"Limiting Collateral Damage. " Topic

Of course what people would like to do and what they actually do is completely different anyway.

I agree and Fox's with 28 years in the UK ARMY [stu !!!!] knows his business !

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.

Exactly ! Some [stu !!!!] are fighting the last war … or at least talking about it …

Does the US ignore these crimes ?

Yes, it does as a matter of official policy.

For example, we know that the Malaysian government uses torture and murder to silence labor activists and those who oppose sex slavery.

In order to move ahead on TPP the U.S. reclassified Malaysian as being compliant with certain human rights standards. Our business community enjoys access to cheap labor there.

We not only ignore such crimes in other countries we actively support them. The School of the Americas actively trained military personnel from central and south american dictatorships known to terrorize their own people.

Currently we support the dictator of Saudi Arabia and the military junta in Egypt. They use our gear to kill their own people and those of nearby countries such as Yemen.

We also have extensive commerical connections to communist China which also uses violence and terror to control its population.

Western corporations use mercs to force people off their land when we want access to their natural resources. Through organizations such as the World Bank and IMF the US and other western nations actively back these operations.

Ours is a global economic empire that mostly utilizes local allies to terrorize civilians into compliance. However, in places like central asia, thr middle east, and africa, we're engaging in direct action more frequently whether with drones strikes or specops.

We prefer to think of ourselves as "freedom loving" Americans but as far as foreign policy is concerned, that's the last thing we want in many instances.

We very deliberately and even enthusiastically support those who terrorize their own civilian populations. Even Saddam Hussein received direct US support in controlling Iraqis (not just for his war of aggression against Iran).

Limiting CD and future wars … And all of what Fox says is on target.

1) The West does try to limit CD but as noted in other posts … that does not always work and is hard to do in many case.

2) No matter how good intel is in many cases it's not 100%. So sometimes you are going to hit the "wrong" target …

3) Understanding how HE works … A High Explosive armed weapon. Like Grenades, HE cannon rounds, FA, mortars, bombs, etc., cause causalities more by using a "Burst" … not a point or direct servicing a target as a rifle, pistol, etc., does.

The advantage of that is you can hit more targets in that burst. We have all played wargames where FA, etc., uses a Burst template that goes over the target. And everything under that template may be affected. That's basic Wargames 101 stuff.

A drone using a Hellfire missile is not really designed for HE work. But it is very accurate. And the explosion that happens will cause multiple losses. Especially in a building or vehicle, etc. Blast from some weapons cause "secondary missiles". Those are objects, like rocks, bricks, tree branches, metal bits, etc., that are included in the blast. By the very nature of the explosion. And yes, they can and will cause damage to living things, etc. …

Now most HE type rounds also are designed to cause shrapnel, fragmentations from the exploding round. So it will cause causalities by both the blast from the explosion and shrapnel, fragmentation and secondary missiles from the explosion …

Now the #1 thing HE does is cause more losses to the target than a single rifle round can. Plus the simple fact many weapons systems like FA, aircraft, etc. have a very, very, long range.

I went thru this basic lesson/facts to help those who don't understand how HE, etc., works.
And in turn why CD happens when a target is in proximity of non-combatants.
You can only make a blast so small before it will be ineffective in servicing the target. The tech does not exist [yet ?] that you can only "kill" one target with one round. Unless you are using sniper(s). But snipers can't always be employed in places like downtown Raqqa. That is one reason why drones and airstrikes are much more effective and easier to employ. And a type raid UBL mission is very, very high risk. That goes without saying …

The bottom line in a conflict is to cause the enemy(s) loss of assets. And once enough of his assets was significantly attrited. They surrender or fight to the last "Man", per se … And the conflict is over.

Also with targeting an individual like say … Baghdadi. It's more effective to kill many of those around him. As they are most likely the "enemy" too. And again, non-combatants that provide aid and support to the target are valid targets.

In the current paradigm of this ongoing conflict. We see by the nature of this type of war, what would be considered non-combatants are many time providing "support" in a number of ways. Tacitly, directly, indirectly or worst yet, as human shields/hostages and in turn being extorted/thru coercion.

So until you can read minds and find a way to only kill those who actually are enemy combatants and their supporters the future of this kind of asymmetric warfare will remain the same. Until enemies like Daesh, AQ, etc. see that using non-combatants has "cover" is wrong. But in their skewed belief system and in insurgencies in general. Non-combatants being put in harms way is all part of the Guerilla Warfare concept. Moving, living, hiding, etc., among the non-combatants is a big factor in how insurgencies work. And we see thru out modern history.

Also … the "fact" that by killing non-combatants only causes more insurgents. At this point is a concept that has long passed. That paradigm is no longer valid in this paradigm. If the West, the Infidels, the Crusaders only killed actual insurgents and their supporters tomorrow, would not stop the flow of eager jihadis. By keep saying CD causes more jihadis to magically grow is a concept has been overcome with the events of the current situation. But you can believe what you like. It won't change the fact that Daesh, AQ, etc. have to be eliminated … And in that, in the very nature of the paradigm … CD will occur. And only can be limited …

We prefer to think of ourselves as "freedom loving" Americans but as far as foreign policy is concerned, that's the last thing we want in many instances.

We have a system which is far from perfect, called democracy … Which means the best we can do is attempt to vote in those that won't support such policies. And we have the right of free speech which is another way to make one's wishes known.

