5 ms·

> at all costs People don’t talk like this in the military. You’re never doing something ‘at all costs’. First you’re always bound by the laws of armed conflic

> at all costs People don’t talk like this in the military. You’re never doing something ‘at all costs’. First you’re always bound by the laws of armed conflict, and second you always want to give yourself the mental option of backing out and achieving your objective another way. The town is a means to another end. If you expend all your resources getting the town and have nothing left for the actual objective then you’ve achieved nothing. But if you like this kind of problem - it’s the same format as the entrance tests for the British Army https://bootcampmilitaryfitnessinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/AOSB-Practice-Planning-Exercise-2006-08.pdf https://bootcampmilitaryfitnessinstitute.com/wp-content/uplo... but they do it without the multiple choice.

once_inc 4y ago
As a non-combatant with zero knowledge of military tactics, I'm glad you mention this. I stumbled over this phrase and it made me feel like it was specifically worded to catch unaware participants to the game. Glad to see 'at all costs' isn't a thing in the military.
- andrepd 4y ago
  > Glad to see 'at all costs' isn't a thing in the military. Well I'd be wary of making that conclusion based on 1 anonymous comment on hn. Especially since news that come to public often contradict that view.
  - rdl 4y ago
    The GP isn't "anonymous", he's a relatively well known field grade officer in the British military who has posted about his experiences publicly before.
- omginternets 4y ago
  When I was in basic, we were routinely told "discretion is what separates the professional soldier from the thug".
- narag 4y ago
  During conscription, the sergeant corrected someone that talked about kills and told him it's casualties. "Sure, that's an euphemism, isn't it?" Well no, a kill is one enemy less. A wounded is better: the one that's wounded and one or two more to drag him to safety + later logistics.
  - the_af 4y ago
    I read about this in the context of the Vietnam War. All sides -- the US included! -- wanted to cause casualties on the enemy that would require medical assistance. Some weapons were even designed to hurt the rescuers.
    - sorokod 4y ago
      That kind of thinking was behind the adoption of a lower calibre for assault rifles, 5.56 rather then 7.62
johnchristopher 4y ago
(preamble: I know nothing about how armies operate) I remember reading something about "protection of the force" regarding US military operations in 2000's Iraq and I remember something along the line of "we put a lot of resources in protection of the column we send for missions or the patrol", and there was criticism that there was too much emphasis on protection and that was what led in parts to Blackwater [0] sub contractings, so that the force stays safe, and difficulties in getting some objectives done. Hearsays from news outlets from that time though so I really don't know if it has any truth in it. [0] Which makes me think: if anyone has any articles that explain the difference between groups like Blackwater and the russian Wagner group I'd be grateful.
- UncleEntity 4y ago
  For a while they were mostly just staying on the bases while giving the insurgents free range to roam around and attack convoys which primarily consisted of unarmored vehicles. The last time I was over there in ‘04 they were more proactive after some reservists refused to go out on convoys because it was too unsafe. Bad for recruiting I guess. They used us as bait one night because they were trying to find a Russian anti-aircraft gun they were shooting at convoys with, didn’t find the gun but we did find out they were now setting up two kill zone ambushes because if a convoy got hit they’d stop a kilometer or so up the road to regroup but they were shitty shots and set off the secondary ambush before anyone was stopped so fucked the whole thing up. Frickin’ amateurs… The only blackwater folks I talked to were doing VIP escort duty but a lot of the support rolls were civilians, I was a non-combatant truck driver running all over the country in ‘04.
  - johnchristopher 4y ago
    Thanks :).
  - rdl 4y ago
    Blackwater was a bit different from most of the other contractors since they were working for State vs. DOD (along with Triple Canopy and DynCorp) and had tasking which was directly in support of case officers going out meeting with agents (and often in Afghanistan and possibly Iraq they actually did the CIA mission for them), rather than escorting the case officer to do it... Blackwater and all the companies had outdated TTP in 2003/2004/2005/2006-ish but at least Blackwater had pretty solid personnel in 2003/2004/2005 (former special ops or at least high-end combat arms guys) due to high salaries, vs. later where day rate got down to the point that a lot of firms were hiring former prison guards, bouncers, etc. I was running mostly low-profile in 2004 (old soft BMW sedans, local dress, local security forces, locally sourced weapons) and it was...interesting. Honestly more afraid of getting lit up by US forces or other contractors than insurgents, although due to our soft skinned vehicles and relatively light weapons, if we got discovered by insurgents enroute we would not get kidnapped but would probably not do very well if we didn't gtfo within the initial few seconds of engagement. Almost got into a bad situation a few days after arriving. Minivan with two Americans with Hi-Powers, two Kurds with AKs, vs. a PKM, ~6 guys with AKs, and 3 trucks, stopped and boxed in, would have been at least not a kidnapping.
UncleEntity 4y ago
IDK, if you jump in and seize an airfield then securing that airfield is an “at all costs” operation.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  Why do you want to secure the airfield? You will have a second-order intent behind that tactical action. If your costs in achieving the tactical action mean that you aren't able to achieve the underlying intent then you've failed. For example if you secure the airfield but basically destroy it in the process, and the whole reason to secure it was to use it, then you've done it at 'at all costs' but it was pointless. Or for example if you want to secure it in order to reassure the local population, but terrorise them in the process, then again you've secured it 'at all costs' but the costs mean it's been a net-negative. Military thinking means always working on at least second-order thinking, not tunnel visioning on the immediate objective. 'At all costs' is classic toxic tactics.

