Great big huge sickening "oopsie"...[quote]A retired U.S. general said Thursday that the Dutch policy of allowing openly gay soldiers to serve in its mil..."/>

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

John Sheehan and the Dutch military; gays in the military

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 09:54
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1105
PAGE 1 of 1

Saturday, March 20, 2010 10:43 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Great big huge sickening "oopsie"...
Quote:

A retired U.S. general said Thursday that the Dutch policy of allowing openly gay soldiers to serve in its military led, in part, to its failure to halt the massacre of Muslims in the Bosnian town of Srebrenica in 1995.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, "nations like Belgium, Luxembourg, the Dutch, et cetera, firmly believed there was no longer a need for an active combat capability in the militaries," John Sheehan, former supreme allied commander - Atlantic, told a Senate hearing on the don't ask, don't tell policy under which gays are not allowed to serve in the U.S. military openly.

"As a result, they declared a peace dividend and made a conscious effort to socialize their military," he said. "That includes the unionization of their militaries. It includes open homosexuality demonstrated in a series of other activities, with a focus on peacekeeping operations, because they did not believe the Germans were going to attack again or the Soviets were coming back.

"That led to a force that was ill-equipped to go to war. The case in point that I'm referring to is when the Dutch were required to defend Srebrenica against the Serbs. The battalion was under-strength, poorly led, and the Serbs came into town, handcuffed the soldiers to the telephone poles, marched the Muslims off and executed them," Sheehan said.

"That was the largest massacre in Europe since World War II."

Asked whether Dutch leaders had told him that the Dutch military's performance was linked to its gay soldiers, he said, "Yes. ... They included that as part of the problem."

He was referring to the incident that began July 11, 1995, when Serb forces overran the United Nations "safe zone" of Srebrenica and systematically executed men and boys while expelling the rest of the Muslim population. In all, 8,000 Bosnian Muslims were killed.

Asked which Dutch officers had told him that the debacle at Srebrenica was in part due to the fact that gay soldiers serve in the Dutch army, Sheehan cited a "Hankman Berman," whom he described as "the chief of staff of the army who was fired by the parliament because they couldn't find anybody else to blame."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/03/18/us.gays.military.srebrenica/index.htm
l


To blame the existence of gays, after saying the "battalion was under-strength, poorly led" and that they were ill-equipped to go to war is pretty pathetic to start with. Here's the reality of the occurrence and response by the Dutch:
Quote:

Quote:

The small force of 450 lightly-armed Dutch peacekeepers tasked with defending the enclave by the United Nations was simply not equipped to repel the invading Bosnian Serb Army. When the Serb commander, Gen. Ratko Mladic, led an attack on Srebrenica in July 1995, the Dutch repeatedly requested that their NATO colleagues use airstrikes to keep that force at bay. That close air support failed to come in time to prevent the Serbs from taking control of the town and eventually killing more than 7,000 Muslim men and boys.

…[W]hen the United Nations voted to declare Srebrenica and five other Bosnian towns “safe areas” in 1993, the United States and other countries that supported the resolution failed to agree to send enough troops to police the towns. The United Nations estimated that it would take a force of 34,000 soldiers to protect the civilian populations of Srebrenica and the other towns that were completely surrounded by Bosnian Serb positions. Only 7,600 troops were divided among the six towns.



Asked if Dutch leaders had told him that the Dutch military’s performance was linked to its gay soldiers, Sheehan mentioned the name of the then Chief of Defense, a ”Hankman Berman.”

According to the Times:

The Dutch Defense Ministry guessed that this was a reference to Gen. Henk van den Breemen, the country’s former chief of defense staff. On Friday the ministry issued a statement saying that General van den Breemen, now retired, called this “absolute nonsense,” since he did not believe that the presence of gay troops had anything to do with what happened at Srebrenica and had never said any such thing.

The Dutch minister of Defence, Eimert van Middelkoop, issued a statement to distance himself from Sheehan’s remarks, which he called “outrageous and unworthy of a soldier”. “I do not want to waste any more words on the matter,” Van Middelkoop said.

http://themoderatevoice.com/66510/u-s-general-calls-into-question-dutc
h-military-effectiveness
/

The whole thing is so ridiculous it's one more instance of amazement at the small-minded military men who are determined to find ANY excuse to keep DADT. If this is their argument, it's been shot down big time, and rightly so.

