Foxnews reports that American forces are now heavily engaged in the city of Fallujah. Cobra gunships have been called in to provide support for the marines. So much for peace in Iraq. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,118114,00.html

A BBC story alleges that local authorities are accusing the American forces of commiting atrocities by using CBU's or cluster muntions in the city. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3659979.stm

Even if the US wins military at Fallujah the question is this will Najaf and Karbala explode and plunge Iraq into utter chaos or does the buck stop at Fallujah?


There is uncomfortable reality associated with occupying Iraq: we have to kill people. Whether they be guerilla fighters or innocent people caught in the crossfire; if we stay we must kill people.

Of course their is another uncomfortable fact. In order to be secure we must trample the liberty of Iraqis; we set up armed roadblocks on their highways and create massive congestion; the guerillas are smart enough to bypass our desperate measures. We come crashing into their homes at odd hours on the latest piece of "hot intel".

The question is this: would anyone here be willing to send their a loved one to die in Iraq to hold the country? Does anyone think that holding onto this place is worth taking another human life?

Can anyone honestly tell me that this war is worth killing and hurting other human beings or worth losing a loved one?

I feel terrible about all these people being maimed killed; is this what we really want to do as a nation?

We're all going to die some day. Either you make a difference in someones life or you don't. Your choice. Just don't try to make your choice mine.

Nightly Reader

Well said, Nightly Reader.

Terry

>We're all going to die some day. Either you make a difference
>in someones life or you don't. Your choice. Just don't try to
>make your choice mine.


It's good to see the question partially answered. But I want a complete answer what are we gaining by staying in Iraq that justifies taking more human life and maiming more people?

Personally speaking I understand my own mortality and realize that I'm 'on the clock'. But facing up to mortality does not justify taking someone else's life.

Accomplishing our goals in Iraq will require sacrificing "other" peoples lives without their permission. So the question is: what is our this lofty goal that justifies spilling more and more blood in Iraq?

Let it be known I thought it was wrong for the Iraqis to mutilate the American dead and its even worse that we act on our emotions when reacting to guerillas. Yes I'm against killing in general and believe that our having our forces means more killing but by reacting emotionally we are letting Sadr "jerk our chain". Although war and killing are bad if we do fight a war we should play to win by reacting emotionally to the murder and mutiliation of those four mercs we only play into Sadr's hands.

I think Pakistani President Mussharf said it best when he was explaining his decision to help the US in the war on terror. He related the parable of Mohammed.

For six years Mohammed and the Jews fought the infidels in Mecca.
Then the Jews turned against Mohammed and he had to make an alliance
with the infidels against the Jews.
On the treaty only Mohammed's name appeared.
Mohammed's assitant was angered and said "Are you not Mohammed the sun of God."
"Yes, but its more important to use reason than emotion." Mohammed answered and promptly signed the treaty
The next day Mohammed won a great battle and took Mecca.

If we use our emotions and not reason to decide whether or not this war is wrong or right our judgement is suspect.
Personally speaking I don't think that anyone has advanced a reason for staying that justifies the bloodshed.
"Freedom ain't free." So how does killing people in Iraq make us any more free?

Very simply put, El Paz, the US has no choice but to "stay the course", as GWB put it in his last speech to the Nation.

Whether the Iraq war was right or wrong does not matter now. It has happened and a US pull out would mean the Country falls to the fanatical terrorists, with grave consequences to the Middle East and the World.

Personally I think you should be prepared to have troops there for many more years. No Government, installed by the US Government, will be acceptable by all the warring factions.

Your Country meant well but never fully weighed the consequences of a war.

Guns don't kill people. Husbands who come home early kill people.

>Very simply put, El Paz, the US has no choice but to "stay
>the course", as GWB put it in his last speech to the Nation.
>
> Whether the Iraq war was right or wrong does not matter
>now. It has happened and a US pull out would mean the Country
>falls to the fanatical terrorists, with grave consequences to
>the Middle East and the World.
>
>Personally I think you should be prepared to have troops
>there for many more years. No Government, installed by the US
>Government, will be acceptable by all the warring factions.
>
>Your Country meant well but never fully weighed the
>consequences of a war.
>
>
>
>

If we stick out things will stabilize? Let's see, we are fighting to retake Fallujah. Najaf and Karballa have now become powders kegs that will explode in our faces. The Sunni and Shia now have a common enemy: us.

We are now engaged in classc urban warfare. Even if they guerillas lose they can at least brag that they held down heavily armed American forces for over 2 weeks at Fallujah.

Our forces are heavily mechanized and require vast amount of fuel and support to continue operations in the field. Just maintaining a high tempo of operations for several months will be costly in terms of both parts and fuel. (Something that the planners of Blitzkrieg did not anticipate).

Aside from possible battle damage wear and tear on our aviation assets is going to be costly in terms of fuel and parts.

The Guerillas on the other hand use light vehicles and have some RPGs; the cost for them to continue their operations against us is minimal.

We are in a war of attrition and our operating costs are much higher than theirs. Our forces are uniquely suited to confronting standard infantry or mechanized forces. Guerilla warfare is not our forte.

With our current tactics and troop strength we only delay the inevitable.

If the guerillas in Iraq maintain their current tempo of operations they can win by virtue of wear and tear on our equipment and enormous fuel expenditures on the part of US forces.

Putting wear and tear on our forces in Iraq also compromises our readiness for other situations; their is a huge strategic and economic opportunity cost for staying in Iraq.

You're right, we should pull out and nuke the whole Mid-East into a nice sheet of glass.

I had not realized you were an expert on warfare and geopolitics. Surely you must have been very highly placed in the Pentagon or State Department! I feel humbled by your presence here.

Shelly

Your knowledge of military matériel and logistics is impressively ignorant.
"Classic urban warfare" hasn't started yet, and when the "guerillas" lose they won't be bragging to anyone, as they will be dead.

Your so-called "high tempo of operations" has always been anticipated, there are warehouses full of spares in Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar and Diego Garcia. Spot shortages will always occur, but no one can move stuff around the world faster than the US Military.

The cost to the "guerillas" will be a bit more than minimal, read my second sentence.
This is not a war of attrition, and while our costs are certainly higher, our resources are also just a bit more extensive.
While your idea of what guerilla warfare consists of is unknown to me, your belief that it is not our strong point may have been true 30 years ago, but certainly isn't true now. Ask anyone who lives near the Uwharrie National Forest in North Carolina. Just because you don't see it on the evening news doesn't mean things aren't happening away from the front lines. Not all units have embedded reporters.

Your use of the term opportunity cost shows you have some background in economics, but you apparently know nothing about strategy, economics is a small part of the story in what is going on now in Iraq. Contrast your opportunity cost loss with us staying in Iraq, and the loss involved with us leaving the country at the hands of thugs, religious or otherwise.

Perhaps you could apply for a job in the Pentagon's office in charge of making tactical and strategic decisions based on 20-20 hindsight.
I think HAL 9000 can get you a job application, he works there.

>Your knowledge of military matériel and logistics is
>impressively ignorant.
>"Classic urban warfare" hasn't started yet, and when
>the "guerillas" lose they won't be bragging to anyone, as they
>will be dead.
>
>Your so-called "high tempo of operations" has always been
>anticipated, there are warehouses full of spares in Iraq,
>Kuwait, Qatar and Diego Garcia. Spot shortages will always
>occur, but no one can move stuff around the world faster than
>the US Military.
>
>The cost to the "guerillas" will be a bit more than minimal,
>read my second sentence.
>This is not a war of attrition, and while our costs are
>certainly higher, our resources are also just a bit more
>extensive.
>While your idea of what guerilla warfare consists of is
>unknown to me, your belief that it is not our strong point may
>have been true 30 years ago, but certainly isn't true now. Ask
>anyone who lives near the Uwharrie National Forest in North
>Carolina. Just because you don't see it on the evening news
>doesn't mean things aren't happening away from the front
>lines. Not all units have embedded reporters.
>
>Your use of the term opportunity cost shows you have some
>background in economics, but you apparently know nothing about
>strategy, economics is a small part of the story in what is
>going on now in Iraq. Contrast your opportunity cost loss
>with us staying in Iraq, and the loss involved with us leaving
>the country at the hands of thugs, religious or otherwise.
>
>Perhaps you could apply for a job in the Pentagon's office in
>charge of making tactical and strategic decisions based on
>20-20 hindsight.
> I think HAL 9000 can get you a job application, he works
>there.



