Marines Not Returning Fire Back, Is It A Good Strategy ?

**Shek** · 23 Oct 06,, 02:00

Originally Posted by S-2

Perhaps I'm exposing a bias as well, but my sense from the articles read in the last year seem to indicate "house-to-house" searches as part of planned patrol activities are increasingly less reliant upon U.S. forces. Instead, we are more likely outside providing security.

Too, the searches themselves under these conditions, whether by our Iraqi allies or ourselves, seem to be less invasive/intrusive to the families affected. It might even be fair to suggest that these activities, performed with a more nuanced approach, provide ample proof of our restraint, and face-to-face opportunities for Iraqi civilians to offer intell without compromising themselves to the insurgent reprisals that so often happen.

A violent "drag-net" through a neighborhood would, almost certainly, have the opposite effect. Literally busting down doors and traumatizing families can't help but undo any present good-will. If required, I'd think that very discrete manuever instituted as a response to aimed fire must be as precise as the ROE for return fire would be under these circumstances. The objective, if necessary, I'd hope would be so clearly delineated as to preclude the need for "cordon-and-search" by guys made extremely tense by circumstances.

Increasingly, I'm wondering whether we can really create a set of doctrinal rules of battle at this level? I mean, basic rules of infantry battle apply universally. But increasingly, we are providing our commanders with a tool set from which they select to apply localized solutions. We, therefore need company, battalion, and brigade commanders who have an intuitive and "artistic" approach to operations within their battle-space based upon their acquired and inherited knowledge of specific circumstances in their immediate A.O. Senior commanders have to be aware of these differences when evaluating performance and results while drawing larger lessons.

S-2,

You hit the nail on the head. I was referring to the post-shooting dragnet that was often conducted post contact in the past by some units in my earlier door-to-door search comments.

Door-to-door searches can be done, but the conditions have to be set. Knock on doors, be polite and respectful, have the man of the house lead the soldiers around, etc. The flexibility was there for commanders in the beginning, but the knowledge and art were not. That's changed some since then, but I don't have a feel for how much and to what extent.

**Bill** · 23 Oct 06,, 21:59

Originally Posted by shek

Non-sequitir. Speculates about tactics that do not necessarily follow (and for units that have return fire discipline, they will almost assuredly be disciplined in how they conduct house searches without alienating the local population).

House-to-house searches are the exception to the rule now, and not the inevitable result of an unidentified shooting.

Tis not a non-sequitor because the article clearly states that a security team does "door to door searches" after such an attack. If the article is wrong, well, then obviously my opinion which is based on said article will be equally wrong.

At any rate, natives hate door to doors. All natives, everywhere. I dont care how nice you are. They may smile and pretend to be nice, but they aint happy AT ALL you barging in on em while they're trying to put the kids to bed or eat dinner or have a little boom-boom. You are violating the integrity of their home with your very presence. Even if they dont hate americans to begin with, they sure as efff dont want you in their living room making them answer your questions(or your 'lap dogs' doing it either).

Americans hate it when our cops do it(and our cops are none too freindly in the process either), so when foriegn troops are doing it, it is 100x worse, even under the best of conditions.

**Sanctified** · 24 Oct 06,, 01:36

This is an insane policy that will encourage more guerilla terror attacks!
This is why the US is losing it's power due to lack of leadership and the will to win.
What's more of an offense here; a house to house search to find terrorists, or terrorists using civilian homes to launch their attacks and as human shields?

Some of you people are actually starting to buy into the concept of a kinder, gentler war.

**ArmchairGeneral** · 24 Oct 06,, 04:21

Originally Posted by Sanctified

This is an insane policy that will encourage more guerilla terror attacks!
This is why the US is losing it's power due to lack of leadership and the will to win.
What's more of an offense here; a house to house search to find terrorists, or terrorists using civilian homes to launch their attacks and as human shields?

Some of you people are actually starting to buy into the concept of a kinder, gentler war.

This not a war in the traditional sense. It's a COIN operation. That means, to start with, that we avoid pissing off the civilians by shooting them. We cannot win without the support of the civilian population, at least win the way we want to win. Of course, if we wanted, we could simply treat all Iraqis as the enemy, and probably control Iraq, eventually. Pull a Ghengis Khan. But that would take awhile, and what would be the point? Not to mention that many, many more American soldiers would die.

**Bill** · 24 Oct 06,, 06:34

Originally Posted by Sanctified

This is an insane policy that will encourage more guerilla terror attacks!
This is why the US is losing it's power due to lack of leadership and the will to win.
What's more of an offense here; a house to house search to find terrorists, or terrorists using civilian homes to launch their attacks and as human shields?

Some of you people are actually starting to buy into the concept of a kinder, gentler war.

We're talking about how to do COIN in a 'civilized' way.

Of course we could "Go Carthage" on them, but that doesnt always work either, as the Russians can tell you(they got downright midevil on Grozny).

**Shek** · 24 Oct 06,, 12:25

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Tis not a non-sequitor because the article clearly states that a security team does "door to door searches" after such an attack. If the article is wrong, well, then obviously my opinion which is based on said article will be equally wrong.

At any rate, natives hate door to doors. All natives, everywhere. I dont care how nice you are. They may smile and pretend to be nice, but they aint happy AT ALL you barging in on em while they're trying to put the kids to bed or eat dinner or have a little boom-boom. You are violating the integrity of their home with your very presence. Even if they dont hate americans to begin with, they sure as efff dont want you in their living room making them answer your questions(or your 'lap dogs' doing it either).

Americans hate it when our cops do it(and our cops are none too freindly in the process either), so when foriegn troops are doing it, it is 100x worse, even under the best of conditions.

It pays to read the article closer, as it does talk about going door to door. LOL!

I would, however, still argue that this can be done in a manner that it is a much more preferrable strategy to firing back against targets that are not completely identified. While I don't disagree with your thoughts above, you have to remember that our perspective is one where security is the status quo. If we had the Wild West going on outside our houses, we would be more receptive, especially if it's between choosing sides where one side doesn't care about civilian deaths and the other side goes to lengths to avoid civilian deaths.

Finally, door-to-door doesn't necessarily mean that they physically searched a house. Knocking on the door vs. searching through the house with the head male vs. searching through the house unescorted vs. seaching through the house unescorted while the family is all tied up (why we had units that would zip tie women and kids is beyond me, but it use to happen

) all are different levels of intrusion. The first two demonstrate respect, while the last two can be tipping point experiences for the family to want to join the insurgency.

**Shek** · 24 Oct 06,, 12:26

Originally Posted by Sanctified

This is an insane policy that will encourage more guerilla terror attacks!
This is why the US is losing it's power due to lack of leadership and the will to win.
What's more of an offense here; a house to house search to find terrorists, or terrorists using civilian homes to launch their attacks and as human shields?

Some of you people are actually starting to buy into the concept of a kinder, gentler war.

Sanctified,

Have you read Sun-Tzu? Mao? Galula? Nagl? Krepinevich? etc.