Warfare 101

[John21]

This is a sterile non Katie Couric version.

There's basically three factors in warfare:
1) Human assets.
2) Kill ratios.
3) Political will.

If you look under the military category on the cia's website they define the human assets as " Manpower fit for military service & Manpower reaching military service age annually." The latter referring to replenishment of human assets.

Kill ratios fall into a gray area. They have more to do with technology, tactics and training, but they're pretty easy to generalize. For instance in the first Gulf War and the latest initial push into Baghdad the U.S. was working with a +100:1 kill ratio. Currently in Afghanistan they're around 20:1 and with the MOUT (Military Operations on Urban Terrain) in Baghdad they're around 3-5:1.

So if you look at the current U.S. deployment of around 120k troops and figure about 1/3 of them are combat troops, we have about 40k troops with a kill ratio of around 120k-200k opposition troops. The assessments of opposition troops fall into the 20k-100k range, so we're doing good there. But the focus shifts to replenishment of assets, and ultimately political will.

From Athens through the Revolutionary War, WWI, WWII, to the present - these three factors have come into play. And for the democratic states, the determining factor has, in every instance, come down to one thing - political will.

I'm not trying to promote a particular agenda. Just passing along some information that a dumb Gunny received from a handful of green Lts and Capts out of the Naval Academy. But I am assuming that the knowledge has been passed down, and those further up the chain of command are well aware of the principles in play.

My point being that 'the powers that be' might not be quite as stupid as a lot of people might like to think. They just might understand warfare to a level the average person isn't able (or unwilling) to fathom.

The United States is a country of the people, by the people, and for the people. As much as some would like to distance themselves from this equation, it's not really possible. There's not a "them" in the equation., we're all under the same roof. There's only an U.S.

[Copernicus]

'So if you look at the current U.S. deployment of around 120k troops and figure about 1/3 of them are combat troops, we have about 40k troops with a kill ratio of around 120k-200k opposition troops. The assessments of opposition troops fall into the 20k-100k range, so we're doing good there."

Im not following the math here, or one of us doesnt understand what "kill ratio" means.

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
The United States is a country of the people, by the people, and for the people. As much as some would like to distance themselves from this equation, it's not really possible. There's not a "them" in the equation., we're all under the same roof. There's only an U.S.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not totally sure what the point of that statement is, but it verges an awful lot on a 'support our troops' mantra. Vehement public protest to government action is an invaluable asset to a democracy where the majority has gone wrong or where the government has betrayed the people. In both instances, it is distrubing to catagorically tell the minority or deceived public to take accountability and lump themselves in with everyone else.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The United States is a country of the people, by the people, and for the people. As much as some would like to distance themselves from this equation, it's not really possible. There's not a "them" in the equation., we're all under the same roof. There's only an U.S.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not totally sure what the point of that statement is, but it verges an awful lot on a 'support our troops' mantra. Vehement public protest to government action is an invaluable asset to a democracy where the majority has gone wrong or where the government has betrayed the people. In both instances, telling the minority or deceived public to take accountability and lump ourselves with everyone else is disturbing.

[/ QUOTE ]

That presupposes that the minority is in a position to judge whether it has been betrayed, deceived, or more commonly whether the government has "gone wrong".

The point of the OP is that in the case of military actions, the people may not be in a position to accurately assess whether the government has indeed gone wrong.

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
That presupposes that the minority is in a position to judge whether it has been betrayed, deceived, or more commonly whether the government has "gone wrong".

[/ QUOTE ]

When are they not? Any individual has a right to protest that which he does not agree with. If that individual is part of a minority, his voice should not be silenced, nor should he be told to concede defeat to popular opinion and hold his tongue in support of the majority. If a minority does not "judge" the majority, this country suffers. You know that.

[ QUOTE ]
The point of the OP is that in the case of military actions, the people may not be in a position to accurately assess whether the government has indeed gone wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the public were required to have a doctorate to voice an opinion, this democracy would be worthless. How well versed are you on macroeconomic effects of fiscal policy decisions? Why should you be permitted to sway government policy by clamoring for tax cuts? You don't know the effects as well as the guys in suits that make the decisions. That's all a ridiculous line of thinking for a representative democracy.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
'So if you look at the current U.S. deployment of around 120k troops and figure about 1/3 of them are combat troops, we have about 40k troops with a kill ratio of around 120k-200k opposition troops. The assessments of opposition troops fall into the 20k-100k range, so we're doing good there."

Im not following the math here, or one of us doesnt understand what "kill ratio" means.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we both understand what 'kill ratio' means. I was putting their troop level at 100%. However, I might not be understanding your question . But like I alluded to - I'm dumb - I see the world divided between 7.62 and 5.56.

USMC 87-00; 1st Recon Bn/Co.(my dad was killed in the 2/4, grandfather served in the 1/5, if relevant).

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not totally sure what the point of that statement is, but it verges an awful lot on a 'support our troops' mantra.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I failed to convey my point. So to the best of my ability:

You are the will.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

That presupposes that the minority is in a position to judge whether it has been betrayed, deceived, or more commonly whether the government has "gone wrong".

[/ QUOTE ]

Democracy presupposes this. If your contention is that citizens cannot comprehend the nature of actions its government takes then a country of, for and by the people cannot exist.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
1) Human assets.
2) Kill ratios.

[/ QUOTE ]

These two can be condensed into $$$.


[ QUOTE ]
And for the democratic states, the determining factor has, in every instance, come down to one thing - political will.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rome fell pretty much because its coffers were continually emptied by the emporer.

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am not totally sure what the point of that statement is, but it verges an awful lot on a 'support our troops' mantra.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I failed to convey my point. So to the best of my ability:

You are the will.

[/ QUOTE ]

Paging Rousseau to the thread. Are you speaking of a general will? That which is in the best interest of the people, if everyone had perfect information and acted for the common good in a socialist Utopia? If so, government action is supposed to come closer to this than other forms of government, but rarely actually represents the true general will through its actions. Are you instead giving me "we elect the government, government acts on our behalf, and their actions = our will"? Obedience of government, acting on our behalf, should not be confused with endorsement of its actions. There is my will. There is your will. There is Bob's will. We elect the government. It acts in what it thinks is in our collective best interest, often based on our wills. It's will != any of our wills.