Is the war stagnating? ( 1 2 )

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by ruffitt, Mar 3, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ruffitt

    ruffitt *TFF Admin Staff* In Heaven Now

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    Messages:
    2,872
    Location:
    Sparta, MI / Now In Heaven Also
    warpig883
    Moderator
    Posts: 948
    (11/1/01 8:48:44 am)
    | Edit | Del All Is the war stagnating?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Is the bombing doing any good? Of course with the media blackout we are really not hearing much of what is going on. All we are hearing is the Taliban propaganda and what our government tells us. There is also very little new coming from the overseas new agencies.

    I do not see where the long air campaign is getting us. I think it is having the effect of building the resolve of the enemy and making all the other bad guy nations even more pissed at us. Is it time to move in with armor and infantry? I realize the leadership wants to limit the number of American casualties by softening them up by air. But how much can you soften up a desert. From what I have read about the country and the Taliban. There was not that much of a military or an infastructure to begin with.

    Isn't it concievable to think that we could have dropeed a load of bombs on every military target worth bombing by now?

    I also hope that we give the military a goal for this mission and let them handle the way they reach it. It would appear that is what is happening, or am I missing something and the politicians are calling the shots???


    I am not happy unless I am miserable

    AGunguy
    Moderator
    Posts: 622
    (11/1/01 8:59:05 am)
    | Edit | Del Re: Is the war stagnating?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Bush said we are in it for the long haul, (you haul you all) and it will be a long drawn out war on many fronts, could take up to six to 10 years.

    When you hear reports that Afghanistan is glowing from nuclear heat, it will be close to being over.

    GG

    polishshooter
    Senior Chief Moderator Staff
    Posts: 2077
    (11/1/01 11:37:26 pm)
    | Edit | Del Re: Is the war stagnating?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The war is only "stagnating" to the media, who not only is shut out from first hand accounts, THEY are the ones getting antsy and asking all the stupid questions...and soon will get uninformed people to ask the same ones.

    People want to see "Carpet Bombing," hasn't been done since 'nam, a tremendous WASTE of HE, only good for the psychological effects of the ATTACKER...(Look at all those neat booms!) But highly ineffective...

    Instead, they decry the ONE bomb (I've actually heard reporters say this MORE than once, like it's worthless...) a plane dropped...not taking into account it was GPS/Lazed and HIT, instead of dropping 300 tons on a railyard and get ZERO hits like we used to do in WWII...

    Hold your horses, pig, the air war is doing EVERYTHING it's intending to do...the Tallywhackers WILL come out of their holes when THEY get sick of waiting and dying slowly, THEN they will be easier to kill...

    Until then, it's sleep deprivation, round the clock battlefield dominance so no food, no supply, no communications, and SLOW deaths, all the while taking out Targets of Opportunity, with Beanies on the ground finding them...and they can't do a THING about it....what the HECK is wrong with THAT? We are taking out chemical, biological, and conventional dumps, don't think for a second we aren't. Have you heard the Taliban claiming evidence of the US using Chemical and "Radioactive" weapons?

    I'd just bet there HAVE been civvies hurt by them, but only those downwind of some of the strikes...it's the Talibans stockpiles going up that are hurting the civilians, mark my words...those tremedous "secondaries" aren't harmless.

    The Air War is actually doing a FINE job, let it work.

    OF COURSE it won't win it for us, never has, never will, by itself, BUT, it isn't nearly time to change strategies....

    Patience....


    We must make war as we must; not as we would like. - Field Marshal Kitchener, 1915

    BlackGun
    Moderator
    Posts: 1456
    (11/1/01 11:51:23 pm)
    | Edit | Del Re: Is the war stagnating?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In my words and my words only PHYS OPS I have kept up with this campaign 24/7 and the US Government is on top of it's strategy!
    rules for survival: Sight alignment, Breath control, & Trigger Squeeze
    BlackGUN

    Edited by: BlackGun at: 11/1/01 11:57:26 pm

    rayra
    V.I.P. Member
    Posts: 143
    (11/2/01 1:34:57 am)
    | Edit | Del Re: Is the war stagnating?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Warpig - LOL!
    Very very funny that you should ask that question TODAY of all days - Rumsfield, speaking in the Pentagon briefing TODAY addressed that very issue / question in his opening remarks.
    He pointed out that the WTC is STILL SMOLDERING, that the bombing campaign is ONLY 24 days (? - I may have that number wrong), yet 'people' are asking 'why isn't it over yet?'

