BF2S Forums The Real Task Force 141- US Task Force 373

Beduin wrote:

what?

do not feed the troll.

Dilbert_X wrote:

At some point they'll realise assassinating individuals achieves nothing, and the collateral casualties counter-productive.

Doesn't really seem to be working either.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … _month.PNG

Makes for good TV though.

If you would apply half a brain cell to that, Dilbert, you'd realize the increase in coalition casualties coincides with the new ROE that limit the use of air strikes and other indirect fires in order to limit collateral damage/casualties.

pace51 wrote:

Exactly. Show the muslims why they should fear technology, and why they are the morrally wrong people. Not the "infidelic west"

No.

Technology doesn't equal Intelligence.   Intel - information, from technological sources (SIGINT/ELINT/etc) or from interpersonal interaction (HUMINT - human intelligence).

And, compounding that, you have to act on the right information, at the right time, with the right interpretation of that information, using the right assets on the ground, in the right manner.
Technology is just a part of that whole process, not the whole of it.

My original point was; "Only way to do it right is to combine frighteningly accurate intel, with overwhelming force."

Muslims, as a whole, are also not the enemy.
Radical Islam, that seeks the violent destruction of the Infidel world, and the establishment of an Islamic-only world (the proper name of this escapes me at the moment) THAT is the enemy that needs to be killed, neutralized, or convinced to change.
And, to be sure, a good portion of the Islamic world that isn't our enemy, isn't our friend either.

Lastly, you are never going to get a deeply religious people to "fear technology" in the manner you seem to be suggesting.
They will just shrug their shoulders, mutter "Insh-Allah" ('If Allah wills it, it will be so'), and continue doing whatever they're doing.
In essence, their attitude is 'We don't need technology - we have the almighty Allah on our side'

Beduin wrote:

sounds interesting, I just wanna hear more. Maybe I will learn a thing or two

Y'know, you could jump in here and explain the Muslim perspective a metric fucktonne better than I've done...

Dilbert_X wrote:

Oh of course, its the new ROE which are causing the Taliban to plant more IEDs and the civilians to turn a blind eye.

If you look at the chart you'll see a steady trend-line, with a spike which may or may not be related to the ROE.
Over the last 10 years the assassination policy seems to be sending things backwards instead of forwards - as it usually does.

You're not completely taking the Afghani culture into account there either.
One, there's the whole InshAllah factor. 
Two, it's Afghanistan - they've got a few thousand years of being the "Speedbump of Empires", and they know it. 
Three, they are not a change-favorable culture.  They're quite content with "things as they are", even if things sucks it's still traditional suck they can be proud of.
Four, you're never going to truly change the Pashtun culture.  Doesn't matter if we're there 1 year or 100 years - to their mind, that's a blink of an eye.

They're not dumb - they just can't be bothered to give a shit about anything the Western mind values, in any reasonable timeframe, with any reliable results.

FEOS wrote:

If you would apply half a brain cell to that, Dilbert, you'd realize the increase in coalition casualties coincides with the new ROE that limit the use of air strikes and other indirect fires in order to limit collateral damage/casualties.

If we use precision targeted strikes to take out exactly the targets we want - they'll call it Assassination.

If we use conventional forces, with the attendent imprecision of casualties - they'll cry foul about the civilian casualties.

(And don't forget the insurgents who dropped their AK-47 as they were dying, and forgot to wear their official I ♥ Osama t-shirt to identify them as enemy combatants.  Those count as civilian casualties too, of course...)

So, no matter what we do, we're wrong somehow.

Dilbert_X wrote:

So tinkering with the ROE, assassinating more people - what is the point really?

Tinkering with the ROE is supposed to balance the safety of our forces, the safety of civilians, and the elimination of hostiles.
No ROE has ever balanced all three of those to the satisfaction of all relevant parties.

Call it "precision strikes" or "Assassination", the terminology isn't the factor - the underlying meaning is. 
The goal is to take out known hostile targets, without harming non-combatants.

We are trying to be a little more even-handed than the Russians were when they invaded Afghanistan.
Russian tactics: If a village is suspected of harboring insurgents, level the whole village with bombers and artillery.
Allied tactics: Take out the insurgents, especially the leaders - leave the villagers out of it, if at all possible.
Again, it's the whole COIN theory, or "hearts & minds 2.0"

Taking out civilians, making the population fear you -- that's the other side's tactic.
y'know, the tactic that started this whole mess way back on September 11th, when they rammed civilian jets into civilian targets, on purpose, with intent to strike terror into the civilians.

Spin it however you like.
If 9/11 hadn't happened, GWB wouldn't have spontaneously decided to invade Iraq and Afghanistan.

rdx-fx wrote:

FEOS wrote:

If you would apply half a brain cell to that, Dilbert, you'd realize the increase in coalition casualties coincides with the new ROE that limit the use of air strikes and other indirect fires in order to limit collateral damage/casualties.

If we use precision targeted strikes to take out exactly the targets we want - they'll call it Assassination.

Killing people who may, or may not, be involved in hostilities against you when they are well away from the actual battlefield and impossible to positively identify is pretty dubious, I'm comfortable calling it assassination.

If 9/11 hadn't happened, GWB wouldn't have spontaneously decided to invade Iraq and Afghanistan.

We know Iraq wasn't related to 9/11 or WMD, he'd have found some other excuse.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-07-28 00:01:59)

I'm looking at the trend over the last 10 years, not the last few months.

ORLY? I thought it was about a year ago.

Still, if you're right - which would be novel - five years on the graph is still exponential, not a simple step change and constant due to the changed ROE or a decline if the strategy really were productive in the short or medium term.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-07-29 20:28:22)

-Sh1fty- wrote:

FEOS, what is this deal about more coalition troops dying in direct confrontations with the enemy (small arms fire) I thought most of the coalition forces steamrolled through the Taliban once they started using small arms instead of snipers/IEDs.

When the coalition can't bring in the major advantage we have (airpower/arty), our casualty numbers go up. It's still not even close to a 1:1 ratio by any means, but still. So our casualty numbers can still go up even if we "steamroll through" them.

And Dilly, you know there's nothing at all novel about me being right. You're just being petty.