Could Iran pull off a military upset against the US?

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Your statement is correct, and so is mine. We are talking about different things. You are accurate in that the terrorists know how to move, communicate, coordinate, and attack. They know what they're about when they get into a fight and they are able to use these skills to make problems within Israeli borders.
On the other hand, they can not field a conventional army to prevent Israeli forces from advancing into other nations and helping against Iran. If they attempted to field such an army, their troops would not have the training to mount a strong defense.

We are not talking about preventing Israeli forces from advancing, we are talking about harrasing the forces. Putting mines in their ways, attacking bands of soldires with light arms, and if Iran has equpimed them with shoulder launched anti-air missile, then we have a fight on our hands.

I have not been to Israel and do not know much about their public, but how far will they go to support the US? If say, 10,000 troops were killed will they still back their government and the US? How far will the Israeli government go in their support for the US?

Old news, but it might become very actual again:

www.iran-e-sabz.org...



[edit on 17-12-2004 by Countermeasures]

Before I answer deliverer I have a quick and easy reply for SEP. I disagree with your statement that we are not talking about stopping an Israeli advance. Israel has a strong interest in maintaining the strength and influence of their American friends in the region, and the mission I am proposing for Israel is so short and specific that it could be completed before there was any opportunity for public opinion to shift against it.
Unless the enemy can prevent Israeli tanks and artillery from moving through Syria and into Iraq, they can not stop Israeli reinforcements from helping Americans hold the line or at least make an orderly retreat into friendly territory (Turkey or Israel).

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
What exactly is the end of Active Service? Is that the end of their total contract?

End of active service is the end of the 4 years during which you are a 24/7 professional serviceman. After EAS you still have a contractual obligation to 4 years of inactive reserve status, which is just like being a civilian except that if there were an emergency you could be recalled. The problem lies in defining the emergency. The situation in Iraq is no longer vital to national security, and in my humble opinion that makes the current stoplosses an abuse of the inactive reserve.
I know I am treading on somewhat controversial ground here but for the most part my opinion is that if you can't find enough people willing to fight for something then let it die. This is especially true in matters not concerning national security, but in a purely intellectual sense you could extend it to all wars. Most nations are populated in the millions or tens of millions. Most armies number in the hundreds of thousands or millions. I submit to you that if not even 10% of a population is willing to fight for their freedom, they should be allowed to go ahead and lose it.

The people have tried to overthrow this radical minority multiple times in Iraq. Saddam simply had modern military weapons at his disposal.

Well, this is their chance. They've got a hell of an ally behind them right now and if they really want a revolution against the tyrany of this minority then they had better start assembling their army right now while the US is there to train and equip them. We can't babysit these people forever.

America has a far higher GDP per capita then any European nation. Most of our poor states beat out Europe with their socialist policies.

In a capitalist nation its actually better to pay workers more simply because they are the consumers. If they have no money, its no good making the products in the first place.

I'm not really arguing because as I have already admitted I dont know. That being said, if you are a net-exporting nation you dont need your people to have high incomes, or even jobs for that matter. All that really matters for an exporting nation is that you can produce as much as you could possibly sell, right? Since China has nice weak (intentionally undervalued) currency that allows them to export like nuts, this works for them.

I'm talking about serious oil problems by about 2015, which is certainly possible. China is in desperate need for any energy they can get. That means grabbing for existing sources, and not inventing new technologies. China isn't going to have any alternatives, and America controls the major oil reserves with a powerful military. We could keep it for ourself, and force the compliance of many nations.

I really agree with you to a certain extent. by 2020, maybe even 2015, we are definately going to be hurting because of high oil prices (and this will probably cause some serious inflation for those still buying tons of oil).
What I am saying is that since China has a booming economy and doesn't currently have a huge infrastructure to support they can plan accordingly. China can build hydroelectric generators, wind farms, sterling motor based generators or whatever else they need. America on the other hand has a great deal of infrastructure to support while making the change. If we just suddenly decide to pull the plug on oil-based systems in America it kills our supply and puts people out of work, so we have to pay for the old and the new systems both. China doesn't have old systems though, so they can focus on the future.

The main disagreement seems to be timetables. Peak Oil could very well cause serious problems a lot sooner then you think. It could also come a lot later.

Why disagree? I am willing to agree with you that we will feel the pinch very early, but I dont think oil economies will completely self destruct until 2030-2050. This is basically because once oil reaches a certain point most smaller nations wont be able to afford it and demand will tail off. The larger nations will begin making the changeover which will reduce their demand as well. This means that as long as a nation makes a serious effort to start getting off of oil right now, they can continue with a partial dependence on oil (although it will be expensive and unattractive in many ways) until perhaps 2030.

I personally don't trust them. They've been selling weapons to the Chinese for years behind America's back. If the Chinese ever gave weapons to Iran, some of it was probably only obtained thanks to contributions from Israel.

I am extremely interested in this. Could you give me a link so I could see about this? Israel has done a frighteningly good job equipping the stripped down F-16s we sell them (among other things) and I find it very disconcerting if Israel were playing both sides against the middle. (I would not be entirely surprised though. That's the name of the game for survival in the middle east- you have to play the superpowers off against eachother and make both of them kiss your butt for favors. Thats how Iraq came to the brink of arab hegemony in the 70s before ruining it with the war on Iran. If the super powers had not stabbed Iraq in the back by playing both sides of that war and Iraq had won, then Iraq would probably be on par with most of Europe today in terms of their relationship with the US and their economy.

I'd doubt most nations would work with Israel as you say. Many of the governments are already unpopular. Egyptians don't seem to care for the developing relationship with Israel. Jewish armies marching into an Islamic nation could very well inspire many Iranians to fight, as well as turn Iraqis and other Muslims in the region.

I see that, and I felt uneasy about even bringing up such an idea, however in terms of the loyalties of governments, i believe those governments would want to play ball if they could, even if it was only so they could live to oppose Israel another day. I could easily be wrong. Politics and culture don't translate well from East to West. I'm sure I misunderstand their politics just as badly as Saddam misunderstood ours.

I just can't see the governments in the region risking it. During the Gulf War the Israelis never got to retaliate against Iraq after being attacked because the Muslim nations would have taken offense. They couldn't give troops because they wouldn't have directly cooperated with Israel.

I think you have me there. On a side note, that always made me sad. I would really have liked to see America and Israel just kick the everlasting snot out of the whole arab world in 1991. I'm sure that would have pleased the Russians none too much though, and there was still a USSR back then. Sometimes I have to remind myself that international opinion used to have real and tangible consequences.

I know I am treading on somewhat controversial ground here but for the most part my opinion is that if you can't find enough people willing to fight for something then let it die. This is especially true in matters not concerning national security, but in a purely intellectual sense you could extend it to all wars. Most nations are populated in the millions or tens of millions. Most armies number in the hundreds of thousands or millions. I submit to you that if not even 10% of a population is willing to fight for their freedom, they should be allowed to go ahead and lose it.

Those military men are still under contract. These men do not stop being professional soldiers. No good army in the world has worked like this. I'd really hope most of our soldiers would go simply because they were asked. I believe they would.

Well, this is their chance. They've got a hell of an ally behind them right now and if they really want a revolution against the tyrany of this minority then they had better start assembling their army right now while the US is there to train and equip them. We can't babysit these people forever.

This is why I see the election as the turning point. If anything can get the Iraqis inspired, its a fair election. Afghanistan would give me some hope when it comes to Iraq.

I'm not really arguing because as I have already admitted I dont know. That being said, if you are a net-exporting nation you dont need your people to have high incomes, or even jobs for that matter. All that really matters for an exporting nation is that you can produce as much as you could possibly sell, right? Since China has nice weak (intentionally undervalued) currency that allows them to export like nuts, this works for them.

Well, China's currency advantage probably won't last for very long. Their economy is becoming strong enough, and threatening enough, so that nations won't stand for it any longer.

And while a controlled economy may pay off for China in the short run, the long term damages are undeniable. A capitalist society is far more versatile. It creates an innovative environment, and I believe gives more motivation to those making the weapons.

What I am saying is that since China has a booming economy and doesn't currently have a huge infrastructure to support they can plan accordingly. China can build hydroelectric generators, wind farms, sterling motor based generators or whatever else they need. America on the other hand has a great deal of infrastructure to support while making the change. If we just suddenly decide to pull the plug on oil-based systems in America it kills our supply and puts people out of work, so we have to pay for the old and the new systems both. China doesn't have old systems though, so they can focus on the future.