    Watch those press conferences, listen to the questions that many reporters ask, either out of bias or ignorance - I don't know which - they are very much in the vein of 'have you stopped beating your wife?'.
    They ask two part questions, with the opening statement some half-ass speculation, and the back half a yes/no deal that seems to confirm the first half no matter how the second half is answered.
    Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
    See some of what Rumsfield said, here: www.cnn.com/2001/US/11/01...index.html

    I've enjoyed nothing more than watching Rumsfield and Ari Fleischer politely, bluntly, point out the idocy / fallacy of some of these questions.

    I've said it before, and I'll drone it again, to anyone - get your information from as many sources as possible, get it directlty from the source when you can (nothing beats a first-hand impression of a 'live' speaker). If you let someone else pre-digest it for you, and you find yourself saying 'right on!' to some talking head giving an Op-Ed piece, well... (shakes head).

    Rich

    A Professional
    Member
    Posts: 17
    (11/2/01 1:39:00 am)
    | Edit | Del Re: Is the war stagnating?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The air campaign is doing well, yes, but I've always preferred the blitzkrieg tactics proven effective in WWII, which we are so very capable of doing. Our armor is very advanced, our troops highly trained, and our intelligence is top of the line.

    When we were done bombing Iraq, their capitol could have have been captured by 2 men in a jeep with a 12 gauge. (well maybe not exactly) But we DID do most of the major damage from the air. Afterwards it was easy. So yea, bombing works.

    BUT, If we had just "rushed" in, with our superior air support, tanks and troops, the Afghanistan campaign would be just about over. Its not a very big country, and like mentioned before, their army, was'nt much of an army in the first place. Just my opinion tho...

    rayra
    V.I.P. Member
    Posts: 145
    (11/2/01 1:50:39 am)
    | Edit | Del Re: Is the war stagnating?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Blitzkrieg / combined Arms is indeed the preferred way to kick ass, but I don't think it would have worked in this particular global / Afghani scenario, politically.
    (and wish we had rolled over Saddam when we had the best opportunity - maybe one of these days we'll rescind the 'no assassinations' rule and put 'paid' to that sumbitch)
    Too, helps to have 100,000 troops / all branches in-theatre (which we don't).

    warpig883
    Moderator
    Posts: 968
    (11/2/01 6:06:37 am)
    | Edit | Del Re: Is the war stagnating?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    OK I will relax and patiently wait for the next step.
    I am not happy unless I am miserable

    Zigzag2
    Senior Chief Moderator Staff
    Posts: 1335
    (11/2/01 7:34:50 am)
    | Edit | Del Re: Is the war stagnating?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ray, that's the best point that can be made, "the WTS is still smoldering"...
    And the worst part is in fact that we are a nation of "Wants to know, and know NOW".
    There is 1-hell-a-va lot going on right now... and by the reports I seen, ALOT is being Done!
    Patience "is" a virtue.
    IMHO,
    Zig

    AGunguy
    Moderator
    Posts: 632
    (11/2/01 8:56:07 am)
    | Edit | Del Re: Is the war stagnating?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Screw the media whinners, they are always trying to stir up shite. They ain't happy unless they can please there bossos who run those outlets. Bunch a$$ kissing suck ups.

    Boy, did I get up on the wrong side of bed.

    GG

    BlackGun
    Moderator
    Posts: 1462
    (11/2/01 10:11:06 am)
    | Edit | Del Re: Is the war stagnating?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    News, whether good or bad sells papers! It's their job.
    rules for survival: Sight alignment, Breath control, & Trigger Squeeze
    BlackGUN

    polishshooter
    Senior Chief Moderator Staff
    Posts: 2082
    (11/2/01 11:00:40 am)
    | Edit | Del Re: Is the war stagnating?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Boy am I amazed by the misconceptions of the Gulf War...there were some SERIOUS armor to armor fights in that war, "two men in a jeep with a 12 guage?" GIVE me a break!

    The biggest battle was never fought...the Ist Armored corp had the Republican Guard Armored right where they wanted it, and there was going to BE the "Mother of All Battles" when dipshit Swartzkopf recommended both ways that "the war was over" and said we should stop.

    The Republican Guard escaped virtually intact...

    Could the forces we had have taken Baghdad..yeah, IF the coalition would have held together, and the logistics train coulod have continued through Sudi Arabia, which is NOT a given.

    The logistics that it took simply to shift our forces from the Kuwait border to the Iraqi border was impressive enough...eguivalent from moving an Armor heavy Corps COMPLETELY from Charlotte to Cincinnatti with ALL it's support and supply, and have it ready to fight in 30 days...supplying it to go to Baghdad would have taken ANOTHER 30 days at least of refit and reorg before it could have assaulted...and when was the LAST time a Armor Heavy Corps took a CITY?