Although you are entitled to your point of view I think its flawed because its based on two simplistic ideas:

1. I am wrong for doubting our ability to win the war.
2. The experts are right

Unfortunately for some experts have concluded that the war has become an expensive and wasteful boondoogle. Here is a report that was on the Army War College Strategic Studies Institute website:
This report was written by Professor Jeffrey Record from the Air Force War College detailing how the war on Iraq is tying up US resources that could be used to fight the War on Terror and how the war could antagonize arab states:

Here's a report: http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pubs/2003/bounding/bounding.pdf

Not only that but the author contends that the US Army is stretched to the breaking point and there are very few brigades available if the US needed to deploy forces.

It less expensive for them to fight us than it is for us to fight them? How much does an M1 tank cost? According to Business Week http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_15/b3828611.htm , the cost is approximately $4 million dollars. Since the M1's fuel milage can be measured in gallons per mile and wears out parts the expense in parts and fuel alone must be enormous. Also it costs fuel and vehicle wear and tear to transport parts from Kuwait to Iraq. The wear and tear is accelerated by the guerilla attacks on our convoys.

In 2001 it cost the 2nd infantry in Korea approximately $210,000 to buy an new engine or $60,000 to rebuild an existing Abrams engine after a MTBF of 875 hours. That's just one system on that tank. With much higher commodity and fuel prices in 2004 the costs would probably be significantly higher. Also the need for armed supply convoys and "leakage" during convoy operations also increases costs:

M1 Engine Replacement Cost http://www.almc.army.mil/alog/issues/SepOct02/MS803.htm

Also since the 2nd ID is not in a combat enviroment the unit probably has more time to repair engines. In Iraq maintinence units are probably much busier due to the operational environment so they may not have the option of repairing engines and may have to resort to procuring new ones.

An M1 tanks uses an exorbantant amount of fuel:approximately 300 gallons every 8 hours. This is ALOT of fuel and its very dangerous to move supplies into Iraq from Kuwait.

M1 Fuel Costs
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m1-specs.htm

Now when you begin factoring in things like the suspension; the expensive computers maintinence on the M1 can add up to ALOT of money.

Now how much does an RPG cost? According to the an article by a British newspaper the Mirror it was possible to purchase two RPG shoulder lanuchers for approximately $250 US dollars:



The RPG rockets themselves are available from $11.00 to $17.00 US dollars each.

Between what it costs them to buy RPG's and what it costs us to keep the M1 going its obvious that we can't sustain this war.

Unfortunately spare parts are only part of the picture: aircraft frames are rated for finite hourly lifespan. A helicopter airframe will only provide X thousand hours of use; afterwords it must be rebuilt. Unfortunately at least with the Navy there were enough new helicopters to replace helicopters which hit 10,000 hours of useHere is the report if you want to see it:

Helicopter Service Life Report http://www.galaxyscientific.com/agingaircraft2002/SESSIONS/5/5B2_MORRIS_PPT.PDF

The bottom line is this: it will cost us far more to stay in Iraq that will cost them: the guerillas aren't going anywhere anyway.

Nobody claims that peace is cheap and easy.

Nightly Reader

Look at Afghanistan, Vietnam and Algeria. In each of these instances a larger military was worn down by a technically less sophisticated foe. Each of these conflicts also devastated the morale of the militaries involved. Any army that engages in protracted guerilla conflict always ends up suffering in terms of NCO or equipment losses.

Actually, why don't you look at them. In all three cases, you are wrong.

Each of them had a source to provide them with arms, logistical support, etc. None of them were tremendously technically inferior to their opponent in terms of war-fighting equipment or their logistical system.

None of that is true in Iraq.

You are over your head. Admit it. You want to run away, now is the time.

>Actually, why don't you look at them. In all three cases, you
>are wrong.
>
>Each of them had a source to provide them with arms,
>logistical support, etc. None of them were tremendously
>technically inferior to their opponent in terms of
>war-fighting equipment or their logistical system.
>
>None of that is true in Iraq.
>
>You are over your head. Admit it. You want to run away, now
>is the time.



Yep all those people at Army and Air Force war colleges aren't experts because you say so? When was the last time you published a professional paper on anything?

Your explanation about great powers losing various wars is weak; you've presented no evidence to substantiate your claim. Arms in Iraq are cheap and plentiful how do you know this situation will change?

And when was the last time YOU published a professional paper on anything?

Shelly

Personally speaking I think this country would be a better place if we spent more time worrying about the economic problems instead of the "hot button" problems like war or terrorism.

The Middle East is an unstable place and if we put half of the resources dedicated to fighting this war into fusion energy and oil shale research we wouldn't have to worry about the Midde East ever again. Natural gas supplies are a problem in this country already and if we make the investments in new forms of energy not only can we marginalize the Middle East but we could greatly enhance our own standard of living and our security as a nation.

It's not free but developing new forms of energy could provide immense political and security. Fighting for the oil is a losing proposition; the Saudi fields have been in production for over 30 years and won't last forever.

Terrorism is a problem but our reliance on the Middle east for energy resources is much more dangerous than terrorism. The chaos and calamity created by blowing up a few buildings in Washington or New York would is practically insignificant compared to possibility of a severe disruption in the US energy supply.

Oil is power and the only way we can win this war is developing new forms of energy; regardless of the cost. Holding the Middle East is a loser's game because sooner or later oil production will peak and decline.

You have no idea of what the problem is, do you?

You want to find the expert opinions on counter-terrorism? You find them at a place called Special Operations Command, located in Florida, and at a place called the Special Warfare Center at FT Bragg, North Carolina.

As for me publishing professionally, I've published quite a bit, some of it recently. But unless you are a member of one of the above organizations, you are not entitled to read it.

As for Arms and their availiblity, Arms are not the only requirements to wage war.

>You want to find the expert opinions on counter-terrorism?
>You find them at a place called Special Operations Command,
>located in Florida, and at a place called the Special Warfare
>Center at FT Bragg, North Carolina.
>
>As for me publishing professionally, I've published quite a
>bit, some of it recently. But unless you are a member of one
>of the above organizations, you are not entitled to read it.
>
>As for Arms and their availiblity, Arms are not the only
>requirements to wage war.


Al, I am curious about something. No offense towards you or anyone else, just wanting to satisfy my curiousity. What qualifies someone as an expert in terrorism? Then the obvious question I must also ask is where the heck were they a few years ago? I can see an historian's expert on terrorism, sociological expert on terrorism, and a military expert on terrorism. But an expert on how terrorist are going to act or what they are going to do, I don't see one existing.

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."

Most of the experts that I know of on Terrorism are currently working for the Intelligence Agencies or the Military (not just US) and some of them are psychologists, many are military strategists, some are historians. General Schoomaker, Army Chief of Staff, qualifies. Some work for law enforcement organizations such as the FBI and Scotland Yard. I expect a few are working in think tanks. One who is not working for a government agency (as far as I know) is Peter Harclerode. What makes someone an expert on terroism? The same things as what make someone an expert with most subjects.. extended study and experience.


Where were they a few years ago? Doing the same things they are doing today. Just fewer people bothered to listen to them.

