U.S. Military Seeking Deployment in as many as 35 African Countries in 2013
189 replies, posted
[QUOTE=GunFox;39102984]Plenty.
If I was a small African country, I'd love a small group of American soldiers. And you'll note that a "small group" is all they want to deploy.
A) A small group is likely just there for intelligence purposes, of which I likely have little to hide from the US government.
B) US military cooperation brings opportunities to send officers to US military schools as well as bring US military specialists to the country to train the local military.
Huge payoff that ultimately costs you basically nothing. Top tier training is hard to produce autonomously.
[/QUOTE]
C) Keeps the country stable. It's an old Cold War tactic of sending in Soviet/American troops to keep the regime intact.
And it worked [I]so[/I] well in Viet Nam...
[QUOTE=laserguided;39074395]Key word here is seeking. How many of those unnamed African countries are going to want US troops on their soil? A lot of African countries are corrupt shitholes and giving the US the ability to perform regime change isn't going to sit well in my opinion.[/QUOTE]
The last time US supported/forced regime changes was in the cold war which resulted lunatics like Gaddafi in control.
So how about no to this and avoid repeating history
[QUOTE=scout1;39104175]Do you not understand how explosives and mistakes work??[/QUOTE]
With that many casualties it stops being a mistake and starts being apathy. I don't want them to be using explosives in the first place. Send the soldiers in that's what they're there for. Of course the. Brave American heroes die and we can't have that happening.
[editline]6th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=redshift2234;39110219]Call me crazy but it kinda hard to distinguish the difference between military and civilian target when them is when one dude has an AK and another doesn't they all where same clothes as civilians and they all wait to attack at most possibly vulnerable.[/QUOTE]
Then you don't fire the fucking missile.
Let me just cut this off at the head and say that you need 100% positive identification on a hostile act or intent to gain reason to fire, then get clearance from the ground force commander in order to actually fire. Also, we did send in soldiers. Sending in soldiers includes all the combat support that comes with doing so, being air and fire support among other things.
[editline]6th January 2013[/editline]
Also, the taliban have killed far more civilians than ISAF forces ever have.
[QUOTE=Earthen;39115859]With that many casualties it stops being a mistake and starts being apathy.
[/QUOTE]
[CITATION NEEDED]
[QUOTE=Earthen;39115859]I don't want them to be using explosives in the first place. Send the soldiers in that's what they're there for. Of course the. Brave American heroes die and we can't have that happening.
[/QUOTE]
Well guess what bud, the enemy has no reservation deploying IEDs and rockets and mortars. You gonna tell them to stop, too?
[QUOTE=SKEEA;39115945]Let me just cut this off at the head and say that you need 100% positive identification on a hostile act or intent to gain reason to fire, then get clearance from the ground force commander in order to actually fire. Also, we did send in soldiers. Sending in soldiers includes all the combat support that comes with doing so, being air and fire support among other things.
[editline]6th January 2013[/editline]
Also, the taliban have killed far more civilians than ISAF forces ever have.[/QUOTE]
If there is 100% positive identification then why do civilian casualties happen? Because they don't give a shit.
Yeah the Taliban have killed more civilians, does that mean the ISAF can be pardoned for their actions? Its like saying Pol Pot was a good guy considering Stalin killed more people than him.
[QUOTE=Earthen;39115859]
Then you don't fire the fucking missile.[/QUOTE]
Wow you really have no idea how the military works, do you?
Read up a little bit on target identification, then come back. You're just another ignorant who thinks the US military indiscriminately bombs population centers.
[QUOTE=scout1;39116173][CITATION NEEDED][/quote]
Citation? I can only do that if there was some whistleblower. I simply mean that when civilian casualties jump that high then not enough is being done to protect the civilians. The US doesn't care about the civilians enough if they keep dying from their own strikes.
[quote]Well guess what bud, the enemy has no reservation deploying IEDs and rockets and mortars. You gonna tell them to stop, too?[/QUOTE]
Christ almighty, the horrendous actions of the Taliban does not excuse the ISAF not giving a shit.
[QUOTE=Earthen;39116176]If there is 100% positive identification then why do civilian casualties happen? Because they don't give a shit.
[/QUOTE]
Are you KIDDING ME
Do you not understand how a war is conducted? Guess what, missiles fail - smart munitions too. Bullets don't go exactly where you think you're aiming. People get caught in the crossfire. You're a bloody loon if you think you can magically stop civilian casualties.
