🚀 go-pugleaf

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 that this doctrine, i.e., overwhelming firepower, is outdated?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