US Pilot achieve a whole new level of fail

[Hooahguy]

I dont know enough about GPS and targeting to really argue so as Ive said before, Im going to wait until more information becomes available.

No - I have, and it's a valid question. Why are we destroying infrastructure in a friendly city we are trying to recapture?

Welcome to urban warfare. Expecting to retake a city from enemy hands mostly intact is a fantasy at best.

[Montmorency]

Welcome to urban warfare. Expecting to retake a city from enemy hands mostly intact is a fantasy at best.

What is the point of urban warfare? More generally, what is the point of warfare? To achieve some political end.

The taking of a city is only a means to an end.

And to be frank, destroying cities in Afghanistan has always been harmful to our desired ends - even more so now that we don't even have a significant ground presence.

[Hooahguy]

Right. Which is why we arent the ones leading the charge to retake the city. The Afghan army is. They lost it, they gotta take it back. We will help of course but the main thrust is being done by Afghan forces.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I dont know enough about GPS and targeting to really argue so as Ive said before, Im going to wait until more information becomes available.

I'll have my "told you so" ready, then.

Welcome to urban warfare. Expecting to retake a city from enemy hands mostly intact is a fantasy at best.

Welcome to Urban Warfare done badly - you may wish to consider some historical examples, including WWII, where shelling prior to sending in the infantry actually worsened the result.

The US has done Urban warfare badly since at least Vietnam, because you fetishise your soldiers you are unwilling to spend them to re-take a city street by street, so you spend civilian lives instead.

That's the thing, despite all these airstrikes you'll still end up having running gun battles in the streets where some poor sod will get cut off, go down a blind alley and get painted against the wall.

[Hooahguy]

Welcome to Urban Warfare done badly - you may wish to consider some historical examples, including WWII, where shelling prior to sending in the infantry actually worsened the result.

The US has done Urban warfare badly since at least Vietnam, because you fetishise your soldiers you are unwilling to spend them to re-take a city street by street, so you spend civilian lives instead.

That's the thing, despite all these airstrikes you'll still end up having running gun battles in the streets where some poor sod will get cut off, go down a blind alley and get painted against the wall.

Lol ok expert on urban warfare.

Its obviously just that simple. How has nobody ever tried that before?!



EDIT: This is bothering me so I need to reply more.

This isnt the Somme, we dont throw men into the meat grinder anymore. Nowadays we try to mitigate casualties as much as we can, both our own and civilian. Thats why we dont just carpet bomb cities anymore like we used to. I mean if we didnt care then we would just carpet bomb Kunduz and use the money we are bribing Afghan officials with to rebuild the city. Would probably be cheaper as well.

To say "oh just send in soldiers with no support to retake a city, Im sure they will be fine! Yeah they will take prohibitively high casualties, and when the mass of body bags start coming home and the TV crews show the gruesome cost in allied lives, the public will totally be okay with it because hey, we might mitigate some civilian casualties!" is just asinine. It doesnt work that way. To think that it would work is just delusion.

Oh yeah-

because you fetishise your soldiers you are unwilling to spend them to re-take a city street by street

Seriously?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This isnt the Somme, we dont throw men into the meat grinder anymore. Nowadays we try to mitigate casualties as much as we can, both our own and civilian. Thats why we dont just carpet bomb cities anymore like we used to. I mean if we didnt care then we would just carpet bomb Kunduz and use the money we are bribing Afghan officials with to rebuild the city. Would probably be cheaper as well.

To say "oh just send in soldiers with no support to retake a city, Im sure they will be fine! Yeah they will take prohibitively high casualties, and when the mass of body bags start coming home and the TV crews show the gruesome cost in allied lives, the public will totally be okay with it because hey, we might mitigate some civilian casualties!" is just asinine. It doesnt work that way. To think that it would work is just delusion.

Oh yeah-

Seriously?
[/QUOTE]

Yes - seriously. Soldiers' lives are a resource, just like bullets or tanks. Now, to be sure, they are a valuable resource but if we're going to get into the morality of the "numbers game" viz how much an individual's life is worth then we might as well give up on war altogether.

As far as I have seen the American armed forces, and the American public are generally considered to over-value the lives of their servicemen in relation to the wider context of a given operation. This has been a prevailing British opinion for at least a few decades, if not since Vietnam.