Otherwise you can start a "revolution" per se. But as we see in the current media circus. Our Republic has some work to be done before your wishes can become a reality.

We not only ignore such crimes in other countries we actively support them. The School of the Americas actively trained military personnel from central and south american dictatorships known to terrorize their own people.

WE didn't train them to terrorize their populous. We trained them how to fight an insurgency, etc.,… It is not the US military's fault if they abused and terrorized their own people. The US government tells the US military who to train. And that training has nothing to do with terrorizing their own populous. If you want to do something about that. It again comes down again to voting in the "right" representatives …

A buddy of mine was with a RANGER unit that was deployed "South". To train a certain military in Air Assault ops. When they came back, a few months later we saw that same country's military had killed civilians. WE DID NOT train them to do that …

Elements of my Mech Co., trained with El Salvadorians at the RANGER Camp at Eglin, AFB. WE didn't train them to kill non-combatants …

WHINSEC Fort Benning Ga. is the renamed and re-branded SOA and is still training foreign military personnel who some how end up being turned on their own publics and who then commit murder, torture and disappearances all around the globe. See the link below about Michelle Batchelet's new Chile, Venezuala, Columbia, etc.

link

For a reading list of former SOA training manuals see:
link

This explains why this policy is needed by the US elites:
link

And straight from the horse's mouth:

Major Joe Blair, who was the director of instruction at the School of the Americas from 1986 to 1989, had this to say about the curriculum:

"The doctrine that was taught was that if you want information you use physical abuse, false imprisonment, threats to family members, and killing. If you can't get the information you want, if you can't get that person to shut up or stop what they're doing, you assassinate them – and you assassinate them with one of your death squads."

The change of the name more than a decade ago was cosmetic, Major Blair said while testifying at a 2002 trial of School of the Americas protestors: "There are no substantive changes besides the name. They teach the identical courses that I taught, and changed the course names and use the same manuals."

The entire history of capitalism is built on violence, and violence has been used to both impose and maintain the system from its earliest days. Slavery, colonialism, dispossession of the commons, draconian laws forcing peasants into factories and control of the state to suppress all opposition to economic coercion built capitalism.

The forms of domination change over the years, and are often financial rather than openly militaristic today (although the armed fist lurks in the background); regardless, exploitation is the lifeblood of wealth.

Demanding that the cost of this should be spread around is a demand to continue exploitation, domination and imperialism, and nothing more.

Rod Robertson.

For the two infantry vets here, I'll note we're not talking about infantry combat.

We're talking (or I was) about air strikes and drone attacks where there is somewhat more time to take a back seat and do things properly.

Once one knows where a target lives, you can wait until his kids are at school before hitting him – or wait until he gets into a car and enters clear terrain.

The civilian death toll form Pakistan proves this wasn't being done.

The one from Iraq/Syria sugegts lessons have been learned.

I fully accept that once boots are on the ground, things change to some degree.

But it's not like a drone pilot is in any actual anger.

But we do need to aspire to being better than 'not quite as bad as ISIS'…

@Legion

The issue is that even AFTER we know these forces are killing civilians we keep training them, arming them, and doing business with them. We also share intel with them. We're directly responsible for a lot of the carnage in the Americas.

It was, and is, true in central and south america and all over the world.

We essentially outsource our terror operations to both governments and insurgencies.

Let's not forget that it was the west and Pakistan who fueled the fighters that would become the Taliban. And as late as spring/summer of 2001 the U.S. was PAYING the Taliban government for poppy eradication. The Taliban were our good buddies until September of 2001. They were just as brutal when they were cashing our checks as now. The irony os that Afghans supported the Taliban too because they were LEAS brutal than the narco terrorits that WE brought back into power after 9/11 (under Kharzai poppy farming flourished and his family is part of the drug trade).

We also did a real number on populations in Cuba, Iran, and the Philippines with our support for ruthless dictators who terrorized their populations. And much of that support was through our military. We did the same thing in Iraq by arming and supporting the Shia terrorist government which kills Sunnis (until they need them for cannon fodder vs ISIS) and in Afghanistan, one of the most corrupt governments in the world.

We're constantly arming, training, and allying with bad guys.

As far as democracy in America is concerned, you're skirting Blue Fez territory there, so let's respect the rules and not go there. :-)

Fort Benning Ga. is the renamed and re-branded SOA and is still training foreign military personnel who some how end up being turned on their own publics and who then commit murder, torture and disappearances all around the globe.

That is very much news to me … WE did not train them to do that. I had friends in SF that never mentioned any of that. I was not cadre at SOA. But knew some SOA instructors.

And if that is all valid and not faked … Maybe it was classified that such methods were taught by US Military personnel. And if it was true and classified, even with my TS clearance … I would not have a need to know. If that is true and as with many things on the net I'm suspect. It was very much compartmentalized. And most of the US Military was not informed. For a variety of obvious reasons. But again … I'm suspect … However, thank you for bring that to may attention.

We're constantly arming, training, and allying with bad guys.

I'm afraid that may be true in some cases. The Germans call it "Realpolitik". Doing things that are more an expedient that reflects the reality of the geopolitical situation, etc., …

I was never involved with or had anything to do with the things you speak. Which I don't doubt some of it happened as you posted. I was just very tiny sub-functionary of a much bigger very bureaucratic machine.

