For Nco's and Officers

Good Morning all,
I appreciate this may be and is Painful for you.

I know you may have been asked this all ready, but if you had to do it all
over again how would you change you tactics, Given that Politicos would not
have such an involvement...
For e.g. would you use a more hearts and minds approach, do you think that
the 12 month rotation was such a good idea, now that troops had good combat
experience.
Would you for e.g. have small groups of special forces calling in Intel
Airstrikes Artillery left in the field.

Many thanks
Robert


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

Grab the motherfuckers by their balls and their "Hearts and Minds" will
follow meekly behind. Somebody ought grab Tony Blurr by his chickpea size
nuts and drag his ass clear of the "European Union" bullshit before the
bloody goddamn froggies and the Hun own England by default.

--

"The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before
them, glory and danger alike, and notwithstanding go out to meet it."-
Thucydides


"Robert Lewis Md" wrote in message
news:brscnp$c6b$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
> Good Morning all,
> I appreciate this may be and is Painful for you.
>
> I know you may have been asked this all ready, but if you had to do it all
> over again how would you change you tactics, Given that Politicos would
not
> have such an involvement...
> For e.g. would you use a more hearts and minds approach, do you think that
> the 12 month rotation was such a good idea, now that troops had good
combat
> experience.
> Would you for e.g. have small groups of special forces calling in Intel
> Airstrikes Artillery left in the field.
>
> Many thanks
> Robert
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003
>
>

Why is it ' Painful ? ' I do regret we never Invaded the
North.

What does this have to do with my Tactics ?
You have some hidden agenda here ?

Yes, Not SF, but SOF types only where needed.
The War was NOT just fought in Vietnam, I do assume
you mean Vietnam since its awv.

"Robert Lewis Md" wrote in message news:brscnp$c6b$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
> Good Morning all,
> I appreciate this may be and is Painful for you.
>
> I know you may have been asked this all ready, but if you had to do it all
> over again how would you change you tactics, Given that Politicos would not
> have such an involvement...
> For e.g. would you use a more hearts and minds approach, do you think that
> the 12 month rotation was such a good idea, now that troops had good combat
> experience.
> Would you for e.g. have small groups of special forces calling in Intel
> Airstrikes Artillery left in the field.
>
> Many thanks
> Robert
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003
>
>

"Robert Lewis Md" wrote in
> Good Morning all,...........and is Painful for you.
> ..... but if you had to do it all over again
> how would you change you tactics,

You raise a host of separate questions.
Volumes have been & will be written about them.
Important lessons were learned.
Some will have to be relearned, some discarded.

I will barely touch on a few, from my observation.

-- Given that Politicos would not have such an involvement...

The Johnson White House got quite involved in the
minutia. Most Presidents since have tried more to
stick to the bigger picture, and properly delegate
the details to the professionals appointed to properly
make them.
There is no exact perfect line. Each case and each
personality is unique. However I think it very unlikely
that in the future, once we are involved in combat,
the White House will demand that level of prior
approval of airstrikes, and ground maneuvers.

My personal belief is that overall, Nixon, Reagan,
Bush, & Bush, have tended more to state the goals,
and delegate the details. No trend is always perfect.
By dealing in details, delays etc. can cause problems.
By delegating, subordinates can make mistakes.
(and in final end "the buck stops here.")

> For e.g. would you use a more hearts and minds approach,

--do you think that the 12 month rotation was such a good idea,
--now that troops had good combat experience.

I believe I understand how the 12 month rotation came to be,
but it had a number of real bad consequences,
and is unlikely to be repeated.
Military units are made up of individuals working together.
They should train together as a unit, and work together
to accomplish their mission. Individuals are not simple
mass produced parts. Individual relationships do make
a difference.
The 12 month rotation tended to make surviving 12
months the main objective. (poorly stated but ?,
I am not sure how to explain better right now and
I will send this as is.)

> Would you for e.g. have small groups of special forces calling in Intel
> Airstrikes Artillery left in the field.
>
> Many thanks
> Robert

> know you may have been asked this all ready, but if you had to do it all
>over again how would you change you tactics,

The tanks would have rolled into Hanoi very early in the war and we'd later
find Ho Chi Minh hiding in a tunnel.

What? Oh! NCOs and Officers. Excuse me.

- LMAO

Greg

"Don T" wrote
> Grab the motherfuckers by their balls and their "Hearts and Minds" will
> follow meekly behind. Somebody ought grab Tony Blurr by his chickpea size
> nuts and drag his ass clear of the "European Union" bullshit before the
> bloody goddamn froggies and the Hun own England by default.
>
> --


Amen to that, Don! I can't understand why Dubya hasn't put pressure on
Blurr to cut loose from the quagmire of the EU long before now. France and
Germany nailed their colours to the mast when the Iraq crisis blew up.
They are anti-American and have no stomach for a fight nor any intention of
putting their people in harm's way - unless of course there's billions of
dollars in reconstruction contracts on offer. They hate the fact the UK
continually act independently of the EU - as in our much condemned
participation in the Iraq war. They are intent on driving a wedge between
the US and UK. To address this "problem" of member states doing their own
thing, they recently announced they intend appointing a Foreign Affairs
Minister whose decisions on foreign policy will be binding on ALL member
states, thereby preventing us from acting alone and giving our support to
the US in any future wars without their permission (which of course will
never be forthcoming because (a) they only believe in appeasement and (b)
they loath the U.S.). Blurr claims he won't buy into it, but he's famous
for saying one thing and then signing away yet more of our independence.
Lying comes easily to him. He just can't be trusted. If anyone has GW's
ear, now would be a good time for him to intervene.