>You want to find the expert opinions on counter-terrorism?
>You find them at a place called Special Operations Command,
>located in Florida, and at a place called the Special Warfare
>Center at FT Bragg, North Carolina.
>
>As for me publishing professionally, I've published quite a
>bit, some of it recently. But unless you are a member of one
>of the above organizations, you are not entitled to read it.
>
>As for Arms and their availiblity, Arms are not the only
>requirements to wage war.


You can't do much better than Army or Air Force War College (those people train our officiers to fight wars) in my book that makes them the authority on strategic and tactical operations. However RAND is pretty respectable too.

Unfortunately you've presented no operational or tactical knowledge that substantiates your claim that you are some sort of "expert on war". You've presented no detailed information about operations, tactics or logistics.

How do you take a building? How do secure a road? Those are very simple questions for an infantry , mp or SF commander. You've demonstrated zero practical knowledge of warfare. I'm not an expert on war myself but I know military people who are tactically proficient and they provide the most remarkable and detailed answers for securing and holding an area. Ask them how would you take a take road or secure a housing complex and you'll be amazed at their answers.

I'll make the question easy for you. How would you secure your neighborhood?

Besides if you're so knowledgable about counter insurgency operations you should know that we are losing the war and have ZERO local support. All the Iraqi forces we've trained have gone "ARVN" on us and are not considered reliable. Please don't insult my intelligence and tell me how we've created an effective and useful Iraqi ground army.

I don't consider myself a war master but compared to you I've demonstrated a much more thorough understanding of tactical and theater level dynamics.

>I'll make the question easy for you. How would you secure
>your neighborhood?
>
>Besides if you're so knowledgable about counter insurgency
>operations you should know that we are losing the war and have
>ZERO local support. All the Iraqi forces we've trained have
>gone "ARVN" on us and are not considered reliable. Please
>don't insult my intelligence and tell me how we've created an
>effective and useful Iraqi ground army.
>
>I don't consider myself a war master but compared to you I've
>demonstrated a much more thorough understanding of tactical
>and theater level dynamics.


You are pretty amusing. And pretty foolish.

Secure my neighborhood?

M240s at the corners of the quad. Interlocking fields of fire across all avenues of approach and the klong. Claymores on all open avenues of approach. Javelin teams on the inner corners of the quad covering the East and North (only avenues where armor can approach). Riflemen in selected positions between. Grenadiers interspaced to cover West and South (which have depressions that are useful to Infantry). Roving patrols to East and West from the North entrance and ambush patrols on the hardball. Snipers at selected points in the quad covering all directions. Reaction force and medical treatment facility at the entry to the quad. Mechanical ambushes in the housing complex to the East, and selected contact OPs in the same. AT and AP mines scattered to North and East to deny uncontested approaches to armor or Engineers. Fougasse in the klong. Concertina along edge of klong and wall to East. .50 HMGs in South corners of quad with fields of fire to North East and North West. Mortars positioned in the swimming pool, with pre-registered fires on far banks of all klongs, on North entrance and on far side of East wall.

Detailed enough for you?

You haven't demonstrated anything except that you have no idea what you are talking about. A quick example. "gone 'ARVN'" - Look up the Easter Offensive and tell me who it was that stopped the North Vietnamese Army.

Myths might make you feel better, they aren't the truth. And you still don't seem to have recognized that the Army War College does not agree with the article you posted.

As for "Zero" support? Go over and look. If we had zero support, the entire country would resemble Fallujah. But it doesn't, not even close.

I am under the impression that in December, 1944, you would have said that the war was lost and insisted we get out of Belgium.

>
>>I'll make the question easy for you. How would you secure
>>your neighborhood?
>>
>>Besides if you're so knowledgable about counter insurgency
>>operations you should know that we are losing the war and
>have
>>ZERO local support. All the Iraqi forces we've trained
>have
>>gone "ARVN" on us and are not considered reliable. Please
>>don't insult my intelligence and tell me how we've created
>an
>>effective and useful Iraqi ground army.
>>
>>I don't consider myself a war master but compared to you
>I've
>>demonstrated a much more thorough understanding of
>tactical
>>and theater level dynamics.
>
>
>You are pretty amusing. And pretty foolish.
>
>Secure my neighborhood?
>
>M240s at the corners of the quad. Interlocking fields of fire
>across all avenues of approach and the klong. Claymores on all
>open avenues of approach. Javelin teams on the inner corners
>of the quad covering the East and North (only avenues where
>armor can approach). Riflemen in selected positions between.
>Grenadiers interspaced to cover West and South (which have
>depressions that are useful to Infantry). Roving patrols to
>East and West from the North entrance and ambush patrols on
>the hardball. Snipers at selected points in the quad covering
>all directions. Reaction force and medical treatment facility
>at the entry to the quad. Mechanical ambushes in the housing
>complex to the East, and selected contact OPs in the same. AT
>and AP mines scattered to North and East to deny uncontested
>approaches to armor or Engineers. Fougasse in the klong.
>Concertina along edge of klong and wall to East. .50 HMGs in
>South corners of quad with fields of fire to North East and
>North West. Mortars positioned in the swimming pool, with
>pre-registered fires on far banks of all klongs, on North
>entrance and on far side of East wall.
>
>Detailed enough for you?
>
>You haven't demonstrated anything except that you have no
>idea what you are talking about. A quick example. "gone
>'ARVN'" - Look up the Easter Offensive and tell me who it was
>that stopped the North Vietnamese Army.
>
>Myths might make you feel better, they aren't the truth. And
>you still don't seem to have recognized that the Army War
>College does not agree with the article you posted.
>
>As for "Zero" support? Go over and look. If we had zero
>support, the entire country would resemble Fallujah. But it
>doesn't, not even close.
>
>I am under the impression that in December, 1944, you would
>have said that the war was lost and insisted we get out of
>Belgium.




That's an interesting response; I noticed a lack of anti tank weapons (aside from the mines) but I never specified the enemy so the answer sounds alright to me.
I was just hopping to hear what avenues of approach were available into your neighborhood and how you would cover them. That's the most interesting aspect of discussing tactical operations with experts; the terrain and avenues of approach. Talking to tactical experts can be a real treat.

The term "going ARVN" was coined by the marines at Fallujah to describe the performance of the newly retrained Iraqi battalion ; yeah it was pretty bad.

Regarding what I'm thinking you obviously have no idea:

We had 9 divisions commited to the D-DAy landings alone (including airborne forces).

For the European theater we had over 30 divisions commited to fighting in an area (France) that was the same size as our current theater of operations.

US Theater of Battle Europe WW II: http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/documents/ETO-OB/ETOOB-TOC.htm


We only have four divisions commited to Iraq. Our forces in Europe during WW II were significantly larger than our forces in present day Iraq.

We had 9 divisions in Vietnam ( plus heavy air support from bases in Thailand, Guam and the Phillipines). Our forces for winning this war are completely inadequate.

Support , all the Iraqi forces that ran off at Fallujah and all the police that are literally standing next to the guerilla fighters.. now is that your idea of support?

If fighting broke outside of the Kurdish regions there's no reason to assume that the situation would be any better.

Our forces on the ground are not adequate for winning this war. Our support base certainly hasn't improved after what happened at Fallujah.

A Battalion today has more firepower than a WWII Division. A Brigade today has significantly more firepower than a Division of the Vietnam era.

Numbers don't tell the whole story, not even close. My opinion is that we have too many troops in Iraq, but I understand why that compromise has been arrived at (a shortage of the type of troops we should ideally have).

One more thing: http://www.army-technology.com/projects/javelin/

>A Battalion today has more firepower than a WWII Division. A
>Brigade today has significantly more firepower than a Division
>of the Vietnam era.
>
>Numbers don't tell the whole story, not even close. My
>opinion is that we have too many troops in Iraq, but I
>understand why that compromise has been arrived at (a shortage
>of the type of troops we should ideally have).
>
>One more thing:
>http://www.army-technology.com/projects/javelin/


I guess there will always be a tradeoff with infantry and armor. More infantry means that its easier for us to directly control a larger area of the country. Of course more infantry, in more places also means more oppurtunities for guerillas to shoot at our men and inflict higher casualties; likewise the guerillas probably sustain casualties at a higher rate as well.

