Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 61 to 67 of 67
  1. #61  
    Senior Member Molon Labe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Jihad Me At Hello
    Posts
    4,769
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    You and I agree on too many issues to get pissed off at each other over the disagreements..... If I were the POTUS, I'd be looking at a change (or at least a definition) of the desired endstate and the means to get there, but the two are not mutually exclusive.
    Heck...If we agreed all the time no one would have much to say.....besides, It's boring to write agreement posts all day long anyways.
    I don't believe the Wiki docs will paralyze tactical war aims. They will definitely be a political factor. And you're right that the POTUS needs to define an endstate that is achievable as to get the mission accomplished. You know as well as I do, that if you do not give clear mission goals you increase the chances for possible failure.
    I just have a different perspective on FP than many conservatives today. There's always more to the story than what is being actually told in the MSM....which is what Wiki crudely did, though I disagree with their quesionable methods.
    I'm never pissed at the disagreements, contrary to popular belief.
    Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown


    The problem is Empty People, Not Loaded Guns - Linda Schrock Taylor
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #62  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Molon Labe View Post
    Heck...If we agreed all the time no one would have much to say.....besides, It's boring to write agreement posts all day long anyways.
    Instead of agreeing with you, I will quote Dan Akroyd on SNL's Point, Counterpoint, "Jane, you ignorant slut...":D
    Quote Originally Posted by Molon Labe View Post
    I don't believe the Wiki docs will paralyze tactical war aims. They will definitely be a political factor. And you're right that the POTUS needs to define an endstate that is achievable as to get the mission accomplished. You know as well as I do, that if you do not give clear mission goals you increase the chances for possible failure.
    I just have a different perspective on FP than many conservatives today. There's always more to the story than what is being actually told in the MSM....which is what Wiki crudely did, though I disagree with their quesionable methods.
    I'm never pissed at the disagreements, contrary to popular belief.
    The tactical situation is going to erode because of Wikileaks. Imagine, for a moment, that you are an Afghan who dislikes the Taliban and does not share al Qaeda's dream of a global caliphate. Maybe you don't want your wife or daughter stoned because her burka rode up over her ankle, or you like an occasional tune on the radio, or flying a kite. Before this, you might have decided to provide information to the US or Afghan forces that would roll up the bad guys in your AO, but now, you will think twice. After all, if they cannot guarantee your anonymity, then what is the point of providing support?

    Our intel sources are going to dry up fast, and in a guerilla war, that's going to mean more lives lost and erosion of support for the war. Wikileaks just raised our body count and the media will happily exploit it.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #63  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,000
    Quote Originally Posted by Molon Labe View Post
    Thanks... I'll try to remember that he's the only one who has any military expertise, or leadership experience on the internets.
    Are you currently a high ranking officer in the US Military? Are you currently in command of troops? That is my point. He is living this right now. It affects his job. Notice where he is stationed? I wonder what army group there?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #64  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Jfor View Post
    Are you currently a high ranking officer in the US Military? Are you currently in command of troops? That is my point. He is living this right now. It affects his job. Notice where he is stationed? I wonder what army group there?
    Yeah, but FT Hood's a long way from Kandahar, and everyone's entitled to an opinion. My rank and position don't mean that I'm always right (just ask the NCOs that work for me :D).
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #65  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,000
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    Yeah, but FT Hood's a long way from Kandahar, and everyone's entitled to an opinion. My rank and position don't mean that I'm always right (just ask the NCOs that work for me :D).
    I understand that, but you are also in the position to have to worry about stuff like this. BTW, my dad was an NCO and used to have very little good to say about officer's unless they were good. Then he'd follow'em to hell if need be.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #66  
    Senior Member Molon Labe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Jihad Me At Hello
    Posts
    4,769
    Quote Originally Posted by Jfor View Post
    Are you currently a high ranking officer in the US Military? Are you currently in command of troops? That is my point. He is living this right now. It affects his job. Notice where he is stationed? I wonder what army group there?

