Quizzes & Puzzles23 mins ago
Military Strategy opinions please.
20 Answers
I am not after your opinions of whether or not we should be at war with both Iraq and Afghanistan but the fact remains we are. That, unless a marxist party comes to power, will not change.
So answer this please.
If Brown says he will withdraw troops, and now even all of them from Iraq, can the problem be looked at mathamatically.
What is the difference between having 10000 troops (both I and A) for 6 months or a 100,000 (roughly all our troops) for just a few weeks.
Yes, they may be logistic issues but surely we can wash out all the scum as quickly as possible. The overall cost we also be considerably cheaper.
History has dictated that force is the only way. When USA entered WW2 we had the manpower to eradicate Germany with swift ease.
Falklands, no holes barred full on assault.
As Churchill said "Give us the tools and WE will finish the job"
In my humble opinion, this is the only way forward. Show the allah-lovers the true might of our great Army. Hell, even send in the Royal Navy and RAF and TA as well. Many of these are itching for some land assaults believe it or not.
The same amount of personnel and civilians will die. That is the nature of the beast BUT we will finish the job and have ALL our troops home for Christmas.
The only problem I can see is the job will not be finished, but it may not be finished when Brown has stated anyway.
I was never a military strategist. I was taught to use appropriate force and bloody well finish what the government told me to.
Can you mere civilians, active servicemen and ex-servicemen give your reasons for or against The Shadow Man's way to win a war.
So answer this please.
If Brown says he will withdraw troops, and now even all of them from Iraq, can the problem be looked at mathamatically.
What is the difference between having 10000 troops (both I and A) for 6 months or a 100,000 (roughly all our troops) for just a few weeks.
Yes, they may be logistic issues but surely we can wash out all the scum as quickly as possible. The overall cost we also be considerably cheaper.
History has dictated that force is the only way. When USA entered WW2 we had the manpower to eradicate Germany with swift ease.
Falklands, no holes barred full on assault.
As Churchill said "Give us the tools and WE will finish the job"
In my humble opinion, this is the only way forward. Show the allah-lovers the true might of our great Army. Hell, even send in the Royal Navy and RAF and TA as well. Many of these are itching for some land assaults believe it or not.
The same amount of personnel and civilians will die. That is the nature of the beast BUT we will finish the job and have ALL our troops home for Christmas.
The only problem I can see is the job will not be finished, but it may not be finished when Brown has stated anyway.
I was never a military strategist. I was taught to use appropriate force and bloody well finish what the government told me to.
Can you mere civilians, active servicemen and ex-servicemen give your reasons for or against The Shadow Man's way to win a war.
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Shadow Man. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
in this case unlike the examples you gave you are not fighting a traditional enemy, in other words its half the battle to try and work out who the enemy are. I think this is one of the reason the americans who are at the moment operating their own "surge" technique are finding it so difficult - in open warfare you are probably right but in times of urban gorilla warfare i'm not at all sure a british surge would do any good for the govt.
if soldier number became massive in iraq for example the resistance fighters could just have a few months off until everyone went home again for xmas couldn't they?
if soldier number became massive in iraq for example the resistance fighters could just have a few months off until everyone went home again for xmas couldn't they?
Hi Wardy,
A point, the wars you mention were full blown military engagements, ie. national forces against national forces, the Iraq debacle is a terrorisr war, which, as i've pointed out before, you can't win unless you have the support of the local populace.
What should have happened, after the invasion, was, as our troops started doing, a 'Hearts and minds' campaign, coupled with rebuilding the country.
Unfortunately, we were coupled with the US military, who only know the 'Bull in a china shop' type of campaign, and it spoilt any goodwill there was.
You now can't win this thing, because of all the re-inforcements for the terrorists coming from other Middle Eastern countries, and also Pakistan,
If you can stop this happening, there might be a chance.
A point, the wars you mention were full blown military engagements, ie. national forces against national forces, the Iraq debacle is a terrorisr war, which, as i've pointed out before, you can't win unless you have the support of the local populace.
