🚀 go-pugleaf

"RTO Trainer" <bill.white@us.army.mil> wrote in message
news:ed856011.0411181023.b798b3b@posting.google.com...
> "DeadMeat" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:<cngm3n$3c0$1@news.chatlink.com>...
> > "RTO Trainer" <bill.white@us.army.mil> wrote in message
> > news:ed856011.0411170857.11448dab@posting.google.com...
> > > Dharmananda <Nil@neph.net> wrote in message
> >  news:<7152320.AaHMmCGklK@news.verizon.net>...
> > > > RTO Trainer wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Dharmananda <Nil@neph.net> wrote in message
> > > > > news:<1204636.UY531aNM1O@news.verizon.net>...
> > > > >> DeadMeat wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I understand what Overwhelming Firepower is. That's where a
bomb is
> > > > >> > dropped on a house housing your enemy. Or where you have the
troops
> > > > >> > come in behind a couple or three M-1s that blow the 2nd floor,
3rd,
> > > > >> > 4th, and fifth window on the 2nd and third floor completely
away.
> > > > >> > Hell, kid, it's done all the time and it saves lives on the US
> >  side.
> > > > >> > If you overkill it then it's still dead and you lost NO people
in
> >  the
> > > > >> > first place. If you underkill it your ground troops are going
to
> >  get
> > > > >> > some pretty nasty surprises.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> That makes sense.  But then why is it, pray tell, that one of the
> >  other
> > > > >> military geniuses on this thread assures me, on the basis of war
> >  blogs,
> > > > >> that this doctrine, i.e., overwhelming firepower, is outdated?
> > > > >
> > > > > Who made that assurance to you "on the basis of war blogs?"
> > > >
> > > > I wrote that before I looked at your blog.  I don't know how I would
> > > > characterize it, but I think is's not a typical war blog.
> > > > >
> > > > > I told you it was no longer doctrine on the basis of current Army
> > > > > doctrine.
> > > > >
> > > > > Perhaps the problem here is that you and I have different
conceptions
> > > > > of the term "doctrine."
> > > >
> > > > We probably do.  And you're in the signal corps, no?  I think that's
> >  quite
> > > > honorable, but it doesn't necessarily make you an expert on
doctrine.
> > > > Since you referenced that blog, I thought it was probably a refernce
> >  about
> > > > doctrine.  I thought wrong.
> > > >
> > >
> > > My Signal Corps experience does not make me a expert on doctrine.
> > > Being a more than averagely curiousl and studious soldier, though
> > > makes ne better informed than most in the same position though.  I've
> > > read FM 3-0 which defines and describes current doctrine.
> > >
> > > I didn't reference a blog.
> > >
> > > > I'm a Navy veteran, and my relationship to Army doctrine is quite
> >  indirect,
> > > > but nonetheless real.  I was in Naval Intelligence in the Viet Nam
era,
> > > > watching China, and the doctrine about intelligence was simply
wrong.
> >  The
> > > > intelligence we produced was simply ignored, and the ultimate result
of
> > > > that doctrine, stupidly conducted for the next 40 years, was 9/11.
> > > >
> > > > The current Army doctrine of overwhlming firepower has resulted in a
> > > > wowrld-class atrocity in Fallujah.  This will, at least, completely
> >  destroy
> > > > what's left of our credibility in the world, and it puts us at grave
> >  risk
> > > > for another 9/ll at home.
> > >
> > > Overwhelming Firepower is not current doctrine.
> >
> > It's not part of any doctrine.  It's there as a tool to be used when
> > necessary.  One does not use it when it's not necessary as it would
cause
> > unnecessary damage.  But to not use it when it IS necessary would be
against
> > any doctrine that the US has had since 1976 now that PRez Johnson isn't
> > there to micro manage and Westmoreland isnt' there to lie to him in the
> > first place.
>
> It was, once, doctrine.  It isn't anymore, because there are other
> options given appropriate circumstances.

It never really was in the doctrine. It's a tool that is made available.
You claim it was yet we were probihited from using it without express
permission from the POTUS.  The micromanagement of the Military at War
doctrine has changed, not the use of Overwhelming Firepower.  Had we been
able to use it from 1965, there would be no North Korea or South Korea but
under a different government than today.  Under Johnson, we were completely
prohibited from dropping one single bomb up north without Johnsons prior
approval.  Johnson once said, "Not a single bomb drops without my
permission".  He was correct.  We lost thousands of troops to this
stupidity.  Without his meddling, the war would have been completely won by
1968.