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.

Russia would need to roll through a lot more nations to get to Germany.

Somebody get Fraz his brain medicine, he thinks it's the 80's.

This is probably best reserved for the Ukraine thread if it's still going.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Britain and France have nukes. None of the other European nations have nukes (IIRC).
If Putin wanted to drive into Germany tomorrow, you would do nothing about it.

Do you actually believe that? The U.K. and France just letting Russia invade Germany? And why would Russia do that anyway?

As you said, Russia has nukes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Russia would need to roll through a lot more nations to get to Germany.

Somebody get Fraz his brain medicine, he thinks it's the 80's.

This is probably best reserved for the Ukraine thread if it's still going.

Thats correct. What if he take Lithuania tomorrow to protect "Russian speaking" Lithuanians. What then?

Once the Baltic states fall, its Poland's turn. Would Europe fight. Sucker please.

When people post "We need to do something!" about ISIS, its always the US (and eventually it seems the UK).

That is if Obama willing to commit US Troops (Boots on Ground)

As somebody that's never served in the armed forces I'd be interested to know what the many former service men of Dakka think of putting boots on the ground in that situation?

 Jihadin wrote:
That is if Obama willing to commit US Troops (Boots on Ground)

We just need a way to fool all these ISIS radicals into a single wide open area and put the MOAB to work. We should fool them into thinking that Allah has bestowed several thousand virgins in the middle of a desert oasis and only the most worthy are welcome to enjoy them. 95% will be killed off by infighting the rest of the scumbags get killed by a single bomb when they are drawn into the trap of virgins (actually holograms or fembots). This way no troops are required.

 Medium of Death wrote:
As somebody that's never served in the armed forces I'd be interested to know what the many former service men of Dakka think of putting boots on the ground in that situation?

I don't mind boots on the ground IF:

1. There is a clearly defined national/strategic objective. "Success = _________ " and it is clearly tied to our national interest (and it can be explained so simpletons like myself can understand it).
2. All the elements of national power (DIME) are being used correctly, not just the M, and not making the M responsible for D,I, and E missions.
3. The TF commander is given the resources and mission, and is allowed to accomplish it as he sees fit (no targeting decisions made or having to be approved by POTUS for example).
4. The mission does not include 'Stability Operations' or 'Nation Building' as an add on 'On Order' or 'Be Prepared'.
5. Congress has authorized the use of force to accomplish #1.

Acronyms...

Translate please? DIME?

Diplomacy, Intelligence, Military, Err......?


Edit; OOH, Economy?

 whembly wrote:
Acronyms...

Translate please? DIME?

It means occasionally using grease or the screwdriver instead of just the hammer.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Acronyms...

Translate please? DIME?

It means occasionally using grease or the screwdriver instead of just the hammer.

Heh...

Diplomatic, Information, Military, and Economic.

 whembly wrote:
Acronyms...

Translate please? DIME?

Diplomacy, Information, Military, and Economics (DIME) are the four elements of national power. When you do operational planning you base the lines of effort (LOEs) and lines of operation (LOOs) on effectively using all 4 (where appropriate) and to counter their use by the other side. Ideally you want a very coordinated effort to incorporate all 4. We have not done that well recently (in my opinion).




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Acronyms...

Translate please? DIME?

It means occasionally using grease or the screwdriver instead of just the hammer.

And not telling the hammer to pretend it is a grease gun.

 CptJake wrote:
3. The TF commander is given the resources and mission, and is allowed to accomplish it as he sees fit (no targeting decisions made or having to be approved by POTUS for example).

The rest of your list is fine, but this is problematic in terms of recognizing that the US military has civilian leadership - the inability to accept this seems a fairly common trope.

It might be unwise to micromanage a military commander in the field, but ultimately war is a political decision and so, unless we have a coup, it's right and proper that the POTUS decide where and how much (and of course, after Congress agrees)

 CptJake wrote:
And not telling the hammer to pretend it is a grease gun.

On this, there is utter agreement.

 CptJake wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
As somebody that's never served in the armed forces I'd be interested to know what the many former service men of Dakka think of putting boots on the ground in that situation?

I don't mind boots on the ground IF:

1. There is a clearly defined national/strategic objective. "Success = _________ " and it is clearly tied to our national interest (and it can be explained so simpletons like myself can understand it).
2. All the elements of national power (DIME) are being used correctly, not just the M, and not making the M responsible for D,I, and E missions.
3. The TF commander is given the resources and mission, and is allowed to accomplish it as he sees fit (no targeting decisions made or having to be approved by POTUS for example).
4. The mission does not include 'Stability Operations' or 'Nation Building' as an add on 'On Order' or 'Be Prepared'.
5. Congress has authorized the use of force to accomplish #1.