What should have happened, after the invasion, was, as our troops started doing, a 'Hearts and minds' campaign, coupled with rebuilding the country.
Unfortunately, we were coupled with the US military, who only know the 'Bull in a china shop' type of campaign, and it spoilt any goodwill there was.
You now can't win this thing, because of all the re-inforcements for the terrorists coming from other Middle Eastern countries, and also Pakistan,
If you can stop this happening, there might be a chance.
-- answer removed --
Personally speaking and having a hubby who served in Iraq at the start of the conflict, I don't think this is the same type of war it was in the beginning.
I'm no expert and can only give what information I know myself, but there isn't an obvious 'enemy' out there. there isn't an army from the same order who are fighting against the West. there are far to many pockets of insergents who are more likley to be from Iran (that's what my hubby seems to have observed over there!) being from intellegence!
So maybe the need to withdraw is either that it's not getting anywhere with numbers and major force isn't possible or there is forsight into another conflict! Iran maybe???
Again don't shoot, just opinion!
I'm no expert and can only give what information I know myself, but there isn't an obvious 'enemy' out there. there isn't an army from the same order who are fighting against the West. there are far to many pockets of insergents who are more likley to be from Iran (that's what my hubby seems to have observed over there!) being from intellegence!
So maybe the need to withdraw is either that it's not getting anywhere with numbers and major force isn't possible or there is forsight into another conflict! Iran maybe???
Again don't shoot, just opinion!
Hmmm, i disagree.
We are not at war with iraq. We are at war with terrororists.
Our forces cant just go and take over another country. They are there to aid in the 'refurbishment' of Iraq.
We cant forget that these middle east countries are over 100 years behind us and our way of life.
Its like bringing a caveman to our age and telling him he cant walk around naked...
We are not at war with iraq. We are at war with terrororists.
Our forces cant just go and take over another country. They are there to aid in the 'refurbishment' of Iraq.
We cant forget that these middle east countries are over 100 years behind us and our way of life.
Its like bringing a caveman to our age and telling him he cant walk around naked...
-- answer removed --
Wardy,
Apologises for repeating myself again, for your readers.
You can't win a terrorisr war, in another country unless you have the support of the local populace, actually, active support.
I believe the only terrorist war last century to be won, was the British in Malaya, and they couldn't have done it without the help of the locals.
Apologises for repeating myself again, for your readers.
You can't win a terrorisr war, in another country unless you have the support of the local populace, actually, active support.
I believe the only terrorist war last century to be won, was the British in Malaya, and they couldn't have done it without the help of the locals.
Lonnie, I can see your point and agree.
My point however, is more to do with basic logistics.
A 100,000 men in battle, whether against terrorist allah-scum or the entire Nazi war-horse will do better in a month or so that 8000 troops in 6 months even longer.
If Brown is spinning the yarn that we will witdraw, obviously in his demented mind, job done.
My argument is give us the tools and we WILL finish the job.
If not and we withdraw anyway, what is there to lose apart from regrouping our troops on British soil and let the boys enjoy Christmas with their families.
My point however, is more to do with basic logistics.
A 100,000 men in battle, whether against terrorist allah-scum or the entire Nazi war-horse will do better in a month or so that 8000 troops in 6 months even longer.
If Brown is spinning the yarn that we will witdraw, obviously in his demented mind, job done.
My argument is give us the tools and we WILL finish the job.
If not and we withdraw anyway, what is there to lose apart from regrouping our troops on British soil and let the boys enjoy Christmas with their families.
Sorry old friend, I see what your getting at now, apologies for being slightly dim today.
By pulling troops out, and not replacing them, he's obviously putting the remaider at more risk.
I agree with your point, but the tools in this case, would, in the first inst, instead of pulling troops out, increase them, and putting American and other coalition troops fully under British control.
Iraqs a big country, but with the extra manpower, seal the borders.
Marshal law and a curfew until the insurgents are rooted out.
Then, providing the Chinese and Russians keep out, start building the peace, with no Americans in charge, properly.
By pulling troops out, and not replacing them, he's obviously putting the remaider at more risk.
