Ban on Cluster Munitions

[A4sForever]

And yet in Japan.....it wasn't. We let them keep the Emperor, and made things a lot easier for the occupation.

What was that about policy not winning out again?

Negative: you are mistaken in your understanding of what transpired -- we did this to the J's -- twice -- 'cause they wouldn't surrender unconditionally.

Had they not surrendered unconditionally, it would have continued as materials permitted ... it was the correct answer to preventing untold casualties on both sides in the event of an invasion of the home islands. In the meantime, while waiting for more "nukes" ... 100's of thousands of more J's would have been killed from conventional bombing or starvation w/ a blockade.

We LET them keep the Emperor -- 'cause at the end of the day, he went along w/ us -- and 'cause it suited OUR purposes and made it easier on the Occupation.

 

[Flash]

Negative: you are mistaken in your understanding of what transpired -- we did this to the J's -- twice -- 'cause they wouldn't surrender unconditionally.

Really, we dropped nukes on the Japanese?! I never heard of that one......

Not getting my point, policy and politics intruded even during the 'best' war.

Like or not, policy and politics will always intrude into war, to deny that is ignorant. Some officers realize it and balance it, and use it to the advantage of the armed forces, while some fail horribly. General Petraeus has done a decent job of it, General Westmorland.....not so much.

 

[A4sForever]

...Not getting my point, policy and politics intruded even during the 'best' war. ...

It wouldn't be the first time, yea-as ???

Here's what I put in a PM to a young skull full of cottage cheese who asked; and I think it fits the bill here, also:

All good stuff -- I've read Clausewitz, Mahan, and Sun Zsu amongst the "classics" on the subject of war and power; but what is this "extension of politics" of which we speak ??

When all the B.S. is stripped aside, it's killing people and blowing things up while YOU survive -- that's what -- and the only way I want to be in that particular "voting booth" is w/ a trigger in my finger and a load of bombs under my wings.

Remember -- the US State Dept w/ their politically driven policies has caused more conflict and caused the death of more USGI's than any other entity of our government -- or foreign governments -- since it's inception. My opinion ... but I think history is on my side.

Again, MY point is *Ahem* (clearing throat):

I'm about winning or losing. It's really quite basic.

When you let "policy" drive warfare -- YOU LOSE.

When you let sound military doctrine followed by action drive warfare -- YOU WIN.

*Ahem*

 

[LittleAl]

And yet in Japan.....it wasn't. We let them keep the Emperor, and made things a lot easier for the occupation.

What was that about policy not winning out again?

A lot of Japanese people expected the Americans to kill or depose the Emperor after the war. Many of them thought he deserved it. From some of what I've read, the Emperor himself thought his days were numbered. The Americans overestimated how important he was because they had believed too much of the Japanese propaganda. Also, they thought the Emperor was really neat. (for the full story and a really good read, check out John Dower's War Without Mercy.)

Also worth mentioning, before WWII, bombing civilian areas was considered a war crime. When the Japs bombed Chinese cities, people in America were outraged. Needless to say, people forgot about this pretty fast once War was declared.

Part of the problem is we're not talking about weapons you use in an all out war, we're talking about weapons you use in Afganistan, Iraq, Vietnam, and other situations where things are not so clear.

My experience attending these big international conferences is that they are pretty stupid. You get all these big shots in a room, you spend thousands on translation services, you negotiate a treaty that probably stretches to 100 pages, and then at the end of it you've gotten Denmark and Canada to agree not to use weapons they don't have in wars they're not fighting.

 

[Flash]

Again, MY point is *Ahem* (clearing throat):

I'm about winning or losing. It's really quite basic.

When you let "policy" drive warfare -- YOU LOSE.

When you let sound military doctrine followed by action drive warfare -- YOU WIN.

*Ahem*

Okay, so how do we 'win' a 'war' where policy is dominant on the 'battlefield', like Iraq? It's not so easy to declare victory when we took the capital, destroyed the army and are still there, fighting a war.

Action driven warfare is not so easy when you are fighting an enemy who doesn't want to stand and fight.

 

[A4sForever]

Okay, so how do we 'win' a 'war' where policy is dominant on the 'battlefield', like Iraq? It's not so easy to declare victory when we took the capital, destroyed the army and are still there, fighting a war. ....

There's a perfect example. And we couldn't even proudly fly OUR flag when we took the capital -- as it was against "policy".

