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

[easyt65]

"What is the rational for continuing to fight ground wars when we have the capability to strike with deadly force from both the air and the sea?"

1. 'Mosul'
ISIS was buried in Mosul, hiding in the buildings, nooks, and crannies like cockroaches inside your walls at home. The only way to eliminate them is to go House-By-House with ground troops...

...that is unless your plan is to use air and ship strikes to totally destroy the cities / towns / Houses and rebuild afterwards.

2. 'Collateral Damage'
Airstrikes on enemy positions can not always be done. In the last military conflict in which Israel was engaged, their enemy placed anti-aircraft guns and missile launchers in housing communities, on top of schools, and on top of hospitals. // Spec Ops is also a more preferable option for specific missions.




'Shock and Awe' might have been one of the 'worst' military victories for the US - your thread topic question is the example of that (and I do NOT mean to sound insulting when I say that).

After it was over, many Americans thought all we have to do is send in the USAF and USN cruise missiles to defeat an enemy.

When the US dropped a 500lb bomb, everything within about 1,000 yards was dead. Anything within the next 1,000 yards had their ears running down their necks from the shockwave / explosion. The ground shook the next 1,000 yards out. Pretty impressive - it had Hussein's poorly trained fighters and even a tank surrendering to CNN news crews. (Hussein kept his Republican Guard - best hard-core soldiers back.)

BUT WE STILL HAD TO SEND IN THE GROUND TROOPS TO TAKE IRAQ.

As already mentioned, as well, Mosul had to be taken by house-to-house fighting. THAT is what was so disheartening / sickening about Barry not allowing the military to strike the ISIS mile-long convoys as they passed through open desert instead of letting them get into the thick, dense cities. That decision (or lack of one) cost a lot of lives of soldiers who had to go street-by-street and house-by-house to clean them out in Mosul...again.

 

[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.

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.

No easy answer to any of it.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

"What is the rational for continuing to fight ground wars when we have the capability to strike with deadly force from both the air and the sea?"

1. 'Mosul'
ISIS was buried in Mosul, hiding in the buildings, nooks, and crannies like cockroaches inside your walls at home. The only way to eliminate them is to go House-By-House with ground troops...

...that is unless your plan is to use air and ship strikes to totally destroy the cities / towns / Houses and rebuild afterwards.

2. 'Collateral Damage'
Airstrikes on enemy positions can not always be done. In the last military conflict in which Israel was engaged, their enemy placed anti-aircraft guns and missile launchers in housing communities, on top of schools, and on top of hospitals. // Spec Ops is also a more preferable option for specific missions.




'Shock and Awe' might have been one of the 'worst' military victories for the US - your thread topic question is the example of that (and I do NOT mean to sound insulting when I say that).

After it was over, many Americans thought all we have to do is send in the USAF and USN cruise missiles to defeat an enemy.

When the US dropped a 500lb bomb, everything within about 1,000 yards was dead. Anything within the next 1,000 yards had their ears running down their necks from the shockwave / explosion. The ground shook the next 1,000 yards out. Pretty impressive - it had Hussein's poorly trained fighters and even a tank surrendering to CNN news crews. (Hussein kept his Republican Guard - best hard-core soldiers back.)

BUT WE STILL HAD TO SEND IN THE GROUND TROOPS TO TAKE IRAQ.

As already mentioned, as well, Mosul had to be taken by house-to-house fighting. THAT is what was so disheartening / sickening about Barry not allowing the military to strike the ISIS mile-long convoys as they passed through open desert instead of letting them get into the thick, dense cities. That decision (or lack of one) cost a lot of lives of soldiers who had to go street-by-street and house-by-house to clean them out in Mosul...again.

Shock & Awe was the first step that led to an easy victory which Bush then bungled with misstep after misstep.

As far as Mosul goes that was a very limited engagement by US forces. We were a supporting role not the tip of the spear

 

[easyt65]

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.

A couple of reasons why:

Afghanistan and Iraq are two examples of tribal nations.

Saddam Hussein had a lot of poorly trained soldiers from different tribes all over the country when the US invaded. There were soldiers from the southern regions stationed and fighting / preparing to fight in the North...because Hussein threatened to murder their families if they didn't. When the US started carving through them, and they saw the US would win, those fighters from other nations began surrendering, laying down their arms, and going home - back to their own tribal areas, no longer willing to fight for a madman dictator who used to have the power to slaughter his family.
- These guys were not 'soldiers' like Hussein's hardcore Republican Guard - poppy growers, herders, etc...not professional soldiers.

