quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

Follow up to the earlier 'using tanks for 'nation building' is getting troops killed needlessly' article....

Looks like 'lessons learned' aren't...and not just in the White House.

quote:

Why would any commander stick a unit in a poorly defended arena? It did not work at Dak To, Dak Pek, Dak Seang, Lang Vei, Roberts Ridge or with any other isolated unit. The dead soldiers of these actions would cry from their grave to know the same needless sacrifices are being made today, sacrifices that will never lead to anything remotely associated with a military success.

http://rangeragainstwar.blogspot.com/2008/07/dak-to-redux.html

I have little respect for the "Ranger" who posted this mess of bullshit. I've been to his website before, and nothing has changed.

There is not enough information to make any type of rational decision on this particular action, much less to use it as a springboard to defame the entire military officer corp.

What "Ranger's" article does show me is the vein of faulty and dangerous reasoning that American political and military leaders have fallen into often enough in the past i.e. that taking any risk in war is something to be avoided at all costs.

Risk analysis is one thing.  The drive to remove all risk before taking any action leads to nothing but defeat.

"De l'audace, encore de l'audace, toujours de l'audace!"

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

Agreed.

I would also suggest that the actual casualty numbers show that something was learned somewhere.  They are much lower than any other war/conflict we have been involved in.  That doesn't make it any easier to read about Marines and soldiers dying, but it puts things in perspective.

I would also point out I haven't heard or read about a single officer being fragged during these engagements.

I'd suggest you look into the figures a little more deeply.

KIA numbers are way down not overall casualties. The reality, which can be verified by a visit to any major VA hospital, is that better body armor and medical care saves lives that in any previous conflict would have been KIA. That translates into unprecedented levels of amputations and permanently incapacitating traumatic brain injuries.

Well even going by what antiwar.com lists as official numbers  we have had a total of 4,119 deaths, and 30,349 total wounded. (They already included the numbers from the 14th of July).  Just to put those numbers in perspective, there were 37,000 allied killed in the battle of Normandy, or to use a more recent comparison one that was fought exactly where we are now...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

Follow up to the earlier 'using tanks for 'nation building' is getting troops killed needlessly' article....

Looks like 'lessons learned' aren't...and not just in the White House.

quote:

Why would any commander stick a unit in a poorly defended arena? It did not work at Dak To, Dak Pek, Dak Seang, Lang Vei, Roberts Ridge or with any other isolated unit. The dead soldiers of these actions would cry from their grave to know the same needless sacrifices are being made today, sacrifices that will never lead to anything remotely associated with a military success.

http://rangeragainstwar.blogspot.com/2008/07/dak-to-redux.html

I have little respect for the "Ranger" who posted this mess of bullshit. I've been to his website before, and nothing has changed.

There is not enough information to make any type of rational decision on this particular action, much less to use it as a springboard to defame the entire military officer corp.

What "Ranger's" article does show me is the vein of faulty and dangerous reasoning that American political and military leaders have fallen into often enough in the past i.e. that taking any risk in war is something to be avoided at all costs.

Risk analysis is one thing.  The drive to remove all risk before taking any action leads to nothing but defeat.

"De l'audace, encore de l'audace, toujours de l'audace!"

Firm

Nobody particularly cares if you profess to respect people who have accomplished what you haven't.

That aside, do you have anything to add in the way of relevant discourse on the issues posited?

Or is it your position that it is OK to deploy troops and equipment in the suicidal manner described, and end up with dead soldiers to achieve no military objective?

Do you  have so little regard for those who wear the uniform that you think they are expendable like movie extras in a make-it-up-as-you-go-along stunt called 'nation building'?

quote:

source: http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/
Casualties in Iraq
The Human Cost of Occupation
Edited by Margaret Griffis :: Contact

American Military Casualties in Iraq

Date

Total

In Combat

.casualties { font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; width: 100%; } .casualties-title { text-align: center; font-size: 25px; } .casualties-total-header { text-align: center; white-space: nowrap; } .casualties-total-label { text-align: left; white-space: nowrap; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; } .casualties-total-value { text-align: center; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; } .casualties-since-label { text-align: left; white-space: nowrap; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; } .casualties-since-value { text-align: center; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; } .casualties-combat-wounded {text-align: left; white-space: nowrap; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; } .casualties-combat-label { text-align: center; white-space: nowrap; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; } .casualties-combat-value { text-align: center; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; }




American Deaths



Since war began (3/19/03):
4121
3357

Since "Mission Accomplished" (5/1/03) (the list)

3982

3249

Since Capture of Saddam (12/13/03):
3660
3051

Since Handover (6/29/04):
3262
2724

Since Election (1/31/05):
2684
2461

American Wounded
Official
Estimated

Total Wounded:
30409
23000 - 100000

Latest Fatality July 14, 2008

Page last updated 07/16/08 12:12 pm EDT

quote:


Between 8 and 10 percent of nearly 12,000 soldiers from the war on terror, mostly from Iraq, treated at the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany had "psychiatric or behavioral health issues," according to the commander of the hospital, Col. Rhonda Cornum.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

I shared the link to where I got the stats... even your number of dead is higher than TOTAL casualties in Iraq.
Care to share your source for this official fact that they are under reporting casualties by 75%?

quote:

casualty (plural casualties)

1. A person suffering from injuries or who has been killed due to an accident or through an act of violence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen



So the official number is 4121 dead plus the 30,000+ reported injured.