Never said the US government was populated with Angels and Saints. And I think we know what "goes on behind the curtain" is always not very nice and pretty or releasable to the public. But that being said, I'm not going to have my US citizenship revoked and move to Canada ( ). And as I said before all of those things are out of our hands. I don't have an answer for you.

For the two infantry vets here, I'll note we're not talking about infantry combat.

I'm not sure if Fox is Infantry but that matters little. As he knows his stuff and had served in A'stan and/or Iraq. So he's a pro in my mind. And having served 28 years, I should probably be calling him "Sir" …

We're talking (or I was) about air strikes and drone attacks where there is somewhat more time to take a back seat and do things properly.

CAS is called many times on the run so to speak … but I understand your statement …

Once one knows where a target lives, you can wait until his kids are at school before hitting him – or wait until he gets into a car and enters clear terrain.

You can wait but intel is perishable. It's "expiration date" can be very short. So in some cases you have to take the shot that you have now. As later you may not have the same opportunity.

A few years before 9/11, UBL was with a group of "friends" on a hunting trip somewhere in Saudi Arabian Peninsula, IIRC. He and his AQ associates were clearly ID'd. The CIA was pretty sure they could be "taken out". They ID'd a C 130 aircraft on ground near the group. That was positively ID'd as belonging to a member of one of the smaller oil rich Gulf States. The UAE maybe ? And they were a US "friend"(?)…

Now the strike would have to be large enough to pretty much take out the entire area "to be sure". Which would include the wives, cooks, support staff, the members from the UAE, etc., of the AQ & Friends little party.

However the op was scrapped by the POTUS at the time. As it was thought it would be a bad idea to kill the UAE party, etc., …

Now what if the POTUS let the CIA, USAF, etc. do their "jobs" ? And yes we know there would have been CD.
I wonder what the families of those killed in the 9/11 terrorist attack would say ? I know what my decision would be.

The civilian death toll form Pakistan proves this wasn't being done.

Does it ? Were you in on the planning of the strikes. Do you know specific or particular situation for each target ? I don't think so … nor was I. But I'm pretty sure those who made the decisions on these strikes thought all of this out . And yes, they considered the CD … But they probably believed it was worth the risk.

The one from Iraq/Syria sugegts lessons have been learned.

Most likely tech, training and experience just made those strikes more accurate, etc., … That is one of the reasons no matter what the mission, task, etc., … We train, train, rehearse … and do it all again. Over and over to be better, faster more accurate, etc., …

I fully accept that once boots are on the ground, things change to some degree.

Glad to hear that … the insurgents in SE Asia are different than the jihadis that are being dealt with today.

But it's not like a drone pilot is in any actual anger.

That's the point. Not to put our air crews in danger. And again, the strike will probably kill some who would or was killing, would have something to do with killing our and our allies "boots of the ground". As I have said before. Just because the enemy is not shooting at you at this very moment does not negate his/their standing as the enemy.

But we do need to aspire to being better than 'not quite as bad as ISIS'…

Are you delusional ? At no time in any situation can you compare us to Daesh, AQ, etc. …

Please let me know the last time we nailed someone to a cross, beheaded them on YouTube, burned them at the stake/alive, drowned them in a steel cage, enslaved them, sold them, made them sex slaves, committed genocide like with the Yazidis, etc., etc., etc., etc. … And basically because these people had different religious beliefs than Daesh, etc., … There is no way in Hell that you can justify your statement … unless you really are delusional, IMO … of course …

Legion, just give it up mate, I'm sick of banging my head against a brick wall trying to get through to these people.
Take a look at the British troops to Libya thread, bangorstu has just blown any credibility on this subject out of the window, quote "We're talking about line troops going in to sort out ISIS. For me, bomb the sods and train the Libyans in Tunisia" He can even argue with himself.
Get many goats trit trotting over your bridge today stu?

Yes Sir ! And they keep repeating the same comments and I keep replying the same. Over, and Over, and Over …

Take a look at the British troops to Libya thread, bangorstu has just blown any credibility on this subject out of the window, quote "We're talking about line troops going in to sort out ISIS. For me, bomb the sods and train the Libyans in Tunisia"

I also saw that post ! I was going to ask him about CD ?

He can even argue with himself.

LOL !!!!!

TMP link

Read the article linked below for an understanding of a long standing policy on how to treat a target population which is being uncooperative to national interests. General Gorman's comments are especially enlightening. The SOA/WHINSEC is just one small part in a much bigger machine of oppression used to control/cow unruly populations abroad. I apologize as it is hard to read and very disheartening.
link
Rod Robertson.

The Guardian and BBC Arabic, seriously! The Beano is a more credible commentator on foreign and military policy.

The SOA/WHINSEC is just one small part in a much bigger machine of oppression used to control/cow unruly populations abroad. I apologize as it is hard to read and very disheartening.

You continually post articles about all the people the US has killed in the Mid East, A'stan and South America … at this rate there will be no one left in any of those places …

foxweasel:
The Guardian and BBCA did the documentary on Col. Steele. The rest of the article describes a long standing policy of purposely targeting uncooperative civilian populations by military and paramilitary forces created to explicitly inflict deaths on target populations. These target populations vary from Sunni Iraqis to Latin American union meeting attendees and Catholic Liberation Theology advocates. Steele was just one of many fixers who organized death squads to intimidate, disappear, kill and terrorize groups deemed hostile to American interests in Vietnam, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Iraq.
Did you read the article or just react to the opening lines?
Rod Robertson.

