[URL="http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/26/politics/u-s-uses-israeli-tactic-isis-bombing/index.html"]http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/26/politics/u-s-uses-israeli-tactic-isis-bombing/index.html[/URL]
[QUOTE]Washington (CNN)The U.S. has adopted a unique Israeli battlefield tactic in its fight against ISIS: exploding a missile above a building to warn civilians inside that it's about to be bombed.
Israeli forces have widely used the so-called knock-on-the-roof operations in Gaza attacks in recent years to try to get civilians out before they are hit.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Using reconnaissance aircraft and other intelligence assets to keep watch, the U.S. then began to formulate a plan, Gersten said, to get women, children and other civilians out of the building.
"We went as far as actually to put a Hellfire on top of the building and air-burst it so it wouldn't destroy the building, simply knock on the roof to ensure that she and the children were out of the building," he recounted. "And then we proceeded with our operations."
Gersten acknowledged the Israeli influence, saying, "That's exactly where we took the tactics and technique and procedure from."
Gersten did not indicate that the Israeli military had formally briefed U.S. commanders on how to do knock operations.
But he noted, "We've certainly watched and observed their procedure. As we formulated the way to get the civilians out of the house, this was brought forward from one of our experts."
Gersten said that leaflets were also dropped to warn of a pending attack. In some Israeli operations, phone calls have been made to houses about to be hit as well.[/QUOTE]
How does this not warn the terrorists then?
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50208106]How does this not warn the terrorists then?[/QUOTE]
It does but getting civilians out of the way is considered more important.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50208106]How does this not warn the terrorists then?[/QUOTE]
At least it forces them to be flushed out.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50208106]How does this not warn the terrorists then?[/QUOTE]
The Idea is that even if the most of the terrorists escape, you've destroyed something like equipment, wealth, or logistics/supplies that they rely on and couldn't have saved in time.
It damages their hold on the region whilst minimizing civilian casualties caused by our own forces.
[QUOTE=Svinnik;50208126]It does but getting civilians out of the way is considered more important.[/QUOTE]
Won't this just be like in palestine then when hamaz convinces civilians to stay behind like human shields forcing israel to bomb civilians and make them look bad?
[QUOTE=soulharvester;50208184]The Idea is that even if the most of the terrorists escape, you've destroyed something like equipment, wealth, or logistics/supplies that they rely on and couldn't have saved in time.
It damages their hold on the region whilst minimizing civilian casualties caused by our own forces.[/QUOTE]
Guns are cheap, especially when America is openly flooding the markets with them. Seems like a rather failed strategy.
[QUOTE=Toyhobo;50208202]Won't this just be like in palestine then when hamaz convinces civilians to stay behind like human shields forcing israel to bomb civilians and make them look bad?[/QUOTE]
Hard to convince them to stay when they're detonating live ammunition above your head.
Which I assume they do because the leaflets weren't effective enough due to the reason you stated.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50208214]Guns are cheap, especially when America is openly flooding the markets with them. Seems like a rather failed strategy.[/QUOTE]
So? They're not only destroying guns, and any guns they destroy is another gun they don't have.
[QUOTE=Retardation;50208235]No, because ISIS has no reason or historical background necessary to spin the whole "the other side is worse than us!" routine. And they don't need to, because they like to assume they're the scourges of the world anyway.
You can't exactly play the victim of excessive force and collateral damage when all you did was behead and burn civilians for the past few years.[/QUOTE]
ISIS benefits from convincing the Muslim world that this is an us vs. Them fight
[QUOTE=soulharvester;50208218]
So? They're not only destroying guns, and any guns they destroy is another gun they don't have.[/QUOTE]
The very most bare bones of any paramilitary force is a man with a gun. Guns are flooded in the region and this strategy doesn't kill the men, so what's it matter if they bomb out a map or a bag of cash, they can make and get more later.
Ever heard of attrition?
[QUOTE=soulharvester;50208353]Ever heard of attrition?[/QUOTE]
It worked very well during the Second and First World war and during Vietnam.
The original series had a good episode about this, the planet that was simulating war and then implementing what the simulations predicted.
[QUOTE=soulharvester;50208353]Ever heard of attrition?[/QUOTE]
Attrition is a military strategy of last resort, when you can't openly defeat an enemy because of equal strength or greater, you wear them down. It's not a primary tactic you employ unless it's truly necessary, which in this case it is not.
[editline]26th April 2016[/editline]
We tried the tactic in Vietnam, where the war would be "won" by killing all of the enemy soldiers instead of denying them ground.
It didn't work. We spent a decade in that country, killing thousands of our own countrymen along with countless civilians just to have North Vietnam sweep the nation the moment we took a step off their soil.
We're not doing the same strategy in Syria, where the goal is to win by dropping bombs on them. It's not going to work on the same principle. The ground may be battered, it may be crater-ridden, but at the end of the day it remains in enemy hands.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50208401]Attrition is a military strategy of last resort, when you can't openly defeat an enemy because of equal strength or greater, you wear them down. It's not a primary tactic you employ unless it's truly necessary, which in this case it is not.
[editline]26th April 2016[/editline]
We tried the tactic in Vietnam, where the war would be "won" by killing all of the enemy soldiers instead of denying them ground.
