NationStates Jolt Archive

This may be a radical way of thinking but after what was meant to be an attack on the UK in London ( It was but a mere itch - scratched away like a flea ) I personally think we should send more troops since that is what it is apparantly about ?

What do you think ?


* Seen the bombers try and hit USA troops but killed loads or poor iraqi kids they died and lost their legs its unbeleivable what they put up with, Hopefully this will show the real iraqi's that the bombers are just pure IDIOTS.

Bluestrips2']This may be a radical way of thinking but after what was meant to be an attack on the UK in London ( It was but a mere itch - scratched away like a flea ) I personally think we should send more troops since that is what it is apparantly about ?

What do you think ?


* Seen the bombers try and hit USA troops but killed loads or poor iraqi kids they died and lost their legs its unbeleivable what they put up with, Hopefully this will show the real iraqi's that the bombers are just pure IDIOTS.

So what you're suggesting is that British troops in Iraq and Afganistan annoyed local Muslims enough to bomb their own nation...so the best response would be to send more troops, just to piss 'em all off good and proper.

Yeah, that's a touch radical. I would suggest that decisions on wether or not to send troops should be made on slighly stronger grounds than "HA!"

However, you are completely correct in the sense that more troops should be sent, they are desperately needed on the ground in both Afganistan and Iraq. British troops are highly trained, and thus would be more than welcome on the ground.

That's the first thing I thought when I heard about the attack. The way I see it we have three options: pull troops out; don't change anything; put more troops in.

Pulling troops out shows the terrorists that they've won. Any time in the future when we do something to piss them off (could be as simple as banning religious symbols in public [á la France]), we'd be inviting them to blow a target up to get their way.

Not changing our stance has the effect of showing that we are unfazed by their attack, but it's hardly a positive move, and could incite them to blow us up again to try and clinch a pull-out.

Putting more troops in not only shows that we don't care what the scum think or do, but it gives us a combat advantage in Iraq. The one thing the Iraq War could do with is more British troops, since the Americans are incapable of fighting against guerrilla forces, and we've been doing that in Ireland for a long time.


Also, I don't like this war doctrine of putting in only as many troops as we think we need to win the war. Didn't do the coalition much good in Iraq, did it? It should be: figure out what force we need to win the war, double it, and add a regiment of each type. Why does the U.S. continue to spend a ridiculous amount of money on its army, sapping funds from social departments, when it won't bloody use them? They spend twice as much money as their three nearest rivals, two of whom are an 'ally' (Russia) and a trading partner (China).

Also, I don't like this war doctrine of putting in only as many troops as we think we need to win the war. Didn't do the coalition much good in Iraq, did it? It should be: figure out what force we need to win the war, double it, and add a regiment of each type. Why does the U.S. continue to spend a ridiculous amount of money on its army, sapping funds from social departments, when it won't bloody use them? They spend twice as much money as their three nearest rivals, two of whom are an 'ally' (Russia) and a trading partner (China).

Hmm...You have a keen mind for military affairs, do you have training, experience, or is it innate? You've reached the same conclusion that most of our generals had long before Donald Rumsfeld got a hold on the Pentagon. Now that longtime philosophy of overwhelming force has been discarded, and this chaos is the result.

One can only hope heads like yours will one day rise to power again.

Yes, send more people off to an early grave and give 'our enemies' more incentive to continue, bigger and bolder.

I think we should just ignore them. That would be the ultimate insult to them. Carry on as we were and never speak of it again, simply increase our security quietly to make sure they don't do it again and have done with it. Terrorists are like children, they crave attention. While 'terror' is the reaction they would obviously prefer to get (which they won't from Britain, incidentally), any reaction is a good reaction so far as they're concerned. Getting no reaction at all would be the best thing to inflict upon them.

Hmm...You have a keen mind for military affairs, do you have training, experience, or is it innate? You've reached the same conclusion that most of our generals had long before Donald Rumsfeld got a hold on the Pentagon. Now that longtime philosophy of overwhelming force has been discarded, and this chaos is the result.

One can only hope heads like yours will one day rise to power again.

I've no training or experience, but I'm militarily interested. Overwhelming force is the best policy; always has been, always will be. The Spartans at Thermopylae may have been an exception to the rule, but they kicked arse and were in the right situation.

I'd love to be a military leader, but I find invariably the people who want to be in power are worst equipped to do so. Self-denying paranoia of bad leadership.

