Q2816@pucc.Princeton.EDU (Creative Business Decisions) (02/23/88)
In article <3096@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>, lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) writes: >In article <9612@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP> sunset!oconnor@steinmetz.UUCP writes: >>The IDIOTS who died in Lebanon were the Civilians. They didn't have >>to be there and should have left. Same for the damn civilian >>hostages : to hell with them, they knew the risks. >Here I disagree. They are Americans and there should not be any place >on Earth that an American cannot go to in reasonable safety. Is that because Americans have some special rights on earth, or because EVERYBODY should have those rights? >>I'm pretty >>god damn tired of our servicemen paying the price for these >>self-important assinine civilians who go to these war zones. >Yes, well the reason we have servicemen is to protect asinine >civilians. If an American wants to go to Lebanon he should be able to >do so knowing that if he is kidnapped he will be rescued or his >murders will pay a very high price. Nonsense. US troops are not trained as police, nor should they be. They are there to protect the WHOLE COUNTRY. They are not our protection against harm abroad. (Ever BEEN abroad, Michael?) If the State department issues a warning against travel, you should not expect Super-GI to come and rescue you if you go into the danger zone. Your protection abroad is our diplomatic relations with other govts. Since Lebanon bsically has no govt., it's a dicey proposition being over there. >>The Marines were ordered in there, ordered NOT to load their weapons, >>and NOT ordered to build proper defenses. They did what they were >>ordered to due. Obeying lawful orders is the essense of any >>military organization, but it's part of the pride of the Corps. >>Those men died because they were Marines, not idiots. >Definitely. They died because they were on a mission they were unprepared for. The CinC sent them there against the wishes of the Commandant and the heads of other services. They were untrained as peacekeepers. >>The IDIOTS who killed them where mainly CIVILIANS. >I agree here too. >>Assholes who wouldn't let the Marines shoot back. >Here you are getting a little off target. The people who wouldn't let >the Marines shoot back weren't afraid to kill a bunch of terrorists. >They were afraid of being hamstrung in the future by the kind of >Liberal idiots who called the Libya raid murder. Ignorant, ignorant, ignorant. They were doing a standard peacekeeping job; but without the proper preparation or training. The person who sent them there and gave them their orders was their Commander in Chief. >>Who told them to hold ground without fighting back. >Again, the blame here goes at least partially to those who would have >been protesting in Congress and in the streets if the Marines had >fought back. They weren't sent to fight. They were sent in to act as peacekeepers. (Which is pretty damn difficult when the Navy is shelling the country you're trying to keep peace in!) >>Who didn't have a foriegn >>policy that could have dealt with the situation more safely. This implies that Reagan had a foreign policy at all. The events surrounding the US presence in Lebanon suggest the opposite. >The only safe way to deal with the problem would have been to ignore >it. That would have made it worse. By not showing resolve we would >have encouraged our enemies. If we do not maintain a presence in the >Persian Gulf it will soon become the Soviet Gulf. PERSIAN GULF????? We were talking about Lebanon! What does this have to do with it? >>The principle IDIOT who got those good soldiers killed was Ronald Reagan. >No. The PRINCIPAL idiots who got those men killed were people like >George Bachrach and the idiots on the net who condemn the Libya raid. Huh? >Do you seriously believe that Reagan would have objected to the >Marines carrying loaded guns because it might have lead to a bit of >shooting? Bull. The people who would have objected are the same people >who are currently objecting to our presence in the Gulf. The people >who would have objected are America's isolationists. Like the Joint Chiefs of Staff? Like most of the Cabinet? >>So when a meally-mouthed half-baked ungrateful asshole opens >>his fat trap and calls those men IDIOTS, well DAMN IT sh*t like >>that can't be stood for. I politely suggest you RE-THINK >>you half-assed opinion, and then apologize to the memory >>of those men, to their families, and to the US Marine Corps. >Here once more I fully agree with you. Those men died in the line of >duty, doing their jobs. And we neither retaliated against their >murderers or obtained reparations for their families. I think that's >shameful. Shameful is that we trust a President who hasn't the foggiest idea of what foreign policy is, who thinks that Marines can keep peace while the Navy shells places 20 miles away. And by the way, the job of the Marines is amphibious landings. Not peacekeeping. Roger Lustig (Q2816@PUCC.BITNET) I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night, alive as you and me. "But Joe," says I, "you're ten years dead." "I never died," says he.
lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) (02/24/88)
In article <4568@pucc.Princeton.EDU> Q2816@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes: >In article <3096@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>, lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) writes: > >>In article <9612@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP> sunset!oconnor@steinmetz.UUCP writes: >>>The IDIOTS who died in Lebanon were the Civilians. They didn't have >>>to be there and should have left. Same for the damn civilian >>>hostages : to hell with them, they knew the risks. >>Here I disagree. They are Americans and there should not be any place >>on Earth that an American cannot go to in reasonable safety. >Is that because Americans have some special rights on earth, or because >EVERYBODY should have those rights? Everybody should have that right. It is only the US government's obligation to provide that right for Americans. >>>I'm pretty >>>god damn tired of our servicemen paying the price for these >>>self-important assinine civilians who go to these war zones. > >>Yes, well the reason we have servicemen is to protect asinine >>civilians. If an American wants to go to Lebanon he should be able to >>do so knowing that if he is kidnapped he will be rescued or his >>murders will pay a very high price. >Nonsense. US troops are not trained as police, nor should they be. >They are there to protect the WHOLE COUNTRY. They are not our >protection against harm abroad. (Ever BEEN abroad, Michael?) >If the State department issues a warning against travel, you should >not expect Super-GI to come and rescue you if you go into the danger >zone. Yes, I've been abroad. I've been to Mexico, Canada, France, Spain, England, Andora, West Germany, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Czechoslovakia, Egypt, Morocco, Romania, and Hungary. I don't see what that proves, but if it makes you consider me an authority I won't complain. US troops are meant to protect the country and the citizens. Perhaps you have heard of the war we had with the Barbary pirates? That's the origin of the slogan "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute.". The European nations paid off the Barbary pirates. We didn't. They kidnapped American citizens and attacked American ships. We went to war and kicked their butts. The purpose of a travel advisory should be to alert people to danger. It shouldn't mean "On your own head be it." >Your protection abroad is our diplomatic relations with other govts. >Since Lebanon bsically has no govt., it's a dicey proposition being >over there. Yes. That is why the US government should protect Americans in Lebanon but not in Italy, say. >>>The Marines were ordered in there, ordered NOT to load their weapons, >>>and NOT ordered to build proper defenses. They did what they were >>>ordered to due. Obeying lawful orders is the essense of any >>>military organization, but it's part of the pride of the Corps. >>>Those men died because they were Marines, not idiots. >>Definitely. >They died because they were on a mission they were unprepared for. >The CinC sent them there against the wishes of the Commandant and the >heads of other services. They were untrained as peacekeepers. There is no great trick to being a peacekeeper. All you do is put yourself between the warring factions and tell them "If you fight you die." It takes no special skills. >>>The IDIOTS who killed them where mainly CIVILIANS. >>I agree here too. >>>Assholes who wouldn't let the Marines shoot back. >>Here you are getting a little off target. The people who wouldn't let >>the Marines shoot back weren't afraid to kill a bunch of terrorists. >>They were afraid of being hamstrung in the future by the kind of >>Liberal idiots who called the Libya raid murder. >Ignorant, ignorant, ignorant. They were doing a standard peacekeeping >job; but without the proper preparation or training. The person who >sent them there and gave them their orders was their Commander in Chief. It doesn't take proper training. And who ever heard of doing a peacekeeping job with unloaded weapons? >>>Who told them to hold ground without fighting back. >>Again, the blame here goes at least partially to those who would have >>been protesting in Congress and in the streets if the Marines had >>fought back. >They weren't sent to fight. They were sent in to act as peacekeepers. >(Which is pretty damn difficult when the Navy is shelling the country >you're trying to keep peace in!) When peacekeeping troops come under attack they fight. The navy shelled artillery positions that were being used to bombard the Marines. >>>Who didn't have a foriegn >>>policy that could have dealt with the situation more safely. >This implies that Reagan had a foreign policy at all. The events >surrounding the US presence in Lebanon suggest the opposite. Perhaps it was too complicated for you to understand. The idea was to prevent Lebanon from going over to the Soviets by stopping the Syrians from taking control. How do you do that? Well, a few hundred marines make a good start. They can protect the Christians, who are the closest things to allies we've got in Lebanon. >>The only safe way to deal with the problem would have been to ignore >>it. That would have made it worse. By not showing resolve we would >>have encouraged our enemies. If we do not maintain a presence in the >>Persian Gulf it