Armored forces are powerful but use up fuel at an incredible rate. Armored forces can also be limited by soft terrain.

Firepower is only part of the story as its always taken men to hold ground. A World war II infantry division has a lot of organic artillery support and firepower and I think a modern infantry battalion would be hard pressed to stop an entire division. Although I would have to agree that our armored forces are probably far superior to what was available during WW II.

However the Iraqis have been able to stop our tanks with our RPG's and even light cannon fire so perhaps a ww II armored division may stand a chance after all.

Give up the amatuer tactician bit. You don't have any idea what you are talking about.

>Give up the amatuer tactician bit. You don't have any idea
>what you are talking about.


That's just like you when someone challenges you revert to personal insults instead of attacking their arguments.

I'll be honest as I think your argument is complete science fiction: a battalion of 800 infantry men does not have the firepower of a 15,000 man infantry division (even with the disparity in technology).

I was just trying to be trying to be civil.

You seem to have the attitude that no one can challenge your beliefs for some reason. Others don't know anything because you're privy to some special knowledge.

Unfortunately as far as I'm concerned you talk a good game but give up the ghost when people challenge you. What a pity.

He' s right, stop using all the buzzwords and information copied and pasted from elsewhere to try to impress people. You are embarassing yourself, you don't realize how ludicrous your statements about logistics and combat are.

Try finding some online forum where they play some version of the boardgame "Risk", use your pseudostrategies there. I know a fourth grader that could kick your ass.

If you are interested in learning how bogus your beliefs are, try reading "Numbers, Predictions and War" by COL T. N. Dupuy, and "The Transformation of War" by Martin van Creveld.

If you want to expand your horizons, try any of Van Creveld's books. I especially recommend "The Rise and Decline of the State".

Then read Keegan's "History of Warfare".

You don't have to agree with all of their points, but, La Paz, you can't begin to understand the real world (and you clearly don't !) without a knowledge foundation such as these books. The half-baked liberal nonsense you have absorbed is half-baked liberal nonsense.

And yeah, get a subscription to "Foreign Affairs" periodical. Any critical reader, conservative or liberal, will only agree with about 25% of its content, but its vital to being aware of what is really happening in the world.

Ray

>I'll be honest as I think your argument is complete science
>fiction: a battalion of 800 infantry men does not have the
>firepower of a 15,000 man infantry division (even with the
>disparity in technology).



Enlist and serve. You will find out differently.

12 men with Javelin AT missiles, M240 MGs, and M4 Carbines totally destroyed an Armor Battalion in an engagement that lasted about 20 minutes.

It is evident to anyone with even the most basic of military experience or expertise that you don't know what you are talking about.

In addition to the suggestions already made, get a subscription to Janes.

>
>>I'll be honest as I think your argument is complete
>science
>>fiction: a battalion of 800 infantry men does not have the
>>firepower of a 15,000 man infantry division (even with the
>>disparity in technology).
>
>
>
>Enlist and serve. You will find out differently.
>
>12 men with Javelin AT missiles, M240 MGs, and M4 Carbines
>totally destroyed an Armor Battalion in an engagement that
>lasted about 20 minutes.
>
>It is evident to anyone with even the most basic of military
>experience or expertise that you don't know what you are
>talking about.
>
>In addition to the suggestions already made, get a
>subscription to Janes.



This is in reply to No One, Old Ray, and of course, Al.

Yes I am familiar with the battle of the Debeka Pass. http://www.raytheon.com/feature/warfighter/battle.html I've also read Van Kreufeld's book on the IDF. An armor battalion usually has 30 plus tanks. If I'm mistaken there weren't nearly that many tanks destroyed Debeka pass. Perhaps you meant to say "elements" of an armored battalion. The engagement also lasted more than 20 minutes.


Al, I don't like your personal attacks as I prefer to let the facts speak for me. They certainly don't prove your point. As I was saying, a World War II infantry squad in some ways is much more powerful squad. The 30-06 round used by a world war II infantryman employs a much more powerful round than the 5.56 mm round used by the modern American soldier. The Garand and the BAR were still extremely lethal weapons at 800 meters and absolutely devastating at closer ranges.

Citing "authority" and personal attacks are among the oldest tricks in the book. Let facts be represented instead of attacks, otherwise what you say is moot.

What makes you think I'm talking about Debaka Pass?

As for the rest of the nonsense:

Sure, the .30-06 is capable of killing at a longer range than the 5.56mm. But most soldiers aren't capable of hitting the enemy at distances over 300 meters, and the .30-06 doesn't do any better of a job of killing and wounding at 300 meters than the 5.56mm.

Of course, the 5.56mm round does mean that a single Infantryman can carry 210 to 420 rounds of ammunition, compared to the 80 to 160 rounds carried by a WWII Infantryman. Not to mention the 900 rounds carried for the SAW (compared to the 200 rounds carried for the BAR), plus the fact that the Machineguns and Sniper weapons still use 7.62mm rounds, but in a manner that allows for more rounds to be carried, and for the weapons to be employed more effectively. Grenades are far more effective, as are mines. And so far, we are only talking about the weapons that are similar to those carried in WWII. WWII had no equivilent of the 40mm grenade launcher, the claymore landmine nor of the Javelin, and the AT-4 is far more effective than the Bazooka. Not to mention that communications are far more advanced, as are the aerial support and artillary, so that an enemy is subject to attacks by A-10s, AC-130s, 60mm mortars (that perform like WWII 81mm's), 81mm mortars (that perform like the old 4.2"), 105s (that place more effective rounds down than did the 155s of WWII), 155s (that place more effective rounds down than the 8" howitzers of WWII), MLRS (no equivilent) cluster munitions and guided munitions from all sorts of delivery platforms. And let's not forget the effect of body armor and night vision devices.

The fact is that an Infantry Squad in WWII generally engaged the enemy at 100 meters or less, and that they were constantly facing issues of needing ammunition resupply because of the extremely limited load they could carry. An Infantry Squad today will often engage in excess of 1000 meters at night, and destroy what they are engaging.

Btw, if you think those numbers mean so much? Ask the Somalis about the Battle of the Black Sea.

AL, BRAVO well said...............

>What makes you think I'm talking about Debaka Pass?
>
>As for the rest of the nonsense:
>
>Sure, the .30-06 is capable of killing at a longer range than
>the 5.56mm. But most soldiers aren't capable of hitting the
>enemy at distances over 300 meters, and the .30-06 doesn't do
>any better of a job of killing and wounding at 300 meters than
>the 5.56mm.
>
>Of course, the 5.56mm round does mean that a single
>Infantryman can carry 210 to 420 rounds of ammunition,
>compared to the 80 to 160 rounds carried by a WWII
>Infantryman. Not to mention the 900 rounds carried for the SAW
>(compared to the 200 rounds carried for the BAR), plus the
>fact that the Machineguns and Sniper weapons still use 7.62mm
>rounds, but in a manner that allows for more rounds to be
>carried, and for the weapons to be employed more effectively.
>Grenades are far more effective, as are mines. And so far, we
>are only talking about the weapons that are similar to those
>carried in WWII. WWII had no equivilent of the 40mm grenade
>launcher, the claymore landmine nor of the Javelin, and the
>AT-4 is far more effective than the Bazooka. Not to mention
>that communications are far more advanced, as are the aerial
>support and artillary, so that an enemy is subject to attacks
>by A-10s, AC-130s, 60mm mortars (that perform like WWII
>81mm's), 81mm mortars (that perform like the old 4.2"), 105s
>(that place more effective rounds down than did the 155s of
>WWII), 155s (that place more effective rounds down than the 8"
>howitzers of WWII), MLRS (no equivilent) cluster munitions and
>guided munitions from all sorts of delivery platforms. And
>let's not forget the effect of body armor and night vision
>devices.
>
>The fact is that an Infantry Squad in WWII generally engaged
>the enemy at 100 meters or less, and that they were constantly
>facing issues of needing ammunition resupply because of the
>extremely limited load they could carry. An Infantry Squad
>today will often engage in excess of 1000 meters at night, and
>destroy what they are engaging.
>
>Btw, if you think those numbers mean so much? Ask the Somalis
>about the Battle of the Black Sea.


