"Let’s Admit It: The US Is at War in Yemen, Too" Topic

Maybe a good sologame where the terrorists are gamed by an umpire?

Even if the number of enemies have increased striking against the leaders can be beneficial. More troops yes but fewerto lead them and they spend more time "defending/hiding" than planning attacks.

I would fear 50 fighters with capable leaders who have time to plan and train and collect money more than 500 troopers with no leadership who are constantly harassed by attacks.

That is the same problem in any guerilla war Bangorstu … killing non-combatants drive more fighters to "the cause" … the same happened in Vietnam … For every Communist VC, there was probably as many Nationalist VC who saw the US as invaders, just like the French. The same could be said about Afghanistan … But we are not dealing with VC, but with Taliban, Al Quada, local tribes, possible foreign fighters, tribal hatereds, Islamicists, etc., etc. Unfortunately reminds me of the old "tongue in cheek" saying from Vietnam … "Kill them all and let God sort them out …" Sad but true. And again in this case "winning hearts and minds" won't work either … IMO Drones is one of the safest and most effective methods all around … many of these locals will never understand why the US and it's allies are there … And just so we understand … we are there to insure another 9/11 attack does not occur again … If local tribes want to slaughter each other … that may be to our advantage … Don't forget what happened in India a few years back and the sectarian violence in Iraq now … they are certainly fulfilling, the "kill them all and let God(Allah) sort them out" attitude much more then the West is …

An understandable, but self-defeating attitude.

I'm not saying it's a great attitude, just that it is the attitude that holds sway.

As for "hearts and minds", I don;t think we're really ever going to win over many AQ supporters. Our "hearts and minds" endeavors are pretty much their quarrel with us to begin with.
-Kle.

You'll never win over the hearts and minds of Aq supporters.

The trick is to win them over BEFORE they become such….

I'd say the habit of blowing the crap out of the general populace isn't going to help the poor grunts on the ground in Afghanistan.

The Cold War was WWIII. The "War on Terror" is WWIV. Every country in the world is at war.

And we are losing. Terrorist and despots are opportunists – not ideologues. If they thought we were actually committed to win, they never would have begun in the first place.

So Terrorists and Rogue states are not the real enemies.

As I said, I don't think "hearts & minds" will work now or ever in this region. And I clearly have my doubts of it ever working in SE Asia. And I'd say(for gamimg or real world purposes for that matter) we are obtaining our victory conditions … killing terrorists and their supporters to stop terrorists attacks on the free world … I don't care about their hearts and minds, I don't care about their idealogies, religion, ethnicities, tribes, girls going to school, not wearing burrkhas, etc., etc. … if they and their supporters attempt to attack the free world they are nothing more that targets. Some even say those who bake bread for terrorists support them … So that could change the whole collateral damage paradigm … And again, in a guerilla war with the enemy wearing no uniforms and blending in with the populus will get them all killed … in most cases you can't separate the two in MOUT during a firefight … I would not usually refrain from firing on known or likely enemy positions which may also contain civilians … I would not give the enemy that advantage.

You'll never win over the hearts and minds of Aq supporters.

The trick is to win them over BEFORE they become such…

How do you win the heart or mind of someone who will happily kill anyone that sets foot on what he sees as 'his' land?

The indiscriminate attacks in Iraq and the Mumbai attack did a lot of damage to AQ's popular image. Yes, the Americans kick down doors and come storming into a house, which really makes the locals mad. But they almost never shoot unless someone else shoots first. They don't spray down a whole area, they pick targets. They also treat the wounded from both sides.

The Iraqi people got to the point that they were tired of 'Achmed the idiot' killing innocents, when the US troops obviously tried very hard not to (and watching American troops dive onto grenades to save women and children tends to make an indelible impression on the locals).

The Afghans don't have 'innocents'. Oh, sure, women and children are considered off-limits (more precisely, of little significance), but every male in Afghanistan is considered a combatant by his own people, as soon as he is big enough to hold a rifle. When an American dives on a grenade to save civilians in Afghanistan, he is mocked as an idiot, because there are always more women to be taken and children to be born.

Like the cartoon from when the Soviets left Afghanistan said: "Oh, good, now we can go back to killing each other."

How is this thread not a violation of the "No Politics" rule ?

