What is the rational for continuing to fight ground wars when we have....

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The capability to strike with deadly force from both the air and the sea?

We can devastate any location where it is deemed that terrorists/enemies are regrouping or gathering.

Obviously I'm no expert on military tactics. In fact I know very little about it but it seems to me we are trying to fight wars that can't be won. Basically fighting an unconventional enemy with conventional means.

We can not hold those lands without a major commitment of ground forces so why bother with any? Just use our Navy & Air force to subdue any uprising of KNOWN terrorists.


Am I way out in left field for thinking this way?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Anyone?

 

[aaronleland]

It depends on the fight. It's sad to say but we do care about some country's civilians more than others. We could have leveled a place like Mosul in a week if we wanted to, but instead Iraqi ground forces spent months weaving through urban streets and buildings fighting ISIS.

 

[BULLDOG]

I'm guessing it's too hard to kill the bad guys, and not kill the nuns and little kiddies. A missile has a hard time telling the difference.

 

[MarcATL]

O.P., that you have to ask this question speaks volumes to your character, or lack thereof.

 

[toobfreak]

So we can look them right in their eye as we kick them in the ass.

 

[toobfreak]

O.P., that you have to ask this question speaks volumes to your character, or lack thereof.

As usual, your belief that you can judge a person's character based only on a few sentences typed over the internet, then condescend to them speaks volumes about your mentality.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I'm guessing it's too hard to kill the bad guys, and not kill the nuns and little kiddies. A missile has a hard time telling the difference.

This is why we don't win wars anymore.

Better a handful of bystanders than US foot soldiers lives & billions of dollars.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

O.P., that you have to ask this question speaks volumes to your character, or lack thereof.

Go fuck yourself with that pedestal you're standing on.

 

[aaronleland]

I'm guessing it's too hard to kill the bad guys, and not kill the nuns and little kiddies. A missile has a hard time telling the difference.

This is why we don't win wars anymore.

Better a handful of bystanders than US foot soldiers lives & billions of dollars.

No. Not better a "handful" of bystanders. Most of the civilians in the shitholes we bomb don't volunteer to live in those shitholes. But we do have a voluntary military and they should understand the risks when they sign up.

 

[Norman]

The capability to strike with deadly force from both the air and the sea?

We can devastate any location where it is deemed that terrorists/enemies are regrouping or gathering.

Obviously I'm no expert on military tactics. In fact I know very little about it but it seems to me we are trying to fight wars that can't be won. Basically fighting an unconventional enemy with conventional means.

We can not hold those lands without a major commitment of ground forces so why bother with any? Just use our Navy & Air force to subdue any uprising of KNOWN terrorists.


Am I way out in left field for thinking this way?

Are you talking about the Middle east? That's not a traditional war, more like an occupation, so there is your answer.

 

[busybee01]

The capability to strike with deadly force from both the air and the sea?

We can devastate any location where it is deemed that terrorists/enemies are regrouping or gathering.

Obviously I'm no expert on military tactics. In fact I know very little about it but it seems to me we are trying to fight wars that can't be won. Basically fighting an unconventional enemy with conventional means.

We can not hold those lands without a major commitment of ground forces so why bother with any? Just use our Navy & Air force to subdue any uprising of KNOWN terrorists.


Am I way out in left field for thinking this way?

You need ground troops. We flattened Germany from the air during WWII. Yet we had to send troops into Germany to force a surrender.

 

[BlackFlag]

Ground troops are where the contractors can really cash in. Troop housing, rebuilding the rubble, food services, providing weapons, ammo, armor, repairing weapons, ammo, armor... Selling new models of air, land and sea crafts, selling upgrades for them, repairing them...

And for certain unsavory segments of the population, ground troop invasions can really drum up political support.

 

[blastoff]

Know it's harsh but worrying about civilian casualties that then limit our options is part of the problem IMO. No question we've evolved that way since WW II when Hitler didn't give a damn about bombing London civilians and the allies retaliated in kind hitting Dresden and other German cities, and then we ultimately nuked Japanese civilians to end that war.

