🚀 go-pugleaf

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 that this doctrine, i.e., overwhelming firepower, is outdated?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