Combat Outpost Penetrated in Afghanistan, 9 dead

[Cole]

Col. James H. Johnson III was recently relieved of command of the 173rd Airborne Brigade in Italy. He had been in command since 2008 and I believe he was in command when the engagement at Wanat took place. There's a Stars & Stripes story about it in today's SWJ news roundup.

Nah Pete, COL Johnson replaced COL Charles Preysler in October 2008. The battle of Wanat was July 13, 2008.

Nothing new here. I have personally employed the final (and earlier) CSI study for training, and feel it has extraordinary value in that context.

Believe it unfortunate that many terminated FCS items originally part of the Early Infantry Brigade Combat Team would have greatly assisted OP Topside and the main vehicle patrol base by providing better RSTA of deadspace, hotel and bazaar interiors, and exterior perimeters near OP Topside and COP Kahler. Same for COP Keating a year later in October 2009.

NLOS-LS and other planned UAS would have been highly effective, if perfected. The concepts were sound...the execution, IMHO sucked, probably primarily due to the network. Unfortunately the money is probably gone to AirSea battle concepts. The Army loses once again in efforts to provide the same asymmetric advantages already offered other services.

[Fuchs]

Are you referring to the remote ground sensors?

Afaik the video version was a sad joke in comparison to cheap civilian gadgets and all versions had terrible battery endurance.


There's a huge difference between military equipment for a few weeks of action and military equipment for years of occupation. Those unmanned grounds sensors clearly belonged into the former category.

[Cole]

Are you referring to the remote ground sensors?

Afaik the video version was a sad joke in comparison to cheap civilian gadgets and all versions had terrible battery endurance.


There's a huge difference between military equipment for a few weeks of action and military equipment for years of occupation. Those unmanned grounds sensors clearly belonged into the former category.

The real question is whether it conceptually made sense to have urban and tactical unattended ground sensors, plus UAS and ground combat vehicles at lower tactical echelons. The now terminated NLOS-Launch System would have had a smaller blast radius and greater precision than the 155mm at Camp Blessing 5 miles to the south.

Properly executed, WITHOUT the FCS-specific network problems associated with all FCS systems, the concept made sense for dismounted units. Perhaps it was less necessary for mounted units with good organic vehicle sensors and more frequent movement.

The small unmanned ground vehicle remains and can perform some functions the unattended sensors would have performed. Batteries are cheap and getting better and small fuel cells are coming. Believe aerostats also perform a similar function as small UAS and unattended sensors. But those are less realistic when longer term COPs/FOBs are not in play.

But then we Americans are stupid. I live in shame for the wanton destruction of the few Libyan air defense systems and their operators who threatened allied aviators. Because I have a half German wife, I concede your point about the direct and obvious parallel between the Holocaust and German aggression in Europe in WWII and NATO's recent "aggression" in Libya.

[Fuchs]

But then we Americans are stupid. I live in shame for the wanton destruction of the few Libyan air defense systems and their operators who threatened allied aviators. Because I have a half German wife, I concede your point about the direct and obvious parallel between the Holocaust and German aggression in Europe in WWII and NATO's recent "aggression" in Libya.

Indeed, you didn't get anything.
Your primitive response shows how hopelessly far away you're from at least understanding the problem.

The very thought that you're too far away from atrocities is the problem. You're not. You're already one foot in.
The attitude is the problem. It can easily be exploited. It only takes some propaganda to push you over because your attitude is already ripe for it.
You'd be a willing tool if you were in a ethical challenge as others were in many, many conflicts before.


And don't use a false quote for a straw man. I call out attempts to use a straw man argument quite frequently.

[Cole]

And don't use a false quote for a straw man.

Your attempt at making a mountain over the-attack-of-Libyan-air-defenses molehill, followed by the statement below, would lead most observers to infer your implication of some equivalence with your nation's WWII aggression:

Several generations ago, hundreds of thousands of mostly very competent - and in some cases highly experiences - officers were wrong. They fought for victory. They failed their men, they failed their profession, they failed their country and they failed humanity.

This is an experience that added to my country's and our armed services' collective wisdom. It's not about victory alone, not by a long call. Decades of sitting on a potential battlefield with our very own allies plotting my nation's annihilation with nuclear weapons helped us not to forget this.

Flawed correlation aside, your initial mea culpa could not resist a parting shot at allies protecting you during the Cold War. Your implication that the U.S. would devastate then East Germany with small tactical nukes (and Carter's less destructive Neutron bombs) ignores that just as in WWII, the USSR would have devasted Germany far more if they had stormed conventionally across all Germany and Europe with a subsequent occupation. If that had occurred, instead of being the 4th largest economy in the world, today your entire country would resemble East Germany of the 80s.

I have never understood how smart people could have been suckered by Hitler, or let him take power. The current aversion to any form of aggression is equally puzzling because Germans typically are anything but passive personalities. Then I read this and more became clear:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...5/stage_fright

[Fuchs]

Your attempt at making a mountain over the-attack-of-Libyan-air-defenses molehill, followed by the statement below, would lead most observers to infer your implication of some equivalence with your nation's WWII aggression:

"Several generations ago, hundreds of thousands of mostly very competent - and in some cases highly experiences - officers were wrong. They fought for victory. They failed their men, they failed their profession, they failed their country and they failed humanity."

"This is an experience that added to my country's and our armed services' collective wisdom. It's not about victory alone, not by a long call.
Decades of sitting on a potential battlefield with our very own allies plotting my nation's annihilation with nuclear weapons helped us not to forget this."

Flawed correlation aside, your initial mea culpa could not resist a parting shot at allies protecting you during the Cold War. Your implication that the U.S. would devastate then East Germany with small tactical nukes (and Carter's less destructive Neutron bombs) ignores that just as in WWII, the USSR would have devasted Germany far more if they had stormed conventionally across all Germany and Europe with a subsequent occupation. If that had occurred, instead of being the 4th largest economy in the world, today your entire country would resemble East Germany of the 80s.

I have never understood how smart people could have been suckered by Hitler, or let him take power. The current aversion to any form of aggression is equally puzzling because Germans typically are anything but passive personalities. Then I read this and more became clear:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...5/stage_fright

A did B, C did B. A still did B, no matter what C did. Period.

Besides - the planning wasn't only about "East German" cities. Like the French, the U.S. forces had no problem with using nukes on West German territory in war games.There was a major NATO war game at SHAPE in the eighties that was aborted when German representatives left it in protest over Americans simulating genocide against Germans.
It should also be noted that 4/5ths Germany protected the West more than the West protected it while 1/5th of Germany wasn't protected by the West at all. 12 of 26 divisions in Germany were German divisions. Add in the huge quantity of reservists of the territorial force and the result is that West Germany provided the majority of NATO land power in Central Europe during the Cold War.
Meanwhile, most of the U.S. contribution were forces beyond the Atlantic, which could impossibly have arrived in time to protect Germans.

And that ####ty article is relevant how? I've delivered the arguments, and I'm not exactly known as a fearful person. Nor does the article even mention the official reason for the non-vote, or is anyhow related to my opinion on the attitude of some other SWC members.

The so-called "correlation" only seems flawed to you because -again- you don't get it. You feel too far away, too secure from the risk of ever being challenged ethically. You're too unprepared.


Feel free to open another thread for the continuation of this topic so I can ignore that one, for I won't wage a pointless forum civil war here anyway.

[Pete]

At a very low level I used to be involved in what Fuchs is alluding to regarding the defense of West Germany during the Cold War. I understand Fuch's point of view and had similar conversations about this very subject with German friends when I was stationed there. Hopefully this thread will not become too heated an exchange.