Armchair Generals in the power.

[Veho Nex]

So just a thought, and mind you aggressive back roomers this is just a thought. And take your time to read through it.

I was thinking, we have seen plenty of armchair generals in the white house, be them secretary of defense or the president of the united states. They always seem to have the same idea when it comes to military movement, Operation (country name) (synonym for kill/freedom/genocide/U.N. patrol). Where we send in some guys in some helicopters or tanks or both and blow the crap out of our enemy and then we say good job we are still a super power, and this country is now back in the stone age.

So what do you guys think would happen if we put a... 'real' armchair general in the white house. I mean the people who play Company of Heroes and the Command and Conquer series and other RTS games, people who play CoD series and Medal of Honor series. Despite the wrong impressions this might make at first, can you think of the plus sides to how it would play out.

Say we put ten nerdy self proclaimed ACG's in the white house. I think the way they could run things it would put a boost to the American Economy and I think we would be putting less men(so to speak) in harms way. Cause I know my self. If I'm playing against a dug in enemy I wouldn't mess around with infantry or any ground options I would do flybys till there isn't anything left to hide in. I know I'm a bad example but there are more reserved people out there and just looking at the news and hearing these new operations our west point generals put into action I mediately see whats wrong with their plans and that it is a waste of time to try most.

Well... this is all my thoughts on the matter and that I could be wrong in a lot of aspects. I just want to know what you guys might think about it.

[Reverend Joe]

Awesome.

[Lemur]

I think maybe you should read Ender's Game.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

I think the limitations of computer games, and relative lack of remorse when I lose tens, hundreds, thousands, or even millions of soldiers in video games would not be a good addition to American war-planning.

Plus air-power doesn't solve anything, and the real world is pretty darn complicated.

I don't think I can say such a panel would do worse at setting strategy for the American military than the current administration has been.

[ICantSpellDawg]

If those gamers went to a military college and graduated with eminent honors - all while serving diplomatic duty in no less than 10 countries and fought in combat situations for no less than 3 years... I'm all for it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

If only we could be opposed by the vanilla RTW AI....

[CountArach]

I'd be looking for the Quickload button...

[seireikhaan]

If only we could be opposed by the vanilla RTW AI....

Bush: Okay, Ahmadinejad, if you give us military access and maps to your nuclear factories, we'll stop economic sanctions.

Ahmadinejad: We will accept if you give us Basra.

Bush: Agreed.

Ahmadinejad, 5 minutes later: *launches missiles into *insert tiny, strategically unimportant settlement*.

[Veho Nex]

these are the soft responses I thought I'd receive. lol

Tuffstuff, the guys leading our men into battle right now from behind a computer, where has it gotten us so far. 6 going on 7 years of war and 3k + dead. It seams as though the tactics of the 70's doesn't work to well anymore.

We are like in a war of attrition kinda like Vietnam, we are seeing if the American public can outlast some guys who play mind games in some unknown spot in the middle east.

Now I want you guys to play a game, go with me on this.

You're given full command of the US troops in action. You can do what ever you want short of nuclear and well... like me total genocide of a nation via air power. Now imagine the mistakes you could make(that is our current military leaders).

Take 10 of the most dominate members of the gaming community. Those who excel in RTS games with very little loss of life and who can make economies boom. Give them control of the military and see what happens. If one guy comes up with a stupid plan there are 9 others to tell him whats wrong in it. Its a lot more efficient than one guy who does guess and check with our boys in Iraq.

[PBI]

The problem is, every time they occupied a city they would as a matter of routine give the order to "exterminate the populace".

And then, "release the flaming pigs".

[Pannonian]

The problem is, every time they occupied a city they would as a matter of routine give the order to "exterminate the populace".

And then, "release the flaming pigs".

Cor, sounds like the Met in the 80s.

these are the soft responses I thought I'd receive. lol

Tuffstuff, the guys leading our men into battle right now from behind a computer, where has it gotten us so far. 6 going on 7 years of war and 3k + dead. It seams as though the tactics of the 70's doesn't work to well anymore.

