Comments on: With friends like NATO…

By: J.J. formerly Jimmy J.

J.J. formerly Jimmy J. — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 03:30:44 +0000

SfSL,
You’re right. I had forgotten that. It was effective in that the Iraqis surrendered in droves after being pounded in their desert redoubts. The surgical strikes at Baghdad and Kuwait City did not have much effect on Saddam and his resolve. The tanks and infantry that assaulted the Iraqis were the ultimate answer until – we stopped short.

Now, of course, carpet bombing a city is against the Geneva Conventions. No more WWII type war. Now it’s boots on the ground and genteel rules of engagement. Of course terrorism in the name of your religion is now considered okay because – the religion isn’t Christianity. Islamic terrorists target civilians, which violates the Geneva Conventions as well. But according to people like Eric Holder, they are still subject to due process of our civil laws and all protections there under. Give me a break!

By: Stan from Sugar Land

Stan from Sugar Land — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 02:35:17 +0000

J.J – Review Bush I during Gulf War I and see how the 52’s were used.

By: Richard Aubrey

Richard Aubrey — Sat, 09 Apr 2011 20:46:24 +0000

During the Market Garden op, toward Arnhem, the Brits had large numbers of ground attack aircraft available to support the ground forces. Unfortunately, the radios in the aircraft had been left with the training frequencies while the ground controllers had the operational frequencies. They could not talk to each other. The pilots were forbidden to strike without positive ground control, which meant not at all. Big story behind that, you can bet.
The breakout at St. Lo was preceded by two heavy bombing strikes by US bombers on US troops.
My father’s regimental HQ was bombed by US aircraft.
Blue on blue has been a feature of war since somebody threw a rock.
And the stuff and guys on the ground have every incentive to be unremarkable, to hide, to look like mud and trees and buildings. Telling them apart is nearly impossible. Triple for guys in the air.
Communication is necessary and there wasn’t any.
One rebel bunch was bombed because, in the fashion of middle eastern armed men, they were celebrating something by shooting, including tracers, up in the air. Some guy in the sky thought it was hostile fire. Nope. Just stupid fire.
Darwin will win.

By: Hong

Hong — Sat, 09 Apr 2011 19:45:35 +0000

Hilarious. Let there be more ‘friendly’ and unfriendly attacks. They all suck.

By: expat

expat — Sat, 09 Apr 2011 19:01:13 +0000

An elephant (or perhaps a platypus) is a horse designed by a committee. What do we do next: form a committee.

By: J.J. formerly Jimmy J.

J.J. formerly Jimmy J. — Sat, 09 Apr 2011 17:41:21 +0000

You can’t make this stuff up.

I thought we learned in Vietnam that “surgical” air strikes aren’t effective. The only thing that gets a ground force’s attention is repeated heavy carpet bombing with the attendant and regrettable collateral damage. The General LeMay approach. Of course we haven’t used that tactic since Nixon turned the B-52s loss on Hanoi.

The only time I can remember when “surgical” strikes seemed to work was in Kosovo. That was a fluke, IMO. Remember “shock and awe?” It barely ruffled Saddam’s feathers. It took ground forces to do him in. Same is true of Khaddafi. But that is off the table. The rules of the game have already turned Libya into a no-win trap for NATO and the West. Aaarrgghh!

By: rickl

rickl — Sat, 09 Apr 2011 16:26:27 +0000

So what's stopping Moammar "I can spell it any way I want to" Khadaffy from painting his vehicles pink?