Do you support the war in Iraq?

[butch50]

Handy; Nnobby45; mantis7; MeekAndMild; JohnKSa;

When planning battles, the Generals first decide what it is that they want to accomplish, what's the mission. Then they evaluate the means and methods for completing the mission, or the battle plan. They evaluate the different methods of attack and estimate the casualties for that method. Then when they have decided on the method that acheives the mission with the least amount of damage to our side, they decide again if the mission is worth that many lives. They don't just emotionally point at a hill and tell the troops - take that hill whatever it takes.

I want to believe that when we plan wars, we do the same thing on a larger scale - first we decide what is the point of this war, what is it we want to accomplish. Then we evaluate the means and methods of the war, and estimate the losses to our side (both sides actually). If the losses are acceptable for the war we proceed. That is such a basic planning tool that I would be extremely surprised if we don't do it. Publishing that information would be giving away too much information, therefore I hope we never see it.

If our President and Generals don't do this level of planning, then they should be fired immediately. So while you may say this isn't the way to determine when a war should be fought or abandoned, I say it is a very valid evaluation tool. Not the only one, but a basic and necessary one that we better be using. As citizens we should not be blindly following our president around like adoring little puppies believing that whatever falls out of his butt is manna from heaven, we should be evaluating and thinking on our own.

So I will ask each of you named above. What objective criteria will you use to determine when enough is enough and we should call it a loss and withdraw from Iraq.

 

[Nnobby45]

What objective criteria will you use to determine when enough is enough and we should call it a loss and withdraw from Iraq.

The objective criteria I would use defines winning, not losing, my friend. Or at the very least, giving the Iraqi Govt. a fighting chance to succeed and keep their country. The way you phrase the question would suggest an eagerness to cut and run--just like we always, in a manner that sewed the seeds of hatred and disrespect and contempt for weakness.

As I pointed out, some of us may not have picked that hill to die on, but that's where we're fighting for our lives now. It has to be somewhere, so why not. They're pouring in Jihadists from all over the world, so let's kill them.

We've lost when we decide that we no longer have the means and the will to resist radical Muslim fundamentalism and are willing to surrender our country to those who have dedicated their lives on earth to destroying all those who disagree with them in the smallest way. Or, when we cut-n-run, to make it simple.

We're dealing with people who firmly believe they can defeat the Western world--just like they've always dreamed. None Muslims have no right to breath their air.

 

[gc70]

What objective criteria will you use to determine when enough is enough and we should call it a loss and withdraw from Iraq.

This is a red herring.

I gave butch50 an answer to his question - both a number and a reason. And he ignored my answer.

butch50 doesn't want an answer to his so-called question. He only wants a forum to spout his views, as though repetition makes them stronger or more reasonable.

Since this is in no way a discussion, I'm outta' here.

 

[Handy]

Butch,

I invite you, for the third time, to enlighten the rest of us on how those objective criteria are arrived at. You seem to know, so stop keeping secrets.

 

[butch50]

The objective criteria I would use defines winning, not losing, my friend

OK, so if we are winning, please define how you know we are winning. I don't know if we are winning, losing or standing still over there. And is there no time when you will re-evaluate?

I gave butch50 an answer to his question - both a number and a reason. And he ignored my answer.

I did not ignore it, I accepted it. I thought it was a valid answer in that you have assigned an objective means of determing, for your self, when it is time to re-evaluate. Hence I did not challenge you to respond to the question, because you already did.

I invite you, for the third time, to enlighten the rest of us on how those objective criteria are arrived at. You seem to know, so stop keeping secrets.

Handy, ducking and doding again. Re-read my posts, I have kept no secrets, and have given you answers. You, on the other hand, duck and dodge and weave and bob and evade.

 

[Handy]

Sure. Anyway, could you restate them, please?

Pick a war we have won, and tell us how many more deaths that win was worth. Then explain the answer.


Quite honestly, I've missed that explanation from you, so it would be appreciated if you would restate it. Thank you. Do it for John and Nnobby.

 

[jcoiii]

A group has defined themselves as our enemy stating that they desire to kill all of us. That's ALL, not some, not a few, not 1.5 million. ALL. That's the real number that matters. You don't negotiate with that. You go find those people and kill them, before they kill you. You remove anything that would make it easier for them to kill you. You do it before they gain the ability to affect their plans. It's called being proactive instead of reactive. It's hard to do because if you do it effectively, people say there is no need for it. If you don't do it, people say why didn't you do it. Gee that doesn't sound familiar does it? *cough911commissioncough*

 

[butch50]

Sure. Anyway, could you restate them, please? Pick a war we have won, and tell us how many more deaths that win was worth. Then explain the answer. Quite honestly, I've missed that explanation from you, so it would be appreciated if you would restate it. Thank you. Do it for John and Nnobby.

