| Submit your comments on this article |
| Afghanistan |
| Michael Yon: "Red Air: America's Medevac Failure: |
| 2011-10-13 |
| Night combat, IEDs, and bureaucratic trouble getting choppers off the ground. |
| Posted by:mom |
| #15 Most non-Western conquerors have operated on the basis that non-cooperation will result in the death of whatever leader is managing the district. What happens is that the leaders stomp the sub-leaders all the way down to the individual. This was how the Chinese empire was held together over thousands of years. It ain't pretty, but it's effective. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2011-10-13 23:59 |
| #14 Rape of Nanking, Manila, Singapore, Java, Korea, to name a few. If one was to follow your logic, the Japanese should have won. The reason the Japanese lost wasn't due to local guerrillas. They lost because Uncle Sam had something like 9x Japan's industrial output. Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore's prime minister, stated that the territories under Japanese occupation were quiescent - they were harsh, but the harshness wasn't random. Those who fought them were killed, and those who did not were spared. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2011-10-13 23:55 |
| #13 Ploiesti oil fields, Dresdon, Hiroshima, Nagasaki to name af few (terrible fires, lots of death), and by the way.... the Allies won the war. Rape of Nanking, Manila, Singapore, Java, Korea, to name a few. If one was to follow your logic, the Japanese should have won. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2011-10-13 23:02 |
| #12 I understand playing by the rules - it makes US better. Thing is, you must have an enemy that respects bravery and rules to play that way. It is not a wipe em all out situation, it is a situation where they want only to kill. What is the use PR or otherwise of having a red cross on choppers? |
| Posted by: newc 2011-10-13 22:22 |
| #11 Lose the GC non-combat stickers on the choppers and arm them all. Arm the choppers highly and kill anyone that shoots at one. That is one answer. No need to play geneva games with this bunch. If all ambulatory service is fired upon, it is no longer a peaceful mission to get the wounded out.It is a combat mission in all ways. This is stupid. |
| Posted by: newc 2011-10-13 22:13 |
| #10 Are you stupid or are you simply working hard at being deliberately moronic? This is not WW2. Bomber Harris was remarkably INEFFECTIVE in his bombing of civilians - it didn't do much at all to win the war compared to the strategic bombing of factories , resources and transport. And even that didn't compare to rolling in with tanks, and ultimately, the grunts with rifles. On toip of that, those methods were the only ones available with the technology and tactics of those days. Wake the f**k up, its not 1944. Nor is it 1964. So your idiotic comparisons don't stand even a cursory look - you're dead wrong on this. Besoeker, you talk like the "sofa soldier" who has never had to pull the trigger for real. Try instead to lead men in the field, go to war (many times at many intensity levels), have locals and civilians you are trying to liberate and stabilize - then try telling me you can order your men to pull the trigger on women and children you know to be innocent - not like in a nuclear war situation, but what you advocate as a matter of routine operations. In a word, I'm calling you out as a bullshit wannabe. Nobody that's ever been in the shit for real and for long sees it that way, unless you have become morally depraved. There is a code of honor we swear to in the US military. I'm glad I never served with a would-be war criminal like you. There are times my anger gets the better of me, and I will post some pretty harsh stuff here but that's mainly at a stratetgic level, since that's where some of my work was. But in the real deal, never operated that way at a tactical level, with my squad and my platoon, nor would any of the people out there now put up with that sort of operation (and I know folks from a Marine LTC to a SF A-det Captain I mentored back when they were enlisted would would agree) - its simply not who we are as American Soldiers. Zhang Fei is correct if we want to take a clear and clean approach to "infected" villages. In the short term it would take them out of fight mode and into survival mode. The problem is in the long term they only end up being more easily recruited by the Talib and others like them, in refugee camps over on the border, with Pakistan and Iran, and China (If you're talking Afghanistan). "Kill them all" is simply unsustainable in the modern world - politically we would end up as a nation of pariahs, our soldiers (justifiably) branded "baby killers", and the military torn to shreds by being forced into such dishonorable behavior. Especially when we do have alternative actions and tactics that can be taken. We aren't Nazi Germany and wiping out an entire town as you would have us do - and this isnt the middle ages where