Middle-East Strategy

[bradly1101]

I'm finding out military tactics from articles and other media reporting on what's going on on the ground, and it's basically this:

• When attacking a terrorist enemy in a city, create fear among the locals with flyers and peripheral fighting that cripples their infrastructure. Hopefully all the fearful ones then flee, leaving only fighters, hopefully.
• Then bomb the place to smithereens, supposedly killing all the fighters.

The problems this creates are many:

• Floods of refugees.
• Death, injury, homelessness, hunger, disease.
• Huge amounts of entire cities destroyed.
• Anger at the source of the weapons used in all the major local conflicts: the U.S.

Areas in Yemen are being bombed now by American weapons used by the Saudis to destroy basic infrastructure, causing a humanitarian crisis.

Are these sound tactics?

 

[ivwshane]

The only viable strategy in the middle east is a complete rebuilding. You cannot bomb an already depressed area and people and tell them its for their own good.

We have three options for dealing with the shit storm we created in the middle east: Nation build.
Continue what we are doing in perpetuity.
Leave and let the vacuum be filled with whatever and live with it.

 

[bradly1101]

The only viable strategy in the middle east is a complete rebuilding. You cannot bomb an already depressed area and people and tell them its for their own good.

We have three options for dealing with the shit storm we created in the middle east: Nation build.
Continue what we are doing in perpetuity.
Leave and let the vacuum be filled with whatever and live with it.

Sounds about right. We will base our future behavior on the amount of weapons we have to use and sell..

 

[MrA79]

Hint: you are most certainly not learning tactics from news articles.

 

[IronWing]

I thought our entire strategy was "Carry water for the Sauds. Try not to hurt Israel while doing so."

 

[MrA79]

I thought our entire strategy was "Carry water for the Sauds. Try not to hurt Israel while doing so."

That will probably change once Hillary is in office, having married her daughter into the Tribe and all.

 

[bshole]

The only viable strategy in the middle east is a complete rebuilding. You cannot bomb an already depressed area and people and tell them its for their own good.

We have three options for dealing with the shit storm we created in the middle east: Nation build.
Continue what we are doing in perpetuity.
Leave and let the vacuum be filled with whatever and live with it.

Option 3 makes my nipples hard. It makes the most sense by a long long long long shot.

 

[bradly1101]

We can physically destroy much of what's been built in the middle east, but can we destroy the idea that is terrorism? As long as weapons flow freely, people will find a use for them. It's like what my brother's girlfriend often says about less lethal pursuits, "Boys and their toys..." She trails off as if it's a hopeless situation, and it apparently is.

Since the dawn of man, weapons have been in use, and as we became more sophisticated so did the weapons. Would it be more sophisticated to give them up? Maybe. But that will never happen as long as they're profitable and effective, and they get more so all the time. As a believer in the population being at the root of all the planet's problems (especially after reading The Sixth Extinction), one might think I'd be a fan of these weapons' ability to cull our specie, but not after seeing this:

This freaked-out, dying baby (she was dead five days later) is a victim of the American/Saudi policy in Yemen to cut off food supplies and destroy infrastructure.

 

[JEDIYoda]

We can physically destroy much of what's been built in the middle east, but can we destroy the idea that is terrorism? As long as weapons flow freely, people will find a use for them. It's like what my brother's girlfriend often says about less lethal pursuits, "Boys and their toys..." She trails off as if it's a hopeless situation, and it apparently is.

Since the dawn of man, weapons have been in use, and as we became more sophisticated so did the weapons. Would it be more sophisticated to give them up? Maybe. But that will never happen as long as they're profitable and effective, and they get more so all the time. As a believer in the population being at the root of all the planet's problems (especially after reading The Sixth Extinction), one might think I'd be a fan of these weapons' ability to cull our specie, but not after seeing this:

This freaked-out, dying baby (she was dead five days later) is a victim of the American/Saudi policy in Yemen to cut off food supplies and destroy infrastructure.

no links???

