What Next in Afghanistan? - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-01-2010, 12:17 PM   #31
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post


What I'm implying is that the resources that we employed in Iraq would have been better spent in Afghanistan. You knew that, and that is what you were objecting to because you disagree with that position. Why couldn't you have just argued that point rather than using my imprecise language to try to paint me in a corner?
1. Why direct the resources being used on Iraq away from there when there is a lthreat there to deal with? Wouldn't it be wiser to use resources on hand back in the United States to send to Afghanistan instead of stripping US forces involved in security task in the persian gulf region that is vital to the whole planet?

2. Do you realize that many of the weapon systems and combat units used in the invasion and occupation of Iraq are not suited for operations in much of Afghanistan do to the mountainous terrain? In addition, do to Afghanistan being land locked which requires most US combat weapon systems to be airlifted in, it meant that sending heavy armored divisions(which have a large logistical tail) to Afghanistan would be extremely taxing on the United States limited air lift capacity.


Far better to send units that are equipped for operations in Afghanistan's mountainous terrain and are available back in the United States than to strip heavy armor units from a threatened region in the persian gulf and send them into an environment they are not ideally suited for, and is difficult to provide for them logistiically.
__________________

__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 12:24 PM   #32
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
Well, apparently you must always be that pedantic.

Pity.
Anyone who is seriously concerned about US foreign policy would not regard the issue of number of units, money, resources deployed to one area or another to be a trivial issue.
__________________

__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 02:06 PM   #33
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 03:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
1. Why direct the resources being used on Iraq away from there when there is a lthreat there to deal with? Wouldn't it be wiser to use resources on hand back in the United States to send to Afghanistan instead of stripping US forces involved in security task in the persian gulf region that is vital to the whole planet?

2. Do you realize that many of the weapon systems and combat units used in the invasion and occupation of Iraq are not suited for operations in much of Afghanistan do to the mountainous terrain? In addition, do to Afghanistan being land locked which requires most US combat weapon systems to be airlifted in, it meant that sending heavy armored divisions(which have a large logistical tail) to Afghanistan would be extremely taxing on the United States limited air lift capacity.


Far better to send units that are equipped for operations in Afghanistan's mountainous terrain and are available back in the United States than to strip heavy armor units from a threatened region in the persian gulf and send them into an environment they are not ideally suited for, and is difficult to provide for them logistiically.
Is there even a remote possibility that I might change your mind or even get you to reconsider your position if I were to answer these questions? Because, if not, I don't suppose there's any point in me responding to your questions.

I think it's enough that we establish the point I was making. You disagree with it and I acknowledge that and that's all there is to it.
__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 05:43 PM   #34
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 02:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Anyone who is seriously concerned about US foreign policy would not regard the issue of number of units, money, resources deployed to one area or another to be a trivial issue.
Anyone who is interested in productive, rational debate would not regard pedantry as a worthwhile tactic.
__________________
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 06:58 PM   #35
Refugee
 
The_Pac_Mule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,342
Local Time: 03:23 AM
Quote:
1. Why direct the resources being used on Iraq away from there when there is a lthreat there to deal with? Wouldn't it be wiser to use resources on hand back in the United States to send to Afghanistan instead of stripping US forces involved in security task in the persian gulf region that is vital to the whole planet?

2. Do you realize that many of the weapon systems and combat units used in the invasion and occupation of Iraq are not suited for operations in much of Afghanistan do to the mountainous terrain? In addition, do to Afghanistan being land locked which requires most US combat weapon systems to be airlifted in, it meant that sending heavy armored divisions(which have a large logistical tail) to Afghanistan would be extremely taxing on the United States limited air lift capacity.


Far better to send units that are equipped for operations in Afghanistan's mountainous terrain and are available back in the United States than to strip heavy armor units from a threatened region in the persian gulf and send them into an environment they are not ideally suited for, and is difficult to provide for them logistiically.
I'm thinking he's talking about man-power. If all the soldiers deployed to Iraq went to Afghanistan instead, the war could very well be over. I think that's what he's trying to say.
__________________
The_Pac_Mule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 07:57 PM   #36
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 03:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule View Post
I'm thinking he's talking about man-power. If all the soldiers deployed to Iraq went to Afghanistan instead, the war could very well be over. I think that's what he's trying to say.
It's okay. It's not going to do any good. It's not possible to have a rational discussion on this topic with this poster.
__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 01:32 AM   #37
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
Anyone who is interested in productive, rational debate would not regard pedantry as a worthwhile tactic.
Do you think the Obama administration, members of the United States congress, the military, the State Department are pedantic because they discuss in rather precise terms how many troops should be devoted to one area vs another, how much money, how much resources?

All the rational and productive debate on these issues involves discussions of troops levels, money, and resources etc.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 01:35 AM   #38
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
It's okay. It's not going to do any good. It's not possible to have a rational discussion on this topic with this poster.
Wow, a specific personal remark about another member of the forum, yet no mention at all from the authorities.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 01:45 AM   #39
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 02:23 AM
Wow, a personal remark directed towards "the authorities."