[editline]6th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Earthen;39116188]Citation? I can only do that if there was some whistleblower. I simply mean that when civilian casualties jump that high then not enough is being done to protect the civilians. The US doesn't care about the civilians enough if they keep dying from their own strikes.
[/QUOTE]
[B]REALLY BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T MENTIONED ANY MILITARY GIVING MORE OF A SHIT[/B]
The US goes to [I]painstaking lengths[/I] to prevent civilian casualties.
[QUOTE=scout1;39116180]Wow you really have no idea how the military works, do you?
Read up a little bit on target identification, then come back. You're just another ignorant who thinks the US military indiscriminately bombs population centers.[/QUOTE]
I'm serving in the military, but whatever. I'm just saying that I don't want them to being firing missiles at the militants. I want them to send soldiers in to minimize the risk of civilian casualties as much as possible.
[QUOTE=Earthen;39116200]I'm serving in the military, but whatever. I'm just saying that I don't want them to being firing missiles at the militants. I want them to send soldiers in to minimize the risk of civilian casualties as much as possible.[/QUOTE]
Okay imagine this. You're deployed to Afghanistan. You're in an urban area. A machine gun starts firing. You want to deal with that without hitting it with explosives? Do you really?
And again, see above. The US military goes to painstaking lengths to get it right. Cite another military which does better, and why. You can't, because one doesn't exist. We shit money because we use smart munitions wherever possible.
We do give a shit, and we have enacted such strict ROE to avoid civilian casualties that it has caused many troops to be afraid to fire their weapon under fear of being put in prison. It is quite stringent, and we follow the rules. Every policy we have put in place has successfully reduced the numbers of civilian casualties. Just look at the difference between OEF 1 and OEF 12-13. It is not that we don't give a shit, it is just that mistakes do happen. We aren't perfect, and 100% no civilian casualties is an impossible statistic to attain.
[QUOTE=SKEEA;39116221]We do give a shit, and we have enacted such strict ROE to avoid civilian casualties that it has caused many troops to be afraid to fire their weapon under fear of being put in prison. It is quite stringent, and we follow the rules. Every policy we have put in place has successfully reduced the numbers of civilian casualties. Just look at the difference between OEF 1 and OEF 12-13. It is not that we don't give a shit, it is just that mistakes do happen. We aren't perfect, and 100% no civilian casualties is an impossible statistic to attain.[/QUOTE]
You know Earthen keeps talking about how there should be no civilian casualties. I'd like to hear what [I]he[/I] thinks should be done to attain this magic no incidence rate, eh?
Also, and I would like to point out once again, infantry have something called "the rest of the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps" whose sole purpose is to support the infantry. This includes artillery, air support, and what have you. We send in infantry, but they require support to minimize their own casualties.
[QUOTE=scout1;39116194]Are you KIDDING ME
Do you not understand how a war is conducted? Guess what, missiles fail - smart munitions too. Bullets don't go exactly where you think you're aiming. People get caught in the crossfire. You're a bloody loon if you think you can magically stop civilian casualties.[/QUOTE]
But you can try and lower the amount of civilian casualties by being much more careful.
So much for identification: [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike#Incidents[/URL]
[quote]A crew member reported seeing "five to six individuals with AK-47s" and requested authorization to engage.[/quote]
[URL]http://www.salon.com/2012/08/07/unrestrained_savagery/[/URL]
[quote]The CIA’s drone campaign in Pakistan has killed dozens of civilians who had gone to help rescue victims or were attending funerals, an investigation by the Bureau for the Sunday Times has revealed.
The findings are published just days after President Obama claimed that the drone campaign in Pakistan was a “targeted, focused effort” that “has not caused a huge number of civilian casualties”. . . .
A three month investigation including eye witness reports has found evidence that at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims. More than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners. The tactics have been condemned by leading legal experts.[/quote]
[quote]An airstrike believed to have been carried out by a United States drone killed at least 60 people at a funeral for a Taliban fighter in South Waziristan on Tuesday, residents of the area and local news reports said.
Details of the attack, which occurred in Makeen, remained unclear, but the reported death toll was exceptionally high.[/quote]
[quote][editline]6th January 2013[/editline]
[B]REALLY BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T MENTIONED ANY MILITARY GIVING MORE OF A SHIT[/B]
The US goes to [I]painstaking lengths[/I] to prevent civilian casualties.[/quote]
Prove it.
[editline]6th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=scout1;39116234]You know Earthen keeps talking about how there should be no civilian casualties. I'd like to hear what [I]he[/I] thinks should be done to attain this magic no incidence rate, eh?[/QUOTE]
Send in infantry with the drones performing only reconnaissance roles. I am in the military, I understand that the infantry needs support from everyone.
