Air strikes - challenging the "collateral damage" narrative
Total War....perhaps that definition can be brought up to modern times.
We don't need to build 247,000 airplanes to fight the War we find ourselves fighting.
Perhaps what we need to do is actually accept that it is a War and as such we should devote our combined National energies to fighting it.
Instead of calling up hundreds of thousands of Men (and perhaps Women), we need only to man such Units, Ships, and Aircraft that we need.
The other side is waging Asymmetrical War against us while we have yet to dedicate any significant combat strength to the fight.
Mr. Obama has dispatched 100 SpecOps Troops and some support elements to conduct Direct Action Raids in Iraq and Syria. How is that supposed to help re-take Mosul, Fallujah, and the other areas being held by ISIS?
What we must do is devote every bit of Military and Political Power available to us to aggressively conduct combat operations to achieve destruction of ISIS.
That does not mean we re-fight WWII in the Sand Box but it should mean we do mobilize the full array of resources needed to achieve that.
We mucked about in Iraq and Afghanistan (not learning from our experiences in Vietnam) far too long.
We need to get stuck in....deliver overwhelming force....kick their Ass and leave.
Otherwise, they keep on with their rape, torture, and killing.
Or....do we reinforce our Borders and just continue to repel Boarders as best we can and accept that some shall always get through and kill our Citizens as they did in Paris, California, New York, London, and Madrid?
We don't need to build 247,000 airplanes to fight the War we find ourselves fighting.
Perhaps what we need to do is actually accept that it is a War and as such we should devote our combined National energies to fighting it.
Instead of calling up hundreds of thousands of Men (and perhaps Women), we need only to man such Units, Ships, and Aircraft that we need.
The other side is waging Asymmetrical War against us while we have yet to dedicate any significant combat strength to the fight.
Mr. Obama has dispatched 100 SpecOps Troops and some support elements to conduct Direct Action Raids in Iraq and Syria. How is that supposed to help re-take Mosul, Fallujah, and the other areas being held by ISIS?
What we must do is devote every bit of Military and Political Power available to us to aggressively conduct combat operations to achieve destruction of ISIS.
That does not mean we re-fight WWII in the Sand Box but it should mean we do mobilize the full array of resources needed to achieve that.
We mucked about in Iraq and Afghanistan (not learning from our experiences in Vietnam) far too long.
We need to get stuck in....deliver overwhelming force....kick their Ass and leave.
Otherwise, they keep on with their rape, torture, and killing.
Or....do we reinforce our Borders and just continue to repel Boarders as best we can and accept that some shall always get through and kill our Citizens as they did in Paris, California, New York, London, and Madrid?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: UK
Age: 47
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taken from a Facebook post of a friend of a friend:
'As a teacher I would like to pass on the following wisdom from an 13year old who I teach-
"Is the Prime Minister an idiot? Because even I know that when someone hits your friend with a stick, you don't hit everyone in the playground with a stick. You take the stick away. And you find out who gave them the stick in the first place. And you find out where he got the stick. And clear up the sticks so nobody else can be tempted. Everyone gets angry. But if they don't have a stick then their anger isn't as dangerous."
I congratulated her on her wisdom.
"Sir. It isn't wisdom. It's obvious. If I gave someone a stick to hit someone with id be expelled. And imagine how much trouble id get in if I SOLD them the stick!!" '
Almost unbelievable, this is a teacher who thinks he's done a good job with the above! I'd say that as a teacher, he should have corrected the analogy, bombing ISIS in Syria is about confronting the bully with a stick wherever in the playground he's standing, not hitting everyone in the playground. I'd also have pointed out that under ISIS his pupil wouldn't have been in school, at 13 she'd probably have been 'married' to some future martyr! Anyone who thinks there is any way to deal with fascists, of whatever flavour, through negotiation, simply hasn't being paying attention.
'As a teacher I would like to pass on the following wisdom from an 13year old who I teach-
"Is the Prime Minister an idiot? Because even I know that when someone hits your friend with a stick, you don't hit everyone in the playground with a stick. You take the stick away. And you find out who gave them the stick in the first place. And you find out where he got the stick. And clear up the sticks so nobody else can be tempted. Everyone gets angry. But if they don't have a stick then their anger isn't as dangerous."
I congratulated her on her wisdom.
"Sir. It isn't wisdom. It's obvious. If I gave someone a stick to hit someone with id be expelled. And imagine how much trouble id get in if I SOLD them the stick!!" '
Almost unbelievable, this is a teacher who thinks he's done a good job with the above! I'd say that as a teacher, he should have corrected the analogy, bombing ISIS in Syria is about confronting the bully with a stick wherever in the playground he's standing, not hitting everyone in the playground. I'd also have pointed out that under ISIS his pupil wouldn't have been in school, at 13 she'd probably have been 'married' to some future martyr! Anyone who thinks there is any way to deal with fascists, of whatever flavour, through negotiation, simply hasn't being paying attention.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
What we must do is devote every bit of Military and Political Power available to us to aggressively conduct combat operations to achieve destruction of ISIS.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASLess is 'on the money'
My uncle once told me - when speaking of unpalatable organisations such as Da'esh - that to get rid of rats you don't just take out the King Rat. You have to take out the lot.
