"Limiting Collateral Damage. " Topic

And indeed the distinct impression they don't actually care.

Reread my posts about trying to avoid CD … again if we didn't care … there would be again a lot more CD … DO YOU UNDERSTAND that ?
Where is that "Beating A Dead Horse" icon ?

Legion – it would be nice if you didn't insult me every time I make a valid point that contradicts you.

If you think I'm insulting you … hit the [!] … Let Bill decide. He'll probably DH me just because … he can … And your definition of valid may not be the same as mine … it appears …

In those circumstances I think it reaosnable to assume there are no children playing within a few tens of metres of the target.

you don't need an military career or extensive training to work that out.

So you believe … How many air hours do you have looking out the door or window of a aircraft ? To know you can't see everything clearly. Especially in closed terrain like urban ?

As for what war crime would be committed in bombing Raqqa – I thought that you'd know that because military personnel are meant to be taught such things.

The original post suggested trashing the place. Causing indiscriminate massive civilian casualties is, these days, a war crime.

Don't try to lecture me on war crimes. We were trained to know war crimes, crimes against humanity, human rights violations, etc. … If the enemy occupies a mosque, school, hospital, etc. it loses it protected status. But again you didn't read my posts. I said we had the "capabilities" to level Raqqa. But said we won't do it because of the inevitable increased CD. Pay attention there it a war going on.

Whatever plans the Syrians have for Raqqa, it is their city. They may, just may, not like the diea of a foreign power killing thousands of their citizens for giggles.

Again reread my post … said we could but won't because of CD. Now when the Syrians retake Raqqa, I'm sure there will be CD. It's again … inevitable. But since it's their city it's OK ?

Your Nixonite view that 'If America does it, that makes it right' is morally repugnant.

No I don't think like that … you think I do …

And would the Israelis grant basing rights? And would the Jordanians grant you permission to overfly?

How many nations would you decide to take on?

I'm pretty sure we already have basing rights in both Israel and Jordan. As well as overfly … They are allies and have no love for Deash or the Syrians for that matter. The Jordanians would like nothing better than to have the conflicts in Syria and Iraq come to an end. And all those hungry refugees would go home.
We wouldn't have to take on any nations. And for what ? Because we could bomb Raqqa ? NO ONE is going to go to war over destroying the Deash HQ, using Smart munitions. Save for Daesh … and they are at war with us already. But in reality … would NATO, the Russians etc., attack the USA ? How ? We all saw the movies "Red Dawn" … we know that won't/can't happen.

The meager UK and French, NATO militaries are going to hit the beaches at NY & NJ ? How are they going to get across the Atlantic ? If NATO and the Russians landed on the beaches of NY, NJ, etc. … They'd find all their vehicles up on blocks with their tires and tracks gone and radios missing, by morning. Not to mention all those crazy 'Mericans with all those legal and illegal guns ! DOH !

That kind of being why we're bombing them. If you do the same, why shouldn't people bomb you?

If they could … they would … Daesh and AQ and their supporters already have done that. And will try again. The 9/11 attacks started all this.

And I hope UBL [now deceased] and his minions are happy with the can of worms they have kicked over. That has caused the lose of so many fellow moslems. As more moslems have killed other moslems than the West, the infidel, the Crusader has … since 9/11 …

Technology is a massive force multiplier for terrorists and individuals or small groups resisting a state or power elite. The ability of terrorists to magnify their power to function and disrupt is growing far faster than states' and elites' abilies to monitor and suppress them. States are now spending greater and greater sums of public money on largely economically unproductive security in an effort to control and suppress the terrorism. But while they are identifying and killing terrorists, they are not stopping or even slowing down the spread and frequency of terrorism. Indeed, the privation caused at home and abroad by spending such large sums of public monies on security and on the military is making terrorism and resistance to these monoliths of profligate spending more widespread. The economic trap of terrorism is it impoverishes the rich states by diverting capital from economic growth to comparatively nonproductive expenditures.

The impoverishment leads to dissatisfaction and a desire for change among a growing part of the population. The state, in order to survive, begins to turn the security and military apparatus on its own citizenry in a bid to stay in power and privilege. Surveillance and social control grow and the state gravitates towards authoritarianism and militarism using the threat of terrorism as the justification for laminating a security and military presence over all of our lives. Many accept this but some reject it and the state moves to stifle these voices of dissent. Gradually, liberties are lost and people are more closely monitored and mapped. As more and more people become aware of this, they see that their state and their elites are no longer serving the peoples' interests and in fact are damaging their interests. They become angrier and more vocal until a critical mass of the citizenry is willing to change the power structure. At that point the state and it's elites face a stark choice. Do they respect the peoples' will and lose power or do they use the security and military resources at their disposal to maintain power in the face of popular resistance and in the name of continuity and stability. Thus the state either changes or becomes antithetical to democracy and liberty. History teaches us that states and their elites will almost always cling to power.

