Tactics and Strategy in Iraq: Can Bush see clearly ahead?

[Lord Londonderry]

Get ready for the big train wreck in Iraq. Its going to happen (or is already happening).

What tactics are to change to save the political future of our Commander and Chief?

Check out CNN. Its depressing.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/21/iraq.main/

 

[DTop]

What political future? He's a lame duck president so he doesn't have to be concerned about that. I don't know if anyone can tell the future with any degree of accuracy. I sure hope that we don't go down the defeatist path of early withdrawal. I'm sure that's what the opposition is holding out for. We all want to see all of our military return home but I would like to see them come home in victory.
I think that it's no mere coincidence that the enemy is stepping up their attacks as our mid-term elections draw near. I would expect more of the same up until then. I would also expect more of the same if and when the Democrats make significant gains next month. That's just my 2 cents on the matter as I see it. There will be a difficult time ahead with no easy answers I'm afraid.

 

[major liability]

How can you define victory when you already hold the entire country but your forces are being slowly blown up by roadside bombs and such?

 

[Missileer]

Losers say when a war stops, winners dictate the terms.

 

[WNxRogue]

One of the problems when facing terrorism is that you can never really attain victory. There can be no victory over terrorism, just as terrorism can never actually defeat an army. All that you end up with is death to everyone, our soldiers, their jihadists and innocent civilians.

 

[Missileer]

There was once a theory that Japan could never be conquered because they would fight to the last person. Thankfully, that didn't happen.

 

[WNxRogue]

There was once a theory that Japan could never be conquered because they would fight to the last person. Thankfully, that didn't happen.

Of course, we also happened to have a weapon more powerful than any that had been invented at that point, that allowed for the decimation of cities in a matter of seconds. Unless you are trying to intimate that we have a weapon that roots out terrorists from civilians, kills all of them, then stops anyone else from EVER being militant, I very much doubt that we could win a war or terrrorism.

 

[Missileer]

Of course, we also happened to have a weapon more powerful than any that had been invented at that point, that allowed for the decimation of cities in a matter of seconds.

As far as I know, those weapons are still around, just smarter.

Unless you are trying to intimate that we have a weapon that roots out terrorists from civilians, kills all of them, then stops anyone else from EVER being militant, I very much doubt that we could win a war or terrrorism.

Terrorists are civilians in most cases, otherwise, the tactic wouldn't work. What I am intimating is that you shouldn't make up your mind that the enemy is going to win before all of your own tactics have been exhausted. If there is a committed war declared, civilians will unfortunately be eradicated step by step, city by city, country by country, until attrition rate becomes the deciding factor of victory.

There will always be terrorists, the idea is to reduce the scale of terrorism to terrorist acts instead of a war where terrorism is depended on as the only hope the enemy has. Just as kamikazi attacks by Japan in WWII failed against battle ships, so will suicide bombers of today.

 

[WNxRogue]

As far as I know, those weapons are still around, just smarter.



Terrorists are civilians in most cases, otherwise, the tactic wouldn't work. What I am intimating is that you shouldn't make up your mind that the enemy is going to win before all of your own tactics have been exhausted. If there is a committed war declared, civilians will unfortunately be eradicated step by step, city by city, country by country, until attrition rate becomes the deciding factor of victory.

There will always be terrorists, the idea is to reduce the scale of terrorism to terrorist acts instead of a war where terrorism is depended on as the only hope the enemy has. Just as kamikazi attacks by Japan in WWII failed against battle ships, so will suicide bombers of today.

Now I might be reading this completely wrong, but are you advocating erradicating innocents to try and get that 1 in 10 or 100 million who is a terrorist?
Are you also advocating the usage of tactical nukes for use on terrorists? Are they in citys? What then? Please, tell me if I am getting the wrong impression, because if I am not, then this whole conversation is more disturbing then I could have possibly thought it could be.