I agree with your point, but the tools in this case, would, in the first inst, instead of pulling troops out, increase them, and putting American and other coalition troops fully under British control.
Iraqs a big country, but with the extra manpower, seal the borders.
Marshal law and a curfew until the insurgents are rooted out.
Then, providing the Chinese and Russians keep out, start building the peace, with no Americans in charge, properly.
A late entrant into the debate:
1) Whilst there are 100k servicemen in the Army (there are about 180k overall, inc RN and RAF), only about 30k of these are fighting troops - the rest are in support roles. Being a good strategist, Wardy, you will know the ratio of chaps at the sharp end to chaps in support is about 1:3. Though these support chaps are trained as fighters and can do the business, its not the primary role. Think about your last trip up Everest - wasn't that the ratio you used? So Brown hasn't got anything like the numbers you may think he has.
2) I believe the MOD works on thirds - 4 months tour, 4 months rest, 4 months training and exercises - that's why the effective fighting force at any one time is capped at about 10k troops at the frontline. Add a bit for whatever's still going on in Sierra Leone, the Balkans - there's no spare. Thats' why the military strategists say they are stretched as it is.
3) Most of the job is actually about training Iraqis / Afghans to do it for themselves (maintain law and order). Oh, plus monitoring surveillance on the other evil-doers out there. We haven't heard so much about catching the rest of the 'deck of cards' recently. The game has changed to supporting the I or As so they don't fall into chaos and anarchy.
4) WW2 / Falklands - the enemy was clear - chaps in uniforms, playing by the same military etiquette that we work by. Much as in N Ireland, the enemy is invisible - its sorting the good guys from the bad - they all look the same. I don't recall that shoving more troops into Belfast worked well either.
So, I'm not sure that Wardy's brilliant strategy gets you past first base at Sandhurst. Stick with the day job?
1) Whilst there are 100k servicemen in the Army (there are about 180k overall, inc RN and RAF), only about 30k of these are fighting troops - the rest are in support roles. Being a good strategist, Wardy, you will know the ratio of chaps at the sharp end to chaps in support is about 1:3. Though these support chaps are trained as fighters and can do the business, its not the primary role. Think about your last trip up Everest - wasn't that the ratio you used? So Brown hasn't got anything like the numbers you may think he has.
2) I believe the MOD works on thirds - 4 months tour, 4 months rest, 4 months training and exercises - that's why the effective fighting force at any one time is capped at about 10k troops at the frontline. Add a bit for whatever's still going on in Sierra Leone, the Balkans - there's no spare. Thats' why the military strategists say they are stretched as it is.
3) Most of the job is actually about training Iraqis / Afghans to do it for themselves (maintain law and order). Oh, plus monitoring surveillance on the other evil-doers out there. We haven't heard so much about catching the rest of the 'deck of cards' recently. The game has changed to supporting the I or As so they don't fall into chaos and anarchy.
4) WW2 / Falklands - the enemy was clear - chaps in uniforms, playing by the same military etiquette that we work by. Much as in N Ireland, the enemy is invisible - its sorting the good guys from the bad - they all look the same. I don't recall that shoving more troops into Belfast worked well either.
So, I'm not sure that Wardy's brilliant strategy gets you past first base at Sandhurst. Stick with the day job?
Mmmm. Builders mate. I hear what you are saying. I was never an infantry man, but I seem to recall the Army taught me how to fire a gun, armed and unarmed combat and how to crap in the woods without having your arse hole bitten by a snake. And guess what, I still faced a hell of a lot of the enemy!!!
As I have said, I am no strategist, and have forsaw many problems with my idea. My main aim is to rid the world of terrorist scum in the middle east. If Israel joined us aswell, the job would be finished in 6-8 weeks.
As I have said, I am no strategist, and have forsaw many problems with my idea. My main aim is to rid the world of terrorist scum in the middle east. If Israel joined us aswell, the job would be finished in 6-8 weeks.
1 to 20 of 20
Latest Posts
Developing Fast': Britain Facing...
News47 mins ago
Starmer & Lammy A Marriage Made In...
News56 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles91 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles100 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles160 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.