Terrorists kill people and destroy property and this causes sensible people to recoil and fear the terrorists to some degree. However, the damage done to people and property by the military actions of responding states to peoples around the world is far greater than the damage done by all the terrorists combined. So more people gravitate towards the resistance and towards terrorism. While 9/11 was terrible and the televised destruction seemed appalling, it was a pitence compared to the damage and death done by Coalition states to the property and persons of the states singled out for retribution by the Coalition. How many World Trade Centers is Falluja worth, Najaf, etc? The disproportionate response is what is driving more and more survivors to tolerate, support, or even embrace terrorism. Drones and smart munitions were hoped to limit this damage and to reduce the blow back from disproportionate response but they didn't do this.

Drones and smart munitions have encouraged a sense of entitlement in the West that they can kill baddies more cleanly, efficiently and regularly then ever before. Such drones seem to offer a way to reduce the anger for the massive destruction meted out by more conventional military means. However this is not true. The drones do reduce the level of deaths, disability and destruction of property but they have a much more dangerous side effect. They anger the population. The population turn to their own leaders to stop the attacks. The leadership is either tacitly supporting the attacks or is unable to prevent them. Either way it does nothing to stop the attacks. The population grows more and more angry and frustrated as the attacks continue and resistance to the local regime mounts until civil uprising occurs. The regime is either forced to use extreme force to stay in power or is toppled. In either case the ground is now far more fertile for the spread of terrorism. The drones and smart bombs have not curtailed terrorism but promoted its spread and entrenchment in the local population. This is what happened in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and is what is happening in Syria and the African Sahil. This is what will happen in nuclear armed Pakistan, in post-Khaddafi Libya and resource rich central Africa.

So drones and smart munitions will not work to counter terrorism even if made more precise and less prone to causing collateral damage. Instead they will spread terrorism and make it stronger. Even highly precise and limited strikes with improved weapons are likely to fail as any damage will foster discontent and nourish the terrorists. The reason for this is that people resent the fact that they can be attacked as much as they fear the effects of the attack. To those caught in the middle between the terrorists and the drones and/or smart bombs, everyone involved is a terrorist except them.

Rod Robertson.

Rod … don't you ever get tired of saying the same things over and over again. Which IMO have limited validity to the reality of the current situation ? Maybe we'll have a sit down. And tell all the terrorists if they stop killing us. We'll open Starbucks and McDonalds on every corner in the Mid East, North Africa and SW Asia. Give them all jobs and pay them $15 USD hour.

If I may again …

VIS:
Your point is well taken. There is no widely accepted legal definition of "terrorism" because too much of what terrorists do is also done by states. Time and time again legal scholars, academics and military professionals have tried to define terrorism but all to date have been rejected because of the legal liability which such a definition could pose to states. Attempts have been made to exclude states from definitions of terrorism and limit the definition to individuals, groups and non-state actors, but the definition of terrorism always come back to shine an unwanted light on what many states do routinely to maintain their power and promote their interests.

Ultimately people are becoming aware that "terrorist" and "terrorism" are not useful legal terms as they are such emotionally loaded and pejorative terms and therefore are unsuited to legal definition and use. So where do we go from here? So far, the approach has been extra-legal responses like military action, assassination, summery execution, disappearing, etc. What will eventually happen is a mystery to me, but one thing is certain. The rule of law is being pushed aside, bent, distorted, diminished and is in danger of being removed from this process. This will be to our wider detriment and in my opinion poses a far greater menace than terrorism ever did.
Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Many accept this but some reject it and the state moves to stifle these voices of dissent. Gradually, liberties are lost and people are more closely monitored and mapped. As more and more people become aware of this, they see that their state and their elites are no longer serving their interests and in fact are damaging their interests. They become angrier and more vocal until a critical mass of the citizenry is willing to change the power structure.
----------------
good luck with that in the UK anyway. Most peoples reaction if anything would be far more extreme than the govt would ever think of doing. Those who reject it are already doing that no matter what the state does.