    So, you're qualifications for expertise are 1. Command of Troops, 2. Rank

    There are plenty of people " living it right now" or have "lived it" in other engagements who didn't have a clue about the nature of the beast.
    There's no "magic" understanding of the big picture simply because you hold a particular position. Just look at the Warfare history failure. Like Odysseus alluded about rank and position....some of us have served under some bad senior leaders and conversely some very good junior ones. I don't claim to know Odysseus qualifications on this.

    Two things strike me as particularly troublesome about worrying about the leaks over more pressing matters of Troop and National Security.

    First the civilian casualties caused by occupation are far more serious to U.S troops security on the ground than what was contained in the leaks. If names were named in the leaks and it's possible for a commander to protect the those named, he should do so to the best of his ability, but the more pressing matter to American troop safety is to reduce civilian casualties caused by occupation. There is a direct link to insurgent recruitment caused by civilian casualties. So suggesting the leaks could cause civilian casualties is kinda ironic when the biggest issue to troop safety is the direct link to insurgents caused by the collateral damage aspect of the war.

    The second thing is that these documents were all significant activity reports. Meaning that they were accessible by just about any soldier and contractor in theater who had access to the secret network. There are hundreds and hundreds. If that's the case, then anyone could have done this...and that's a problem.
    To my knowledge about this and from what I've read of them, the leaks are not as significant as if actual "Strategic" information had gotten into the wrong hands....but's that's all Top Secret stuff and would never be kept on this kind of network. Wiki has nothing of that level in it's possession.
    Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown


    The problem is Empty People, Not Loaded Guns - Linda Schrock Taylor
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #67  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Molon Labe View Post
    So, you're qualifications for expertise are 1. Command of Troops, 2. Rank
    Don't forget astonishing good looks. :D

    Quote Originally Posted by Molon Labe View Post
    There are plenty of people " living it right now" or have "lived it" in other engagements who didn't have a clue about the nature of the beast.
    There's no "magic" understanding of the big picture simply because you hold a particular position. Just look at the Warfare history failure. Like Odysseus alluded about rank and position....some of us have served under some bad senior leaders and conversely some very good junior ones. I don't claim to know Odysseus qualifications on this.
    You're giving me the benefit of the doubt, right? :D

    Quote Originally Posted by Molon Labe View Post
    Two things strike me as particularly troublesome about worrying about the leaks over more pressing matters of Troop and National Security.

    First the civilian casualties caused by occupation are far more serious to U.S troops security on the ground than what was contained in the leaks. If names were named in the leaks and it's possible for a commander to protect the those named, he should do so to the best of his ability, but the more pressing matter to American troop safety is to reduce civilian casualties caused by occupation. There is a direct link to insurgent recruitment caused by civilian casualties. So suggesting the leaks could cause civilian casualties is kinda ironic when the biggest issue to troop safety is the direct link to insurgents caused by the collateral damage aspect of the war.

    The second thing is that these documents were all significant activity reports. Meaning that they were accessible by just about any soldier and contractor in theater who had access to the secret network. There are hundreds and hundreds. If that's the case, then anyone could have done this...and that's a problem.
    To my knowledge about this and from what I've read of them, the leaks are not as significant as if actual "Strategic" information had gotten into the wrong hands....but's that's all Top Secret stuff and would never be kept on this kind of network. Wiki has nothing of that level in it's possession.
    My understanding is that they went beyond SIGACTs, and actually named names. SIGACTS would routinely be classified as SECRET, while materials that include the process of intel gathering, i.e., sources and procedures, are usually classifed TOP SECRET. If the names in the documents refer specifically to Afghans who have provided intel to US troops and the ANA, then they are TS, which means that they are not routine SIGACT reports.

    And, while you are correct that civilian casualties undermine our ability to defeat the insurgents, some civilian deaths are more destructive than others. If those civilians who have supported us are exposed and their families killed, these civilian deaths will be extremely damaging to our security, both because their deaths will be attributed, not only to our occupation, but to our weakness and inability to protect our allies. They will send a message that aiding us will get you and your family killed. The deaths of our allies on the ground also increase insurgent recruiting, as people will not trust our side to protect them and see us as weaker than the Taliban. An Afghan who intends to live after we leave will have no choice but to make an accomodation with the Taliban.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •