Quote Originally Posted by Cavguy View Post
Going to play devil's advocate here -

Is it always necessary to pursue and finish the fight, usually ending w/ a bomb?

I was in a firefight once, had insurgents in a house. Wounded one of my guys. Decided to charge in after supression, got one of my guys killed and another wounded. Wound up bombing the house. Killed about half of a family next door too.

A few weeks later council member Tankersteve was in the same situation about a klick away. He surrounded the house until the insurgent gave up.

I'll pick his solution. I have seen it often where we resort to firepower when other, less lethal options, would do.

I'm not saying it's good for every case, but often our firepower has replaced the use of good tactics and innovative thinking to solve problems. As FM 3-24 says, "sometimes the best action is to do nothing". Keyword "sometimes".

Another way to think about it - should the cops level your house because criminals take refuge in it?

Just feeling contrary tonight.
I am with you Devil

Tony doing something about fires taken from a village does not mean you need to bomb the village or ignore it.

Ken, I will disagree with you on this one. This has been overdue and we have been dancing with the effects for several years now.

Blackjack putting it in terms of running away from the fight is throwing an emotional issue in on top of an already complicated tactical fight. That you cannot prove they are civilians does not make them targets.

Wilf, again I will finish my disagreement here with the simple statement that civilians in a counterinsurgency fight are friendly meaning that civilian casualties are friendly casualties.

Tom