Rod … stu … I actually have better things to do than argue with you two "reprobates" on this Sunday afternoon … So for your future comments which again we have all discussed before. Many, many times. And no one's mind has been changed. Let me reply to all of your future posts directed at me …

And just in case you don't get that …

Or miss my intent …

Or really think I give a royal rats' bum what you think … about anything or me or of 'Merica, or anything I post … etc., etc., etc., etc. …

So …

Yes, I know that … I didn't tell them to stop posting … just that we have discussed this all before. With no agreement on anything but to agree to disagree … That is my opinion … and post …

Legion 4:
These comments of mine are not directed at you and in no way are they an attack on you. You seem to be taking this rather more personally than I expected and for what it's worth I am sorry about that. I won't stop saying what I am saying because I believe it is important to hear all sides in a public debate but I do regret any discomfort or anger I am causing you. Please rest assured that while I disagree with you, there is no intent to insult or diminish you in my arguments. I am making them because I think they need to be made and not to antagonize you or anyone else. I understand that you may have better things to do on a Sunday but I guess I don't, so you'll have to bear with me old man!
Apologies for any collateral damage my posts may have cost you, but CD is inevitable and an acceptable cost of debate it seems!
Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

GNREP8:

You wrote:
"on that basis then we are all legitimate targets for terrorists and have no right to complain as who votes for these govts. Moral equivalency? I dont agree".

I think the terrorist would see things that way. Despite the inevitable declamations of "moral equivalency", we live in a relativistic world where good and bad, right and wrong, and even 'truth' are shaped by our perception and perspective. People who bomb and kill may be terrorists or heroes depending on the point of view of the observer. It is often said that the villain is the hero of his own story. What is not often said is a hero may be the villain of another's story.
Henry Fielding in the preamble to his book "Jonathan Wilde" described history being shaped by 'good men' who were largely ineffective but often inspirational, 'great men' who were very effective but cut a terrible swath through history and the very rare and special 'good and great men' who changed the world for the better without mangling it with widespread death and destruction. My question would be are our leaders today 'great men/women' or 'good and great men/women'? I'm not sure I know the answer anymore but I am willing to defer to Fielding's wisdom that the 'good and great' are a rare thing indeed.
Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

What? Is Kyoteblue channeling George Takei now?
; )
Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Despite the inevitable declamations of "moral equivalency", we live in a relativistic world where good and bad, right and wrong, and even 'truth' are shaped by our perception and perspective
--------------
yes and no. I dont see the man who operated the gas chambers at Auschwitz and an RAF bomb aimer in WW2 over night time Germany as inhabiting the same moral universe and never will – thats why I fundamentally disagreed with the sadly now deceased peace protestor outside our parliament whose poster said 'there never was a good war' – I doubt those Jews and others liberated from Nazi tyranny would have seen it that way (and except for Nazi apologists it was not of course 'war' as such that put them there, as the initiation of the Holocaust was a German 'internal security' issue).

I'd also say re your how many Fallujahs etc – well how many Dresdens was 1939 Poland worth? If the world had known in 1939 how much suffering would be caused, would it have been morally justifiable to say "just take Poland and lets talk" (some vegans hypothesise that it would be better if all carnivorous predators died as they kill many times over their own numbers so all told more animals would be saved long term).

I am sure that the pov of some pacifists would be that the war caused more suffering than it alleviated – how about the ACW and slavery/states rights. In both cases (from my pov) it was people standing up to injustice who 'caused' a wider war/scale of suffering – except that of course the culpability lies clearly on one side and it was not the UK/France or the Unionists.

of course (and appreciate this is slightly off topic) if people want to see some form of moral equivalency/the West is engaged in terrorism too, well its a free country so fine, as long as if say one saw or heard something one didnt then say "well i am not helping the authorities as that makes me part of the state" – and of course keep paying your taxes!

'Your point is well taken. There is no widely accepted legal definition of "terrorism" because too much of what terrorists do is also done by states. Time and time again legal scholars, academics and military professionals have tried to define terrorism but all to date have been rejected because of the legal liability which such a definition could pose to states. Attempts have been made to exclude states from definitions of terrorism and limit the definition to individuals, groups and non-state actors, but the definition of terrorism always come back to shine an unwanted light on what many states do routinely to maintain their power and promote their interests.'

That is a valid point. The CIA has been responsible for quite a bit of state sponsored terrorism in the past when destabilising 'enemy' regimes, I'm sure they haven't stopped. 'Terrorism', much as it is to be regretted, can be a very effective form of warfare.

Better include a couple of references for that.

link
link
link
link
link

GNREP8:

First let me say that nothing that I am about to say is an excuse or rationalization for the atrocities and evil of the Nazi regime of Germany between 1933 and 1945. They were monsters and committed crimes of unspeakable horror. Having made that clear, I wonder if you were a hausfrau from Hamburg who had seen her house destroyed and her children burned to death by British incendiary bombs if you would put so much moral distance between the death camp man and RAF bomb aimer? You are British if IIRC and that has shaped your perceptions and perspective on the events of WWII. The victims of violence often see things quite differently from those who who inflict the violence. That is the dichotomy between soldier and civilian, cop and street person, boss and employee, leader and follower etc. It comes down to you perspective and perception of the events unfolding around you.