China seems very dependent on oil to me. They need as much as we do right now. Most alternative sources that will exist within the next few decades really aren't very useful. And besides oil, China seems more likely to use coal.

I am extremely interested in this. Could you give me a link so I could see about this? Israel has done a frighteningly good job equipping the stripped down F-16s we sell them (among other things) and I find it very disconcerting if Israel were playing both sides against the middle. (I would not be entirely surprised though. That's the name of the game for survival in the middle east- you have to play the superpowers off against eachother and make both of them kiss your butt for favors. Thats how Iraq came to the brink of arab hegemony in the 70s before ruining it with the war on Iran. If the super powers had not stabbed Iraq in the back by playing both sides of that war and Iraq had won, then Iraq would probably be on par with most of Europe today in terms of their relationship with the US and their economy.

www.worldtribune.com...
globalsecurity.org...

The Israeli relationship to me seems to be one-sided these days. We do a lot for them, but get little in return. They've aided nations like China, which in the long run could seriously hurt us. Not to get too much into evil Zionist conspiracies, there is a real argument that the Israelis knew about 9/11. They seem to have some real influence at the top levels of our government.

I just think the Israelis are using us to achieve their agenda in the region, and do not care about America's interests.

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Those military men are still under contract. These men do not stop being professional soldiers. No good army in the world has worked like this. I'd really hope most of our soldiers would go simply because they were asked. I believe they would.

This is likely to be the greatest bone of contention between you and I from here on out. Yes they are still under contract, however the spirit of that contract was that they should serve 4 years of active service and be recalled only if the need for trained troops was a dire emergency. This agreement is made in good faith because in times of crisis where trained troops are needed immediately, the recently discharged are the only source. Politicians have turned this around and used it in lieu of a draft to man an unpopular war in the face of a problem caused by poor planning in Washington DC.
They are abusing the loyalty of good men because it is politically expedient. It's not illegal, it's not even technically in the gray area, but it's cowardly. If I were in office I'd rather create a foreign legion or start a draft if there was no other option. It would be a cold day in hell when I or any real man said to myself, "I screwed up, I can't back down, and now I'm gonna steal a Marine's freedom to save my own arse". I'm a loyal American, a "former" Marine, and a conservative; this is no Bush bash- it's just how I feel. Our government has made a mistake and needs to make it right with our men ASAP.

This is why I see the election as the turning point. If anything can get the Iraqis inspired, its a fair election. Afghanistan would give me some hope when it comes to Iraq.

I suppose we have to wait and see. You could be right. I have been fairly impressed with how well things are going in Afghanistan (assuming they are going as the relatively light news coverage would have me believe). On the other hand, I'm not sure that Iraq will go the way of Afghanistan. Afghanistan had less difficulty with foreign insurgents (although the problem did exist). We had fewer troops in Afghanistan which may have undermined nationalist backlash against our occupation. Afghanistan was also a poor nation- when we showed up they were only fighting because it was the only paying job in the country- everyone would fight for the side that fed the best- we showed up with the best food and we were in charge. Iraq is more complicated.

Well, China's currency advantage probably won't last for very long. Their economy is becoming strong enough, and threatening enough, so that nations won't stand for it any longer.

I would hope for this to be the case, but I'm not sure. We couldn't even get the world to play ball with sanctions against Iraq. I dont know if you've ever been part of a really disorganized group that was trying to accomplish something complex, but if a community mindset does not exist you can't succeed. The UN does not have a community mindset. Everyone comes into the UN like it was Pirates of the Caribbean- "Take what you can, give nothin' back".
If I were running America I'd try to create replacements for China by helping to modernize nations like Mexico and Brazil. We put together a cadre of large nations that can buy up resources now as alternative markets to China, and in the future they are alternative suppliers. In the process we would be slowing Chinese growth and possibly over inflating their currency (i'm no economist, but isn't that what happens when you've got a ton of money and not enough resources?)

And while a controlled economy may pay off for China in the short run, the long term damages are undeniable. A capitalist society is far more versatile. It creates an innovative environment, and I believe gives more motivation to those making the weapons.

So far communism has proved remarkably unstable in the long haul. Of course a big part of that may be that might stem from the fact that communist nations have almost always started off dirt poor and been forced to invest a great deal of money in the military. Anyway I guess I should leave the "is communism viable" arguement on the back burner because i really dont have strong convictions either way, I'm just not sure it's been tried thoroughly.
The more important point is that the short term is what matters in terms of China's ability to modernize their military and infrastructure to respond to Peak Oil or other emergencies. Communism is a good sprinter, even if it can't finish the marathon.

China seems very dependent on oil to me. They need as much as we do right now. Most alternative sources that will exist within the next few decades really aren't very useful. And besides oil, China seems more likely to use coal.

China can go with coal as a stopgap- they've got plenty as I understand. There is nothing to stop China from going with wind, hydro, and biomass generators in the short term for part of their needs as supplements to domestic coal, and slowly filling in the gaps with nuclear and other technologies as they go along.
They dont need it any less than we do, and they may not even be any more likely to get off it than we are. I'm just saying that theoretically they are able to make the switch as easily as we are. I also believe that American attitude (and lack of central control) could slow America down in converting away from oil. I'm not sure China would have that same problem.

www.worldtribune.com...
globalsecurity.org...

The Israeli relationship to me seems to be one-sided these days. We do a lot for them, but get little in return. They've aided nations like China, which in the long run could seriously hurt us. Not to get too much into evil Zionist conspiracies, there is a real argument that the Israelis knew about 9/11. They seem to have some real influence at the top levels of our government.

I just think the Israelis are using us to achieve their agenda in the region, and do not care about America's interests.

I'm not unwilling to believe that at all. I still think that short of Jehova stepping down from the clouds and vaporizing us, we have Israel by the short and curlies- but only if we were willing to hurt them, which I dont think we are. America has one really big problem when it comes to our relationship with Israel. There is a belief (in my opinion, a fallacy) that Israel has a monopoly on God's favor. Christians (even "jack daniel's christians" as I call the ones who dont always practice their faith) tend to believe that Israel is blessed and favored and would be the undoing of any foe. This pretty much makes us Israel's kid until the theophobes in the ACLU win their war against American religious tollerance (which they eventually will).

They are abusing the loyalty of good men because it is politically expedient. It's not illegal, it's not even technically in the gray area, but it's cowardly. If I were in office I'd rather create a foreign legion or start a draft if there was no other option. It would be a cold day in hell when I or any real man said to myself, "I screwed up, I can't back down, and now I'm gonna steal a Marine's freedom to save my own arse". I'm a loyal American, a "former" Marine, and a conservative; this is no Bush bash- it's just how I feel. Our government has made a mistake and needs to make it right with our men ASAP.

Iraq may not be directly threaten American security, it certainly is important in the longrun to America's power. Failing in Iraq is not an option.

From a soldier's standpoint, it really shouldn't matter why or who they're fighting.

I would hope for this to be the case, but I'm not sure. We couldn't even get the world to play ball with sanctions against Iraq. I dont know if you've ever been part of a really disorganized group that was trying to accomplish something complex, but if a community mindset does not exist you can't succeed. The UN does not have a community mindset. Everyone comes into the UN like it was Pirates of the Caribbean- "Take what you can, give nothin' back".
If I were running America I'd try to create replacements for China by helping to modernize nations like Mexico and Brazil. We put together a cadre of large nations that can buy up resources now as alternative markets to China, and in the future they are alternative suppliers. In the process we would be slowing Chinese growth and possibly over inflating their currency (i'm no economist, but isn't that what happens when you've got a ton of money and not enough resources?)

I really got this from a BBC article detailing how Europe was starting to feel threatened economically from China.

news.bbc.co.uk...
news.bbc.co.uk...

Those detail the situation a little. I can't find the exact article that talked about removing many of the fake limits placed on China with their growing economy.

Iraq may not be directly threaten American security, it certainly is important in the longrun to America's power. Failing in Iraq is not an option.

Why is it important?

From a soldier's standpoint, it really shouldn't matter why or who they're fighting.