Since TMP is a wargaming site, discussion of current military operations are allowed. However, comments should remain focused on military subjects, not on the politics of such wars or conflicts.

Note that I have already removed parts of the original post which strayed into political territory.

Clausewitz Quotes

"War is the continuation of policy (politics) by other means."
- Karl von Clausewitz
or
"It is clear that war is not a mere act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political activity by other means"
This is from a translated version of "On War" from 1976

Couldn't resist Ed …

Lion – in the case of the Afghans you seem to have a very cartoonish way of looking at them.

They are perfectly willing, in the main to accept international help.

They like having stability, schools, trade etc as much as anyone else. and they've hung together (in a quarrelsome fashion) for centuries.

What they don't like is people blowing up their houses and bombing their weddings. Then they get annoyed.

It's worth remembering that the vast majority of that nation is pretty quiet. The Pathans have to make a lot of awkward choices, knowing if they back the wrong horse they get killed.

Easy to criticise from the comfort of your armchair.

But to get them on-side you have to prove you're making things better. Drone attacks aren't going to do that since the collateral damage is simply too high.

Hence the Taliban (who at least bring order) seem the better bet.

But to get them on-side you have to prove you're making things better. Drone attacks aren't going to do that since the collateral damage is simply too high.

We tried that. They would 'tip off' US troops that the guy we really wanted was over there, when 'over there' was simply the tribe that the tipping group has been feuding with for the last 2000 years.

So now Americans are part of their blood feuds even without unfortunate accidents like returning fire when a bullet whips past your head. Was that a wedding party, or someone actually *trying* to kill us?

From memory the USAF blew up a couple of weddings – no-one thought the brief the pilots about the local habit of firing wildly into the air in celebration.

Which is the kind of lack of attention to detail I was talking about.

So you have a bunch of locals overjoyed the Taliban have gone so they can enjoy music and dancing once more…

…only for their party to be turning into bloody shreds by the very people they were probably thanking minutes before.

Same organisation (USAF) that doesn't think training your pilots in allied vehicle recognition is a priority either…

You make a good point about getting tied up in local blood feuds. The trick is decent ground intel i.e. political officers. Takes time, but I think the British (and doubtless now the Americans) have been using them for a while.

Of course the British have the advantage of having troops (Ghurkas) that speak at least one of the local languages.

And in a fast mover you can tell wedding shooting vs. enemy shooting ? Again … falls under collateral damage … When the shooting starts many times there is no way to tell why or who is shooting … Again, it isn't the Ironman movie … IFF would be tough regardless … And ground intel is not always perfect either … sometimes people lie … take my word for it … And the USAF train it's pilots in vehicle ID … but in a combat zone … things always don't look like the pictures … again, take my word for it …

Legion 4 – one assumes that a jet can tell it's firing into a compound full of people – I make to assumption the USAF does identify targets before firing although past history suggest that might be a little generous.

IF a jet can't tell the difference between a wedding an a Taliban then perhaps you need to stop giving drugs to your pilots and train them properly.

When the USAF shot up a British convoy not only did the planes spend several minutes looking at the targets, the USAF stated they hadn't been trained to identify British vehicles.

Criminal incompetance springs to mind…

I'll note that in a jet you can rather easily loiter outside of AK-47 range and make sure of what you're firing at.

Rather important in a nation full of firearms where people fire into the air at the drop of a hat.

But only if you regard the lives of Afghan civilians as being in any way important.

Which, at the beginning of this war, the USAF obviously didn't, which is why Petreaus tightened up the ROEs.

That particular officer knows what he's doing.You need more like him.

The US Military does not give drugs to their troops … that is just insulting. You really don't know how the military works and what it's like to be in a combat zone … And US pilots are some of the best in the world. It's not a wargame or a TV show … loitering out on AK-47 range ? Please … you don't take out ruler for heaven's sake to measure. And how many hours do you have in combat aircraft or time in a combat zone … Again to paraphrase Sundance … "Europeans are experts on US military operations" … You know about war, terrorism, etc., from what you read or see on the news … And if I have a choice between the lives of my troops and Allies, or Afghanis … there is no choice … war is a really nasty business …

So the US pilots (some of the best in the world that is) are to be excused from FFincidents whilst pakistani border guards deserve to get bombed to bits for it?

When tracer fire goes past the cockpit, the tracer doesn't care that the gun the tracers came out of is firing in celebration.

That bullet is still going to hit *something*.

I never realised fast jets were so vulnerable to random unaimed rifle fire.
How do we adjust our rules to reflect that?

Unfortunately Col Stone, Friendly Fire/Blue on Blue incidents occur. An investigation is always done afterwards. Some Canadian troops were also killed by USAF strikes a few years back in the 'stan. If the investigation warrents it the pilots are grounded, etc. If anyone has spent anytime in combat aircraft, what you see on the ground is not always clear. When I was in the 101 after my time as a Rifle Plt Ldr, I was a Bn Air Ops Officer (S-3 Air) … much is unclear from the air. And in every war, WWI, WWII, Korean, Vietnam, etc., etc., it happens. My father (a US Infantry SGT) even told me the story of it occuring during the St. Lo Breakout during WWII. He was there … @ latto6 – And random unaimed rifle fire is not really a big threat to fast movers … however, if all you see are tracers coming your way, you don't have the time or information to tell if it's just AKs or DShKs, ZPUs, etc., etc. … Believe me whether you're a Grunt or a pilot … we don't like being shot at …

Yeah Legion 4, unfortunately they do, it's just that if people are to show understanding for the poor sods who's shot up british, canadian or pakistani troops by mistake, maybe some understanding for the people who accidentally shoot at US troops wouldn't be too much to ask for :/

I'm quite interested the jet-bit for rules..
in a companysized game, imagine a 6*8 table, (20-28mm figures)
would it be a silly idea to say they need a bit of luck to actually make out friends or foes there?

Got any good pointers?
I'm using DH/C7B, so anything Large will hit closeby units friendly or not anyway, but i think i'd like some for proper blunders aswell..

"Again to paraphrase Sundance … "Europeans are experts on US military operations" … You know about war, terrorism, etc., from what you read or see on the news "

Yeah, there's not a single european in armed conflict anywhere in the world.

link

link

I don't think that Legion meant there weren't any Europeans in combat anywhere.But that Europeans are not "EXPERTS" on US military operations. Robert

That is correct Kaoschallenged … I meant Europeans are not EXPERTS on US military ops … I didn't say they were not in combat anywhere … And when I paraphrased Sundance, I didn't mean European militaries … I meant the average guy on the street or in some cases on this site !! And Col Stone … understanding would be nice all around … But again, war is a very messy business …

Legion 4 – USAF pilots are given drugs to ensure they can stay in the air longer.

RAF tests showed these drugs degrade combat performance and made the pilots more aggressive – hence perhaps the distressing tendency of USAF pilots to kill allied soldiers…

Yeah Legion 4, unfortunately they do, it's just that if people are to show understanding for the poor sods who's shot up british, canadian or pakistani troops by mistake, maybe some understanding for the people who accidentally shoot at US troops wouldn't be too much to ask for :/

Sure. But are we sure that the Pakistanis or Afghans are unintentionally shooting at us (meaning all NATO forces) in a blue-on-blue accident, or is it an intentional act?

I'm quite interested the jet-bit for rules..
in a companysized game, imagine a 6*8 table, (20-28mm figures)
would it be a silly idea to say they need a bit of luck to actually make out friends or foes there?

Depends on the Air Controller, usually. If the FAC is using a laser-designator, it reduces chances of 'oh, s' to a minimum. about at the level of a Fog of War card in Ambush Alley. (Considering that the USAF managed to engage a MOVING rental truck outside the impact area, when their FAC was using a laser to point them onto the correct targets…)

But if you're using other methods to guide your air support to where you want the bombs applied, well, that may increase your chances of the bombs hitting your guys.

Well if the pakistanis have an intenional strategy to shoot down NATO personnel, then the war in NW Pakistan must be the biggest military ruse ever conceived ;)
I'm certain there are some nuttters (on all sides, pakistan afghan and NATO) that just feel justified in shooting at whatever they want, the important thing there is that all parties bring those people kicking and screaming into a court.
//
No luck roll involved if one has laser designators then :D
I have Force on force, but i haven't really played it, wonder if the cards there would be easy to translate to DH/C7B, i really like fog of war-cards in mini-games, breaks up the monotone yougoigo m1a2 kills t72 that creeps in sometimes.