Apologies for mis-spelling Fallujah above. How many Dresdens was Poland worth is a terrible calculus which only Germans can make. My sense is that it was not worth it, but I am not a product of Imperial, Wiemar and Nazi Germany, so my calculation is different. As to vegans and predators, the vegans need some basic ecology instruction and the predators need to put vegans high on their to-eat list if they are to survive the coming "green holocaust" of carnivores. But again it all comes down to POV and perspective.

The ACW, the motives behind it and the benefits it may have brought the American continent are big topics, too big to be addressed here, but I am sure that a well-to-do northern abolitionist and and an impoverished landless Southern farmer who lost his farm due to Yankee carpet-baggers would have differing opinions on the matter. And don't get me started on a black sharecropper trying to survive under the Jim Crow laws of the post-bellum southern USA. The good or the bad of the situation is relative to where you stand in the situation you are in which you are located and the perspective that location imparts to you.

Terroists are bad not for why they do what they do, but for how they do it. It is the methods of attacking innocents to spread fear and cow people into new behaviours which make terrorists bad folk, even if their motives are less bad or even noble. Conversely, states with noble intentions do not get off Scot-free if they use disproportionate and wanton violence to achieve their ends and push their interests forward. It is the actions of both terrorists and states which must be used as the metric to evaluate their behaviour and not their motives. The ends do NOT justify the means.

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

GNREP8 wrote:
"of course (and appreciate this is slightly off topic) if people want to see some form of moral equivalency/the West is engaged in terrorism too, well its a free country so fine, as long as if say one saw or heard something one didnt then say "well i am not helping the authorities as that makes me part of the state" – and of course keep paying your taxes!"

Ah, where's Wat Tyler when you really need him, eh? I pine for 1381! :)!

Cheers.
Rod Roberson

It's about time a couple of people on here realised that we aren't targeting/fighting Islamic fundamentalism to help out the country's the terrorists come from or for any sense of doing good in the world. We are fighting it to prevent it coming here in the massive scale it would if we did nothing. You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, and you can call me what you like, but I would rather flatten a thousand foreign schools and hospitals to take out one terrorist who may come here and kill my kids out of some medieval sense of justice.

Foxweasel:
I can understand a father's desire to protect his children and those of his entire nation. If Legion 4 is correct in his recollection then thank you for your service in Afghanistan and anywhere else you served. However, a parent's desire to protect his children is not a license to kill others' children. Your words above may have been said out of frustration but they are as dangerous as the fundamentalism of those you wish to bomb.

"…and you can call me what you like, but I would rather flatten a thousand foreign schools and hospitals to take out one terrorist who may come here and kill my kids out of some medieval sense of justice."

You state you are willing to kill many, many innocent people including school children for the possibility of removing one fundamentalist terrorist. Who is the fanatical mass-murder in this scenario you have posted? Perhaps it's time to reflect on this and make some peace with the world around you. I am not a soldier and I cannot imagine what you have been through and experienced while serving abroad. But your posted words are very disturbing if they truly represent what you and your fellow soldiers really believe to be right.
I bid you peace and hope you find some measure of balance and tranquility in your life. The love you feel for your children is the same as the love felt by those working and being served by the schools and hospitals you mentioned above. Remember the common humanity you share with innocents and try to temper your rage, words and actions.
Thank you for your service abroad and your candor here.
Rod Robertson.

I've been reading this and I think there are several issues

First – what I think is Kyote's question. In the future will some kind of smart munition allow us to "zap" the bad guys with comparative ease. Arguably, with the human tendency to use technology to kill, I'd say yes. But that opens up the question of collateral. Let's say we can deploy the "zap gun", we'd have to be sure we got everyone, every single last one of them in one or perhaps two strikes and in doing so deleted it from history and awareness. Because the collateral wouldn't just be civilians and goats wherever the zap gun was deployed, it would be on our own doorsteps. Such a massive attack would harden resolve, drive waverers across into commitment and onto the offensive here at home.

If some horde was driving west from Raqqa in some terrorist panzerkiel, then yes, you could bring all the firepower you could to bear and destroy it. After some Paris or Brussels style outrage, we could perform some kind of techno-dronefire-Carthage number on Raqqa. But this is a joined up world, the pictures would get out and harden resolve elsewhere with Raqqa as evidence of our murderous intent.

If, faced with the aftermath of a terrorist attack, your average western citizen was told "we can have them. Now. Just vote "kill" by text to this number", the grid would collapse under the weight of those texts. Very few would choose "flatter" out of Machiavelli's choice of flatter or destroy and at that moment would disregard collateral damage and simply destroy. But that would not solve the problem of the impact of that action in creating a whole city of martyrs.

