Terrorists: Have we fought such an enemy before?

Discussion in 'The Club House' started by themanbeau, Sep 22, 2009.

  1. General Eisenhower

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. General Sherman

    4.2%
  3. General MacArthur

    4.2%
  4. General Grant

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. General Patton

    50.0%
  6. General Custer

    4.2%
  7. General Washington

    4.2%
  8. General Lee

    4.2%
  9. General 'Stonewall' Jackson

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  10. Other choice-I will post, giving my reason for choosing.

    29.2%
  1. themanbeau

    themanbeau New Member

    107
    0
    0
    Hey, Gunners- :D

    I was (am) reading a very interesting book called "The Glory and The Dream"
    by William Manchester (deceased-a WW2 Marine). In it is the following
    passage (pg. 269/paperback):

    What made Pacific combat so ferocious, and turned it into a conflict in which few prisoners were taken, was that Japs thought it shameful for their enemies to surrender, too. Their captives were not treated gently. Corregidor's survivors were led on a "death march" after their capitulation-that is, the weak and the wounded were literally marched to death. Nips beheaded marine raiders captured on Makin Island, and at Milne Bay they left behind bayoneted Australian prisoners whose penises had been lopped off and the foreskins sewn to their lips. Above hung a taunting sign: "It took them a long time to die."
    Such behavior brought swift retaliation; not since the French and Indian War had American troops been so brutal. Women and children were excluded; there were none of the atrocities against civilians which were to stain the Army's honor a quarter-century later in Vietnam. But in combat there were no truces, no chivalric gestures. The U.S. Navy waged unrestricted submarine warfare. Nips in the Admiralty Islands who preferred starvation to surrender were left in the bush and used for target practice. It was a hard war. Generals and flag officers could be as bloodthirsty as riflemen. Lieutenant General Lesley J. McNair told his troops, "We must hate with every fiber of our being. We must lust for battle, our object in life must be to kill."
    Admiral William F. Halsey ordered the erection of a huge billboard on a Tulagi hillside, visible to passing ships:

    KILL JAPS. KILL JAPS.
    KILL MORE JAPS.

    You will help to kill the yellow bastards if you do your job well.

    In the same mood, MacArthur told General Robert L. Eichelberger that if he didn't take Buna he needn't come back alive, and in 1943, when spies reported where Japan's great Admiral Yamamoto was, American commanders deliberately sought him out with P-38 fighter planes and killed him.

    What the author doesn't mention is that MacArthur ceased such a hard attitude as soon as the Japanese empire surrendered following the bombing of Nagasaki in August, 1945. Mac could have easily removed the Emperor from power, but was smart enough not to. His fair treatment post-war had the fantastic result of making Japan become the first (major) nation in history to place a "no offensive war" clause in it's new Constitution. He was relentless in combat, but generous once the last shot was fired. In fact, a little-known part of history is that the General called for the U.S. churches to send as many missionaries as possible to Japan, a call that (sadly) went largely unheeded. :(

    A Historian's perspective- :)
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2009

  2. White Rook

    White Rook New Member

    8
    0
    0
    I voted for Patton also.
     
  3. Dillinger

    Dillinger New Member

    23,972
    1
    0
    Since you haven't clarified the subject matter to country only -

    Any discussion of effective combat under the direction of a General that lacks the name of Irwin Rommel is incomplete and an exercise in self stroking.

    I believe the Ineff will back me up on this as he has also studied extensive military history...

    JD
     
  4. Shihan

    Shihan Active Member Lifetime Supporter

    8,590
    2
    38
  5. themanbeau

    themanbeau New Member

    107
    0
    0
    Well, Rommel was a very great General, indeed; but, since he served under the infamous mad dictator, I hardly think he would have fought any (what we would have called) 'terrorists' in his day, from our free (U.S.) perspective.

    Thanks for mentioning him, he's one of my favs, for tactics- :)
     
  6. Dillinger

    Dillinger New Member

    23,972
    1
    0
    You don't think that Rommel had his share of insurgents and home grown terrorists in his travels??

