PDA

View Full Version : We have an obvious problem with the way we do war


SuperCitizen
19-07-2007, 23:12:30
I say we because I mean the western armies. We basically do things in a similar way, have similar mindsets about it, it's more professional, all the processes and everything is pretty much equivalent to what modern industrialized ... stuff. For doing war, it's good. For winning the combat, surviving the fight and beating the enemy, it's OK.

I remember reading about war and history that it wasn't long ago when most soldiers would miss their targets on purpose or just not aim even if they could. They would hesitate and they'd be the huge freaking majority. I don't know, 90% or over. Then we have the natural born soldiers, who will shoot for you. Those are the guys we like, because those are the guys who will save the asses of the 90% by actually engaging in the targets with purpose and intensity. Those are the guys that win the fight for you.

But those guys aren't the guys who will win the war for you. I think we have a serious problem with the organization and who does what. You don't train and send killing machines into a place where you can't give them a target or let them roam freely and fight. When they become the targets, as in do a kind of police work, what do you expect?

I think it's a big fucking mistake, and this is what we all in here do. Who gives aid and who kills, it's got to be different groups of people, different troops. You don't mix the heads of everyone by saying these you shoot, these you give some aid. No no no... you have people who give aid, and people who shoot, period.

When it all gets confused, it helps killing the morale. We're so good at training soldiers to shoot and kill efficiently. Just look at any other country outside the west and some Asian countries, fucking piss poor soldiers they have. Doesn't matter if they have 3 year service, they can't shoot it seems to me. And how easy is it, especially if you're on a shooting range. It's not a problem, it's easy.

Or urban warfare and close quarter combat, we got some serious ass kicking forces, everyone of us. You don't stand much of a chance against these guys, they'll come in and smash everything. We know how to train people to kill. We know how to eliminate hesitation. That is to bring reality into simulation, that is to have targets that look like people, that is to obey the rules of killing. Every detail of your weapon is known to you, it's part of you. It's not even subtle how psychological training is done on your head. Your weapon is your life insurance. Then you look at these piss poor armies, they don't even give a damn how their weapons are doing, it's like muddy and shit, just in poor condition.

That's why we get news from ivory coast where the FFL jumped in to help the government against rebels, figures like 3 injured and 1 dead from the French side adn 200 dead from the rebel side. They just did what they were trained to do.

OK so this is where we're good at, but we suck at dealing with it afterwards. What we get is bunch of tense soldiers coming home, we don't know how to deal with them, they don't know how to deal with us and it's just screwed up. I think that's something we should look into more.

Another thing is how to deal with the whole after the war thing. How to sustain regions. Not talking about Iraq, it's quite obvious you need to have enough people there and not worry about making money to KBR or Halliburton or who ever the fuck is trying to steal the money from tax payers by overcharging stuff that soldiers used to do.

How to deal with that stuff, assuming we had the people and resources. It still isn't simple. A lot of people here in west are quite the idiots. It's like you see a soldier talking to a local kid on TV and it's like ohhh that's good. Well it might be or not. You know what can happen to that kid tomorrow? Or if they are smiling to you. Dude, you're in a war, with a fucking gun, you expect them to throw tantrums at you? The inability to think what it might mean to the other side is stupid as hell, it just means we're stupid, really really stupid. I'm not saying well don't talk to the kid. Of course you want to be friendly if you can. Hey, you might even get a tip if you get to know some people. But don't assume they'll love you just because they're smiling, they might be dead tomorrow for it, and they have to stay there.

So how to deal with things like that, I think it's going to be difficult but more attention needs to be paid. I don't know if we can deal with stuff lkie that, because war is complex. And that's exactly why I think we need people who give aid and people who shoot. People who give aid know this shit well, they don't come and shout to you in a foreign language and seem like dicks, those guys go kill some enemies. The aid giving people are different, and no they can't be mostly contractors, they have to be army folks. They need to be able to deal with situation between war and peace, shooting folks deal with war, and we can all deal with peace so no special training for that is needed.

Poison Arrow Frog
19-07-2007, 23:25:46
There is a problem though I will leave it up to each poster to decide which side is the problem. Most governments signed on to treaties agreeing how war should be fought honorably so that innocent people shouldn't suffer. Along came unconventional war which was a way for weak people to fight strong people though it resulted in lots of civilian deaths. The strong say this is dishonorable and dastardly while the weak think they'll win so they keep doing it.

The only responses which the conventional forces can do successfully is try to undermine support for the insurgents/rebels or to lump everyone together and be such a royal cunt that people fear them more then they fear the insurgents. The second option boils down to who is the biggest bastard and who the people think is most likely to kill them if they don't do as they're told. The second way can win, witness much of Saddam's reign, but it really pisses everyone off. So what to do?