[editline]6th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=scout1;39116220]Okay imagine this. You're deployed to Afghanistan. You're in an urban area. A machine gun starts firing. You want to deal with that without hitting it with explosives? Do you really?[/quote]
If I know there are civilians extremely nearby then no. Thats when you find another way to do it.
[quote]And again, see above. The US military goes to painstaking lengths to get it right. Cite another military which does better, and why. You can't, because one doesn't exist. We shit money because we use smart munitions wherever possible.[/QUOTE]
Please stop assuming I have certain opinions. Just because I'm criticising the US military here does not mean I'm not going to criticise the Taliban or the Pakistani military or the British military...
I don't know if you know this, but the CIA falls outside of the military chain of command. The military cannot hold them accountable for their actions. Also, like I said, the military became increasingly restrictive over the years. The amount of ISAF caused civcas has dropped dramatically.
[QUOTE=Earthen;39116302]But you can try and lower the amount of civilian casualties by being much more careful.
So much for identification: [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike#Incidents[/URL]
[URL]http://www.salon.com/2012/08/07/unrestrained_savagery/[/URL]
[/QUOTE]
Hey look, of the dozens and hundreds of bombs we drop per year, some fuck up. Imagine that, in a war.
[QUOTE=Earthen;39116302]
Prove it.
[/QUOTE]
Well that's quite simple. When we hit civilians it's the exception, rather than the rule.
[QUOTE=Earthen;39116302]
Send in infantry with the drones performing only reconnaissance roles. I am in the military, I understand that the infantry needs support from everyone.
[/QUOTE]
Okay I'll call the air force, they're obviously fucking obsolete. Or else we can tell people that our pilots had to die because people like you didn't understand how drones work. You're in an unwinnable argument, there.
[QUOTE=Earthen;39116302]
If I know there are civilians extremely nearby then no. Thats when you find another way to do it.
[/QUOTE]
[B]Like what?[/B]
Tell us, Earthen. Tell us how you want to stop civilian casualties in war. If there is fighting, civilians can die. So tell us your magical solution to stop it.
afaik the US military has been in Africa for years training local troops
[QUOTE=Virtanen;39116439]afaik the US military has been in Africa for years training local troops[/QUOTE]
You hit the nail on the head, we have been there for a very long time. We also take in their officers and send them in for cross-nation leadership training at Ft. Leavenworth back in the states.
[QUOTE=scout1;39116375]Hey look, of the dozens and hundreds of bombs we drop per year, some fuck up. Imagine that, in a war.
Well that's quite simple. When we hit civilians it's the exception, rather than the rule.
Okay I'll call the air force, they're obviously fucking obsolete. Or else we can tell people that our pilots had to die because people like you didn't understand how drones work. You're in an unwinnable argument, there.
[B]Like what?[/B]
Tell us, Earthen. Tell us how you want to stop civilian casualties in war. If there is fighting, civilians can die. So tell us your magical solution to stop it.[/QUOTE]
Well we can go for the obvious, which is don't start a war, but that's a pipedream. Civilians should not die, and the best way to stop civilians from dying is to worry more about the civilians than the soldiers. We should have more concern for civilians than for soldiers.
And the difference between the Taliban and the US is that we expect the Taliban to do bad things, it's why I'm not going to constantly criticise them because everybody already knows what they do. The US needs to be held accountable.
[editline]6th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=SKEEA;39116368]I don't know if you know this, but the CIA falls outside of the military chain of command. The military cannot hold them accountable for their actions. Also, like I said, the military became increasingly restrictive over the years. The amount of ISAF caused civcas has dropped dramatically.[/QUOTE]
Then we'll just broaden this to the US government.
[QUOTE=Earthen;39116724] the best way to stop civilians from dying is to worry more about the civilians than the soldiers. We should have more concern for civilians than for soldiers. [/QUOTE]
So... how does that fix it? Bombs still explode. Bullets still maim. How does this stop civilian casualties? Let's say, as you accuse, that we care more about soldiers than civilians. Yet the soldiers still die.
So tell us, Earthen, how do you plan to stop civilian casualties? What doctrinal change? What new weapon system? Tell us, [B]specifically[/B], what's gonna stop civilians from being hurt when shrapnel goes 200m more than it's supposed to and cleaves some poor fellow?
[editline]6th January 2013[/editline]
I'll make this easy for you:
Budget is unlimited. There are no political concerns. How do you stop the civilian casualties, Earthen?