Sandy

Massive irony occurred over the last few days. The "toe suckee" who was on
the phone with William Jefferson Blow-job having his toes "done" while Billy
had his willy "done" was in London giving his best effort to seeing to it
that the British retain their independence from the EU. Seems he thinks
Welsh names are un-pronounceable though as he refers to one lady as "the
lady with the eye-chart for a last name". HeH HeH HeH.

--

"The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before
them, glory and danger alike, and notwithstanding go out to meet it."-
Thucydides


"Saigon Sal" wrote in message
news:brtdcu$449$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> "Don T" wrote
> > Grab the motherfuckers by their balls and their "Hearts and Minds" will
> > follow meekly behind. Somebody ought grab Tony Blurr by his chickpea
size
> > nuts and drag his ass clear of the "European Union" bullshit before the
> > bloody goddamn froggies and the Hun own England by default.
> >
> > --
>
>
> Amen to that, Don! I can't understand why Dubya hasn't put pressure on
> Blurr to cut loose from the quagmire of the EU long before now. France
and
> Germany nailed their colours to the mast when the Iraq crisis blew up.
> They are anti-American and have no stomach for a fight nor any intention
of
> putting their people in harm's way - unless of course there's billions of
> dollars in reconstruction contracts on offer. They hate the fact the UK
> continually act independently of the EU - as in our much condemned
> participation in the Iraq war. They are intent on driving a wedge between
> the US and UK. To address this "problem" of member states doing their own
> thing, they recently announced they intend appointing a Foreign Affairs
> Minister whose decisions on foreign policy will be binding on ALL member
> states, thereby preventing us from acting alone and giving our support to
> the US in any future wars without their permission (which of course will
> never be forthcoming because (a) they only believe in appeasement and (b)
> they loath the U.S.). Blurr claims he won't buy into it, but he's famous
> for saying one thing and then signing away yet more of our independence.
> Lying comes easily to him. He just can't be trusted. If anyone has GW's
> ear, now would be a good time for him to intervene.
>
> Sandy
>
>
>

No hidden Agenda I just wanted to know how you would have done things
differently and no slight was ever intended if you thought I was ignoring
the private soldier it was not intended.

You guys had the unfortunate experience of fighting a war with your orders
dictated by Washington. What I was trying to ask was, which I never put
across to correctly is would you have used Platoon sized groups to recce or
would you have the bigger battalions, and do you think a hearts and minds
approach would have been the better option.

Regards
Robert




"a425couple" wrote in message
news:0WlEb.594735$Fm2.545086@attbi_s04...
>
> "Robert Lewis Md" wrote in
> > Good Morning all,...........and is Painful for you.
> > ..... but if you had to do it all over again
> > how would you change you tactics,
>
> You raise a host of separate questions.
> Volumes have been & will be written about them.
> Important lessons were learned.
> Some will have to be relearned, some discarded.
>
> I will barely touch on a few, from my observation.
>
> -- Given that Politicos would not have such an involvement...
>
> The Johnson White House got quite involved in the
> minutia. Most Presidents since have tried more to
> stick to the bigger picture, and properly delegate
> the details to the professionals appointed to properly
> make them.
> There is no exact perfect line. Each case and each
> personality is unique. However I think it very unlikely
> that in the future, once we are involved in combat,
> the White House will demand that level of prior
> approval of airstrikes, and ground maneuvers.
>
> My personal belief is that overall, Nixon, Reagan,
> Bush, & Bush, have tended more to state the goals,
> and delegate the details. No trend is always perfect.
> By dealing in details, delays etc. can cause problems.
> By delegating, subordinates can make mistakes.
> (and in final end "the buck stops here.")
>
> > For e.g. would you use a more hearts and minds approach,
>
> --do you think that the 12 month rotation was such a good idea,
> --now that troops had good combat experience.
>
> I believe I understand how the 12 month rotation came to be,
> but it had a number of real bad consequences,
> and is unlikely to be repeated.
> Military units are made up of individuals working together.
> They should train together as a unit, and work together
> to accomplish their mission. Individuals are not simple
> mass produced parts. Individual relationships do make
> a difference.
> The 12 month rotation tended to make surviving 12
> months the main objective. (poorly stated but ?,
> I am not sure how to explain better right now and
> I will send this as is.)
>
> > Would you for e.g. have small groups of special forces calling in Intel
> > Airstrikes Artillery left in the field.
> >
> > Many thanks
> > Robert
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:37:54 +0000 (UTC), "Robert Lewis Md"
wrote:

