Fumbling Bumbling Bungling...

Anything else you want to talk about.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7490
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Fumbling Bumbling Bungling...

Postby RF » Mon Jul 15, 2013 6:14 pm

Vic Dale wrote:If the USA tried to intervene militarily in the Middle East in it's present condition, it would simply serve to demonstrate weakness and such weakness would invite aggression against Israel.

The situation in the Middle East is extremely tricky at present and the USA is rightly handling it with kid gloves, not by choice, but from pure necessity.


Given the objectives of the Obama administration I would suggest that expediency rather than necessity is the right word.

The analysis Vic offers is interesting in that it does not consider that the USA has more than enough firepower to impose its will on any corner of the globe if a US President was hard line enough. Obama thankfully isn't that way inclined, not even as a ''lame duck'' President with no need for popularity.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

Vic Dale
Senior Member
Posts: 903
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:53 pm

Re: Fumbling Bumbling Bungling...

Postby Vic Dale » Wed Jul 17, 2013 11:09 pm

The USA has enough military might to destroy infrastructure, but nowhere near enough capability to put troops on the ground and force a working solution. If the USA had the ability and the inclination they would be in. I do not see much brain power operating in the White House, or in the higher echelons of the US military and never have. They never learned from their mistakes in the past, so why should they now? They got their arses royally kicked in Vietnam and from that day forward they were looking for a place where they could come out on top. The tiny island of Grenada was the first place and having got the upper hand over a rag-tag bunch of radicals there in 1983, they thought they could walk on water - see Somalia where they seem to have got the big dick again in October '91. Gung Ho!

We have all seen the mess the US military made in Iraq and Afganistan. Ooh it looked so good seeing that Warthog gunning that office block and torching the towns but in reality all that has been achieved is to create Iraq as a failed a state, allow religious sectarianism run riot and destruction of a large quantity of the relics from the Persian Empire. Historically it may eventually be seen that the USA has put the Persian Empire back together again. Big step forward that.

In Afghanistan the weapon they trained to attack the Russians was turned on them, when they tried to show the Russkies how it should be done. When they had finally driven the Taliban out of Kabul and into the mountains they let them get away in their thousands across the border to Pakistan. Apparently they blocked the wrong mountain pass. To balance this US planes attacked a convoy of vehicles. The convoy was said to be packed with leadership elements. Too bad the were not Taliban or Al-Queada leaders, but a load of tribal chiefs standing in opposition to the Taliban. I think we all know what SNAFU means and that is basically US foreign policy in abbreviated form. It's a good job they are too weak these days, or the Middle East would be in flames.

Believe it, if the USA thought they could come out on top for once they would be in. They know they are completely lacking in capability and that is about the smartest judgement to come out of any US government department, since Dan Quayle judged it would have been a good idea to have studied Latin, so he could converse with the Latin Americans he was visiting.

It's no good blaming Obama, he was always going to be useless and he would be quickly over ruled any day the military thought they had a chance. A situation would be engineered by the department of dirty tricks and he would have no alternative but to send the troops in - to protect US interests - making it look like it was his idea.

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 730
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Fumbling Bumbling Bungling...

Postby Byron Angel » Thu Jul 18, 2013 11:31 am

There is nothing wrong with the US military. The problem lies in Foggy Bottom.

B

Vic Dale
Senior Member
Posts: 903
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:53 pm

Re: Fumbling Bumbling Bungling...

Postby Vic Dale » Thu Jul 18, 2013 7:16 pm

There is everything wrong with the US military.

It is too large and cumbersome and over organised. They have the capability to paralyse an enemy's Tactical E-Maps, his radio communications and his infrastructure. They have weaponry which can obliterate massive tracts of land in seconds and they have carriers which can remain at sea in definitely. Problem is, they are rarely engaged with an enemy who relies on technology, radio communications or economic infrastructure, but who can move his weapons an personnel at will. The only defence against the guerilla is to terrorise his base of support and that sadly is what the US has been reduced to.

As usual the US military cannot learn form their mistakes, because whilst it may be possible to isolate the terrorist form his base of support through fear there is always the chance that many civilian deaths (collateral damage) can actually rally even stronger support for the guerilla. I believe this lesson was learned in Vietnam and again in Somalia, in Iraq and Afghanistan. However it does seems that the US military has finally graduated after learning all those lessons, because they are staying the hell out of it now.