During the later stages of combat operation in Afghanistan the British forces were criticised for using "American tactics" which means essentially calling in airstrikes on enemy positions that could be assaulted on the ground.

Now, this is not to say there should be no artillery support, far from it, but American doctrine in "Urban Combat" often includes flattening potential enemy position or choke points. Remember the missiles they fired down roads in Fallujah to remove *potential* land mines? Not only did they make all the roads impassable they knocked out all the water and electricity mains going into the city, triggering a humanitarian crisis.

In an urban environment, particularly an allied city, we should be aiming for judicious use of minimal destructive power, not shock and awe.

Imagine retaking an American city and half the city is rubble before you're done. How would that swing with the American media and public?

[Hooahguy]

Yes - seriously. Soldiers' lives are a resource, just like bullets or tanks. Now, to be sure, they are a valuable resource but if we're going to get into the morality of the "numbers game" viz how much an individual's life is worth then we might as well give up on war altogether.

As far as I have seen the American armed forces, and the American public are generally considered to over-value the lives of their servicemen in relation to the wider context of a given operation. This has been a prevailing British opinion for at least a few decades, if not since Vietnam.

I guess that explains the Somme then.

If you, and as you seem to claim a large section of the British public, really think that a soldiers life is the same as a bullet or tank then I really do not understand your sense of morals at all.

Now, this is not to say there should be no artillery support, far from it, but American doctrine in "Urban Combat" often includes flattening potential enemy position or choke points. Remember the missiles they fired down roads in Fallujah to remove *potential* land mines? Not only did they make all the roads impassable they knocked out all the water and electricity mains going into the city, triggering a humanitarian crisis.

Potential? Read any first hand account of the Second Battle of Fallujah, where the use of the mine-clearing line charge (which is what you are referring to as "missiles") was prevalent, and you would know that the roads in Fallujah were covered in IEDs. Now then, considering the destructive power of IEDs, I think tearing up a road is much more preferable to losing human lives. And considering that most of the civilian population evacuated (if government estimates can be trusted, anywhere between 70-90% of the civilians cleared out before the fighting), it sucks that the remaining civilians had to deal with no water or electricity but sometimes its unavoidable. Its the harsh reality of war that innocents suffer. We can do what we can to alleviate their suffering but the end goal must be to destroy the enemy. Deploying the line charges might have messed up the roads (which were fixed after the battle anyways) but you cannot deny that it also saved lives.

In an urban environment, particularly an allied city, we should be aiming for judicious use of minimal destructive power, not shock and awe.

You keep neglecting to say that at the moment it is not an allied city. Yes, coalition forces arent trying to wipe out the town but to say that just because coalition forces are trying to take it back that we shouldnt launch airstrikes against reported Taliban positions is tactical stupidity.

Imagine retaking an American city and half the city is rubble before you're done. How would that swing with the American media and public?

If it resulted in the capture of the city, then I would guess that the main response would be "well that really sucks that the town is now half rubble, but Im sure glad that we took the city and now we can rebuild."

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I guess that explains the Somme then.

If you, and as you seem to claim a large section of the British public, really think that a soldiers life is the same as a bullet or tank then I really do not understand your sense of morals at all.

As Is aid, this has nothing to do with morals.

Morally, one does not make war. If we are making war then we need to do so with the greatest intelligence and proportionality, and that means that we need to consider soldiers' lives as a resource, we need to consider how many lives to spend to achieve an objective and what level of civilian casualties we should accept in the protection of our own forces. In the last part of the calculation we should consider friendly and enemy civilians as having different values, in strategic terms.

The idea is to win the war as quickly as possible, which means much more than just defeating the enemy in battle.

Potential? Read any first hand account of the Second Battle of Fallujah, where the use of the mine-clearing line charge (which is what you are referring to as "missiles") was prevalent, and you would know that the roads in Fallujah were covered in IEDs. Now then, considering the destructive power of IEDs, I think tearing up a road is much more preferable to losing human lives. And considering that most of the civilian population evacuated (if government estimates can be trusted, anywhere between 70-90% of the civilians cleared out before the fighting), it sucks that the remaining civilians had to deal with no water or electricity but sometimes its unavoidable. Its the harsh reality of war that innocents suffer. We can do what we can to alleviate their suffering but the end goal must be to destroy the enemy. Deploying the line charges might have messed up the roads (which were fixed after the battle anyways) but you cannot deny that it also saved lives.

