Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17
  1. #1 Question for the military folks (e.g. Ody, TRG, etc.) 
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,697
    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?
    Olde-style, states' rights conservative. Ask if this concept confuses you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,891
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Wood View Post
    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/...as_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...nda-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/sco...-of-libya.aspx
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Zoomie djones520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    10,078
    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?
    In most sports, cold-cocking an opposing player repeatedly in the face with a series of gigantic Slovakian uppercuts would get you a multi-game suspension without pay.

    In hockey, it means you have to sit in the penalty box for five minutes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,697
    Quote Originally Posted by djones520 View Post
    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.
    Olde-style, states' rights conservative. Ask if this concept confuses you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Zoomie djones520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    10,078
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Wood View Post
    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.
    In most sports, cold-cocking an opposing player repeatedly in the face with a series of gigantic Slovakian uppercuts would get you a multi-game suspension without pay.

    In hockey, it means you have to sit in the penalty box for five minutes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,697
    Quote Originally Posted by djones520 View Post
    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.
    Olde-style, states' rights conservative. Ask if this concept confuses you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Zoomie djones520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    10,078
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Wood View Post
    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.
    In most sports, cold-cocking an opposing player repeatedly in the face with a series of gigantic Slovakian uppercuts would get you a multi-game suspension without pay.

    In hockey, it means you have to sit in the penalty box for five minutes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,697
    Quote Originally Posted by djones520 View Post
    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.
    Olde-style, states' rights conservative. Ask if this concept confuses you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    7,820
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Wood View Post
    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.
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Woodland Park, Colorado, United States
    Posts
    8,563
    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.
    Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.
    C. S. Lewis
    Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives. (Are you listening Barry)?:mad:
    Ayn Rand
    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
  •