I would hope one is not basing their organization with others on probabilities of whether someone committed atrocities, rather than concrete information on whether they did and whether they have turned around as a person.
That said, plenty of veterans won’t have been direct combatants but could still have logistical skills or advice, or knowledge from basic training that they can help others get on track with. The bulk of revolutionary efforts are not direct combat. I don’t know that I would personally trust imperial core combat veterans as combatants in a revolutionary context, but it’s possible they could still provide advice and training under the right kind of supervision.
But this feels a bit navel-gazing out of context of an actual revolutionary vanguard party. There does not appear to be that much of a “left” in the US for example and in the current climate, a civil war between constitutional loyalists and Trumpian fascists seems more likely than a “left” revolution.
I would hope one is not basing their organization with others on probabilities of whether someone committed atrocities, rather than concrete information on whether they did and whether they have turned around as a person.
Already talked about this
Do you really want to ally with someone who had a very good chance of having committed atrocities during their services regardless of if they felt bad about it? And even if they committed no war crimes why should we recruit them?
I don’t know that I would personally trust imperial core combat veterans as combatants in a revolutionary context, but it’s possible they could still provide advice and training under the right kind of supervision.
Most of these frontline infantry men have served in Iraq or Afghanistan any advice they give is going to be useless for whatever type of war you think you’ll be fighting 1) tactics and habits learned in counter insurgency doesn’t translate to running and operating an actual insurgency 2) the type of war they’re involved in is outdated 3) literally just train
That said, plenty of veterans won’t have been direct combatants but could still have logistical skills or advice, or knowledge from basic training that they can help others get on track with.
Again
Unless their specialised they have nothing to offer
But this feels a bit navel-gazing out of context of an actual revolutionary vanguard party. There does not appear to be that much of a “left” in the US for example and in the current climate, a civil war between constitutional loyalists and Trumpian fascists seems more likely than a “left” revolution.
I agree which makes me wonder what the point if all this arguing is
Most of these frontline infantry men have served in Iraq or Afghanistan any advice they give is going to be useless for whatever type of war you think you’ll be fighting 1) tactics and habits learned in counter insurgency doesn’t translate to running and operating an actual insurgency 2) the type of war they’re involved in is outdated 3) literally just train
This makes no sense. First, why would counter insurgency give you no understanding of insurgency. It’s two sides of the same coin. Second, some things about military training are just basic concepts, like how to manage a firearm, and don’t date fast at all. Third, “literally just train” line reminds me more of PvPers in a video game saying “git gud” than an understanding of RL logistics. Like… train in what? Based on whose experience? With what guidance? To what end? The whole point there was that some of them might have solid advice for training. Obviously they’re not the only people in the universe who understand related concepts, but my god, you’re really reaching on this narrative that there’s no circumstances under which they could possibly offer help.
First it was they’re too reactionary, now it’s “even if they aren’t too reactionary, their skills are still useless,” which is obviously nonsense.
Already talked about this
Do you really want to ally with someone who had a very good chance of having committed atrocities during their services regardless of if they felt bad about it? And even if they committed no war crimes why should we recruit them?
No you didn’t? I was responding to that part directly. As I said, “I would hope one is not basing their organization with others on probabilities of whether someone committed atrocities, rather than concrete information on whether they did and whether they have turned around as a person.” You literally said “a very good chance of”, not "people who are known to have done wrong. “A chance of” may be reason to be cautious, it is not investigation in itself. A person who committed war crimes is not the same as a person who committed no war crimes. You are uncritically assessing a situation, moving the goalposts to insist on a set narrative when it’s challenged, and generally misrepresenting logistics.
It’s not a hill worth dying on. I’m not going to insist someone trust imperial core veterans if they don’t want to and it’s up to peoples who have been harmed by them, as a collective, to decide in what capacity they want to be accepting of such veterans in general. You don’t need to trample over other reasonable points in order to have that stance.
Im responding to the points thats why each answer is different you seem like your arguing because you want to argue go outside also fighting against an insurgency doesnt translate to knowing at a deep level how that insurgency functions operates etc they may be two sides of the same coin but they’re not the same both require two different skill sets, you’re better off trying to recruit former insurgents from Afghanistan, Iraq, Northern Ireland and etc rather than recruiting from veterans who’ve served in infantry this convo is starting to piss me off im done engaging
tactics and habits learned in counter insurgency doesn’t translate to running and operating an actual insurgency
Is that actually true? The habits aren’t useful, but knowledge of the tactics seems incredibly useful! As an example, there’s plenty of narcotics agents that become highly successful drug dealers because their experience gives them insights. This seems similar.