Lion – regarding Green on Blue I suspect the main problem is Taliban infiltration of the security forces, with killings due to perceived slights in honour coming second.

Because most Afghans hate the Taliban – check out the massacres of the Hazara.

If the Afghans wanted us gone, we'd have gone by now with our tails between our legs. The Russians were fighting the entire Afghan population, we're just fighting around 30% of them.

stu – if you mean caffine like substances … well we all drank a lot of coffee. I don't know of any other drugs/substances given to US pilots. But again, you Europeans are experts in US Military Ops. And you have how many air hours in combat aircraft ?

link

US pilots are allowed to use Dexedrine / dextroamphetamine.

link

link

Literally dozens of articles about this which take exactly 2 seconds on google to find.

Have you noticed a pattern yet Legion 4? Robert

Yeah … I've gone round and round with stu before … It's all in good fun … But if I got it correct stu … first you said the USAF gives dex and then you say they are allowed to take dex … I've got buddies that are truckers … they take similar. I'd imagine whether you're flying a fasting fast mover, slow mover or big 18 wheel rig, you want to stay awake … Those aircraft are pretty expensive as well as 18 wheelers … Plus no one wants to crash !! But again stu … for some one who has not served in the military or flown in combat aircraft … you sure know a lot … But reading about is it a lot … I mean a lot different than doing it …

Thanks kyotebluer than blue . I know Legion. The term "Beating a dead Horse" and a few others always come to mind . The drug use assertion is baseless and comes up time and again. But thats to be expected . Robert

wonder if the cards there would be easy to translate to DH/C7B, i really like fog of war-cards in mini-games, breaks up the monotone yougoigo m1a2 kills t72 that creeps in sometimes.

Some of them would translate directly across to any system, since they just say "that Air Strike side A just called in hits side A's troops. Side B gets to place it."

Some of the others would need some translation, since the card has FoF-specific attack sizes. ('Hit with a 10D attack,' for example, but that is 1.5x the effect of a single fireteam)

========
@BangorStu: When you have single-pilot aircraft flying 16-hour missions, either you need to figure out how to put the plane on autopilot and let the pilot sleep (which no pilot trusts), or find some other way to let the pilot stay awake and focused.

The USN has determined that the maximum amount of time that you can stay fully-attentive is 6 hours. Your reaction times double in the next 2 hours, and double again 2 hours after that.

Yeah … stu is a good debater … and enjoys bashing the US Military … but as I said before reading about it and watching it on TV is not like being there. Some people think the US is heavy handed in some military ops … if we were, parts of the region would be glass … Do I think a local's life is not worth the same as a US or Allies life … when the hits the fan … I'll error on the side of caution … It comes down to like in a football game … Us vs. Them … It's been that way since the time of cavemen … survival … I plan on getting my men, our allies and (hopefully) myself back home regardless …

Yeah … stu is a good debater … and enjoys bashing the US Military … but as I said before reading about it and watching it on TV is not like being there

-------------------
though are there examples of RAF pilots involved on blue on blue incidents? – not seen any in the media – though that doesn't mean there are not any

Dexedrine btw in the UK is a prescription only drug – used for narcolepsy and ADHD

Many things don't make it in the news … but only if you are there do you really know for sure … I'm not going to point a finger either way … But again, as I keep saying, war is a very nasty business … The West/NATO/US-Europe tries to make it a bit civilized with Geneva Conventions, humanitarian aid, etc. … Very much unlike, the "other side", on many occasions, for example, in SE Asia, certain regions of Africa, the former Yugoslavia, much of the Middle East/SW Asia, etc. … However, it sounds like to me, we're again, beating a dead horse …

Many things don't make it in the news

-----------------

the problem, that being the case, is that then just contributes towards the whole rather silly anti-US sentiment in the UK since the press (and not just the left wing press) does go on quite a lot about US origin friendly fire incidents (continuing the tradition established by the old "everyone ducks" USAAF jokes from WW2)with no mention of at least aerial incidents involving the UK (the only 2 I've read about have been one where a tank crewman was killed after an accidental discharge on another Challenger (in Iraq) and an incident where a sniper shot dead someone on an OP in Helmand – these were both incidents where all involved were British.

