"Ignoramus4546" wrote in message
...
TMT's question deteriorated into a [somewhat interesting] political
discussion, but the question as to what to do techically about IEDs is
a very interesting question and very much on topic of this
newsgroup. Perhaps, in this sub-thread, we could post our own thoughts
as to what could be done to reduce the threat of IEDs.

I would like to ask NOT to post any political opinions into this
sub-thread.

My own thinking is that if about 2,000 miles of roads were made safe
from IEDs, the safety of US convoys could be greatly improved. If that
could be done by spending $1,000 per every 100 meters, or $16,000 per
mile, then securing 2000 miles would cost 32 million dollars. That's
really not too much.

What can be done for $1,000? A couple of light/IR cameras, solar
chargers and batteries, lasers and motion sensors and a transmitter
does not seem to be far fetched. It would be stuff similar to what is
sold at home depot and x10, only a little more rugged. It does not
have to be terribly reliable, as they can be treated as consumables
and replaced when it breaks.

So... if they set up some motion sensor activated cameras,
transmitters etc, then a few computers that receive these
transmissions can monitor those 2,000 miles of roads. If activity is
detected in any area, it can first of all be marked as "treat with
caution and search for mines", and second, maybe photos of suspects
could be taken and displayed.

That could go quite a long way. Obviously, development of such a
project would take some money too, but I think that it is a feasible
project.

It may be more problematic to do it inside of cities, but still
doable.

i


Nothing wrong with your idea but it's not really practical. The problem we
are facing with the IEDs in Iraq is a classic example of measure and
countermeasure that is the cornerstone of warfare. As such there is no way
for a long term win in this conflict. Everything we do, and I mean
everything, can and will be countered by a clever enemy. As we have already
learned, the insurgents are indeed smart so you must expect that no matter
what we do they will find ways to beat it.

There is only one reason why the insurgents are using IEDs in the first
place. They can't fight our forces head to head. Their solution to that is
to use bombs of all stripes to inflict damage to our troops instead of
actually fighting us. If we could stop that they would just come up with
some other way to hit us. The point is they have only one way to win against
us and that is by the good old "death of a thousand cuts" strategy. The use
of IEDs allows them to bleed us day by day. They will not stop until we have
had enough and call it quits. So there is really no solution to that problem
aside from pulling out. Of course, by now everyone knows that's exactly what
we are going to do but it's only a matter of when. As such we have gotten
into a return to the Vietnam days when nobody wants to be killed in a war we
know we are losing and are going to pull out from. Just like in that war, in
this one all the troops will find themselves doing everything to avoid being
killed instead of aggressively fighting the enemy. Which only adds to our
problems. Ultimately, we have to acknowledge we made a mistake and then
rectify it by leaving Iraq to the Iraqis. The question is how long do we
keep up a policy that doesn't work before admitting our mistake and changing
the policy.

Hawke

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 20:59:03 -0800, "Hawke"
wrote:


"Ignoramus4546" wrote in message
.. .
TMT's question deteriorated into a [somewhat interesting] political
discussion, but the question as to what to do techically about IEDs is
a very interesting question and very much on topic of this
newsgroup. Perhaps, in this sub-thread, we could post our own thoughts
as to what could be done to reduce the threat of IEDs.

I would like to ask NOT to post any political opinions into this
sub-thread.

My own thinking is that if about 2,000 miles of roads were made safe
from IEDs, the safety of US convoys could be greatly improved. If that
could be done by spending $1,000 per every 100 meters, or $16,000 per
mile, then securing 2000 miles would cost 32 million dollars. That's
really not too much.

What can be done for $1,000? A couple of light/IR cameras, solar
chargers and batteries, lasers and motion sensors and a transmitter
does not seem to be far fetched. It would be stuff similar to what is
sold at home depot and x10, only a little more rugged. It does not
have to be terribly reliable, as they can be treated as consumables
and replaced when it breaks.

So... if they set up some motion sensor activated cameras,
transmitters etc, then a few computers that receive these
transmissions can monitor those 2,000 miles of roads. If activity is
detected in any area, it can first of all be marked as "treat with
caution and search for mines", and second, maybe photos of suspects
could be taken and displayed.

That could go quite a long way. Obviously, development of such a
project would take some money too, but I think that it is a feasible
project.

It may be more problematic to do it inside of cities, but still
doable.

i


Nothing wrong with your idea but it's not really practical. The problem we
are facing with the IEDs in Iraq is a classic example of measure and
countermeasure that is the cornerstone of warfare. As such there is no way
for a long term win in this conflict. Everything we do, and I mean
everything, can and will be countered by a clever enemy. As we have already
learned, the insurgents are indeed smart so you must expect that no matter
what we do they will find ways to beat it.

There is only one reason why the insurgents are using IEDs in the first
place. They can't fight our forces head to head. Their solution to that is
to use bombs of all stripes to inflict damage to our troops instead of
actually fighting us. If we could stop that they would just come up with
some other way to hit us. The point is they have only one way to win against
us and that is by the good old "death of a thousand cuts" strategy. The use
of IEDs allows them to bleed us day by day. They will not stop until we have
had enough and call it quits. So there is really no solution to that problem
aside from pulling out. Of course, by now everyone knows that's exactly what
we are going to do but it's only a matter of when. As such we have gotten
into a return to the Vietnam days when nobody wants to be killed in a war we
know we are losing and are going to pull out from. Just like in that war, in
this one all the troops will find themselves doing everything to avoid being
killed instead of aggressively fighting the enemy. Which only adds to our
problems. Ultimately, we have to acknowledge we made a mistake and then
rectify it by leaving Iraq to the Iraqis. The question is how long do we
keep up a policy that doesn't work before admitting our mistake and changing
the policy.

Hawke


There may have been some of "troops doing everything..." as you say,
but it's incorrect as a blanket statement. Westy was far more a
politician than a general officer or leader. There were plenty of
troops who were frustrated as hell by being prevented from doing the
job they were trained to do and quite able to do if adequately
supported by HQ. It's impossible to kick ass and take names with
the constraint of being politically correct to waffling "leadership"
that leaves you high, dry, disowned and rots 'o ruck hopeyadisappear
when mission accomplishment turns out to have politically ugly
ramifications, hope ya don't E&E so as to cause any embarrassment by
having done as asked to do at the time.

I am not a warrior, never have been . I don't like conflict,
particularly mortal conflict. But I have been there and done
that. I led small teams because it was my job at the time. Ya
don't have to like it but ya do have to do it.

Don't park the 'Nam fiasco on the troops. That flat isn't fair.

Don Foreman wrote:
On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 20:59:03 -0800, "Hawke"
wrote:
aside from pulling out. Of course, by now everyone knows that's exactly what
we are going to do but it's only a matter of when. As such we have gotten
into a return to the Vietnam days when nobody wants to be killed in a war we
know we are losing and are going to pull out from. Just like in that war, in
this one all the troops will find themselves doing everything to avoid being
killed instead of aggressively fighting the enemy. Which only adds to our
problems. Ultimately, we have to acknowledge we made a mistake and then
rectify it by leaving Iraq to the Iraqis. The question is how long do we
keep up a policy that doesn't work before admitting our mistake and changing
the policy.

Hawke


Don't park the 'Nam fiasco on the troops. That flat isn't fair.

The troops in Iraq are far different from those in 'Nam.
Our people are better educated and highly motivated, committed to
finishing the mission. And they, working with the decent Iraqis, are
making progress, despite all the gloom and doom from the media and the
skeptics.

It's really not an issue among the leadership, after all it's not their
sons who do the bleeding.