 

[Senior Chief]

What political future? He's a lame duck president so he doesn't have to be concerned about that. I don't know if anyone can tell the future with any degree of accuracy. I sure hope that we don't go down the defeatist path of early withdrawal. I'm sure that's what the opposition is holding out for. We all want to see all of our military return home but I would like to see them come home in victory.
I think that it's no mere coincidence that the enemy is stepping up their attacks as our mid-term elections draw near. I would expect more of the same up until then. I would also expect more of the same if and when the Democrats make significant gains next month. That's just my 2 cents on the matter as I see it. There will be a difficult time ahead with no easy answers I'm afraid.

I think there is some degree of accuracy there. Their hope is to get the Democrats in power to give them more of a free hand in planning and pulling off their missions. The track record of the Democrats in power in the U.S. is one of backing off of the GWOT (specifically Iraq and Afghanistan). Cut and run tactics will only take the heat off of the terrorists and free them up to continue as before.

What bothers me the most is that it might be closer than anyone thinks. The guy that put out the hoax about the NFL games this past weekend more than likely watched "The Sum of All Fears". In that movie they set off a dirty nuke at the Super Bowl. What should be learned from the movie is how easy it has been to get materials into the U.S. to harm us. One of the well publicized plans of Al Queda was to kill over a million Americans with one act. The kid that put up the hoax may spend most of the rest of his life behind bars, but the terrorists that may plan an attack like that are currently running free.

Whether you agree with the GWOT, as described above, or not it shows that an impact is being made. WE have not been attacked since 9/11 inside our shores. Also, the U.S. DHD has intercepted a few plans and stopped them from fruition. As a liberal you might not agree, but using common sense we have had an impact. If we withdraw it could be a grave mistake for many Americans.

 

[Donkey]

I have a solution for some of this violence... Start bombing agian...

We know where these militias are and we know the ones that are causing the problems, but because of politics getting in the way they are allowed to run around and do what they want...

I know it isnt as simple as that but damnit it isnt that hard either...

 

[mmarsh]

Donkey

Everybody knows that the militias meld into the civilian population. The only way to drive them out would be to systematically bomb residential neighborhoods. While this probably would be effective, could you imagine the PR sh**storm that would follow if we embarked on such a tactic?

 

[Donkey]

Donkey

Everybody knows that the militias meld into the civilian population. The only way to drive them out would be to systematically bomb residential neighborhoods. While this probably would be effective, could you imagine the PR sh**storm that would follow if we embarked on such a tactic?

I know that is why I said but the pollitics disallow it...However I wouldnt be surprised if you where to level sadr city...You would see some settling.....

 

[Missileer]

Now I might be reading this completely wrong, but are you advocating erradicating innocents to try and get that 1 in 10 or 100 million who is a terrorist?
Are you also advocating the usage of tactical nukes for use on terrorists? Are they in citys? What then? Please, tell me if I am getting the wrong impression, because if I am not, then this whole conversation is more disturbing then I could have possibly thought it could be.

Then you would have been very disturbed during WWII if you lived in London, Dresden, Tokyo, and all cities that were carpet bombed with incindiary bombs. At some stage in any war, the tactics are dictated by the difficulty in killing the enemy. No soldiers were killed in the Twin Towers, do you think that stopped the enemy? There will be civilians killed if that is the last option in stopping the war.

You can't win a war if you are not committed to total victory. Not many pollyannas have ever won a war. As for your getting the wrong impression of a total war, I think it's your practicality of winning it that is misguided. And yes, the whole idea of having to resort to destroying cities is disturbing but, like I say, the object is for your side to win regardless of what the costs are to the enemy.

 

[WNxRogue]

Then you would have been very disturbed during WWII if you lived in London, Dresden, Tokyo, and all cities that were carpet bombed with incindiary bombs. At some stage in any war, the tactics are dictated by the difficulty in killing the enemy. No soldiers were killed in the Twin Towers, do you think that stopped the enemy? There will be civilians killed if that is the last option in stopping the war.