I've no training or experience, but I'm militarily interested. Overwhelming force is the best policy; always has been, always will be. The Spartans at Thermopylae may have been an exception to the rule, but they kicked arse and were in the right situation.

I'd love to be a military leader, but I find invariably the people who want to be in power are worst equipped to do so. Self-denying paranoia of bad leadership.

Any force backed into a corner, literally or mentally, will fight will all its might. The Spartans died to drive that point home. Sun-tzu knew what he was talking about.

Its true, there are precious few George Washingtons, and far too many Napoleans in this world. It seems ironic that so many times those who would lead best choose not to lead, but must be forced to by circumstance and duty.

Also, I don't like this war doctrine of putting in only as many troops as we think we need to win the war. Didn't do the coalition much good in Iraq, did it? It should be: figure out what force we need to win the war, double it, and add a regiment of each type. Why does the U.S. continue to spend a ridiculous amount of money on its army, sapping funds from social departments, when it won't bloody use them? They spend twice as much money as their three nearest rivals, two of whom are an 'ally' (Russia) and a trading partner (China).

Most of the money is actually spent on the Navy and the Air Force, not the Army. The US army is remarkably underfunded if you consider the total size of the defence budget.

As to only deploying as many troops as are necessary, I would have thought the reason why was fairly obvious. You have to consider force flexibility, and that means not throwing everything into one particular theater. Further, the Powell doctorine (which is what I presume you are alluding to) is silly at best.

Economy of force, concentrated at the knuckle, that's the key to achieving overall strategic goals. Not blindly throwing in massive amounts of troops and material at any particular problem at any given time.

Now that is not to say estimates are sometimes wrong, and deployment levels need to be adjusted. But the whole notion of figure out what is needed is wrongheaded. And you can't just look to the ration strength for answers. All factors need to be considered from the tactical level on up. I would imagine that had the occupation force in Iraq consisted of 200,000 UK infantry, there would not be as many problems owing to difference in training, experience, rules of engagement and the rest.

Reasonable people can differ as to whether or not the war is being properly conducted, but it's also fair to criticize the Powel doctorine as well.

As to only deploying as many troops as are necessary, I would have thought the reason why was fairly obvious. You have to consider force flexibility, and that means not throwing everything into one particular theater. Further, the Powell doctorine (which is what I presume you are alluding to) is silly at best.

Economy of force, concentrated at the knuckle, that's the key to achieving overall strategic goals. Not blindly throwing in massive amounts of troops and material at any particular problem at any given time.

Now that is not to say estimates are sometimes wrong, and deployment levels need to be adjusted. But the whole notion of figure out what is needed is wrongheaded. And you can't just look to the ration strength for answers. All factors need to be considered from the tactical level on up. I would imagine that had the occupation force in Iraq consisted of 200,000 UK infantry, there would not be as many problems owing to difference in training, experience, rules of engagement and the rest.

Reasonable people can differ as to whether or not the war is being properly conducted, but it's also fair to criticize the Powel doctorine as well.

Force flexibility eh? Is that what they're calling being stretched to the limit of your operational capabilities these days? Interesting.

The Powell doctrine was far from simply throwing force at a problem, if you know it enough to criticize it you should know that much. The same estimates are used in both the Powell doctrine and the Rumsfeld doctrine, their deployment map starts from the same estimates.

The difference is that Rummy's plan calls for you to subtract EVERY non-essential person and material from the list of forces. Did you see the butchery that Rummy did to the Iraqi Freedom forces? We went in with half our troops already gone! That's not flexibility, that's stupid. That's denying that anything unknown will happen, that's limiting the very flexibility you say you're trying to achive!

What was the result? You saw it yourself. Looting, failure to secure vital government offices, porous borders, few gaurds, a limited green zone, and an extensive use of mercenaries. Yay Rummy, throw away all the advantages of US power for some f*cked up civilian ideal.

Its NOT economy of force, its withholding vital support in case of unknowns. Its obvious its not working in our other theater either; as Afganistan just saw a huge loss of Special forces...because they're over-exposed, over-used, and flew straight into an ambush because the enemy knew what to expect.

Now...you sure you wanna defend the Rumsfeld doctrine? Its almost completely indefensible you know. The Powell doctrine had a few "flaws" sure, but those were political flaws, not military ones.

So what you're suggesting is that British troops in Iraq and Afganistan annoyed local Muslims enough to bomb their own nation...so the best response would be to send more troops, just to piss 'em all off good and proper.