Tamerlane's approach of stacking up skulls would work. The only reason to resort to such actions is if they are our ONLY recourse - then it would be done. But its not, we do have other ways of working (see Iraq for a large number of examples), and you need to get that into your head - we will not turn our troops into the equivalent of the Einsatzgruppen. There are other ways, and duty, honor and country demand that we do things the American way. Stop posturing and pushing self destructive bullshit like an ignorant fool, like those forlorn morons who believes if they had simply killed enough of the blacks, Rhodesia would have remained white ruled. Words fail me at this point. To put it simply for you so you'll understand: My advice to you: Stop being such a douchebag, "visitor". |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2011-10-13 22:09 |
| #9 Zhang Fei: Ploiesti oil fields, Dresdon, Hiroshima, Nagasaki to name af few (terrible fires, lots of death), and by the way.... the Allies won the war. Over 60 years now, no problems with Japan or Germany. "Not permissable"... ok, no problem, then YOU LOSE THE CONFLICT. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2011-10-13 16:12 |
| #8 From what I've read about Vietnam, early in the war it was the same deal. Red Cross marked birds were unarmed. Of course, the VC/NVA had no qualms about shooting them down. Finally somebody smartened up, took the red crosses off of them and put guns on them. From Yon's story, it appears whomever is in charge of the dust off choppers doesn't want to do that as they'll lose control of them. So guys end up dead because some brass asshole is on a power trip. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2011-10-13 16:04 |
| #7 Think you missed the point Zhang. Besoeker's RULE: transgression=total annialation My point is that this is the 21st century. The total annihilation of civilians in an area infested with insurgents wasn't permissible in Vietnam. It's definitely not permissible today. It's not a moral objection - it's a practical one. Western leaders don't allow their militaries to do these kinds of things. The Pashtun militia called the Taliban was effective precisely because it did these things to enemy villages. Our hands are tied. The Chinese would have laid siege to the village, starved everyone out and then worked them to death by deliberately giving them insufficient food and clothing in China's plentiful wastelands. We cannot. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2011-10-13 14:19 |
| #6 Another aspect of Yon's story not told relates to "partnered patrols" ie, ISAF patrol with Afghan Army tag-alongs. Bad, bad juju. OPSEC be gone. The Taliban has an amazing network of informants both in and out of uniform. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2011-10-13 14:09 |
| #5 Besoeker is secretly Deadpool. True story. |
| Posted by: Charles 2011-10-13 14:08 |
| #4 Think you missed the point Zhang. Besoeker's RULE: transgression=total annialation |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2011-10-13 13:51 |
| #3 Your village gets mined with IED's or non-metalic Chinese or Russian anti-pers, and you don't inform ISAF.... the village and everybody in it is destroyed. I don't think there's actually a need to kill everyone in the village - a Shermanesque approach would actually work better. Give everyone an hour to leave, taking everything they can carry, and then blow up their homes. These refugees are now too busy rebuilding their lives to give any assistance to the Taliban. It's harsh, but that's war for you. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2011-10-13 13:45 |
| #2 "Fallen Angel" is the term for a downed helo, which is a huge, huge Information Operations plus for the Taliban. Helo's are prime targets and the Taliban (with a little help from it's friends) have developed rather ingenious techniques to shoot them down. The recent loss of the SEAL bird was obviusly a major disaster and has put the leadership on edge. We're SUPPOSED to be winning and getting outta here right? As a result, most major ground operations such as this one are NOT conducted unless MEDIVAC support is dedicated, available, and on stand-by. If they were close enough to a FOB to see an Aerostat, they were very close. In this case tragically close. Aviation is needed yes, B-52's, and lots of them. Your village gets mined with IED's or non-metalic Chinese or Russian anti-pers, and you don't inform ISAF.... the village and everybody in it is destroyed. End of story. Unfortunately, this will never happen. This is a fools errand, wrong on so many, many levels. Getting out should be priority number one. If you're not ready and willing to put them all to the sword, you're going to lose. End of rant. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2011-10-13 12:01 |
| #1 For years..strike that, forever, there has been a shortage of choppers in Afghanistan. How aggravating. It must be fixed pronto. |
| Posted by: newc 2011-10-13 10:40 |