A few years back a huge military exercise was undertaken which cost more than a billion dollars to fund. The scene was set as follows; A rogue national Middle East leader had directed his forces to attack a neighboring nation and the US military machine (Blue Force) was directed to do all in it's power to paralyse and reduce his military capability, capture him and bring him to trial. Sound familiar?

The Red Force command was given to an aging US general who had a commanded in Vietnam. He was renowned for his resource and determination.

Then red force had at it's disposal a huge computer complex which carried detailed information about Military capability, economic infrastructure, communications, social institutions, including political parties and trade unions, plus social and religious grouping an very nation in the world. At any time the US General Staff could use this information to direct their forces at the most favourable point for paralysing communications tactical mapping satellites and target all missile and air bases. They had every advantage at their disposal.

The go code was given for the start of the exercise and by the end of the first day, Blue Force had lost 22 warships including it's carrier and had not landed a single boot on enemy soil. Clearly there was something wrong with the original set up. So they scheduled another day of exercise putting heavy limitations on the commander of Red Force, making it impossible for him to win. The result of this second day was basically the same, heavy loss of ships and no boots on the ground. I believe this went on for a whole week, five days at least.

At the wash-up, the Commander of Rec force was asked how he had managed to prevail when his communications were smashed and he was unable to direct his troops. How did he manage to get planes off the deck? His reply was what could be expected of this exceptional soldier, "We Cheated."

When his communications had been smashed, it made little difference to his chain of a command. He had been expecting all of the actions of Red Force, so communication by light was established for all planes between the control tower and within his squadrons when in the air. After that they were to act on their own initiative and attack where they thought they could do most damage.

His Divisional commanders were instructed not to come to him for guidance, but to act on their own initiative, his Battalion commanders were instructed to do the same, company and troop leaders were similarly instructed. In short everyone was instructed to act on their own initiative and to hell with worrying about mistakes. He said that mistakes were the best learning curve for anyone embarked on a military career and it worked.

When asked how he had managed to sink so many ships, he replied that he was aware of each ship's defence capability and simply saturated it with cruise missiles. One or two were bound to get through and it seems they did.

In short, this general was employing all the lessons he had learned about the fighting methods of the Vietcong. He accepted that he would not have top flight communications and tactical mapping and reduced his military command to the slimmest possible. As the days passed during the exercise his commanders and troops got better and better at scotching the tactics of Blue Force.

In Red force, they had encountered many problems, not least with communicating and assimilating all of the information which the tactical computers could provide. Forces were held back from attacking until the welter of information had bee thoroughly digested and dispositions worked out. That computer was more trouble than it was worth and was actually stifling initiative.

So many billions of dollars have been spent building this massive military complex that it cannot simply be ditched, so it has to run it's operational life, so as not to waste money. Instead of ditching it, the military have been hard at work improving it. Meanwhile The USA has found itself losing ground in every military undertaking is gets involved in. A real big rethink is necessary and the USA staying well out of the troubles is a clear expression of that.

The past 50 years has shown that the mightiest military machine in the world can only achieve partial success in any military campaign and every time it gets involved, it inevitably gets bogged down and finds itself having to answer an angry world for it's bungling and incompetence. This is why it would be impossible to form a coalition of force for use in the Middle East. If it was thought any good would come of it, nations would be signing up in droves, but seeing the carnage and for no gain in Iraq and Afghanistan, they are not so sure.

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 730
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Fumbling Bumbling Bungling...

Postby Byron Angel » Fri Jul 19, 2013 1:55 am

..... Was the Red Force commander a member of the US military? Hmmmmm.

I stand by my point. In Iraq (2x) and Afghanistan, the US military got its job done quickly and efficiently. It has been the politicians and the State Department who have turned both cases into the tragic farces we see today.

Same in Somalia, where US forces were initially received as saviors by the starving victims of famine. Then the State Department (and the UN) decided to expand the mission into a nation building exercise without actually asking any Somalis if they really liked the idea.

Same with VN. The US military (in its own uniquely clumsy over-kill Cold War way) was fully capable of crushing NV and the NLF/NVA campaign in SVN. But not when they were forced to operate under the ridiculous limitations placed upon them by the White House and the State Department. The VN war was actually lost in the domestic USA by a faint-hearted administration unwilling to stand up for its own foreign policy strategy.

The keynote feature of the US post-war foreign policy experience has been that whatever the US military achieves is thrown away by our politicians.