At ranges below 300 meters a modern squad has more firepower. But once you get beyond 300 meters the WWII squad would evicerate a modern squad. The 30-06 round is why. Although the WWII carries less ammo the 30-06 round is far more powerful.

The 30-06 round has roughly the same velocity as the 5.56 NATO round 2800 fps. However the 30-06 round is over twice as heavy 165 grains versus 55 grains for SS109 FMH NATO standard ammunition. Kinetic energy= 1/2mv^2 . This gives the 30-06 over twice the kinetic energy of the 5.56. In addition the 30-06 has much better wounding capabilities at all ranges.

The 30-06 round is known to be effective up 1000 meters. The 30-06 round is far more powerful than AK-47 round so the advantage of body armor would probably be partially or completely offset by superior ballistics.

Yes a modern squad may have two medium machine guns but overall it doesn't have too much organic long range organic firepower. (I don't know of too many squads that use three fireteams) Also the army and marines are now using M-16A2s which only support semi auto and 3 round burst capability. By depriving the infantryman of full auto capability the modern squad loses much of its firepower and many of its tactical advantages. The M-16s one advantage over the garand is controllable full auto fire.

As most departments have learned after switching to 9mm automatics versus revolvers; the more ammo you give your troops the more likely they are burn it up. The average number of shots fired by police officers in a gunfight have gone up dramatically since the introduction of high capacity 9mm pistols. There's no reason to believe that soldiers carrying hundreds of rounds would behave any differently.

Overall fightpower available today is better(at least on a per unit level) and the modern infantry squad is better equipped than its WWII counterparts.

Overall you're probably right the modern squad is more powerful. But it probably would not be able to take out a WWII company or a even WWII platoon.

Or as you put it as
"Battalion today has more firepower than a WWII Division"


Now that is an exaggeration. An WWII infantry division would eat a modern infantry battalion alive because it has so many organic assets attached to it, i.e. artillery and heavy weapons.

You really don't know what you are talking about.

"But once you get beyond 300 meters"

300 YARDS is the limit to get CLEAN kills when hunting with a 223. The military claims 600yds is their effective range.

"165 grains"

150 grains.

"55 grains for SS109"

62 grains.

"The 30-06 round is known to be effective up 1000 meters"

Few people can make 1000 yard shots with anything.

"By depriving the infantryman of full auto capability the modern squad loses much of its firepower"

Burst saves ammo and gets them to aim.

"The M-16s one advantage over the garand is controllable full auto fire"

Magazine capacity is a major advantage. Clip vs magazine is another. Less recoil is another.

"the more ammo you give your troops the more likely they are burn it up"

They're shooting for a reason, it has an effect.

"But it probably would not be able to take out a WWII company or a even WWII platoon"

You are leaving out support. Cruise missiles and guided bombs vs 16" guns and carpet bombing. The electronics we are using replaces a lot of manpower needs.

>You really don't know what you are talking about.
>
>"But once you get beyond 300 meters"
>
>300 YARDS is the limit to get CLEAN kills when hunting with a
>223. The military claims 600yds is their effective range.
>
>"165 grains"
>
>150 grains.
>
>"55 grains for SS109"
>
>62 grains.
>
>"The 30-06 round is known to be effective up 1000
>meters"
>
>Few people can make 1000 yard shots with anything.
>
>"By depriving the infantryman of full auto capability the
>modern squad loses much of its firepower"
>
>Burst saves ammo and gets them to aim.
>
>"The M-16s one advantage over the garand is controllable
>full auto fire"
>
>Magazine capacity is a major advantage. Clip vs magazine is
>another. Less recoil is another.
>
>"the more ammo you give your troops the more likely they
>are burn it up"
>
>They're shooting for a reason, it has an effect.
>
>"But it probably would not be able to take out a WWII
>company or a even WWII platoon"
>
>You are leaving out support. Cruise missiles and guided bombs
>vs 16" guns and carpet bombing. The electronics we are using
>replaces a lot of manpower needs.






I just said an infantry squad. Not a division or squad with support assets. Obviously supporting assets are much better now than they were in WWII.

Our forces are currently deploying some very well designed pieces of equipment. Believe it or not I think the pictanny rails and optics being used on our new weapons are truly amazing. However the garand was an excellent design that proved to be both robust and powerful. Yes most infantrymen cannot shoot 1000 meters but 400-500 isn't an unthinkable distance.

Numerically speaking the point I wanted to make was that our forces in Iraq cannot accomplish their mission under the current circumstances. Yes they can win every local engagement they chose to fight but the primary mission of making Iraq safe has not been fulfilled.

We are in the situation where we are winning tactically but losing strategically.

Gettting back to the original subject the pullout of Fallujah seems to have been a remarkable success. The marines are now patrolling Fallujah with the very people that they were fighting a few weeks ago. There is nothing better than coopting a former enemy.

>Our forces are currently deploying some very well designed
>pieces of equipment. Believe it or not I think the pictanny
>rails and optics being used on our new weapons are truly
>amazing. However the garand was an excellent design that
>proved to be both robust and powerful. Yes most infantrymen
>cannot shoot 1000 meters but 400-500 isn't an unthinkable
>distance.


Average soldier (any era from the Spainish American war on) can only hit a target at 300 meters 50% of the time. That is a fact.

If someone is a good enough shot to get hits at 500 meters? They can do it with the M16A2/A4 and kill just as well as with the Garand. Or they might just be a designated marksman and carry an M21.

Like I previously stated: Numerically speaking the point I wanted to make was that our forces in Iraq cannot accomplish their mission under the current circumstances. Yes they can win every local engagement they chose to fight but the primary mission of making Iraq safe has not been fulfilled.

The prisoner abuse scandal certainly wasn't good for PR for our troops over there.

We are in the situation where we are winning tactically but losing strategically.

It doesn't take numbers to win against terrorists or guerillas.

The British had very few troops in Malaysia. They won.

I could easily make an argument that we have too many troops in Iraq.

It sounds like you have finally figured out that you don't know what you are talking about. Stop being an amatuer tactician/strategist, etc. You don't have the experience.

>It doesn't take numbers to win against terrorists or
>guerillas.
>
>The British had very few troops in Malaysia. They won.
>
>I could easily make an argument that we have too many troops
>in Iraq.
>
>It sounds like you have finally figured out that you don't
>know what you are talking about. Stop being an amatuer
>tactician/strategist, etc. You don't have the experience.



Personally speaking I don't support the war. However most of the people who do support the war believe that our current forces are completely inadequate for accomplishing their mission.

However to say that we have too many forces is an opinion that goes against the grain of what most pro war people think. I bet most of the infantrymen on the ground who are talking would beg to differ with your opinion.

However your opinion is a VERY INTERESTING one. Go ahead, tell me why do we have too many ground troops?

There's a huge difference between "troops in Iraq" and "troops in total." One of the main priorities, if not the priority of the United States Armed Forces is the ability to wage two seperate theater-level wars simultaneously. One could argue that the number of troops in Iraq had severely impeded this ability. That's just one viewpoint, and I know for a fact that Al and several other members here know far more about military action, from theater level down to squad based military dynamics that I do, so I have to concede that they are probably more correct.

