🚀 go-pugleaf

"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 that this doctrine, i.e., overwhelming firepower, is outdated?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.