Subject:
|
Re: Hotel Palestine
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 10 Apr 2003 22:54:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
513 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > The answer is simple: they were under fire. You can't wait around for a
> > Delta Force team to be rounded up, briefed, assess the situation, and then
> > make a strike. Mortar rounds are coming in *now*.
>
> There is more than one way to take an objective. This approach, if proven
> too hard, could be abandoned for a better one.
Not too hard: too slow. Shells are dropping. Mortars require a spotter.
As I said, there are circumstances where you can't shilly-shally (delay,
stall, avoid positive action). Oops! Just lost B company, maybe we can
make a group decision, show of hands, all in favor...
The tank was there, it had a weapon that would be effective. Really, the
only question is did the U.S. spotter take a really good look?
>
> > I don't think asking guys in a tank to take architectural quizes in the
> > middle of combat is realistic. Let's presume that it was a hospital
> > building with a big red cross on it with spotters calling in artillery
> > strikes from its roof. Obvious building without comparative balustrade
> > construction techniques through a periscope required. The outcome would be
> > the exact same, and as long as there was reasonable cause, *any* country's
> > military would do the exact same thing.
>
> That situation you refer as possible would present an interesting
> possibility: to wait, out of range. A hospital is not self sufficient - so
> the snipers would have to move eventually - the civilians would not be
> killed outright (or risk it) in a fierce fight.
No, please stop with the snipers. The shot was fired to take out what they
believed were spotters for mortar shells that were currently falling. To
stop the mortars, you have to take out the spotter. Any delay means your
units can be ripped to shreds. In fact, you are allowing them the time to
refine their aim. Please address it from this viewpoint: how will delaying
taking decisive action benefit the safety of the troops under attack?
Waiting out of range simply would mean that the Iraqis could dictate when
they want an attack stopped. What you seem to want is a politically correct
method of conducting war, which transalates to completely ineffective.
>
> > Common sense would be to not voluntarily go into a war zone. Common sense
> > would not be to sit in a confused area with no lines with no readily
> > identifiable way of establishing that you are a non-combantant.
>
> One way to identify non-combatants is the absence of armament; true that one
> *combatant* may not be carrying armament, but then again his threat is only
> potential and can be dealt with as such.
That is not a reliable method, nor would arms necessarily be displayed by a
spotter. War correspondents traditionally are not afforded any slack in war
zones - you are there at your risk.
>
> > Why shoot in a crowded building with a shell? Imagine yourself in the tank:
> > do you see that the building is crowded? No. What's the best way of taking
> > out the spotter? Main gun.
>
> Assuming it is so, which shell: armor piercing, or explosive? The difference
> is in the area around the target that is hit. Remember, the two reporters
> killed were in different rooms. If a spotter was to be hit, why hit
> unsuspecting people around him too?
That would be the call of tank commander depending on what he would think to
be the most effective: I would presume high explosive against a building
(armor piercing might penetrate too far and actually be worse). You keep
arguing from the standpoint that somehow the tank commander's first priority
should be that of protecting possible non-military personnel that he can't
see and has no knowledge of, rather than protecting his unit.
>
> > If you shilly-shally, what happens? You and
> > the rest of your unit remain under fire. Your duty? Take out the spotter.
> > You cannot just sit around paralyzed in combat.
>
> The tank can use the boxing tactic and move around. It's a lot more
> complicated to hit a moving target, isn't it? I know a tank isn't exactly
> easy to move around, but it can fall back and later advance from another angle.
Abandon the rest of the unit to its fate? Pull the whole attack out while
under fire? It doesn't make the slightest ounce of military sense. You
nail the spotter by the most expedient means possible. Anything else is
foolish.
>
> > > > Reporters
> > > > are usually not given enough credit for going into dangerous situations in
> > > > quest of the truth. One thing that we must do, as the interpreters of the
> > > > images we see, is do just that: interpret what we see. A five-second clip
> > > > simply does not tell the story - it only confirms that the tank, indeed, did
> > > > really shoot at the hotel.
> > >
> > > Was it reasonable use of force?
> >
> > Yes, given the situation.
>
> As you can understand from all I've been saying, I disagree.
> But I will accept this to be a matter of oppinion, and quit my complains (as
> if they cared anyway, now that the harm is done)
I understand you disagree, but I honestly think you don't really understand
the situation or the military peril of what you adovocate.
>
> > > If indeed the tank crewman thought he saw a spotter (and I have to give him
> > > eagle eyes to choose among all the people with lenses on the balconies),
> > > wasn't that whole incident a lot like using a nuke to kill flies?
> >
> >
> > A second time: observers from outside of the tank saw someone with
> > binoculars, not the tank crew. Presumably they were using binoculars, too,
> > so I don't know what "eagle eyes" has to do with it, though traditionally in
> > military units, you use the guy with the best eyes as a spotter.
>
> What's so awkward in having binoculars to observe a war from "outside"? How
> many of the reporters in the hotel do you think have them? It's not odd at
> all, given the distance towards most of the buildings in town.
I already explained the situation: no lines, so the troops have no idea of
friend or foe, except by interpretation of actions. It's up to the
reporters to take precautions. They didn't understand how their actions
could be misinterpreted, with tragic results. Alas, war is not forgiving
(there, I avoided quoting General Sherman).
>
> > A nuke to kill flies? No. It was probably the best thing to use, in fact.
> > Rifle bullets would be very difficult to actually hit the target, grenades
> > wouldn't have the range or accuracy, artillery or air strikes *would* be
> > overkill and too slow, in any case.
>
> Fall back a bit.
See above: retreat under fire is dangerous.
> Infantry in the other bank (there is more than one bridge), entering the
> hotel. Two men go up. A few bullets, or even a hand grenade. Problem dealt
> with (and think of the media coverage for such a spectacularly precise
> operation!)
Oops! The mortar had the time to zero in! The whole unit was wiped out!
Or...Oops! There was a whole squad defending the spotter. Your two men got
wiped out *along* with the unit in the street.
> Proceed forward again with the tanks. Carry on the ops.
Too late, all gone. More died because of inaction than because of action.
>
> Or, even better, approach from the hotel's side of the river. It is
> possible, IIRC there was one division coming in the city that way.
What if the targets were not conviently on that side?
>
> But that's just how I'd do it. IF, of course, I had put myself in a position
> where I'd have to do it at all.
You'd be busted below private and peeling 'taters and washing latrines! Or
elected to an office. :-)
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Hotel Palestine
|
| (...) That decision is easy to take. In a few words, the tanks can fall back to point "A", where no mortar can reach. (...) Indeed. (...) Sorry, I misread. My bad. (...) But I'm not advocating delay under exposure - that's why I say fall back, (...) (22 years ago, 10-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Hotel Palestine
|
| (...) There is more than one way to take an objective. This approach, if proven too hard, could be abandoned for a better one. (...) That situation you refer as possible would present an interesting possibility: to wait, out of range. A hospital is (...) (22 years ago, 10-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
49 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