I'm a pretty wet, woolly lefty liberal but deep down I know I really agree with Foxweasel. Us or them, it's them. My concern is though, once you start breaking eggs, where do you stop? Can you stop? Will they let you stop? Or are you locked into a killing cycle with no end in sight? One strike to finish it? Many here would press that button, I know I'd consider it but would it finish it?

Rod,
Thank you for your measured response to my perhaps outrageous post. I have seen the same love we have for our families reflected in the love of the fathers of the families in the country's we regard as enemies. But that doesn't mean that our western sense of right and wrong is flawed.
The countries we are currently fighting have a totally different way of thinking regarding the sanctity of life. Taking a life isn't an easy thing (for normal people) but I stand by what I said, I would sooner see the entire Middle east turned to glass than see another atrocity on our soil.
They are cliched phrases, but in my eyes they still hold good, "the end justifies the means" and "for the greater good"
Foxweasel, an unapologetic defender of western democracy and general goodness.

Sorry, meant to add, they are exactly the feelings of everyone I know who I serve with.

foxweasel

It's about time a couple of people on here realised that we aren't targeting/fighting Islamic fundamentalism to help out the country's the terrorists come from or for any sense of doing good in the world. We are fighting it to prevent it coming here in the massive scale it would if we did nothing. You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, and you can call me what you like, but I would rather flatten a thousand foreign schools and hospitals to take out one terrorist who may come here and kill my kids out of some medieval sense of justice.

AMEN !

If Legion 4 is correct in his recollection then thank you for your service in Afghanistan and anywhere else you served.

I'm old … not senile …

but deep down I know I really agree with Foxweasel. Us or them, it's them.

Only someone who does not understand the reality of the situation would think otherwise. That is what has kept many of the species on the planet alive … Including us humans. Social Darwinism … survival of the fittest. Sorry … There it is again, reality rearing it's ugly head.

foxweasel

I have seen the same love we have for our families reflected in the love of the fathers of the families in the country's we regard as enemies. But that doesn't mean that our western sense of right and wrong is flawed.
The countries we are currently fighting have a totally different way of thinking regarding the sanctity of life. Taking a life isn't an easy thing (for normal people) but I stand by what I said, I would sooner see the entire Middle east turned to glass than see another atrocity on our soil.
They are cliched phrases, but in my eyes they still hold good, "the end justifies the means" and "for the greater good"
Foxweasel, an unapologetic defender of western democracy and general goodness.

Sorry, meant to add, they are exactly the feelings of everyone I know who I serve with.

And mine as well …

Kyoteblue:
David Galula was a retired French officer with plenty of Counter insurgency experience when he wrote this outstanding piece of work. The key to counter insurgency is not turning regions into obsidian wastelands or using drones to kill baddies. The key is to isolate the insurgency from the population, to discredit the insurgents' cause(s) and to turn the population against the insurgents. It's an excellent read and despite being written in the mid-sixties is still very relevant today. I was unaware of the book until a buddy of mine suggested it to me about two weeks ago.
PDF link
Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

That was an excellent piece of work and very relevant in its day. Think of the British in Malaya in the 50s, a classic example of how to conduct counter insurgency, also Borneo and parts of Vietnam in the 60s.
Unfortunately that's not the world we live in today. We tried hard to make it work in Afghanistan, the local population have no interest in anything we say or do. ISIS are evil on a massive scale (the Taliban not so much) no amount of winning over the locals will make any difference. The problem is that we can't pull back to our borders and ignore it all, we are the "great Satan" to a lot of the Islamic world and they'll just come to us.

I'm not denigrating hearts&minds or COIN, but this is not the 1960s. We face a multiplicity of issues.

- areas such as raqqa which are in effect countries
- local groups Taliban, Boko Haram, Abu Sayef
- domestic threats from infiltrated sleeper cells to internet fuelled wannabes

All those are to a degree interconnected by awareness via the internet.

We can respond with overt military action, SF strikes, covert black ops, hearts and minds and anti radicalisation. Heck each us could just be friendly to Moslem guy in the corner shop.

But to use all those tools effectively, there needs to be a coherent plan, which reacts in proportion to each threat and allows softer strategies to diffuse in area A while controlling the media / www when the hammer comes down in area B.

Now given the fractured structure of the "west" with its focus on news cycles, election cycles, it's – understandable and correct respect for human rights…..I am pessimistic that we can coordinate and control to the unprecedented level needed to do this.

