previous post next post  

H&I* Fires 12 OCT 2007

By Denizens on October 12, 2007 | | Comments (27)

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...

*********************************
First off, let’s make today another Red Friday. The other day Canadian’s in Afghanistan performed a pretty big raid. Let’s hono(u)r them for that (‘cause they’re sure as hell not getting much of it in their home country).
--
Here is something for MajMike and Armorer to get their geek on about. Someone’s actually discussing Lanchester Theory.

Though I think the guy’s being a bit harsh. Lanchester was the first application of math to military models, afaik, in a manner very much like the shifting of chemistry away from alchemy with the discovery of the law of definite proportion (introduction of math to chemistry). It was using the simplest of math to explain what one saw as best as possible, and so of course it's overly linear. Of course it’s going to have problems trying to explain everything, but it’s still useful. Though, I think it did do a pretty good job of explaining WW1 (little or no maneuver) and Napoleonic styles (pikeman-esque squares firing in sequence) of fighting well enough (but such a judgment is above my pay grade (I’m paid in stale cheetos.)).
--
Continuing the topic of religion and idjits putting their foot in their mouth from yesterday, I present to you the words of the Anchoress. There are only two people I wish would shut up more: She-who-will-not-be-named (She’ll Sue!) and Sy Hersh. Thanks a lot, Coulter. What’s next? Converting all us crazy, dirty Papists too? (Shrug)

[Update: As MajMike so conveniently provided - Jason over at Countercolumn has a very good take on the underlying details of the Coulter-Deutsch kerfuffle. -the Armorer]
--
Very little has been said about the Columbia University brouhaha, and rightly so since Argghhh! isn’t really a pop-culture or political blog. But, I will caution people eager to jump to grand conclusions on the subject. Let the investigation proceed to its conclusion and then we’ll all go after the guilty as One Team with One Fight.
--
Well, people can scream that we should all “Read the Constitution”, meaning Bush can’t conduct operations against Iran without direct Congressional consent, all they want. They’re still wrong. The President of the US can effectively wage war for sixty days so long as he merely consults Congress (which could simply mean telling them he’s doing it whether they like it or not 48 hours before he does it, and that’s not asking permission by any definition of asking I’ve ever heard of.). It’s called the 1973 War Powers Act, enacted in the wake of Vietnam so that Presidents couldn’t commit to entirely open ended affairs ever again. Consult only means ask the opinion of or to talk over the subject with a second party, and not to ask permission of said party.

So it’s not like we’re in new territory here, going over a brand new question of what a president can and cannot do with military force without a declaration of war. Pres can make war for 60 days regardless of what Congress feels about it. That’s an amendment to the Constitution and therefore the *law of the land*. So, maybe the people screaming so loud we should read the Con should take a gander themselves. The funny part is that it effectively gave each President after Nixon a blank check for 60 days of war---even if it isn’t declared by Congress. It’s what allowed Bush 41 to go to Panama and to do the 1991 Gulf War. It allowed Reagan to send forces to Grenada, order the punitive strike against Libya (El Dorado Canyon), and to send Marines to Lebanon. Oh, not to mention Jimmy Carter’s ordering of Op Eagle Claw (what a flaming cluster ---k that was). It allowed Pres Clinton to do Somalia, Haiti, and the Kosovo missions; and to perform ‘cruise missile diplomacy’. It’s nothing new, people have been over this ground extensively for at least the last 16 years, and is an established piece of law.
--ry
**************************************
Oh for the love of God!!!! Although considering 1994, 2002 and 2005.........I don't know why I am surprised and disappointed. I know, I beefed last year and no one cared then either. I am alone in my outrage.......Maggie

Not a lot out there in the MSM about today's very important anniversary.
Never Forget - USS Cole DDG67, October 12, 2000
*************************************************************

*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 (oops, can't call 'em UAVs anymore - they're now Unmanned Aerial Systems... some Colonel got his Legion of Merit for that change...), er, um UAS's 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 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"

Share This Article:

Categories:

27 Comments

By Alan on October 12, 2007 10:43 AM
Not to be glib, but I am wearing a Red Sox golf shirt today with both intentions.
 
By Alan on October 12, 2007 10:49 AM
Oh, and Coulter's Bible must have the Book of Job and half the Gospels ripped out of it. Like most books she seems to encounter.
 