Most of those who think we need more troops have a background that is basically conventional operations. My background, and that of most of those who feel we have too many troops in Iraq, is unconventional. What is needed (in my opinion) is fewer conventional troops (maybe 8-10 Brigades in positions to be reaction forces) and a lot more unconventional troops (Special Forces and Civil Affairs). The SOCOM people will win hearts and minds, the current troop mix simply doesn't know how to do that.

It sounds good in theory but it would probably fail: because the S.F. theory that worked in Afghanistan would requires powerful warlords to side with our guys; that hasn't happened in Iraq. Even successful S.F. operations in Vietnam and Laos required local warlords to side with the Americans. We had our shot in '91 and blew it; the people of Iraq still remember what we did;especially the Shia.

There were stories of US planes flying cover for the Iraqi airforce because we didn't want the Shia to take cover.

Regarding the Balkans, those forces succeeded because the Albanians wanted us in Kosovo. They realized that we were alot better than the Serbs, end of story. Unfortunately our local support in Iraq is not quite as strong. In fact guerillas are actively hunting down police and people viewed as "American collaborators".

You don't have any idea what Special Operations entail or where they have been successful. Your entire argument is silly.

And no, I'm not going to educate you. If you want to learn about the capabilities of SOCOM, enlist 18X.

>You don't have any idea what Special Operations entail or
>where they have been successful. Your entire argument is
>silly.
>
>And no, I'm not going to educate you. If you want to learn
>about the capabilities of SOCOM, enlist 18X.



Its too bad that you seem to be the only person on earth who knows how they can win the war. They're trying to pull US forces out of Korea now.

You seem to shy away when reality impinges upon your well ordered world.


Back to your discussion on weapons earlier. I'm sorry but an M-16 is almost ineffective at 500 meters. Try hitting something at 300 meters with an M-16 you have to aim for the head just to hit the target center of mass. Even at 300 meters the drop off is tremendous.

I don't know how this chart will work, if it doesn't I'll post the .txt. Note that although this is with an old 55gr at old specs, it is also at a +1" 100yd zero which is what I use since I hunt squirrels. With my short zero you could still hit a head at 300yds by aiming at the head.

It doesn't work, see the .txt file. If you'd like I'll run one up with a SS109 at specs with a more realistic zero.

You do realize that sights can be adjusted don't you?

Attachment #1, (txt file)

300 meters isn't all that difficult with an M16. And as far as "ineffective," that assumes the ONLY purpose in a given situation is to hit a human target. Suppressing fire, an important component of any military action, cannot simply be ignored or discounted just because the primary intent isn't to have a high rate of enemy casualties.

>>You don't have any idea what Special Operations entail or
>>where they have been successful. Your entire argument is
>>silly.
>>
>>And no, I'm not going to educate you. If you want to learn
>>about the capabilities of SOCOM, enlist 18X.
>
>
>
>Its too bad that you seem to be the only person on earth who
>knows how they can win the war. They're trying to pull US
>forces out of Korea now.
>
>You seem to shy away when reality impinges upon your well
>ordered world.
>
>
>Back to your discussion on weapons earlier. I'm sorry but an
>M-16 is almost ineffective at 500 meters. Try hitting
>something at 300 meters with an M-16 you have to aim for the
>head just to hit the target center of mass. Even at 300 meters
>the drop off is tremendous.
>

No, I am not the only person who holds this opinion. However, there are a whole lot more conventionally trained Generals than unconventionally trained Generals.

As for your comments about the M16, all you do is continue to demonstrate your ignorance. The USMC uses 500 meter targets as part of their qualification process. You have to hit them to qualify expert.

By the way, I can consistently hit a man at 500 meters. Beyond that, my ability cuts down dramatically on hits... not the weapons' capability. I have friends who can consistently hit with an M16A4 at 800 meters (they are exceptional shots. Both have won President's 100 tabs at one time or another). That is iron sights.

What makes the Socom troops so much better at this job than the group we have in Iraq at the moment? I would be very interested in knowing as would the Bush administration. Will they immunize children and build schools? Is this the key to turning the war around? I'm not trying to be jerk as I would like an honest answer of how they would go about doing what you propose.

Security is of the utmost concern in Iraq. They just blew up the head of Governing Council a few days ago and the US is pulling troops out of South Korea. If anything I think its very difficult to make the argument that more troops=less security.


Regarding the M-16 at 300 meters the round has 40% its muzzle velocity. The drop off in velocity and power are even more extreme at 400 and 500 meters.


5.56 NATO Ball Ammunition Ballistic Comparison
based on Aberdeen Proving Ground Data
velocity (fps) trajectory (in.) drop (inches) drift (inches)*
range M193 M855 M193 M855 M193 M855 M193 M855
(meters)
0 3,200 3,100 -2.5 -2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
100 2,774 2,751 +2.8 +4.4 -2.2 -2.3 1.3 1.1
200 2,374 2,420 +2.7 +5.8 -9.9 -10.2 5.8 4.9
300 2,012 2,115 -4.9 0.0 -25.1 -25.3 14.2 11.8
400 1,680 1,833 -23.0 -15.0 -50.8 -49.5 27.6 22.4
500 1,373 1,569 -56.2 -42.9 -91.6 -86.7 47.5 38.0
600 1,106 1,323 -113.1 -88.2 -156.1 -141.3 76.4 59.5
700 995 1,106 -206.8 -156.1 -257.3 -220.9 113.5 88.4
800 927 1,010 -339.9 -267.7 -398.0 -339.2 156.1 124.9


remember that Kinetic Energy=1/2mv^2 Even a modest drop off in velocity will have a huge effect on the round's kinetic energy.
at 300 meters the round has 40% of the kinetic energy that it had at muzzle velocity. The kinetic energy drops to 30% at 400 meters.
Here is a link to the article where I referenced my information:

http://www.logicsouth.com/~lcoble/dir10/excs123.txt

"Regarding the M-16 at 300 meters the round has 40% its muzzle velocity. The drop off in velocity and power are even more extreme at 400 and 500 meters."

So? All you're doing is poking holes, it's not like you're trying to get massive expansion.
283ft/lbs of energy (at 600yds) is still a lot of pounds per square inch, plenty to penetrate flesh.

Attachment #1, (txt file)

What does SOCOM have? Cultural training and maturity.

As for your claims about the 5.56mm... ever been shot?

I wouldn't want to be shot with a .25 or even .22 ; I don't think anyone in there right mind would. However the question is this would I be able to function if I was suffered a nonlethal .22 injury: probably. If you shoot someone and they can shoot back; then you have problems. You're probably right most fighting will take place at relatively short ranges: less than 300 meters. I just wanted to make the point that incapacitation becomes a much more iffy issue past 300 meters; thats all.

You stated "What does SOCOM have? Cultural training and maturity."


How would this stop terrorist from blowing up members of the governing council? Do you know how liberal and PC that statement sounds?

If someone is losing blood they aren't going to be shooting back well enough to shoot 300yds.

Your claims only hold water for close quarters, there you do need a heavy projectile to pass through objects and do massive damage to the target in order to stop it quickly. In those CQC instances the FMJ's the military uses leaves the option of larger calibers.
But this is the exact opposite of what you are claiming, quick incapacitation is not a big issue at 300yds, it is at 2yds.
Instead of trying to juggle numbers that you don't understand you should try using reports of people who are in these situations.

I had the same debate before, but I sure didn't claim that 30cal was needed for long range battlefields.
Watch some WWII documentaries sometime. You'll see some people some people shooting their 30's like pea shooters, others get literally knocked over. That is not a good thing.

First, "stopping power" is far overrated. The facts are that rounds placed center mass will generally stop someone, and rounds in peripherals very well may not. Some people are stopped by a scratch, others take 4 rounds of .50 BMG and continue to come forward.

There are documented failures to stop with the .30-06 and even the .50 BMG.

Regarding PC and liberal? I don't care how PC or liberal it sounds, it works. Been there, done that, have the scars and the t-shirts.

