🚀 go-pugleaf

"DeadMeat" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<cneiou$4s9$1@news.chatlink.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 that this doctrine, i.e., overwhelming firepower, is outdated?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.
> >
> > 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.
> 
> I spent some time above the Ho Trail shelling anything that moved.  We used
> Overwhelming Firepower once they removed the stupid rules and we got a
> President that was no longer being lied to and didn't try to micromanage
> each every round fired. Sounds to me like you were there 1968 at the latest.
> I didn't show up until 1969 and it wasn't until 1970 that the rules were all
> but removed from us where we could shell anything that moved.  20mm Vulcans
> make wonderful Elephant guns.
> 
> The doctrine is much the same as Nam was from 1970 to 1974 in more ways than
> the kids realize.  The term "Win their Hearts and Minds" was used back then
> as well.  Had it not been for Pres Ford, the South might still be a seperate
> nation from the North.

Overwhelming Firepower is not *current* doctrine.

1969 to 1974 is not *current.*