Yeah, that's a touch radical. I would suggest that decisions on wether or not to send troops should be made on slighly stronger grounds than "HA!"

However, you are completely correct in the sense that more troops should be sent, they are desperately needed on the ground in both Afganistan and Iraq. British troops are highly trained, and thus would be more than welcome on the ground.

It's not just the HAH factor far from it, if we did send more troops it would show them we actually couldn't give rat's ass what they do to us but we are going to help the poor buggers who are trapped with them day in and day out suicide bombs nearly every third day no matter what the cost. It's all about stopping the mass killings that happen so often over there.

I really do hope after seeing their own kids killed by these IDIOTS that they will go agaisnt them no matter the costs, if it was my country they were in i'd spend every night hunting them down would you not ?

Napoleon quite usually managed even with few force :rolleyes:

I guess we do have no clue about those issues, overkilling/whelming forces are no good for occupation, they just increase the oppressive feeling and encourages rebellion/resistance...

That's right, don't send troops. Send napalm. If all they can do there is carry on like a bunch of rabid animals, put them down like such. If polititions let Generals do thier jobs wars would be over with alot sooner.

Force flexibility eh? Is that what they're calling being stretched to the limit of your operational capabilities these days? Interesting.

The Powell doctrine was far from simply throwing force at a problem, if you know it enough to criticize it you should know that much. The same estimates are used in both the Powell doctrine and the Rumsfeld doctrine, their deployment map starts from the same estimates.

The difference is that Rummy's plan calls for you to subtract EVERY non-essential person and material from the list of forces. Did you see the butchery that Rummy did to the Iraqi Freedom forces? We went in with half our troops already gone! That's not flexibility, that's stupid. That's denying that anything unknown will happen, that's limiting the very flexibility you say you're trying to achive!

What was the result? You saw it yourself. Looting, failure to secure vital government offices, porous borders, few gaurds, a limited green zone, and an extensive use of mercenaries. Yay Rummy, throw away all the advantages of US power for some f*cked up civilian ideal.

Its NOT economy of force, its withholding vital support in case of unknowns. Its obvious its not working in our other theater either; as Afganistan just saw a huge loss of Special forces...because they're over-exposed, over-used, and flew straight into an ambush because the enemy knew what to expect.

Now...you sure you wanna defend the Rumsfeld doctrine? Its almost completely indefensible you know. The Powell doctrine had a few "flaws" sure, but those were political flaws, not military ones.

The Powell doctrine calls for overwhelming force. That's not the best idea. Sure it's great if you only have one theater of interest, and no other concerns, but I can't think offhand where this has been the case for the US for the past fifty years.

The point is, at the same time as conducting Iraqi freedom, the US has to be able to respond at a minimum with sufficient force in korea, possibly increase deployment strength in Afganistan, and be mission capable of responding to another unforseen threat somewhere else in the world. And that is just the bare minimum. Taking an estimate then doubling it is poor planning. No two ways about it, and weakens the US in other theaters.


As to your point about butchering the forces for Iraq, are you denying that the US millitary did not absolutely crush the standing Iraqi army with breathtaking speed? The problems that arose afterwards were not so much one of deployment strength, but rather a lack of foresight in respect of decisions made on the ground. And in any case, are hardly why there are problems in Iraq today. Say the US had tripled the number of troops, the borders, which are the main problem, would still be porous. Further, once the actual combat phase of the operation was concluded, the US forces were confronted with a situation that they were completely institutionally incapable of handling. The US divisions that were deployed there were not structured or well trained for a peacekeeping role, and simply increasing their numbers would not have changed a thing. Do you think that sending an extra 500,000 US troops to Iraq today would change anything? I doubt it very much. I mean what specifically on the ground, in your opinion, should be done that isn't being done right now?

As to the Afganistan issue, what do you recommend there? A million man occupation army? I'm sorry I've seen that show before, and it has an unhappy ending. In any case, special forces usually operate far beyond conventional support, it's part of the job. I don't see how an extra division in Kabul would have changed what happened.

As to subtracting EVERY non-essential person and all non-essential material from the planned deployment, that is impossible because of the force structure of a modern army. I don't recall hearing anything like a plan to deploy 3I.D., minus a platoon of riflemen, which is what that would suggest. There are always going to be overages in personel and equipment owing to the way that and expeditionary force would be structured. I think the point is not to just slap in extra divisions where they are not needed. And given the size of the US army that is probably a wise choice.

