Because it's so macho to just walk in guns a blazing isn't it? Tell me what the survival rate is if we took your approach?
Did you bother to read the LINK I posted? This isn't me we are talking about. This is how Deuce 4 does it in Mosul. Certainly _I_ claim no
responsibility for DOD policy in Iraq because I would never set ROE by which we cannot shoot a man who runs away from us because he thinks we might
not like what we find on him when we swab his fingers or check his pockets. Indeed, how damn likely to do you think it is that we will be shooting
into urban buildings occupied by nominally civillians if we can't put a bullet in the back of someone who /does/ know better than to be caught when
he can flee?
ESPECIALLY when (sigh, just like 'Nam damn it) we are back to FOBing our way through an ugly war and thus have to reclear every damn street, store
and house every bloody day we come back into town like a bunch of Cowboys facing down the resident Earps of Tombstone. WE should be the ones being
the 'lawful force' in town. The ones the average-Muktar sees on the street most often. And we are not. Because we fear the kinds of casualties
we would take if we were not hunkered down on a remote military reservation.
Your approach would be either suicide or more collateral damage given the circumstances.
Which approach would that be? The part where somebody shoots us from a window and we level their damn hooch around their ears until they LEARN WHO TO
COME TO with "Hey, they are pushing me pretty hard..." so that we can /take the bad buys out/ much the way they do us, with superior intel, far away
from the informant?
Or the approach where the first man through the door is in fact a silicon chip because you can always buy another Tamiya dunebuggy and strap a
camcorder to it's roof?
Or the one where continual contact is guaranteed _without_ close pursuit by a drone that doesn't have the loiter, threat vulnerability or altitude
limitations of some yutz leaning out the door of an 8 million dollar helicopter like Rooster Cogburn 'wheeling' his Winchester?
Or the one where we erect forests of CCD telephone posts and make it a death penalty offense to shoot at them so that we can watch over the Zoo
animals as they mull about their cages, even when we are not directly present?
How about we call in an air strike (which is one way to deal with it without the XM307) which will cause more collateral damage all the while
destroying the structure COMPLETELY. the XM307 doesnt do that.
It's been done. Why do you think the GBU-12 and 38 are the most popular CAS weapons in both Iraq and AfG? The problem is you have SOFies Choice
morons getting a phone call that is effectively one gang doing unto another so that they can have free reign on their turf and -who cares- if you
implode a house if there is no proof to the Iraqi's that fighting the Americans is a great way to LOSE. As a function of video on the crime and the
judgment and the punishment as a complete process.
In fact, it takes time to bring in heavy fires and when you are fighting an insurgent threat the WORST thing you can do is waste that commodity by
backing off to accept lost contact because even if you don't play bloody stump games sticking your nose back in ot the bushes where they vanished,
the chances are good that you will hurt enough 'innocents' that the combined propoganda effect is still negative.
Add to this the cost per flying hour (5,500 dollars for an F-16) and critically short pilot endurance effects on total sortie generation and coverage
by orbit count and it becomes obvious that trying to fight a low intensity war with high-intensity platforms is begging to lose because they can
always find a target you AREN'T covering with jetnoise.
This doesn't mean that you switch to hand cannons to engage with because that is equally certain to 'draw commentary' from the various vultures
watching from the fence everytime you butcher a child or a woman, pleasing them no end because they want their own to suffer 'unjustly' at your
hands so that they can continue their own violence.
Never mind that you cannot bring a 50lb grenade launcher into a running gunfight through a maze of back streets fit to confuse Ali Baba's Forty
So instead, you push them just hard enough to make them go to ground for fear of _being seen_ as a function of open-ground engagement by overhead
Then you lock down the structural block AROUND their location.
And then you send in robots to every room.
When you find them, you gas them and then when they wake up or stop puking, you hold a field court right there ON THE STREET WHERE THEY WERE CAUGHT.
Whereafter you shoot them like dogs, burn the bodies and leave it to the locals to eat, mourn or bury what's left.
Because it is to the survivors that you must demonstrate your power. Both as protector. And as remorseless stone killer.
The XM307 "limits" overall collateral damage while keeping our soldiers 'safer'. So I think I will take the "cheap, coward approach thank you
You don't understand. It is people like the Iranians and the Syrians and EU and the UN who will all scream the we are cowards for using remote fires
when they are 'standing by, so ready to take over the peace process'.
THAT is the audience before whom any appearance of inpropriety must be avoided as an excuse to continue or ramp up the fighting.
It can be done. Provided, every time you find someone, you make them stand tall to an AMERICAN military court system. Show them as they are
confronted with the proof of their guilt 'guns in the trunk I see...' and then shot down like animals. Night after night. On US Broadcast TV.
Like a nightly live-action version of a 'Cops' TV show. So that first they are intimidated by their own seemingly endless guilt. And then they
begin to 'Running Man' cheer for the winners just so that they can avoid the need to feel like they are a part of the problem. Because they are
'on the winning side'.
As if the enemy somehow wouldnt use our 'cowardly' capabilities if they had the chance.
When I put something in single quotes, it generally is meant as sarcasm as 'something said that nobody ever would, even if they thought it'. When I
put something in double quotes, it's meant to be taken as what /would/ be said, literally, if the events transpired as shown.
That said, the logic (from our standpoint) is one of costs not morals.
The XM307 probably costs on the order of 10 grande. The soldier on the ground will no more be able to bring it into the typical MOUT fight than he
would the Mk.19, it just won't be close enough to be handy. Nor sufficiently portable to be brought to bear. Most urban fighting tending to happen
at _under_ 35 meters.
The soldier himself is worth 100 grande per life insurance payout.
That means FOR EVERY GRUNT I DON'T SEND IN TO BE RANDOMLY BUTCHERED I can spend 110 grande on enablers that he either doesn't have to carry. Or
which weigh all of 5-10lbs. Not 50.
Stalin once said (of the battles in the city of his name which was in many ways the Russians equivalent to BOB) "Victory is not defined by how many
you kill before dying. It is defined by how many can die while yet winning."