I've been shot. .30 round. Kept working, didn't even realize I had been shot until later sometime.

Keep making stupid arguments. WWII squads didn't engage at ranges over 300 meters, even in North Africa, engagements at over 200 meters were rare.

But a current squad at ranges over 300 meters doesn't rely on their integral weapons (although the designated marksman may pop your squad leader with his horizontal bar on his helmet and stripes on his sleeve), they rely on the most powerful weapon they carry... their radio.

Btw, while you are worried about ballistics? Might want to consider the effect of body armor, optics, and night vision equipment.

What would happen to your WWII Division in combat with a modern Battalion? Their artillery would fire one round before being destroyed by counter battery (MLRS) or aviation assets. Those rounds they do get off aren't very effective, because they are either impact or VT, but have a fairly high dud rate. The Division HQ would cease to exist within a few minutes of the battle start as cluster munitions rain down on its location as pinpointed by signals intell. The manuever Battalions would each engage the Battalion, and find themselves under indirect and direct fires from as far as 3000 meters out. Any armored vehicles would be destroyed by tank gun fire, 25mm Bushmaster rounds, TOWs, Hellfires, Javelins and AT-4s. The Infantry would find themselves engaged by minefields that appear in seconds (another cluster munition), struck by aviation assets using weapons that eat the air they need to breathe, with indirect fire that bursts consistently at 3 meters off the ground. As they close to 1000 meters, they will find themselves engaged by 7.62mm machineguns with optics mounted on them, by snipers who pick off the leaders and those who carry radios, by 25mm cannon also assisted by optics. As they close to 500 meters, they will be engaged by more weapons, including 40 mm grenades, Saws and M16s. Yet, they still see few enemies, and those that they do engage are probably not put out of the fight (body armor is a wonderful thing). Those modern troops in armored vehicles would effectively be invulnerable, since there is no weapon in the arsenal of your division that can scratch an Abrams, and it is unlikely that many of them can seriously damage a Bradley (remember, most manuever Battalions in the US Army today are mechanized - Bradleys and Abrams).

And I'm not talking about a prepared defense here, just a meeting engagement in daylight. At night? It's more lopsided.

Battalions get a "slice" of supporting weapons. Your ignorance is amusing.

Sorry Bud, you've bitten off more than you can chew here.

While I don't agree with a lot of Al's political opinions I sure as hell wouldn't get into any arguments with him on tactics, and neither would anyone who's been here longer than 5 minutes. Quit before you get even further behind!

Two problems:

1. Professor Jeffrey Record from the Air Force War College is not an expert at fighting wars or terrorism.

2. The Army War College doesn't agree with the article.

Oops.

Such hogwash, El Paz.

We stay. It's tough. It will stabilize. It will influence surrounding nations. And it is the only way that there is any chance of eliminating the threat of Fundamental Islamic Terrorists.

The only other choice is to decide that we will live with attacks on us, our children, and our grandchildren... unless we all decide to pray to Mecca 5 times a day, to have our women wear Bukkas, to forgo our system of law for that of Islam.

Maybe you like those choices. I'd rather take the solution that allows for us to survive and maybe to win.

>We're all going to die some day. Either you make a difference
>in someones life or you don't. Your choice. Just don't try to
>make your choice mine.


Below is an editorial from a recent Sunday's edition of a Florida newspaper located in Florida's panhandle. Someone who reads this paper thought that the editorial was worth a wider distribution and retyped it to send out over the Internet.

Phil Lucas, the paper's Executive Editor, wrote this article published in The News Herald, Panama City, Florida, Sunday, April 4, 2004. His email address is plucas@pcnh.com. The News Herald web site is found at http://www.newsherald.com/

By and large, it is accurate. However, the linklage with the Crusades is not. That was a product of European/Christian fanaticism which killed far more Christians and Jews than it did Muslims and was conceived of to bolster a shaky Papacy and offer land and riches to European nobility. Otherwise, I endorse his primary premise.

Up Against Fanaticism
By Phil Lucas, Executive Editor, Panama City New Herald

If straight talk of savagery offends you, if you believe in ethnic and gender diversity but not diversity of thought, or if you think there is an acceptable gray area between good and evil, then turn to the funny pages, and take the children, too. This piece is not for you.

We published pictures Thursday of burnt American corpses hanging from an Iraqi bridge behind a mob of grinning Muslims. Some readers didn't like it

Mothers said it frightened their children. A woman who works with Muslim physicians thought it might offend or endanger them.

Well, we sure don't want to frighten, offend or endanger anybody, do we? That's just too much diversity to handle. I mean, somebody might get hurt.

We could fill the newspaper every morning with mobs of fanatical Muslims. They can't get along with their neighbors on much of the planet: France,
Chechnya, Bosnia, Indonesia, Spain, Morocco, India, Tunisia, Somalia, etc.,
etc., etc.

Can anybody name three ongoing world conflicts in which Muslims are not involved? Today, where there is war, there are fanatical Muslims.

We might quibble about who started what conflicts, but look at the sheer number of them. One thing is sure. Muslim killers started the one we are in now when they slaughtered more that 3,000 people, including fellow Muslims, in New York City.

Madeleine Albright, the former secretary of state and feckless appeaser who helped get us into this mess, said last week Muslims still resent the Crusades. Well, Madam Albright, if Westerners were not such a forgiving people, we might resent them too.

Let's recap the Crusades. Muslims invaded Europe, and when they reached sufficient numbers, they imposed their intolerant religion upon Westerners by force. Christian monarchs drove them back and took the battle to their homeland. The fight lasted a couple of centuries, and we bottled them up for 1,000 years.

Now, a millennium later, Muslims have expanded forth again. Ask France. Ask England. Ask Manhattan. Two-and-a-half years ago fanatical Muslims laid siege to us. We woke up to the obvious.

Our president announced it would be a very long war, then took the battle to the Islamic homeland.

Sound Familiar?

Let's consider the concept of a "long war." Last time it was 200 years, give or take. Anybody catch Lord of the Rings? You know, the good part, the part that wasn't fiction, the part that drew us to the books and movies because it was the truest part: the titanic struggle between good and evil, between freedom and enslavement, between the individual and the state, between the celebration of life and the worshipping of death.

That's the fight we are in, and it never ends. It just has peaks and valleys. There may be a silent majority of peaceful Muslims - some live here - but that did not save 3,000 people in the World Trade Center, the million gassed and butchered in the Middle East, the tens of thousands slain in Eastern Europe and Asia, the hundreds blown to bits in the West Bank and Spain, or the four Americans shot, burned and hung like sausage over the Euphrates as a fanatical minority of Muslims did the joyful dance of death.

Maybe we are so tolerant, we are so bent on "diversity," we are so nonjudgmental, we are so wrapped up in our six-packs and ballgames that our brains have drained to our bulbous behinds. Maybe we're so addled on Ritalin we wouldn't know which end of a gun to hold. Maybe we need a new drug advertised on TV every three minutes, one that would help us grow a backbone.

It doesn't take a Darwin to figure out that in this world the smartest, the fastest, the strongest, and the most committed always win. No exceptions.

Look at your spouse and children. Look at yourself in the mirror. Then look at the pictures from the paper last Thursday. You better look at them. Those are the people out to kill you.

Who do you think will win? You? Or them? Think you can take your ball and go home and they will leave you alone? Read a little history. Start with last week, last month, last year, and every other year back for half a century. Then go back a thousand years. Nobody hides from this fight.

Like it or not, that's the way it was and that's the way it is. But many Americans don't get it. That's why we published those pictures.

If they jarred you off the sofa, if they offended you, if they scared your
children and sent you into a rage at mass murderers or heartless editors, then I say, it's a start.

>The question is this: would anyone here be willing to send
>their a loved one to die in Iraq to hold the country?
>

My brother is over there now, and I support him and what he does. If my country called on me, I would go with out a doubt.