Da'esh, with their barbaric ideologies, threaten the future of all peace-loving Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Christians and any other religion that won't conform or acknowledge their extreme interpretations of the Koran. The Facist comparison may not be apples to apples, but it certainly isn't too far off.
A comprehensive, total commitment to ending the madness is needed, and needed quickly. A prolonged and bloody exchange will be inevitable if we just dip our toes into this.
My uncle once told me - when speaking of unpalatable organisations such as Da'esh - that to get rid of rats you don't just take out the King Rat. You have to take out the lot.
Da'esh, with their barbaric ideologies, threaten the future of all peace-loving Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Christians and any other religion that won't conform or acknowledge their extreme interpretations of the Koran. The Facist comparison may not be apples to apples, but it certainly isn't too far off.
A comprehensive, total commitment to ending the madness is needed, and needed quickly. A prolonged and bloody exchange will be inevitable if we just dip our toes into this.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its the terrifying concept of being on the receiving end of high explosives....
The way I see it, most British people would think the prospect of being bombed by aircraft, at the place where they live, their home, utterly terrifying (and a repugnant act to boot).
Wont really matter if the aircrew are using a smart bombs or not, its the overall concept, as deliverers the RAF cant escape association. Their dropping bombs on areas inhabited by fellow man isn't going to go down well here in the UK. its never going to be loved. Generally the British still even now have some empathy for the poor blighters down below who are entirely innocent of the war.
I was going to add, hands up those on here that have been on the receiving end of dropped bombs anyway? Not I ,but I've heard ours from miles away and its close enough for me thanks.
Even so called smart bombing is terrifying for ordinary people if you are not the target but happen to share the same target area.
The effect bombing has on people is well documented.
Empathy with a fellow civilian- This is why so many ordinary non military civilian types are against it (apart from about another million greasy reasons anyway).
Wont really matter if the aircrew are using a smart bombs or not, its the overall concept, as deliverers the RAF cant escape association. Their dropping bombs on areas inhabited by fellow man isn't going to go down well here in the UK. its never going to be loved. Generally the British still even now have some empathy for the poor blighters down below who are entirely innocent of the war.
I was going to add, hands up those on here that have been on the receiving end of dropped bombs anyway? Not I ,but I've heard ours from miles away and its close enough for me thanks.
Even so called smart bombing is terrifying for ordinary people if you are not the target but happen to share the same target area.
The effect bombing has on people is well documented.
Empathy with a fellow civilian- This is why so many ordinary non military civilian types are against it (apart from about another million greasy reasons anyway).
Thread Starter
HS,
So you are an interesting test-case for the statistics presented in my original post. Are you at all surprised to learn that land operations and enemy action caused fifty times more civilian casualties than air strikes during a year in Afghanistan, a year in which the so-called 'drone' campaign continued unabated, and would it make you pause for thought at all?
The effect that bombing had on civilians was well-documented in WW2, inasmuch as it showed that predictions of moral collapse were entirely unfounded. As to your point regarding the British, we have been fortunate enough to escape the ravages of land warfare in and around the civilian population in recent centuries, and that makes us very poorly-placed to empathise with those in Syria. People under threat of brutality from an invading force would undoubtedly take a very different perspective, and would (I dare say) welcome defence in whatever form it comes, terrifyingly loud or otherwise. Making sound moral judgements requires effort to see things from all perspectives, not simply extrapolating your own circumstances and experiences onto every other civilian.
So you are an interesting test-case for the statistics presented in my original post. Are you at all surprised to learn that land operations and enemy action caused fifty times more civilian casualties than air strikes during a year in Afghanistan, a year in which the so-called 'drone' campaign continued unabated, and would it make you pause for thought at all?
The effect that bombing had on civilians was well-documented in WW2, inasmuch as it showed that predictions of moral collapse were entirely unfounded. As to your point regarding the British, we have been fortunate enough to escape the ravages of land warfare in and around the civilian population in recent centuries, and that makes us very poorly-placed to empathise with those in Syria. People under threat of brutality from an invading force would undoubtedly take a very different perspective, and would (I dare say) welcome defence in whatever form it comes, terrifyingly loud or otherwise. Making sound moral judgements requires effort to see things from all perspectives, not simply extrapolating your own circumstances and experiences onto every other civilian.
