PDA

View Full Version : Question for the military folks (e.g. Ody, TRG, etc.)



Adam Wood
06-25-2011, 11:39 PM
Because y'all are "in it," I'm curious what the pulse is on the whole Libya thing. Do the privates and sergeants and whatnot support it, don't like it, think it's a waste, don't care? I'm most curious about what actual active duty, boots-on-the-ground types think.

Is there any sort of relatively unified feeling on this?


Personally, from my civvy point of view, we have no business being there, especially given that we aparently haven't the slightest fucking clue who we're supporting in this, but there's some good likelihood that it has some measure of al Qaeda involvement. I think backing the Egyptian "revolution" was a dumbass idea, and I think that saying anything on this whole Libya thing is a dumbass idea, much less actually getting involved, tasking valuable military assets that could be off doing other things to shorten the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (no one stops dying until the war is over; just like in WWII, the fastest way home to safety is an end to hostilities).

I have my opinion, but I'm open to having it changed most by those who are the actual trigger-pullers involved, rather than some general in a five-sided building on the Potomac who make the Sunday talk show rounds.


What say ye?

megimoo
06-26-2011, 12:07 AM
Because y'all are "in it," I'm curious what the pulse is on the whole Libya thing. Do the privates and sergeants and whatnot support it, don't like it, think it's a waste, don't care? I'm most curious about what actual active duty, boots-on-the-ground types think.

Is there any sort of relatively unified feeling on this?


Personally, from my civvy point of view, we have no business being there, especially given that we aparently haven't the slightest fucking clue who we're supporting in this, but there's some good likelihood that it has some measure of al Qaeda involvement. I think backing the Egyptian "revolution" was a dumbass idea, and I think that saying anything on this whole Libya thing is a dumbass idea, much less actually getting involved, tasking valuable military assets that could be off doing other things to shorten the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (no one stops dying until the war is over; just like in WWII, the fastest way home to safety is an end to hostilities).

I have my opinion, but I'm open to having it changed most by those who are the actual trigger-pullers involved, rather than some general in a five-sided building on the Potomac who make the Sunday talk show rounds.


What say ye?
I'm long past active military but here are a few questions for Obama's Foreign Policy advisors..Zbigniew Brzezinski, Robert Malley, Samantha Power and Susan Rice as advisers to Senator/President Obama.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/samantha_power_and_obamas_fore_1.html

At an interagency teleconference in late April, Susan Rice, a rising star on the NSC who worked under Richard Clarke, stunned a few of the officials present when she asked, “If we use the word ‘genocide’ and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the November [congressional] election?” Lieutenant Colonel Tony Marley remembers the incredulity of his colleagues at the State Department. “We could believe that people would wonder that,” he says, “but not that they would actually voice it.” Rice does not recall the incident but concedes, “If I said it, it was completely inappropriate, as well as irrelevant.”

I suspect the passage didn’t endear Power to Rice. But as Massimo notes in his piece, Rice also told Power that, “I swore to myself that if I ever faced such a crisis again, I would come down on the side of dramatic action, going down in flames if that was required.”In Libya, Rice made good on her words–a position that put her in alliance with Power, with whom she is now said to have a strong relationship. Whether she might go “down in flames” as a result remains to be seen.

http://swampland.time.com/2011/03/24/susan-rice-samantha-power-rwanda-and-libya/

Samantha Power Is the New President of Libya

Who won the war in Libya? If this strikes you as a premature question, you must not be a professional political analyst. The pros were working on the question of who would get the W in the scorebook before the air strikes even began.

Friday, a Politico headline declared the decision to use force in Libya a "win for lame-duck Clinton"—Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Glenn Thrush reported, had been "vindicated" in

her,(Samantha Power), fierce internal battle to push President Barack Obama to join the fight to liberate Libya from Muammar Qadhafi.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/scocca/archive/2011/03/21/samantha-power-is-the-new-president-of-libya.aspx

djones520
06-26-2011, 12:14 AM
My unit has been involved in it from day one, and the general feeling has been across the board from what i've noticed.

Not to many who aren't happy for more chances to blow some of these scum bags up, but there are concerns about the possibility of aiding Al Qaeda in the rebel faction. Others who have been upset because there was no real American interests to be served.

I've been supportive of it, because Qaddafi is the type of person that we do not want in power, and anytime a national leader is turning his weapons on his populace, I'm for bombing the shit out of him. I've also got concerns about the end game, and what may come from it though. Who is going to take power when Qaddafi eventually folds, and what will it mean for us?

Adam Wood
06-26-2011, 12:25 AM
My unit has been involved in it from day one, and the general feeling has been across the board from what i've noticed.

Not to many who aren't happy for more chances to blow some of these scum bags up, but there are concerns about the possibility of aiding Al Qaeda in the rebel faction. Others who have been upset because there was no real American interests to be served.