*Shrug*

I attended a lecture by General Sir Rupert Smith, as I understand it the "line charge" is essentially a missile fired down the road - that's how he described it. His opinion was that using the line charge caused long-term resentment in the city in addition to the immediate crisis - the point being that the tactic that saved American lives on the day, by not having to re-mine the road, cost more in the long run because it turned the residents on the city against the Americans, even those who came back after the battle would have seen a city with no electricity and no sanitation.

You keep neglecting to say that at the moment it is not an allied city. Yes, coalition forces arent trying to wipe out the town but to say that just because coalition forces are trying to take it back that we shouldnt launch airstrikes against reported Taliban positions is tactical stupidity.

So the people all support the Taliban now? I hear they don't, and they all came out of their houses to cheer when the Afghan army retook parts of the city (and promptly ducked back inside when it all kicked off again).

Intellectual exercise - imagine an American city occupied by the Russians/Chinese/baddy of the week. Has it ceased to be a "friendly" city or is it just "occupied"?

If it resulted in the capture of the city, then I would guess that the main response would be "well that really sucks that the town is now half rubble, but Im sure glad that we took the city and now we can rebuild."

I rather doubt it - I expect your Congress would be demanding to know why your military destroyed one of your own cities to retake it.

[Hooahguy]

Morally, one does not make war. If we are making war then we need to do so with the greatest intelligence and proportionality, and that means that we need to consider soldiers' lives as a resource, we need to consider how many lives to spend to achieve an objective and what level of civilian casualties we should accept in the protection of our own forces. In the last part of the calculation we should consider friendly and enemy civilians as having different values, in strategic terms.

The idea is to win the war as quickly as possible, which means much more than just defeating the enemy in battle.

Yes, in a perfectly moral world there would be no war. But you obviously understand that it doesnt work that way.

I attended a lecture by General Sir Rupert Smith, as I understand it the "line charge" is essentially a missile fired down the road - that's how he described it. His opinion was that using the line charge caused long-term resentment in the city in addition to the immediate crisis - the point being that the tactic that saved American lives on the day, by not having to re-mine the road, cost more in the long run because it turned the residents on the city against the Americans, even those who came back after the battle would have seen a city with no electricity and no sanitation.

When David Petraeus came to speak to my army officer cadet class back in 2013 this is one of the things he talked about when it came to counterinsurgency strategy. The needs of the locals must be balanced with the tactical necessity to defeat the enemy. Go too far in one direction and you get trouble with the other. Yes, we could have not used the line charges but that would have been cost-prohibitive in terms of coalition lives since the city was turned into a fortress of barricades, tunnels, trenches, and booby-trapped houses. We could have also not told the populace that we were coming in, resulting in much greater casualties but also we would have killed many more insurgents as a lot of them were able to flee, including the person we were after, al-Zarqawi. A careful balance must be struck and where that balance is to be made is very hard to figure out.

So the people all support the Taliban now? I hear they don't, and they all came out of their houses to cheer when the Afghan army retook parts of the city (and promptly ducked back inside when it all kicked off again).

Intellectual exercise - imagine an American city occupied by the Russians/Chinese/baddy of the week. Has it ceased to be a "friendly" city or is it just "occupied"?

No, I didnt say that. What I said was that the Taliban controlled the city and as such the city was deemed to be in enemy hands. As such, its not deemed to be an allied city. Occupied yes, but the term allied implies that the city is in friendly hands. Thats my understanding anyways.

I rather doubt it - I expect your Congress would be demanding to know why your military destroyed one of your own cities to retake it.

Only one way to find out really. And if it ever really got that bad, by looking at our reaction to 9/11 (like the Patriot Act), I kinda doubt that the government would be all up in arms about damage to a city done in the process of retaking it.

[Husar]

No, I think we can say that's easy - the plane has a programmable computer and afaik runs on Linux - the plane has GPS which is doubtless linked into its computer and is the basis of its precision targeting that isn't laser based. One simply writes an app which flags a warning on the pilot's HUD if the plane targets certain GPS co-ordinates. You could get slightly more advanced and have the computer programmed with the blast radius of the plane's weapons, then it could tell the pilot if his attack was likely to cause collateral damage based on whether those GPS coordinates fell within the blast radius.

That's all extremely basic, it doesn't require anything external other than GPS positioning data and relative targeting data.

