While I'm on the topic...  

complexlysimple 34M
894 posts
7/29/2006 10:57 am

Last Read:
8/2/2006 4:05 pm

While I'm on the topic...


I figure since I started on it earlier why not go ahead and continue....the need for "boots on the ground" is one of those things that gets said about fighting wars a lot ...and the thing is I agree with the idea ...except I don't ..not in the way it usually seems to mean ...which is a large number of troops on the ground

That really doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I see where the thinking comes from ...and I don't know what it is about my thinking that makes me disagree -maybe too much sci-fi and/or seeing what is technologically possible ..even now

Basically large numbers of troops on the ground in foreign country seems stupid... the biggest incentive I see to do so is to use them as bait and lure the enemy out ...which seems uneccesary since half the time villages/urban areas draw the enemy anyway ...even if it's theirs they might just try to blow it up ...or just concetrate there.

No, I think a smaller group of highly mobilzed, highly trained troops would be superior ....get rid of the ground vehicles (at least the current ones) because they are just too slow... the faster you can bring more firepower to an area the less likely it is that it'll be attacked, and given the state of airpower one soldier can bring forth enough firepower to hold off hundreds ...if not thousands..

So the only real advantage I see to have troops on the ground is to bringing a human face to the local population... which means ground troops will most likely never become outdated/obsolete ...

As for urban combat the same thing applies speed of response ...but communcation with the local population is the big thing ...they live there, they know who doesn't belong and what is happening, they can be of help as long as they are aware that their calls will be responded to ...same thing as in law enforcement ...the longer the percieved response time combined with lack of effective response results in lowering likelyhood of them even notifying the authorities.

I guess the idea is be visible, but not 'in your face' visible ... I guess I'd make troop levels similiar to those of police forces per capita ....maybe double or triple that ...which means around 80 or so troops per every 10,000 people (twice the highest I found for police per capita in the US)
...that is unless there is an 'traditional' battlefield/manuever type war with armies fighting armies ...which doesn't really seem to happen that often ....obviously a large area would also require a few more troops

Just fyi Iraq has around 27 million people ..which means that just US Army troop levels mean there is one soldier for about every 250 people ..I somehow doubt that there are that many insurgents in Iraq...

Heck maybe I just need a better idea of what an average day is for troops in Iraq .. right now I'm under the impression many aren't in daily combat ..except perhaps to be 'bait'.... basically if they have time to plan -or just get into- trouble besides neccesary combat then I'm not sure their being kept busy enough....

(Yes, I realize I may qualify as a hard ass ...but dammit do the job right, do it fast and get home to relax ...work smarter and harder so you can finish the job faster ....politicians are also given way too much time to posture and wrangle on legislation ...then they don't get anything done anyway)

...part of me wishes I had been allowed to join the military .. academy or enlistment...

Become a member to create a blog