I agree with Jihadin on this. Particulary, that the objective of the operation should be to confine as much of the combat power and experienced leaders of ISIS within a limited area and obliterate them.

 Ouze wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
3. The TF commander is given the resources and mission, and is allowed to accomplish it as he sees fit (no targeting decisions made or having to be approved by POTUS for example).

The rest of your list is fine, but this is problematic in terms of recognizing that the US military has civilian leadership - the inability to accept this seems a fairly common trope.

It might be unwise to micromanage a military commander in the field, but ultimately war is a political decision and so, unless we have a coup, it's right and proper that the POTUS decide where and how much (and of course, after Congress agrees)

What we have been seeing is micromanagement, and have been since the Johnson Administration. Currently the target approval for our airstrikes is just amazingly complicated and goes up WAY too high. Yes, there is and should be civilian control. You will get no argument from me on that. But that control ought to be providing a clear objective/defined mission and providing the resources to accomplish it. It should not be in the business of approving tactical and operational level decisions, and should really only be giving guidance on the strategic level (then getting briefed on the strategic plan, approving it or not, but then allowing it to be carried out once approved.)

Right now, both at the senior military and the civilian level, they get way way down in the weeds and it is very detrimental to mission accomplishment. If you don't trust your subordinate leaders to accomplish the mission you give them within the intent you give them, you should be firing them and replacing them with ones you do trust. POTUS should NOT be approving targets (unless we are talking a nuclear strike or something).

Well, my thinking was (for example, hypothetically) "trying to avoid blowing up mosques", "the enemy we are fighting has crossed a national border", and stuff like that, which is where tactical decisions collide with political decisions.

 CptJake wrote:


What we have been seeing is micromanagement, and have been since the Johnson Administration. Currently the target approval for our airstrikes is just amazingly complicated and goes up WAY too high. Yes, there is and should be civilian control. You will get no argument from me on that. But that control ought to be providing a clear objective/defined mission and providing the resources to accomplish it. It should not be in the business of approving tactical and operational level decisions, and should really only be giving guidance on the strategic level (then getting briefed on the strategic plan, approving it or not, but then allowing it to be carried out once approved.)

Right now, both at the senior military and the civilian level, they get way way down in the weeds and it is very detrimental to mission accomplishment. If you don't trust your subordinate leaders to accomplish the mission you give them within the intent you give them, you should be firing them and replacing them with ones you do trust. POTUS should NOT be approving targets (unless we are talking a nuclear strike or something).

Very well said. I think the tendency to micromanage instead of oversee on the part of civillian leadership is making our military less effective when it gets deployed.

 Ouze wrote:
Well, my thinking was (for example, hypothetically) "trying to avoid blowing up mosques", and stuff like that, which is where tactical decisions collide with political decisions.

Isn't that where the ROE is built to address that?

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Well, my thinking was (for example, hypothetically) "trying to avoid blowing up mosques", and stuff like that, which is where tactical decisions collide with political decisions.

Isn't that where the ROE is built to address that?

Yes, but wouldn't that be considered micromanaging, in generally? A unduly restrictive - obviously this is a matter of opinion depending on who you ask - ROE?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, what is the rationale for the US fighting ISIL in the first place? What is the US, national security reason?

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Well, my thinking was (for example, hypothetically) "trying to avoid blowing up mosques", and stuff like that, which is where tactical decisions collide with political decisions.

Isn't that where the ROE is built to address that?

Yes, but wouldn't that be considered micromanaging, in generally? A unduly restrictive - obviously this is a matter of opinion depending on who you ask - ROE?

Maybe... that's not the gist that I got from CptJake though... but, I can be wrong.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, what is the rationale for the US fighting ISIL in the first place? What is the US, national security reason?

Dunno... but, you gotta admit, that's the kind of question we probably had prior to engaging the WW2 front... don't ya think?

 Ouze wrote:
Well, my thinking was (for example, hypothetically) "trying to avoid blowing up mosques", and stuff like that, which is where tactical decisions collide with political decisions.

Stuff like that should be in the intent, and reflected in the ROE. But if a unit is taking fire from a Mosque, and there is a Zero Shooting At Mosques guidance (that is how "try to avoid" gets translated) the effort on the ground breaks down as you literally wait for the JAG officer to be found and woken up so he can go talk to the general on whether or not you may be within the ROE to return fire. That type of thing has happened in our recent wars, and is very much happening today. And that is relatively low level micromanagement. Some of the targeting going on against Da'Ish must be approved WAY above that level. And I know for a fact some targets have gotten away as a result.

Again, if you don't trust your subordinates to accomplish their missions within your intent, fire them. That goes for company commanders up through POTUS. If POTUS is not happy with how his intent is being carried out, GOs should be being fired.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

Also, what is the rationale for the US fighting ISIL in the first place? What is the US, national security reason?