So it comes down to the debate of does the end justify the means? Again, it's harsh but alternative options won't end things quickly if ever. So...

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Ground troops are where the contractors can really cash in. Troop housing, rebuilding the rubble, food services, providing weapons, ammo, armor, repairing weapons, ammo, armor... Selling new models of air, land and sea crafts, selling upgrades for them, repairing them...

And for certain unsavory segments of the population, ground troop invasions can really drum up political support.

Interesting you mention this. Ive had two different Federal Contractors trying to get me to bid on upcoming expansions or remodels at Whiteman Airforce base in the last 36 hours. Money is always good but I'm sick of red tape bs & traveling for work

 

[Clintonista]

Anyone?

You need ground troops to pursue kill and capture the bad guys. Especially in urban warfare. They move around a lot you know.

 

[BlackFlag]

Ground troops are where the contractors can really cash in. Troop housing, rebuilding the rubble, food services, providing weapons, ammo, armor, repairing weapons, ammo, armor... Selling new models of air, land and sea crafts, selling upgrades for them, repairing them...

And for certain unsavory segments of the population, ground troop invasions can really drum up political support.

Interesting you mention this. Ive had two different Federal Contractors trying to get me to bid on upcoming expansions or remodels at Whiteman Airforce base in the last 36 hours. Money is always good but I'm sick of red tape bs & traveling for work

Take the job. Make some connections. When we invade North Korea, you could apply for a boatload of cash in contracting work.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The capability to strike with deadly force from both the air and the sea?

We can devastate any location where it is deemed that terrorists/enemies are regrouping or gathering.

Obviously I'm no expert on military tactics. In fact I know very little about it but it seems to me we are trying to fight wars that can't be won. Basically fighting an unconventional enemy with conventional means.

We can not hold those lands without a major commitment of ground forces so why bother with any? Just use our Navy & Air force to subdue any uprising of KNOWN terrorists.


Am I way out in left field for thinking this way?

You need ground troops. We flattened Germany from the air during WWII. Yet we had to send troops into Germany to force a surrender.

This is what I am talking about. You're trying to equate a rag tag group of LIMITED terrorist forces to the full army of a legit country. IE, trying to fight an unconventional war via conventional means.

 

[blackhawk]

The capability to strike with deadly force from both the air and the sea?

We can devastate any location where it is deemed that terrorists/enemies are regrouping or gathering.

Obviously I'm no expert on military tactics. In fact I know very little about it but it seems to me we are trying to fight wars that can't be won. Basically fighting an unconventional enemy with conventional means.

We can not hold those lands without a major commitment of ground forces so why bother with any? Just use our Navy & Air force to subdue any uprising of KNOWN terrorists.


Am I way out in left field for thinking this way?

One of the problems with missile and air strikes is civilian deaths I know it's part of war and it will always happen but if you have a strike that kills 20 terrorist and 5 civilians die in the same strike all the attention is on how the U.S. killed five civilians not that 20 terrorist were taken out.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The capability to strike with deadly force from both the air and the sea?

We can devastate any location where it is deemed that terrorists/enemies are regrouping or gathering.

Obviously I'm no expert on military tactics. In fact I know very little about it but it seems to me we are trying to fight wars that can't be won. Basically fighting an unconventional enemy with conventional means.

We can not hold those lands without a major commitment of ground forces so why bother with any? Just use our Navy & Air force to subdue any uprising of KNOWN terrorists.


Am I way out in left field for thinking this way?

One of the problems with missile and air strikes is civilian deaths I know it's part of war and it will always happen but if you have a strike that kills 20 terrorist and 5 civilians die in the same strike all the attention is on how the U.S. killed five civilians not that 20 terrorist were taken out.

I hear you but I just can't bring myself to care. They are in that situation because of their own choices. All the men FLEE the area/country as refugees then expect our men to replace them as a fighting force. Enough babysitting.