Current War = Early UFC ?

[Vapour]

Firstly, this post is not about whether this war is justified or not. So if that is your game, please go to other threads, which are plenty. My question is effectiveness of U.S. to enage in ground warfare.

Firstly, read this link.

http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news082.htm

Do you think U.S. is like those strikers who had lot of flashy kick tricks but got easily owned by grappler in early UFC?

There is no question that U.S. has the air superiority against any military force. But U.S. has no proven record in ground fighting. The last major one being Vietnam which U.S. lost. I'm not sure Panama and Granada count. It's like 5th dan TKD guy braging the superiority of TKD because he won against judo yellow belt.

[ZIM]

That's a tricky question. Are you referring to training in hand-to-hand combat? The current training looks like BJJ. (http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/3-25.150/ch3.htm) This is odd, when you factor in alice packs- I hope that we'll find out if it works, but not at the cost of US lives.

If you're referring to ground wars versus THIS enemy, consider that arab armies typically lose (http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amdipl_17/articles/deatkine_arabs1.html) versus non-arab armies- for very particular reasons.

OTOH, many in those cultures DO tend to have ... intimacy?... with knife fighting and hand-to-hand, infiltration, often enough. The 'average' american does not, on the whole- our infantry tends to rely on teamwork and guns, just as they should. This maybe is what you're referring to?

Our greatest advantage is our superb NCO corps, IMO. We fight as we train, and I feel that we do a much better job than many. Also, we do have a long tradition of hunting and gun ownership [crime too] in our favor.

[SLC]

"But U.S. has no proven record in ground fighting. The last major one being Vietnam which U.S. lost. I'm not sure Panama and Granada count."

You're skipping a lot of ground fighting history:
Civil War
WWI
WWII
Korea

In addition, Vietnam was not lost on the battlefield, it was lost by the politicians at a time when we were winning on the battlefield.

I agree, the little ones in Panama and Grenada don't prove too much. Kosovo was an abberation... air war without ground war.

Desert Storm was pretty amazing, though very short.

The real question is not the Army's ground fighting capability so much as it is the American people's willingness to endure the casualties ground fighting causes. That really depends on the "cause" that the fighting is about.

[LEGEND]

The site is obviously against bias against the US and is actually a RUSSIAN site.

I'm vietnamese and u guys won the battles but politicians tied your hands. They never allowed you to invade North Vietnam and take Hanoi in which u prob. could have done in a month! It's a sad case of allowing politicians to run a war. Let the generals make the decision.

[scotty1]

Only a true martial artist would make an analogy between the war and the first UFC.

[dezhen2001]

LOL scotty1! :D
hope you are enjoying china mate :)

dawood

[Vapour]

This site tend to have better reporting than main media. Many thing which was reported in this site tend to be confirmed later by main media. The site tend to explain the reason behind allied force's movement far better than media.

Given the Russia's relationship with Iraq or U.S. I would assume that it is in Russia's political advantage if U.S. face sustained opposition from Iraq. However, it seems that public opinion of Eastern Europe of this war is more to do with "What's in it for us" rather than "Would this war justified or not?".

On account of Vietnam, well.... it would have been better if I said the last proper ground warfare America fought was Vietnam rather than saying only proven record of America's engagement in ground warfare was Vietnam.

On account of public not the army which lost Vietnam War, the majority of American public was in support of the war right up to the end of the war. Poll after poll show strong public support for the war. Unfortunately, it become apparent to the military that you cannot defeat enemy which decided not to give up and has support of larger Vietnamese public where they hid and engaged in guerrila warfare.

On account of America not crossing the border, that was very sensible thing. They didn't want to repeat Korea.

[Vapour]

I've seen enough history books with ideological spin both from left and right. If it is wrtten by left, spin is "American Imperialism/Capitalism are Evil". If it if from right it is usually to do with "We didn't loose war, someone else did"

Tendency in these type of books is to pick historical evidence which support their politics and discard the one which contradict their assertion. Funny thing is that people who read books on Vietname tend to do the same. They pick the one they like and call the others crap.

The problem with Vietnam was that U.S. could not isolate Vietnam from China's support nor U.S. wish to repeate the mistake of Korean War where direct military intervention of China had decisive influence. Any history book which fail to discuss the merit or demerit of u.s. decision not to cross the border and instead try to place blakcet blame on politicians and american public is not a legit book on Vietnam War.

[Vapour]

Oh, one more thing.

http://www.worth1000.com/cache/gallery/contestcache.asp?contest_id=597

:)

[Souljah]

"You should see Vietnam today.
It's nothing. ....A piece of dirt.
Cheapest hookers in the world . A guy can buy 3 women all night for 4 bucks.
Thats the legacy of communism."


