Failures in leaderhip

Failures in leaderhip (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Alumbrado -> Failures in leaderhip (7/15/2008 9:20:04 PM)
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

TheHeretic -> RE: Failures in leaderhip (7/15/2008 9:53:18 PM)
It's always the same answer to that question, Alum. It seemed like a good idea at the time. That both our candidates for President are talking about even more troops into Afghanistan... Spooky.

Thadius -> RE: Failures in leaderhip (7/15/2008 9:57:16 PM)
Shhh.... Obama has a new plan. It's called a surge and will begin with 2 additional combat brigades being moved into Afghanistan. I love his original thinking, Thadius

Alumbrado -> RE: Failures in leaderhip (7/15/2008 10:04:49 PM)
It probably isn't Obama, or McCain, or for that matter even Bush, who are making these irrational tactical decisions. For want of a better term, it is 'the Pentagon'...who has access to a vast number of examples and analyses as to why they were foolish from the onset.

jlf1961 -> RE: Failures in leaderhip (7/15/2008 10:07:21 PM)
In Vietnam, the army learned to build firebases in threes, in a roughly trianglar pattern, that way no single base was without firesupport from the other two. Each of these firebase triads were answerable to a central command unit near a large town. That base could have a ready react force of air mobile troops in the air and being moved into support these bases. Now, that was the theory. In reality, the system worked, kinda. The bases could support each other, and the NVA and VC just loved those choppers bringing in fresh troops, becuase once you fouled the lz with a few crashed birds, you have isolated the base. There is a name for this tried and true combat tactic, it is "Leave em swinging in the wind." Which translates to the civilian term, "Leave em out there and see what happens."

Leatherist -> RE: Failures in leaderhip (7/15/2008 10:09:39 PM)
Fifty or sixty metric tons of agent orange on the north's rice country would have wrapped that one up pretty quick.

Thadius -> RE: Failures in leaderhip (7/15/2008 10:17:45 PM)
How does the old addage go? "The best laid plans (strategies) only survive until first contact"... There are only 2 ways to prevent (not even 100%) anymore deaths or injuries to our troops in a combat theatre. 1. Pull ALL troops out of the theatre. 2. After pulling all troops out making the theatre into a glass factory. The very nature of war suggests that men are going to get injured or killed, even with the best strategies, tactics, defenses and weapons. A surprise mortar, a lucky missile, or even an accident. Figuring out the tactics and MO of the enemy is one thing, preventing it from being implemented is another, not to mention those tactics change all of the time.

Alumbrado -> RE: Failures in leaderhip (7/15/2008 10:21:25 PM)
Thre is a difference between things falling apart during what Clausewitz called the 'fog of war', and incompetent leadership making suicidal decisions.

Thadius -> RE: Failures in leaderhip (7/15/2008 10:28:47 PM)
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.

Vendaval -> RE: Failures in leaderhip (7/15/2008 11:25:27 PM)
What are we learning from this conflict and what mistakes should not be repeated?

DomAviator -> RE: Failures in leaderhip (7/16/2008 1:41:40 AM)
It also bears mention that people die in the military all the time, even during peacetime. I wonder if a carrier has ever come back with its entire crew - even during a peace time deployment because I have never been on one that did! If you look at the casualty reports in more detail you will see that quite a few of our losses in the Iraq / Afghan campaigns have been a result of car accidents, aircraft accidents, industrial accidents (hit by forklift / blown up welding on flammable liquids tank / etc) Some of the deaths are even stupidity - kicking around UXO, racing humvees, riding quad through wire fence etc... All in all I think out combat losses are phenomenally low and really impressive a credit to the brass. War is dangerous business and people die in it. However after years of war we still ahve fewer men in total than we did in certain WW1 and WW2 battles.