once_inc 4y ago

As a non-combatant with zero knowledge of military tactics, I'm glad you mention this. I stumbled over this phrase and it made me feel like it was specifically worded to catch unaware participants to the game. Glad to see 'at all costs' isn't a thing in the military.

andrepd 4y ago
> Glad to see 'at all costs' isn't a thing in the military. Well I'd be wary of making that conclusion based on 1 anonymous comment on hn. Especially since news that come to public often contradict that view.
- rdl 4y ago
  The GP isn't "anonymous", he's a relatively well known field grade officer in the British military who has posted about his experiences publicly before.
omginternets 4y ago
When I was in basic, we were routinely told "discretion is what separates the professional soldier from the thug".
narag 4y ago
During conscription, the sergeant corrected someone that talked about kills and told him it's casualties. "Sure, that's an euphemism, isn't it?" Well no, a kill is one enemy less. A wounded is better: the one that's wounded and one or two more to drag him to safety + later logistics.
- the_af 4y ago
  I read about this in the context of the Vietnam War. All sides -- the US included! -- wanted to cause casualties on the enemy that would require medical assistance. Some weapons were even designed to hurt the rescuers.
  - sorokod 4y ago
    That kind of thinking was behind the adoption of a lower calibre for assault rifles, 5.56 rather then 7.62

johnchristopher 4y ago

(preamble: I know nothing about how armies operate) I remember reading something about "protection of the force" regarding US military operations in 2000's Iraq and I remember something along the line of "we put a lot of resources in protection of the column we send for missions or the patrol", and there was criticism that there was too much emphasis on protection and that was what led in parts to Blackwater [0] sub contractings, so that the force stays safe, and difficulties in getting some objectives done. Hearsays from news outlets from that time though so I really don't know if it has any truth in it. [0] Which makes me think: if anyone has any articles that explain the difference between groups like Blackwater and the russian Wagner group I'd be grateful.

UncleEntity 4y ago
For a while they were mostly just staying on the bases while giving the insurgents free range to roam around and attack convoys which primarily consisted of unarmored vehicles. The last time I was over there in ‘04 they were more proactive after some reservists refused to go out on convoys because it was too unsafe. Bad for recruiting I guess. They used us as bait one night because they were trying to find a Russian anti-aircraft gun they were shooting at convoys with, didn’t find the gun but we did find out they were now setting up two kill zone ambushes because if a convoy got hit they’d stop a kilometer or so up the road to regroup but they were shitty shots and set off the secondary ambush before anyone was stopped so fucked the whole thing up. Frickin’ amateurs… The only blackwater folks I talked to were doing VIP escort duty but a lot of the support rolls were civilians, I was a non-combatant truck driver running all over the country in ‘04.
- johnchristopher 4y ago
  Thanks :).
- rdl 4y ago
  Blackwater was a bit different from most of the other contractors since they were working for State vs. DOD (along with Triple Canopy and DynCorp) and had tasking which was directly in support of case officers going out meeting with agents (and often in Afghanistan and possibly Iraq they actually did the CIA mission for them), rather than escorting the case officer to do it... Blackwater and all the companies had outdated TTP in 2003/2004/2005/2006-ish but at least Blackwater had pretty solid personnel in 2003/2004/2005 (former special ops or at least high-end combat arms guys) due to high salaries, vs. later where day rate got down to the point that a lot of firms were hiring former prison guards, bouncers, etc. I was running mostly low-profile in 2004 (old soft BMW sedans, local dress, local security forces, locally sourced weapons) and it was...interesting. Honestly more afraid of getting lit up by US forces or other contractors than insurgents, although due to our soft skinned vehicles and relatively light weapons, if we got discovered by insurgents enroute we would not get kidnapped but would probably not do very well if we didn't gtfo within the initial few seconds of engagement. Almost got into a bad situation a few days after arriving. Minivan with two Americans with Hi-Powers, two Kurds with AKs, vs. a PKM, ~6 guys with AKs, and 3 trucks, stopped and boxed in, would have been at least not a kidnapping.

UncleEntity 4y ago

IDK, if you jump in and seize an airfield then securing that airfield is an “at all costs” operation.

chrisseaton 4y ago
Why do you want to secure the airfield? You will have a second-order intent behind that tactical action. If your costs in achieving the tactical action mean that you aren't able to achieve the underlying intent then you've failed. For example if you secure the airfield but basically destroy it in the process, and the whole reason to secure it was to use it, then you've done it at 'at all costs' but it was pointless. Or for example if you want to secure it in order to reassure the local population, but terrorise them in the process, then again you've secured it 'at all costs' but the costs mean it's been a net-negative. Military thinking means always working on at least second-order thinking, not tunnel visioning on the immediate objective. 'At all costs' is classic toxic tactics.