Simple frontline troops don’t know how to be an insurgent because being an insurgent and a frontline soldier are too different things they can be taught but they don’t know it from the get go
They’re trained to identify, track, and fight insurgents. Seems like that’s a set of transferable skills and can be turned into dodging identification, frustrating trackers, and fighting counter insurgents.
The support arms are the ones doing the tracking and identifying and even the fighting is iffy since most of the time whenever they encounter insurgents the US just calls in an air strike, artillery or mortar team
It’s actually not that hard to believe before Iraq and Afghanistan the us army was trained to fight the soviet union and so their transition to being an anti insurgency force was pretty slow and didn’t start till after 9/11, it also didn’t help that by 2010 they effectively gave up on Afghanistan and Iraq
I would hope one is not basing their organization with others on probabilities of whether someone committed atrocities, rather than concrete information on whether they did and whether they have turned around as a person.
That said, plenty of veterans won’t have been direct combatants but could still have logistical skills or advice, or knowledge from basic training that they can help others get on track with. The bulk of revolutionary efforts are not direct combat. I don’t know that I would personally trust imperial core combat veterans as combatants in a revolutionary context, but it’s possible they could still provide advice and training under the right kind of supervision.
But this feels a bit navel-gazing out of context of an actual revolutionary vanguard party. There does not appear to be that much of a “left” in the US for example and in the current climate, a civil war between constitutional loyalists and Trumpian fascists seems more likely than a “left” revolution.
Already talked about this
Most of these frontline infantry men have served in Iraq or Afghanistan any advice they give is going to be useless for whatever type of war you think you’ll be fighting 1) tactics and habits learned in counter insurgency doesn’t translate to running and operating an actual insurgency 2) the type of war they’re involved in is outdated 3) literally just train
Again
I agree which makes me wonder what the point if all this arguing is
This makes no sense. First, why would counter insurgency give you no understanding of insurgency. It’s two sides of the same coin. Second, some things about military training are just basic concepts, like how to manage a firearm, and don’t date fast at all. Third, “literally just train” line reminds me more of PvPers in a video game saying “git gud” than an understanding of RL logistics. Like… train in what? Based on whose experience? With what guidance? To what end? The whole point there was that some of them might have solid advice for training. Obviously they’re not the only people in the universe who understand related concepts, but my god, you’re really reaching on this narrative that there’s no circumstances under which they could possibly offer help.
First it was they’re too reactionary, now it’s “even if they aren’t too reactionary, their skills are still useless,” which is obviously nonsense.
No you didn’t? I was responding to that part directly. As I said, “I would hope one is not basing their organization with others on probabilities of whether someone committed atrocities, rather than concrete information on whether they did and whether they have turned around as a person.” You literally said “a very good chance of”, not "people who are known to have done wrong. “A chance of” may be reason to be cautious, it is not investigation in itself. A person who committed war crimes is not the same as a person who committed no war crimes. You are uncritically assessing a situation, moving the goalposts to insist on a set narrative when it’s challenged, and generally misrepresenting logistics.
It’s not a hill worth dying on. I’m not going to insist someone trust imperial core veterans if they don’t want to and it’s up to peoples who have been harmed by them, as a collective, to decide in what capacity they want to be accepting of such veterans in general. You don’t need to trample over other reasonable points in order to have that stance.
Im responding to the points thats why each answer is different you seem like your arguing because you want to argue go outside also fighting against an insurgency doesnt translate to knowing at a deep level how that insurgency functions operates etc they may be two sides of the same coin but they’re not the same both require two different skill sets, you’re better off trying to recruit former insurgents from Afghanistan, Iraq, Northern Ireland and etc rather than recruiting from veterans who’ve served in infantry this convo is starting to piss me off im done engaging
Is that actually true? The habits aren’t useful, but knowledge of the tactics seems incredibly useful! As an example, there’s plenty of narcotics agents that become highly successful drug dealers because their experience gives them insights. This seems similar.
Simple frontline troops don’t know how to be an insurgent because being an insurgent and a frontline soldier are too different things they can be taught but they don’t know it from the get go
They’re trained to identify, track, and fight insurgents. Seems like that’s a set of transferable skills and can be turned into dodging identification, frustrating trackers, and fighting counter insurgents.
The support arms are the ones doing the tracking and identifying and even the fighting is iffy since most of the time whenever they encounter insurgents the US just calls in an air strike, artillery or mortar team
I find it hard to believe that they have literally zero training in counter insurgency. Nothing? At all?
I mean that’s funny if it’s true, no wonder insurgents keep winning lol
It’s actually not that hard to believe before Iraq and Afghanistan the us army was trained to fight the soviet union and so their transition to being an anti insurgency force was pretty slow and didn’t start till after 9/11, it also didn’t help that by 2010 they effectively gave up on Afghanistan and Iraq