 

[JEDIYoda]

We can physically destroy much of what's been built in the middle east, but can we destroy the idea that is terrorism? As long as weapons flow freely, people will find a use for them. It's like what my brother's girlfriend often says about less lethal pursuits, "Boys and their toys..." She trails off as if it's a hopeless situation, and it apparently is.

Since the dawn of man, weapons have been in use, and as we became more sophisticated so did the weapons. Would it be more sophisticated to give them up? Maybe. But that will never happen as long as they're profitable and effective, and they get more so all the time. As a believer in the population being at the root of all the planet's problems (especially after reading The Sixth Extinction), one might think I'd be a fan of these weapons' ability to cull our specie, but not after seeing this:

This freaked-out, dying baby (she was dead five days later) is a victim of the American/Saudi policy in Yemen to cut off food supplies and destroy infrastructure.

No links??

We can physically destroy much of what's been built in the middle east, but can we destroy the idea that is terrorism? As long as weapons flow freely, people will find a use for them. It's like what my brother's girlfriend often says about less lethal pursuits, "Boys and their toys..." She trails off as if it's a hopeless situation, and it apparently is.

Since the dawn of man, weapons have been in use, and as we became more sophisticated so did the weapons. Would it be more sophisticated to give them up? Maybe. But that will never happen as long as they're profitable and effective, and they get more so all the time. As a believer in the population being at the root of all the planet's problems (especially after reading The Sixth Extinction), one might think I'd be a fan of these weapons' ability to cull our specie, but not after seeing this:

This freaked-out, dying baby (she was dead five days later) is a victim of the American/Saudi policy in Yemen to cut off food supplies and destroy infrastructure.

No links...

 

[bradly1101]

no links???

I'm sorry, it was a him not a her. At the time I was reading a couple of articles on the war in Yemen.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...nutrition-saudi-air-strikes-aid-a6958096.html

 

[rommelrommel]

We can physically destroy much of what's been built in the middle east, but can we destroy the idea that is terrorism? As long as weapons flow freely, people will find a use for them. It's like what my brother's girlfriend often says about less lethal pursuits, "Boys and their toys..." She trails off as if it's a hopeless situation, and it apparently is.

Since the dawn of man, weapons have been in use, and as we became more sophisticated so did the weapons. Would it be more sophisticated to give them up? Maybe. But that will never happen as long as they're profitable and effective, and they get more so all the time. As a believer in the population being at the root of all the planet's problems (especially after reading The Sixth Extinction), one might think I'd be a fan of these weapons' ability to cull our specie, but not after seeing this:

This freaked-out, dying baby (she was dead five days later) is a victim of the American/Saudi policy in Yemen to cut off food supplies and destroy infrastructure.

Depriving the enemy of resources has been a military tactic since forever. America certainly didn't invent it.

 

[bradly1101]

Depriving the enemy of resources has been a military tactic since forever. America certainly didn't invent it.

True, but don't we have supposedly "smart" weapons and Special Operations to prevent just what's occurring to the civilian populations?

Our shared enemies in Yemen are the Houthi rebels and various armed extremists. By basically carpet bombing the areas they supposedly inhabit (where the civilians get caught in the crossfire) we seem to ignore the rebels/terrorists/extremists that simply hide away with the fleeing masses.

What began my more intense interest of this was a France24 piece that showed the result of precision strikes at a major port, crippling it so that offloading food supplies (which aren't produced much in the country) was a lot slower and more difficult. How many terrorists did that hurt compared to civilians? How many civilians turn angry at and want to harm those who bring about the destruction? Those precision Saudi strikes are brought to you by either Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and/or General Dynamics, etc.; American companies.

 

[ivwshane]

True, but don't we have supposedly "smart" weapons and Special Operations to prevent just what's occurring to the civilian populations?

Our shared enemies in Yemen are the Houthi rebels and various armed extremists. By basically carpet bombing the areas they supposedly inhabit (where the civilians get caught in the crossfire) we seem to ignore the rebels/terrorists/extremists that simply hide away with the fleeing masses.