So i should use the same tactics for fighting a troop of regular infatntry against a troop of insurgents? Answer is no, the more info you have on them makes it eaiser to kill them. Think like the enemy and you'll find we're he will strike , think like a SOP book and you'll not achieve much.

Why is it important?

America would have no credibility at all if we failed in Iraq. It would be another Vietnam.

So i should use the same tactics for fighting a troop of regular infatntry against a troop of insurgents? Answer is no, the more info you have on them makes it eaiser to kill them. Think like the enemy and you'll find we're he will strike , think like a SOP book and you'll not achieve much.

This clearly wasn't the context I made my statement in. I was talking about troops going to war in the first place, not conducting the war.

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer

America would have no credibility at all if we failed in Iraq. It would be another Vietnam.

Wait wait your saying it actually HAS credibility?

This clearly wasn't the context I made my statement in. I was talking about troops going to war in the first place, not conducting the war.

Of course they must care, if you dont care who you are fighting then you cant question what is right and wrong, what is the correct way to do anything.

Wait wait your saying it actually HAS credibility?

When America says something, nations tend to listen.

Of course they must care, if you dont care who you are fighting then you cant question what is right and wrong, what is the correct way to do anything.

A soldier follows very basic rules. He really should not care if the Iraq war was justified. The closest he should get to this would be questioning whether we're fighting the war properly.

Like it or not, a military can not be run as a touchy feely Democracy. If you let soldiers question orders, your military structure will crumble.

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
When America says something, nations tend to listen.

Thats cause the USA tends to add with the message a threat like , "you are with or against us"

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Iraq may not be directly threaten American security, it certainly is important in the longrun to America's power. Failing in Iraq is not an option.

From a soldier's standpoint, it really shouldn't matter why or who they're fighting.

You're right- it doesn't matter who a soldier is fighting. What does matter to a soldier is why the terms of his service are changed when there is no emergency.

Yes Iraq is important. The thing is we could do it without this abuse if politicians were willing to risk their own image to do the right thing.
1. Suspend other comitments, including South Korea, and make Iraq the primary overseas deployment.
2. Offer sentence suspensions for prison inmates who volunteer to serve 4 years in the military.
3. Set up very large enlistment bonuses for the needed fields.

4. Most important of all, we must have a timeline for winning this war. It will require overwhelming force and it will be unpopular in America, which brings up another challenge- victory must be withing sight by 2008, or we will elect somebody who scraps the whole mission.

Step one: We pull every troop we have from foreign posts and unnecessary domestic stations and field an appropriate security force in Iraq. Up to 500,000 troops would be acceptable, even if it took a draft.

Step two: Troops secure populations centers and commercial infrastructure such as roads. This allows foreign companies to safely extend credit to Iraqi merchants and re-establish commerce in Iraq. The pentagon organizes and prepares a training program designed to train 200,000 Iraqi troops to USMC standards yearly.

Step three: By late 2005 we can start recruiting Iraqis with extremely high pay, which will be meaningful as commerce develops.

Step four: As Iraqi Marines are trained and proven effective we reduce our comitments. By late 2007 there should be 400,000+ Iraqi marines and fewer US troops than there are at present- the lastest acceptable date for this is November 2008.

Step five: Even if it results in a communist being elected in 2008, Iraq is secure, but the success of the mission will likely pay off for the republican party.

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer

Wait wait your saying it actually HAS credibility?

When America says something, nations tend to listen.

This point goes to deliverer. You can't dimiss it just by saying that America achieves credibility by threat. That's exactly the point. Tinpot dictators and 3rd world upstarts know that America isn't going to have any of their nonsense. If America failed in Iraq and Ba'athists regained power in Iraq then tinpot dictators like Kim Jung Il and Fidel Castro would be emboldened to opress their people and their neighbors, and to create provokative threats to global stability such as developing nuclear weapons.

Of course they must care, if you dont care who you are fighting then you cant question what is right and wrong, what is the correct way to do anything.

A soldier follows very basic rules. He really should not care if the Iraq war was justified. The closest he should get to this would be questioning whether we're fighting the war properly.