    Rommel would have done whatever the country that was his benefactor told him to do, and he would have done it better than just about everyone on that list...

    Rommel would have crushed the Allies in Northern Africa and waded across the Med to create havoc on the Southern front if Hilter wasn't such a tool....

    JD
     
  7. themanbeau

    themanbeau New Member

    107
    0
    0
    As I stated, he was a very great General, indeed. The whole point of this thread is not to debate which General (of all countries, in all times) was best, my point was that we have fought such folks before-(not just in Japan)-which includes the Germans, in my opinion, in both world wars. If Hitler was not a terrorist, :confused: then the term is meaningless.

    Also, Rommel (as you probably know-but others might not-especially the younger members) was not afraid (in the end) to oppose Mr. Hitler, and was forced to drink poison, for that very opposition. Unfortunately, his resistance/disobedience came way too late to help his native land rid itself of the Nazis, which Rommel was not one of, but his service helped to support, sadly. :(

    Clarified, I hope-
     
  8. skullcrusher

    skullcrusher New Member

    10,888
    1
    0
    beau,

    What's that organization you have going on there? I know this is off topic, but can you elaborate on your group? I'm interested.
     
  9. RL357Mag

    RL357Mag New Member

    3,250
    0
    0
    Patton gets my vote - there would never had been a cold war had he prevailed.
     
  10. markerdown

    markerdown New Member

    381
    0
    0
    Gen. Blackjack Pershing gets my vote. He knew how to handle the insurection on Mindanao. Pigskin and entrails work wonders on terrorists :D..........markerdown
     
  11. c3shooter

    c3shooter Administrator Staff Member

    21,327
    169
    63
    Another vote for Gen. Pershing- or a lowly Major named John Singleton Mosby. :rolleyes:
     
  12. skullcrusher

    skullcrusher New Member

    10,888
    1
    0
    I honestly believe that the Generals we have now would do a great job if Congress did not handcuff them. Keep the politicians out of the workings and unleash the beast. It makes me sick when any elected official gets in the way of the military doing their job.

    Plus, Lee is out. He lost. :cool:
     
  13. Dillinger

    Dillinger New Member

    23,972
    1
    0
    Yeah, it's clear. But you asked this:

    Then you gave me the option of choosing someone else - which I did.

    Now, if you want to get down to brass tacks, let us do so.

    The War on Terror is one that can not be fought under conventional terms. That leaves out your conventional military tactics and conventional use of armor, planes, airstrikes and hard weapons like your navy sitting off shore and raining shells into a city all night before the troops move in.

    There is no formal enemy, there is no formal flag, there is no formal costume or insignia.

    You have a belief system that is driving a populace to fight what they perceive as a great devil.

    "Hearts and Minds" and in noway a disservice to men like Jack and his brothers in paint, is not going to work with these people. They use fear, intimidation, assault, rape, murder and torture on their own people.

    What do you think they would do to their God Chosen Enemy?

    Generals like Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee would be so far in over their heads with such a war, they would get annihilated with the swiftness.

    You think burning a few farms, taking a few prisioners & parking cannons out in front of the lines is going to intimidate this foe? Not likely.

    This same group outlasted the Russian Red Army for what, a dozen years? This isn't a hit and git battle. This is a campaign.

    Custer, at least, wasn't afraid of Collateral Damage - but that guy was so enamored with his own legacy that he was, for intensive purposes, driven to achieve inspite of common sense. You can cross him off the list.

    Then you get into the more modern Generals. They all fought hard, they all fought well, but you take a look at some of the real events that took place on their watch that would be what it would take to defeat this kind of opponent ( Taejon Prison, Chosin Reservior, Taegu Executions, My Lai, Tiger Force Resume', and The Phoenix Program ) and you will find MASSIVE public outcry that the soldiers were not fighting an "American Fight".

    Generals overseeing those units quickly backstepped any knowledge or involvement. These "lone groups of soldiers" were described as "desperate" or "not well led" or "inexperienced" or "rogue". But, they got results - and they made an impact.

    You want a list of generals that could make the kind of impact it would take to break such a foe? You need a general that is not afraid of collateral damage, not afraid of public opinion, and not afraid to fight the enemy on their own terms.

