Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military
From: tdrinkar@cosmos.acs.calpoly.edu (Terrell Drinkard)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Low tech warfare
Message-ID: <12701@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 2 Jan 90 02:48:08 GMT
References: <12610@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: Cal Poly State University -- San Luis Obispo
Lines: 36
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: tdrinkar@cosmos.acs.calpoly.edu (Terrell Drinkard)
 willey@arrakis.nevada.edu (James P. Willey) writes:
>...  For the most part, the
>US soldiers surround the sniper and wait him out.  There was an 
>interview with a sniper in the 82 Airborne on either ABC or CBS in
>which he said that when confronted by one of these snipers, they 
>surround him and then a US sniper tries to get a shot at him without 
>hitting a civilian.  If he can't get the shot, then they just wait 
>until he runs out of ammo.  This is NOT the way the military would have
>handled this problem in Vietnam.  Because of this change of tactics, 
>the US military has won over the Panamanian
>civilians, who are even helping the invaders.
>
>James P. Willey                           willey@arrakis.NEVADA.EDU

A short historical note, these are the same sorts of tactics and
rules of engagement that US ground forces used during the Philipine
Insurrection of 1900-03.  This was the only successful
counter-guerilla war we had ever waged.  Oddly enough, the
Philipine Insurrection was commanded and fought primarily by the
younger officers (colonels and below) who were full of all manner
of ideals and ideas.  The senior officers fought the Cuban part of
the War, and you see how far they got.
 
It's nice to see that the Army is once again requiring a reading of
military history
 
Terry Drinkard
Lt          AR

Disclaimer et la Signaturo:
Hell no, I'm not responsible for what I say!  If everyone were
responsible for what they said, we'd have had a balanced budget in
1984.