No I read it, just found it to be verging on treason. Talking about U.S. forces murdering indiscriminately, absolute tripe.

See this is what I'm talking about Rod … having never been in the military. I've served in 4 Infantry Bns. This kind of "mass murder" just does not happen. We all took oaths, and understand about duty and honor, etc., …

If any person or unit did these kind of things. Many of the members in the unit would vehemently object and higher HQ press charges. In Clancy-esque novels you have this sort of thing. Not in the real world. Where would they get 5000 SF types to do all the horrific things your article says they did ? And no one would know about it ? You won't find 500 people in the US Army willing to commit crimes like this. We just don't do that !

Articles like this and others like the one you posted awhile back about the millions of moslems the US has killed. Are very hard to believe. Again, if the US killed that many there would too few to join Daesh or become refugees.

Legion 4:
I am just trying to provide you with some context which may shed light on the state's (any state's) 'concern' about collateral damage.you did after all say you were unaware of the alleged activities of the SOA/WHINSEC in a post above.
CD may in fact be a useful tool in traumatizing a conquered population by 'shock doctrine' in the opinions of those making decisions about how to conduct COIN and pacification programmes. A tool which could be used in parallel with more traditional mechanisms of terror like those organized by Col. Steele. CD can be portrayed as unintentional and therefore offers the possibility of plausible denial just as locally recruited and trained death squads do. I am not saying this is so, just that it strikes me as a real possibility that some CD is not as accidental as we may be led to believe by official sources.
As to posting articles that are injurious to the USA, sunlight is the best medicine to cure rot and corruption. If I did not care about the USA, I would not bother. It is not malice but concern that drives me to make such postings.
Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

foxweasel:
Interesting choice of words you used – "verging on treason" and "tripe". If it is tripe then it has no credibility and is no threat to the state, the ramblings of fools or ideologues. So if it is tripe, there is no crime and no need to punish it as it is spurious and bereft of truth. However, if there is an element of truth in there which threatens the state then it could, I suppose, verge on treason, but then it would not be tripe, would it? Also, how could British news services, whatever their motives, be on the verge of treason by reporting a programme of widespread killing by a foreign government (ie. the USA)? Of course if the UK also had a similar policy in place then maybe you could make the case that the exposure of the one threatened the exposure of the other. Of course we all know that that's not the case, as the big boys from 'the City' would never sanction such skulduggery! So, treason or tripe, it's your call.
Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

As to posting articles that are injurious to the USA,

Only if you believe such drivel …

I looked up COL Steele,
link

He commanded my old Bde in the 101. I'm trying to think of anything like this happening back then when I was there. It wouldn't, for a number of reasons. And COL Steele was not involved in any of the accusations your article stated. Only one incident in Iraq. Which was not swept under the carpet. And I looked up Gen Gorman too. Nothing there either. These types of articles are written by hacks who want to be another Woodward & Bernstein. I think they hear unsubstantiated rumors. Extrapolates and runs with. After all the uninformed public knows very little about the real military. Mostly what they see in the movies and read in sensationalized articles like the ones you are happy to post.

What makes all articles you post any more valid than what I just read about Gorman or Steele ? Again, not having served in the military, gives you a very narrow view of what actually occurs. And Vets like Fox and even I have a much better insight about how things work in the military then some sensationalized articles. Written by hacks and those with an axe to grind.

Think about it … the US killed million of moslems ? Where ? How ? When ?
The US has 5000 Green Berets that are mindless killing machines, blindly following orders … really ? I knew a lot of Green Berets, many were my friends. Many who served in Central and South America. They would not have committed any of these crimes your articles states. They would not do it and report to higher HQ. At the very least. We do not follow unlawful orders. Especially not 5000 of them following the same illegal unlawful orders. 3-4 maybe … not 5000 … Wake up !

Legion 4:

See this is what I'm talking about Rod … having never been in the military. I've served in 4 Infantry Bns. This kind of "mass murder" just does not happen. We all took oaths, and understand about duty and honor, etc., …

If any person or unit did these kind of things. Many of the members in the unit would vehemently object and higher HQ press charges. In Clancy-esque novels you have this sort of thing. Not in the real world. Where would they get 5000 SF types to do all the horrific things your article says they did ? And no one would know about it ? You won't find 500 people in the US Army willing to commit crimes like this. We just don't do that !"

For the Steele story see:
YouTube link

and:
link

For a more interesting perspective consider the following.