At the end of the day, the problem here is not one of deployment strength, but rather a failure of force structure in that it is not suited to the environment that it is operating in. The british naval task force to the falklands is a good example of this issue. More men won't solve anything. What is needed are the right kind of troops, operating under the right rules of engagement.

I believe that whatever decision ya'll make in response to the London bombings is entirely up to you, however, it seems to me that if the decision is to send more troops, then the best way to hurt the enemy would be to send more troops with the expertise in training the Iraqi Army. Any acceleration of that process has got to be the single greatest fear the bombers have. The more solid and more prepared to deal with them the iraqi's are, the sooner our forces will be able to exit thus removing their greatest recruiting tool.

Liverbreath']I believe that whatever decision ya'll make in response to the London bombings is entirely up to you, however, it seems to me that if the decision is to send more troops, then the best way to hurt the enemy would be to send more troops with the expertise in training the Iraqi Army. Any acceleration of that process has got to be the single greatest fear the bombers have. The more solid and more prepared to deal with them the iraqi's are, the sooner our forces will be able to exit thus removing their greatest recruiting tool.


Well said ;)

I can't beleive people vote no - don't you think the iraqi kids should have a chance for freedom ?

Or shall we just let them be bombed day in and day out, or untill they do something bigger than 9/11 ???

didn't knew the bombers were iraqi... :?

-snip-

So you're saying the recent Korean troop withdrawls don't show structural weakness in our troop deployments? We HAVE weakened our other theaters considerably, because we didn't do the Iraq job right in the first place. US forces are stretched thin NOW because we failed THEN.

Of course they destroyed initial opposition quickly...Was that ever in doubt? Taking over a nation and destroying a fractured and badly weakened army are two very different things, surely you can appreciate the differences.

You assert that more troops would not have made a difference? Have you not read commander's reports from the ground? That is PRECISELY what was cited in the reports; not enough troops to do what was needed. I don't know what trumped up political report you read of it later, but the people on the ground didn't have what they needed.

I find it very hard to believe that you honestly think we were doing all that we could have in Iraq. We patrol areas and then abandon them, because we lack the manpower to HOLD territory in Iraq. The result is obvious; the enemy melts away and returns. The borders are all but ungaurded, and yet you seriously think that gaurds placed on the border would not make a difference?

I question your grip on reality; we simply don't have enough boots on the ground. Now, or then. Its painfully obvious that small strike forces cannot occupy a nation, it takes an occupation force to do that. You suggest that we cannot do that because our troops weren't trained for peacekeeping. Why didn't we train them before they left? Many of the troops there now don't have that training, why are they there? And how come so much of our peacekeeping is left to mercenaries? So many unanswered questions.

As for Afganistan, you exaggerate to make me seem foolish. A million man army would be JUST AS STUPID as sending 18,000 men to secure an entire nation. What about a more reasonable figure...70,000? Perhaps even 100,000? You know, enough to do more than sit in the capital and hear about your buddies getting killed in border areas.

Its no wonder we only can secure Kabul, our forces would be in increadible danger if they actually tried to...I don't know...secure the nation like they've been charged with? We've conceeded almost the entire nation to enemy and vaugely allied forces, with very little to show for it.

Of course the special forces were operating beyond conventional support...but what on earth are they doing beyond conventional support for almost 3 years in the same place? Its difficult terrain, sure, but we should OWN those rocks by now. We don't, because of wrongheaded policies.

Near as I can tell you've fallen hook line and sinker for buzz words and fast talk. Our troops are DYING for these foolish policies. That's not bluster on my part, that's simply the truth. Our enemies are taking advantage of our bad policy and are inflicting casualties that should never have happened.

Overwhelming might is not about mere numbers, its about applying force that the enemy cannot respond to. Our forces in Iraq are too busy responding to the enemy to repair that nation's damaged infrastructure. Our forces in Afganistan cannot mounth more than pinpoint strikes and raids on the enemy, because they are too weak to mount a more systematic campaign. If we had sufficiently manned those theaters to begin with we wouldn't be playing catchup now.

More troops now may be slightly less important than more troops then. Because the advantages we have lost are gone forever. We must now make NEW advantages, and more troops will help free up our 2 garrisons for more offensive actions.

Then perhaps we can stop relying on the damn mercenaries.

didn't knew the bombers were iraqi... :?


Nope they were normal British guys persuaded to do these things by some IDIOT probably with a coat hangar for a hand !!


** MOAN** He should of been thrown out of this country years ago but they let him stay IDIOTS !! **MOAN**