I've been supportive of it, because Qaddafi is the type of person that we do not want in power, and anytime a national leader is turning his weapons on his populace, I'm for bombing the shit out of him. I've also got concerns about the end game, and what may come from it though. Who is going to take power when Qaddafi eventually folds, and what will it mean for us?OK. This is exactly the kind of feedback I'm looking for. Maybe I'm playing too much of an armchair general and not enough of an armchair captain to see what's going on. Hence why I try to re-check my opinions on these sorts of things.

My guess is that half the guys/gals, if not more, in your unit weren't even born yet when Qaddafi blew up Pan Am 103, so that seems like some sort of ancient history to them. I think if I were in that position it would feel like attacking London because of the War of 1812. But at the same time, you guys get intel reports that I don't know about and there's probably some delight in extracting a pound of flesh from a bunch of people who have made life hell on your contemporaries in Iraq.

This sort of stuff is exactly why I'm wondering what the proverbial "boot on the ground" thinks about it, even if that boot isn't actually on the ground.

djones520
06-26-2011, 12:29 AM
OK. This is exactly the kind of feedback I'm looking for. Maybe I'm playing too much of an armchair general and not enough of an armchair captain to see what's going on. Hence why I try to re-check my opinions on these sorts of things.

My guess is that half the guys/gals, if not more, in your unit weren't even born yet when Qaddafi blew up Pan Am 103, so that seems like some sort of ancient history to them. I think if I were in that position it would feel like attacking London because of the War of 1812. But at the same time, you guys get intel reports that I don't know about and there's probably some delight in extracting a pound of flesh from a bunch of people who have made life hell on your contemporaries in Iraq.

This sort of stuff is exactly why I'm wondering what the proverbial "boot on the ground" thinks about it, even if that boot isn't actually on the ground.

Well if there was ever a boot on the ground, it was my units. I'm not sure what I can, and cannot talk about, but just about every aspect that the AF was involved in with this operation, we've been involved in it's execution.

Adam Wood
06-26-2011, 12:38 AM
Well if there was ever a boot on the ground, it was my units. I'm not sure what I can, and cannot talk about, but just about every aspect that the AF was involved in with this operation, we've been involved in it's execution.Oh, I certainly don't want anyone to breach any confidences here. To be crystal clear, when I say "boots on the ground" in this context, it is purely a metaphor to mean the lower ranks who actually go out and fight the war, be it from the air, sea, or land, and not to mean specifically anyone actually setting foot on Libyan soil. It's all metaphor, and not meant to be anything but that.

Out of curiosity, did any of your units encounter resistance on the way? You're in St. Louis, so I can surmise the type of aircraft with which you work if you're involved in operations half a world away without actually typing it out loud, other than to say that I think they're particularly awesome myself. But something I haven't heard out of all of this was whether there were antiaircraft batteries sending flak into the sky and such. As I recall, there was a bunch of that when we bombed the shit out of Tripoli back in '83(?). I'm curious if that's still a threat now or if we can pretty much bomb with impunity.

djones520
06-26-2011, 12:46 AM
Oh, I certainly don't want anyone to breach any confidences here. To be crystal clear, when I say "boots on the ground" in this context, it is purely a metaphor to mean the lower ranks who actually go out and fight the war, be it from the air, sea, or land, and not to mean specifically anyone actually setting foot on Libyan soil. It's all metaphor, and not meant to be anything but that.

Out of curiosity, did any of your units encounter resistance on the way? You're in St. Louis, so I can surmise the type of aircraft with which you work if you're involved in operations half a world away without actually typing it out loud, other than to say that I think they're particularly awesome myself. But something I haven't heard out of all of this was whether there were antiaircraft batteries sending flak into the sky and such. As I recall, there was a bunch of that when we bombed the shit out of Tripoli back in '83(?). I'm curious if that's still a threat now or if we can pretty much bomb with impunity.

I'm with the 618 AOC Tanker Airlift Control Center. We're responsible for planning and executing just about all of Air Mobility Commands operational missions. Whether it's transporting a Stryker Brigade to the AOR, or in-flight refueling a B-2 flying from Whiteman to Tripoli, we take part in just about all of the paperwork aspects of that mission.

As for the rest of your question, nothing I could talk about.

Adam Wood
06-26-2011, 01:16 AM
I'm with the 618 AOC Tanker Airlift Control Center. We're responsible for planning and executing just about all of Air Mobility Commands operational missions. Whether it's transporting a Stryker Brigade to the AOR, or in-flight refueling a B-2 flying from Whiteman to Tripoli, we take part in just about all of the paperwork aspects of that mission.

As for the rest of your question, nothing I could talk about.No problem. I certainly don't want anyone breaching OPSEC. I have a very high respect for the need of the military to conduct operations without telling the whole blessed world what they're doing.

Thanks for the input. It'll help me ponder on this for a bit, especially given that you're directly tied into the people who have the responsibility for dropping the bombs, etc.



My mind isn't changed just yet, but I'm still keeping it open.


Thanks again.

txradioguy
06-26-2011, 04:19 AM
Because y'all are "in it," I'm curious what the pulse is on the whole Libya thing. Do the privates and sergeants and whatnot support it, don't like it, think it's a waste, don't care? I'm most curious about what actual active duty, boots-on-the-ground types think.