In 1968 as I'm sure you remember, US soldiers led by Lt. William Laws Calley Jr. massacred Vietnamese villagers in My Lai. Calley was tried and convicted for the crime in 1971. However, he only served 3.5 years of his sentence. District Court Judge J. Robert Elliot attempted to over-turn Calley's conviction but was himself overruled by a higher court. Calley was nonetheless released under house arrest and then parole and then pardoned by President Nixon in 1974.
Fast forward 25 years. 600+ protesters are picketing and demanding the closure of the School of the Americas at Fort Benning Ga. after the murder of Jesuit priests in a Jesuit college in El Salvador in Nov. of 1989. Three of the officers implicated in the murders were graduates of the SOA and this mobilized local and national opposition activists to petition for the SOA's closure. In Nov. of 1997, 600 protesters entered the ground of Fort Benning attempting to deliver a petition and were arrested for trespassing on Federal Land on the orders of Major General Carl F. Ernst. This protest was only the latest in a long string of protests which were bringing very unwanted light on the SOA so Major-General Ernst wanted them shut down for good. He ordered the matter to be prosecuted in Federal court and this was done under the control of Judge J. Robert Elliot where 31 protesters were prosecuted. One of the witnesses called during the trials was Major Joseph A. Blair, former instructor and director of the SOA. His testimony rocked the court and made national headlines. Despite that several of the protesters were found guilty by Judge Elliot and so Blair wrote a letter to then President Bill Clinton to intercede in what Blair felt to be a miscarriage of justice. Judge Elliot was a very controversial judge who had played a role in limiting civil rights workers actions and was famous for some controversial decisions against Martin Luther King Jr. in the 1960's.
Just down down the street was a jewelry store where a much older and tired William Calley Jr. worked until his divorce in 2006, when he moved to Atlanta.
Is it significant that Judge Elliot tried to over turn the Calley conviction in 1971 and that Calley found employment just down the street in Fort Benning? Is it a coincidence that Maj. Gen. Ernst turned to Elliot's court to try to suppress the protests. Perhaps it is or perhaps there is more at work here. I will leave it to others to make up their own minds. Here follows the open letter to President William Jefferson Clinton which Blair wrote in 1998 and which details his version of the events.

link

Cheers.
Rod Robertson

I have to agree sort of agree with Legion in that we do NOT order regular troops or even special forces to murder innocent civilians. We even go to extraordinary lengths to avoid civilian casualties, lengths that sometimes spare bad guys and put our own guys at risk!

OTOH, we won the Iran-Iraq War for the Iranians, we handed Afghanistan to narco-terrorists, and we're backing autocratic governments throughout the world.

In that way protests that we don't kill innocent civilians rings hollow and is similar to a mafia don's defense that he didn't pull the trigger in a given murder.

No, our troops might not have pulled the trigger in these cases directly. But we sure as heck armed the bad guys, funded them, trained them, and in many cases defeated their enemies for them and then put them in power! So yeah, we dun it.

We killed plenty through inaction.

By not backing-up the "red line in the sand" on Syrian WMD use, the Syrians were emboldened to keep killing and not negotiate with the initial moderate forces (yes, there were moderates before most were butchered), result? 250,000 dead. ISIS and Al Queda roam the land.

Now Russia is calling the shots and the world is at more risk of being drawn into a larger scale war where nobody has an exit solution.

cwlinsj:
Somebackground on why the Obama administration did not back the red line ultimatum:

link

Turkish duplicity may very likely have been involved.

Cheers.
Rod Robertson

Sure, Turkey is always maneuvering for the downfall of Assad, but the POTUS lost his nerve and gave up leadership of the free world right then. Even enforcing a "no fly" zone would have changed the situation. The state of affairs throughout the world have made a downturn for the worse from that point onwards.

And a quarter million dead with no end in sight.

OK Kyoteblue, but remember, you asked for this.
Future wars are here now. They have been since the 1920's when people like Edward Bernays figured out that you could use mass media to manipulate and control people's perceptions, convictions and behaviours. This was fine while media control was concentrated in a few powerful hands, but since the 1990's that control has been waning and access to media has been democratized to some degree. Now the war is on to control the media and the message and where capital, legal and public relations fall short, raw military and covert extra-judicial power are used.

These new wars are fought through media in the minds of humanity and the intentional collateral damage is the truth of what is really happening in the world around us. We are all victims of the management wars as we are being manipulated, pushed or prodded in one direction or another, without our consent to do the bidding of concentrations of power and capital. While the exact groups which control the power and capital may change gradually over time, we the people are always being manipulated and directed. The proud tribesman of Afghanistan are some of the last truly free people but the management leviathan will eventually bring about their servitude too. When the control cannot be done cleanly by media then the wet work begins and force is applied.

The danger of ISIS is that it has wrested away some of the control of the media and the message from those who feel they are entitled to control it. There have always been terrorist organizations, even ones which controlled territory (the Barbary Pirates for example) but never before has such an organization been able to challenge control of the media and the message from the powers that be. Now independent voices and independent images are challenging the orthodoxy of mainstream media and segments of the population are fragmenting off the body politic like ice flows off a thawing ice shelf. While some of this fragmentation is benign in the eyes of corporate power, some is not. Some of the fragmentation is challenging the sacred cows which keep our societies in line and our people mentally and politically yoked. That is an intolerable challenge to the western order of things, so the gloves have come off and the metal flies.

However the western system is breaking down and concentrations of power and capital are preparing the ground for authoritarian rule when the fragmentation gets so bad that these powers can no longer manufacture consent and control the terms of public debate and discourse. Democracy is managed in the West and both Parliamentary and Representative Democracy will not withstand the fragmentation. They will mutate into a fuzzy direct democracy which will be nearly impossible to control. So at some point soon democracy will have to go if concentrations of capital and power are to remain in control. The bulwarks which support democracy, such as education, middle-class incomes, savings, community, and a sense of personal responsibility and economic potential are being purposely gutted from the population so that when the transition (or revolution) to authoritarianism occurs it will meet the least possible effective resistance.

The transition will come as a response to crises real or manufactured which cause a systemic shock to the West and induce a sharp shock or set of shocks which so disorient the populace that they will comply with the changes at least for the short term. As the populace recovers its wits and perspective the authoritarian state will use it's well developed surveillance capacity, it's militarized police forces, censorship of communication and it's traditional control of mass media to once again manage the population but in a much less benign way.

