http://defensetech.org/2007/01/10/the-speech-goodbye-disneyland/ The Future of the Military, Law Enforcement and National Security Fri, 25 May 2012 13:11:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://defensetech.org/2007/01/10/the-speech-goodbye-disneyland/#comment-154188 campbell Thu, 11 Jan 2007 16:17:36 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3364#comment-154188 Driving out of Disneyland?....sorry, ain't so. when his military commanders balk at achieving "success" via this latest escalation, no, you cannot say that Bush is truely trying to make good. he is only grasping at straws. going to pull forces out of Afganistan in order to prop up work in Bagdad? hey fellas (and ladies).....anybody got any idea what happened to catchin' n killen ol Bin Laden?.....the guy who actually, really attacked us? y'all must remember him, surely? Driving out of Disneyland?.…sorry, ain’t so. when his military commanders balk at achieving “success” via this latest escalation, no, you cannot say that Bush is truely trying to make good. he is only grasping at straws.
going to pull forces out of Afganistan in order to prop up work in Bagdad? hey fellas (and ladies).….anybody got any idea what happened to catchin’ n killen ol Bin Laden?.….the guy who actually, really attacked us?
y’all must remember him, surely?

]]> http://defensetech.org/2007/01/10/the-speech-goodbye-disneyland/#comment-58164 pedestrian Thu, 11 Jan 2007 05:17:03 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3364#comment-58164 I mentioned "Quality was not everything" but I meant "Quantity was not everything". Sorry. I mentioned “Quality was not everything” but I meant “Quantity was not everything”. Sorry.