I dont think you can seriously call it communism there, as I have said before and WILL say again, these people have their own adgenda that they want to tie to communism - its not communism! No practical form of communism has ever been witnessed and I dont think it ever will - human nature prevents us from living by its basic principles.

As for vietnam being a peice of dirt, you may be right but they didnt get to being that way all on their own doing and you know that.

greg

[LEGEND]

"The problem with Vietnam was that U.S. could not isolate Vietnam from China's support nor U.S. wish to repeate the mistake of Korean War where direct military intervention of China had decisive influence."

No this is more of prediction. Yes JFK and Lyndon Johnson did fear an invasion of N. Vietnam may have brought in the Chinese. But that is the RISK of international conflict. The fact remains that this type of fear didn't end up with a neutral seperated vietnam. It ended up with the fall of Saigon in which my people now are all over the states, Austrialia, Canada and France. The only thang is for sure is that Vietnam is the equivalent of a basketcase country.

[Kinjit]

Am I the only one who finds it offensive when people sum up a whole country with comments such as "a piece of dirt"...

[ZIM]

leave it be. he's still mad cuz he got a very cheap dose of clap. :p

[Chang Style Novice]

"Never get in a ground war in Asia!"
-Wallace Shawn in The Princess Bride

[Souljah]

:( no your not

[Chang Style Novice]

The Princess Bride quote was just smartarsin', not intended as a real critique.

[Kinjit]

OK, I see your point now and agree. I have been there and the poverty is quite depressing. Still, it's a very interesting country to travel in and I would go so far as to say their food is better than chinese. :)

[Laughing Cow]

NYerRoman.

Trying to get his back on topic.

Don't know much about the UFC or similar.

IMO, the US has a tendency to rely too much on superior air-power and technology which I think will nip them in the butt this time round.
The middle east and it's people are completely different terrain and warfare than the US has fought so far.

The Weather and surroundings over there are less than friendly and this in the long run will play havoc with the US high-tech stuff or cost a small fortune to keep it working.
Also most high-tech stuff is designed to counter/attack other high-tech stuff.

The current Opponent as most middle-easterns are tough and hard fighters, they been doing it for a loong time amongst themselves and invaders.

Once they start fighting they don't roll over easy and sit down for a peace-chat.

Yes, the coalition forces will pre-vail in the end, but it will be long and costly struggle.
And than there is still the aftermath of the war to content with.

THAT, IMHO, will be nastier and longer-lasting than the current US goverment is planning, those guys won't just accept an outside goverment(even interim) or imposed rules & restrictions easily.

It could end up as Iraqi's vs their rescuers.

Cheers.

[Vapour]

No vietnam. No problem.

Firstly, no historian would take history book available from bookstore seriously.

From what I can see from your comments, the book you have read seems to have very straight forward narrative in which everyting are explained to the readers as if it is a story book. Unfortunately the fact that someone can explain/narrate something is no proof that its claims are valid.

Another thing which is apparent from your narration of the books is that the book(s) don't seem to bother to examine the primaly source which contradict his claim, not to mention the fact that he seems to have very few source to base his claim. I don't have to go to book store tomorrow to find that there are numerous books which has opposite view/conclusion from the book(s) you read, and I won't be suprised if these book(s) also souce their argument from "recently declassified material", which often are not so secret, not to mention the numerous ommision involved in the quote which become apparent if I examined the source by myself.

There are whole arts involved in critical apraisal of the primary sources in history. To even write a 30 page paper, an academic historian often quote numerous different sources of material. To make sence out of complex and often contradictory sources is agonising process. To write a book would often take nearly 100s of different source material and years or even a decade of work. If someone would base his claim on very few or sometimes only one source, you should consider the book as edutaiment book.

I'm sorry that my initial proposition was half-baked. Though it is a historical constancy that guerrila warfare involving civilians has always been near impossible to fight against unless one employ scorched earth tactics, I certainly didn't want to bother to write loooooong comment on history of ground combat capability of U.S.. I could certainly up the standard of debate here but that would be exceedingly boring and pointless. After all, this is a martial arts forum.

My argument here is not to convince you that you should switch to lefty view on history. In practice all the vietnam books you can buy from book store are "Vietname War for Dummy" type book. Serious historical work is very boring to read and would never sell in bookstore. Therefore, you should seriously avoid drawing any conclusion(s) from book you read.

Lastly, we are going to find out the result of the war one way or another. That goes the same with the credibility of that Russian site, though, so far, I'm impressed with information this site provide.

