Comments on: 50 Iraqis Dead from Laser Shortfall?

By: JoSchmo

JoSchmo — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 11:45:46 +0000

Once again its the military getting blamed for political shortcomings. If they really had the desire to help over there, they’d be giving the military what it requires to do the job.

By: Solomon

Solomon — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 18:12:33 +0000

We agree to disagree …I still luv your work!

By: David Hambling

David Hambling — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 11:51:31 +0000

Your remark is irrelevant — US troops killing civilians has little to do with civil war.
In any case, I doubt whether many in the are concerned about civil war in Iraq per se, what they worry about are the anti-US factions which may gain control. And what feeds the anti-US movement is civilian casulaties caused by the US.

By: Solomon

Solomon — Sat, 03 Feb 2007 20:57:05 +0000

The message they get is that this is no longer an insurgency but a civil war…If it were still at the insurgency stage then I would be all for “winning hearts and minds” but we’ve moved way beyond that. IF you can explain how an external force could have entered our own civil war and brought about a peaceful conclusion then I’m all ears…if you can’t then you must reconcile yourself to the thought that civilian casualties in a CIVIL WAR are unavoidable…As far as any message that the Iraqi people get from this thread, then let me be clear…It is their country…It is up to them to solve their problems…WE removed a dictator, now its time for them to stand up and Get’er Done!

By: David Hambling

David Hambling — Sat, 03 Feb 2007 18:51:28 +0000

Solomon — the idea that innocent civilian deaths can be shrugged off as ‘the cost of doing business’ is madness. When the British Army killed 13 civilians (in what they beleived was self-defence) in 1972, it triggered a 30-year insurgency.
Support for an insurgency has a lot to do with the way the locals feel they are treated by the occupying forces. What message do they get from statements like yours?

By: newbob

newbob — Sat, 03 Feb 2007 18:48:48 +0000

Now if they could take this laser and make it into some kind of method like produce a static electric spark to explode a suicide bombers vest then we could all have the carnage and save our guys. So we could all be pussies and pricks at the same time eh?

By: Solomon

Solomon — Sat, 03 Feb 2007 05:28:34 +0000

Ah David...let me grab my loin cloth and ax --I need to let you see my truly barbaric thinking on this subject...I like the dazzler and any other new non-lethal wonder weapon because it provides me with plausible denial when asked if I took every action before taking shooting a vehicle that would not stop. I also like it because it lets me off the hook with the REMF's in the JAG office who only come out to see who's career they want to ruin. The civilian casualties (in my opinion) are horrible but are "the cost of doing business." Any blame has to be placed on the civil war, insurgency, Al Queda(?) and the war planners, not the troops. Mycroft- yeah, I think he'd be a great one at DARPA but the Commandant's got this thing that everyone gets into the fight so he's got to do his time in the "sand" (about 33,000 other Marines that haven't been deployed yet too).

By: Mycroft

Mycroft — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 18:08:47 +0000

Interesting. I think General Zilmer may make an unusual chief for one of the R&D/procurement agencies when he does a staff tour.

By: pedestrian

pedestrian — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 11:06:06 +0000

Any Sabre 203 sleeping in the warehouse ready for use? Meanwhile, I guess several NGOs will cry that these laser dazzlers could cause permanent blindness if they catch attention for use in Iraq.

By: David Hambling

David Hambling — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 08:03:45 +0000

The laser dazzler has a very long and extremely chequered history (it’s one of my thicker files).
They can be very valuable, but I would say that this method of ‘selling’ them is highly counterproductive — it’s simply a a back-door way of admitting how many civilians are being killed by US troops, which is a far bigger story.