So the truth, our freedom of thought and free will, effective democracy and personal liberty will all be CD of the new order which is coming and the only people fighting it right now are the people we have been taught or conditioned to hate. There you go Kyoteblue; my version of what is to come or more correctly what is happening right now. The future's so bright ya gotta wear shades!

Rod Robertson.

I fail to see why calling for air strikes in Libya makes me either a troll or a hypocrite.

I've never said air strikes are a bad idea.

For the slow on the uptake, I'm calling for them to be done properly and carefully.

From what I can see, it is possible to do so, because civilian casualties in both Libya and Iraq/Syria appear to have been minimal.

Given that, it should be possible to give ISIS a bloody nose while leaving the Libyans to do the heavy lifting.

There's no appetite among the Libyans to have us there, and Western deployment will make the new government look like a puppet.

I see no upside.

But the Libyans need training. We tried training them here, and they rather disgraced themselves. So Tunisia seems a reasonable base to do so.

If anyone has any better ideas I'm all ears, but I can't see how deploying to Libya solves anything. But I do think we owe the Libyans some help given many of their problems are our fault.

Incidentally, were the drone strikes in Pakistan done by the air force or the CIA? I'm unsure about who controls what.

Yes, Rod … I remember all those incidents … In the Infantry Officer's Advance Course we spent at least a day on the Me Lia. And our instructor was a US ARMY Major who what a LZ X-Ray with the 7th Cav. As a PFC. He knew and understood about Vietnam. It was thoroughly clear how and why this happened. And how to avoid and not let this type of incident happen again. Plus we had a least 2 days on the Law of Land Warfare, etc. taught by ARMY JAG.

And I was there during those anti-SOA protests, at Benning. We knew about them, heard about them up on Kelly Hill. Where my Mech Bde was training very hard for the next war [koyte] …

I can't pass this up …

The future's so bright ya gotta wear shades!

That bright glow on the horizon is from massive amounts of HE from B1s, B2s, B52s, TLAMs, JDAMs, etc. filling up the busses to "Paradise" with Daesh, AQ, the Taliban, BH, AS, Wahhabis, etc.,. … That's the way I see and hope for the future.

I have to agree sort of agree with Legion in that we do NOT order regular troops or even special forces to murder innocent civilians. We even go to extraordinary lengths to avoid civilian casualties, lengths that sometimes spare bad guys and put our own guys at risk!

Amen VIS !

I will say again … in all our training in Panama, the RANGER Camp at Eglin, in the class room, etc., etc., … AT NO TIME WERE ANY OF US TOLD IT WAS ALRIGHT TO KILL CIVILIANS. Like at Me Lia, etc. … We were taught to recognize War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity, Human Rights Violations, etc., etc. …

At the US SF training course, the students were in many scenarios. Where the forces they were training and assisting the "Local" Forces. Where Human Rights Vios, War Crimes, etc., were committed by those local forces. And how and what to do about it etc.,. The SF students worked with both Guerilla or Governmental based on the particular scenario. And there were many, many scenarios. Which goes back to me saying, we trained, and trained, rehearsed, rehearsed and then we did it all over again. [Again Kyote – training for ONE of next war's possibilities]

For the slow on the uptake, I'm calling for them to be done properly and carefully.

Maybe it's you who "are a bit slow on the uptake, stu." That is generally the way it is done. Again have you read my post on this subject ? "Most likely tech, training and experience just made those strikes more accurate, etc., … That is one of the reasons no matter what the mission, task, etc., … We train, train, rehearse … and do it all again. Over and over to be better, faster more accurate, etc., … "

From what I can see, it is possible to do so, because civilian casualties in both Libya and Iraq/Syria appear to have been minimal. Again read my posts … "Most likely tech, training and experience just made those strikes more accurate, etc., … That is one of the reasons no matter what the mission, task, etc., … We train, train, rehearse … and do it all again. Over and over to be better, faster more accurate, etc., … "

How many times do I have to post it for you to understand ? The more a certain operation, mission is run some changes may, can and will be made to make those procedures, techniques, tactics more effective. And Note … Frequently at times that means Killing more of the enemy. Lets' understand that is why the military is called the "Armed Forces" …

Incidentally, were the drone strikes in Pakistan done by the air force or the CIA? I'm unsure about who controls what.

Does it matter ? The USAF pilots may have been under operational control[OPCOND] of the CIA. Many times that happens. The USAF can do things the CIA can't and vis versa …

If anyone has any better ideas I'm all ears,

No you're not … You often don't read, don't understand, or ignore what military members, former or current have to say on subjects you have little to no real knowledge about.

Like your Hearts & Minds comments about Vietnam. If my SF and RANGER instructors who had multiple tours in SE Asia have passed, they'd be rolling over in the graves !

I'm obviously a bit slow on the uptake, I don't remember the instructors on my FAC/JTAC course saying "do what you want, the last thing we want is anything being dropped properly or carefully"

"do what you want, the last thing we want is anything being dropped properly or carefully"

You were, if memory serves, the one saying hearts and minds didn't matter, not me.

Does it matter ?

Well yes. If I'm going to criticise the USAF for not taking sufficient care, it suddenly occurred to me the difference in civilian casualties might be due to different people doing the missions.