[QUOTE=scout1;39116756]So... how does that fix it? Bombs still explode. Bullets still maim. How does this stop civilian casualties? Let's say, as you accuse, that we care more about soldiers than civilians. Yet the soldiers still die.
So tell us, Earthen, how do you plan to stop civilian casualties? What doctrinal change? What new weapon system? Tell us, [B]specifically[/B], what's gonna stop civilians from being hurt when shrapnel goes 200m more than it's supposed to and cleaves some poor fellow?
[editline]6th January 2013[/editline]
I'll make this easy for you:
Budget is unlimited. There are no political concerns. How do you stop the civilian casualties, Earthen?[/QUOTE]
Soldiers aren't able to lob a massive bomb at a house and kill 16 people, usually. A soldier with a rifle will most likely not kill by himself as many civilians as a drone might.
That's an idiotic question, I could just take that unlimited budget and put into something useful. You need to be more specific if your argument is going to be based on a question like that.
[QUOTE=Earthen;39116944]Soldiers aren't able to lob a massive bomb at a house and kill 16 people, usually. A soldier with a rifle will most likely not kill by himself as many civilians as a drone might.
That's an idiotic question, I could just take that unlimited budget and put into something useful. You need to be more specific if your argument is going to be based on a question like that.[/QUOTE]
[I]Your[/I] argument is that by being more careful we will avoid civilians casualties, yet you cannot point out how. Unless of course by that early sentence you mean we should abandon artillery, and armor, and the air force, and the navy. So we'll put foot soldiers on the ground against... rockets, mortars, technicals, machine guns. So, to be clear, because you refuse to state it: Is your grand idea to eliminate all arms besides the rifle? Quantify it. Tell us what you mean.
By the way, you might have forgotten, but>
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babi_Yar[/url]
[QUOTE=scout1;39116980][I]Your[/I] argument is that by being more careful we will avoid civilians casualties, yet you cannot point out how. Unless of course by that early sentence you mean we should abandon artillery, and armor, and the air force, and the navy. So we'll put foot soldiers on the ground against... rockets, mortars, technicals, machine guns. So, to be clear, because you refuse to state it: Is your grand idea to eliminate all arms besides the rifle? Quantify it. Tell us what you mean.
By the way, you might have forgotten, but>
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babi_Yar[/url][/QUOTE]
When did I say the US military needs to abandon armor and such? I said instead of drones they should use soldiers.
What does that massacre have to do with this?
Personally, to me, this is more or less just putting our forces somewhere to be bait for extremists to attack so the rest of us don't have to deal with that bullshit on our own turf. Pretty much what the war in Afghanistan has been about
Would be better to support the UN in those country's instead of just sending in their army. I sure as hell know the UN could use it.
[QUOTE=Earthen;39119119]When did I say the US military needs to abandon armor and such? I said instead of drones they should use soldiers.
What does that massacre have to do with this?[/QUOTE]
You're not saying [I]anything.[/I] What do you mean when you say the military shouldn't use drones? They shouldn't use planes either? They do the same damn thing, except one has a pilot inside it, the other has a pilot 100km away.
PS "machine guns can't kill 16 dudes", that's what the massacre was for. Machine guns are not piddly toys.
[editline]6th January 2013[/editline]
Tell us why drones are bad, Earthen. Tell us what we can do better. You've given an awful lot of bullshit "be more careful", but [B]nothing[/B] specific.
[QUOTE=scout1;39122009]You're not saying [I]anything.[/I] What do you mean when you say the military shouldn't use drones? They shouldn't use planes either? They do the same damn thing, except one has a pilot inside it, the other has a pilot 100km away.
PS "machine guns can't kill 16 dudes", that's what the massacre was for. Machine guns are not piddly toys.[/QUOTE]
Yeah they should be using infantry instead of drones.
The thing with machine guns is that a massacre committed with one, well it's going to get a lot more attention if one guy guns down a village as opposed to a drone blowing up a house.
[QUOTE=Earthen;39122053]Yeah they should be using infantry instead of drones.
The thing with machine guns is that a massacre committed with one, well it's going to get a lot more attention if one guy guns down a village as opposed to a drone blowing up a house.[/QUOTE]
But it's okay if an aircraft bombs it, so long as it's not a drone?
So tell us, Earthen. What can be better done to reduce civilian casualties? No drones, specifically, but machine guns only (thus precluding all other listed armaments)? Do we keep armor? Do we keep MLRS and conventional artillery? They cause civilian casualties too.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.