    You need to be discussing the likes of: Julius Caeser, Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, rulers that made decisions based on conquering, not on placating.

    You want recent evidence of this type of warlord?

    Read about Pol Pot. Read about Charles Taylor of Liberia. Read about Mohammed Farah Aidid ( he should be familiar, he was the source of the raid that launched Black Hawk Down ).

    These people were warlords. They were dispicable, evil, cruel, unfeeling, sociopaths that ruled with the sword and placated to no one. They also got results that others have not. They had the peace of fear in the areas under their command. They did not exhibit weakness, nor did they allow themselves to be challenged.

    To beat this enemy, to truly beat them, someone has to have the balls to take the leash off of the US troops, bar the cameras and the news reporters and let them conduct a war on the same level as the aggressors.

    That will never happen - and inserting one General into the mix, with today's troops won't change that either.

    It's not that today's troops lack the ability to win this war once and for all, it's that today's soldiers lack the backing that is necessary to fight the enemy in the same type of combat.

    JD
     
  14. Dillinger

    Dillinger New Member

    23,972
    1
    0
    That was proven to be false bro. But it's a great story.

    JD
     
  15. skullcrusher

    skullcrusher New Member

    10,888
    1
    0
    Very well said, JD. For our soldiers to have to think about which weapon they can and can't use to engage a charging extremist who is weilding a knife is just plain stupid. That soldier manning the .50 cal machine should be able to send a few into that islamic extremist without concern for his standing in the military. Seriously, what's the point of having superior firepower if it could land the soldier in the stockade and be scrutinized by Congress?

    As I said earlier, UNLEASH THE BEAST. Let our well trained soldiers do what they do best, and it could be over quickly, imo.
     
  16. markerdown

    markerdown New Member

    381
    0
    0
    It was publicised as being false, but there is some truth to the story. In 1939 the US made an uneasy truce with the moro insurgents on mindanao, and needed them as allies agains the spread of japanese imperialism. The actions of the phillipine gov and the US leading up the phillipine independence was swept aside with war looming.

    The prolbem still exist today on the southern phillipine islands as well as southern thailand. The issue is nobody has the guts to use Blackjacks "supposed " methods to deal with the issue of islamic terorists.

    The world has gotten too sensitive or civilized to resort to such "barbaric" actions. One thing, the world forgot to tell the terrorist or they ain't buyin' on what the rest of the world is sellin'. That's why we see the proliferation of terrorism.

    And no, for all you health consious anti-terrorists, immitaition bacon grease don't count . So put the sizzle-lean back in the freezer:eek:..............markerdown
     
  17. IGETEVEN

    IGETEVEN New Member

    8,358
    4
    0
    Beau my man, that's the God awful truth, plain and simple right there. Your enemy must fear you and respect you and right now, due to bureaucracy, ignorance, and a lack of an aggressive, no rules barred backing and support from our Government, it seems to be the other way around. Thank you again JD, for the real truth and incite, that most people do not see, or just will not see. Toot that damn horn, brother! ;)

    Jack
     
  18. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    Yes, this guy did:
    [​IMG]
    Jefferson engaged muslims in the Barbary Wars which came about as a result of American ships no longer flying the British flag. The Brits had paid the jizya tax to keep muslim privateers at bay, but the nascent United States had not.

    Rather than pay the tax, Jefferson instead opted to kick the snot out of the sob's until they decided to leave us alone.

    Jefferson had been told something to the effect "No offense, but any non-believer [of islam] is considered sub-human and thus may be killed or sold into slavery without guilt, their cargo freely taken, and their ships burned." Jefferson found this hard to believe and obtained a copy of the koran (the same one Keith Ellison used in his swearing-in ceremony) to read verify this for himself.
     
  19. user4

    user4 New Member

    3,414
    1
    0
    I agree that Rommel is tactically better than any of those listed. But if I'm fighting terrorists and I get ONE commander for the job, it is Temujin (aka Ghengis Khan) I dare anyone to be a terrorist under his watch. Brilliant tactician and ruthless.