My reading on this was Frank Kitson and while it's of use, using strategies from the 1960s is not the complete answer. This threat needs to be approached with far more flexibility than I fear we are capable of. I know I don't have the answer.

Foxweasel – so for you the reason that ISIS are bad isn't that they kill lots of people, it's merely that the people they want to kill are Americans?

Sorry, don't see how that makes you different from them.

If the rest of your unit thinks killing civilians is OK, then the US armed forces have severe problems.

For a start it shows you've learned nothing since Vietnam, and I frankly thought you were better than that.

Let's be clear. A WWII bomber pilot aiming for a factory and missing and then hitting an apartment building is not the same thing as a death camp manager.

But whether it's ISIS or a western ally using violence to control a population, they're both using terror to achieve their aims.

Sometimes there is no moral equivlancy. And sometimes there is.

In ISIS controlled territory there are mass executions and well organized campaigns of rape. In Maylasia the western backed government uses mass killings to silence labor organizors and sexual slavery is common for migrant workers with the support of the government. In its desires to get TPP passed the US government recently and very deliberately decided to ignore these abuses in Maylasia and our commercial sector strongly supports this action.

So if a western corporate-backed Maylasian rapes and murders a migrant worker, that's just doing business. If a Maylasian retaliates by killing a Maylaysian government worker or western business person, that's terrorism.

My solution: we should adhere to our values, even when not profitable.

Let's be clear. A WWII bomber pilot aiming for a factory and missing and then hitting an apartment building is not the same thing as a death camp manager.

But whether it's ISIS or a western ally using violence to control a population, they're both using terror to achieve their aims.

Sometimes there is no moral equivlancy. And sometimes there is.

In ISIS controlled territory there are mass executions and well organized campaigns of rape. In Maylasia the western backed government uses mass killings to silence labor organizors and sexual slavery is common for migrant workers with the support of the government. In its desires to get TPP passed the US government recently and very deliberately decided to ignore these abuses in Maylasia and our commercial sector strongly supports this action.

So if a western corporate-backed Maylasian rapes and murders a migrant worker, that's just doing business. If a Maylasian retaliates by killing a Maylaysian government worker or western business person, that's terrorism.

My solution: we should adhere to our values, even when not as profitable.

Foxweasel – so for you the reason that ISIS are bad isn't that they kill lots of people, it's merely that the people they want to kill are Americans?

Well they not only kill Americans … but many in Europe. Have you forgot Paris and Belgium already ? Because that does not fit your anti-US narrative ?

Sorry, don't see how that makes you different from them.

Different how ? He wants to keep his family, people, etc., from not getting killed by Daesh types. Fox is from the UK, if you have not noticed ?

If the rest of your unit thinks killing civilians is OK, then the US armed forces have severe problems.

Again Fox is from the UK … Or do you ignore that because of your Anti-US beliefs ? He's a soldier, trying to keep his people safe from radicalized islam. You just seem NOT to want to understand. The West goes out of it's way to limit CD. Reread my posts ! You refuse to understand the reality of the situation. BUT if it come down to US or THEM … is going to be them. Survival of the fittest …

For a start it shows you've learned nothing since Vietnam, and I frankly thought you were better than that.

We learned from Vietnam. But this is now … not the 1950s or '60s. We also know the VC are not fanatical Jihadis. The VC/NVA NEVER attacked the USA at home. See the difference ?

I'm not denigrating hearts&minds or COIN, but this is not the 1960s. We face a multiplicity of issues.

- areas such as raqqa which are in effect countries
- local groups Taliban, Boko Haram, Abu Sayef
- domestic threats from infiltrated sleeper cells to internet fuelled wannabes

All those are to a degree interconnected by awareness via the internet.

We can respond with overt military action, SF strikes, covert black ops, hearts and minds and anti radicalisation. Heck each us could just be friendly to Moslem guy in the corner shop.

Very much agree …

In ISIS controlled territory there are mass executions and well organized campaigns of rape. In Maylasia the western backed government uses mass killings to silence labor organizors and sexual slavery is common for migrant workers with the support of the government. In its desires to get TPP passed the US government recently and very deliberately decided to ignore these abuses in Maylasia and our commercial sector strongly supports this action.

So if a western corporate-backed Maylasian rapes and murders a migrant worker, that's just doing business. If a Maylasian retaliates by killing a Maylaysian government worker or western business person, that's terrorism.

Does the US ignore these crimes ? What have we learned about getting involved in a countrie's internal policies ? Has not the US and others in the West take such crimes to the UN ? But one problem with the UN, many of it's members commit such acts… many being moslem dominated nations.

