Archive Logo.jpg

December 05, 2006

H&I* Fires, 5 Dec 2006

Open post for those with something to share, updated through the day. New, complete posts come in below this one. Note: If trackbacking, please acknowledge this post in your post. That's only polite.

You're advertising here, we should get an ad at your place...

******************************************************

The blogfather posted a link to this (and others sent it to me as well) - Weapons That Don't Exist, but Should. Looks like a peek into BCR Labs. But you really should start here, in an entry I could have written. Weapon.

Carnival of the Recipes is up. Born August 20, 2004, SWWBO created something that has taken on a life of it's own. Kewl. How many of us can say that? I can't!

I'm really busy today, as you can tell. -the Armorer

************************

Looking for info, pliz ... Why izzit that this tool of the pacifist left isn't sweating in a military court room, but is free to appear at a screening of 'his story'??
- Barb

************************

Hey, Mike - good thing you got those drugs, eh?

Flatulence brought 99 passengers on an American Airlines flight to an unscheduled visit to Nashville early Monday morning.

Yep. Flatulence. -the Armorer

************************

Princess Crabby - on why *all* the amendments are important. So you can repel the whale pushers when they come for you.

And Maggie, it may not be the best, but it's certainly up there. -the Armorer

************************


*A term of art from the artillery. Harassment and Interdiction Fires.

Back in the day, when you could just kill people and break things without a note from a lawyer, they were pre-planned, but to the enemy, random, fires at known gathering points, road junctions, Main Supply Routes, assembly areas, etc - to keep the bad guy nervous that the world around him might start exploding at any minute.

Not really relevant to today's operating environment, right? But, it *is*

The UAVs we fly over Afghanistan and Pakistan looking for targets of opportunity are a form of H&I fires, if you really want to parse it finely. We just have better sensors and fire control now.

I call the post that because it's random things posted by me and people I've given posting privileges to. It's also an open trackback, so if (Don Surber uses it this way a lot) someone has a post they're proud of, but it really isn't either Castle kind of stuff, or topical to a particular post, I've basically given blanket permission to use that post for that purpose. Another term of art that might be appropriate is "Free Fire Zone".

Comments on H&I* Fires, 5 Dec 2006
John Ryan briefed on December 5, 2006 01:08 PM

The nominee for the Secretary of Defense said today that the USA is not winning the war in Iraq. when asked if the USA was inning he replied with a simple "No,sir"http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/05/gates.confirmation/index.html

WereKitten briefed on December 5, 2006 01:17 PM

OOHHHHH! "Deadly Assault Kitten"
I made the list of deadly weapons that don't exist but should!

Of course, my methods may vary from your average deadly assault kitten: I don't jump from planes.

WereKitten briefed on December 5, 2006 01:18 PM

I jump from cakes.

John of Argghhh! briefed on December 5, 2006 02:10 PM

John - context matters. What the Secretary-Designate *said* was:

Asked point-blank by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., whether the U.S. is winning in Iraq, Gates replied, "No, sir." He later said he believes the United States is neither winning nor losing, "at this point."

Full context is useful, John. The qualifier makes a significant difference in the overall meaning, doesn't it?

FbL briefed on December 5, 2006 07:47 PM

John of Argghhh!, surely an amateur like you shouldn't worry about context... I mean, the professionals don't. /sarcasm

John Ryan's excerpt/perspective is EXACTLY the way the story was framed on CBS News radio this morning.

Trias briefed on December 5, 2006 10:05 PM

I think Gates made a mistake there not saying it in the same sentence. It's far too easy for the MSM vultures to feast on it.

Is it really possible to not be losing when you're not winning?

John of Argghhh! briefed on December 5, 2006 10:14 PM

Leaving aside Gates, yes, it is possible to be not losing, even if you aren't winning. You're hanging in the balance.

Ask Churchill after Dunkirk.

Just as you can be winning big, yet still lose. Ask the Germans and Japanese.

It's just not that simple, izzit?

AFSister briefed on December 5, 2006 10:23 PM

I'm with Trias. His remark was easily taken out of context because of the delay in the qualifier. It wasn't a John Kerry-sized delay, but a "No, we're not really winning OR losing at this point, but I think we CAN win with adjustments to our current strategy" would have been a MUCH better answer.

Post a comment









Remember personal info?