]]> http://defensetech.org/2007/01/10/the-speech-goodbye-disneyland/#comment-154182 pedestrian Thu, 11 Jan 2007 05:13:21 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3364#comment-154182 Number of troops IS a matter of low intensity conflict. This is not a traditional warfare with a frontline. Low intensity conflict involving guerilla tactics is spacial versus tradtional warfare being line oriented where frontlines are visual. Low intensity conflict is more about short range combat versus traditional warfare being more about long range (out range) combat. What does this all mean? It is very rare to be able to destroy mass chunks of enemy in low intensity conflict as traditional warfare where there is a frontline, where enemies wearing battle dressed uniforms with ranks and in military vehicles. In low intensity conflict, the enemy is spread out, and stealthy in terms of difficulties to determine the difference with civilians. Enemies do not often keep strongholds. If they are under attack, they attempt to escape from the surrounding enemy. In low intensity conflict, the enemy is offensive-centered, or say more concentrated in ambush. What is the solution to this low intensity conflict? Cordon and search. Surround, raid, and seal. QUANTITY of troops. It is very difficult to detect enemy until visual contact. No chunks of enemy at one spot, just like the state of osmosis, and that makes high explosive weapons more useless, and even more where civilians are concentrated in urban warfare. This state makes the low intensity conflict spacial oriented rather than lines of frontlines. Spacial oriented operations requires quantity. If there is not enough troops, the enemy will easily escape or outnumber the troops silently sneaking up and surround. Tell me what happened in the two battles of Fallujah? There were more troops involved in the second. Quality was not everything, but it may have contributed to the victory of the second. It will be the same for the next in Baghdad. There are thousands of houses and buildings to search in Baghdad. If the factor of quality is something like a stupid idea, just try to do it on your own and tell us if you can seal the area just by your own. There is a need of more troops, much as possible, for speediness to counter counter operations around the capitol, and to engage in spacial search inch by inch for every terrrorist and weapons. The troops will need to "squeeze" into the capitol from around, where there will be no room to escape. You need quantity for that. Is it possible to do it with preventing terrorists from sneaking out? Yes, there are plenty of "methods" using IT to determine rather a terrorist or not. More troops is the solution in low intensity conflict. It is spacial where no frontiles exists, and where you could just drop a high tech bomb from a stealth bomber to kill a chunk. P.S. The hummers needed to be uparmored for the current trends of Iraq due to the state of conflict being low intensity conflict and spacial, and where the concept of "frontline" in traditional warfare gone. This is a spacial conflict where quantity matters. Number of troops IS a matter of low intensity conflict. This is not a traditional warfare with a frontline. Low intensity conflict involving guerilla tactics is spacial versus tradtional warfare being line oriented where frontlines are visual. Low intensity conflict is more about short range combat versus traditional warfare being more about long range (out range) combat. What does this all mean? It is very rare to be able to destroy mass chunks of enemy in low intensity conflict as traditional warfare where there is a frontline, where enemies wearing battle dressed uniforms with ranks and in military vehicles. In low intensity conflict, the enemy is spread out, and stealthy in terms of difficulties to determine the difference with civilians. Enemies do not often keep strongholds. If they are under attack, they attempt to escape from the surrounding enemy. In low intensity conflict, the enemy is offensive-centered, or say more concentrated in ambush. What is the solution to this low intensity conflict? Cordon and search. Surround, raid, and seal. QUANTITY of troops. It is very difficult to detect enemy until visual contact. No chunks of enemy at one spot, just like the state of osmosis, and that makes high explosive weapons more useless, and even more where civilians are concentrated in urban warfare. This state makes the low intensity conflict spacial oriented rather than lines of frontlines. Spacial oriented operations requires quantity. If there is not enough troops, the enemy will easily escape or outnumber the troops silently sneaking up and surround. Tell me what happened in the two battles of Fallujah? There were more troops involved in the second. Quality was not everything, but it may have contributed to the victory of the second. It will be the same for the next in Baghdad. There are thousands of houses and buildings to search in Baghdad. If the factor of quality is something like a stupid idea, just try to do it on your own and tell us if you can seal the area just by your own. There is a need of more troops, much as possible, for speediness to counter counter operations around the capitol, and to engage in spacial search inch by inch for every terrrorist and weapons. The troops will need to “squeeze” into the capitol from around, where there will be no room to escape. You need quantity for that. Is it possible to do it with preventing terrorists from sneaking out? Yes, there are plenty of “methods” using IT to determine rather a terrorist or not. More troops is the solution in low intensity conflict. It is spacial where no frontiles exists, and where you could just drop a high tech bomb from a stealth bomber to kill a chunk.
P.S. The hummers needed to be uparmored for the current trends of Iraq due to the state of conflict being low intensity conflict and spacial, and where the concept of “frontline” in traditional warfare gone. This is a spacial conflict where quantity matters.

]]> http://defensetech.org/2007/01/10/the-speech-goodbye-disneyland/#comment-58162 JIMMYGEE Thu, 11 Jan 2007 04:43:22 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3364#comment-58162 I played this game in Nam! ( It SUCKS ) Pull everyone out that is worth a shit (forgive my language) NUKE the PLACE! And take some of the neighbors with it. Take the oil we ((( WON ))) the war. Then get rid of Bush and his buddy! We need a GOOD Marine or War Vet in this office. Of the President of the US That thinks more of our troops! And I was not a Marine! (Army) I played this game in Nam! ( It SUCKS )
Pull everyone out that is worth a shit (forgive my language)
NUKE the PLACE! And take some of the neighbors with it.
Take the oil we ((( WON ))) the war.
Then get rid of Bush and his buddy!
We need a GOOD Marine or War Vet in this office. Of the President of the US That thinks more of our troops!
And I was not a Marine! (Army)

]]> http://defensetech.org/2007/01/10/the-speech-goodbye-disneyland/#comment-154181 dt-lurker Thu, 11 Jan 2007 03:48:55 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3364#comment-154181 i find it real interesting to see the comment about baiting Shias by blowing up the Golden Mosque of Samarra. Very similar to the baiting of America by blowing up the WTC. i find it real interesting to see the comment about baiting Shias by blowing up the Golden Mosque of Samarra. Very similar to the baiting of America by blowing up the WTC.

]]>