Im not with the idea of senting troops regularly to overseas for
gaining experience in battles unnecessarily,however tvdog from what
you say, must as while deem SAF as a useless piece of shit if you
are not confident that we can fight murderous troops in all those
countries as you listed. You are right by saying Caesar is over
confident, however you are under estimating our armed forces.
Singapore have not fight any battle for 40 years so how sure are
you that we cant be as brutal as aggressive as the troops of our
enemy? The Malay Regimental soldiers in Singapore are all green
horns as while as most of the Japanese soldiers in Manchuria, isnt
it still so that the two soldiers fought fearlessly and brutally in
Singapore and manchuria respectively?
When you throw a well trained soldier into a hostile environment,
it is likely that he is going to fight brutally, not for his
country but for himself. The love for life, can never be estimated
(over or under). It is a fact that any well trained soldier will be
better off with technological gadgets, same goes to the USMC as
well as the VietCong. However why history have shown again and
again that well trained technological savvy soldiers might not
always win?
Is it because technology blind people? Or well trained Soldiers are
not as efficient as murderous soldiers? Well is the answer lies in
between. The fault is with tactics, not exactly not technology nor
training. The american soldiers were well trained in the art of
killing and were equipped with the best technology, however they
lost their match to the Congs because of the wrong adoption of
tactics. However the Americans with the same properties won the
Japanese eventhough the Japs were as brutal because of the adoption
of right tactics.
Thus i see that Singapore with all our technology and training will
be at a lost if we adopt the wrong tactics and vice versa, we will
be at advantage if we use the right tactics in war. I dont know
whether do we have the tactics to win those rag tag soldiers as
while as their ability to win us.
To those who think that SAF without experiences is in deep
shit:
Since with the right tactics, why shouldnt we confidently go to war
unnecessarily? The thing that i identify is, why should we give in
to chances? Why should we allow chance to take away our brothers,
sisters, husband, wife and children while fighting a war that is
none of our business, just to show how garang our SAF can be?
Would you say that the MAF is highly efficient and garang because
of the fighting in Somalia market? If you think so, you are a fool.
Would you say that the US army is not efficient because of her
setback in Iraq? If you think so, you are a greater fool. Then what
is the Israeli Armed forces with their victories in all the wars
except for LIC?
If Malaysia will to hold her feet further, not falling back, their
proud 'victory' in Somalia will turn into annual national mourn. If
US army will to leave iraq after winning the battle and not hold
her foot there, US army will not suffer so many setbacks and
probably less people will think that the US army is not
efficient.
So my point is, senting soldiers to fight skirmishes, low intensity
conflicts in theartres none of our bloody business, doesnt prove
anything. In fact, only when a total war in your homeland occur,
where the purpose of winning the war strikes the heart of all
soldiers that prove something.