will soon become the Soviet Gulf. >PERSIAN GULF????? We were talking about Lebanon! What does this have >to do with it? Ooops. Sorry. Should have said Middle East. >>>The principle IDIOT who got those good soldiers killed was Ronald Reagan. >>No. The PRINCIPAL idiots who got those men killed were people like >>George Bachrach and the idiots on the net who condemn the Libya raid. >>Do you seriously believe that Reagan would have objected to the >>Marines carrying loaded guns because it might have lead to a bit of >>shooting? Bull. The people who would have objected are the same people >>who are currently objecting to our presence in the Gulf. The people >>who would have objected are America's isolationists. >Like the Joint Chiefs of Staff? Like most of the Cabinet? I understood that the Joint Chiefs of Staff objected to method. I agree that the method used was stupid. We should have sent in enough people to defend themselves. They should have dug in. And when people started shooting at them they should have shot back. >>>So when a meally-mouthed half-baked ungrateful asshole opens >>>his fat trap and calls those men IDIOTS, well DAMN IT sh*t like >>>that can't be stood for. I politely suggest you RE-THINK >>>you half-assed opinion, and then apologize to the memory >>>of those men, to their families, and to the US Marine Corps. >>Here once more I fully agree with you. Those men died in the line of >>duty, doing their jobs. And we neither retaliated against their >>murderers or obtained reparations for their families. I think that's >>shameful. >Shameful is that we trust a President who hasn't the foggiest idea of >what foreign policy is, who thinks that Marines can keep peace while the >Navy shells places 20 miles away. I. You don't reply to the argument. Do you agree that it is shameful that we didn't retaliate? II. Re Navy shelling, read my response. You are off base. >And by the way, the job of the Marines is amphibious landings. Not >peacekeeping. Wrong. The Marines are an elite force. You use them when you have a tough job. They are also a 'light' force. They don't carry arround heavy weapons. Therefore you use them when you don't want to be bogged down by artillery etc. Since we had the navy for artillery the Marines were probably the best choice for the job. These are the official opinions Mike Friedman of my organization. So, TOUGH!!
Q2816@pucc.Princeton.EDU (Creative Business Decisions) (02/25/88)
In article <3184@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>, lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) writes: >In article <4568@pucc.Princeton.EDU> Q2816@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes: >>In article <3096@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>, lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) writes: >>>Here I disagree. They are Americans and there should not be any place >>>on Earth that an American cannot go to in reasonable safety. >>Is that because Americans have some special rights on earth, or because >>EVERYBODY should have those rights? >Everybody should have that right. It is only the US government's >obligation to provide that right for Americans. According to whom? To what extent is the US obliged to make the world safe for US tourists? What percentage of the GNP should we spend on this? >US troops are meant to protect the country and the citizens. Up to a point. >Perhaps >you have heard of the war we had with the Barbary pirates? That's the >origin of the slogan "Millions for defense, but not one cent for >tribute.". The European nations paid off the Barbary pirates. We >didn't. They kidnapped American citizens and attacked American ships. >We went to war and kicked their butts. So? What has this to do with Lebanon or the rights of Americans abroad? It was in our economic interest to fight the Barbary pirates. We didn't do it because of a slogan. >The purpose of a travel advisory should be to alert people to danger. >It shouldn't mean "On your own head be it." Sometimes, however, it DOES mean that. And the State Dept. makes no bones about that fact, and never has. We do what we can to make the world safe. But getting into a mess the size of the one in the Near East is not the knd of price we like to pay for the few people who feel they HAVE to be in Lebanon. >>Your protection abroad is our diplomatic relations with other govts. >>Since Lebanon bsically has no govt., it's a dicey proposition being >>over there. >Yes. That is why the US government should protect Americans in Lebanon >but not in Italy, say. OK. Let's accept that proposition for a moment. Now consider that any substantial US military presence thee make the place into a war zone, with any number of factions considering us as an enemy. What do we do in a war zone? Evacuate the citizens, of course. Make sure they CAN'T go in. Make sure that the casualties to come are military ones. >>They died because they were on a mission they were unprepared for. >>The CinC sent them there against the wishes of the Commandant and the >>heads of other services. They were untrained as peacekeepers. >There is no great trick to being a peacekeeper. All you do is put >yourself between the warring factions and tell them "If you fight you >die." It takes no special skills. Then you get into a war with the people you're trying to stop from warring. Nice going, Michael. You've just descibed something called "occupation." It's