Hence my first condition.

1. There is a clearly defined national/strategic objective. "Success = _________ " and it is clearly tied to our national interest (and it can be explained so simpletons like myself can understand it).

No, that question wasn't directed at you specifically. Sorry, that wasn't very clear on my part.

 Ouze wrote:
No, that question wasn't directed at you specifically. Sorry, that wasn't very clear on my part.

I got that. The point is, it is not just a great question, it is THE question we should be asking our congress critters to answer as they push for MOAR action. And POTUS ought to be giving us his answer too as he sends our pilots and some ground forces into harm's way (yes, the advisors in Iraq have already come under mortar fire).

 Ouze wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
3. The TF commander is given the resources and mission, and is allowed to accomplish it as he sees fit (no targeting decisions made or having to be approved by POTUS for example).

The rest of your list is fine, but this is problematic in terms of recognizing that the US military has civilian leadership - the inability to accept this seems a fairly common trope.

It might be unwise to micromanage a military commander in the field, but ultimately war is a political decision and so, unless we have a coup, it's right and proper that the POTUS decide where and how much (and of course, after Congress agrees)

 CptJake wrote:
And not telling the hammer to pretend it is a grease gun.

On this, there is utter agreement.

Its a simple but easy understanding.

A good President will manage the overall strategy of the campaign ala FDR: approve major plans (island hopping vs. invading China), but will stay away from the Johnson nightmare (micromanagement down to picking individual buildings for bombing targets).

 Frazzled wrote:

If Putin wanted to drive into Germany tomorrow, you would do nothing about it.

The fighting would go on for 3-4 years, the UK and what's left of the French State would be exhausted from fighting, and we Americans would ride in to "save the day" as we've done a couple times already

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

If Putin wanted to drive into Germany tomorrow, you would do nothing about it.

The fighting would go on for 3-4 years, the UK and what's left of the French State would be exhausted from fighting, and we Americans would ride in to "save the day" as we've done a couple times already

The fighting would last until the nukes started flying.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
My Jordanian friend suggests that the reports of King Abdullah personally leading a strike on Daesh are... exaggerated to say the least.

Probably. But it's not unprecedented. Prices William and Harry did tours in Iraq and or Afghanistan IIRC, though it was kept secret at the time and I'm sure they were kept far from danger.

Maybe Jordan will have the King do a high altitude flyover out of range of ISIS' s AA capabilities in a bomber or whatever, purely as a publicity stunt.

 Vaktathi wrote:


The King is a super interesting guy, US & UK educated, great military background, huge Trekkie (with a small part in Voyager), been on the Daily Show, has Islamic religious credibility as the Jordanian royal family claims to descend from Muhmmad but leads probably the most westernized state in the middle east along with Turkey aside from Israel, etc

Also he has a super hot wife.

He also has a ww2 tank collection.He is.....the most interesting man in the Galaxy.And Boba fett. I believe the British royal Family exists only to the create a guy like this to be king.

 Jihadin wrote:
That is if Obama willing to commit US Troops (Boots on Ground)

I don't think he will in Mass, I'm sure we have some ranger teams and SF teams there though.

So due to this thread I had a look at Jordan, a country I knew nothing about except it was involved in wars against Israel.

It seems like a really nice place, and Abdullah seems like a chill guy.

 Medium of Death wrote:
As somebody that's never served in the armed forces I'd be interested to know what the many former service men of Dakka think of putting boots on the ground in that situation?

Honestly, I think there are some evils in this world that are so dispicable that it certainly requires confrontation. ISIS has reached almost cartoonish levels of villany, I mean seriously they will resort to dropping anvils and pianos on peoples heads.

I'd like to see us get involved enough to where we completely destroy the combat capability of ISIS and enable the Rebel factions clean up whats left.

I'd also like us to help the Iraqi govt get its head out of its ass, and stop this secular bickering.


Sadly, there is also a part of me that says fuckem. That part of the world has been gaking in its own backyeard for generations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
So due to this thread I had a look at Jordan, a country I knew nothing about except it was involved in wars against Israel.

It seems like a really nice place, and Abdullah seems like a chill guy.

Well their king definately has a larger pair than anyone else we have in office right now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
My Jordanian friend suggests that the reports of King Abdullah personally leading a strike on Daesh are... exaggerated to say the least.

Probably. But it's not unprecedented. Prices William and Harry did tours in Iraq and or Afghanistan IIRC, though it was kept secret at the time and I'm sure they were kept far from danger.

Maybe Jordan will have the King do a high altitude flyover out of range of ISIS' s AA capabilities in a bomber or whatever, purely as a publicity stunt.

From what I understand one of the princes actually played a active part in combat operations in AF, and also participated in Dust-off missions, if he did, hell of a guy.