By MajMike on October 12, 2007 10:53 AM
audacity trumps Lanchester, but calculating the fudge factor for it is a bitch!
 
By Yu-ain Gonnano on October 12, 2007 11:21 AM
As far as I know, most major religions claim superiority over the others and that their adherents should try to persuade non-adherents to convert in order to save them from their particular brand of "negative afterlife". Why is this only a problem when a Christian says this?
 
By John of Argghhh! on October 12, 2007 11:40 AM
Lanchester does not, and never has, accounted for morale. Get there firstest with the mostest, and have the best protection, you're going to win. Which is why people have made a living in developing relative fudges to modify things to try to account for brittleness/inability to recognize you're beaten... IOW, what MajMike said, expanded.
 
By Alan on October 12, 2007 12:04 PM
...Why is this only a problem when a Christian says this?... Yeah, no one around here has an issue when the Taliban says it about Islam.
 
By ry on October 12, 2007 12:50 PM
"Yeah, no one around here has an issue when the Taliban says it about Islam."
Here's the weakness with that argument: outside of Ireland no Christians have tried to make others convert at the point of a sword/invaded another country to do it for about, oh, 500 years(Kosovo was more than just religion, there was a fair bit about racial purity in the stew that pushed people to violence there and you know it), and about the worst that's happened in N. America in many years is that people tell each other they're going to hell for having the 'wrong religion'. Now it is a contest of rhetoric between sects for the most part. Yeah, Coulter really stepped in it. 'Perfecting' sounds bad, but, knowing the influence of Greek philosophy and philosophers in early Christianity, shouldn't be taken as bad as it sounds. Yeah, Coulter should really stfu on this as she's *not* the most eloquent on the matter nor do her slash and burn tactics really lend themselves to it. Even Jews think that we Christians are deluded and believers in a false Messiah, they just don't go about converting all that much. So? They still believe it. I mentioned it because, well, she's not helping anyone by saying that, not conservatives nor Christians(especially the latter since your 'you all are just like the Taliban' comment was made possible by her idiocy). At the end of the day people of whatever religious stripe, if they take their religion seriously, think those who don't follow it are at least deluded if not terribly wrong(including atheists). We just don't bring it up and for the most part look past it 99% of the time. I'd say guys like Donny Deutsch and the Media Matters crowd need to develop a little thicker skin and be a little less insecure about their own religion. Chit, when I worked for a political campaign in '06 I had people bashing Catholics right in front of me, calling us scum. Not saying we had to be 'perfected' by accepting Baptist doctrine, but flat out scum with no choice but to go to hell(and we're triply bad for convincing some grandchildren to convert not only to Catholicism but to being democrats). Did I cry? No. I marched out and bought a Tivoli Model One. ;) Big frickin' deal. Grow some thicker skin and be more secure in your own religion if that really offends you. There's no guarantee against being offended in life. But, yeah, Coulter really screwed us all by being incautious. It was a tremendously stupid way and thing to say when you're a political operator. It really set eccumenacism in the world back quite a bit. Maggs, what's wrong with the '06 economist guy? His idea of microloans to the poor in the 3rd World was a brilliant bit of free trade economics giving a boost to that part of the world. yeah, terrorists went and perverted the technology he used, but the idea did help he plight of the poor immensely and thereby helped spread peace. I'm not sure I understand your complaint on that one.
 
By Maggie on October 12, 2007 12:56 PM
Ry - I was so busy stewing, I messed up. I meant 2005. I'll fix it.
 
By Alan on October 12, 2007 1:08 PM
That was not an argument, ry, it was an observation made possible by the person who I quoted. Coulter, on the other hand, is just one of those false prophets, misrepresenting the faith for her own purposes and/or gain. This has nothing to do with the reaction to her. It just reflects on her.
 
By Yu-ain Gonnano on October 12, 2007 2:22 PM
What ry said. When Muslims stick to rhetorical persuasion and not physical coersion, I don't believe anyone here does have a problem with it. And the insinuation that anyone here ever has is insulting. But when a Christian does it, liberals everywhere get the vapors. "Oh my GAWD, the THEOCRACY is coming!!!"
 
By ry on October 12, 2007 2:37 PM
"Lanchester does not, and never has, accounted for morale." HERO(or QJMA) anyone? ;) (Hey, it's the only model I understand middlin' well.) And I knew you and MajMike would get your geek on over this.
 