After Hussein had been overthrown, the problem of nation-building had to be taught / under-taken as well. How do you teach different sectional tribal leaders to trust and work with one another, to begin thinking more as a NATION than a tribe?!

Those poor people had been CONDITIONED to be slaves / victims, as well. Hussein had murdered, tortured, gassed them...and sometimes worse.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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.

A couple of reasons why:

Afghanistan and Iraq are two examples of tribal nations.

Saddam Hussein had a lot of poorly trained soldiers from different tribes all over the country when the US invaded. There were soldiers from the southern regions stationed and fighting / preparing to fight in the North...because Hussein threatened to murder their families if they didn't. When the US started carving through them, and they saw the US would win, those fighters from other nations began surrendering, laying down their arms, and going home - back to their own tribal areas, no longer willing to fight for a madman dictator who used to have the power to slaughter his family.
- These guys were not 'soldiers' like Hussein's hardcore Republican Guard - poppy growers, herders, etc...not professional soldiers.

After Hussein had been overthrown, the problem of nation-building had to be taught / under-taken as well. How do you teach different sectional tribal leaders to trust and work with one another, to begin thinking more as a NATION than a tribe?!

Those poor people had been CONDITIONED to be slaves / victims, as well. Hussein had murdered, tortured, gassed them...and sometimes worse.

That's their problem tbqh. Why do we need to rebuild?
All we needed to do was NOT disband the Iraqi military. That was the biggest mistake of the war. We removed ALL sense of security from the Iraquis with that blunder and as a result the country plunged into chaos.

 

[easyt65]

Shock & Awe was the first step that led to an easy victory which Bush then bungled with misstep after misstep.

As far as Mosul goes that was a very limited engagement by US forces. We were a supporting role not the tip of the spear

All you know is partisan shit, and it flows out of your mouth every time you open it.

Shock and Awe DID soften Iraq up and make it a whole lot easier for the ground troops to cut through the country on their way to Baghdad...BUT THE GROUND TROOPS WERE STILL NEEDED.

Mosul 2.0 was limited, but we did have US soldiers fighting in that battle to re-take the city. The media reported we were in the 'supporting role', but our troops saw their share of active combat, as well. It was OUR troops who had to fight to take it the 1st time.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Shock & Awe was the first step that led to an easy victory which Bush then bungled with misstep after misstep.

As far as Mosul goes that was a very limited engagement by US forces. We were a supporting role not the tip of the spear

All you know is partisan shit, and it flows out of your mouth every time you open it.

Shock and Awe DID soften Iraq up and make it a whole lot easier for the ground troops to cut through the country on their way to Baghdad...BUT THE GROUND TROOPS WERE STILL NEEDED.

Mosul 2.0 was limited, but we did have US soldiers fighting in that battle to re-take the city. The media reported we were in the 'supporting role', but our troops saw their share of active combat, as well. It was OUR troops who had to fight to take it the 1st time.

There is NOTHING partisan in my post you dumbass.

Off to ignore with you for awhile since you want to be ignorant rather than have a rational adult discussion.

 

[easyt65]

That's their problem thouqh. Why do we need to rebuild?
All we needed to do was NOT disband the Iraqi military. That was the biggest mistake of the war. We removed ALL sense of security from the Iraquis with that blunder and as a result the country plunged into chaos.

GMU, I totally agree with you!

Our government has been using the military all wrong, from a Nation Building Agency to the testing ground for Social and Scientific Experiments. I have always taught my troops everywhere I have gone to think like Gen Mattis - No matter what your specialty is in the military your job is to 'Kill people and break their sh!t...to the point where they lose their will to continue to fight'. Mattis believed that we can be friendly with everyone we meet, but we had better be ready to kill them if necessary at a moment's notice - READY FOR COMBAT.

The US military did it's job superbly in what it was asked to do. The feds/politicians/agencies, as usual, F*ed up the aftermath...tried to learn as they went.
.

 

[easyt65]

There is NOTHING partisan in my post you dumbass. Off to ignore with you for awhile since you want to be ignorant rather than have a rational adult discussion.

Sure there was - you sought to blame Bush for every mistake that happened after the war was over. I will agree that going into Iraq was a mistake - the wrong thing to do, but I disagree with making blanket statements in blaming people..Presidents. Bush made a lot of mistakes, so did Obama, but all the mistakes that happened on their watch were not 'Theirs'...and YES, I do mean that applies to Obama, as well.

 

[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.

This is why we don't win wars anymore.

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

So you want to kill them all and then let God sort it out? Great idea. I'm sure the innocent people whose family are killed won't be likely to hate us at all.