Somali Pirates Seize Cargo Ship With 24 Aboard

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

What do you think is the 'Bush Doctrine'? I don't have any view concerning that. Please enlighten me. Is it like the Roosevelt Doctrine after the Pearl harbor attack?

I am disappointed; you know exactly to what I refer. I was hoping for a civil exchange of ideas, but you choose to play games instead.

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

I am disappointed; you know exactly to what I refer. I was hoping for a civil exchange of ideas, but you choose to play games instead.

Second chance. I am more than happy to a fair exchange. But I don't know what you see as the Bush Doctrine. Really. I call it looking out for the citizens and supporting the US Consitution. Is that the Bush Doctrine?

If so ..........

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

Second chance. I am more than happy to a fair exchange. But I don't know whar you see as the Bush Doctrine. Really. I call it looking out for the citizens and supporting the US Consitution. Is that the Bush Doctrine?

If so ..........

Ah, I see now. No, I am not refering to the expanded role of the executive branch, nor am I refering to the constitutionality of military action. I am interested in your philisophical view of foreign intervention. As an extention of that, what do you feel is America's place in this world?

My view is that The United States of America is not the world's police force. The impact of our latest round of foreign intervention has been negligible; Islamic extreemists still threaten our transportation infastructure (as illustrated several days ago), Al Qaeda still remains organized enough to recruit actively and spread propaganda, and Osama bin Laden has not been brought to justice. Instead, we have spent billions of dollars and the lives of too many servicemen chasing phantoms and making new enemies, now in the name of nation building and globalism. It is past time to bring troops home. Recall them all. Other nations have elected leaders, as well as economies and budgets. Let those leaders use the two latter items to serve their own needs. As such, I oppose the doctrine of intervention shared by both progressives and neo-conservatives.

I referred to it as the Bush Doctrine due to the fact that it was most recently illustrated by the war on terror. I feel it is a poor term, but also thought that by using it, you would know exactly what I was talking about.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by the_tyrant

Is that red dawn? I heard that there is a new version coming out
and the second pic is from the pacific right?

Yea the first is from Red Dawn. Don't know where the second one is from, I just snagged it off google images.

Originally Posted by The Third Man

I would have thought better of you. You know superior force is the key to victory.

Actually I'm a strong believer in the doctrines of attrition and maneuver warfare. I prefer smaller fast moving units to strike at an enemy's C4 systems to disrupt operations along with interdicting strikes to destroy enemy supply lines to isolate and neutralize enemy forces with out actually engaging them.

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Yea the first is from Red Dawn. Don't know where the second one is from, I just snagged it off google images.

Actually I'm a strong believer in the doctrines of attrition and maneuver warfare. I prefer smaller fast moving units to strike at an enemy's C4 systems to disrupt operations along with interdicting strikes to destroy enemy supply lines to isolate and neutralize enemy forces with out actually engaging them.

But only overwhelming force can achieve maneuver fast moving units to strike. Either all in or don't go in.

[Sledgehammer427]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

But only overwhelming force can achieve maneuver fast moving units to strike. Either all in or don't go in.

I have to disagree. When I think of Overwhelming force, I think of something like an elephant or a bear, wonderfully powerful, but one can easily be taken down with a gunshot, or even a spear in the right spot.

I think that you are being too general about fighting a war. I would assess the situation and plan for that situation than sending every tank and soldier I have.
I agree with TLAM. It's better to disrupt your enemies logistics and isolate them than to go for sweeping, epic, all-out battles. While the latter is like a punch or a headbutt, which can be parried and even used against you, the former is akin to coming up from behind and strangling your victim to death. It's less showy, but guess who won't have bruises on their knuckles?

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

But only overwhelming force can achieve maneuver fast moving units to strike.

Hardly, smaller units are harder to detect, require less transport and logistical support. Thus are capable of bypassing enemy defenses and striking at critical targets.

You are thinking of maneuver in terms of German panzer divisions, I'm thinking of maneuver like the British SAS.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

I prefer smaller fast moving units to strike at an enemy's C4 systems to disrupt operations along with interdicting strikes to destroy enemy supply lines to isolate and neutralize enemy forces with out actually engaging them.

是故百戰百勝，非善之善者也；不戰而屈人之兵，善之善者也。

For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.

Or as Sabaton put it:

"To win but never fight, that's the art of war."

[Raptor1]

Special forces and guerrilla are only useful on their own against an unprepared enemy; if the enemy can properly defend his rear areas, he can inflict very high casualties on small, cut off and unsupported units. While such tactics can be quite useful in support of conventional forces, I don't think you can reliably win a large conventional war by just attempting to raid enemy rear areas with small units...