As to a source for the under reporting of coalition injured:
http://www.democracynow.org/2004/11/10/the_forgotten_casualties_of_war_over
http://www.casualty-monitor.org/2006/03/under-reporting-of-british-casualties.html
http://www.birf.info/home/library/vet/vet-penta.html
http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/files/VFCS/VCS_Complete_Casualty_Report_07-04-2007.pdf

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Thadius, unfortunately, we are moving troops into a city to pacify it, then after the insurgents are pushed out, we move out to another location.

As soon as our boots are off the ground in a particular area, insurgents move back in.

The same crap happened in Vietnam.

This is not something new, in the days after Pearl Harbor, a relief convoy was dispatched to Wake Island, which would have made it possible to hold Wake.  A day short it was ordered to turn around and return to Pearl Harbor.

But, then there is something else which we are not privy to, and that is the long range goal.  People die in combat, a good commander decides when and where that sacrifice is best used.

quote:


"We're the Battling Bastards of Bataan, No mama, no papa, no Uncle Sam, No aunts, no uncles, no cousins, no nieces, No pills, no planes, no artillery pieces, And nobody gives a damn!"

-- Frank Hewlett, 1942.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius
The same could be said for the Phillipines... with just a hint of supplies or support there may have never been a Bataan death march. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Thadius, unfortunately, we are moving troops into a city to pacify it, then after the insurgents are pushed out, we move out to another location.

As soon as our boots are off the ground in a particular area, insurgents move back in.

The same crap happened in Vietnam.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Thadius not a case of Monday Morning quarterbacking,a cold hard decision made by the newly installed CNO of the Pacific theater Adm.Nimitiz.The relief force had been sent on its mission by his predecessor,Nimitz could have let it continue on ,would have been the "popular" thing to do as far as those involved and the public were concerned.Nimitz decided given the array of forces available(one serviceable carrier task force)it was niether prudent nor an acceptable risk....This decision caused Nimitz untold grief in the eyes of the press and the ranks of the Navy....Great men make tough not popular decisions...this was certainly the case in point here

quote:

My comment about Monday morning qbing was directed at the assumptions made in the "article" provided.   Looking at something that happened 60 years ago is quite different than looking at something that happened in an ongoing war.  For example, we know what both sides were thinking, planning, and actual numbers of almost every engagement or at least battle that happened in WWII.  I would dare say we don't have close to that kind of knowledge of a particular battle or engagement in Iraq.  So judging whether 14 men were lost due to a brain dead CO or to other factors, is something we will have to review at a later date.  Like you say great men make tough not popular decisions.  I may be a bit naive, but I think those officers that are on the line deserve at least the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their ability to lead and make decisions.  I guess that is where my real issue is with the way the author of that particular site portrays things.

quote:

Whether U.S. arms were successful is totally immaterial. These are meaningless battles that have only one consequence: U.S. soldiers die for nothing, and are wounded for more of the same.  Unless one wanted to take a particularly grim approach and say to give the hospital mega-industry more clientele.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

For one that American lives are being needlessly wasted by incompetent leaders in the field and their commanders.  I think that is a pretty big assumption to make.

quote:

Whether U.S. arms were successful is totally immaterial. These are meaningless battles that have only one consequence: U.S. soldiers die for nothing, and are wounded for more of the same.  Unless one wanted to take a particularly grim approach and say to give the hospital mega-industry more clientele.

I am a bit cynical...
Thadius

P.S. I am not saying that there aren't valid concerns, but to make judgements like this without knowing the particulars is only seeing part of the picture.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Nimitz was NOT CincPac until 31 Dec 1941.

On December 22 at 21:00, after receiving information indicating the presence of two IJN carriers and two fast battleships near Wake Island Vice Admiral William S. Pye, the Acting Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, ordered TF-14 to return to Pearl Harbor  for fear of losses. {At the Battle of Midway Pye ordered battleships to patrol from the West Coast-in case of a Japanese attack; after Wake and Midway he never commanded forces in battle again}.

These ships were well within range to land the 4th Marine Coastal Defense Battalion, as well as supplies of ammunition and a squadren of F2A Brewster Buffalos during the night of 22 December/23 December, which would have given the Japanese a nasty surprise.

With the American carriers standing off shore between Wake and Midway, they would have been in position to cover and support Wake and force the Japanese to re-evaluate their opperations.

The force the Japanese had disignated to land on the island was equivalent to 3 reinforced Japanese Marine Companies, considerably smaller than a CDB.

Add to that the one thing that Yamamoto was not willing to do was to get into a battle that could cost him aircraft carrier assets.  He had no clue prior to Pearl Harbor where the 3 US carriers were, and should there be ANY indication of US carriers operating in the Wake atoll area, the operations pre-planned for the Pacific and South Pacific would become threatened had he suffered a loss or even damage.

Nimitz had made it clear that Wake should be supported, prior to receiving command of the pacific fleet, which earned him a lot of respect in Washington.   The citizens of the United States fully expected Wake to be supported, especially after they beat off the first invasion attempt.

The loss of Wake Island hampered operations in the central pacific area of operations for 2 years.  Wake would have provided a forward base for B24's, US submarines, recon patrols. 

The fact that Admiral Pye ordered those ships about, AND proved his  inability to react to enemy movements during the Midway crisis, was what effectively took him out of combat command.

The Philippines was untenable due to distance, and the disaster at Pearl, but Wake was not.