We are like in a war of attrition kinda like Vietnam, we are seeing if the American public can outlast some guys who play mind games in some unknown spot in the middle east.

Now I want you guys to play a game, go with me on this.

You're given full command of the US troops in action. You can do what ever you want short of nuclear and well... like me total genocide of a nation via air power. Now imagine the mistakes you could make(that is our current military leaders).

Take 10 of the most dominate members of the gaming community. Those who excel in RTS games with very little loss of life and who can make economies boom. Give them control of the military and see what happens. If one guy comes up with a stupid plan there are 9 others to tell him whats wrong in it. Its a lot more efficient than one guy who does guess and check with our boys in Iraq.

The main problem with Iraq is that the command at the highest level is politically idiotic. The problem isn't how they fight the war, the use of resources, etc., but fighting the war in the first place. It's not hard to understand - don't fight a war that has no good results on the strategic and political level. I'm not sure if I've ever seen a computer that accurately portrays this truism, but truism it is, and so common sense and obvious that I'm flabbergasted that the leaders of the most powerful country in the world can't see it.

[Husar]

Just wait until all the paperwork starts...

[Geoffrey S]

Next time, don't inhale and post please.

[Adrian II]

And while we're at it, why don't we entrust counter-terrorism to the Counter-Strike bunch? This guy would be history in no time.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I would do an excellent job in the White House with my M2TW skills.

First of all I would ask the Pope to launch a Crusade to Tehran, that way I speed up my armies movement points for the march across Europe, and my soldiers get free upkeep (no tax winging from the public). Then once I capture the city I could 'Exterminate Populace' to keep order. Of course if the economy was in trouble I could always 'Sack Settlement' and get maybe 20,000 Florins.

For any battles, I will charge my overpowered cavalry (tanks I suppose) into the Iranian infantry.

[Redleg]

these are the soft responses I thought I'd receive. lol

How hard would you like the response to be?

Tuffstuff, the guys leading our men into battle right now from behind a computer, where has it gotten us so far. 6 going on 7 years of war and 3k + dead. It seams as though the tactics of the 70's doesn't work to well anymore.

Hate to brust your bubble but the battle tactics of the 1970's are not being used, they were thrown out back in the 1980's after the military was reorganized not once but several times. It seems you have confused a military attack with a military occupation. Two completely different operations, first the military attack was extremely successful, three divisions with Air support completely dominating the battlefield.

Now occupation duty the United States military sucks at doing, especially when the political leadership screws the operation up from the get go. So if you wish to discuss military tactics - at least come with some base knowledge of warfighting in reality versus the computer. (Was that harsh enough for you, or do you want it a little more tougher?)

We are like in a war of attrition kinda like Vietnam, we are seeing if the American public can outlast some guys who play mind games in some unknown spot in the middle east.

Again incorrect, a war of attrition works a bit different then the current operations in Iraq.

Now I want you guys to play a game, go with me on this.

You're given full command of the US troops in action. You can do what ever you want short of nuclear and well... like me total genocide of a nation via air power. Now imagine the mistakes you could make(that is our current military leaders).

Again you have no concept - genocide is not accomplished via airpower, maybe some Nucs will do it, but not air power alone.

Take 10 of the most dominate members of the gaming community. Those who excel in RTS games with very little loss of life and who can make economies boom. Give them control of the military and see what happens. If one guy comes up with a stupid plan there are 9 others to tell him whats wrong in it. Its a lot more efficient than one guy who does guess and check with our boys in Iraq.

Sorry I perfer General Petruis to remain in charge of the military operations in Iraq. He seems to have a handle on how to deal with the current situation. I rather vote out all career politicans and let new blood come into the Congress - who refused to accomplish their constitutional duty, and the Presidential office.

[Pannonian]

I would do an excellent job in the White House with my M2TW skills.

First of all I would ask the Pope to launch a Crusade to Tehran, that way I speed up my armies movement points for the march across Europe, and my soldiers get free upkeep (no tax winging from the public). Then once I capture the city I could 'Exterminate Populace' to keep order. Of course if the economy was in trouble I could always 'Sack Settlement' and get maybe 20,000 Florins.

I think the General chose the enslave option, having vacated all the cities except for Syria, Jordan and a few other nearby provinces (keeping governors there for that purpose), sending the Iraqi population out to them. I'm not sure why the population in Iraq is continuing to drop, but my guess is that squalor levels may be pretty high.

BTW, is there a cheat to prevent the population from rioting every turn and destroying the temples and other public order buildings you've recently repaired? It's costing a mint with little noticeable positive effect.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I'm not sure why the population in Iraq is continuing to drop, but my guess is that squalor levels may be pretty high.

I think it is obvious that the US need to build some Public Baths or maybe even an Aqueduct in Baghdad if this trend is to be reversed.

And Iraq is definitely not a war of attrition.

[drone]

The problem is, every time they occupied a city they would as a matter of routine give the order to "exterminate the populace".

Actually, the problem is that they choose not to exterminate, leaving the territory saddled with unrest problems for years. Troop recruitment was not a necessity in the region, so there was no need for the soft hand. Now they are stuck with devastation all over the landscape from the rebels.

[Geoffrey S]

these are the soft responses I thought I'd receive. lol

That's because we're in the 'we'll explain this slowly and politely, he's a bit simple sometimes' phase. Keep it up and I'm sure the responses will harden adequately.

[CountArach]

And while we're at it, why don't we entrust counter-terrorism to the Counter-Strike bunch? This guy would be history in no time.

Terrorists Win.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Does RL have an AOR system?

[Reverend Joe]

And while we're at it, why don't we entrust counter-terrorism to the Counter-Strike bunch? This guy would be history in no time.

...You would entrust counter-terrorism to teamkillers?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Yes, I got the sarcasm in that, Adrian.

[Adrian II]

Yes, I got the sarcasm in that, Adrian.

Phew..

You never know in this kind of thread.

[Veho Nex]

How hard would you like the response to be?



Hate to brust your bubble but the battle tactics of the 1970's are not being used, they were thrown out back in the 1980's after the military was reorganized not once but several times. It seems you have confused a military attack with a military occupation. Two completely different operations, first the military attack was extremely successful, three divisions with Air support completely dominating the battlefield.

Now occupation duty the United States military sucks at doing, especially when the political leadership screws the operation up from the get go. So if you wish to discuss military tactics - at least come with some base knowledge of warfighting in reality versus the computer. (Was that harsh enough for you, or do you want it a little more tougher?)



Again incorrect, a war of attrition works a bit different then the current operations in Iraq.



Again you have no concept - genocide is not accomplished via airpower, maybe some Nuke's will do it, but not air power alone.



Sorry I perfer General Petruis to remain in charge of the military operations in Iraq. He seems to have a handle on how to deal with the current situation. I rather vote out all career politicans and let new blood come into the Congress - who refused to accomplish their constitutional duty, and the Presidential office.

I only know what I've heard from my cousin and what I've read in the books my dad has. The genocide via airpower is usually how I do things in more recent modern rts games, constant strafe runs are my specialty.

The war in Iraq I believe is the perfect example of a war of attrition. The US keeps putting more resources into while the terrorist groups are in a way forcing resources into their battle. We are keeping our guys over there and maintaining a long range war where as you said, we get nothing out of it. This is how it is a war of attrition. The American people's can only take so much during a war that most don't even know where it is located on the globe. It was the same thing in Vietnam, we killed a lot and lost few(compared to the amount we killed), its just that we lost the war back home with the populace and the same thing is going to happen in this war if something doesn't change.

The general may have a handle on how to work the field but before he's allowed to do anything major he has to get permission from the ACG's here.

Also are you a vet from any war? If not you should say the same thing to yourself. The only knowledge I get about war comes from Documentaries, Interviews with family that have been over there, the masses of books I read about it, also the training I do with my brother in military tactics is about as in depth as I get with war.

Also I'm not talking about the attack, I'm talking about the tactics in general. The Current occupation is not just about politics, its also about patrol and keeping the streets safe. That is where the current military tactics fail, and that is where we need it to change.

and yes thats about as tough as I'd like this to go. Its just a thought thread with some opinionated stuff thrown in.

[Redleg]

I only know what I've heard from my cousin and what I've read in the books my dad has. The genocide via airpower is usually how I do things in more recent modern rts games, constant strafe runs are my specialty.

Real life war is not the same thing. Airpower helps to defeat an enemy, but it rarely causes genocide on its own, unless of course your going to use nuclear weapons.

The war in Iraq I believe is the perfect example of a war of attrition. The US keeps putting more resources into while the terrorist groups are in a way forcing resources into their battle. We are keeping our guys over there and maintaining a long range war where as you said, we get nothing out of it. This is how it is a war of attrition. The American people's can only take so much during a war that most don't even know where it is located on the globe. It was the same thing in Vietnam, we killed a lot and lost few(compared to the amount we killed), its just that we lost the war back home with the populace and the same thing is going to happen in this war if something doesn't change.

War of attriton focus soley on destroying, now Vietnam was a combination of different strageties in the execution of that conflict, and a portion of that conflict was indeed a war of attrition. Guess what, in Iraq the forces also focus on rebuilding parts of the country. So your focusing on another issue and confusing it with a war of attrition. An unpopular war forces political reaction by the populace.

The general may have a handle on how to work the field but before he's allowed to do anything major he has to get permission from the ACG's here.

Guess what - that is how the system was designed from the very beginning. Politicans control the military via their election into the position of power. DIfferent presidents have made different mistakes in their duties as commander in chief. Now you claim arm chair generals without understanding how American Forces are committed to a conflict. For instance I read and hear a lot of blame directed at the President for getting into the conflict - and this is rightly so, but few people direct blame to the other part of the equation (an equal part in fact) the United States Congress. Have you ever written your congressman concerning the conflict..... Guess what I have several times to include pointing out the violation of the War Powers Act of 1973 that both the President and Congress is guilty of.

Also are you a vet from any war? If not you should say the same thing to yourself. The only knowledge I get about war comes from Documentaries, Interviews with family that have been over there, the masses of books I read about it, also the training I do with my brother in military tactics is about as in depth as I get with war.

LOL - guess what 15 years of service in the United States Army - Field Artillery, places I have been include Kuwait, Iraq, Saudia Arabia, and Korea. A brother who has served 20 years in the Army and is in Iraq on his third tour. As for training been there, done that, got many NTC's under my belt and spent my last three years training Division, Brigade, and Battalion Artillery staffs on how to train and fight. Then there is the reason I was in the three countries in the Middle-east, I will let you figure out which conflict. So in other words - Arm Chair General with real life exeperience. Now if you really want to test yourself - lets talk Korea pensulia conflicts and possiblities involved. The first test would to be how many Brigade or Larger avenue's of approach are in Korea that run North to South for a North Korean attack.

Also I'm not talking about the attack, I'm talking about the tactics in general. The Current occupation is not just about politics, its also about patrol and keeping the streets safe. That is where the current military tactics fail, and that is where we need it to change.

Tactics and stragety is indeed what I speak of. Patroling has been working under the leadership of General Petruis. Is it working well enough to be called successful, in some circles (mostly military) they want more to go on to further increase the possiblity of success. This would indicate that they believe they are seeing some postive results from their operations. The current situation in Iraq is one of Occupation, a military mission that requires constant patrolling and rebuilding of a nation that is being occupied. An occupation requires a significant amount of boots on the ground to insure the country can be pacified to a point that rebuilding can be accomplished. The adminstration and its appointed adminstrator in Iraq after the initial attack made a very crucial and very bad mistake in restoring peace to Iraq - they disbanded all of the internal Iraqi military and police forces. Not a smart move by the politicians. Ask some of the members on this board how Northern Ireland violence was reduced, if I remember correctly patrolling and interaction with the community had a lot to do with the efforts of the British in that regards. But then Northern Ireland is not a conflict I have studied all that much (and might be a reason why the United States Military has problems with occupation type duties.)

and yes thats about as tough as I'd like this to go. Its just a thought thread with some opinionated stuff thrown in.

Just testing - I normally respond in the arguement style that is presented.

[Pannonian]

Nex, what is this war about? How would you judge it to be a win? Feel free to be as specific or as vague as you like. Also, what is the highest level of command for the war?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Real life war is not the same thing. Airpower helps to defeat an enemy, but it rarely causes genocide on its own, unless of course your going to use nuclear weapons.

Don't take this the wrong way, but if you're efficient in your use of napalm...just saying...

[Veho Nex]

Napalm has been banned by the UN I believe, as... what was it... Inhumane.

I haven't read as much into this war as past wars, and for me warfare is not something it should be, a game. A simple matter of chess, and redleg considering you have been in combat please take no offense to that statement. I have heard of the horrors from as far back as Vietnam from uncles and family friends.

Now I want to point out here what attrition warfare is: (not the best website but good for a quick def.)

Attrition warfare is a military tactic in which a belligerent attempts to win a war by wearing down its enemy to the point of collapse through continuous losses in personnel and material. The war will usually be won by the side with greater such resources.[1] The Vietnam War is typically used as the primary example of a war of attrition: American strategy was to wear down the enemy until it lost its "will to fight."

Nex, what is this war about? How would you judge it to be a win? Feel free to be as specific or as vague as you like. Also, what is the highest level of command for the war?

This war about... Iraqi freedom, The war on terror, The war for black gold, I dont know. To me it's a stupid decision that wasn't thought through. How to win, thats something I can't help with, I don't know enough about our current military in Iraq. But If we were to go ahead and forget our pride for a bit just pull out and let other countries handle it for now. I don't know about east coast US but in Ca we have our own war going on with southern gangs moving in and northern gangs getting stronger.(This is just one small town and my neighborhood went from peaceful to a stabbing a week in only a couple months)

But a true answer to win this war we need to purge Iraq with a serious push of troops. Send more men over there and push through every section of every city confiscating weapons and hazardous material. Once a city is clean get a guard on it and allow it to build up its own police force to protect itself then move to the next city. It will take a while and might be deadly but it will end the war for sure. After we pull out each city will have it's own police and military forces for defense and we can leave knowing we have done something instead of sit outside the cities and go in occasionally on routine patrols.

As for you RedLeg, field arty huh? Sounds fun what was the biggest bang for you buck when it comes to arty.

[Pannonian]

This war about... Iraqi freedom, The war on terror, The war for black gold, I dont know. To me it's a stupid decision that wasn't thought through. How to win, thats something I can't help with, I don't know enough about our current military in Iraq. But If we were to go ahead and forget our pride for a bit just pull out and let other countries handle it for now. I don't know about east coast US but in Ca we have our own war going on with southern gangs moving in and northern gangs getting stronger.(This is just one small town and my neighborhood went from peaceful to a stabbing a week in only a couple months)

But a true answer to win this war we need to purge Iraq with a serious push of troops. Send more men over there and push through every section of every city confiscating weapons and hazardous material. Once a city is clean get a guard on it and allow it to build up its own police force to protect itself then move to the next city. It will take a while and might be deadly but it will end the war for sure. After we pull out each city will have it's own police and military forces for defense and we can leave knowing we have done something instead of sit outside the cities and go in occasionally on routine patrols.

Your're still describing processes instead of aims. What are you trying to achieve by doing the above? Go up another level or two.

For example, could you describe what the British were trying to do in Northern Ireland? Now apply the same level of analysis to Iraq,