I disagree. A soldier in battle is not to question his orders because that gets people killed and causes failure. In that much you are correct. I was a US Marine and if the dumbest sergeant I ever met pointed to a machine gun position and yelled "follow me" I'd have to follow him just to give my friends a fighting chance.
On the other hand, a soldier has every right to question the justification of a deployment and to oppose it so long as he does not compromise the mission by disobedience. America pressed just such a case against Nazi war criminals. I am not saying that American soldiers in Iraq are analogous to Nazi war criminals; they are not. What I am saying is that by disputing the claim that Nazis were correct to follow their orders established a precedent that a soldier MUST consider the moral implications of the policy which he fights for. By that precedent a soldier is obligated to speak out, seek change, and in extreme cases disobey if he the orders constitute a violation of international law or human rights.
Now American soldiers are not having their human rights violated, nor is international law being violated, and therefore American soldiers must obey. This much I agree with you on 100%. I am saying that a soldier has a DUTY to consider the implications of his orders, a RIGHT to dissent, and also a RIGHT (perhaps even a duty to himself) to be outspoken in the appropriate place and time if he is being treated unfairly.
I maintain that American politicians are using the stoploss/inactive reserve function of enlistment contracts in a way other than originally intended, and doing so for less than honorable reasons. To be specific, they are doing it to avoid the political expense of the alternatives, even though those alternatives would be more favorable for our troops who so richly deserve the favor of the government they serve.

Like it or not, a military can not be run as a touchy feely Democracy. If you let soldiers question orders, your military structure will crumble.

I believe I have made my agreement with this point very clear. Instant willing obedience to orders is a must in many situations, however there are appropriate times and methods of dissent which our troops can use. The basic soldier can request mast to his superiors, and if his concerns are legitimate (as they are in the case of this backdoor draft) then a commander worth his salt will not be afraid to press it up the chain of command.
Ultimately, in a world without cowardice or dishonesty, this situation would result in generals telling the president and congress politely "this is not the right way to do it, and we need for you to come up with an appropriate way to allocate assetts to this mission. If you do not, we will be resigning and causing a great deal of political difficulty for you because the people of the United States will not approve of your decisions.

Thats how the military works in a democracy- you wait till the right time, you speak respectfully, and if it doesn't work out you take the legal and appropriate recourse as soon as it is possible without compromising your duty as a soldier.

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
A soldier follows very basic rules. He really should not care if the Iraq war was justified. The closest he should get to this would be questioning whether we're fighting the war properly.

Why shouldnt he care? If every citizens right is the right to question their government then so should a member of the military, or are you counting them as not being citizens?

Like it or not, a military can not be run as a touchy feely Democracy. If you let soldiers question orders, your military structure will crumble.

Actually democracy is the longest lasting type of government, if you use a dictatorship aka where one leads all with out being questioned, then you get an ineffective system. This willl most likely leed to the unit being killed or the mission failing.
The first thing they teach you about leadership is that you must listen to your people, you dont know everything period and someone will always have a better idea, you must be willing to accept information AND give it out or you will fall.

Originally posted by devilwasp

Like it or not, a military can not be run as a touchy feely Democracy. If you let soldiers question orders, your military structure will crumble.

Actually democracy is the longest lasting type of government, if you use a dictatorship aka where one leads all with out being questioned, then you get an ineffective system. This willl most likely leed to the unit being killed or the mission failing.

Just because democracy is an effective national system does not mean it would work in a military chain of command- it wouldn't.
The Marines in Korea set an amazing example for what can be accomplished by discipline and obedience to orders.
The Army did not impose proper discipline on their men. They came out of Chosin Resevoir in a cluster-freak without much of their equipment.
The Marines, ever the butt of jokes about brainwashing and blind obedience, made an orderly withdrawl from Chosin and ended up in possession of much Army equipment in addition to their own.

The first thing they teach you about leadership is that you must listen to your people, you dont know everything period and someone will always have a better idea, you must be willing to accept information AND give it out or you will fall.

You are right, however you are misapplying the principle. A commanding officer is open to the suggestions of his men, particularly staff NCOs, because it ensures no missed details and helps the officer to make his decision with the best possible information. After the men have had their say though, the officer's word is law. That's why he's called the COMMANDING Officer.

