Yeah!!!! Stick it to those mother$%^& and break it off!!!!

[lord of the mark]

another Centcom press release for your enjoyment

"December 4, 2003
Release Number: 03-12-09


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


82D AIRBORNE DIVISION RAIDS NET ENEMY, ARMS

AR RAMADI, Iraq – The 82nd Airborne Division, also known as Task Force “All American,” continued to conduct operations to bring peace to Iraq and assist the reconstruction efforts. These missions continue to move Iraq toward a free and independent nation.

During the past 24 hours, the 82nd Airborne Division and subordinate units have conducted 161 patrols, including 10 joint patrols with the Iraqi Border Guard and Iraqi Police. During these operations, 63 enemy personnel were captured and one killed while suffering no U.S. casualties.

In the 82d Airborne Division’s 3rd Brigade area of operations, paratroopers conducted a cordon and search in Nassir Wa Al Salaam to capture six members of a Wahabbist cell. Thirteen enemy personnel were captured and taken into custody for questioning. Also, several small arms weapons, various munitions, military uniforms, U.S. and Iraqi cash, counterfeit money, and improvised explosive device (IED)- making materials were confiscated during the mission.
In the 1st Brigade of the 1st Infantry Division’s area of operations, elements were attacked with rocket propelled grenades (RPG) and small arms fire northwest of Khalidiyah. The unit returned fire at the point of origin and then engaged the house with three 120mm High Explosive Anti-Tank (HEAT) rounds. The unit killed one enemy and captured eight others without suffering any injuries to personnel or damage to equipment.

In 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment’s (3rd ACR) area of operations, elements executed raids on six target houses in Husaybah. The operation was conducted in response to information provided by an informant who indicated that a few Fedayeen members had returned to the area following the conclusion of Operation Rifles Blitz. Houses identified in the area were sites of recent enemy ambushes. The raids resulted in the capture of 19 enemy personnel and the confiscation of various small arms weapons, IED-making materials, and a logbook of previous attacks against Coalition forces. The town of Husaybah, once the most hostile city in the Al Qa’im area, has shown marked improvement in the form of fewer attacks following Operation Rifles Blitz."

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
AR RAMADI, Iraq – The 82nd Airborne Division, also known as Task Force “All American,”

We need to start giving out more badass names to our task forces than that.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
We need to start giving out more badass names to our task forces than that.

82nd AB has been called the "all American" division for some time, IIUC.

[DinoDoc]

Sorry. It was the recent spate of lackluster operation names that got me.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by techumseh

So Tet was a decisive victory for the north, despite the fact that they lost the tactical battle.

IMO there needs to be an active plan in order to claim such a result as a 'victory'. The idea that 'GIAP and the boys' planned to get their asses handed to them in straight up combat with the US troops in order to effect public opinion in the US is ludicrous. Yes anti-war opinion in the US increased after 68 TET but it wasnt a planned effect of 45000 VC/NVA KIA's 7000 captured and unknown numbers of wounded.

It may be reasonable to say that the US forces won the battle but not the war, but it is historical revisionism by 'monday morning quarterbacks' to say that the 68 Tet offensive was a 'victory' for the North Vietmanese.

[Ben Kenobi]

Charles, of course the religious zealots like Schwarzennegger control the party.

A pro-abort Catholic is a religious zealot who controls the republican party.

Not sure where to start tackling that statement.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by SpencerH


IMO there needs to be an active plan in order to claim such a result as a 'victory'. The idea that 'GIAP and the boys' planned to get their asses handed to them in straight up combat with the US troops in order to effect public opinion in the US is ludicrous. Yes anti-war opinion in the US increased after 68 TET but it wasnt a planned effect of 45000 VC/NVA KIA's 7000 captured and unknown numbers of wounded.

It may be reasonable to say that the US forces won the battle but not the war, but it is historical revisionism by 'monday morning quarterbacks' to say that the 68 Tet offensive was a 'victory' for the North Vietmanese.

GIAP and the boys didn't plan on getting their asses handed to them in order to do anything. What they hoped for was an uprising by the people of the south. What they got was a collapse of national will in the U.S. Either way, they won and the United States lost. Quibling over the term 'victory' is semantical.

I'll still argue that they had the US elections in mind all along, at least regarding timing. They launched a similar offensive prior to the 1972 Presidential elections, using a number of NVA divisions.

I was pretty clear that Tet was a military defeat for the Vietnamese, notwithstanding what the 'monday morning quarterbacks' might say. BTW, could you convert your analogies into hockey terms so I can understand them?

[Ned]

Originally posted by techumseh
No, CharlesBHoff is right. The Tet Offensive resulted in a military defeat for the North. VC cadres were decimated, and afterwards the regular North Vietnamese army had to take on the lion's share of the fighting.

BUT....

