🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 07:40:42 GMT, Dharmananda <Nil@neph.net> wrote:

>RTO Trainer wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 06:18:47 GMT, Dharmananda <Nil@neph.net> wrote:
>> 
>>>RTO Trainer wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 03:43:25 GMT, Dharmananda <Nil@neph.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>RTO Trainer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Our reputation is quite intact.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>
>>>>>An eccentric notion, at best.  Consider this, out of a major British
>>>>>paper:
>>>>>
>>>> 
>>>> I note that you elected only to respond to this bit of ephemera and
>>>> neglected the sustantive points.
>>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>>Most Americans consider the reputation of their country to be quite
>>>substantive.
>>>
>>>Why should I answer your questions if you don't answer mine?  At least I
>>>addressed one of the issues you brought up, with something other than my
>>>own fiat.
>>>
>>>What tactical and strategic objectives were accomplished by the attack on
>>>Fallujah?
>> 
>> 
>> Your question is based on old doctrine.
>
>
>I admit that the question was not purely to the point of doctrine, but I
>still think it was a valid questions.  Earlier, 'remove underscore' posted
>a definition of doctrine which stated that the purpose of doctrine was to
>achieve objectives.  I believe that that must remain true of all doctrine,
>no?
>

I don't know what you are refering to.

Doctrine is simply the prescribed manner of accomplishing
tasks--achieving objectives if you will.  Unlike other militaries, the
US is not bound by or to its doctrine.  Commanders and soldiers are
encouraged to improvise and be creative.  

Doctrine is a guideline.  
>
>> 
>> Still there are clear tactical and strategic objectives accopmlished.
>> 
>> An insurgent strongpoint has been eliminated (Tactical).
>> 
>> Insurgents who have been hunkered down in other locations and thus
>> have been nearly undetectable, have been motivated to expose
>> themselves by activity facilitating their elimination (Strategic).
>> 
>> That's one of each with out having to analyze too much or having to
>> either assume information I don't have, or that you can't verify.
>> 
>
>
>Good enough.  The question that remains, not only for me, but for the planet
>at large, is "Was the cost of this operation, in terms of destruction of
>infrastructure and casualties, both of our forces and of civilians, and the
>resulting alienation and dissent, both in the Arab world and among our
>allies, justified by the achievement of those objectives in this way?"


That's going to be a highly subjective judgement to make.  I'd say its
too early to say for certain but if pressed to judge right now I'd say
it looks good so far.

Of course in this argument there is data that you will accept that I
will not and vice versa.  We aren't likely to agree.

---
COFFEE.EXE missing
Insert CUP and press ENTER to retry.

Signaleer  http://signaleer.blogspot.com
This Day in U.S. Military History  http://tdiumh.blogspot.com