Stu, you are boring me now, I believe you only say a lot of this nonsense just to get a rise out of people. I now have you on ignore and stifle, I suggest you do the same

Legion 4:
Sorry to see your 'unavailable' for discussion. Well use the time to get some Sci Fi figures painted and some games under your belt. Keep your spirits up and your head down and I'll talk to you soon.
Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Atrocities like My Lai and Dresden have always been the exception, not the rule, for the US military. Civilian casualties happen in war zones, and such a thing will be inevitable for centuries to come, but the US doesn't carpet bomb civilian areas (sorry, Ted Cruz!) and the UCMJ protects service members who refuse to follow unlawful orders such as those.

Javelin98:
The purpose of citing My Lai was not the massacre itself (which according to testimonials given in 1971 at the Winter Soldier event may not have been as exceptional as we believe except in its scale) but because of the role played by District Court Judge Elliot in both the My Lai case and the SOA protesters case a quarter century later. Is this evidence of a long standing local effort to protect institutions in the Army from responsibility for wrongdoing or just a coincidence? I do not know the answer but I am not a big fan of coincidences. I do hope I am barking up the wrong tree however.
I also do not think the fire bombing of Dresden, Hamburg, or even Tokyo were criminal massacres or war crimes given the laws and ethos of the time. They were brutal acts for sure and slaughtered many innocents for sure but they were not criminal acts and were done openly, without cover-up. Barbarous yes, criminal no.
Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Kyoteblue:
It occurs to me that even if smart munitions are improved and even if innocent deaths are reduced, will that really change the reaction of the target community? From their perspective, they will still feel violated and angry at an unseen enemy who strikes with cowardice from the far side of the globe. They will still resent that the world and their own government can do nothing to protect them. They will still hate and become more sympathetic towards radical attackers and some or many may become radicalized themselves. They will see the West striking with stealth and conclude that the suicide bomber or suicide hijacker is the only low-tech weapon at their disposal to seek revenge for the violation of their communities, thus legitimizing terrorist methodology in the eyes of a wider segment of the foreign population.

From the Western perspective, lower collateral damage would encourage greater use of such weapons and greater frequency of attacks. Also, if there was an expectation that the chance of hurting unintended victims was much lower, then would not this be an incentive to use the same technology on lower priority targets? This would further increase the frequency of attacks and further radicalize the targeted population.

As the moral barriers to using this more surgical military killing method lowers, would there not be a tendency to deploy this technology domestically to police forces in order to target the most extreme domestic threats if they are difficult to arrest or if they pose a real and present threat to others? How angry will a public become as each additional attack occurs? Will there be diminishing marginal outrage at each subsequent use? And if this technology becomes common place will it not be prone to abuse and misuse?

Thus the question involves not only technical and military issues, but legal, moral and societal issues which should be addressed.

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Wars are won (treaty or armistice is a draw) in two ways (OK, some historical exceptions):

By defeating the will of the Japanese people by making the thought of continuing the war too horrible to consider. Reference two atom bombs on Japan. Their will (including civilians even if forced) to fight a US invasion predicted 500,000 causalities. Civilians were the target of the atom bombs. We broke their will, they were not defeated. Unconditional surrender. Things changed.

By conquering and defeating the nation implementing unconditional surrender. Reference the Nazis in WWII. In WWI there was an Armistice with Germany, not a defeated nation. After WWII things changed.

Afghanistan and and Iraq were defeated militarily but the will of the people to fight back was still strong.

The US had total military dominance in Vietnam (when they decided to exercise it) but the North Vietnamese actions and propaganda defeated the will of the US people and mass media. It was a propaganda victory and the US leadership are really responsible, not the military. I know, I'm a VN war era vet.

I think Westerners have a hard time wrapping their heads around the struggle we are having. It's not a conventional enemy we can defeat with a conventional military. It's not like a football game with a winner or loser at the end. There is no end.

There is no clear cut enemy or combatants nor uniforms to identify combatants from civilians. There are no front and rear areas. Our enemies weapons manufacturing facilities are the wounds of their women. Their training facilities are their mosques. Their technology and communication is the same as ours.

People in the mid-east have fought this kind of war and struggle for over 2,000 years. Westerners don't remember their history except for the PC crap rammed down their throats in Western educational establishments. It tells them that THEY are the enemy and the bad guys are the good guys. If they don't get a clear cut victory they want to quit. Our enemy does not know the meaning of quitting – and why should they when they consider us weak and afraid to fight and die.

Collateral damage? There is no such thing in the cultural worldwide struggle we are in.

When the US entered WWII they swore NEVER to bomb civilian population centers the way the Brits, Germans and Japs were doing. But when it became clear in April 1945 after the battle of Okinawa we were up against a foe whose will we could not defeat in Japan we did what it took to end the conflict – targeting mainly civilians because we knew where they were and were easy to target.

During the Nuremberg trials two of the Army Air Corps commanders (Ira Eaker and Karl Spaatz?) said that if the US had lost the war they'd both be on trial for war crimes rather than Herman Goering.

The allies did what was needed to be done, as horrible as it was, to put an end to the conflict. It is still called "America's Greatest Generation". Remember Arthur "Bomber" Harris? War hero or war criminal?

Sooner or later the West is going to come to terms that what they are up against is not just terrorism, lone wolves or can be solved as a law enforcement action or conventional military action.