Hypothetical scenario: You are a platoon commander assigned to guard a small canyon on your batallions flank. Your force is just barely enough to hold the canyon, but your BN just cant spare additional forces.
You pick the best spot to set up your defense- its the best chance for winning the battle ahead, but the ground is very rocky and it will take all night to dig in.
Your platoon sergeant and several of your men say that you should move the platoon to an alternate spot where they can dig in quickly and get a good nights rest so they'll be sharp when its time to fight. You think the other positions are too risky, but the men dont take the enemy seriously and figure its no big deal.
The men may very well be right. It may be a 90% chance that you could win the battle from alternate positions, but as the officer you are responsible for them- you're their daddy and you're gonna over-ride them and do whats best for them even if they dont want to. You may be saving lives. They might be pissed, but they will obey because they know that you're there to make the hard decisions and get them through safe. You'll never know for sure, but there will always be a good chance that you saved some of your men from being killed because you made them take the hard right over the easy wrong.

Originally posted by The Vagabond


Just because democracy is an effective national system does not mean it would work in a military chain of command- it wouldn't.

Dude i knew that was comeing, i am talking not about national systems i am talking about how a group is run.

The Marines in Korea set an amazing example for what can be accomplished by discipline and obedience to orders.

Yet they did listen to thier subordonates aka the officers listened to the sargents and warrant officers because they had exsperience, and they asked people before attacks and such if they have ideas. It happens at every rank.

The Army did not impose proper discipline on their men. They came out of Chosin Resevoir in a cluster-freak without much of their equipment.
The Marines, ever the butt of jokes about brainwashing and blind obedience, made an orderly withdrawl from Chosin and ended up in possession of much Army equipment in addition to their own.

The marines train longer and harder than army so that is to be exspected, also how is this showing how effective blind obediance is?

You are right, however you are misapplying the principle. A commanding officer is open to the suggestions of his men, particularly staff NCOs, because it ensures no missed details and helps the officer to make his decision with the best possible information. After the men have had their say though, the officer's word is law. That's why he's called the COMMANDING Officer.

An officer word is not law its orders from above, if the soldier thinks its immoral or wrong then he or she wont follow it. That is a given right to every soldier,marine,airman,sailor and any other service men and women.

Originally posted by The Vagabond

Hypothetical scenario: You are a platoon commander assigned to guard a small canyon on your batallions flank. Your force is just barely enough to hold the canyon, but your BN just cant spare additional forces.
You pick the best spot to set up your defense- its the best chance for winning the battle ahead, but the ground is very rocky and it will take all night to dig in.

A good pick , but dont always think that YOU will know the best things to do, dont always think because you are the officer you know everything.

Your platoon sergeant and several of your men say that you should move the platoon to an alternate spot where they can dig in quickly and get a good nights rest so they'll be sharp when its time to fight. You think the other positions are too risky, but the men dont take the enemy seriously and figure its no big deal.

An alert troop is better than a dead troop.
This hypothetical scenenario has many many holes, firstly why would you platoon sargent not take the enemy seriosly, if he is a platoon sargent he will have exsperience and know good tactics.
Secondly the men lower than him might not take them seriosly BUT they will know the diffrence from being safe and tired or dead and well rested.

The men may very well be right. It may be a 90% chance that you could win the battle from alternate positions, but as the officer you are responsible for them- you're their daddy and you're gonna over-ride them and do whats best for them even if they dont want to. You may be saving lives.

Your the officer that means your suposed to take an objective look and step back and organise things, secondly if your sargents are suggesting that you would sleep in a less defended area then frankly that isnt possible.

They might be pissed, but they will obey because they know that you're there to make the hard decisions and get them through safe. You'll never know for sure, but there will always be a good chance that you saved some of your men from being killed because you made them take the hard right over the easy wrong.

Dude you have made this scenenario so you are right, this is like supplying a biased source as a piece of evidence in court.

Heres a scenario:

You're troop leader, X troop of XX company.

Your task is to attack a position in a high position, high rocks on the right with lots of cover, short route to objective but very hard trecking. The left side however is steep yet realitivle easy ground but has little cover and is a long treck.
The OPFOR are exspecting an attack and have exspected the attacking force to take the right and have placed heavy defences there, OPFOR have placed light defense on the left side believeing the enemy will not attack from there because of its near barreness.

Your colour sargent,most exspeienced man there, says the troop should attack from the left due to the easy abilitly to attack there, he says the men are up to the treck.