I've asked you before not to play forum hall monitor. Report the post if you find it offensive.
__________________
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 01:47 AM   #40
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule View Post
I'm thinking he's talking about man-power. If all the soldiers deployed to Iraq went to Afghanistan instead, the war could very well be over. I think that's what he's trying to say.
Well, that still wouldn't address the first point I made. With the 2nd point, you have to realize members of the US military specialize in certain fields like Artillery, Armor or infantry. Your not going to take a tank crew and put them on foot hiking up a mountain in Afghanistan.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 01:53 AM   #41
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 02:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
you have to realize members of the US military specialize in certain fields like Artillery, Armor or infantry. Your not going to take a tank crew and put them on foot hiking up a mountain in Afghanistan.
Do you honestly think that anyone here doesn't know that? Or that anyone here was attempting to argue for that?
__________________
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 02:08 AM   #42
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
Do you honestly think that anyone here doesn't know that? Or that anyone here was attempting to argue for that?
Well, look at what The_Pac_Mule said:

Quote:
I'm thinking he's talking about man-power. If all the soldiers deployed to Iraq went to Afghanistan instead
I simply explained why you can't do that.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 10:06 AM   #43
Refugee
 
The_Pac_Mule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,342
Local Time: 03:23 AM
Quote:
Well, that still wouldn't address the first point I made. With the 2nd point, you have to realize members of the US military specialize in certain fields like Artillery, Armor or infantry. Your not going to take a tank crew and put them on foot hiking up a mountain in Afghanistan.
It was a pretty general statement yes. But I am well aware of how the military works, I signed up for the Marines and am shipping out to Paris Island next year. But the fact is, the majority of our forces are infantry, or of an infantry-based MOS who can do just as much good in Afghanistan than Iraq.
__________________
The_Pac_Mule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 01:22 PM   #44
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule View Post
It was a pretty general statement yes. But I am well aware of how the military works, I signed up for the Marines and am shipping out to Paris Island next year. But the fact is, the majority of our forces are infantry, or of an infantry-based MOS who can do just as much good in Afghanistan than Iraq.
In the Marines that is true, but in the Army which has the overwhelming majority of the United States ground combat units, that was not so at the start of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Of the 10 active US divisions in the United States Army in 2003, 6 were heavy armored or mechanized divisions, the armored divisions having 6 tank battalions for a total of 348 tanks and the mechanized divisions having 5 tank battalions for a total of 290 tanks. The number of infantry battalions in in the Armor divisions was 4, while it was 5 for the mechanized divisions. But these were infantry battalions were considered "heavy" as opposed to "light, because they used the 35 ton Bradley fighting vehicle. In addition, each division both armored and mechanized had 5 artillery battalions which consisted of heavy self-propelled 155 mm howitzers, the Palidin, and the MLRS rocket launch system.

So 60% of the active army at the time of the Iraq invasion was composed of heavy units that required sea lift for transportation instead of air lift in order to get to the theater of operations, and were obviously unsuited for operations in many parts of Afghanistan.

Each division has three combat brigades. All 3 armored calvery regiments in the army at the time of the invasion were "heavy armored" as well. Each is about the equilivant of a brigade.

So the Army's 33 combat brigades could be broken down as follows in terms of heavy vs light at the start of the 2003 invasion of Iraq:

Heavy: 21 combat brigades
Light: 12 combat brigades.

At the end of the Cold War in 1991 when the Army was larger, it had 62 combat brigades and the ratio of Heavy combat brigades to light was as follows:

Heavy: 44 combat brigades
Light: 18 combat brigades


The 38 combat brigades of the US Army National Guard had a similar ratio of heavy forces vs light forces at the time of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.

The Active Marine corp has 3 MEF's each of which are the equilivant of about 3 or 4 US Army brigades. They are mainly light in that there is usually only one tank battalion per MEF, although the US Marine MEF used in the invasion o Iraq in 2003 was up armored with multiple tank battalions.

The Marine reserves only have 1 MEF.

So, combining the US Active Army brigades, US Army National Guard Brigades, and Marine/Marine Reserve equilivant you come out with the following at the time of the US invasion of Iraq:

Active Army: 33 Combat Brigades(21 heavy, 12 light)
Army National Guard: 38 combat brigades(24 heavy, 14 light)
Active Marine Corp: 3 MEF's or 12 combat brigades(roughly 1 heavy, 11 light)
Marine Reserive: 1 MEF or 4 combat brigades(Light)

Total ratio of heavy vs light at the time of the 2003 invasion:

Heavy combat brigades: 46
Light combat brigades: 41

So even when considering the lighter forces of the Marine Corp, the majority of US combat forces at the time of the 2003 invasion of Iraq were "heavy armored" and not ideally suited for operations in much of Afghanistan, without even considering the difficulty of moving them into the country.

In addition, the mix of forces on the ground in Kuwait that invaded Iraq in 2003 were heavy armored. The Marine MEF was up armored with more armor battalions(M1 tanks) and other heavy equipment. The US Army division was a mechanized division with 290 M1-A2 tanks that each weight nearly 70 tons and the infantry was equipped with the relatively heavy M2 bradley fighting vehicles coming in at 35 tons.

The other major heavy armor unit used in the invasion was the 1st British Armored division equipped with several hundred Challenger 2 tanks weighing over 60 tons and Warrior fighting vehicles for the infantry with a similar weight to the US Bradley.

The only truely light units in the invasion, the 101st Airborne division and a single brigade of the 82nd Airborne division were primarily held back in reserve and followed the armor units into Iraq. These were the only major combat units without any heavy tanks or infantry combat vehicles that would be suited for military operations in any part of Afganistan.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 03:10 PM   #45
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 03:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Wow, a specific personal remark about another member of the forum, yet no mention at all from the authorities.
Did I insult you? There are topics I'm sure it's difficult to have a rational discussion with me about. I'm assuming you are a human being and thus are not always purely rational. On this topic, there is absolutely no budging you, correct? What is the point of pursuing discussion under those circumstances?
__________________

__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com