By ry on October 12, 2007 2:50 PM
BTW - d'you know that Coulter is Catholic? Nope. She runs around saying Christian so much I assumed(yeah, I know, don't assume, makes an @55 of u and me) she was some kind of Protestant given the experiences with certain types I've run into. My bad. You knew I was eventually going to say something tremendously stupid, didn't you?
 
By BillT on October 12, 2007 3:08 PM
You knew I was eventually going to say something tremendously stupid, didn't you? Thereby obliterating all previous tremendously stupid statements in one swell foop...
 
By Alan on October 12, 2007 3:28 PM
...And the insinuation that anyone here ever has is insulting... It is always nice when correction and vaporous insult coincide. Look to your original statement and note the lack of reference to violence. If you are apologizing and correcting yourself, that is fine.
 
By MajMike on October 12, 2007 4:14 PM
re: Coulter. for a more rationale take on it, check with Jason over at Countercolumn http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/2007/10/two-great-religious-traditions.html
 
By Yu-ain Gonnano on October 12, 2007 4:22 PM
You were the one claiming hypocricy on our part. I.e. saying we didn't like it when the Taliban asserted that they had the true religion. That is flat out false. It wasn't the assertion that only they had the true faith that was the problem. It was the beheading if you didn't convert that was. That's not hypocricy. That's you arguing apples and oranges.
 
By Yu-ain Gonnano on October 12, 2007 4:24 PM
Unless Coulter followed up her comment with, "Or I/we will kill you". Then I'll agree it's hypocritical. Otherwise, not so much.
 
By Murray on October 12, 2007 4:29 PM
Bali.
 
By John of Argghhh! on October 12, 2007 6:13 PM
Murray wins the prize! I was wondering if that was going to come up today. When I realized that I wasn't going to have time to do Bali, I decided to leave the Cole out, as well, which Maggie ably picked up.
 
By Yu-ain Gonnano on October 12, 2007 6:26 PM
The WPA73 isn't a constitutional amendment. It's just an average-every-day law that (purportedly) clarifies an article of the constitution. However, it's constitunionality has not been put before the courts. Presidents have argued the the WPA73 is unconstitutional as Article 1 states that only congress has the power to declare war, not that only congress has the power to authorize shooting off a missle. I.e. sending off a cruise missle to destroy an aspirin factory, umm... kill Bin Laden, is not a declaration of war, so congress doesn't need to authorize it. The Prez can do that on his own as CIC of the military. Others, who take the position that, no, the military can never be used absent a congressional declaration of war (not really supported by history) that congress cannot absolve itself of its constitutional responsibility whether it wants to or not.
 
By Alan on October 12, 2007 6:58 PM
"...we didn't like it when the Taliban asserted that they had the true religion. That is flat out false." I'll leave it to others to judge this one.
 
By John of Argghhh! on October 12, 2007 7:07 PM
[Waves Hand] I didn't like it when the Taliban claimed to have the one true religion, whether they were whacking heads off at the moment or no. I also don't like it when the Odious Phelps makes claims, either. Or when some Baptist tells me Catholics will go to hell and that nuns and priests breed babies to sacrifice to the devil. (Been there, done that. A Bible Baptist, I think). I am bemused when a bible literalist tells me the Earth is circa 6-10K years old (I can't ever remember the currently accepted number on that issue, I've got Bishop Ussher stuck in my brain.). But him I still work with because, well, we agree to disagree and he's never looked at my neck speculatively while stropping a knife... Of course, he may simply be deterred by the size of the job to slice this melon from it's support system. Hmmmm. I don't like it when *anyone* pushes their religion in my face, and doesn't take the first "Sorry, not interested" for an answer. Cue Jehovahs (especially the ones who send their children to ring the bell), 7th Dayers, and the occasional Mormon (most Mormon missionaries take a polite dismissal well). Mind you - I only mind them if they won't take that first "Sorry, not interested" as an answer. But I reserve a special degree of heat for people who are wanting to kill me over the issue, I do admit. Don't care who they're praying to. But, mostly, I wish this thrice-damned "high speed" internet access... was.
 