    And just EXACTLY where are we going to GET enough M1A3s to even EQUIP an Armor Heavy Corp today? We don't even OWN a third of any M1s of what we had in 91, right after the cold war ended.

    And WHERE are we going to ship them to and supply them from? PAKISTAN? And then attack through the MOUNTAINS? In WINTER? Usbekistan? What PORTS do they have where we can ship them into? NONE. And how long did it take us to ship them from Germany to Saudi Arabia...over 6 WEEKS...and much more to get them ready to fight...

    We simply DO NOT have the armed forces we had in 1991, don't forget that for a second...we need to fight SMART and with "force-multipliers..."

    "Blitzkrieg" never worked after May 1940...don't you forget it for a second, and the only thing that really made it successful was SURPRISE, and a lack of doctrine on the other side...

    But I digress...

    I watched a pentagon press briefing the other day and a dumbass female reporter actually asked...

    "What Special Forces Units are actually on the ground inside Afghanistan, and a follow-up question, where exactly are they located?"

    The pentagon spokesman was speechless at first, and even other REPORTERS were chuckling...

    What freakin' stupidity....
    We must make war as we must; not as we would like. - Field Marshal Kitchener, 1915

    Edited by: polishshooter at: 11/2/01 11:10:18 am

    the real fredneck
    Moderator
    Posts: 468
    (11/2/01 11:47:10 am)
    | Edit | Del Re: Is the war stagnating?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    the question I'm curious about is how many "hunting partys" do we have there? imagine being holed up in a cave and everytime one of your comrades walks out to take a sh*t he don't come back don't matter if it's in the middle of the night or not and everyone who goes out to look don't come back? kinda terrorizing don't you think?

    Different name
    V.I.P. Forum Host
    Posts: 405
    (11/2/01 1:43:36 pm)
    | Edit | Del
    ezSupporter
    Kalashnikovs & Rolex Watches!
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    My two cents.....(Wheat Pennies)
    The French, Swedes, and most Germans are asking about their governments defending the bombings. Connections between the

    A Professional
    Member
    Posts: 19
    (11/2/01 2:45:06 pm)
    | Edit | Del Re: Is the war stagnating?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Polish you seriously underestimate our forces, and seriously overate afganistans. Blitskrieg isnt suprize, it overwhealm. And I wasnt serious about the 2 men in a jeep, duh

    17th FA Bn
    V.I.P. Member
    Posts: 48
    (11/2/01 3:07:29 pm)
    | Edit | Del Re: Is the war stagnating?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On the History channel I heard a Marine say "never send a Marine when you can send a bullet to do a job".

    At some point we will need more ground troops to go in, but I'm content to let the bombs and our "allies" in the Northern Alliance do as much as they can. I would imagine at this point what troops we have on the ground are coordinating our air strikes, and doing mostly recon work.


    polishshooter
    Senior Chief Moderator Staff
    Posts: 2083
    (11/2/01 3:47:18 pm)
    | Edit | Del Re: Is the war stagnating?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I do NOT underestimate our forces, I DO know we do NOT have anywhere NEAR what we had in 1991, that's a FACT.

    Second, this war is NOT about Afghanistan, I don't even think it is CLOSE to being the main show...

    We DO have a need for a heavy Armored Corp, IF we can even put one together, someplace else, and maybe soon...and it will NOT involve the prepositioned M1A1s we have in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait without MONTHS of retraining...We do not even have ONE crew left that knows how to even OPERATE the M1A1s we used in the Gulf...that is ALSO a fact...the newer M1A3s are MUCH different, we would have to familiarize to even use them, even IF they would start!


    And I am NOT overestimating the Taliban...not one bit. You are drastically UNDERESTIMATING the enemy, a mistake many Generals and politicians have made since the dawn of time.

    They have many non-afghans who want to die for the cause, and many Afghans with CENTURIES of experience fighting invaders...on THEIR territory.

    Blitzkrieg, as practiced by the Germans, DOES involve surprise, pure and simple. If you mean Mobile combined attack, as in AirLand Battle, that is the only way we DO fight conventional forces, and AirLand Battle ALWAYS startes with a prolonged tactical air campaign....but, unfortunately, this, at least in Afghanistan, is NOT a conventional war. Heavy Armor and Infantry in Afghanistan, especially in the winter, would be the WORST military mistake we could make.

    Want to see ANOTHER Chosin Reservoir?

    The 101st or 82nd, or the 10th Mountain making a quick airborne strike to take an airfield to establish an airhead where we can fly in some more light infantry? Maybe...but have you thought WHY we haven't been hearing anything about the 82nd or the 101st???? Ace in the hole, anyone?