Another of their arguments has been the "increase" of rape in the military. As expressed by Tony Perkins:
Quote:

This would put our military in the strange position of actively recruiting personnel who have an expressed intention to violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice (which still prohibits certain forms of sexual conduct, including homosexuality). Forcing soldiers to cohabit with people who view them as sexual objects would inevitably lead to increased sexual tension, sexual harassment, andeven sexual assault. America’s military exists to fight and win wars –not to engage in radical social engineering.”
http://realitybong.wordpress.com/2010/01/30/tony-perkins-liar-in-jesus
-name-evil-homos-want-to-rape-our-military1
/

The facts are that heterosexual rape is FAR more frequent than homosexual, and that the treatment of women, gay and straight, by men, is a far bigger problem:
Quote:

The Gay and Lesbian Military Freedom Project (MFP) gave a presentation to the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Service (DACOVITS) in April of 1989. MFP focused on the problem of the sexual harassment of both lesbians and straight women in the military. The testimonials of the women in the hearing revealed shocking practices: sham investigations by Defense Department intelligence agencies, women being pressured to confess to things that they did not do, threats ranging from physical harm to discharge and loss of benefits, stellar service records being disregarded at even a rumor about their sexual orientation, sexual harassment and the lack of any recourse to pursue their claims, and the use of the gay ban to intimidate women through "lesbian-bating." Straight women that refused the sexual advances of a male were accused of being lesbians, and sexual harassment of women largely relied on this practice.

The MFP provided statistics showing that women were targeted for discharge based on homosexuality at a rate 10 times higher than that of men. The military undertook anti-lesbian witch hunts, most notably at the Parris Island Marine Corps Recruit Training Depot, where at least two women were incarcerated for being lesbians. One, Barbara Baum, served 226 days in the brig at Quantico. It took two years for her conviction to be overturned.

http://futuremajority.com/node/6403

Gee, I wonder which is the bigger problem, and why, aside from homophobia and military (tradition), it's so important to them to keep people out of the military--some who have been there for decades and received medals--especially when gays have BEEN in the military for ages, they just don't know who they are until they have their witchhunts.

Time to get rid of DADT, in a big way!




"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 20, 2010 4:13 PM

FREMDFIRMA



Hey Niki, you remember me sayin that one of the folks I know is a former two star general who was for a long time involved (complete with conflicts of interest) in the disposal of surplus, both from a military, and then a civilian end...

AND that he was a racist, sexist, homophobic, bible beatin, chauvanistic prick of the worst order, right ?

Well, he needed a chopper pilot a while back, and the only qualified dude who didn't turn him down was a black, gay, effeminate lookin atheist, who outright MOCKED him during the interview, and Two-Star hired him on his chutzpah, if naught else.

Point of that, is that Two-Star, over the last couple years, has learned tolerance in what I believe is the only way a military officer ever could - the amount of tolerance a military officer has is often in direct relation to how many times someone of that persuasion has saved their ass from risk or personal embarrassment.

But then, everyone knows officers are fuckin stupid.

The only ones at the sharp end who might actually have a problem are those dumbfuck indoctrinated hoo-rah heros which either charge right in and get themselves and half their squad killed, or hide under the humvee and then pretend they were the hero of the hour later - i.e. the kinda folks we DON'T need...

So fuck it, let em serve, the pissants that'd rather not serve with em are for the most part, scum I wouldn't WANT at the sharp end, cause anyone who'd let their own fucking prejudices override their duty, is an atrocity waiting to happen anyways - think about how much restraint their gonna show to enemy troops of a race, culture or sexuality they hate so bitterly ?

And let them serve openly, while offering a "sympathy" discharge (complete with subtle encouragement to mock those taking it) to anyone who doesn't want to serve with them - and in a special category so that future employers will recognize it.

Unfair ?

Perhaps, but given the shit I took for having "OTHER" listed on my dog tags under REL PREF (as in religious preference) and the amount of outright abuse officially and blatantly encouraged against me for it, up to and including an incitement to kill me by a sergeant who called me a "baby killing devil worshipper" right in front of the whole platoon....

I cannot say I am any kinda sympathetic to the militaries intolerance, especially not when it inevitably results in massacres and atrocities.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 21, 2010 5:55 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


One of the interesting things to me is that the soldiers themselves, for the most part, seem to have no problem with gays. The guys being ousted have many stories to tell about how everyone in their company knew and didn't give a shit, but the lower morale and confusion that came about when they were ousted DID affect the whole company. Says a lot, if you ask me.