For example. The Saudis, Kuwait, much of Africa, etc. … How can the US/West stop this where the body that should interfere is populated with corrupted criminal governments that commit such acts ? Like we see in with many islamists, its too easy to point fingers at the US/West. Than look from within to fix their own internal problems. And the US/West can tell them what they are doing is wrong … But again they get upset when the West, the Infidel, the Crusader gets involved in their internal business Yes?

Impose Economic sanctions ? We have seen many times how long that may take and how those can be circumvented …

Have you forgot Paris and Belgium already ? B,/q>

Point well and truly missed…

He wants to keep his family, people, etc., from not getting killed by Daesh types.

I hadn't noticed he was British.. .but I stand by my point. If you think that killing lots of Arab civilians is a reasonable way to achieve your mission aims then I fail to see any difference.

If Fox is British, and in uniform, he'd be well advised to work out why the British army, historically at least has a better COIN record than the American one.

Hearts and minds win COIN wars. Firepower doesn't. Vietnam proved that rather eloquently.

Yes, I'd be well advised, I've only been in 28 years, what could I possibly know about COIN.

Kyoteblue,
If we knew the answer to that we would be unbeatable. Generally we start the next war with the kit and tactics of the last one. And of course the enemy often don't let you fight the way you've trained for.
I think the future of warfare may be unpalatable to most people, think biological agents, scientifically developed diseases that only target certain ethnic groups. Smart weapons are of course the way ahead, but they are expensive and not as smart as a lot of people think. We already have plenty of low collateral weapons, the thing is though, they're still designed to kill people and accidents happen.

Because we don't really know what it will be. We always train for worst case nation on nation general war. Anything beyond that is guess work. Proper COIN training is lengthy and it could even be argued that normal infantry soldiers are unsuited to it. Even then, every insurgency is different, strategy and tactics that work in one country don't work in others.

Hearts and minds win COIN wars. Firepower doesn't. Vietnam proved that rather eloquently.

No it didn't … it just showed if the host gov't you're trying to train and support does not have the will. You will have a hard time getting anything done. [Sound like A'stan & Iraq ?]

Add to that the VC/NVA didn't have to win … they just didn't have to lose. As they knew like with the French, sooner or later the "invaders", this time the US, will eventually have to leave and go home. This was their backyard … not the outsiders, the French and US …

The USSF won the hearts & minds of the Montagnards, Hmong, etc.,… They were tribal hill people that most other Vietnamese looked down upon as "Hillbillies", etc., … The Big reason was because the US gave the 'yards and Hmong, etc., the training and weapons to defend themselves against the VC who were supported by the NVA. Something the South did not do. [Does this vaguely sound like the Iraqis and Kurds today ?]

Now how do I know this ? Besides being taught, training, studying, reading, war gaming about this. As a Cadet, our instructors, were almost all Vietnam Vets and our SGM was in Korea & Vietnam. They all were active duty US ARMY personnel assign to teach and train ROTC Cadets.

They were there is SE Asia. Our two SF[Green Berets] NCOs had a few tours each. As well as the Infantry CPT who was an Airborne Ranger with 2 tours. He was there for Tet too.

See how this works stu … they taught us based on their real world combat experiences in that war. They ran a program for those of us that volunteered based on a US ARMY Recon Commando course taught in Vietnam. We when thru that training. And we learned from the best … those that were there and survived.

So stu again, I don't know how you are going to back up your statement "Firepower doesn't. Vietnam proved that rather eloquently." I'm sure my instructors would not entirely agree … Again, you so often make statements about the military that are just plain wrong.

Now I know someone is going to say "What about Gen Petraeus". He understood how "Hearts & Minds" actually works … Today. The US and Coalition never entirely won the over the average Iraqi. They knew how to exploit the locals for intel. Which did include a little hearts & minds, along with good intel work, using all assets available.

Petraeus, knew AQ was killing more of the various Iraqi tribes and factions than the US and Coalition was, at that time. So he used that to leverage those tribes, etc., to work directly with the US to clear out AQ. Which as we see … worked. Was it hearts & minds ? A little … maybe ? But even the Iraqi tribes and factions saw the logic in that. Not because they liked the US … They just hated AQ more …

Do you understand how this all works ? Do you understand what Fox means when he posted about Hearts & Minds, etc. …

Unfortunately that's not the world we live in today.

kyoteblue … please a least listen to what Foxweasel or maybe even what I have to say. We are not "neophytes" on these topics. Especially Fox … HE was there …

I think a classic example of "next war syndrome" is this. The 1970s British Army mainly trained for two things, land war in Europe and internal security in NI. What war happened? An infantry war on the far side of the Atlantic which featured marching, marching and more marching and then ferocious close range firefights. So totally the opposite of a mech war in Europe which is what everyone expected……

Yes you train for the biggest most likely threat … at that time. I was fortunate that I was trained in insurgent warfare in a jungle environment. Using air assault tactics and techniques, etc., … As well as combating Warsaw Pact Forces rolling into [West] Germany.