I hate to say it but in a cultural struggle for civilization there is no collateral damage or innocent victims, we are all in it together. It's a sad and unfortunate thing. Not all Germans were Nazis or persecuted Jews and minorities. Not all Japanese were Imperialists advocating raping and pillaging the people and resources of foreign countries. However, they were caught in the middle. Sort of like many of us are.

I'm not advocating killing innocent civilians or then maybe I am? My son is over there right now and having to make decisions about who lives and who gets a Hellfire up their ass, it's taking a toll on him. None of the bad guys are wearing uniforms and sometimes it's a judgement call he has to make. He said it's a dirty job but someone has to do it. He said he's learned first hand the enemy is evil and needs to be killed – in as large as quantity as possible. There is no other solution. He said he's seen first hand and up close totally innocent people being killed. They just had the bad luck of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It bothers him but he said he deals with it.

Sooner or later the West is just going to quit or they are going to take it to the next step (whatever that may be) and hit the bad guys at home where it hurts the most. Making hundreds of them a month martyrs is not working.

Thanks,
Wolfhag

Have to agree with you Wolfhag.

The US had total military dominance in Vietnam (when they decided to exercise it) but the North Vietnamese actions and propaganda defeated the will of the US people and mass media. It was a propaganda victory and the US leadership are really responsible, not the military. I know, I'm a VN war era vet.

I hate to say it but in a cultural struggle for civilization there is no collateral damage or innocent victims, we are all in it together. It's a sad and unfortunate thing. Not all Germans were Nazis or persecuted Jews and minorities. Not all Japanese were Imperialists advocating raping and pillaging the people and resources of foreign countries. However, they were caught in the middle. Sort of like many of us are.

Well put …

I'm not advocating killing innocent civilians or then maybe I am? My son is over there right now and having to make decisions about who lives and who gets a Hellfire up their ass, it's taking a toll on him. None of the bad guys are wearing uniforms and sometimes it's a judgement call he has to make. He said it's a dirty job but someone has to do it. He said he's learned first hand the enemy is evil and needs to be killed – in as large as quantity as possible. There is no other solution. He said he's seen first hand and up close totally innocent people being killed. They just had the bad luck of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It bothers him but he said he deals with it.

That is the cold hard truth … Are some of you getting this ?

Sooner or later the West is just going to quit or they are going to take it to the next step (whatever that may be) and hit the bad guys at home where it hurts the most.

That may be considered a bit "old school" by some, but that is way many conflicts were brought to an end. We have to keep our humanity, but be a bit more concerned about killing the enemy. Than what targets we shouldn't strike.

but in a cultural struggle for civilization there is no collateral damage or innocent victims,

That's the line AQ took over 9/11. I'm not drawing an equivalence, but that line of thinking can lead you down some dark alleys.

We're not fighting WW2. We do have the advantage of modern sigint. We can often, if we want to.

I agree the enemy needs to be killed in lagre numbers. The problem is that when you start killing civilians in large numbers, you make the problem worse.

Something certain people seem not to understand.

SOME collateral damage is inevitable. But as I said, the difference between the casualty rates in Pakistan and Iraq seem stark.

Even more so the difference in approach between the Syrians and Russians and the uSAF..

but be a bit more concerned about killing the enemy. Than what targets we shouldn't strike.

An approach seemingly favoured by the IDF. Fifty years after 1967 I can't say it seems to be solving their problem.

Something certain people seem not to understand.

Something you don't want understand is those certain people understand but see it in some cases a "necessary evil".

SOME collateral damage is inevitable. But as I said, the difference between the casualty rates in Pakistan and Iraq seem stark.

Again you seem not to have read my posts again … Again read my posts … "Most likely tech, training and experience just made those strikes more accurate, etc., … That is one of the reasons no matter what the mission, task, etc., … We train, train, rehearse … and do it all again. Over and over to be better, faster more accurate, etc., … " You just don't seem to get that. As it does not fit your skewed unrealistic views and perceptions.

An approach seemingly favoured by the IDF. Fifty years after 1967 I can't say it seems to be solving their problem.

Again … the IDF won that war in 6 Days and among other things captured Jerusalem. By most that was considered a "win".

Even more so the difference in approach between the Syrians and Russians and the USAF..

Indeed … however, the Russians have changed that conflict significantly. And Syria & Assad will most likely be still in power after it is all over. Not saying we the West should be as "ruthless" as the Russians and certainly not as the Syrians. But regardless, the Russians are much more effective and efficient … We need to balance that with fighting a continuing conflict that only causes more losses all around. Not to mention a waste of assets.

Legion – I was referring to the tactics of the IDF in the Occupied Territories since 1967….

They don't care about civilian casualties, don't give a toss for hearts and minds and have a running sore as a consequence.

The Russians have created a desert and called it peace… not sure that's something we should emulate.

There is I guess an argument that extreme violence kills fewer civilians in the long run than a five year war. But there seems to be little gained militarily in demolishing hospitals.

But there seems to be little gained militarily in demolishing hospitals.

Once again you try to put words in my mouth it appears. However, if one was to be completely ruthless and I am not advocating this … Not At All … But again … KNOW YOUR ENEMY. Destroying availability of medical care increase enemy losses. The WIA's can't return to the battlefield if that are dead. They DO that … we Don't. Again, know your enemy. We also must know ourselves. We, the West don't purposely do this …

The Russians have created a desert and called it peace… not sure that's something we should emulate.

We don't do that today …