    We are no longer able to fight "One and One half" major wars at the same time, like we were even 10 years ago...this one CANNOT even be "One Half" of a war, because we have to be ready for phase II, which WILL be BIGGER.
    We must make war as we must; not as we would like. - Field Marshal Kitchener, 1915

    17th FA Bn
    V.I.P. Member
    Posts: 49
    (11/2/01 8:14:50 pm)
    | Edit | Del Re: Is the war stagnating?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I think we are going to need that heavy armored corps when we get done in Afghanistan to go into Iraq. I get the feeling we are down playing Iraq while we take care of the Taliban, to hold the alliance together. Once we have taken care of the Taliban it will be Iraq's turn.

    (P.S. Polish, I think it was the 7th corps which was the heavy armored corps in Desert storm under Lt. General Franks.)

    polishshooter
    Senior Chief Moderator Staff
    Posts: 2090
    (11/2/01 8:43:12 pm)
    | Edit | Del Re: Is the war stagnating?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    That's it, 17, did you read Tom Clancy's book on him and the 7th in Iraq?

    I think Clancy is much better at non-fiction...

    BTW, MSNBC has just announced a Spec Ops Chopper down in Afghanistan, second chopper landed, rescued crew and SOFs on board, 4 hurt, none wounded.

    Ice storm, rotors probably lost lift...air assets called in to destroy the downed chopper and classified equipment on board.

    Hey Pig, you think it was a 47 or a 53?

    Either way, the weather is turning there...


    We must make war as we must; not as we would like. - Field Marshal Kitchener, 1915

    A Professional
    Member
    Posts: 20
    (11/3/01 4:58:21 am)
    | Edit | Del Re: Is the war stagnating?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Um, a blitzkrieg isn't about surpise. Its a constant pushing force that doesn't allow the enemy to easilly retreat, resupply and regroup. And It's obvious you know little about Afghanistans forces. I KNOW we dont have the forces we had in the late 80's, early 90's, but Afghanistan is 1/10 the enemy Iraq was. It this wasnt a political war, this campaign would have been in its final stages by now if the generals had their way. Trust me... I know.

    polishshooter
    Senior Chief Moderator Staff
    Posts: 2104
    (11/3/01 9:55:31 am)
    | Edit | Del Re: Is the war stagnating?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    How can you say I know little about Afghans, when you say stuff like "they are nothing like the Iragis"

    You obviously know NOTHING about the Afghan people or history...they have faced MANY invaders since Ghengis Khan and Tamerlane, and many empires from the Brits to the Soviets, and ran EVERY ONE OF THEM OUT.

    They MAY just be the best light infantry, mountain fighters the world has EVER seen.

    And the terrain is rough, location makes logistics a nightmare, politics maybe makes the logistics impossible.

    Blitzkrieg IS surprise...it's obvious you don't know military history either... The ONLY times "Blitzkrieg" as practiced by the Nazis WORKED was in Poland and France....it was proven folly in Russia....and even the Germans abandoned it after 1941...what we now call "AirLand Battle" or any similar doctrine is NOT "Blitzkrieg."

    It is a PRODIGIOUS consumer of men, material, and above all FUEL.

    It is surgical, quick, attacks to cut lines of communication, thus capturing large forces of the enemy who can no longer react do to being encircled, and no supply....then the rest of the country falls because there is no army to defend it.

    When was the LAST time "blitzkrieg," or any OTHER conventional attempt at mobile warfare worked against essentially a guerrilla force....HHHmmm. let's see. the Nazis in the Balkans, no, they got whipped.....The French in Indochina?....no, there was the "Den Ben Fu," thing as LBJ used to say, Hmmm....Vietnam? Oh yeah, the GENERALS had THEIR way there, just fine....

    How about closer to home....the SOVIETS in Afghanistan in the 70s-80s? THEY captured all the cities in a week, then had to relearn the dictum, "it ain't the cities that matter...." The Taliban do not HAVE the stuff that "Blitzkrieg" is so effective at encircling and destroying, or lines of communications to cut....

    Betcha THEY thought the Afghans were nothing TOO...

    But before we talk much farther, explain to me exactly WHERE are we going to ship the M1s and Bradleys and MLRSs to, where are we going to make a base where we can ship in all the fuel, food, and ammo we would need even for ONE thrust, much less a sustained war on the ground, and explaind just EXACTLY how we could have done this by NOW, when it took us 6-8 weeks to do it in the Gulf, WITH bases and ports already secured physically and politically???? And oh yeah, all the FUEL we needed a hose away?