The idea that someone's been a competent (and often DECORATED) soldier for a decade or more, then finding out he's gay makes him unacceptable, is just so stupid it...well, it fits with the military mentality, I guess.

You're absolutely right, in that close proximity, just like when they integrated the military, is what will make all the difference...whenever it comes about.

Our huge loss of translators because they were found to be gay is a prime example of the stupidity. Translators aren't even IN the "soldiering" business, so who gives a shit? Obviously the military does. I put it down to the very "hoo-rah" attitude that officers come from, that stilly soldier-playing they get in places like West Point, etc. It all seems like kids playing tin soldier to me, and it seems to turn out stiff-necked, pompous assholes in charge; the type most likely to have nothing going on ABOVE that neck!

You're right; the hope of finding an officer with half an ounce of sense is like looking for a needle in a haystack. There certainly are some, but it seems like the lower down the pole you get, i.e., the closer to the actual soldiers, the better chances you have for someone who puts the welfare of their men over the "rep" of the whole military. I could be wrong, of course...


"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 21, 2010 8:26 AM

GINOBIFFARONI



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 21, 2010 11:27 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
You're right; the hope of finding an officer with half an ounce of sense is like looking for a needle in a haystack. There certainly are some, but it seems like the lower down the pole you get, i.e., the closer to the actual soldiers, the better chances you have for someone who puts the welfare of their men over the "rep" of the whole military. I could be wrong, of course...


Nah, you're correct, the problem is that "military CULTure" is by it's very nature insane, especially when in respect to that whole "unwilling to kill people" thing, and especially "unwilling to shoot american citizens if/when we throw out the constitution" (i.e. the twentynine palms survey, and other stuff of that nature) the US Military went and started cribbing heavily from the Synanon cult style indoctrination methodology even more than they had previously, resulting in a collective so insane they'll obey ANY order, and find a way to rationalize it.

Case in point: Katrina - not ONE SINGLE MEMBER of the 82nd Airborne grounded arms and refused to obey an outright illegal, unconstitutional order, not a single one - and that'd be the same if the powers that be ordered em to round us up in camps or gun us down, all talk to the contrary, they'd not only do it, they'd jump for joy at showing us "islamofacist terrorist sympathizing ragbag civvie sissies" our "place" (i.e. under their boot) in the world...

And people wonder why I don't support the troops, cause in order to even BE part of that culture you have to have, or at least be able to convincingly emulate, a strange brand of outright insanity, which Fred Reed quite effectively skewers here.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed167.html

And I do, intentionally, outright fuck with them and the 101st over stuff like that, make it clear in NO uncertain terms that THIS "wussie civvie puke" (who's actually a former quartermaster and security element for the 1006th) not only holds a grudge, but would be willing to back it the hell up and see how 'courageous' they are when it's one on one, hand to hand...

To 82nd: "So, where's your black armband of shame, traitor ?"

To 101st: "Hey, what's the chicken screamin ? oh yeah, help me, help me!"

Yeah, I know, that's pushin a bridge too far, but seriously, they friggin deserve it, support the troops ?
FUCK the troops, especially when they got an active duty element of the damn Dirty 3rd sittin around training to round *us* up, with their eyes on their supposed protectees as a mission objective and potential future enemy.

And the dimbulbs don't even fekkin realize that the same psychological tricks their officers use to control em can be used *against* them, and someone skilled in that kinda thing can "turn" whole units in a very short period of time if it comes to it.

It's just like how when the powers that be set up a surveillance system and someone like me uses it to spy on THEM, in the end the stupid bastards at the top will hand us everything we need to stomp them on a silver platter without even realizing it - why the hell should we need militia, when we can turn the units deployed against us cause they're so fucking stupid and programmed they'll hop on command so long as you formulate and deliver the commands in the proper manner ?

What's worse (from the perspective of their commanding officers) is how that visible disrespect and rage towards them encourages em to do the one thing they're trained NOT to do, to start mentally questioning what it is they do, why they are doing it, and why many civvies are pissed off at them - while other factors were more important, that too helped break down the stupidity of vietnam, that even the most jingoistic had started to question "why are we doin this ?" - and THAT question, it's the crack in their psychological armor, and that's where you set the hook.

