Quote Originally Posted by Veho Nex View Post
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.