More Ducking and Dodging. Answer a question with a question, your favorite tactic.

 

[Handy]

Sir,

I'm one of several people that think you're off base, for the same reasons: None of us think there is an objective number for what you're asking. You say there is, so I'm asking.


Trying to make this personal isn't going to help you're position. I don't really have to defend my position - several other people are also doing it.


So please answer the question that you, yourself, posed.

 

[butch50]

Handy, I am happy that you speak for so many! but that has exactly what meaning? That if three or four people on this forum disagree with me that I am therefore wrong? Please, use some logic. I have asked you many specific questions that you have evaded. Your debate "style" is to evade questions - re-read this thread from top to bottom and you can see it for yourself.

I debate to learn, but from you I am not learning anything, from me you are not learning anything either, at least on this topic - maybe some day on some other topic we can do better, maybe not. Frankly the discussion between you and I has gone no where for too long.

Oil and water perhaps?

 

[Handy]

Okay, that's your final answer then. Thanks.

 

[butch50]

Okay, that's your final answer then. Thanks.

 

[Handy]

You know, I answered already, like you claim to, but I'm going to answer again, for the record.

As many as it takes, and that number will be limited by the equipment, tactics and methods we currently employ. I am not afraid of the number going into the tens of thousands, and the current death rates are acceptable, if tragic. Whatever those rates add up to over the life of the conflict is acceptable.


Summed up.

 

[JohnKSa]

When planning battles, the Generals first decide what it is that they want to accomplish, what's the mission. Then they evaluate the means and methods for completing the mission, or the battle plan. They evaluate the different methods of attack and estimate the casualties for that method. Then when they have decided on the method that acheives the mission with the least amount of damage to our side, they decide again if the mission is worth that many lives. They don't just emotionally point at a hill and tell the troops - take that hill whatever it takes.

NO, absolutely NOT. If you believe this is true then you should have no trouble finding an official document describing acceptable loss of life for a particular military objective, or a military planner/officer who will tell you how much an objective is worth in terms of dead soldiers. I welcome you to try. That is NOT the way military actions are planned and the very idea is abhorrent.

It is the goal and duty of a military planner or officer to MINIMIZE losses and casualties during the achievement of objectives, but there is no one out there setting a "loss of life vs achieved objective" limit nor should there be.

Life is not overtly traded for military objectives, the loss of life is a consequence of the necessity of achieving military objectives. While planners and officers are aware of the likely consequences of a particular military action, they are not trying to gauge the value of life versus the value of the objective. They are determining if the achievement of that objective will weaken their military force to an unacceptable level. You may think this is splitting hairs, but it's not.

It is those who wish to manipulate public opinion that try to spread the idea that war is a market where the money is human life and the wares are clearly marked with prices. That is a nice emotional concept but it has no place in reality.

 

[Nnobby45]

Butch50

OK, so if we are winning, please define how you know we are winning. I don't know if we are winning, losing or standing still over there.

You're being intentionally argumentative. You have your mind made up and no answer would satisfy you. Anyone past the age of puberty can figure out two things.

1- We're winning when the Government is strong enough to prevail over the terrorists. That will be characterizes by few terrorist attacks and people will lead some semblance of normal lives, taking into consideration the region of the world and their past history, which never was free of conflict with one another. It was free of all out terrorist attacks against soldiers and citizens alike, designed to spread terror throughout the whole country. Even Saadam had some discrimination in who he murdered.

2-Lastly, the enemy is throwing everything they have into this fight, supported by countries like Syria and Iran. It's a little too early to determine the outcome--we're still in the middle of the fight.

 

[butch50]

NO, absolutely NOT. If you believe this is true then you should have no trouble finding an official document describing acceptable loss of life for a particular military objective, or a military planner/officer who will tell you how much an objective is worth in terms of dead soldiers. I welcome you to try. That is NOT the way military actions are planned and the very idea is abhorrent.

It seems intuitively obvious to me to assess risk and evaluate the gain for that risk. This applies to everything from ordering lunch (checking the menu price) to deciding whether an invasion of a foreign country is worth the cost. Soldiers are a finite resource, and I just can not imagine that any responsible General would enter into a battle without a plan and a casualty estimate, and having decided that the estimated casualties are a reasonable cost for the gain. Checking the internet I find the following that is relevant:

"If we win one more such victory over the Romans, we shall be ruined," Pyrrhus

There's a quote that I don't believe needs an explanation.