Anyways, they're insane, but to someone who understands that insanity, quite easy to manipulate.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 22, 2010 5:27 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


We'll have to disagree, Frem, on one point. I put more faith in soldiers than you do. I think many join because they're poor and others because they really want to serve their country, and when push comes to shove, DO start to question things. I think it's an over-generalization to say they'd all willingly and "joyfully" go after American citizens.

The only experience I had with the military was in Berserkeley during the People's Park riots. It was horribly eerie, tanks in the streets, constant helicopters overhead...but what I saw on the faces of an awful lot of the soldiers was definitely NOT joyous, and I saw an awful lot of them looking unhappy with what they were doing, and met a few who would even talk to us (quietly). They didn't like what they were having to do at all.

I knew people who came back from 'Nam (and some who didn't), and every single one of them hadn't been happy at what they'd had to do. Of course, that was during the draft, so they were forced to go, but how much does poverty "force" people to join the military, even those who aren't that easily molded the way the military wants? I can't know.

Obviously that's just a sampling, and there are others where they've fired on people, but I think if push comes to shove, it wouldn't be a united military that would go after its fellow citizens. JMHO.


"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 22, 2010 8:05 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:


It's just like how when the powers that be set up a surveillance system and someone like me uses it to spy on THEM, in the end the stupid bastards at the top will hand us everything we need to stomp them on a silver platter without even realizing it - why the hell should we need militia, when we can turn the units deployed against us cause they're so fucking stupid and programmed they'll hop on command so long as you formulate and deliver the commands in the proper manner ?



Frem, I did tell you before that my dad was career Army, right? And he was damned disrespectful to them once he was out, too. We were riding bikes past the university one day, and the ROTC pukes were out trying to act like soldiers, when my dad hollers in his best drill-sergeant voice, "AT EASE!" - and every goddamned one of those pukes starts milling around, doing what they want, while their REAL instructor is jumping up and down, yelling at them to get back in formation, to which they're just looking completely confused. Damned hilarious, it was. And very indicative of the mentality that they're trained for.




"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 22, 2010 11:15 AM

FREMDFIRMA



Well, Niki, I was mostly speaking of the "Elite" units like the 101st and 82nd - cause that mentality is far more entrenched.

The more human of em who are already in a bad mental place cause their orders conflict with their own spirit, those ain't the guys they'd send in first, mostly cause they're even easier to turn (or convince to desert) with the right words.



You just put em in a sticky position and ask em if they're really willing to kill/die over it, and generally they say "fuck this" - especially if you have set up an "out" for them and left the door open.

Only reason we don't have a tremendous desertion problem in foreign countries is that for the most part there's nowhere to desert TO, the locals hate you, ya don't speak the language, don't know the culture, etc etc..

If them Qeadas and Talitubbies were any kind of smart they'd be learning english and offering 40 acres and a mule (more or less) to anyone willing to jump ship - and when you're talkin about some poor shlep who's been stop lossed three times, been dear-johned and divorced, lost his home to foreclosure and his job to outsourcing, what the hell incentive does he HAVE to keep fighting or go back ?

Believe it, it's easy to break the PBI (poor bloody infantry), but with the right methodology, you can even break the shock troops, was where I was goin with that.
Quote:

They didn't like what they were having to do at all.

Yeah, but they still did it, primarily cause they didn't think they had a choice, and so, when you manage to OFFER them a choice, given them an "out" beyond do-or-die, well, the landscape changes a bit, you might say.
Quote:

I think if push comes to shove, it wouldn't be a united military that would go after its fellow citizens.

Oh indeed, and if push comes to shove, imma exploit that for *all it's worth*, believe it.

Mikey ?

Gus LOVES to do that shit, he's got the voice too, that powerful Drill Sergeant/Job Foreman bellow that's REALLY hard to ignore or resist, ye olde "voice of command" - I've never had it, being more of a wormtongue-whisperer myself, but still effective for all that - and watching him use it does indeed show up the flaws in command-reflex, although I did see him use it on a road construction crew about to make a bad and potentially harmful error, had they not instantly obeyed him, that coulda gone badly.

There's folk it don't work on though, like you and me, who's reaction is to turn around and look at ya like you've got screws loose, I had a bastard martinet of an officer once make me march around the building holding a board under my chin cause my catlike manner of cocking my head sideways with a "WTF is WRONG with you?" expression seriously pissed him off when I had the nerve to do it while he espoused one of his great-little-plans which had no basis in objective reality - he really shouldn't oughta done that, cause the next day when he was tearing into me for my dress unform tie being less then perfect, I reached out and plucked his (it was a clip-on, a big no-no) right off - and THAT was what got me brigged just before my CO suggested an alternative mission assignment for me, one that kept me far, FAR away from the other troops, and command especially.