Last edited by Easy Street; 7th Dec 2015 at 00:02.
Guest
Posts: n/a
HangarShuffle,
I've heard a few in my in my time. But when you hear it, you're still alive. It's when you don't hear it, you have to worry (but then, your worries are over, anyway).
D.
...... hands up those on here that have been on the receiving end of dropped bombs anyway? Not I ,but I've heard ours from miles away and its close enough for me thanks......
D.
To fight a total war against those terrorists is impossible.
The real question is if the collective will exists to employ those tools. It's effective to destroy their infrastructure and income stream, but they won't be beat without someone going in and holding their land.
Any takers?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
HS, you make an unwarranted assertion that 'so many' are against bombing without even suggesting the numbers in many.
If, logically, it was necessary to nuke Raqqa, and almost everyone you met said 'go for it', you would be surprised that 'so many', say 10 of 1000 were agin. See what I mean?
My mother in law has indeed been bombed, so have I, and all she thinks is we should have bombed sooner and be bombing more. She is 92.
If, logically, it was necessary to nuke Raqqa, and almost everyone you met said 'go for it', you would be surprised that 'so many', say 10 of 1000 were agin. See what I mean?
My mother in law has indeed been bombed, so have I, and all she thinks is we should have bombed sooner and be bombing more. She is 92.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/12/02...strikes-syria/
Sorry about the size of the graphic...............
In just seven days, five million people have joined the ranks of those opposed to air strikes in Syria. But if Jeremy Corbyn is tempted to rejoice at this, he should beware. He is paying a heavy price for these gains, with support for Labour slipping and his own personal rating crashing from bad to terrible.
Last week, 59% of Britons backed air strikes; now the figure is just 48%. That eleven-point decline equates to five million electors. The number opposed is up eleven points, from 20% to 31%. Every political and demographic group has seen a change, but two stand out:
Among voters who would vote Labour today, opposition to air strikes is even stronger, with 57% backing Mr Corbyn’s stance and just 23% backing the Prime Minister’s position. Paradoxically, that should worry Labour’s leader, for the party is haemorrhaging support among people who voted for the party in May but currently back air strikes. They comprise more than three million people; our figures suggest that well over one million of them would no longer vote Labour if an election were held today.
In essence, Mr Corbyn is polarising the electorate – gaining ground among a large, worried minority of voters, but alienating the much larger majority.
Why has the public mood changed so sharply? Movements in our other tracking questions are much smaller – on the likely effectiveness of air strikes, the dangers of reprisal acts by terrorists, and the case for sending ground troops (on which the public remains divided, with supporters narrowly outnumbering opponents a week ago, and opponents holding an equally narrow lead today.)
The likeliest explanation is that as the debate about air strikes has intensified, the issue has moved to the forefront of voters’ minds. For five million voters, this has meant that doubts about military action that, perhaps, lurked in the background have now surfaced.
Having moved once, the public’s view may well move again. At different times, voters have backed military action in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the air raids in Libya. But in each case the public mood soured, as conditions in each country worsened.
Sorry about the size of the graphic...............
In just seven days, five million people have joined the ranks of those opposed to air strikes in Syria. But if Jeremy Corbyn is tempted to rejoice at this, he should beware. He is paying a heavy price for these gains, with support for Labour slipping and his own personal rating crashing from bad to terrible.
Last week, 59% of Britons backed air strikes; now the figure is just 48%. That eleven-point decline equates to five million electors. The number opposed is up eleven points, from 20% to 31%. Every political and demographic group has seen a change, but two stand out:
- The gender gap has widened. Now men favour air strikes by more than two-to-one (58-26%), while women divide evenly: 39-36%.
- Those who voted Labour in May have switched from backing military action by 52-26% a week ago, to opposing it, by 42-35% today.
Among voters who would vote Labour today, opposition to air strikes is even stronger, with 57% backing Mr Corbyn’s stance and just 23% backing the Prime Minister’s position. Paradoxically, that should worry Labour’s leader, for the party is haemorrhaging support among people who voted for the party in May but currently back air strikes. They comprise more than three million people; our figures suggest that well over one million of them would no longer vote Labour if an election were held today.
In essence, Mr Corbyn is polarising the electorate – gaining ground among a large, worried minority of voters, but alienating the much larger majority.
Why has the public mood changed so sharply? Movements in our other tracking questions are much smaller – on the likely effectiveness of air strikes, the dangers of reprisal acts by terrorists, and the case for sending ground troops (on which the public remains divided, with supporters narrowly outnumbering opponents a week ago, and opponents holding an equally narrow lead today.)
The likeliest explanation is that as the debate about air strikes has intensified, the issue has moved to the forefront of voters’ minds. For five million voters, this has meant that doubts about military action that, perhaps, lurked in the background have now surfaced.