It didn't work. We spent a decade in that country, killing thousands of our own countrymen along with countless civilians just to have North Vietnam sweep the nation the moment we took a step off their soil.
We're not doing the same strategy in Syria, where the goal is to win by dropping bombs on them. It's not going to work on the same principle. The ground may be battered, it may be crater-ridden, but at the end of the day it remains in enemy hands.[/QUOTE]
The thing about Vietnam was that we pulled out too early. The Tet Offensive was a major defeat for the Viet Cong, but the American public viewed it as our defeat. We lost around 9,000 men and had 35,000 wounded, while the Viet Cong lost around 45,000 and had 61,000 wounded.
It was working in our favor it just took too long and the public had eyes on everything since it was televised. The Tet Offensive made the public support for the war drop enough that we pulled out. By the end of the war the U.S. lost almost 60,000 men and had 303,000 wounded, while the Viet Cong had between 444,000 to 1,100,00 dead or missing and 600,000 + wounded. We were decimating them but in the eyes of the public we were not.
[QUOTE=assassin_Raptor;50210830]The thing about Vietnam was that we pulled out too early. The Tet Offensive was a major defeat for the Viet Cong, but the American public viewed it as our defeat. We lost around 9,000 men and had 35,000 wounded, while the Viet Cong lost around 45,000 and had 61,000 wounded.
It was working in our favor it just took too long and the public had eyes on everything since it was televised. The Tet Offensive made the public support for the war drop enough that we pulled out. By the end of the war the U.S. lost almost 60,000 men and had 303,000 wounded, while the Viet Cong had between 444,000 to 1,100,00 dead or missing and 600,000 + wounded. We were decimating them but in the eyes of the public we were not.[/QUOTE]
Vietnam was started with a literal false-flag attack, after the US supported a fraudulent referendum to get rid of communist rule. Comparing that to the Middle East is actually incredibly accurate, considering we used the false threat of WMDs to drum up public support after overthrowing multiple governments in favor of religious fanatics. Only difference is that the Middle East had oil and Vietnam had literally nothing of value for the US other than upholding the misled ideological belief that communism was an inherent threat to any and all capitalist societies.
Vietnam was an ideological war with no value. "Winning" was an impossibility - unless slaughtering every single individual who holds communist beliefs is "winning" in your mind.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50208214]Guns are cheap, especially when America is openly flooding the markets with them. Seems like a rather failed strategy.[/QUOTE]
Guns are cheap, but expensive communications equipment, electrical systems, machinery and maintenance tools, as well as ammunition stockpiles are all fairly hard to replace
[editline]27th April 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=assassin_Raptor;50210830]The thing about Vietnam was that we pulled out too early. The Tet Offensive was a major defeat for the Viet Cong, but the American public viewed it as our defeat. We lost around 9,000 men and had 35,000 wounded, while the Viet Cong lost around 45,000 and had 61,000 wounded.
It was working in our favor it just took too long and the public had eyes on everything since it was televised. The Tet Offensive made the public support for the war drop enough that we pulled out. By the end of the war the U.S. lost almost 60,000 men and had 303,000 wounded, while the Viet Cong had between 444,000 to 1,100,00 dead or missing and 600,000 + wounded. We were decimating them but in the eyes of the public we were not.[/QUOTE]
Vietnam was lost because we didn't give the Vietnamese enough of an army to stand on, artillery that kept the North Vietnamese away had to ration shells, the Vietnamese army was completely dependant on US funding and when we cut that back, they ran out of bullets, bombs,and money to put up a fight
Fast forward we sort of had the same thing happen in Iraq, we dumped tons of supplies on the Iraqi army but they didn't have the strength to really use any of it, so Isis made off with a lot of military supplies. Now the Iraqi military is actually starting to stand up again but it took having half their country invaded by crazy terrorists before they got a spine
[QUOTE=assassin_Raptor;50210830]The thing about Vietnam was that we pulled out too early. The Tet Offensive was a major defeat for the Viet Cong, but the American public viewed it as our defeat. We lost around 9,000 men and had 35,000 wounded, while the Viet Cong lost around 45,000 and had 61,000 wounded.
It was working in our favor it just took too long and the public had eyes on everything since it was televised. The Tet Offensive made the public support for the war drop enough that we pulled out. By the end of the war the U.S. lost almost 60,000 men and had 303,000 wounded, while the Viet Cong had between 444,000 to 1,100,00 dead or missing and 600,000 + wounded. We were decimating them but in the eyes of the public we were not.[/QUOTE]
[I]TOO EARLY? WE WERE THERE FOR TEN YEARS[/I]
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50212233][I]TOO EARLY? WE WERE THERE FOR TEN YEARS[/I][/QUOTE]
Our defeat was a political defeat, military wise the Tet Offensive was a huge victory for the US. After the Tet Offensive, the North Vietnamese were completely decimated, with immense manpower losses that they wouldn't be able to recover from. But ultimately that didn't matter, since the USA quit and threw southern Vietnam under the bus. They able to rebuild their strength over the next few years, and finally overrun the poorly defended south.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50212233][I]TOO EARLY? WE WERE THERE FOR TEN YEARS[/I][/QUOTE]
You couldn't pick up the lowest hanging fruit so you picked one off the ground.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
