Army boss in Taliban attacks warning
 

Has this guy just found a crystal ball or just reinvented rocket science? :o
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25525735

That's the modern version of being assertive.
He's probably thinking about a career in politics.

What worries me much more is that this dude seems to be smarter than all the leading NATO politicians who are already congratulating each other for a "mission accomplished".:/\\!!

Hey, this guy thought it was a good idea...


http://concen.org/forum/attachment.php?aid=3980


<O>

Not that he was often considered to be a political genius :)

Funny thing is I wrote a paper while taking college courses(University of Maryland) in the military this was a few months before the Iraq War III in 2003.The paper compared The Vietnam War with the then current War in Afghanistan and then still "hypothetical" war in Iraq.

I had to use as part of my sources two people with expert knowledge about the Vietnam War so I interviewed by father and my 1st cousin one removed who went to the USMC War College.They both (and myself) predicted that unless it was expressly planned for both Afghanistan and Iraq would deteriorate into a difficult counter-insurgency.

So does that make me smarter than most current generals and politicians?:hmm2:

Of course these where college courses so no officers present in undergraduate courses as they already have their B.S. or B.A.

That was the only paper I actually enjoyed writing and presenting.

The US military (and other military powers for that matter, it's not just a US thing) has a nasty habit of forgetting lessons learnt in one war just in time to fight the next. There were quite a few hard lessons learnt in Korea that didn't get carried over to Vietnam, I don't know why, perhaps each generation of general thinks that the laws of the previous are outdated, when in fact while the weaponry may have changed, the warfare is still the same. I saw this cartoon once, I think for those of us interested in history it rings so very true:

http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/philo...om_history.jpg

Precisely! 'Every general fights his last battle'; and if your actually good, your enemy reads your book and 'plays up'. Scipio read and met Hannibal(ZAMA); Wellington knew Napoleon's tactics completely by Waterloo; "he's a pounder after all" and Montgomery had undoubtedly read his Rommel: Infantry in the Attack, from compiled Potsdam lectures between the wars, and had his picture in his wartime command caravan. The rules of war never change; example: Ol' Boney's Maneuver sur les Derriéres translated to von Richthofen's "no tricks flying, get on his six and very close".(Rotte Fleiger) The Spandau equipped blood red Albatross III might have supplanted a French Napoleon 12-pounder equipped brigade as to speed, elevation and firepower, but the rules are the same. Oddly enough, Zama, El Alemain and Waterloo were won by competent military lifers who faced more highly regarded opponents who expected to win...but did not. The victors went on to become highly regarded in their turn after their history-altering encounters.

Have you ever thought for a moment that the results we've gotten in Iraq and Afghan were precisely the results they wanted? We went into Iraq with 99 year leases on the airbases. What does that tell you? That it was going to be some "in-n-out" sort of thing? I served in Iraq myself, and based on what I saw, we were there to secure the oil resources and secure the standing of the petro dollar. Let's not forget, Saddam threatened the international banksters by threatening to trade oil in gold buillon and Iraqi Dinar. Now you see the whole "weapons of mass destruction" ruse come to light. What are WMD's anyways? Just like "terrorist" the term can be used and applied wherever one wishes. Kind of a scary thought is it not? Well that thought has been reality ever since the signing of the Patriot Act. We're in a mess, and I'm afraid most people don't know the half of the deception that's going on.

Some generals were, in fact, very atuned to the "leassons learned"; Gen. McArthur was widely quoted as saying "Never get involved in a land war in Asia" after his experiences in the Pacific and Korea. His words were later verified by the conflict in Vietnam...


<O>

This is true and of course not everyone in the military follows the "party line" some do think out of the box.Of course you can only follow orders.My father told me once that a common method in Vietnam when given a complete idiot order was to "misinterpret" what was said in order to not waste lives pointlessly.

Not a fan of conspiracy theories so sorry.Not sure where you where my two older brothers where in Iraq and lack the opinion that you have and if you polled people who served in any war you'll get several hundred differing opinions my father for example was in Vietnam for two tours guys that served with him have a multitude of opinions about the whole thing.Not that they felt it was "Cluster Flog" free mind you.Never went to Iraq myself only Afghanistan so I cant really say anything personally about Iraq.A bad choice cluster flogged situation and a conspiracy theory are not one in the same and that is all I have to say about that.

A wise move, I think quite a few lateral thinking soldiers would take a similar route. Of course, sadly, it doesn't always work that way otherwise things at Balaclava would have gone somewhat differently.
As the old saying goes "Theirs was not to reason why..."

True it does not always work and sometimes it comes with other risks.Sometimes a unit would choose to stay in a free-fire zone to avoid going through land where the enemy was heavily entrenched which would be suicide for a single unit with no direct support of course the risk was that in the free-fire zone someone could put arty or an airstrike in the round about area.Even some of the best combat leaders in Vietnam choose to do this when the order was poor enough to warrant. Just like in Band of Brothers which of course the book is true some guys are foxhole Normans and others are Captain Speers.My father told me you always want a combat leader who is a good man not one that is a nice guy.Those guys where lower tier officers Colonel and up a good one macro manages and lousy one micromanages because he or she has poor confidence.

For example once on a recon patrol some dufus ordered my fathers unit to set up an ambush which would have been utter suicide and it should have been clear to the CO in the process of this recon they had a clear understanding of the enemy disposition they pretty much could not move at one point for 6 hours because there where so many NVA in the area.

Despite this the CO wanted them to perform an ambush 8 men in an area where several hundred NVA would appear in seconds if the hornets nest where to be kicked.Recon LRRPs they can pull ambushes but you do not do them in such under such heavy enemy presence.That is the point where you have the recon keep observing and you plan a battalion or brigade sized operation.

Anyway the captain heard the order and then said(or rather whispered) to his RTO "this guy is nuts if we do pull an ambush here we will maybe kill 10 or 15 NVA and then get over run where the rest show up we have no place to fall back to." Luckily the order was to perform the ambush in the early morning.What they did instead was sneak around and found a more secluded rest and supply area.They snuck into an ammo cache and sent some delayed C-4 inside some mortar rounds still inside the rest of the team set up claymores along a small road and when the entire team was ready they zapped the next group of NVA that came past checked the bodies for Intel and destroyed their weapons about the same time they split the delayed C-4 set off which provided an excellent distraction.

An effective ambush was pulled off and the CO got his body count and no Americans got killed.One advantage of LRRP was that they typically reported in only this was to avoid radio when the team was in a situation where silence was golden.Now a regular unit they can get nagged by a lousy officer nearly constantly.