I just thought this is an interesting issue to point out, not to mention the interesting analogy with UFC. Btw, I still believe that U.S. has good chance of eventually capturing Bagdhad. Whether they can keep occupying Iraq is another matter.

[Vapour]

Oh as of politicians messing up war effort, here are examples.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,925140,00.html

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=615&e=7&u=/nm/20030329/pl_nm/iraq_usa_report_dc_2

[ZIM]

LC wrote: Yes, the coalition forces will pre-vail in the end, but it will be long and costly struggle. And than there is still the aftermath of the war to content with.
--------------------

I was wondering if you're going to offer a prediction, eh? 6 weeks? months? Maybe ballpark the cost, etc? Which division[s] do you think will reach Baghdad first? C'mon, it's ghastly sure, but what else to do?

Vapour- have you done formal training in history? It looks like you have by your comments [which are rather good].

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by ZIM

I was wondering if you're going to offer a prediction, eh? 6 weeks? months? Maybe ballpark the cost, etc? Which division[s] do you think will reach Baghdad first? C'mon, it's ghastly sure, but what else to do?

Reluctant to offer any specific figures as I am not too knowledgable about the US Army and it's divisions.

I think it will take atleast 6 months to oust the current goverment.
Hussein will not be taken alive or even caught, is my estimation.
Maybe another 6 ~12 month to bring the country to a stable state and prevent infighting among the different factions.

Followed by 2~3 yrs of occupation to build a new interim goverment.
In total I see the coalition forces there for 3~5yrs, with 1 yr dedicated to pacifying Iraq.

At the moment the cost for the war is an estimated 75 billion, I think that the figure will atleast double if not triple.
60% of the Iraqi population relied on foreign aid before the war, this figure I think might get as high as 80%.

And here lies potentialy a big problem unless the coalition forces can build infrastructure and supply enough goods to feed, clothes, etc the Iraqi people.

Just some thoughts from the top of my head.

[ZIM]

A very complete answer, for a top-of-the-head thing.

I'm not ready myself to go into that detail... I'm saying [right now] 6-8 weeks for it all to be done with as far as the media is concerned, then 2-6 more months to stabilize, & 2 more to get it all unstable again [ie, terrorists really start up]. Then it stays like that.

SH may/may not be taken, i don't know. The remnant of his government will probably escape towards the Iranian hills, there to plot.... US spec forces will follow, but we won't hear about it.

2~3 years occupation? If run like Belfast/NI, sure- and thats probly the only realistic way to do it. You may be right in this...just saw who might be running it. (http://www.observer.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,925309,00.html)

[rogue]

Firstly, no historian would take history book available from bookstore seriously. Usually because they didn't sell that many books themselves.:D

[Vapour]

Originally posted by Stumblefist
Vapour i saw you posted something about Vietnam.
Whatever it was i didn't read it.
Usually i look for whatever possible truth.
But i've had enough of that recently.
I don't want to get caught up in your mental quagmire.

............
post funny links
Is better

I bet £20 that you've read my comment but decided to claim you didn't read it. 0\/\/3N3D. :D

[Stranger]

Firstly, no historian would take history book available from bookstore seriously.

:confused:

[Vapour]

Originally posted by Stranger


:confused:

Just because you read "Brief History of Time" by Steven Hawkins available from bookstore doesn not allow you to make a claim that you know physics. Though I would assume that content of the book is scientifically sound, the book is written for entertainment and would not help you pass even high school physics. Majority of professional physicist don't ever bother to read "Brief History of Time" though some of them sure have read academic papers written by Hawking. And you never be able to buy those collection of academic papers by SH in bookstore.

There is a Professor of economic history I know of who specialise in American cotton trade. He went to somewhere in Boston archive and for 3 years, categorised, recorded and counted each receipt/bills 6 days a week from morning to evening. His work is a masterpiece in term of deligency and considered as a definitive work regarding the state of American cotton trade of that particluar period. Also, the work is mindnumbingly boring to read and will never be sold in commercial bookstore.

[Stranger]

OK, are you speaking in general terms? I know that for serious research you go the primary sources, and I'll grant you that most of the material in book stores could be viewed as light history or historical entertainment, but are you suggesting that no books of historical merit find their way into commercial bookstores? Surely you are not saying that ALL books in commercial bookstores would be considered by historians light reading unworthy of serious consideration?

[Chang Style Novice]

I got Jared Diamond's "Germs Guns and Steel" in a Barnes and Noble. It got all kinds of prestigious awards and is a darn good read. Sure, it's not exactly an academic tome, but there's no rule that says books have to be boring to be informative and insightful.