Therein lies the other major problem (besides lack of initiative and critical thinking) in the napoleonic maxim that troops should fear their officers more than the enemy - how then do you control the troops that don't fear either one ?

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 22, 2010 12:27 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Gus LOVES to do that shit, he's got the voice too, that powerful Drill Sergeant/Job Foreman bellow that's REALLY hard to ignore or resist, ye olde "voice of command" - I've never had it, being more of a wormtongue-whisperer myself, but still effective for all that - and watching him use it does indeed show up the flaws in command-reflex, although I did see him use it on a road construction crew about to make a bad and potentially harmful error, had they not instantly obeyed him, that coulda gone badly.



Yup, my Dad had "The Voice", too. I've got it a bit, at times - which freaks my boss out, because she's five-foot-nothin', maybe 90 pounds, so when she hears me go drill-sergeant, it makes her jump.




"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 22, 2010 5:53 PM

FREMDFIRMA



Lucky you, heh - I prettymuch got the wormtongue thing down better than he ever did, indeed, that's actually my main PC's wallpaper, cause I actually feel quite sympathetic to the poor bastard.

Imagine how it musta been for him, growing up amongst the shockingly racist, intolerant hoorah muscleheads of Rohan (who wouldn't, mind you, be exactly out of place at a Klan rally) being a puny intellectual type and all the while bitterly hated for it, as if he had any particular reason not to sell them out, as if he gave a crap about a one of em except for Eowyn, who was a total bimbo all but unaware that she would never receive not one more ounce of respect than he did by a bunch of goons who were she not the kings daughter, would break her sword and shove her back in the kitchen like a good little girl ?

Who the one friggin time she was ever given an actual position of responsibility, abandons it like a petulant little child, and goes running off all lovesick after a guy who doesn't even like her, who has responsibilities of his own which preclude involvement in her, and he's interested in someone else - and for what, the prophecy said not by the hand of "Man" (as in race of men) would the witch-king fall, and he didn't, for it was a Hobbit that struck him down in a position to be killed, wasn't it now ?

But to his pain, Grima did like the girl, and he was the one guy in Rohan who didn't wanna stuff her back in the kitchen, the one guy who would have let her be herself, and if she wasn't such a stoneheaded, petulant little child cause he wasn't a musclebound bo-hunk prettyboy, thus making her just as bad in her own way as the rest of the rohirrim, she coulda had everything she wanted, but nooo...

Besides which if the King hadn't been such a complete wishy-washy brainless old fool to begin with, Rohan wouldn't have fallen on times bad enough that Wormy felt the *need* to get his hooks in the way he did - at least with Wormy Rohan came first, not someone else's agenda.

And if YOU were the only guy with half a brain amongst a bunch of drunken lout morons wouldn't you have locked up the valuables in your care as well, so as not to have them squandered away on booze and parties ?
Who the hell do you think was balancing the books, Eomer ? HA!

Not to mention only a fool woulda have taken an offer to ride with a thousand guys who's first act upon meeting the enemy would be to plunge a sword into YOUR back, just because they didn't wanna admit to executing folk cause they're total hypocrites.

Then facing an enemy that wasn't exactly any immediate threat to them in a suicidal headlong rush instead of using hit and run tactics to pin them against the walls of Gondor and strike from the flanks while they got properly clobbered, that hoorah charge was an act of pure damned foolishness, and Wormy woulda told em so.

That single tear Wormy sheds on seeing Sarumans army and realizing that smacktalk aside, he really DOES have the means to crush Rohan ?
That was for Eowyn, and no other, cause for all that he hated Rohan, and had much cause to do so, he really did care for her, heaven knows why...

So yeah, the guy gets kind of a bad rap, and I feel for him because of it.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 23, 2010 7:09 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Okay, I get it Fem, and I agree. The guys you talked about have been so brainwashed--and usually went into special forces because they're the hoo-rah types in the first place (just as, sadly, those types go into police, etc.), it would be an exercise in futility, sadly.

Back in the "real" wars, they had a use...in a "peacetime military" (ha!), they're an anachronism, part of the reason they have trouble re-integrating into society.