    Too many people look at the "sharp end" of the spear, and give the "Shaft" the shaft...."

    Logistics, son, logistics.....

    My God, the Kitty Hawk as a floating Special Ops Base? BRILLIANT. But at the same time, reflecting the political and geographical limitations of the theater.

    Too bad nobody figured out how to paradrop or sling under a CH-47 an Abrams or Bradley yet....much less the fuel they use in even ONE day of operation?????
    We must make war as we must; not as we would like. - Field Marshal Kitchener, 1915

    Edited by: polishshooter at: 11/3/01 10:19:20 am

    A Professional
    Member
    Posts: 22
    (11/3/01 2:46:09 pm)
    | Edit | Del Re: Is the war stagnating?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I give up, everyone here realize this! No one is smarter that an ignorant man, or polishshooter. Maybe one in the same...

    warpig883
    Moderator
    Posts: 975
    (11/3/01 5:59:09 pm)
    | Edit | Del Re: Is the war stagnating?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Anyone hear what the helicopter was that crashed in the bad weather? If I had to bet I would say a UH or MH-60.
    I am not happy unless I am miserable

    polishshooter
    Senior Chief Moderator Staff
    Posts: 2114
    (11/3/01 6:18:16 pm)
    | Edit | Del Re: Is the war stagnating?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A prof, don't give up! Frustration is either a mark of not having thought through one's position completely, or an inability to articulate the position properly.

    And "ignorant" means "uninformed, unaware"...when I use it, I do not mean it as a slam, so I'm sure you didn't either.

    And since I am far from uninformed, or unaware, I'm sure you meant to say something else.

    I am interested in hearing exactly how YOU would prosecute this war, beyond generalities like "blitzkrieg."



    Pig, I think it was a 47 or a 53....the mission was "to evacuate a sick soldier."

    Since it was inside Afghanistan, and in Taliban territory, it had to be a SOF operative, and 1:30AM, at night, so my guess is Air Commandos or 47s....have you heard anything else?

    Taliban is claiming they shot down the rescue chopper, and that "40-50" Americans were killed.


    We must make war as we must; not as we would like. - Field Marshal Kitchener, 1915

    Edited by: polishshooter at: 11/3/01 6:22:56 pm

    warpig883
    Moderator
    Posts: 979
    (11/3/01 6:25:51 pm)
    | Edit | Del Re: Is the war stagnating?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I have only heard the same as you. I know keeping all this good info under wraps is great for the war effort. But is bad for my curiosity.
    I am not happy unless I am miserable

    A Professional
    Member
    Posts: 25
    (11/4/01 2:28:46 am)
    | Edit | Del Re: Is the war stagnating?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Polish, I dont know if I should go on. It would be just more fuel for your fire.


    polishshooter
    Senior Chief Moderator Staff
    Posts: 2118
    (11/4/01 10:52:30 am)
    | Edit | Del Re: Is the war stagnating?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    No, please do, A Prof. And remember, I love a good argument, and I never intentionally get personal, we all have a lot to share.

    And I get frustrated too, USUALLY when I know EXACTLY what I'm trying to say, but it don't come out that way!

    Hey, PIG! Did you see the drudge report somebody posted about the Delta Force raid into Kandahar last week, BIG cluster fudge, 12 injured, 3 seriously,Taliban counterattacked feircely with more men than we thought were there, with RPGs and mortars, they had to claw and scratch their way to extraction. The stay behinds, which I just KNEW they were doing, the raid was just a cover, had to abort and get rescued out of a hot LZ.

    And the Beanies are POed at the Rangers, the Rangers did that low level jump for TV onto the airfield that was already cleared by beanie pathfinders...Par for the course, you think?

    Don't know if it's true, but it was shortly after that the Pentagon was saying how good the Taliban were as fighters.



    Well, HECK, YOU posted it, of COURSE you saw it!
    We must make war as we must; not as we would like. - Field Marshal Kitchener, 1915

    Edited by: polishshooter at: 11/4/01 10:54:47 am

    Tac401
    Administrator
    Posts: 2646
    (11/4/01 9:12:53 pm)
    | Edit | Del
    ezSupporter
    Re: Is the war stagnating?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Do ya's think that we'd keep our boy's bodies and notifications to families under wraps that long?
    The Firearms Forum Vietnam Memories Bulletin Board Contact Administrator

    warpig883
    Moderator
    Posts: 991
    (11/4/01 10:45:47 pm)
    | Edit | Del Re: Is the war stagnating?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I was wondering the same thing Tac. Hard question to answer. Would be hell to pay if somebodies son died and they were not told for a month. Is there a precedent for this?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.