And we didn't "destroy" the Iraqi Army -- we let 'em go home. Big mistake. Policy.....

And we're NOT fighting a "war" ... 'cause if we were, it would have a much different complexion. People in this country don't even think about it on a daily basis; absent a loved one in the theatre or some other political motivation ("policy"??).

And, as a result of "policy dominant on the 'battlefield'" (as you correctly point out) approach to fighting (and dying), we're going to lose -- as much as it pains me to say it.

At the very best, we'll have an exit strategy provided compliments of a "policy" driven face-saving exit from Iraq where we will end up having to ask: what difference did we make w/ our blood and treasure. Why did we spend all those lives of our comrades-in-arms ... ???

Just like we asked 35 +/- years ago ....

Perhaps we should start a thread: What is victory in Iraq? I thought about that earlier this week. Great minds, huh Flash-man ???

 

[Nafod]

A4's you mean the mission hasn't been accomplished yet?

Seriously though, i think that would be a good idea for a thread, you were spot on about this not being a war.

 

[Flash]

Perhaps we should start a thread: What is victory in Iraq? I thought about that earlier this week. Great minds, huh Flash-man ???

You said it, not me......

 

[A4sForever]

You said it, not me......

For your viewing pleasure ....

What is VICTORY in IRAQ?? Is there any substitute for VICTORY??

 

[invertedflyer]

My 2c. This is an unconventional conflict and not a conventional war. There isn't any no-holds-barred warfare like Gulf War I so we have to use weapons appropriate to the situation. If we're operating in an area where we are trying to "build bridges" with the civilian populace and help the country, cluster munitions may not be an appropriate response as they may cause undue civilian casualties. Perhaps a 500-lb. PGM would be a more appropriate response, it depends on the situation. To echo what a couple others have said, this conflict can't be compared with conventional wars where the enemy came out to fight.

A4s, I see and agree with your point that all-out-destruction is the way to win a conventional war. However, if we did that in Iraq we'd be killing the very people we're trying to help... we can't flatten entire cities without losing hearts and minds. I also think cluster munitions, as stated earlier in this thread, have their uses in many situations.

Again, just my opinion.

 

[scoober78]

My 2c. There isn't any no-holds-barred warfare like Gulf War I so we have to use weapons appropriate to the situation.

Psst....Gulf I was anything but no-holds barred...

 

[invertedflyer]

Psst....Gulf I was anything but no-holds barred...

Agreed, I should have just left it at conventional war vs. unconventional. IE attacking tank columns with cluster muntions vs. hitting an insurgent held house with a PGM. One has less limitations due to the environment/the situation is different. bleh you get my point.

 

[A4sForever]

.....A4s, I see and agree with your point that all-out-destruction is the way to win a conventional war. However...

I appreciate what you are saying ... but here's where you guys get it wrong and don't learn from history.

What was Vietnam?? Conventional or "un"conventional?? Did the enemy "come out" to fight or go into his hole??

We ended the conflict, both North and South, when we B-52'ed Hanoi and Haiphong. We could have ended it years earlier had we had the courage to blow the Red River dike system and flood the bastards but we were afraid of China making an appearance ala Korea. China didn't make an appearance when the BUFF's were running wild over the NVN countryside, however ...

It didn't "end" until the North Vietnamese enemy was required to pay a price he was not willing to pay -- and not until -- no matter how much "policy" we implemented north or south.

Hearts & minds was bullshit then and it's bullshit now. We're not talkin' about block parties w/ the neighbors -- we're talkin' global politics and policing the various messes around the world when they come into our spheres of influence -- and unfortunately some spheres that we should stay out of ... Bosnia come to mind?? We're still in that policy-driven cesspool, for absolutely NO reason.

Reality is how you fight ... not feel-good hearts & minds. It's always ultimately your own self-interest.

Just my $20 worth ...

 

[Zissou]

War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.
William Tecumseh Sherman


The more smart bombs? The longer this will take.

 

[invertedflyer]

Just my $20 worth ...

I see and agree with much of what you are saying, the wrong policy can lose a war. But they are still two different situations (Iraq and Vietnam). Northern Iraq didn't invade southern Iraq as in Vietnam. IMO You can't compare bombing the north vietnamese and using flooding to wipe them out to the current situation without accepting the premise that all iraqis are our enemies. And since we are trying to stabalize a country, the real question would be: what are the correct policies to win this specific unconventional conflict?