[the_tyrant]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

Special forces and guerrilla are only useful on their own against an unprepared enemy; if the enemy can properly defend his rear areas, he can inflict very high casualties on small, cut off and unsupported units. While such tactics can be quite useful in support of conventional forces, I don't think you can reliably win a large conventional war by just attempting to raid enemy rear areas with small units...

Don't believe the commies. With out the nationalists, or the red army fighting against the main opposition, the guerrilla armies would have been destroyed

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by the_tyrant

Don't believe the commies. With out the nationalists, or the red army fighting against the main opposition, the guerrilla armies would have been destroyed

What are you talking about?

[Dowly]

Wether to use small force or a large one is quite heavily influenced by the terrain on where the battle will be fought. It didn't take but few smaller units to cut and isolate the entire russian 44th rifle division on Raate road during Winter War in a terrain that suited this kind of warfare.

[the_tyrant]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

What are you talking about?

Commies like to glorify their contributions to WWII
especially partisans and guerrilla
Even now, the Chinese textbooks says the communist partisans killed around 1.2 million Japanese troops.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

Special forces and guerrilla are only useful on their own against an unprepared enemy; if the enemy can properly defend his rear areas, he can inflict very high casualties on small, cut off and unsupported units. While such tactics can be quite useful in support of conventional forces, I don't think you can reliably win a large conventional war by just attempting to raid enemy rear areas with small units...

You are partially correct but I don't think you are not thinking on a vast enough scale. If the enemy begins defending its rear areas, attack the MSRs feeding them, if they defend them attack the production facilities that build the supplies or the ports that bring them in, if they defend them attack the raw materials that get shipped there, defend that attack the people who work in the factories and so on. Make it so the enemy has to defend all of its own territory to the point where there needs to be a group of troops on every street corner depleting their front line forces at the same time as you sow discontent over both the war and military "occupation" (Martial Law) in the civilian populous.

There is no reason why the lighter mobility doctrine can't be transitioned in to a conventional force. The Air Mobile forces in Vietnam are a prime example of this doctrine where you have regiment sized units that can bypass terrain and enemy strong holds to strike at critical targets. Another example is the MAGTF which is highly flexible and mobile and capable of most any mission and incorporates infantry, armor, aircraft (and by due to its amphibious nature warships).

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

You are partially correct but I don't think you are not thinking on a vast enough scale. If the enemy begins defending its rear areas, attack the MSRs feeding them, if they defend them attack the production facilities that build the supplies or the ports that bring them in, if they defend them attack the raw materials that get shipped there, defend that attack the people who work in the factories and so on. Make it so the enemy has to defend all of its own territory to the point where there needs to be a group of troops on every street corner depleting their front line forces at the same time as you sow discontent over both the war and military "occupation" (Martial Law) in the civilian populous.

Even if you succeed in getting it all worked out, you become a nuisance, not a genuine threat to the war. Sure, you might blow up some supply convoys, sabotage some factories and port facilities, destroy some raw materials and kill some factory workers, but while this has some short-term effects, you won't really do enough damage to any one of these to actually cripple the enemy war effort (And your units will still be taking heavy casualties). Unless, of course, you have some ridiculously large number of special forces that you somehow managed to get behind enemy lines and then supply and coordinate.

The morale effects of such raids, of course, exist, but they can backfire completely against a determined enemy.

Oh, and don't forget that while you're devoting your resources to doing all this, the enemy divisions might be making mincemeat of your front lines.

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

There is no reason why the lighter mobility doctrine can't be transitioned in to a conventional force. The Air Mobile forces in Vietnam are a prime example of this doctrine where you have regiment sized units that can bypass terrain and enemy strong holds to strike at critical targets. Another example is the MAGTF which is highly flexible and mobile and capable of most any mission and incorporates infantry, armor, aircraft (and by due to its amphibious nature warships).

A large conventional unit attempting to pass through the lines to attack somewhere is much more liable to being detected, both before and on the way there. Airborne and airmobile forces can be shot down by aircraft and SAM sites, ground units counterattacked and destroyed by mobile reserves. And these forces would still fighting at a disadvantage because they don't have heavy equipment or easy resupply. Amphibious assaults are another matter entirely, of course.

I'm not saying special forces, guerrilla, airmobile units and the like are useless, they are far from it. But if you devote all your resources to try to raid the enemy army's command and logistics without actually engaging and defeating it, you won't be achieving much.

Originally Posted by the_tyrant

Commies like to glorify their contributions to WWII
especially partisans and guerrilla
Even now, the Chinese textbooks says the communist partisans killed around 1.2 million Japanese troops.

What does that have to do with anything I've said?