Pentagon's quietest calculation: the casualty count. January 2003.

By Brad Knickerbocker | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

Somewhere in the bowels of the Pentagon, war planners are searching for answers to the ultimate questions about armed conflict with Iraq: Will it be worth it? Even assuming Saddam Hussein is toppled, will the likely loss of US servicemen and women be "acceptable"?

Not surprisingly, officials today are closemouthed about the subject.

"The Pentagon rarely will discuss or even admit to doing casualty estimates," says Robert Pape, a political scientist at the University of Chicago specializing in international security affairs. "That's because serious assessments would necessarily consider a high and low range, which would tend to discourage public support for the war."

But there's little doubt that such estimates are being developed, according to those who have been part of such planning, particularly since this war - if it happens - is seen by many as finishing the job begun 12 years ago.

"In this situation - going deep into Iraq, planning to stay a long time, perhaps even fighting inside Baghdad - casualty estimates have been at the heart of the planning," says a retired military officer who played a key Pentagon role in preparation for the Gulf War. "I'd expect that they've chosen a timeline and attack plan specifically shaped by these kinds of risk assessments."

McNair Paper 62 Full dimensional protection gains its operational expression through two key enablers: the use of information superiority to rapidly exchange information concerning the current threat to U.S. and allied forces, including the ability to protect our own information systems, and the ability to provide effective and timely force protection measures, active, passive, and preemptive, when required. The measures of effectiveness that will determine how well full dimensional protection is being executed are simple: the force deploys, fights, and redeploys with minimum U.S. and allied casualties. This is a qualitative measurement. The number of casualties that will be acceptable will of course be scaled against the nature of the threat and whether or not vital interests are at stake. Two extreme cases from history would be the invasion of Normandy in 1944, and the invasion of Grenada in 1983. Normandy involved the survival of the nation; Grenada did not. The relative price the United States was willing to pay was significantly different in each of these two scenarios.

http://www.5ad.org/hurtgen_joe.htm

Too long to copy here, but I recommend that you read this review of the battle of Hurtgen Forest - it exemplifies that the Generals, and the American People should have objective criteria for recognizing when a plan is failing or has failed and that we need to re-assess, regroup and change.

Bottom line, in my opinion, is that each one of us needs to have an objective, qualitative, "set-point" of some kind that when reached, we call the mission and/or the leadership into question. Having a "whatever it takes" attitude does not bode well for our soldiers, or our success.

 

[butch50]

You're being intentionally argumentative. You have your mind made up and no answer would satisfy you. Anyone past the age of puberty can figure out two things.

1- We're winning when the Government is strong enough to prevail over the terrorists.

I am being intentionally debative, I admit. My opinion has been and continues to be that Bush Sr. made a catastrophic mistake by sending American troops into the middle east in Desert Storm and that we are now engaged in a further mistake in Iraq. I do continue to debate this war with anyone intelligent that I can find in hopes of either learning something to change my mind, or conversely to change other minds. Such is the nature of debate don't you think?

As to whether or not we are winning, I am not being obtuse when I ask you if we are and how can you tell. Our original objectives for invading Iraq disappeared. We replaced those objectives with the idea of social engineering a democracy and we were also going to rebuild the infra-structure of Iraq, and reinstate their oil producing/shipping/selling capacity. To date Iraq has not written a Constitution, we have not rebuilt as much of their infrastructure as anticipated and the oil flowing out of the pipeline is minimal as well. We are also continuing to lose our Soldiers at a rate that is higher than it was during the intial conventional combat. Call that winning if you want to, but I am not convinced that we are winning. I am not convinced that we are holding even either.

 

[Handy]

A risk assessment is different than a "When we hit 5000, we go home" limit that you propose.

Risk assessment and risk management are tools we in the military use to make determinations HOW something should be done. Not "if".

 

[OneInchGroup]

Support the War in "Pick One"?

Handy,

Agree. Agree.

Probably need to also point out that Military Decisions are "When", "How", "Where", "With what Resources" and such, while the decisoins like "If", "Why" , "Why Not", "For Whose Benefit", "Against What Opposing Force" and such are Political decisions, having little or nothing to do with tactics.

 

[butch50]

A risk assessment is different than a "When we hit 5000, we go home" limit that you propose.

Handy you are such a card! !

There is a very Handy (pun intended) feature on this forum - it's called cut and paste. Do me a huge favor and locate where I wrote what you said I wrote, and cut and paste it into your response with the thread response number so that I can review it and respond. I am having the devil's own time with remembering that statement and need your help in recovering that memory.

Or don't misquote me, your choice