>
>Can anyone honestly tell me that this war is worth killing
>and hurting other human beings or worth losing a loved one?
>

No nothing is worth killing harmless people, but those who cause harm shall be dealt with.

>I feel terrible about all these people being maimed killed;
>is this what we really want to do as a nation?

I also feel terrible when I hear that another soldier has been killed. (If you didn't feel terrible then maybe you need to be checked to see if your huma )

"Just my opinion."
SEMPER FI to all the Marines and Soldiers..................

I received this via e-mail today. It puts things in perspective.

“Geraldo Rivera on Iraq
The buildings that AREN'T burning in Iraq--those who pursue truth, please read!
Probably each of you has wondered if things could be as bad as Brokaw, Jennings, et al, have been painting it.
"They have a saying in the news business," Geraldo Rivera related this week. "Reporters don't report buildings that don't burn." And with that
introduction, he told a TV audience about the story that is being systematically denied to our entire nation: the success story of post-Saddam Iraq.
Are we losing some soldiers each week? Yes.
Is there some frustration in the public about electricity and water service? Yes.
Are some Saddam Hussein loyalists throughout the land, making trouble? Yes.
Has this opened a window for some terrorist mischief? Yes.
But that's ALL we hear. No wonder the country is in a mixed mood about Iraq. If you hear about the buildings that are not burning, though, it is a different story indeed.
Rivera is no shill for George W. Bush. But Bush, Condi Rice and Colin Powell together could not have been as effective as Geraldo was Thursday night on the Fox News Channel's Hannity and Colmes program.
"When I got to Baghdad, I barely recognized it," he began, comparing his just-completed trip to two others he made during and just after the battle to topple Saddam. "You have over 30,000 Iraqi cops and militiamen already on the job.
This is four months after major fighting stopped. Can you imagine that kind of gearing up in this country? Law and order is better; archaeological sites are being preserved; factories, schools are being guarded." But what about the secondhand griping that the media have been so efficiently relating about power, water and other infrastructure?
"To say that Iraq is being rebuilt is not true," answered Rivera. "Iraq is being built. There was no infrastructure before; we are doing it. I just think the good news is being underestimated and underreported." At this juncture, one must evaluate how to feel about the voices telling us only about the bad news in Iraq, whether from the mouths of news anchors or Democratic presidential hopefuls. At best, they are underinformed. At worst, their one-sided assessments of post-Saddam Iraq are intentional falsehoods for obvious reasons.
If I hear one more person mock that "Mission Accomplished" banner beneath which President Bush thanked a shipload of sailors and Marines a few months back, I'm going to spit. That was a reference to the ouster of Saddam's regime, and that mission was indeed accomplished, apparently to the great chagrin of the American left. No one said what followed would be easy or cheap, and that's why the dripping-water torture of the cost and casualty stories is so infuriating.
Remember we pay our soldiers whether they are in Iraq or in Ft Bragg, North Carolina or Ft Hood, Texas or where ever.
We should all mourn the loss of every fallen soldier. But context cries out to be heard. Our present news media is not performing this task. As some dare to wonder if this might become a Vietnam-like quagmire, I'll remind whoever needs it that most of our 58,000 Vietnam war toll died between 1966 and 1972, during which we lost an average of about 8,000 per year. That's about 22 per day, every day, for thousands of days on end.
Let us hear NO MORE Vietnam comparisons. They do not equate. What I hope to hear is more truth, even if we have to wrench it from the mouths of the media and political hacks predisposed to bash the remarkable job we are doing every day in what was not so long ago a totalitarian wasteland.
Local elections are under way across Iraq, Rivera reported. "Where Kurds and Arabs have been battling for decades, things have been settling down. Administrator Paul Bremer is doing a great job."
So does Geraldo think his media colleagues are intentionally painting with one side of the brush? "I'm not into conspiracy theories... but there's just more bang for your buck when you report the GI who got killed rather than the 99 who didn't get killed, who make friends, who helped schedule elections, who helped shops get open for business, who helped traffic flow again.
"The vast majority of Iraqis are very happy to have us there. I would like to see a bit more balance." This needs to be reported to the American Public who are presently being duped. I expect the dominant media culture to nitpick and attack Bush, and Democrats to blast him with reckless abandon. But when that leads to the willful exclusion of facts that would shine truthful light on the great work of the American armed forces, that level of malice plumbs new depths.”

Yarddaawg

"Only two things are infinite, the universe
and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein
(1879-1955

The question is this: would anyone here be willing to send their a loved one to die in Iraq to hold the country? Does anyone think that holding onto this place is worth taking another human life?

I never get involved in these kind of posts, but will this time. Like Mac27, I have a family member over there. Having him over there makes me proud. Proud that he's willing to possibly lay down his life for the freedom of another, whether hey deserve it or not. Not only that, but proud that our country is willing to stand up for something. We've all seen multiple countries back down when asked to participate, even seen some pull out when attacked personally as America was on 9/11. This is what makes me proud to be an American.

In coversations that have been relayed to me from my brother-in-law, he's glad to be there. He and all around him feel that yes, it is worth it. It's the doubters that are trying to ruin what's going on. Comments like we've all seen on TV or heard on the radio will do nothing to raise the spirits of those willing to sacrifice their selves for the good of another.

Is it worth it to take another life? For me it can be summed up as this, those that sow the wind shall reap the whirlwind. Or maybe in simplier terms, do the crime pay the time. The enemy that we've come against isn't in uniform. They don't have markings that identify them as terrorists or whatever you want to call them. They're in normal clothes, if you will. No, I don't advocate the taking of an innocent life, but let me tell you something that my b-i-l told us. When they see someone (anyone, child or not) doing something suspicious, they are to tell them once to stop. If the person then becomes hostile (can't remember the wording he used) to him or anyone else they are to shoot them. As we all know, the military doesn't train their men to wound. The possibility of having someone (insert your own dangerous act here) is too great to take the risk. If you're loved one has there, would you want him to nicely ask someone to lay down their gun, and if they didn't, say 'Well, it's OK, I'll ask you later'? My b-i-l had better shot anyone that comes against him or those with him. His life and those of other military personnel are too precious to treat those thugs like they were in an elementary school. (Sorry, I work for a school district and that's the additude I see coming from a lot of gov officials.)

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and can speak/write their own opinion. But hearing stuff like this just makes me sick. Stop bicking over what needs to be done and whether we're doing it just perfect. To tell the truth, it sounds like a whole bunch of election year politics coming from both sides.

OK, that's all. I'll go back to my corner now.

You opinion on what is going on in Iraq is respected, but for some reason it seems to me that you are getting Iraq and Afghanistan mixed up. 9/11 was caused by terrorists who are in Afghanistan. They have nothing to do with Iraq, actually, they hate Sadaam Hussain.
The other European countries backed out because attacking Iraq for no reason (without proof) was not right.
From what i have read in the news, these same countries are willing to send in troops to Iraq if the UN is in charge.
If liberating the Iraqi people and giving them their freedom was so important to the US government then they should let the UN come in and take charge.
PLease keep in mind, like everyone here i am voicing my opinion and would appreciate it if anyone would let me know if i got any of the facts wrong.
I am sorry if i offended anyone.

They may hate Saddam, he may hate them. But don't forget the saying of the area, The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Al Queda did have ties to Iraq whether or not you want to admit it. You really don't matter, Saddam's people who have admitted it are the ones who matter.

"The other European countries"? You mean France and Germany? They had monetary reasons, not moral reasons. Spain was bombed into pulling out, which they haven't done yet.

There was proof according to many countries, the UN and even Clinton. The proof is the chemical weapons plot that just happened in Jordan. Blister agents have been found. Anthrax is still missing.

Let the UN take charge? So they could skim off the top and keep the corruption going like they did with the sanctions under Saddam? And that's after we did the work? No thank you.

Don't worry about voicing your opinion or whether or not anyone disagrees with it. That's what we're here for