What began my more intense interest of this was a France24 piece that showed the result of precision strikes at a major port, crippling it so that offloading food supplies (which aren't produced much in the country) was a lot slower and more difficult. How many terrorists did that hurt compared to civilians? How many civilians turn angry at and want to harm those who bring about the destruction? Those precision Saudi strikes are brought to you by either Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and/or General Dynamics, etc.; American companies.

It's like our military doesn't understand blow back (not correctly used here but you get the point).

 

[rommelrommel]

Well, the Saudi military is a gigantic joke. They probably aren't capable of effective precision strikes. They certainly aren't capable of going in and rooting out an insurgency.

There really is no good short term strategy to remove an enemy that has embedded itself in the civilian population, whether the population totally supports them or not. As you've quite rightly pointed out, it's pretty hard to hurt the enemy without hurting the civilians. The Saudis may have the hardware, but they don't have the personnel.

 

[woolfe9998]

That will probably change once Hillary is in office, having married her daughter into the Tribe and all.

What "Tribe" are you referring to?

 

[IronWing]

....
Our shared enemies in Yemen are the Houthi rebels ....

Why?

 

[Orignal Earl]

Why?

The US supports spreading Wahhabism in Yemen and the Houthis didn't want it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houthis

 

[Jaskalas]

True, but don't we have supposedly "smart" weapons and Special Operations to prevent just what's occurring to the civilian populations?

"Smart" bombs are prohibitively expensive. They are designed to eliminate opposing military assets by striking first, once, and decisively to win / end wars. Not to fight prolonged guerilla warfare against Humvees and "terrorist" inhabited buildings in the middle of cities. If we spent $10-30 million per terrorist killed even the United States would go bankrupt, let alone other nations who do not enjoy our vast wealth.

For us it's a limited option. For others, not an option at all. The "War on terror" is exactly as you see it in Syria. That is conventional warfare, and that is how the world fights.

 

[bradly1101]

Well, the Saudi military is a gigantic joke. They probably aren't capable of effective precision strikes. They certainly aren't capable of going in and rooting out an insurgency.

There really is no good short term strategy to remove an enemy that has embedded itself in the civilian population, whether the population totally supports them or not. As you've quite rightly pointed out, it's pretty hard to hurt the enemy without hurting the civilians. The Saudis may have the hardware, but they don't have the personnel.

In the story they showed how the Saudi planes took out just the driver cabs of all the cranes in the port, rendering them useless. It sounds like a game the pilots were playing to test their accuracy. Now only ships with their own cranes can offload slooooowly.

 

[hal2kilo]

I thought our entire strategy was "Carry water for the Sauds. Try not to hurt Israel while doing so."

I think you got that backwards.

 

[IronWing]

I think you got that backwards.

I used to think that way as well but if the goal was simply to protect Israel then we wouldn't be in the mess we are now. Country by country, we have toppled every regime competing with the Sauds for dominance in the Arab world. In most cases, we toppled secular regimes and created openings for Saud-backed Wahhabi nutjobs to create chaos.

 

[bradly1101]

For us it's a limited option. For others, not an option at all. The "War on terror" is exactly as you see it in Syria. That is conventional warfare, and that is how the world fights.

But what if we're wrong (like we were in Iran in the fifties, Cuba and Vietnam spanning the sixties and seventies, Central America in the eighties, and Iraq in "03)? What if our attempts to destroy terrorism (along with everything else) create so much ill will that we end up creating more of these slippery extremists than we kill?

 

[Jaskalas]

Given the line you chose to quote, I'll presume Syria is the subject.

Terrorists were already taking down Assad. He was merely fighting BACK for survival. So Syria wouldn't fall to the likes of ISIS. Things would have been easier / gone better if the United States was not actively arming the terrorists for the very purpose of destroying Syria. If Obama never invited Clinton to write our foreign policy.

Our Middle East strategy should be supporting Russia in defending Middle East governments from unrest. Protect their militaries from overwhelming violence so they can keep the peace. Their own way. The necessary way.

But that'd require new American leadership, and not electing a Neocon this November.