By BillT on October 12, 2007 11:13 PM
Most proselytizers who show up on my doorstep do an About Face when I ask them if they'd like to come in for a beer. The ones who accept usually take one look at Jake ("Oh, he's okay as long as you don't make eye contact with him -- he thinks you're challenging him to a fight.") crouched in the hallway and then do a Rear March...
 
By Yu-Ain Gonnano on October 12, 2007 11:18 PM
But at least that's consistent. I don't understand it. But whatever. All 'good/bad afterlife' religions make claims of exclusivity. This doesn't bother me. Why it would anyone else is beyond me, frankly. The problem with Phred is not that he claims exclusivity of salvation, but that he's a nutcase. The problem of not accepting a 'no thanks' is not an issue of exclusivity/superiority, but of manners. It's the whole 'freely accepted' deal.
 
By ry on October 12, 2007 11:44 PM
"Acts" are not 'amendments' to the Con, but they are changes to it carrying as much weight. They're just as much law of the land as the Constitution. This is easy to verify empirically. (Try breaking a sexual harassment law and get away with it on an unConstitutional argument). Yu-ain, but you largely get at my point. It's not arguing semantics to call an air raid against Iran is not a war. But, if her Hillary-ness gets her act enacted all Presidents will thereafter be constrained by it. It's just as much the law as any part of the Con. "Thereby obliterating all previous tremendously stupid statements in one swell foop..." Gee, t'anks, Bigfoot. See if me an' the zombies put your garbage cans back after we get done playing street hockey. (Come on, you know you love it when I set myself up like that. You just can't pass up a target that open.) "I'll leave it to others to judge this one." Well, since I wasn't using the internet when the Taliban blew up the stone Buddha statues there's not a nice accessible record of it, but I was kind of pissed off when they did that and claimed it was because they had the one true religion. Not fighting mad, mind you, but still angry over the claim and the action. The Turkish guy married to one of Jess' labmates at a party telling me I don't belong to the true religion because Islam, coming last, was the final and best refinement? Not so much. Annoyed, but not mad. Something about not worrying about him trying to take my heart out with the little, plastic swords stuck in the cocktail weenies makes it only annoying('cause, of course, I belong to the one true religion, not him, so he can say whatever he wants). The former is something to worry about since, well, they said they want to create a global Umma and their acts proved they meant it. The latter is merely an engineering grad student discussing religion, rubbing some people the wrong way while doing it, and not threatening anyone with genocide unless I convert. There's kind of a big difference, y'know. Which bring me to this. While I do condemn COulter for doing it on Deutch's show(great, thanks a lot Ann, just feed the left with ammo to justify the American Taliban smear, thanks a bunch), I really don't understand why people all across this country are taking it like they are. I don't see how they get from "The world would be better if we all had the same moral code" to 'she wants to kill all the Jews'. In the words of the Blogfather, 'That's a stealing a few too many philosophical bases.' The Wife and I have been over it for the last two days, Herself being rather more amenable to the outrage reaction(and coming down with the flu---good vibes would be welcome), and I still don't get it. Al, I know you're going to get *LOTS* of crap from others if you do and so I don't blame you if you choose not to, but could you try explaining this line of thinking? I don't get it at all.
 
By Cassandra on October 13, 2007 12:11 PM
If I were ever tempted to take Ann Coulter seriously (which event thankfully has not yet occurred) I'd be mighty tempted to wonder whose side she's really on? With 'friends' like that, does the GOP even need enemies?
 
By Wiggins on October 15, 2007 12:42 AM
Thanks much for the link. I was being a bit harsh, so let me clarify myself. Mathematical laws of chemistry describe immutable dynamics of the physical world. I question whether combat has any similar immutable dynamics that are waiting to be mathematically modeled. The difference lies in the thinking adversary inherent in war, as opposed to the stable relationships of chemistry. Maybe the mathematics of dynamical systems offers a way to account for this - I think this is why chaos and complexity theory get folks so excited - but I haven't encountered it yet. My second post didn't claim Lanchester wasn't useful; it argued that it was being used in situations where it wasn't appropriate. The question wasn't 'is Lanchester useful,' it was how often is it useful and in what cases? I was voicing my concern that Lanchester is rarely useful and sometimes used inappropriately. Not because it helps, but because it's something concrete we can work with. ... of course it would have helped my argument if I had, I dunno, had an actual example to back that up...