I believe a peacetime military should be trained in dealing with populaces other than with military might...if TPTB ever caught onto that, things in our dealings with other societies would change dramatically. There is some of that happening, but too little, and maybe too late.

Unfortunately, those in charge are the hoo-rahest of all, and not too bright when it comes to anything but "shoot 'em" or changing their mentality.


"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 23, 2010 9:20 AM

FREMDFIRMA



Oh indeed, when I was in we still trained to dress right to reorder the ranks after a volley, friggin musket line tactics which had no place in the modern world even THEN - and we're still training for the gotterdammerung pitched battles of second gen warfare which don't exist no more, the days of huge clashes of armies on the field of glory are GONE, but try telling any of em that.

Hell, commanders in general have NEVER gotten past the hey-diddle-diddle-straight-up-the-middle approach that covered the no mans land in bodies in WWI and is as utterly ridiculous against modern small arms as it was against machinegun fire back then.

The only decent work I ever found on the matter by someone with half a brain is a little known book by HJ Poole.

http://www.amazon.com/Last-Hundred-Yards-Contribution-Warfare/dp/B000U
OK4IO

http://www.posteritypress.org/last100a.htm

S'funny just how similar William Lind, who I think wrote the foreward of the book, sounds when he makes the same point.
http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Lind_111803,00.html

But then, the idiocy of our tactical doctrine never surprises me, as it's essential root is based in 1860 "bury them in bodies" tactics, since the Union of the time was using poor conscripts and social undesirables they felt their world was better off without anyways (They called Grant "the butcher" for a reason) and that practice was most certainly extended to vietnam, as it's been shown that Johnson dragged that out even when he knew it was lost, in part because it was killing off "social undesireables" he wanted rid of.

And of course, the ability to play on the publics sympathy over the casualties, which has faded into rage and disgust over the last ten years to where the command staff actually tries to HIDE the casualty figures now - something I find disrespectful and insulting, but not nearly so much as the way they treat veterans with all the respect of a used kleenex once they're no longer useful as cannon fodder.

I think that as society evolves, standing armies are gonna go the way of the buggy whip, and in part because of that, and the convenience of using one to secure and maintain power, the powers that be are dead-set against that kind of social evolution and completely willing to use our forces even to destruction to maintain the status quo - that they will fail is assured, but I have concerns about limiting the damage so much as is realistically possible.

I *DO* feel that some day in the future, sooner or later, we're gonna be staring down the gunbarrels of our own military, and the answer to that isn't guns - they got more of em and better training, you don't play their game on their table with their deck, oh no, the answer to the undeniable fact that they would crush us on the field of battle is not to meet them there.

That's a war better waged with mind, will, and words, and it absolutely can be, will be, won that way - alas that it's likely gonna be sometime after the militia idiots first shoot the hell out of each other over internal schisms, and then get absolutely obliterated by the goons in green, not that I would miss em so much, just that every ounce of violence you add to the fabric of society strains it closer to the breaking point, yanno ?

-Frem

PS. Alice just read my little passionate defense of wormtongue there, and so she says to me...
"You know, if I ever get arrested again, I want you to be my lawyer!"

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 23, 2010 9:28 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

That's a war better waged with mind, will, and words, and it absolutely can be, will be, won that way - alas that it's likely gonna be sometime after the militia idiots first shoot the hell out of each other over internal schisms, and then get absolutely obliterated by the goons in green, not that I would miss em so much, just that every ounce of violence you add to the fabric of society strains it closer to the breaking point, yanno ?
Sadly,you're probably right, one reason I don't believe in the "rebellion" others want to see coming. Your statement on the stain of violence is all too apt.


"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 23, 2010 9:52 AM

FREMDFIRMA



Yeah, well, I learned a little too late for my own liking that, no matter how much tougher than the nails it is, the hammer takes a beating too.

Inflicting violence can, over time, do as much damage to you as receiving it, just in different ways and places.

I paid dear enough to learn that, damned sure imma not forget it.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 23, 2010 9:54 AM

RIVERLOVE


Quote:

"and that practice was most certainly extended to Vietnam, as it's been shown that Johnson dragged that out even when he knew it was lost, in part because it was killing off "social undesireables" he wanted rid of."


How exactly has it been shown? The same President who championed and worked tirelessly for years to pass Civil Rights let "social undersireables" die on purpose in Vietnam? Shirley you jest.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

FFF.NET SOCIAL