Forum Search Forum Posts matching all AND Creator is "grmbrand" In all forums :| Author | Message |
|---|
grmbrand
| | #1 posted September 20, 2002 at 9:50am (EST) |
If the shoe fits...
(dammit Brian, I couldn't help myself) |
|
| Author | Message |
|---|
grmbrand
| | #2 posted September 20, 2002 at 7:19am (EST) |
Seriously, are you some kind of stalker? |
|
| Author | Message |
|---|
grmbrand
| | #5 posted September 12, 2002 at 8:31am (EST) |
I think you ought to create a survey about it. (hint, hint) |
|
| Author | Message |
|---|
grmbrand
| | #6 posted September 9, 2002 at 10:53am (EST) |
You are slaying me, kate. I'm sure that at this point you are just trolling me, but I feel that you are preventing me from letting this one go.
Look: unless the crap -really- hits the fan, the U.S. _Armed Forces_ (that is, the Army and the three other huge U.S. military orginizations that you, perhaps, have heard of) are directed by -civilian- politicians.
U.S. -politicians- are poor losers. When they get an unfavorable result, they put a little spin on it. They bend truths to prove their points and get their way. On the other hand, when the U.S. -armed forces- get unfavorable results, lots of Americans die. That's why we run training simulations.
Sure, the U.S. military doesn't like to lose, but soldiers -die- to prevent that from happening. That is a far greater price than most politicians would be willing to pay, especially when they can just request that training scenarios are "adjusted" here and there to produce the nicest possible outcome.
Please maintain that distinction in your mind as you dole out judgements on an organization that you don't seem to fully understand.
Thank you,
Grmbrand, a.k.a. Spc. Noah Ripps, A Co 181 Eng Btn ARNG. | grmbrand
| | #7 posted September 6, 2002 at 2:42pm (EST) |
I've been trying to stay away from this one, but kate's post kinda cinched it for me.
First off, I completely agree that the army (read: all U.S. military forces) got their asses whipped by a clever old marine. He was clever and very effective.
However, I feel like the Guardian article really misrepresented the motives of the army when the army started changing the parameters around. Rumsfeld's ponderous quote didn't help to elucidate things either.
Consider this--you've just spent $250 million (that's merely £160 million to you brits) and committed 13,000 people to a fifteen day exercise. Now, the person you've selected to lead one of the forces exploits every weakness they can find and "wins" the simulation on day two.
Well, there's a lot to learn from that. I sincerely hope that the army gives some long, hard thought to what Van Riper did in those first two days. But the fact remains that you've still got thirteen days left in your exercise, and your big wad of money has already been spent setting the whole thing up.
So, you concede the win, change the variables, and explore other scenarios. Is that cheating? I say, no... The army was shown that they are weak against private boats and aircraft loaded with explosive. Do we really want to waste time playing out the whole thing, or do we acknowledge the weakness and move on to the next scenario?
So they changed the variables and started again.
Now, I understand completely why Van Riper was upset. As a marine, he is trained to deal with the now. He would rather have seen the army try and rally from a horrible naval loss--the position they found themselves in on day two--than simply reset the whole encounter. His whole career has been an exercise in crisis management of the highest order, and to watch the army restart instead of perservere was certainly infuriating.
However, if the army -does- attack Iraq, they -won't- get a second chance, so better to explore all of their opening gambits now.
The only part of the article that genuinely concerned me was the part about the communications limitations they imposed on Van Riper's army. I'm sure they had a laundry list of scenarios to run through, but basing strategies on the ability to jam cellphones in a culture where every freaking village has a temple with a tower and a bullhorn seems like a profoundly bad idea; especially after your Marine Colonel uses them against you in a simulation...
--Grmbrand |
|
| Author | Message |
|---|
grmbrand
| | #8 posted September 5, 2002 at 12:54pm (EST) |
EEEEEEEEEEE! EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! GKTKTKTKTKTKTKTKTK EEEEEEEEEEEEE!
[ That's my dolphin impression ] |
|
| Author | Message |
|---|
grmbrand
| | #10 posted August 26, 2002 at 11:14am (EST) |
User Bill_Grafts is advertising online poker games in the forum. Dunno what your policy is but I thought you should know; it struck me as a bit fishy.
|
Next page (only 10 shown here) |
|