NOT the same as peacekeeping. As I pointed out in a previous posting, US occupation of Lebanon is a)geopolitically idiotic, b) probably impossible, c) prohibitively expensive, d) endless. >>Ignorant, ignorant, ignorant. They were doing a standard peacekeeping >>job; but without the proper preparation or training. The person who >>sent them there and gave them their orders was their Commander in Chief. >It doesn't take proper training. And who ever heard of doing a >peacekeeping job with unloaded weapons? Peacekeeping most certainly DOES take training. Ask the Commandant of the Corps. You must know who the warring parties are, command some respect, understand what to do and not to do in order to keep from antagonizing the warring parties into doing something that endangers you, them and the populace, etc. There have been peacekeeping forces in the Middle East since 1949. They are highly trained soldiers from around the world who do difficult everyday tasks of keeping peace (as opposed to the Neanderthal "methods" you suggest above, which have nothing to do with peace, and everything to do with terror), generally with much success. Thousands of incidents have been defused or nipped in the bud by these forces. Lt. Col. Higgins, the most recent hostage, is one of these men. To suggest that the job he did was worthless or not requiring any skill beyond military training is to betray an ignorance a thousand times worse than the kind I accused you of in my last posting. You simply haven't a clue. b) Peacekeeping forces have specific rules regarding weaponry. If you march in somewhere fully armed, you are not a peacekeeper. You are a combatant. Even Reagan saw the folly of sending a combat force to Lebanon. Alas, he did not consider the effect of the one he DID send. c) The guards at the compound gate should have been better armed. More to the point, they should have been aware of the possibility of just such an attack; after all the Embassy had been devastated by a similar one only months before. They were not trained for that eventuality, certainly not as they should have been. Somebody was asleep at the wheel. Nobody was listening to the fantasy public/ congressional opinion you suggest there was. >When peacekeeping troops come under attack they fight. The navy >shelled artillery positions that were being used to bombard the Marines. And also many other things. The Shuf mountains were being shelled. This made the Druse (who consider the Shuf theirs and nobody else's) very angry. Many Lebanese saw it as an act of war. Why we did it was one thing (I believe you're only partly right about the stated reason, by the way); how it was perceived was another. We did not pay attention to that, and paid for our blindness. >Perhaps it was too complicated for you to understand. The idea was to >prevent Lebanon from going over to the Soviets by stopping the Syrians >from taking control. How do you do that? Well, a few hundred marines >make a good start. They can protect the Christians, who are the >closest things to allies we've got in Lebanon. After we'd let Lebanon go to pot for years, our involvement changed little. The Marines hardly protected the Christians (and were not there to do so); and an offshore presence, coupled with the Israeli one (their bungling having destabilized the joint in the first place, alas), would have kept the Soviets out of Lebanon. And besides, a few hundred Marines didn't have much effect at all. As you yourself have said, you must do this sort of thing thoroughly or not at all. A "good start" implies either a continuation or a step on the road paved with good intentions. >I understood that the Joint Chiefs of Staff objected to method. I >agree that the method used was stupid. We should have sent in enough >people to defend themselves. They should have dug in. And when people >started shooting at them they should have shot back. In other words, an occupation force. In other words, another Vietnam, with nobody really wanting us there. (Ever found any Maronites who were really thrilled with the Marine presence? Me neither.) >>Shameful is that we trust a President who hasn't the foggiest idea of >>what foreign policy is, who thinks that Marines can keep peace while the >>Navy shells places 20 miles away. >I. You don't reply to the argument. Do you agree that it is shameful >that we didn't retaliate? We should retaliate if our commitment to the area involves fighting a war based on that retaliation. By retaliating, we lose our status as pecekeepers, such as it was. >>And by the way, the job of the Marines is amphibious landings. Not >>peacekeeping. >Wrong. The Marines are an elite force. You use them when you have a >tough job. Wrong. They are not trained to do the tough day-after-day job of peacekeeping. The troops themselves said they felt out of place, unable to get a handle on the job they were there to do. >They are also a 'light' force. They don't carry arround >heavy weapons. Therefore you use them when you don't want to be bogged >down by artillery etc. Since we had the navy for artillery the Marines >were probably the best choice for the job. Perhaps. I doubt it. But we agree it was a dumb job, so the argument that they were the best for it is a little like saying you'd rather drown in hot water than in cold water. Roger Lustig (Q2816@PUCC.BITNET Q2816@pucc.princeton.edu) Die Gedanken sind frei! Wer kann sie erraten?
lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) (02/27/88)
In article <4581@pucc.Princeton.EDU} Q2816@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes: }In article <3184@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU}, lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) writes: } }}In article <4568@pucc.Princeton.EDU} Q2816@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes: }}}In article <3096@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU}, lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) writes: }}Perhaps }}you have heard of the war we had with the Barbary pirates? That's the }}origin of the slogan "Millions for defense, but not one cent for }}tribute.". The European nations paid off the Barbary pirates. We }}didn't. They kidnapped American citizens and attacked American ships. }}We went to war and kicked their butts. }So? What has this to do with Lebanon or the rights of Americans }abroad? It was in our economic interest to fight the Barbary pirates. }We didn't do it because of a slogan. No. We did it because we refused to let our citizens be kidnapped and because we weren't willing to pay tribute to prevent this. That is why it is relevant to Lebanon. }}}They [the Marines] died because they were on a mission they were unprepared for. }}}The CinC sent them there against the wishes of the Commandant and the }}}heads of other services. They were untrained as peacekeepers. }}There is no great trick to being a peacekeeper. All you do is put }}yourself between the warring factions and tell them "If you fight you }}die." It takes no special skills. }Then you get into a war with the people you're trying to stop from }warring. }Nice going, Michael. You've just descibed something called "occupation." }It's NOT the same as peacekeeping. So what's the difference? You tell me. How do you 'peacekeep' }}It [peacekeeping] doesn't take proper training. And who ever heard of doing a }}peacekeeping job with unloaded weapons? }Peacekeeping most certainly DOES take training. Ask the Commandant }of the Corps. }You must know who the warring parties are, That's called a briefing. } command some respect, That's called being obviously strong enough to do a lot of damage. It doesn't take special training. That is part of the normal mission of the Marines. } understand what to do and not to do in order to keep from }antagonizing the warring parties into doing something that endangers }you, them and the populace, etc. This last is the nub. Please expand on it. }Lt. Col. Higgins, the most recent hostage, is one of these men. To }suggest that the job he did was worthless or not requiring any skill }beyond military training is to betray an ignorance a thousand times }worse than the kind I accused you of in my last posting. You simply }haven't a clue. So what does it take? }}I. You don't reply to the argument. Do you agree that it is shameful }}that we didn't retaliate? }We should retaliate if our commitment to the area involves fighting a }war based on that retaliation. By retaliating, we lose our status }as pecekeepers, such as it was. Don't be silly. Once we left our 'status as peacekeepers' was unimportant. Retaliation does not have to mean war. Bombing raids work just as well. }}}And by the way, the job of the Marines is amphibious landings. Not }}}peacekeeping. }}Wrong. The Marines are an elite force. You use them when you have a }}tough job. }Wrong. They are not trained to do the tough day-after-day job of }peacekeeping. The troops themselves said they felt out of place, }unable to get a handle on the job they were there to do. When in doubt, ask a Marine. I asked a guy in Marine ROTC. According to him, if you want to do something like what we did in Lebanon you use the Marines. These are the official opinions Mike Friedman of my organization. So, TOUGH!!