The offensive was timed for the US elections. Despite the American military victory, US forces (then at their height - 550,000 troops) were forced on the defensive, took heavy casualties, lost a major city (Hue) and had their own embassy in Saigon almost captured by VC sappers. It took a massive use of airpower to turn the tide.

The American public had been fooled by their government into thinking the war was being won (can you imagine such a thing? ). Tet shook that notion and afterwards American public opinion started to shift strongly against the war. The US congress started to cut funding for the war, so despite the fact that Nixon wanted to continue it, he was forced to start negotiations and troop reductions.

So Tet was a decisive victory for the north, despite the fact that they lost the tactical battle.

All true but for the bit about Nixon. Nixon was elected primarily because he said he had a plan to end the war. People at that time were remembering Eisenhower and how he ended the Korean war. It was said then that Democrats (Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy/Johnson) get us into wars and Republicans get us into peace.

Tet came as a big shock to many. We had been engaged in heavy fighting since '64. Johnson and Westmoreland said that we were winning and that there was "light at the end of the tunnel." The facts were that the balance of power was even then shifting in favor of the communists after four years of US involvement in combat and massive escallation on our side. Tet proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt that Johnson's strategy had failed.

Americans demanded new leadership they could trust. Johnson effectively resigned. Kennedy was well on his was to becoming the next president when he was assassinated. Humphrey, Johnson's VP took the nomination, but was tarred by the fact that he had to defend the Johnson administration. The people elected Nixon, not to carry on the war, but to end it.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
We need to start giving out more badass names to our task forces than that.

It's called that because it's a mixed element that's only part of the division, but adds units from a second brigade and HQ units, so there needs to be a temporary command element. Like "Combat Commands" in US WW2 usage, or German Kampfgruppen.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi




A pro-abort Catholic is a religious zealot who controls the republican party.

Not sure where to start tackling that statement.

He was being sarcastic. Read the rest of the post

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi




A pro-abort Catholic is a religious zealot who controls the republican party.

Not sure where to start tackling that statement.

Charles point was that anti-abortion religious Zealots controlled the party. I was trying to point out that many Republicans are not anti-abortion, but pro-choice, and do get elected and are leaders of the party.

[Mr. Harley]

Sorry, finally got the power supply replaced (see evil wish thread ).

Oerdin, thanks for responding germainely to my post. However, you don't get the point, and I fear neither did MtG. I'll deal with your reply first.

My point is the language is everything . It's not a "whole dictionary," it's the extremely common, maybe even normal, response of people to an "us versus them" conflict to start dehumanizing the enemy by attaching labels to them, instead of names. My point is that it is deadly dangerous.

One of the problems is that it takes careful training, just as much as combat training, to successfully deal with occupation and MP duties. It's one of the reasons many people have commented that NATO's European forces do a better job during occupation than the USA forces. We train our troops minimally for peace keeping and occupation, as a result, we are not the best in the world in that category, even while we may lead the world in combat troops.

The difficulty is that after the combat troops win, you have to successfully occupy the country. You need to pacify it and make the civilians your friends. Every civilian casualty makes that harder. Some are unfortunately necessary, like at the road blocks. Think about it. Al Quada is involved (they have a predeliction for car bombs) and by essentially forcing us into lethal, shoot on any error roadblocks, they have taken from us the offensive with the Arab public opinion, which for them is victory (please, don't get me started on aljazeera, I'll bet we agree completely there).

For them, Iraq is a sideshow. If they can get us to hand them a public relations success, helping their recruitment and other efforts, then while we may win in Iraq, we may end up with a setback in the war on terror. Sort of like Lee winning in Virginia while denying reinforcements to Vicksburg or Eastern Tennessee. Lee was put into lose/lose proposition, exactly like these roadblacks. Is it evil to use civilians that way. No argument. That is why I believe they are called fanatics and terrorists.

That is my issue with your "...sack of ****." comment. That attitude, taken by occupying forces, only leads to a public relations nightmare. Which since Vietnam the USA has learned is a critical portion of any conflict. The people you will be dealing with, day in and day out, will know if you have a dehumanizing attitude. Every civilian you alienate with that is another recruit for resistance forces, or Al Quada. That is why I am not thrilled with you being over there. Maybe you will learn some Arabic, and reconsider the attitude, though alot of my friends consider me an incurable optimist. Just remember, that attitude is handing the enemy recruits. Consider it.

Oh, a germane observation about stupid civilians. I don't have a videotape, but I remember distinctly seeing the footage when Reagan was shot. As a secret service type waved his machine pistol in the air, the only thing I could think was - "Hit the ground, you idiots." A few souls hit the ground. Most stood staring. Some people (civilians) RAN TOWARD the shooting." The difference. They weren't in a war zone, and they didn't have instant, lethal consequences for having the wrong reaction patterns. The same kind of potentially lethal reaction patterns some Iraqi civilians are having. It's inevitable, it's tragic. Don't dehumanize some teenager for being stupid. You'll still have to shoot him, but ending any human life is never to be taken lightly. You comment turning the casualty into a ...sack... does that.



edit by MtG - accidentally hit edit instead of quote link, so I restored the original text.