SuperCitizen
20-07-2007, 00:28:14
Poison Arrow Frog, that's not really the question I was thinking but I agree to the extent that yeah, conventional means of war were made up by mostly dominating countries so that they dont' have to let go of the power. Like there was a rule at some point, that you couldn't shoot a paratrooper in the air. Wow, what a rule. Let me guess, I think small places don't have their paratroopers, so is there a rule I can't shoot you until you shoot me first? That's a fucked up rule.

When it comes down to it, there are no rules. I think a nation should be able to use any force it HAS to defend itself against their enemy.

If you're talking about Iraq and what to do with insurgents? There's nothing much that can be done. It's fucked up beyond any repair as they'd say. There's no way to win a guerilla war that's been gaining this much ground.

And how do you propose to do it anyway, since it's mostly a civil war? For coalition, there is no way, none, nada.

Vincent
20-07-2007, 05:36:37
I already solved the problem, so never mind

Koshko
20-07-2007, 06:05:52
You think way too much for this forum.

Vincent
20-07-2007, 06:35:21
I know, that's why I'm going to leave it

Drekkus
20-07-2007, 10:37:54
with the way we do war, with the way we do war
with the way we do war, with the way we do war


with the way we do war is the new dooo di dooo

Dyl Ulenspiegel
20-07-2007, 10:43:40
Is this the "fascism for beginners" course?

Drekkus
20-07-2007, 11:05:35
Darkstarian fascism for beginners

maroule
20-07-2007, 11:13:28
fascism for dummies

Oerdin
20-07-2007, 11:21:45
Your other avatar was much more French.

MDA
20-07-2007, 11:42:43
Thank you for explaining in great detail the problem we OBVIOUSLY have. Stop doing drugs.

Oerdin
20-07-2007, 11:54:36
Were you trying to say own goal? That would have been shorter.

Cruddy
20-07-2007, 15:48:31
And that's exactly why I think we need people who give aid and people who shoot.

Alternatively, just have people who shoot. Then when the shooting is over they can give aid.

SuperCitizen
20-07-2007, 19:27:35
Doens't work like that.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
20-07-2007, 19:29:36
Ok. So help people and shoot them later.

Sirotnikov
21-07-2007, 15:14:39
Pekka, the problem is that modern armies were built with the following assumptions:


- conflicts are quick and limited
- all sides respect a clean fight
- what you need to do is destroy the other folk's army
- once you defeat the foreign army - the enemy surrenders
- people are reasonable and would rather live and rebuild their lives

all of those are proving to be wrong when you come to deal with folks that have not reached the same cultural assumptions.

Just because a country has signed some agreement on warfare, doesn't mean that any of it is natural for them.

SuperCitizen
21-07-2007, 15:51:53
I don't agree with the "all sides respect a clean fight" because it's exactly the modern armies, that is richer countries, that have pushed for it.

It's got nothing to do with fair fighting IMO. It makes it easier for a modern army to fight you, if you as a poor country agree to strip yourself from the only real means of defense you have.

Fair fight concept might have existed in honesty after the first world war, but it's just not realistic. I don't think a country should be expected to "follow the rules" if someone attacks, I mean it's a war.

Modern armies aren't this stupid really. It's just something we've been saying to the rest of them who don't have the weapons like we do, weapons of convential nature. So it makes OUR fight easier. Just see who the pushers of rules are. Modern armies.

I also don't believe in the "they will surrender if we beat their army". This might be something a lot of people believe in, but that's because they're fucked in the head. Depends though... might be so, but when an army IS the country, as in if you're facing the invasion, it's not just a regular fight, it's everyone's fight most of the times. Some people will sell out, but most of the people will be united in a fight against the foreigner, because they're the bigger evil. No one wants a foreign army in their lands to say what you should do, the only people who want it is the people who want political or other power in that country and see their opportunity in cutting deals with the invading forces.

I do think we have the illusion of quick and limited fights. I agree with that part, I think we've gone into our own illusion about it.

I also agree with the reasonable part, but we're again fooling ourselves as you'd know. Of course people are reasonable, but there are many ways to see the same situation, so they might be reasonable in their own respective ways by continuing the fight.

I don't think this is a problem of modern armies so much though. They'll still win the fight most of the times, and they can limit the fight somewhat and also do it quick. The aftermath is a bit different, but we do know what it takes usually. We have examples of succesful dealings like with the Japanese etc. But what we've learned is that it takes tons of resources and determination and that it will fail if not done like that. I mean that's the minimum requirement for success, it might not always go down like that even if we operate correctly according to our understanding.