That was amusing to read, a 20 million US$ combat airplane is basically just a flying smartphone now. What plane was it anyway? Maybe someone forgot to install the latest bugfixes?

[Montmorency]

If it resulted in the capture of the city, then I would guess that the main response would be "well that really sucks that the town is now half rubble, but Im sure glad that we took the city and now we can rebuild."

This is stupidity.

[Hooahguy]

This is stupidity.

If it is, then explain.

Military objectives > property.

EDIT: let me reiterate-

If an American city was lightly held and still half leveled then yeah, there will be outrage Im sure but if turned into a verifiable fortress by enemy forces like Fallujah was then yeah, expect to sustain heavy damage.

Look at Baghdad in the initial invasion. Light resistance, light damage. Fallujah had heavy resistance, so heavy damage.

[Montmorency]

I did. You replied to it. But I supposed you just skimmed it over.

Urban infrastructure should always be preserved unless the larger aim is to destroy the industrial capacity of a developed power and its organized military.

The situation in Afghanistan is rather different, no? The infrastructure is precisely what you are fighting over. Destroying infrastructure in the hope of killing 3 or 5 enemy combatants is outright hamfisted idiocy.

[Strike For The South]

The American military only mitigates casualties only so far as lipstick makes a pig kissable.

Also why the hell are we talking about the Somme? We are fighting in an urban environment, against a non conventional enemy, in 2015. I can not wrap my head around the fact some people think destroying cities does not help these militas we are fighting.

Cities are worth more intact in the kind of war we are fighting. Giving the people on the ground some kind of semblance of a normal life should be our goal. Taking cities sounds like your jerking off over your fantasy game.

[Brenus]

The fact, basic fact, whatever the strategic or tactical point of view is: You don't bomb a hospital, you don't shoot at ambulances, as you don't shoot to parachutist except within a dropping parachutists operation, nor your can shoot at sailors in a rescue embarkation.

There is no indication that the Talibans were in the hospital, and in fact there are indications they were not...

If you made a mistake, or if as Hamas does, the militants put weapons near the hospital, and nothing indicates the Talibans did it, it is exactly why you have Air Controllers on the ground.

[Hooahguy]

Urban infrastructure should always be preserved unless the larger aim is to destroy the industrial capacity of a developed power and its organized military.

The situation in Afghanistan is rather different, no? The infrastructure is precisely what you are fighting over. Destroying infrastructure in the hope of killing 3 or 5 enemy combatants is outright hamfisted idiocy.

Yes, I agree. But sometimes destroying infrastructure is unavoidable. And just to note, I do not in any way shape or form condone bombing a hospital. Let me make that very clear. I think the ones responsible should be held accountable and face punishment. But what I am arguing is that in the course of taking a city from the enemy, bombing a building, whether it is infrastructure or not (provided its not a hospital or other building in a protected class), is justified depending on the circumstances. I go into more detail below.

Also why the hell are we talking about the Somme?

Well that was more a jab about PVC's claim about how the British seemingly feel that a soldier's life is as valuable as war materiel so its not totally relevant to the current situation. Hence the Somme reference.

We are fighting in an urban environment, against a non conventional enemy, in 2015. I can not wrap my head around the fact some people think destroying cities does not help these militas we are fighting.

Cities are worth more intact in the kind of war we are fighting. Giving the people on the ground some kind of semblance of a normal life should be our goal. Taking cities sounds like your jerking off over your fantasy game.

Yes but its not always possible to leave a city intact when the fighting is over. In fact its basically damn near impossible to avoid damaging a city while wresting it from the enemy. And where did anyone here say that destroying a city is a good thing? Of course it has negative repercussions, but as Ive mentioned before, tactical needs and strategic needs must maintain a balance.

And its cute that you think the term "taking cities" is, as you say, "jerking off over your fantasy game" because combat over who controls a city doesnt happen anymore, right? God forbid basic military language is used when it comes to these things, right? Fact is, in order to give the inhabitants a semblance of normal life, you must first "take the city" which they are living in from enemy hands.

So lets put it this way: you are fighting in a city with heavy resistance and you come across a number of insurgents who are holed up in a house. The doors into the house are booby-trapped and they probably have weapons trained on the door to kill anyone who comes through even after the booby-trap is tripped. So what do you do? You cant skip over the house because they can shoot from the house and do harm. You can bring in a tank, call artillery, launch an anti-tank weapon at it, or call in an airstrike. All four will severely damage or destroy the building. And by your logic, all four are wrong to do. So what do you do?

