave. F Iraq, let them fix their own country. Other countries need to learn not to f with us. Instead they laugh at the ***** that is Barry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
So we either should have stayed out of Afghanistan or have bombed the hell out of them?

Yes. There are no other options, and the best COIN minds in the world (Nagl and Petraeus) cannot actually develop any strategy to counter an insurgency half-way around the world in lands where we, the counter-insurgent force, are neither wanted nor appreciated.

You send a military to kill, not to build. You send a military to do violence, not to preserve peace. The military is not some neat little all-in-one tool that we can apply to a variety of problems.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
Yes. There are no other options, and the best COIN minds in the world (Nagl and Petraeus) cannot actually develop any strategy to counter an insurgency half-way around the world in lands where we, the counter-insurgent force, are neither wanted nor appreciated.

You send a military to kill, not to build. You send a military to do violence, not to preserve peace. The military is not some neat little all-in-one tool that we can apply to a variety of problems.

Why is this such a hard concept for others to understand?
 
This post is full of fail. The dems have prosecuted or had a heavy hand in all the wars since WWII except Desert Storm. We have lost or tied all of them except Desert Storm. The "old" way of fighting a war is the only way of fighting a war. Go in to win and then leave. F Iraq, let them fix their own country. Other countries need to learn not to f with us. Instead they laugh at the ***** that is Barry.

I'm not sure what my post had to do with political parties or affiliations, but okay.
 
Well, I guess should we then be forced into a war (in other words having no other option), once we're done killing all the men and slaying all the young males, can we take the women as the spoils of war as well? I don't know about you all, but one wive is enough for me, although I could use a few sex slaves.
 
You send a military to kill, not to build. You send a military to do violence, not to preserve peace. The military is not some neat little all-in-one tool that we can apply to a variety of problems.

If conditions are right*, it can be used in conjunction with other tools to fix a broken region.

*Clearly conditions have not been right in the Middle East.
 
If conditions are right*, it can be used in conjunction with other tools to fix a broken region.

*Clearly conditions have not been right in the Middle East.

No. The military is not designed or trained for nation building.
 
Well, I guess should we then be forced into a war (in other words having no other option), once we're done killing all the men and slaying all the young males, can we take the women as the spoils of war as well? I don't know about you all, but one wive is enough for me, although I could use a few sex slaves.

Give me a scenario in which you have no other options aside from war?
 
If conditions are right*, it can be used in conjunction with other tools to fix a broken region.

*Clearly conditions have not been right in the Middle East.

I'm not sure I can conceive of what those 'right conditions' would ever be.
 
Yes. There are no other options, and the best COIN minds in the world (Nagl and Petraeus) cannot actually develop any strategy to counter an insurgency half-way around the world in lands where we, the counter-insurgent force, are neither wanted nor appreciated.

You send a military to kill, not to build. You send a military to do violence, not to preserve peace. The military is not some neat little all-in-one tool that we can apply to a variety of problems.

This and the government legitimacy in the eyes of the populace are the key to COIN campaigns.

I still need to send you my thesis! It highlights each of the 13 successful approaches to COIN campaigns as determined by successful COIN campaigns in the past 100 years. It also demostrates the importance of intelligence in making each approach successful.
 
This and the government legitimacy in the eyes of the populace are the key to COIN campaigns.

I still need to send you my thesis! It highlights each of the 13 successful approaches to COIN campaigns as determined by successful COIN campaigns in the past 100 years. It also demostrates the importance of intelligence in making each approach successful.

Can you give us a list of the 13 successful campaigns?
 
Can you give us a list of the 13 successful campaigns?

No because there hasn't been. The approaches can be used in combination with others. The term successful by most COIN theorists also includes the "draws". Google Victory has a Thousand Fathers. That and David Galula's writings were the basis for most of my thesis.
 
For the United States the only two since 1900 were the Philippine Insurrection and the Croatian portion of the Balkan War.
 
No because there hasn't been. The approaches can be used in combination with others. The term successful by most COIN theorists also includes the "draws". Google Victory has a Thousand Fathers. That and David Galula's writings were the basis for most of my thesis.

None were coming to mind was why I asked.
 
Help is on the way.

Iran Deploys Forces to Fight Militants in Iraq - WSJ

Iran has deployed Revolutionary Guard forces to fight al Qaeda-inspired militants that have overrun a string of Iraqi cities, and it has helped Iraqi troops win back control of most of Tikrit, Iranian security sources said.

Two battalions of the Quds Forces, the elite overseas branch of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps that have long operated in Iraq, have come to the aid of the besieged, Shiite-dominated government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, they said.

Combined Iraqi-Iranian forces had retaken control across 85% of Tikrit, the birthplace of former dictator Saddam Hussein, according to Iraqi and Iranian security sources.
 
Give me a scenario in which you have no other options aside from war?

Well, technically, in the extreme, I suppose there aren't any. You can always just surrender or give in to the other's demands beforehand. These are certainly options.

But assuming a nation and/or people actually have some self-pride and dignity, then let's just say if an opposing nation strikes various military installations and interests in a coordinated attack. Something akin to Pearl Harbor.

Edit: And to simplify, since this is surely where this is headed. Say they don't directly attack any civilians or civilian interests. How are you obligated to respond?
 
Advertisement













Back
Top