Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Right, and things went so well in Basra because snipers were never used.

AustonT wrote:Right, and things went so well in Basra because snipers were never used.

Actually they were, Basra was noticably less violent for a considerable time. But Iraqis eventually stopped making a distinction because of methods elsewhere playing the people into the hands of the extremists.

Bottom line is the US doesn't know how to do policing actions, though to be fair they were listening too much to the Israelis. I remember about Israel giving the US military combat advice saying that they could get better results by not using doors in searches of suspect houses, but by going through walls. The idea being less chance of booby traps, and the Israelis claim success by that. The advice could have been better phrased as 'how to piss off everyone and turn them all against you'.

Orlanth wrote:

AustonT wrote:Right, and things went so well in Basra because snipers were never used.

Actually they were, Basra was noticably less violent for a considerable time. But Iraqis eventually stopped making a distinction because of methods elsewhere playing the people into the hands of the extremists.

Bottom line is the US doesn't know how to do policing actions, though to be fair they were listening too much to the Israelis. I remember about Israel giving the US military combat advice saying that they could get better results by not using doors in searches of suspect houses, but by going through walls. The idea being less chance of booby traps, and the Israelis claim success by that. The advice could have been better phrased as 'how to piss off everyone and turn them all against you'.

Why police when you can irradiate?

I follow a close friend of his' blog. He's a cool guy, and his book seems to be pretty good.

The guy (ventura? Neat name) deserved what he got. There's just a certain place you don't go with military people (especially SEALs), and the dude just crossed the wrong line. He should be glad he didn't get worse.

Orlanth wrote:

AustonT wrote:Right, and things went so well in Basra because snipers were never used.

Actually they were, Basra was noticably less violent for a considerable time. But Iraqis eventually stopped making a distinction because of methods elsewhere playing the people into the hands of the extremists.

Bottom line is the US doesn't know how to do policing actions, though to be fair they were listening too much to the Israelis. I remember about Israel giving the US military combat advice saying that they could get better results by not using doors in searches of suspect houses, but by going through walls. The idea being less chance of booby traps, and the Israelis claim success by that. The advice could have been better phrased as 'how to piss off everyone and turn them all against you'.

Oh so you CAN use snipers, just only when the augeries are good and right.
Lets try to keep this to the subject at hand since I doubt Chris Kyle blew out a wall with his rifle whilst "policing."

Maybe it was a really big rifle?

Like the ridiculous 20mm boomstick Barret is trying to convince the Army they need?

AustonT wrote:Like the ridiculous 20mm boomstick Barret is trying to convince the Army they need?

Orlanth wrote:
Bottom line is the US doesn't know how to do policing actions, though to be fair they were listening too much to the Israelis.

First of all, that's a euphemism and not a term that references an actual thing.

Second, the US is pretty good at occupations, as occupiers go, occupations are simply rather messy by their nature.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:Like the ridiculous 20mm boomstick Barret is trying to convince the Army they need?

Wait, I haven't heard of this, please enlighten me.

Something similar anyways

My bad it was 25mm
http://www.smallarmsreview.com/pdf/payload.pdf

It's not exactly new, and there's the OICW split off that is now entering service as the M25(IIRC) in the same caliber.
I beleive there is/was a program to develop a 20m or 25mm cannon firing rifle using similar ammunition to the Bushmaster, but cant find a reference...and thats what I was really talking about.

OOoooooh you bastard, 25mm!!!! GAH!!

What a waste of money, and a perfect example of what is wrong with the US defense industry's relationship with the military.

Guys I gakker...

KingCracker wrote:OOoooooh you bastard, 25mm!!!! GAH!!

Its infinitely less powerful than the 20mm cannon round fired in the video you posted. If you look in the link I provided there's a picture of the mag, the standard 12.7x99mm mag, requires a spacer to accommodate the 25mm round. Or take my word for it.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Bottom line is the US doesn't know how to do policing actions, though to be fair they were listening too much to the Israelis.

First of all, that's a euphemism and not a term that references an actual thing.

Guess again. I wasn't going to use Vietnam as an example I suppose I have to. Compare Vietnam with Malaysia, and internal efforts in Thailand. Even jungle incursions can be won with the correct strategy rather than firepower.