Your corporals, good amount of exsperience but not as much as the colours, says that the troop should attack from the right due to its large amount of cover. The corporals say the men are ready and able to take the enemy.

Do you take the hard right? or the hard left?
An officer is there to make the right choices but is there to listen to the lower ranks for information.

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by The Vagabond

Just because democracy is an effective national system does not mean it would work in a military chain of command- it wouldn't.

Dude i knew that was comeing, i am talking not about national systems i am talking about how a group is run.

You're missing my point entirely. I am talking about how a group is run also. I am telling you that although discussion is good in a group, democracy is not. In a small group, especially for military purposes, the buck must stop with a single commander. Discussion is not democracy; Voting is democracy.

The Marines in Korea set an amazing example for what can be accomplished by discipline and obedience to orders.

Yet they did listen to thier subordonates aka the officers listened to the sargents and warrant officers because they had exsperience, and they asked people before attacks and such if they have ideas. It happens at every rank.

Although you have not given any examples it probably is true that idea were taken into consideration. This still is not democracy. In the end, the men did whatever the commander said, and they did it HARD- not just going through the motions while complaining about it. Thats how a military wins- discipline, not democracy.

The Army did not impose proper discipline on their men. They came out of Chosin Resevoir in a cluster-freak without much of their equipment.
The Marines, ever the butt of jokes about brainwashing and blind obedience, made an orderly withdrawl from Chosin and ended up in possession of much Army equipment in addition to their own.

The marines train longer and harder than army so that is to be exspected, also how is this showing how effective blind obediance is?

The more difficult training Marines go through leads up to one primary point- that you always follow orders with speed and intensity. If the Marines had been less disciplined they would have questioned orders, would have been uncertain, would have had problems with individualism, and would have acted just like the Army.
The obedience to orders which Marines are trained to display is what made it possible for them to make an orderly withdrawl as an effective unit, instead of turning into a disorganized mob of scared individuals.
Ask yourself this: What if the Marines at Chosin had argued back and forth about taking leaving the equipment or about picking up army equipment. Not only would it have slowed them down and hurt morale but it could have triggered misunderstandings and disorganization. They could have fallen apart.

You are right, however you are misapplying the principle. A commanding officer is open to the suggestions of his men, particularly staff NCOs, because it ensures no missed details and helps the officer to make his decision with the best possible information. After the men have had their say though, the officer's word is law. That's why he's called the COMMANDING Officer.

An officer word is not law its orders from above, if the soldier thinks its immoral or wrong then he or she wont follow it. That is a given right to every soldier,marine,airman,sailor and any other service men and women.

Servicemen can only disobey an order which is obviously illegal. This does not constitute a democracy. If your platoon is assigned a suicide mission you still have to do it- no votes, no disobedience. You dont like it- too bad. What would have happened to Saudi Arabia if the Marines hadn't stood their ground in Desert Shield? Sure they would have been in the fight of their lives if Saddam had attacked, but if they hadn't been there Saudi Arabia would have been taken. They did what they were supposed to do- didn't disobey or try to go UA, and Saddam blinked first.

I disagree. A soldier in battle is not to question his orders because that gets people killed and causes failure. In that much you are correct. I was a US Marine and if the dumbest sergeant I ever met pointed to a machine gun position and yelled "follow me" I'd have to follow him just to give my friends a fighting chance.
On the other hand, a soldier has every right to question the justification of a deployment and to oppose it so long as he does not compromise the mission by disobedience. America pressed just such a case against Nazi war criminals. I am not saying that American soldiers in Iraq are analogous to Nazi war criminals; they are not. What I am saying is that by disputing the claim that Nazis were correct to follow their orders established a precedent that a soldier MUST consider the moral implications of the policy which he fights for. By that precedent a soldier is obligated to speak out, seek change, and in extreme cases disobey if he the orders constitute a violation of international law or human rights.

This is why I mentioned how a soldier may be able to question how a war is conducted.

You're right- it doesn't matter who a soldier is fighting. What does matter to a soldier is why the terms of his service are changed when there is no emergency.

I can not argue that it has to be frustrating to be a soldier and no that you have to sacrafice for politicians, but that's the what an American soldier has to do. They should know that when they join.