BrokenSaint -> RE: Failures in leaderhip (7/16/2008 1:57:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomAviator It also bears mention that people die in the military all the time, even during peacetime. I wonder if a carrier has ever come back with its entire crew - even during a peace time deployment because I have never been on one that did! If you look at the casualty reports in more detail you will see that quite a few of our losses in the Iraq / Afghan campaigns have been a result of car accidents, aircraft accidents, industrial accidents (hit by forklift / blown up welding on flammable liquids tank / etc) Some of the deaths are even stupidity - kicking around UXO, racing humvees, riding quad through wire fence etc... All in all I think out combat losses are phenomenally low and really impressive a credit to the brass. War is dangerous business and people die in it. However after years of war we still ahve fewer men in total than we did in certain WW1 and WW2 battles. I'd think a probable factor in our relatively low casualty rates would also be directly attributable to the level of technology held by each side. In both 1&2 I thought the sides were relatively comparable as far as level of tech goes, at least for most of them.

Alumbrado -> RE: Failures in leaderhip (7/16/2008 5:21:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomAviator It also bears mention that people die in the military all the time, even during peacetime. I wonder if a carrier has ever come back with its entire crew - even during a peace time deployment because I have never been on one that did! If you look at the casualty reports in more detail you will see that quite a few of our losses in the Iraq / Afghan campaigns have been a result of car accidents, aircraft accidents, industrial accidents (hit by forklift / blown up welding on flammable liquids tank / etc) Some of the deaths are even stupidity - kicking around UXO, racing humvees, riding quad through wire fence etc... All in all I think out combat losses are phenomenally low and really impressive a credit to the brass. War is dangerous business and people die in it. However after years of war we still ahve fewer men in total than we did in certain WW1 and WW2 battles. That doesn't mean the role of the officer corps is to see how many ways they can get troops killed without achieving any military objective... the focus of the articles mentioned. Stripping tanks of their defensive support component and using them as roadblock/checkpoints, so that men have to jump on grenades that are tossed in by passers by, or placing people in suicide locations 'just because', or (from an earlier conflict) an Air Force commander ordering SF into a frontal assault because that's they way they do it on TV, is Custer level stupidity. Somebody once pointed out that the objective is not to die for your country...and that's all that is happening in these examples...but people see that as OK?

DomKen -> RE: Failures in leaderhip (7/16/2008 6:15:07 AM)
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.

DarkSteven -> RE: Failures in leaderhip (7/16/2008 6:21:31 AM)
I'm hoping that the State Department starts growing them back. Rummy took a lot of their authority and moved it to the Pentagon, and it needs to come back. We'll see better decisions then. I hope.

Thadius -> RE: Failures in leaderhip (7/16/2008 6:56:45 AM)
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: source: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/battles.htm Basra, Iran-Iraq War (1986-87): 65 000+ Clodfelter: During the period 12/86-4/87, mostly around Basra Iran: 50,000 k Iraq: 8,000-15,000 k 1 Aug. 1988, U.S. News & World Report, "Lessons of history's bloodiest battle" by John Keegan: "It is not unrealistic to estimate that 750,000 Iranian soldiers have died [in the War], most of them killed in the last three years ... around Basra." Also for the record, I do visit my local VA hospital... and sometimes unfortunately not just to visit other wounded vets.

Real_Trouble -> RE: Failures in leaderhip (7/16/2008 7:52:46 AM)
I find Clausewitz's ideas to be poorly developed and not entire applicable to modern warfare, to be blunt. The biggest problem our military faces is that they are still busy fighting the wars of the past generation, not the wars of the current generation. There are more accurate mental models and tactical paradigms for something like Iraq than Clausewitz.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Failures in leaderhip (7/16/2008 8:03:18 AM)
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

cloudboy -> RE: Failures in leaderhip (7/16/2008 8:48:44 AM)
Just to be anecdotal about it, the US military strikes me as Dad's Ferrari in the garage with an unsupervised teenage son at home.

cloudboy -> RE: Failures in leaderhip (7/16/2008 8:52:30 AM)
I think "getting troops killed without achieving any military objective..." is a product of having a professional military staffed by the underclass. If we had a draft for all major US engagements, our country would have a much more realistic "war" consciousness. As is, we have a war unconsciousness --- or denial system in place. As we've seen, the American mass media doesn't fill the gap here.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125