Israel on the other hand is a poor role model for the US, the desired result is very different.

dogma wrote:
Second, the US is pretty good at occupations, as occupiers go, occupations are simply rather messy by their nature.

Occupations and other policing actions don't need to be messy, in fact they can be fairly bloodless. Follow the basic principle: the fewer of them you kill the fewer of them there are.

AustonT wrote:

KingCracker wrote:OOoooooh you bastard, 25mm!!!! GAH!!

Its infinitely less powerful than the 20mm cannon round fired in the video you posted. If you look in the link I provided there's a picture of the mag, the standard 12.7x99mm mag, requires a spacer to accommodate the 25mm round. Or take my word for it.

Im hoping my sarcasm came through in my post.......I even added the funny face on there......nothing? No? Ok then, moving on

Samus_aran115 wrote:I follow a close friend of his' blog. He's a cool guy, and his book seems to be pretty good.

The guy (ventura? Neat name) deserved what he got. There's just a certain place you don't go with military people (especially SEALs), and the dude just crossed the wrong line. He should be glad he didn't get worse.

The evidence available suggests that Kyle quite possibly is making up that story. Ventura claims it's fiction, and states that (as a former SEAL himself) he's been in that bar many times, but always with other people. He points out that if it had happened, word would probably have gotten out before now.

punching Jesse sounds like a lie...

Mannahnin wrote:

Samus_aran115 wrote:I follow a close friend of his' blog. He's a cool guy, and his book seems to be pretty good.

The guy (ventura? Neat name) deserved what he got. There's just a certain place you don't go with military people (especially SEALs), and the dude just crossed the wrong line. He should be glad he didn't get worse.

The evidence available suggests that Kyle quite possibly is making up that story. Ventura claims it's fiction, and states that (as a former SEAL himself) he's been in that bar many times, but always with other people. He points out that if it had happened, word would probably have gotten out before now.

It's a good point on ventura's part because punching a governor or ex-governer is news worthy gak, it would have got out if it had actually happened.

KingCracker wrote:

AustonT wrote:

KingCracker wrote:OOoooooh you bastard, 25mm!!!! GAH!!

Its infinitely less powerful than the 20mm cannon round fired in the video you posted. If you look in the link I provided there's a picture of the mag, the standard 12.7x99mm mag, requires a spacer to accommodate the 25mm round. Or take my word for it.

Im hoping my sarcasm came through in my post.......I even added the funny face on there......nothing? No? Ok then, moving on

Frequently lost on me unless in person.

Orlanth wrote:
Guess again. I wasn't going to use Vietnam as an example I suppose I have to. Compare Vietnam with Malaysia, and internal efforts in Thailand. Even jungle incursions can be won with the correct strategy rather than firepower.

That doesn't evade my criticism of the phrase "police action" as a euphemism.

Orlanth wrote:
Occupations and other policing actions don't need to be messy, in fact they can be fairly bloodless.

"Police action" is a euphemism for military action outside the declaration of war. It is a euphemism because it encompasses numerous conflicts that are conventionally considered wars. It is a meaningless phrase that should be stricken from the lexicon.

That aside, yes, occupations (I find it hilarious that you spend so much time complaining about doublespeak, but will call an occupation a police action.) are messy by their nature. That doesn't necessarily mean they're violent, but they are messy, and that mess often takes a violent character. Simply not killing people will not necessarily make the occupation any less messy, or less violent.

dogma wrote:

That doesn't evade my criticism of the phrase "police action" as a euphemism.

"Police action" is a euphemism for military action outside the declaration of war. It is a euphemism because it encompasses numerous conflicts that are conventionally considered wars. It is a meaningless phrase that should be stricken from the lexicon.