Then later Armor/Mech desert warfare ops. In a firefight in any environment, a well trained aggressive Infantry unit can handle almost situation. That is the way we were taught and trained. This does not negate what Fox has said here.

Proper COIN training is lengthy and it could even be argued that normal infantry soldiers are unsuited to it. Even then, every insurgency is different, strategy and tactics that work in one country don't work in others.

This is very true. My point is whether VC, AQ, Daesh, the Taliban etc., in a firefight on a tactical scale, well trained Infantry can do well. Which on that level means killing many of the enemy. Keeping your losses as low to 0 as possible. And obtain your overall objective(s).

I think Kyote's questions are valid – will smarter munitions help prevent collateral damage, can we better forsee future wars and can we train for them.

I think Foxweasel has answered the last two; we seem to be in the usual multi way debate over the collateral issue. And the answer to that – I think – is that heart & minds, COIN, overt action all are valid tools in the right circumstances. We need to be able to use the right tool for the right threat and ensure that what happens at one point does not undermine at another.

You could have an outrage on the ground by ISIS with footage uploaded by a techie in Raqqa, watched by a cell in, say, Brussels but also watched by a kid in his bedroom in Birmingham. That's four different threats each needing a different solution. And the results can interact too, leading to say a fifth, another convert to the cause who you don't even know about.

I think – is that heart & minds, COIN, overt action all are valid tools in the right circumstances.

Yes, they use to say at Ft. Benning, GA., The Infantry School … "It all depends on terrain and situation."

Legion – i should have been clearer and said infantry vs infantry action with none of the armour, air, NBC or similar elements of what is now Team Yankee. Your point re winning a firefight is correct, I was referring to the context of that firefight. Mount Harriet wasn't exactly, say Hannover.

Understood … But I like tanks and CAS and that stuff !

[Damn double posts ! ]

Again Fox is from the UK … Or do you ignore that because of your Anti-US beliefs ?
------------------
Of course what people would like to do and what they actually do is completely different anyway. I've heard a friend who was police officer in the UK joke about how they'd like martial law as then they could go out and shoot every black person except for the ones who were Christians (as they saw most black people as hostile to the police) but again thats like the old imagine if you could murder x y or z and get away with it scenario – appeals to some people more than others – does not mean they ever do it.

There is a major difficulty with hearts and minds in tribal situations. Winning the hearts and minds of one automatically makes enemies of their enemies.

So, in order to win the hearts and minds of a Nation… perhaps you have to break the tribes first… and that is very long term. Or you can try and get the tribes to make peace with each other. Also difficult.

Or you break the nation. Instead of trying to fit together groups that can't work together, give each group their own national independence.

Historical examples? The breakup of nations such as India after the British, or Serbia. Modern day, countries such as Iraq and Syria have a number of tribal groups that, in the past, have been forced to belong to the same nation.

Many groups of 'freedom fighters' become more and more extreme with time.At the moment all the groups are very extreme… With no clear 'favourites', lots of extreme factions fighting it out are probably to be expected – and any 'outsider' military intervention is more likely to just delay future conflict rather than end it.

Why would any rational state enter into a 'war of choice' without a having a high certainty that it can win both the war and the peace after the war? Of course hearts and minds are the key! If you cannot figure out how to win over the target population, then don't go in in the first place. Use special forces or larger scale military putative raids if you are really pressed, but for the love of Pete (and Ali) don't occupy countries unless you know ahead of the invasion that you have a very good chance of improving the situation there (from the locals' perspectives) and can thus pacify the enemy.

Have people forgotten that a perfectly good strategy is to avoid un-winnable wars? Sun-Tsu tried to make that very clear. There is nothing wrong with not going to war, especially when your countries are too politically timid to actually declare such wars.

The West has to stop trying to destabilize regions for whatever Machiavellian reasons it has and simply learn to deal with the rest of the world. If you invade a foreign country and install an illegitimate government in the eyes of the locals, then the people resisting you are not insurgents but freedom fighters or patriots or tribal champions. You will not win them over unless you give them back the country you took from them. Playing off factions, tribes or nations against each other just makes a bad situation worse. Divide and conquer wrecks the country and bleeds the economy dry. If you want to liberate peoples from foreign or domestic oppressors then you must accept the choices these liberated peoples make for themselves and not expect to use them as puppets, proxy-soldiers or proxy-workers to serve your national or economic interests.

So, if you think you cannot win both the war and the peace, stay out, even if you have the best of intentions.

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.