|
Post by quincannon on Nov 27, 2018 19:57:57 GMT
Yes it does and that is certainly how most folks view it, a small unit action, a quick in and out.
Surgical strikes don't have to be small, nor does it have to be short. They can be as big as you need them to be, and take as long as necessary. The surgical part is the narrowness of focus. When you go in you have but one aim, and that aim is limited in nature. You don't try and lift third world countries out of poverty, transform them into democracies, and send all the little girls to the schooling they have been denied. You are there to kill, and moreover kill a certain mindset for making war. You are there to destroy their war making potential. Conducted correctly, which it was not, and with a sufficiency of force and forces, the Centennial Campaign could be considered a surgical strike. They did not set out to kill every Indian, although a lot of killing was probably necessary. They were there to destroy the Indian infrastructure, and war making potential.
When you set out to make breakfast, you must break eggs Ian. If you think you can go to war and not take casualties, then don't go. You will be disappointed. When you are afraid to break eggs, you might as well give up on breakfast. You are beaten. The trick is minimize, while at the same time maximizing the hurt you do to the other fellow. Most of that comes from good planning and solid leadership of well trained and motivated soldiers. If a nation is too afraid to bear the costs of war, they might as well start buying prayer rugs. The other guy already won.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Nov 27, 2018 20:12:12 GMT
What did you not understand about SPEAKING WELL for your bona fides?
Company D, 16th Armor went to Vietnam equipped with the M56 SPAT (Scorpion). They kept them for about a year, but the weapons was nearly useless for anything other than lending direct fire support, and was replaced by M113's modified as ACAVs. Company D was the only US Army unit to ever employ the M56 in combat. Back in the battle group days we had a platoon of six M56's in the combat support company of all non-airborne battle groups, They were intended for the same purpose as the Germans used their Stugs.
For the record I don't much care if someone agrees with me or not. The burden is on you (or anyone else) to change my mind. You have yet to accomplish that, but keep trying. I enjoy the debate.
|
|
|
Post by ray on Nov 27, 2018 20:14:10 GMT
Chuck when you used the term ‘’Surgical Strike’’ it does sound like a small unit action to land among the enemy, kill their leaders and then get out. Wouldn’t sending in an army corps simply play into their hands? There is a lot of logistics to a formation that large which takes time to get organized, in which time the bad guys have got on their camels or yaks or whatever and simply left the region. Once you have organized your forces then you have to start to patrol the area and branch out, this is were all of your casualties will accure with suicide bombers, IEDs and other nasty little surprises. Hi Ian,
The role of a "surgical strike" is not necessarily assassination or change of government, but as QC noted, the accomplishment of a specific mission or missions. Just like medical surgery, a surgical strike can be messy - but the focus is on achieving the desired outcome(s). Good recent examples are Entebbe, the Israeli neutralization of a nuke plant in Syria and the cyber strike on Iran's nuke program. They are the military equivalent of brain surgery - complicated and messy but focused on a finite outcome.
Blessings,
Ray Rangers lead the way.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Nov 27, 2018 20:14:22 GMT
Chuck, that is the difference between the two sides, we try to keep casualties low with the use of technology, they on the other hands are not bothered in casualties, some of them want to die. I recall a documentary I saw a few years back about Helmand province and how in the early stages the Taliban paid a high price in men by trying to fight the British in the field but later started to fight a more insurgent type of warfare because they learnt their lessons.
We adapted too with successful operations like ''Operation Blue Sword'' in which a coalition led by the an air assault by 500 Marines of 42 Commando resulting in two British wounded and 130 KIS and 300 WIA Taliban.
|
|
|
Post by ray on Nov 27, 2018 20:32:12 GMT
What did you not understand about SPEAKING WELL for your bona fides? Company D, 16th Armor went to Vietnam equipped with the M56 SPAT (Scorpion). They kept them for about a year, but the weapons was nearly useless for anything other than lending direct fire support, and was replaced by M113's modified as ACAVs. Company D was the only US Army unit to ever employ the M56 in combat. Back in the battle group days we had a platoon of six M56's in the combat support company of all non-airborne battle groups, They were intended for the same purpose as the Germans used their Stugs. For the record I don't much care if someone agrees with me or not. The burden is on you (or anyone else) to change my mind. You have yet to accomplish that, but keep trying. I enjoy the debate. What I didn't understand was the string of the sad faces following your mention of my bona fides. Okay, I misread your message there (sender - black box - receiver) and it's not important, anyway. 'Nuff said.
Regarding "agreement" and "change my mind" and "keep trying" and "debate", I don't even know what's on the table. As I see it, we just disagree on a definition of "win", which is something so inconsequential that it doesn't even qualify as a disagreement.
If you're referring to "the one factor that must be present is," I wouldn't refer to that as a debate as much as a shaping operation. Done and dusted (which is not a normal expression I would use). Minds are not at risk.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Nov 27, 2018 20:32:29 GMT
The point again is quite simple Ian. If you are afraid to lose your stake, don't gamble.
You would probably not care much about dying either if you had to live in their world. You don't. You live in our world, but until the cultural gap is breached, and they see the value of living in our world, 42 Commando, and all the tea in China will not deter they from their chosen course. I am not against killing every mother's son of them, but killing only means other will follow. When the enemy starts reading the stock market pages of the New York Times, and enjoys noting more than a burger and fries from MacDonald's then we can say we won, and not before. The trick then is setting the stage for them wanting to live, not die.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Nov 27, 2018 21:24:30 GMT
I opened this segment to discuss Vietnam focused stuff as it has not been attempted elsewhere on the board, but we could broaden it to encompass many small focused/unfocused wars. I wish the Welshman was still on board, alas I think he ran into trouble supporting the Kurds over a year ago. He not only had a take on the Falkland's, but I think Yugoslavia as well. Ian, you know, I am sure, he was one of your best.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Nov 27, 2018 22:02:31 GMT
I miss him too, and share the same fears.
I could kick myself for not presenting the Falklands as an example of a large scale surgical strike.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Nov 27, 2018 23:08:35 GMT
Tom I have heard nothing off him or any news of any actions in the Lavant.
I liked Justin he was okay, we did come from really different back grounds which showed sometimes that's why I thought he was more closer to a few of you lads then myself.
|
|