Sorry untrue, police action has further meanings. Police action can refer to internal security, most counter terrorism actions by military forces are police actions. Normally war is not declared against terrorist groups, and in the one exception of note 'War on Terror' is itself a euthemism, as the enemy is purposely denied status of enemy combatant or rights under the Geneva conventions.
Most police actions are not wars. For example the Troubles was not a war. The IRA wanted it to be a war because that would mean terrorists would become POWs. This breaks down due to the nature of the conflict, which is not only asymmetrical but veiled within a civilian populace. Rebels in the hills may be seen as soldiers in some cases, rebels hiding amongst civilians yet operating are not acting as soldiers but illegal combatants at best, or just criminals. Assuming the policy is not to act directly against the population as a whole the only option is to act as a police. Hence 'policing action', and why the term is logical and valid.

Technically, and I emphasise technically the recent US garrison was 'assisting' the 'lawful' Iraqi government. For what its worth since the Iraqi government was sworn in the US, and for that matter the UK were no longer occupying forces. We do know different, but legally it became a counter insurgency campaign, and was thus a policing action. With regards to Iraq there was/is a lot of doublespeak, but I am not limited the definition of police actions to that, in fact where Iraq is concerned I would not only call it an occupation, but an illegal one at that.

dogma wrote:
That aside, yes, occupations (I find it hilarious that you spend so much time complaining about doublespeak, but will call an occupation a police action.) are messy by their nature.

You like to use the word hilarious when you aren't thinking clearly dogma. There are PLENTY of examples of bloodless occupations. Argentinian occupation forces did not kill and Falklands islanders in 1982, the Germans treated the Channel Islanders fairly and humanely during the occupation from 1940 to 1944. I only offer them as indicative examples from the top of my head. Most occupation forces do what they can to keep the peace unless they want to rile up opposition in order to have an excuse to relocate or kill local populations, and/or due to some bigoted doctrine.
The Romans and British empires would follow a policy of trying to take over a country as bloodlessly as possible, not due to being nice guys, but to make the job easier long term. Not everyone gains real estate the Mongol way.

Orlanth wrote: There are PLENTY of examples of bloodless occupations. Argentinian occupation forces did not kill and Falklands islanders in 1982, the Germans treated the Channel Islanders fairly and humanely during the occupation from 1940 to 1944. I only offer them as indicative examples from the top of my head.

Your examples are a two month war and a very specific location under Nazi Germany. First of all good on you for fulfilling Godwins Law. But while that peaceful occupation of the channel islands the Germans were slaughtering anyone they weren't particularly fond of in Poland and Germany, the Germans couldn't eve peacefully occupy their own country and you want to talk about THE CHANNEL ISLANDS. Thank God we got that straightened out.

Orlanth wrote:
Sorry untrue, police action has further meanings. Police action can refer to internal security, most counter terrorism actions by military forces are police actions.

In the context of international politics and the use of military force, this meaning is not relevant. Seeing as this is a conversation about international politics, and the use of military force I'm not sure why you brought this definition up.

Orlanth wrote:
Normally war is not declared against terrorist groups, and in the one exception of note 'War on Terror' is itself a euthemism, as the enemy is purposely denied status of enemy combatant or rights under the Geneva conventions.

The "War on Terror" is itself a euphemistic phrase, so I'm not sure why you brought that up.

Orlanth wrote:
You like to use the word hilarious when you aren't thinking clearly dogma.

I like to use the word hilarious when someone makes an argument that is hilarious.

Orlanth wrote:
There are PLENTY of examples of bloodless occupations. Argentinian occupation forces did not kill and Falklands islanders in 1982, the Germans treated the Channel Islanders fairly and humanely during the occupation from 1940 to 1944. I only offer them as indicative examples from the top of my head. Most occupation forces do what they can to keep the peace unless they want to rile up opposition in order to have an excuse to relocate or kill local populations, and/or due to some bigoted doctrine.

Right, they do what they can, but that doesn't mean that people aren't killed, or that occupations aren't messy.

Orlanth wrote:
The Romans and British empires would follow a policy of trying to take over a country as bloodlessly as possible, not due to being nice guys, but to make the job easier long term. Not everyone gains real estate the Mongol way.

Are you claiming that this isn't United States doctrine, or that having a sniper in the field somehow means that the US wants to kill as many people as possible?

Both positions are indefensible.

I know its info wars but its from his mouth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcN0XITFjmw&context=C33f7150ADOEgsToPDskJ2QDDiTKHEXaYrR-PLS9ke