Q2816@pucc.Princeton.EDU (Creative Business Decisions) (03/01/88)
In article <7153@sol.ARPA>, ray@cs.rochester.edu (Ray Frank) writes: >In article <4568@pucc.Princeton.EDU> Q2816@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes: >>They weren't sent to fight. They were sent in to act as peacekeepers. >>(Which is pretty damn difficult when the Navy is shelling the country >>you're trying to keep peace in!) >Here it is first hand: distortion of historical facts through half truths. Half a loaf is better than none... >Brought to you by that joe hill dreamer, Roger. Thank you for the compliment! >Roger, even you would agree that we eventually had to shell the >terrorist positions in the hills overlooking the peacekeeping forces. Nope. >Remember, our forces and those of other countries were sitting >ducks for about four weeks. Those unarmed peacekeeping forces had to >endure incoming artilery shells 24 hours a day for four weeks. They were >being injured and killed. How many of our peacekeeping forces were killed by those shells? There were two options: evacuate the peacekeeping >forces and leave the whole of Lebanon to the terrorists or try and silence >the terrorist gunners in the hills shooting at the unarmed and unprotected >multi-national peacekeeping forces. We did nothing for four weeks while >our UNARMED forces were being unmercifully shelled. >>Shameful is that we trust a President who hasn't the foggiest idea of >>what foreign policy is, who thinks that Marines can keep peace while the >>Navy shells places 20 miles away. >You mean it was a shame that the president thought the Marines could keep >the peace while remaining unarmed and being shelled 24 hours a day from >terrorist positions in the hills above the marine's position. Real brave >these gunners were. Sitting in the hills looking down on the marines and >firing shells directly onto them. Pay attention. If you're shelling one side, you're not a peacekeeping force. If you can't command the respect of the combatants, you can't keep the peace. In that case, you must occupy in order to pacify. We were not prepared to occupay Lebanon, for dozens of reasons I have outlined before. By drawing fire, the peacekeeping force showed that it would be unsuccessful. The shelling of the mountains accomplished the opposite of it porpose: it INTENSIFIED the attack on the Marines. Typical Reagan policy blunder: raise the stakes unnecessarily. >>And by the way, the job of the Marines is amphibious landings. Not >>peacekeeping. >Says who Roger? Everybody from the Commandant on down. Roger Lustig (Q2816@PUCC.BITNET Q2816@pucc.princeton.edu) Die Gedanken sind frei! Wer kann sie erraten?
Q2816@pucc.Princeton.EDU (Creative Business Decisions) (03/01/88)
In article <3276@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>, lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) writes: >}}The European nations paid off the Barbary pirates. We >}}didn't. They kidnapped American citizens and attacked American ships. >}}We went to war and kicked their butts. > >}So? What has this to do with Lebanon or the rights of Americans >}abroad? It was in our economic interest to fight the Barbary pirates. >}We didn't do it because of a slogan. >No. We did it because we refused to let our citizens be kidnapped and >because we weren't willing to pay tribute to prevent this. That is why >it is relevant to Lebanon. If we hadn't an economic interest in the region, we would never have bothered, and there would have been few US citizens there in the first place. We fought that war to protect our trade interests, which involved having US citizens travel there. >}}}They [the Marines] died because they were on a mission they were unprepared for. >}}}The CinC sent them there against the wishes of the Commandant and the >}}}heads of other services. They were untrained as peacekeepers. >}}There is no great trick to being a peacekeeper. All you do is put >}}yourself between the warring factions and tell them "If you fight you >}}die." It takes no special skills. > >}Then you get into a war with the people you're trying to stop from >}warring. >}Nice going, Michael. You've just descibed something called "occupation." >}It's NOT the same as peacekeeping. >So what's the difference? You tell me. How do you 'peacekeep' You QUIETLY keep tensions from building. Same as the UN has done, usually successfully, in the region since 1949. >}}It [peacekeeping] doesn't take proper training. And who ever heard of doing a >}}peacekeeping job with unloaded weapons? >}Peacekeeping most certainly DOES take training. Ask the Commandant >}of the Corps. >}You must know who the warring parties are, >That's called a briefing. Did the Marines who patrolled the streets know who the various people were? How to recognize them? Can YOU name the warring parties in Lebanon, Michael? >} command some respect, >That's called being obviously strong enough to do a lot of damage. It >doesn't take special training. That is part of the normal mission of >the Marines. Damage to whom? If you don't know who's who, you don't know whom to retaliate against. Brute force is not what peacekeeping takes. Brute force is for wars. Or are you telling me that war is peace? >} understand what to do and not to do