Your opinion apparently differs. That's OK with me.

B

Vic Dale
Senior Member
Posts: 903
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:53 pm

Re: Fumbling Bumbling Bungling...

Postby Vic Dale » Fri Jul 19, 2013 8:48 pm

It makes no difference whether or not the Red Force commander was US military. The fact remains that he showed the flaws in the whole system and the top echelons didn't like it. Proof of this particular pudding comes in the form of consistent examples where the US military machine has ignored the lessons learned all that time ago and it seems they have only recently realised how inadequate their methods are and they are staying out.

We'll have to see if and when they dare to put troops on the ground anywhere in the world and we'll no doubt see them mess it up as usual, if they do try it on. I expect they'll find some soft targets to practice on at a later date.

By the way, I am not a nationalist, I consider all of the military machines world wide to be utterly incompetent when it comes to fighting guerillas. History shows that less formal organisation and more initiative on the part of the individual works much better. In 1919, 16 nations including Britain and Germany sent their armies into Russia to smash up the new Soviet State. The Russian Army had mutinied in 1917 and all that remained of the old order was a was a hollow degenerate shambles.

Leon Trotsky was charged with rebuilding the army in order to face the threat from without and he had absolutely no military experience or training. He told Lenin this and Lenin said, "If not you then who else?" Lenin said it was a political task and there was no better political organiser than Trotsy. Trotsky took on the task and rebuilt the army using the mutinous rebels and even called upon the technical expertise of former Army Officers. He built one of the most informal, yet most formidable military organisations in history and together they kicked the arses of all those very professional, experienced and well organised armies. Don't forget, that nearly all of these armies had been gaining fighting experience in the recent world war, yet they got roundly beaten.

The Red Army grew in strength and became the world's most powerful army in the world by the 1945. In 1941 when the Germans first went goose stepping into Russia they encountered the same ragtag fighting methods of 1919 and they got their arses kicked. Hitler lost nearly 1 million of his finest fighting troops at the gates of Moscow and to an army that had had less than 6 months to prepare. This sewed the demise of the Third Reich. Never mind Stalingrad, the rot had set in long before then, with the failure before Moscow. Often heard among the grumbles of the German Officers when fighting against the Russians was the pitiful lament, "They don't fight fair - they use gangster methods!" What a hoot! The best organised army in the world had come to grief against these disorganise, grabastic, untermensch.

The US military is the modern equivalent of the German War War Machine. It's weaponry is terrifying, it's methods are terrifying and it's agenda leaves a lot to be desired. It has defoliated, firebombed and polluted it's way across the world, yet it has every possibility of being beaten by untrained men and women whose only cause is hatred of the American military and revenge for the relatives who have been massacred by them. The IED and the suicide bomber do not fight fair, but they are oh so effective and this well organised US military machine has had to back off in the face of them.

Napoleon tried to take Russia in 1812 and failed, because the Russians burned their crops rather than see Napoleon's invading Army feeding on it. The same maintains today. The peoples on whom the US military would trample, would rather see their country and everything in it go up in flames than live under US foreign policy. Once upon a time this would have been praised, when it was the French Resistance fighting the Nazis and to my mind, Napoleon, Hitler and the Bush father/son act are invaders and do not seem to be welcome. The USA is chastened by it's military setbacks at the hands of those who use "gangster methods" and it seems now that a calmer more considerate administration exists. If it keeps the US military on a leash then that is OK, but the real reason it is being kept on it's leash is the other dogs in the street appear to be much bigger and stronger these days.

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 730
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Fumbling Bumbling Bungling...

Postby Byron Angel » Fri Jul 19, 2013 9:41 pm

As I said, your opinion differs from mine. I am going to leave it at that.

B

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7490
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Fumbling Bumbling Bungling...

Postby RF » Sun Jul 21, 2013 4:28 pm

Vic Dale wrote:Napoleon tried to take Russia in 1812 and failed, because the Russians burned their crops rather than see Napoleon's invading Army feeding on it.


No, it failed because the Russian winter decimated the Grand Armee, which suffered a 90% casualty rate from frostbite.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

Vic Dale
Senior Member
Posts: 903
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:53 pm

Re: Fumbling Bumbling Bungling...

Postby Vic Dale » Tue Jul 23, 2013 10:31 am

They were supposed to winter in Moscow, but could not that is why they froze.


Return to “Off Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest