Quote Originally Posted by Hooahguy View Post
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?