You can't win a war if you are not committed to total victory. Not many pollyannas have ever won a war. As for your getting the wrong impression of a total war, I think it's your practicality of winning it that is misguided. And yes, the whole idea of having to resort to destroying cities is disturbing but, like I say, the object is for your side to win regardless of what the costs are to the enemy.

Just because such tactics have been used before, does not that make them right to use now or in this specific case. What you are seemingly not able to comprehend is the scope of this "War on Terror" Fine, lets say we want to follow your strategy. What about the terrorists in US cities? How about England, France, Australia, Russia, wherever? How many is too many? How far do we go for this war? Is "defeating terrorism" (if thats even possible) worth a million lives? 10 million? 100 million?

The usage of such weapons is a litteral pandora's box, that should not be opened. Once we devalue "one city", there is nothing that can close that. As for a total war, they are never completely total, and in this case are absolutly useless. Will terrorists organizations stop because we are bombing cities? ABSOLUTLY NOT. They will use it to their advantage, and turn this against us. Total war is dependent on the population giving up, but in this scenario you are more likely to make them fight you then to actually get terrorists to stop.

 

[DTop]

So WNxRogue, what is your alternative method of dealing with terrorism? If, as you seem to believe, all war is futile, that any war will only make the terrorists stronger, and all our efforts are for naught, then how would you propose we deal with those who have openly declared war on us and have sworn to destroy us all? The whole concept of fighting a war on terror is to keep us from having to do the same thing in our own streets. The way I see it, the war is on, it has been on and we need to win it. I think you are the one having difficulty comprehending the reality of the situation. It is a war and we have our entire arsenal of weapons at our disposal to defend ourselves. I don't know how you can expect this country to fight a war without all resources being brought to bear if the need ever should arise.
In this time of war we cannot and should not contemplate proclaiming to the world that we would never use our full array of weaponry. To do that would be fool-hearty and would only serve to invite further attacks. With that said, the situation has not yet deteriorated to that level and I hope we'll never get there. But, the only way to keep the situation from our front door, in my opinion is to win the conflict, win it decisively, and win it as quickly as possible.

 

[Donkey]

Animals have been doing this for their entire existance...Need we not forget we are just mammals.

Look at herds they will kill off the weak and disturbed in order to maintain survival, yes it sucks but it is life.

No it is not the sought after solution...

 

[WNxRogue]

So WNxRogue, what is your alternative method of dealing with terrorism? If, as you seem to believe, all war is futile, that any war will only make the terrorists stronger, and all our efforts are for naught, then how would you propose we deal with those who have openly declared war on us and have sworn to destroy us all? The whole concept of fighting a war on terror is to keep us from having to do the same thing in our own streets. The way I see it, the war is on, it has been on and we need to win it. I think you are the one having difficulty comprehending the reality of the situation. It is a war and we have our entire arsenal of weapons at our disposal to defend ourselves. I don't know how you can expect this country to fight a war without all resources being brought to bear if the need ever should arise.
In this time of war we cannot and should not contemplate proclaiming to the world that we would never use our full array of weaponry. To do that would be fool-hearty and would only serve to invite further attacks. With that said, the situation has not yet deteriorated to that level and I hope we'll never get there. But, the only way to keep the situation from our front door, in my opinion is to win the conflict, win it decisively, and win it as quickly as possible.

First off, what I have said is that the indescriminate bombings of cities and innocents was wrong. All I have stated is that the comment that such bombings is either possible or even advisable at any time, regardless of any terrorists attacks is madness.

My way to fight the "War on Terror" is more long term. I am for political, economic and diplomatic solutions to this issue. What causes terrorism more than religion or whatever? Unhappiness in everyday lives. They may use their religion as a sort of cover, but a majority are unhappy with their everyday circumstances. We need to use means that are effective without war and death. History has show us, that when facing terrorism and insurgencys, pitting force against force, using advanced weapons and soldiers is not the most effective strategy. Look at the Revolutionary War. After the initial hatred of the english, they backed off their taxes and the American Patriots were actually pacified for a time. England then tried to try again, and that is when the revolutionary war broke out. You have to be willing to change their conditions, to look at their issues and consider how we can help them. We must stress to governments around the world that terrorists hurt their country too, and to use the massive amounts of money used on the war on terror to bolister national security in the US, and to aid people all over the world. For example, less than 40% of containers which come into US ports is checked. This could be raised if the money was put forth to do so, but unfortunatly too much is going into the war in Iraq.