By the way, automatically calling in artillery or air strikes for everything is not doctrine at all. I suggest you read the fantastic first hand account of the Second Battle of Fallujah House to House, by David Bellavia. He goes into this much more than I ever could.

The fact, basic fact, whatever the strategic or tactical point of view is: You don't bomb a hospital, you don't shoot at ambulances, as you don't shoot to parachutist except within a dropping parachutists operation, nor your can shoot at sailors in a rescue embarkation.

Agreed.

There is no indication that the Talibans were in the hospital, and in fact there are indications they were not...

If you made a mistake, or if as Hamas does, the militants put weapons near the hospital, and nothing indicates the Talibans did it, it is exactly why you have Air Controllers on the ground.

The Afghan government is claiming there were Taliban militants in the hospital which is adding to the confusion. Considering that both the Afghan government and the Taliban have lied when it comes to these things, I dont know who I trust.

[Montmorency]

tactical needs and strategic needs must maintain a balance.

This isn't the case here. The US occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq were always deeply confused as regards what the strategic goals were supposed to be, but now that only international air units and a few thousand advisors remain, there isn't really any strategic goal at all beyond "we're still technically influencing events in the country". As such, the only tactical goals there can be are to continue to poke at the Taliban while preserving the lives of what few Americans are operating there.

In other words, when you're just going through the motions, you get cases of thoughtless negligence like this in which no one considers the possible consequences of a particular mission beyond the next hour because they become immaterial to 'whatever-it-is we're supposed to be doing'.

[Hooahguy]

There are still strategic goals though. While our direct combat operations may have ended, we still have a vested interest in helping the Afghan government keep power. Of course everyone realizes that pretty much the minute we leave the government will collapse which says a lot about our failure to nation-build in that hopeless part of the world. Nobody will admit it publicly of course. Our leaders realize this and would like that the Afghan government holds out until at least the current administration leaves office so they don't have to deal with the claims that "they lost Afghanistan" like Obama is dealing now with Iraq and ISIS. Hence the renewed level of support of Afghan government entities.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yes, in a perfectly moral world there would be no war. But you obviously understand that it doesnt work that way.

I do, I also understand that saving American lives today may cost more lives tomorrow. Blowing up cities in Afghanistan breeds terrorists and prolongs the conflict.

When David Petraeus came to speak to my army officer cadet class back in 2013 this is one of the things he talked about when it came to counterinsurgency strategy. The needs of the locals must be balanced with the tactical necessity to defeat the enemy. Go too far in one direction and you get trouble with the other. Yes, we could have not used the line charges but that would have been cost-prohibitive in terms of coalition lives since the city was turned into a fortress of barricades, tunnels, trenches, and booby-trapped houses. We could have also not told the populace that we were coming in, resulting in much greater casualties but also we would have killed many more insurgents as a lot of them were able to flee, including the person we were after, al-Zarqawi. A careful balance must be struck and where that balance is to be made is very hard to figure out.

Petraeus has been shown to have poor judgement - looking back he was valourised in the US primarily for being slightly above competent. Few of your senior officers have shown a lot of strategic ability over the last few decades. I suggest you read "Into the Storm" by Tom Clancy and Gen. F. M. Franks, it's about the US Army after Vietnam and Operation Desert Storm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Into_t...Ground_in_Iraq

In it General Franks discusses, somewhat obliquely, the political vs strategic concerns and how the ground offensive was motivated by the former and not the latter, Franks wanted to come down from the North, take Baghdad and cut the head off the snake but instead they rolled the Iraqi army out of Kuwait and then moved into Iraq only punitively.

He and Clancy also completely misunderstand several things about the British, when Gen. Smith selected "Sunray" as his callsign on the American net the Americans found this amusing but even in 1997 they don't know that "Sunray" is the the traditional callsign for the formation commander.

Old British joke, "If you hear 'Sunray down' you better be worried because that means you're Sunray'"

No, I didnt say that. What I said was that the Taliban controlled the city and as such the city was deemed to be in enemy hands. As such, its not deemed to be an allied city. Occupied yes, but the term allied implies that the city is in friendly hands. Thats my understanding anyways.

