Donkey Hote
"He was spurred on by the conviction that the world needed his immediate presence" ~ ~ ~
"Facts are the enemy of truth"
--Don Quixote, Cervantes
(illustration by Picasso, 1955)
There are several concepts that should never leave a combat soldier's mind. This entry is a deconstruction of the photo in my previous entry, Donkeys:
- The three soldiers are bunched up, and one grenade, RPG or burst of fire would basically neutralize a fire team.
- Their weapons are not at the ready.
- If wounded, they would be difficult to extract.
- I would like to believe that somewhere there is a base of fire element providing cover. Even with such, this donkey cart pushing violates the concept of danger area.
- In a place like Afghanistan or Iraq, stupid moves like being friendly and pushing a cart could cause a lifetime of suffering and grief if this lapse were exploited by hostiles.
- Vigilance in combat must be 100%.
Pushing donkey carts is not an infantry mission. Dealing with asses falls withing the purview of the Executive branch, in this administration.
posted by rangeragainstwar at 2:37 PM
8 Comments:
Claymore,
Military rules apply in all environments.
Of course, the picture doesn't illustrate the entire situation. I'm shaking my head also. The situation is too absurd to be illustrated by a single picture.
Claymore II,
You broke the nice rule by saying the "b.s." word on my blog; I do not appreciate your introduction of armor standards to a civilized blog. You get two demerits for this infraction.
Haven't you figured out yet the populace is against us, totally?
Nobody loves us, neither Sunni nor Shia.
Claymore,
Jim is not here right now, but I believe our adversaries are denying us targets as we speak. They are simply leaving Baghdad, or hunkering down. Isn't that one of the hallmarks of guerrilla fighting--you don't fight on your opponent's time schedule or terrain.
A patrolling police officer, even in a hostile urban environment, is a far piece from a soldier in a foreign land.
Claymore,
This is from a letter by a Marine CO in Haditha that disagrees with your take on vigilence:
"Self-discipline, tireless vigilance, prudent judgment and the patience of a hunter are the most valued skills, and Marines have learned to trust the hairs on the back of their neck more than anything else." [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
articles/2006/06/
in_marines_we_trust.html]
Claymore,
It's actually a joke to put those Marines under the SOF umbrella. Just b/c we say they're SOF doesn't make it so. You miss the point by calling it an overreaction. It was a murderous, criminal activity. This is an exception that can't prove the rule for either of our arguments.
It's an aberration in which our military should never have partaken.
If there is any isolation going on in Iraq, it is the U.S. military which is isolated. Just b/c we've built platoon-sized Ft. Apaches throughout Baghdad doesn't mean we're living with the people.
When was the last time an American soldier ever had an interplay w/ an Iraqi w/o a weapon between them?
It's a joke to say we're going to isolate the resistance forces from the populous; they are the populace.
This is coming from Ranger to Claymore: my personal belief is you must destroy their combat power, and this is the most effective way to isolate them from the population. But, I cannot espouse this approach in Iraq, as I do not accept the legitimacy of this war, as it does not address the security of America.
Claymore,
Thank you for the correct link, and for the quotations. You've obviously read your CI backgd. material.
Your first sentence, however, has an incorrect assumption; terrorism is not insurgency. It can be a tool w/in the insurgency. We must not conflate our terms, nor oversimplify.
Since you mention Che, Carlos and Mao, you must realize there is a distinction b/t insurgency and guerrilla warfare. These personnel--either the insurgents or the guerrillas--can be indig, or what we used to call "parachutists". Che and Carlos could be viewed as parachutists. Mao was operating in an indigenous environment. Iraq is an amalgam.
My contention is to kill the parachutists. Bear in mind that they had a host nation which had a semblence of legality and sovereignty, w/o a puppet government.
The parachutists are easier to separate from the population, and these are the people you are discussing separating from the population.
As for the indig, good luck. Ask the Brits about the IRA, or the Spanish about ETA.
Bear in mind of course that we are an invading foreign army fighting an elective war, and it's not hard to gain indigenous sympathy to fight such a force.
Claymore,
Jim is not here, but I know will want to comment.
From my end, you are correct in that there is no centralized command in Iraq, but that is not necessary for a GW scenario. It is all the more remarkable that the resistance to our occupation is so intractable, and from every side (except the Kurds, who have their vested interests.)
Why do we care that the Shiites want retribution for their subjugation? Why have we invaded and toppled the Sunni's government? Don't you suppose you'd be mad if someone came over here and did the same thing?
You must get above it all, and see that the problem is not what is playing out on the street; the problem is, that we have wrought this insanity at all. To no good end. To no attack on terrorists who are targeting America at all.
The problem is, that we are there, and not here, focusing on actual threats to our national security.
Jim is a true patriot. He does not want to see America "lose" anything. Quite the contrary, he is very dismayed that America, through it's own actions, has lost so much already. And stands to gain nothing good from this meddling in another country's domestic strife.
p.s.--since you've read the IRA handbook, you understand that guerrillas cannot be successful without the complicity of the population. What does that tell you about what's going on in Iraq?
Post a Comment
<< Home