>No hidden Agenda I just wanted to know how you would have done things
>differently and no slight was ever intended if you thought I was ignoring
>the private soldier it was not intended.
>
>You guys had the unfortunate experience of fighting a war with your orders
>dictated by Washington. What I was trying to ask was, which I never put
>across to correctly is would you have used Platoon sized groups to recce or
>would you have the bigger battalions, and do you think a hearts and minds
>approach would have been the better option.
>
>Regards
>Robert


Robert:
I think we could have done a LOT more of the hearts-and-minds stuff.
The Marines had their CAP program which I think should have been a
primary focus for all the armed forces there. The Army did some, but
less than the Marines I think and not nearly enough.

My unit "adopted" an orphanage and did a lot of good there, but while
that was nice and lot of good was done, it was done with a small and
less-than-representative part of the population. If we had put more
of our people out among their people and less on huge bases, we'd have
done better. The distance we kept from the locals hampered us more
than helped us, creating an us/them mindset. In my opinion.
Ho Chi Minh wanted his local guerrilas to be among the people as
the fish move in the sea (or some silly thing). We could have done the
same thing without stealing the peasant's crops and young people for
porters, as the VC did.


Lee

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:37:54 +0000 (UTC), "Robert Lewis Md"
wrote:

>No hidden Agenda I just wanted to know how you would have done things
>differently and no slight was ever intended if you thought I was ignoring
>the private soldier it was not intended.
>
>You guys had the unfortunate experience of fighting a war with your orders
>dictated by Washington. What I was trying to ask was, which I never put
>across to correctly is would you have used Platoon sized groups to recce or
>would you have the bigger battalions, and do you think a hearts and minds
>approach would have been the better option.
>
>Regards
>Robert

Lee already mentioned it in his post. But take a look at
http://www.capmarine.com You will see a picture of a Marine holding
a baby and a black guy kind of in the background. The black guy is
Davis and the white guy is Sweirk, they were in my fire team in
weapons.

Our basic unit of manuever was a fireteam. 4 man and probably a
radio. But most patrols were reinforced squad as I remember. That
was 13 guys. We did in the 3rd Marines 125,000 patrols, ambushes,
company and battalion size operations of all types. To this day
nobody I have talked to remembers the actual mix, but most were 7 and
under I believe. That size by the way was typical of recon too.


>

>
>
>"a425couple" wrote in message
>news:0WlEb.594735$Fm2.545086@attbi_s04...
>>
>> "Robert Lewis Md" wrote in
>> > Good Morning all,...........and is Painful for you.
>> > ..... but if you had to do it all over again
>> > how would you change you tactics,
>>
>> You raise a host of separate questions.
>> Volumes have been & will be written about them.
>> Important lessons were learned.
>> Some will have to be relearned, some discarded.
>>
>> I will barely touch on a few, from my observation.
>>
>> -- Given that Politicos would not have such an involvement...
>>
>> The Johnson White House got quite involved in the
>> minutia. Most Presidents since have tried more to
>> stick to the bigger picture, and properly delegate
>> the details to the professionals appointed to properly
>> make them.
>> There is no exact perfect line. Each case and each
>> personality is unique. However I think it very unlikely
>> that in the future, once we are involved in combat,
>> the White House will demand that level of prior
>> approval of airstrikes, and ground maneuvers.
>>
>> My personal belief is that overall, Nixon, Reagan,
>> Bush, & Bush, have tended more to state the goals,
>> and delegate the details. No trend is always perfect.
>> By dealing in details, delays etc. can cause problems.
>> By delegating, subordinates can make mistakes.
>> (and in final end "the buck stops here.")
>>
>> > For e.g. would you use a more hearts and minds approach,
>>
>> --do you think that the 12 month rotation was such a good idea,
>> --now that troops had good combat experience.
>>
>> I believe I understand how the 12 month rotation came to be,
>> but it had a number of real bad consequences,
>> and is unlikely to be repeated.
>> Military units are made up of individuals working together.
>> They should train together as a unit, and work together
>> to accomplish their mission. Individuals are not simple
>> mass produced parts. Individual relationships do make
>> a difference.
>> The 12 month rotation tended to make surviving 12
>> months the main objective. (poorly stated but ?,
>> I am not sure how to explain better right now and
>> I will send this as is.)
>>
>> > Would you for e.g. have small groups of special forces calling in Intel
>> > Airstrikes Artillery left in the field.
>> >
>> > Many thanks
>> > Robert
>>
>>
>
>
>---
>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003
>

"But now is the time for the younger men to lock in rough encounters,
time for me to yield to the pains of old age. But there was a day I shone among the champions."

Homer, The Illiad, 23.715-719 (800 BC). King Nestor of Pylos.