Is there any sort of relatively unified feeling on this?


Personally, from my civvy point of view, we have no business being there, especially given that we aparently haven't the slightest fucking clue who we're supporting in this, but there's some good likelihood that it has some measure of al Qaeda involvement. I think backing the Egyptian "revolution" was a dumbass idea, and I think that saying anything on this whole Libya thing is a dumbass idea, much less actually getting involved, tasking valuable military assets that could be off doing other things to shorten the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (no one stops dying until the war is over; just like in WWII, the fastest way home to safety is an end to hostilities).

I have my opinion, but I'm open to having it changed most by those who are the actual trigger-pullers involved, rather than some general in a five-sided building on the Potomac who make the Sunday talk show rounds.


What say ye?

No one I've talked to knows why we are there...and that ranges from Int guys to Tankers to yours truly.

They're also afraid we'll end up going with ground troops there and that means yet another deployment to some hot dusty shithole in addition to the other hot dusty shitholes they've been to in the last 10 years.

AmPat
06-26-2011, 11:37 AM
We're too busy with an upcoming deployment to Afghanistan for anybody to weigh in on Libya. My professional opinion is that we are there for emotional (and perhaps Obama personal opinion), and not for national security reasons. The same questions that DIMoRATS use in Republican wars are still unanswered here in this one person war; what are our objectives, what is the exit strategy, etc. :confused:

ColonialMarine0431
06-26-2011, 11:50 AM
We're too busy with an upcoming deployment to Afghanistan for anybody to weigh in on Libya. My professional opinion is that we are there for emotional (and perhaps Obama personal opinion), and not for national security reasons. The same questions that DIMoRATS use in Republican wars are still unanswered here in this one person war; what are our objectives, what is the exit strategy, etc. :confused:

Agreed. Define the mission and it's objective Barry Soetero.

p.s.-for those who don't think we have boots on the ground, grow up. We do.

marv
06-26-2011, 04:19 PM
p.s.-for those who don't think we have boots on the ground, grow up. We do.

Yup. For those who didn't know, we had boots on the ground in Vietnam as soon as the ink was dry on the Korean War armistice. They were called "advisors". I was in Laos in '59.

txradioguy
06-26-2011, 04:53 PM
p.s.-for those who don't think we have boots on the ground, grow up. We do.

Who exactly do you think we have on the ground?

Molon Labe
06-26-2011, 05:13 PM
Agreed. Define the mission and it's objective Barry Soetero.

p.s.-for those who don't think we have boots on the ground, grow up. We do.




Yup. For those who didn't know, we had boots on the ground in Vietnam as soon as the ink was dry on the Korean War armistice. They were called "advisors". I was in Laos in '59.

+1

Good institutional analysis Marv. Anyone with any understanding of what we've done in the past knows what is or what is likely going on.

I can neither confirm or deny that CIA and SAS have been in theatre since around March. :rolleyes:

lacarnut
06-26-2011, 11:06 PM
I've been supportive of it, because Qaddafi is the type of person that we do not want in power, and anytime a national leader is turning his weapons on his populace, I'm for bombing the shit out of him. I've also got concerns about the end game, and what may come from it though. Who is going to take power when Qaddafi eventually folds, and what will it mean for us?

What we should do is quit fighting wars that are costing lives and costing us billions that we do not have. 10 years of war is enough and the majority of voters are tired of it. Bring our soldiers home from these fucked up countries that want us out and do not appreciate what we have done to save their ass. Quaddafi is no threat to us, the oil produced goes to Europe and it is not in our national interest to be there. Let the European hash it out with the sand monkeys.

As far as not wanting Quaddafi in power, I can name a bunch of commies and dictators that I do not like in power either. Also, we did nothing to help overthrow the Iranian regime.

Molon Labe
06-27-2011, 01:14 PM
What we should do is quit fighting wars that are costing lives and costing us billions that we do not have. 10 years of war is enough and the majority of voters are tired of it. Bring our soldiers home from these fucked up countries that want us out and do not appreciate what we have done to save their ass. Quaddafi is no threat to us, the oil produced goes to Europe and it is not in our national interest to be there. Let the European hash it out with the sand monkeys.

As far as not wanting Quaddafi in power, I can name a bunch of commies and dictators that I do not like in power either. Also, we did nothing to help overthrow the Iranian regime.

We also did not bomb Sudan and several other nations when they went through the exact type revolutions Libya is having.

Hmmm wonder why?

lacarnut
06-27-2011, 02:05 PM
We also did not bomb Sudan and several other nations when they went through the exact type revolutions Libya is having.

Hmmm wonder why?

I guess some people have short memories like the slaughter of almost a million people in Rwanda. The UN stood by and did nothing. Clinton put his head in the sand because Jesse and greaseball Al told Clinton to stay out of Africa. Many of these people were not shot; they were butchered with machetes. Qaddafi assault on the rebels pales in comparison to what is happening in Libya.