in order to keep from >}antagonizing the warring parties into doing something that endangers >}you, them and the populace, etc. >This last is the nub. Please expand on it. If you fight for one side (which you suggested was our real mission in Lebanon), you are not a peacekeeper but a combatant, a partisan. If the other side THINKS you are their enemy, they will attack you and not respect your efforts. >}Lt. Col. Higgins, the most recent hostage, is one of these men. To >}suggest that the job he did was worthless or not requiring any skill >}beyond military training is to betray an ignorance a thousand times >}worse than the kind I accused you of in my last posting. You simply >}haven't a clue. >So what does it take? Oh, right, I forgot. You don't know how to look things up for yourself. Fine education they're giving you there at Tech. It takes an understanding of the situation (one briefing genreally won't be enough), perhaps some knowledge of the language, an understanding of what the various people want, how to communicate with the various factions without offending them, knowing the relationships between factions, and being prepared to mediate small quarrels on a daily basis with as little force as possible. Once one side perceives you as being a soldier on the other side, you ARE just that for all practical purposes and all your brute strength won't help you. >}}I. You don't reply to the argument. Do you agree that it is shameful >}}that we didn't retaliate? >}We should retaliate if our commitment to the area involves fighting a >}war based on that retaliation. By retaliating, we lose our status >}as pecekeepers, such as it was. >Don't be silly. Once we left our 'status as peacekeepers' was >unimportant. Retaliation does not have to mean war. Bombing raids work >just as well. And whom were we going to bomb? We don't even know who SENT that truck. Besides, your silly comment ignores my reference to a "commitment to the area." If we want to accomplish anything other than getting even after having paid for our blunder, we must stay and not leave. And staying under those conditions would imply some sort of occupation. By blundering and then leaving, we LOST influence in the region. Get it? >}}}And by the way, the job of the Marines is amphibious landings. Not >}}}peacekeeping. >}}Wrong. The Marines are an elite force. You use them when you have a >}}tough job. >}Wrong. They are not trained to do the tough day-after-day job of >}peacekeeping. The troops themselves said they felt out of place, >}unable to get a handle on the job they were there to do. >When in doubt, ask a Marine. I asked a guy in Marine ROTC. According >to him, if you want to do something like what we did in Lebanon you >use the Marines. Marine ROTC! Wow. The ultimate authority. I based MY comments on the words of the Commandant, the Chiefs of Staff, and interviews with the men who were there. Dozens of military analysts all said the same thing: the Marines were very good at establishing their base there, but once that was done, they were pretty much at a loss as to what to do next. Roger Lustig (Q2816@PUCC.BITNET Q2816@pucc.princeton.edu) Die Gedanken sind frei! Wer kann sie erraten?
welty@sunbarney.steinmetz (richard welty) (03/04/88)
In article <4611@pucc.Princeton.EDU> Q2816@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes: *In article <3276@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>, lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) writes: *>}}}And by the way, the job of the Marines is amphibious landings. Not *>}}}peacekeeping. *>}}Wrong. The Marines are an elite force. You use them when you have a *>}}tough job. *>}Wrong. They are not trained to do the tough day-after-day job of *>}peacekeeping. The troops themselves said they felt out of place, *>}unable to get a handle on the job they were there to do. *>When in doubt, ask a Marine. I asked a guy in Marine ROTC. According *>to him, if you want to do something like what we did in Lebanon you *>use the Marines. *Marine ROTC! Wow. The ultimate authority. I based MY comments on the *words of the Commandant, the Chiefs of Staff, and interviews with the *men who were there. Dozens of military analysts all said the same thing: *the Marines were very good at establishing their base there, but once *that was done, they were pretty much at a loss as to what to do next. And of course, now we have Secretary Bennett's hare-brained scheme to send the troops to other countries to take out the drug merchants. Already, the Generals are trying to make the point that search-and-destroy missions of this sort don't fall within the scope of their training, and that they are simply not prepared to take on the job. Just because the Marines are a fine fighting force doesn't equip them to take on any job that the administration wants to dump on them. Troops have to be trained for whatever mission they are sent on -- otherwise, all the morale and skill in the world won't help them. This, of course, ignores the secondary issue that sending the troops into another country to take out drug smugglers is an act of war if the other contry chooses to view it that way. I don't know where the administration gets its cabinet officials from -- under rocks, I suppose.
lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) (03/05/88)
In Article <4611@pucc.Princeton.EDU > Q2816@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes: >In article <3276@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU >, lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) writes: > >}}The European nations paid off the Barbary pirates. We > >}}didn't. They kidnapped American citizens and attacked American ships. > >}}We went to war and kicked their butts. >If we hadn't an economic interest in the region, we would never have >bothered, and there would have been few US citizens there in the first >place. We fought that war to protect our trade interests, which involved >having US citizens travel there. Yes, but we could have done what the Europeans did - payed off the pirates. It would have been a lot cheaper. We didn't because of something called national honor. > >}}}They [the Marines] died because they were on a mission they were unprepared for. > >}}}The CinC sent them there against the wishes of the Commandant and the > >}}}heads of other services. They were untrained as peacekeepers. > >So what's the difference? You tell me. How do you 'peacekeep' >You QUIETLY keep tensions from building. Same as the UN has done, >usually successfully, in the region since 1949. > >}You must know who the warring parties are, > >} command some respect, >Brute force is not what peacekeeping takes. Brute force is for wars. >Or are you telling me that war is peace? The only way to keep the peace between two groups that want to fight is to make it disadvantageous to fight. You do this by getting in between them and saying that they have to get through you to get to their enemies. This is why Peace-keepers are armed. (In case anyone thinks they are not, there was a picture in one of the recent economists of some UN peacekeepers. They were in an armored vehicle which had a machinegun mounted on it.) It takes no training beyond the normal training of a soldier from any army. If you disagree please tell me the specific skills that a marine lacks and that a Peace-keeper must have. Knowlege of the warring parties is provided by briefings. Whether it was or not is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the Marines were trained for the job. In a situation like Lebanon respect comes out of the barrel of a gun. You get it by being obviously too strong to fight. >It takes an understanding of the situation (one briefing genreally won't >be enough), perhaps some knowledge of the language, an understanding >of what the various people want, how to communicate with the various >factions without offending them, knowing the relationships between >factions, and being prepared to mediate small quarrels on a daily basis >with as little force as possible. Once one side perceives you as being >a soldier on the other side, you ARE just that for all practical purposes >and all your brute strength won't help you. Yes. Here I agree with you. You just haven't explained why the marines weren't qualified. Here is a question that might settle the issue. I. How much time is spent training troops for peace-keeping? II. What does the extra training consist of? > >}}}And by the way, the job of the Marines is amphibious landings. Not > >}}}peacekeeping. > >}}Wrong. The Marines are an elite force. You use them when you have a > >}}tough job. > >}Wrong. They are not trained to do the tough day-after-day job of > >}peacekeeping. The troops themselves said they felt out of place, > >}unable to get a handle on the job they were there to do. > >When in doubt, ask a Marine. I asked a guy in Marine ROTC. According > >to him, if you want to do something like what we did in Lebanon you > >use the Marines. >Marine ROTC! Wow. The ultimate authority. I based MY comments on the >words of the Commandant, the Chiefs of Staff, and interviews with the >men who were there. Dozens of military analysts all said the same thing: >the Marines were very good at establishing their base there, but once >that was done, they were pretty much at a loss as to what to do next. I. I doubt the Commandant and Chiefs of Staff were giving interviews in which they said that the marines should not have been sent. We all know what happens when military officers buck civilian authority. (Remember MacArthur?) II. Were they saying that the marines weren't qualified to do the job or were they saying that the marines weren't allowed to do the job right? There is a very big difference. These are the official opinions Mike Friedman of my organization. So, TOUGH!!
steve@crcmar.crc.uucp (Steve Ardron) (03/07/88)
From article <3184@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>, by lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman): > US troops are meant to protect the country and the citizens. Perhaps > you have heard of the war we had with the Barbary pirates? That's the > origin of the slogan "Millions for defense, but not one cent for > tribute.". The European nations paid off the Barbary pirates. We > didn't. They kidnapped American citizens and attacked American ships. > We went to war and kicked their butts. Sorry, I haven't heard of the war. I would appreciate it if you could fill me in (objectively please, none of this we're the States, we're the best crap), honestly, since I don't know which war you mean, perhaps it has another name? But, my aren't we a bit right-wing? Ever thought that other nations might have a right to determine their own fate? I'm not refering necessarily to Lebanon, but if a nation makes it clear that Americans aren't welcome, and a travel advisory is issued, I don't see how the government is obliged to risk many "innocent" people in a war (most of the deaths would be soldiers, who I will admit, waive much of their "innocent" status if they aren't drafted) for a few who disregard such dirrectives. Possibly, the Nation can't do anything about it, ever heard of the war of 1812? This was a blatant land grab by the U.S., trying to conquer Canada while Britain had it's hands full with a real nation of the time. The U.S. went to war with Britain and got it's proverbial ass kicked all over the place. Obviously, military solutions don't work to everything, and while the U.S. has risen to slightly more stature than before, there are still a couple of nations that would have a good chance to win a conventional war with it, and many nationst that would win if they allied with one or two others. Steve Ardron.