Having moved once, the public’s view may well move again. At different times, voters have backed military action in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the air raids in Libya. But in each case the public mood soured, as conditions in each country worsened.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the change is mainly due to a decision in the abstract turning to the enactment of that decision in reality.
There are going to be a lot of people out there watching and waiting for the first bit of collateral damage. There is too much 'boys own' talk from Fallon and others for my comfort.
Looking at today's news an alleged bombing by the US of a Syrian Army barracks won't help. It's either a genuine mistake of targeting or a deliberate act to induce regime change. Neither of which was raised at the recent debate.
There are going to be a lot of people out there watching and waiting for the first bit of collateral damage. There is too much 'boys own' talk from Fallon and others for my comfort.
Looking at today's news an alleged bombing by the US of a Syrian Army barracks won't help. It's either a genuine mistake of targeting or a deliberate act to induce regime change. Neither of which was raised at the recent debate.
I think we're partly seeing the effects of the fact that the "stop the war" Corbynista types are aggressively dominating the twittersphere quite successfully - there's some effective "volume management" going on and it would be easy to get the impression that theirs is the pervasive view - which may give it an element of momentum of its own, especially as it repeats the "innocent people will die" meme.
I'm reminded of the Scottish referendum - there was an unpleasant campaign directed at anyone with the temerity to declare themselves in the "No" camp and in the end many of those against independence tended to keep their heads down because they didn't need that sort of grief. I suspect that many like me who on balance support the current action, albeit with reservations, tend not to be fired up about it with the same sort of evangelical zeal evidenced by the stop the war agitators.
If true that would support the view that the "collateral damage" view does need to be countered where it wilfully distorts the true situation.
I'm reminded of the Scottish referendum - there was an unpleasant campaign directed at anyone with the temerity to declare themselves in the "No" camp and in the end many of those against independence tended to keep their heads down because they didn't need that sort of grief. I suspect that many like me who on balance support the current action, albeit with reservations, tend not to be fired up about it with the same sort of evangelical zeal evidenced by the stop the war agitators.
If true that would support the view that the "collateral damage" view does need to be countered where it wilfully distorts the true situation.
That's the current line from Pentagon. Not sure if that will change in time.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 4 Civvy Street. Nowhere-near-a-base. The Shires.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Maybe Iran won't be so keen on Russian cruise missiles in it's airspace now:
Russian cruise missile hits flats in Arctic accident - BBC News
They can't even avoid collateral damage on their own ranges.
Russian cruise missile hits flats in Arctic accident - BBC News
They can't even avoid collateral damage on their own ranges.
We might not be able to hit the intended Target every single time but we at least know where the Aircraft were on their Sortie. Bit of checking the time and location and Bob's yer Uncle.
It is not like we have thousands of aircraft over the Bad Guys all day and night is it?
They've made a decision to morph from an ideology to a nation state and thus open themselves up to tactical and strategic tools which if used effectively can turn them into a Memory. You Reckon?
It is not like we have thousands of aircraft over the Bad Guys all day and night is it?
They've made a decision to morph from an ideology to a nation state and thus open themselves up to tactical and strategic tools which if used effectively can return them back to an ideology.
Moonhowling tripe which would be funny were it not for the credulous halfwits who believe it.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RAF haven't done any bombing for 10 days, according to one report I saw today. Might be true, might not. They're hardly in the headlines though, after all the brouhaha.
If true, why?
Lack of targets?
Lack of ammunition?
Fear of collateral damage?
Lack of right aircraft?
Other factor? Fear of Russian action? Slow realisation we've backed the wrong horse?
Its unravelling more and more IMHO.
If true, why?
Lack of targets?
Lack of ammunition?
Fear of collateral damage?
Lack of right aircraft?
Other factor? Fear of Russian action? Slow realisation we've backed the wrong horse?
Its unravelling more and more IMHO.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
HS, IMHO, intermittent operations can have a greater psychological effect one many rather than plunking the odd Toyota.
The RAF haven't done any bombing for 10 days, according to one report I saw today.
- If true, why?
- Lack of targets?
- Lack of ammunition?
- Fear of collateral damage?
- Lack of right aircraft?
- Other factor?
- Fear of Russian action?
- Slow realisation we've backed the wrong horse?
1. Is the why important, given that your government has not yet declared "we are done bombing" at this point?
2. On a given day, if you don't have a target that you are allowed to hit and able to hit, you don't drop anything. I got to learn that IRL.
3. Doubt that
4. That's ever present and directly related to the answer to point 2.
5. Not likely, since the ones sent seem to still be deployed. See answer to point 1.
6. Such as?
7. Not likely
8. Who have "we" backed and how are they wrong as compared to the Daesh/ISIL/newcaliphate horses'behinds?