In warefare ownership is not 9/10ths of strategic concern. An Allied city or a "friendly" city would be one with an Allied/friendly population. The the question of whether it is "in friendly hands" is seperate.

For example - during WWII the British and Americans pounded German cities into the ground but generally tried to avoid bombing French cities, which is why Paris survived the war mostly in tact and Berlin was a ruin like London.

Only one way to find out really. And if it ever really got that bad, by looking at our reaction to 9/11 (like the Patriot Act), I kinda doubt that the government would be all up in arms about damage to a city done in the process of retaking it.

Your reaction to 9/11? A bunch of nutters rammed a few plains into a few buildings, killed a few thousand people and your response was to invade two countries and virtually grind them into dust. You were so horribly offended that you completely dismantled the political and military system in both countries and ostracised almost everyone who had anything to do with the former regimes.

[Hooahguy]

I do, I also understand that saving American lives today may cost more lives tomorrow. Blowing up cities in Afghanistan breeds terrorists and prolongs the conflict.

We are in agreement here. But short of not doing any sort of fighting whatsoever, there are going to be civilian casualties. There is no way to completely prevent it. If there was, then I would wager that the Israelis would have developed it already because god knows the world rides them hard when civilians die by their hands (and rightly so).

Petraeus has been shown to have poor judgement - looking back he was valourised in the US primarily for being slightly above competent.

Well that sounds a bit like an an ad hominem to me. Say he had poor judgement all you want when it comes to his personal life and whatnot, the fact is that he had more success in the counter-insurgency than any other US (or British- remember Basra?) commander had.

Few of your senior officers have shown a lot of strategic ability over the last few decades.
I suggest you read "Into the Storm" by Tom Clancy and Gen. F. M. Franks, it's about the US Army after Vietnam and Operation Desert Storm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Into_t...Ground_in_Iraq

In it General Franks discusses, somewhat obliquely, the political vs strategic concerns and how the ground offensive was motivated by the former and not the latter, Franks wanted to come down from the North, take Baghdad and cut the head off the snake but instead they rolled the Iraqi army out of Kuwait and then moved into Iraq only punitively.

When it comes to counterinsurgency I say yes, most western commanders have trouble dealing with it. Hardly an American phenomenon. But when it comes to conventional warfare, western commanders have been more often than not apt at their craft.

He and Clancy also completely misunderstand several things about the British, when Gen. Smith selected "Sunray" as his callsign on the American net the Americans found this amusing but even in 1997 they don't know that "Sunray" is the the traditional callsign for the formation commander.

And why should they know this? Does the British Army know every traditional aspect of its allied armies? Its such an insignificant thing Im not sure why you brought it up.

In warefare ownership is not 9/10ths of strategic concern. An Allied city or a "friendly" city would be one with an Allied/friendly population. The the question of whether it is "in friendly hands" is seperate.

Thats why we dont carpet bomb cities anymore. Yes, simply "owning" a city doesnt mean anything anymore but rebuilding effectively takes an element of safety and security, which you cant do when insurgents are launching daily attacks on rebuilding efforts. Destroying a few buildings in the process of securing a city is hardly the same as carpet bombing it.

For example - during WWII the British and Americans pounded German cities into the ground but generally tried to avoid bombing French cities, which is why Paris survived the war mostly in tact and Berlin was a ruin like London.

Well thats very debatable. Look at Caen or Falaise. The Allies bombed a large number of French cities and towns in WW2. If Wikipedia is correct, over 1,500 French towns were bombed during the occupation. And a mostly intact Paris is most likely because the Germans withdrew from the city (ignoring Hitlers orders to burn it down as they left) before any serious fighting began.

Your reaction to 9/11? A bunch of nutters rammed a few plains into a few buildings, killed a few thousand people and your response was to invade two countries and virtually grind them into dust. You were so horribly offended that you completely dismantled the political and military system in both countries and ostracised almost everyone who had anything to do with the former regimes.

Here we are in almost complete agreement. Though I dont think Iraq and Afghanistan are totally comparable in the sense that there was never any hope for a stable (relatively) westernized nation in Afghanistan like there was in Iraq.

[Fragony]

Not comfirmed, but Afghan-forces apparantly called for the airstrike, I have nothing on why. I hope you feel better if it wasn't your fault.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

We are in agreement here. But short of not doing any sort of fighting whatsoever, there are going to be civilian casualties. There is no way to completely prevent it. If there was, then I would wager that the Israelis would have developed it already because god knows the world rides them hard when civilians die by their hands (and rightly so).

Ah, but where to draw the line. Americans are notorious for blowing stuff up first and worrying about whether it was appropriate after.

Well that sounds a bit like an an ad hominem to me. Say he had poor judgement all you want when it comes to his personal life and whatnot, the fact is that he had more success in the counter-insurgency than any other US (or British- remember Basra?) commander had.

Petraeus didn't just have an affair, he had an affair that compromised him professionally.

When it comes to counterinsurgency I say yes, most western commanders have trouble dealing with it. Hardly an American phenomenon. But when it comes to conventional warfare, western commanders have been more often than not apt at their craft.

Initially the British did well in Basra, then they drew down the number of troops to support the campaign in Afghanistan and it all went to shit - the British actually do have a doctrine for counter insurgency that worked in Ireland and the Balkans but it requires more troops then we used in Iraq or Afghanistan.

British commanders were overconfident, they believed they could do more with less.

And why should they know this? Does the British Army know every traditional aspect of its allied armies? Its such an insignificant thing Im not sure why you brought it up.

An American General should probably know this, hell, I know that "Six" is the corresponding callsign for the commander of an American formation. It's called inter-operational knowledge or something.

Thats why we dont carpet bomb cities anymore. Yes, simply "owning" a city doesnt mean anything anymore but rebuilding effectively takes an element of safety and security, which you cant do when insurgents are launching daily attacks on rebuilding efforts. Destroying a few buildings in the process of securing a city is hardly the same as carpet bombing it.

It's more the number of buildings Americans tend to blwo up - they wouldn't do this in an American city with such carelessness.

Well thats very debatable. Look at Caen or Falaise. The Allies bombed a large number of French cities and towns in WW2. If Wikipedia is correct, over 1,500 French towns were bombed during the occupation. And a mostly intact Paris is most likely because the Germans withdrew from the city (ignoring Hitlers orders to burn it down as they left) before any serious fighting began.

Compare Dresden or Berlin.

Here we are in almost complete agreement. Though I dont think Iraq and Afghanistan are totally comparable in the sense that there was never any hope for a stable (relatively) westernized nation in Afghanistan like there was in Iraq.

As far as I'm aware Iraq has no history of democratic government or strong secular or civil institutions, Afghanistan does. How unstable is Afghanistan, really? They formed a "National Unity" government after the election rather than descending into Civil War or perennial deadlock which is better than Libya or Iraq have managed.

You need to read a bit more history on the Afghans, they're more like the Iranians than the Iraqis - for one thing Afghanistan is not a country manufactured after WWI.

[Hooahguy]

Petraeus didn't just have an affair, he had an affair that compromised him professionally.

As did plenty of people in all kinds of fields, still doesnt detract from their successes. Look at Kobe Bryant. Great Basketball player, but also charged with sexual assault. While that makes him of bad character, the skill of Bryant cant be denied.

Initially the British did well in Basra, then they drew down the number of troops to support the campaign in Afghanistan and it all went to shit - the British actually do have a doctrine for counter insurgency that worked in Ireland and the Balkans but it requires more troops then we used in Iraq or Afghanistan.

British commanders were overconfident, they believed they could do more with less.

That may be, though Im reading that the situation there was not quite as calm as you make it out to be, as there was a lot of unrest and insurgent attacks upon infrastructure though that wasnt exactly unique to Basra.

An American General should probably know this, hell, I know that "Six" is the corresponding callsign for the commander of an American formation. It's called inter-operational knowledge or something.

Fair enough.

It's more the number of buildings Americans tend to blwo up - they wouldn't do this in an American city with such carelessness.

Debatable. It would more likely depend on the level of resistance faced.

Compare Dresden or Berlin.

Have you seen pictures? Its not an insignificant amount of damage. Three quarters of the city being destroyed, while not as much as Berlin or Dresden, is still a huge amount.

As far as I'm aware Iraq has no history of democratic government or strong secular or civil institutions, Afghanistan does. How unstable is Afghanistan, really? They formed a "National Unity" government after the election rather than descending into Civil War or perennial deadlock which is better than Libya or Iraq have managed.