Regardless of my opinion on how we should be doing this, I hope that we can all agree that indescrimatly targeting population centers in the hope of getting terrorisms is an extreme that should not happen REGARDLESS of whether we are attacked or not.

 

[Senior Chief]

Just because such tactics have been used before, does not that make them right to use now or in this specific case. What you are seemingly not able to comprehend is the scope of this "War on Terror" Fine, lets say we want to follow your strategy. What about the terrorists in US cities? How about England, France, Australia, Russia, wherever? How many is too many? How far do we go for this war? Is "defeating terrorism" (if thats even possible) worth a million lives? 10 million? 100 million?

You seem to have deluded the fact that ALL Americans is not enough for the terrorist groups. They want to kill all Christians and Jews, not to mention quite a few other groups. They have a desire to kill 1,000,000 Americans in one single attack. What then? Do they escallate their aggression?

BTW, the 1,000,000 Americans they want to kill are not politicians or military personnel, they are the normal everyday Americans, you know, your wife, your kids, your parents, not to mention your dogs cats and any other livestock that you might have. They want to annihilate us, the non-muslim population of the world.

The question is not where do we stop, it's will they stop? According to their finatical belief they will not stop until we are all dead.

How many is too many?

 

[Donkey]

First off, what I have said is that the indescriminate bombings of cities and innocents was wrong. All I have stated is that the comment that such bombings is either possible or even advisable at any time, regardless of any terrorists attacks is madness.

My way to fight the "War on Terror" is more long term. I am for political, economic and diplomatic solutions to this issue. What causes terrorism more than religion or whatever? Unhappiness in everyday lives. They may use their religion as a sort of cover, but a majority are unhappy with their everyday circumstances. We need to use means that are effective without war and death. History has show us, that when facing terrorism and insurgencys, pitting force against force, using advanced weapons and soldiers is not the most effective strategy. Look at the Revolutionary War. After the initial hatred of the english, they backed off their taxes and the American Patriots were actually pacified for a time. England then tried to try again, and that is when the revolutionary war broke out. You have to be willing to change their conditions, to look at their issues and consider how we can help them. We must stress to governments around the world that terrorists hurt their country too, and to use the massive amounts of money used on the war on terror to bolister national security in the US, and to aid people all over the world. For example, less than 40% of containers which come into US ports is checked. This could be raised if the money was put forth to do so, but unfortunatly too much is going into the war in Iraq.

Regardless of my opinion on how we should be doing this, I hope that we can all agree that indescrimatly targeting population centers in the hope of getting terrorisms is an extreme that should not happen REGARDLESS of whether we are attacked or not.

History eh...

Ever heard of the Barbarian Invasion....

BTW you have the Revolution slightly wrong and I think you are confusing it with what was also the war of 1812....

Time line of the lead up to the Revolutionary war...
http://www.ushistory.org/March/timeline.htm

Unless you are calling protesting and boycotting war then there was no first war and then a settling....

However the Brits (UK) did try to take back America in 1812
http://americanhistory.about.com/library/timelines/bltimelinewar1812.htm

The war of 1812 is somtimes called the Second Revolution however...But the war of 1812 (when they burned down the White House) was only them trying to take back the colonies, now the United States.

Let us not forget that in-between the Revolutionary war and the war of 1812 there was also the Franco-American war and the Barbary war. Here is an interesting link showing all the wars either colonists or US citizens have participated in. I believe they have left out some and have wrongfully named some conflicts as wars.
http://americanhistory.about.com/library/timelines/bltimelineuswars.htm