Is it war - or a Police Action?

[Mr. Harley]

Thinking about Vietnam, and then about a fellow Apolyton posters comments about the War on Terror, it suddenly hit me.

Vietnam was a war (almost all the enemy came from the North) and the USA treated it as a police action. Failure especially when a operation by the enemy was militarily defeated, but produced war-level casualties (TET).

Iraq I was a war, was conducted as a war, terminated as war, and sold as a war. Success

Iraq II is part of the "War on Terror". It's more of a police action, in that the majority of casualties come from things like IED's and platoon sized or smaller operations. It was sold as a war. Failing, at least in public perceptions in the US and in weakening the insurgency.

Maybe, just maybe, how you sell a war, and the language you use, is critical in it's overall success domestically.

[VetLegion]

Of course. And the reasons you go to war too.

[BeBMan]

Re: Is it war - or a Police Action?

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Iraq II is part of the "War on Terror". It's more of a police action, in that the majority of casualties come from things like IED's and platoon sized or smaller operations. It was sold as a war. Failing, at least in public perceptions in the US and in weakening the insurgency.

For the Iraqis it's certainly more than a police action.

[Pekka]

"Iraq II is part of the "War on Terror". It's more of a police action, in that the majority of casualties come from things like IED's and platoon sized or smaller operations. It was sold as a war. Failing, at least in public perceptions in the US and in weakening the insurgency."

goddamn! That must be the best definition for police action evah! Here is a medal for you sir



wtf?

There are so many things that are different from each other, there's just no ... connection to these in these terms.

First of all, Vietnam had a good opponent in it. They had the home advantage, and they used it. Nothing much you can do to it.

Gulf War I was a fast action, with coalition pounding in, but note, since it was enemy attacking another country and basically asking for it, there was no responsibility after fighting.

However NOW, you have responsibility when fighting is done. Well the main part at least. Well, the traditional main part. Why? Because, Iraq didn't do anything. Oh spare the womens right bull****. You gives a **** about womens right suddenly and all the other weak arguments.

However, since it was 'pre-emptive', there is a big responsibility afterwards. You can't justify getting one man and his sons by thousands of dead people, ****ed up infrastructure, and basically lots of bad things. Also, if you call people to resist what ever current power, then they kind of expect to get something in return. Otherwise it wouldn't have been a war on Terror, Saddam or what ever. I twould have been war on Iraq and its people. But it wasn't that, so there is a responsibility afterwards, and it's now what is being done.

Police action however, my white ass. We can call it the Jolly Tea Party, but it doesn't make it one. Splash it on screen few hundred times when we see news from there, maybe the association starts working but it still doesn't make it a jolly ****ing tea party. OK?

Now get on with the program, son, come to the winning side. Supporting troops, supporting freedom and democracy, hating terrorism, and also hating hy-po-crism.

edit: and spelling errors

[Mr. Harley]

Pekka

But it wasn't that, so there is a responsibility afterwards, and it's now what is being done.

That responsibility afterwards. You know, policing the country.

[Sikander]

The term "Police Action" is a legal rather than military term. It does not denote a type of conflict, but rather the legal basis for participation in a conflict. The Korean War was defined as a Police Action in the United States, yet was a full scale conventional war.

[Mr. Harley]

I know Sikander, I'm just stirring the pot. Plus I do believe that there is an element of truth about language and expectations. I'm just throwing the idea out there.

[Pekka]

shawnmmcc, no it's not called policing around. It's policing around when someone else created the situation when policing around was needed.

If you take police actions, why do you send soldiers? 'WELL DUH?!?!' .. no, think about it. Why do you send soldiers who are trained to do war, and not arresting people and law? Maybe it's a BS term. And you can't say well, Iraq is now police action since they only have small arms. I didn't know the other guy had to have certain amount of weaponry and strategy to make it police action.

[Atahualpa]

Re: Is it war - or a Police Action?

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Thinking about Vietnam, and then about a fellow Apolyton posters comments about the War on Terror, it suddenly hit me.

Vietnam was a war (almost all the enemy came from the North) and the USA treated it as a police action. Failure especially when a operation by the enemy was militarily defeated, but produced war-level casualties (TET).

Iraq I was a war, was conducted as a war, terminated as war, and sold as a war. Success

Iraq II is part of the "War on Terror". It's more of a police action, in that the majority of casualties come from things like IED's and platoon sized or smaller operations. It was sold as a war. Failing, at least in public perceptions in the US and in weakening the insurgency.

Maybe, just maybe, how you sell a war, and the language you use, is critical in it's overall success domestically.

It depends on wether you invade and occupy a country... what fails is the occupation, because the US administration is effective in making war and fighting, but ineffective in occupying and administrating.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
I know Sikander, I'm just stirring the pot. Plus I do believe that there is an element of truth about language and expectations. I'm just throwing the idea out there.

Well as long as we're liberating and not nation building I'll remain content. Otherwise we'd be bogged down for years with an ill-defined mission that could never succeed.

[Kidlicious]

It's called governing. The US isn't too good at it.

[Anaximander]

Actually, I would argue that our soldiers are doing a good job in fighting this "police action". Terrain alone is on our side and casulties have been relativly light (of course their not light if you are one of the guys hit). The problem is the government is losing the war of perception with the American people. The American people think we are losing when we actually are not.

[Kidlicious]

If we're losing the war of perception we are losing the war.

[Anaximander]

No, we are losing the war of perception. That is totally diferent and much more dangerous.