You need to read a bit more history on the Afghans, they're more like the Iranians than the Iraqis - for one thing Afghanistan is not a country manufactured after WWI.

True. The Afghan people are hardly manufactured like the Iraqis were. But there is not a national unity like you have in Great Britain, France, or the US. Large swaths of Afghanistan are very much tribal and they cause a lot of problems for the government. Not that the central government is any better, as the government has a hard time providing services or being effective in any real way. Last I checked they were something like the 3rd or 4th most corrupt country in the world. Karzai, when he was in power, was called the Mayor of Kabul because he had so little influence over the country. They can form all the unity governments they want but if the government has no power then what good is it? Iraq isnt much better but at least from what Im reading it very much had the infrastructure laid by the Saddam years to support a working government that could actually provide services. Granted, we dropped the ball when it came to building the new government but thats not the point of all of this.

You do realize that we agree on most points? I completely agree with you that bombing does more harm than good, especially when done in urban areas. Killing civilians, even when its an accident, only helps the insurgents. Which is why I am so against Israel bombing Gaza, especially when not in support of their own troops, as it only ends up helping the radicals. Where we disagree is that I believe that in some occasions its necessary. Granted I believe that the guidelines of when to use it should be reexamined as to prevent civilian casualties and I certainly do not advocate indiscriminate bombing, but as Ive said, sometimes taking out a building via laser guided bomb or other means is necessary.

[Brenus]

“I dont know who I trust.” I trust MSF. I know their procedure, and I know they would have ordered their staff to withdraw if danger would become too close, and Talibans within the hospital (or in a close area) would have been considered as such. I was injured in doing exactly this more than 20 years ago, evacuating staff and sensitive material (and money) in front of an advancing army.

“For example - during WWII the British and Americans pounded German cities into the ground but generally tried to avoid bombing French cities, which is why Paris survived the war mostly intact and Berlin was a ruin like London” Err, I would dispute this, see Caen, Lorient and Brest. Paris was not bombed because no fight for Paris was in the plan, but by-passing the town. It is only because the Parisians went for an insurrection lead by FPTF (communist party), the intervention of de Gaulle on the French 2DB (Leclerc) and a go-ahead from Paton followed by an approval of Eisenhower than the US Army went for the French Capital.
But the fact is US Air Force and British Bomber Command killed more French civilians than the Germans. And this fact was accepted by the French populations as the price to pay for freedom.

“ And a mostly intact Paris is most likely because the Germans withdrew from the city (ignoring Hitlers orders to burn it down as they left) before any serious fighting began.” See comment above. And German general didn’t have enough explosive, and planned to surrender, didn’t want to be the destructor of Paris in Court.

“Compare Dresden or Berlin.” I suggest you search pictures of Lorient and Brest.

[Pannonian]

“Compare Dresden or Berlin.” I suggest you search pictures of Lorient and Brest.

You're not allowed to post Brest pictures here.

[Greyblades]

But you are allowed to post boobies. Here's a pair:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Hooahguy]

“I dont know who I trust.” I trust MSF. I know their procedure, and I know they would have ordered their staff to withdraw if danger would become too close, and Talibans within the hospital (or in a close area) would have been considered as such. I was injured in doing exactly this more than 20 years ago, evacuating staff and sensitive material (and money) in front of an advancing army.

Ok fair enough. I dont know much about MSF or their procedures so I will defer to what you said.

[Strike For The South]

Patereus compromised the entire CIA for some strange that looks like old shoe leather. That and his other celebrity vanity makes me question everything about him as a leader. Of course that could be the way the media has primped generals since Westmoreland.

Prostitutes and aliases were invented for a reason.

Also Kobe banged some broad who then tried to extort him with a false rape claim. How are the two even comparable? Basketball does not equal the cia

[Hooahguy]

My point wasnt that they were comparable in the sense that basketball and the CIA are similar but that faults in ones personal life or even professional life doesnt change their other accomplishments. For a more relevant comparison, does Patton hitting soldiers make him less of a capable general? Anyways this topic is hardly relevant, he only came up because I mentioned that he talked to my cadet class a few years ago.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Obama apologises: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34467631

BUT:

"MSF says the co-ordinates of the hospital were well-known and its bombing could not have been a mistake."

Someone done screwed up mightily - note the US has already said it has "systems" in place to prevent this, which begs the question how they failed.