[Ned]

shawnmcc, we had the means to police Iraq once upon a time - its largely intact army. Stupidly, we disbanded it and allowed its now unemployed soldiers to form the resistance.

Recall the Iraq Army now!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
shawnmcc, we had the means to police Iraq once upon a time - its largely intact army. Stupidly, we disbanded it and allowed its now unemployed soldiers to form the resistance.

Recall the Iraq Army now!

Yeah, we're going to let a mix of untrained conscripts, politically unreliable and politically unknown types with zero capabilities for successful joint operations with us just run the place for us.

Civilians.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by shawnmcc

Sorry, finally got the power supply replaced (see evil wish thread ).

Oerdin, thanks for responding germainely to my post. However, you don't get the point, and I fear neither did MtG. I'll deal with your reply first.

My point is the language is everything . It's not a "whole dictionary," it's the extremely common, maybe even normal, response of people to an "us versus them" conflict to start dehumanizing the enemy by attaching labels to them, instead of names. My point is that it is deadly dangerous.

This is civilian speak. It's not a matter of dehumanizing them at all - they start out as objectives and targets, and only then progress to mother****ers, sacks of ****, *******s, etc. It's a simple expression of frustration and/or anger at someone/something that shouldn't be happening.

If I'm laying down a base of fire with a SAW, or getting a quick sight picture on an enemy's head, or I'm checking my squad's position, heavy weapon laying, etc. I'm not concerned with the "humanity" of whoever/whatever might be downrange. I'm concerned with doing my job professionally, and carrying out my mission, and seeing my squad does so. That means don't hose friendlies or civilians if you can establish who they are, don't let enemies hose you or your men, or do whatever it is you're supposed to prevent them from doing, and keep your and your men's asses alive, intact and in good fighting order.

War and soldiering means by definition you're in the business of killing people and breaking things, as the expression goes. It's an ugly, brutal business when things hit the fan, and you're very aware of the humanity of your enemy. It's just not an important professional consideration when you and your men are under a lethal threat, or assigned to prevent an enemy from carrying out his intentions.

I don't care who it is, what his deal is, or why, if my squad's under threat, that's what I care about. The touchy-feely crap can come later when you have the luxury of thinking, feeling, and reminiscing. When in contact with the enemy, that touchy-feely **** gets your people or you killed.

Some are unfortunately necessary, like at the road blocks. Think about it. Al Quada is involved (they have a predeliction for car bombs) and by essentially forcing us into lethal, shoot on any error roadblocks, they have taken from us the offensive with the Arab public opinion, which for them is victory (please, don't get me started on aljazeera, I'll bet we agree completely there).

Any insurgent force worth the name has this ability by the nature of the force and their methods of fighting. It's just a fact of life. They choose when, where and how to strike, and blend into the civilian population. If there was real popular for the insurgents, we'd virtually never find them, until they hit us, but in fact we have a lot of cooperation from Iraqi informants who don't support these *******s and risk their lives to help us.

That is my issue with your "...sack of ****." comment. That attitude, taken by occupying forces, only leads to a public relations nightmare.

You're getting a typically civilian PC ness about gruntspeak. Get somebody shooting at you or forcing you into lethal confrontations on a regular basis. Doesn't matter who, just get used to it. You won't like those people much after a while. You won't necessarily associate everyone you see with them, but when you get forced into that situation, and they're trying to kill your ass, or trying real hard by running a checkpoint to make sure you think they are, you won't like them one bit. If you're a trained professional, they then become a target.

The average Iraqi on the street isn't a sack of ****, or an *******, or a mother****er. The particular Iraqi(s) that are actively trying to kill you are. They're the guys who are going to kill you unless you kill them. That's not what the average Iraqi is about. So it's silly civilian thinking that "Oh my God, you said a naughty word about that mother****er that just tried to grease you, so you're dehumanizing all of them blah blah blah."

Oh, a germane observation about stupid civilians. I don't have a videotape, but I remember distinctly seeing the footage when Reagan was shot. As a secret service type waved his machine pistol in the air, the only thing I could think was - "Hit the ground, you idiots." A few souls hit the ground. Most stood staring. Some people (civilians) RAN TOWARD the shooting."

The difference.

The difference is they didn't spend their lives under a totalitarian regime like Hussein's with an absolute intolerance for dissent or any sign of non-compliance with the authority of the regime, and with large numbers of security obsessed forces with no restraints on their conduct to keep them in line.

They weren't in a war zone, and they didn't have instant, lethal consequences for having the wrong reaction patterns.

In Iraq, they've had those conditions for decades.