The RAF organises things so it doesn't fly 26 hour missions.

Which might explain why the RAF has yet to bomb the crap out of any weddings, allied soldiers etc.

I'll note that talking the people who have served in Afghanistan, they speak very highly of the air support given by the USMC which they appear to rate more highly.

I'll have to agree with you GNREP … In a combat zone accidents do happen … And stu I've cross-trained with both the USMC and USAF, passed their courses and found them both to be very good at their jobs … And very well organzied … like the other branches of the US Military. But there again, there is that/your anti-America sentiment … And in those wedding bombings … how do you know that there were not Taliban/Al Quada attending. And saying it was an accident was a cover story … Again, war is a very nasty and at times very messy business …

Robert

OH !!! That's terrible !!! Make it stop !!!!

Legion4 – I know the weddings were accidents for the very good reason the USAF admitted it and paid out large sums of compensation.

It's a society where everyone shoots into the air when celebrating.

If you can't be bothered to learn the customs of the people you're meant to be helping, but instead choose to believe everyone regardless of background is the enemy, then why bother?

I'll note however that since Petraeus and others decided to stop the USAF shooting and bombing everything that moved, things seem to have improved markedly.

Like the noted (by BBC war correspondents who would know) inability of US armed forces to mount roadblocks in 2001, (too jittery, to prone to forget that civvies get nervous when people point guns at them, incapable of providing instruction in Arabic) I acknowledge that 10 years of COIN operations have made the US armed forces very good indeed at this form of warfare.

Attitudes like yours are why you lost Vietnam – 'how do you know that bloke I just shot at random wasn't VC?'

It's twitching I tell you!

Well the horse is certainly dead I believe … And how do you know the paying off the survivors for those air strikes wasn't part of the cover story … Nasty biz this war stuff … One more shot over the bow … In SE Asia, we won militarily … by '72 the VC, were all but gone, and NVA had taken very high loses … had we stayed, which was very much against popular opinion … who knows what would have happened. But the ARVN were in no shape to stop the NVA no matter what their condition was. But the US Military does what it's told to do. And regardless … the US and Vietnam are trading partners now … too bad we didn't see that coming in '62 … As far as my attitude … as a young cadet almost all my instructors (most Rangers, Airborne and SF) had 2 or more tours in SE Asia. And when I went on active duty many of my senior NCOs and Officers served numerous tours there too … I learned from the best … we know how to fight a guerilla war. The US in matter of months defeated Al Quada and the Taliban after 9/11 … Something the USSR couldn't do in a decade. But the US politians and senior advisors always forget … there always is another war to fight. With the Afghans left on their own, the power vacuum was once again filled by the old tribal hatreds, return of the Taliban and resurgence of Al Quada … But after over a decade there have been no more major 9/11 type attacks on the US or Europe … UBL and much of his leadership is dead … I think we obtained the Victory conditions … Regardless of what you think stu … I was a military professional, you only read about it … But everybody is entitled to their opinion … both of us …

The US – unlike the USSR, are only fighting a minority of the Afghan population.

The guys who gave the Russkies the hardest time are the ones known to us in 2001 as the Northern Alliance.

If NATO was fighting the entire country I see no reason to believe we'd be doing any better.

Even if you believe that any Afghan firing into the air is an Evil Talib trying to shoot down a jet, that doesn't explain the numerous blue on blue incidents involving USAF planes.

Or do you think the Canadian Army is fighting for AQ as well?

The US in matter of months defeated Al Quada and the Taliban after 9/11

Actually false.

They disappeared to regroup. If we'd have defeated them, we wouldn't still be fighting them today…

Well again, you are welcome to your opinion … The US didn't provide the support the Afghans needed to stop the flow of the return of the the "bad guys" … Of course that intel was from the CIA. Among other intel agencies … But I'm sure you don't have much respect for them any more than the US Military. Some interesting reading here on the defeat or the Taliban and Al Quada – link You're pretty opinionated for someone who never served in the military in a combat zone, stu … But again you are entitled to your opinions … And as I mentioned before, I think on page one of this thread, unfortunately Blue on Blue happens … And the incidents with the Canadians and others have been throughly investigated … Bad things happen in war … I'm sure you've read something about that …

And,
link

Good one Legion. Robert