Assuming you were the President and supported the war in Iraq, how would you have handled it differently?

Answer 1

i will find out the reason why the terrorists are fighting,you know,understand their cause? then i will arrange for the terrorists who wants to talk peacefully to talk(its sort of talk more fire less)

Answer 2

I would have done it the way wars were won, like during World War 2. One, you can't fight an unknown and faceless enemy. It doesn't work. Two, you can't let local authorities stay in power during the stay of the troops. Need to run our own investigations, and have enough MP's and troops and field labs for evidence evaluation. Local authorites will be in advisor capacities only.

There are three steps to fighting a war, and fighting it to win.

Identification
Infiltration
Elimination

You need to identify the enemy, their command chain, their supply routes. Visually and electronically. You got to have the troops in place and sufficient numbers to do this along witht he technology. An enemy who can look like a civilian has to be studied and examined carefully, and even if cleared, watched closely.

Infiltration comes from recon and field intelligence. You find an enemy base or camp, or location, safehouse or hardsite, you mark it. Get the coordinates. See who goes where, in what numbers, and what times. Patch the telephone cables covertly and listen for calls if they have phones. A good recon can take a full 24 hours or longer to make sure everything is known about the site. If they pack up and leave, follow them or tag vehickles with GPS trackers in the middle of the night and under cover of darkness the moment you locate them, if your enemy has been known to move a lot. Know everything you can about the site, who goes there, where they go and how many.

Elimination. That is self explanatory.

Then you hold the area with your own encampment and set up proper defenses. Then move on to the next area and repeat.

That is how we used to do it, and it worked. The Generals and Politicians have lost sight of this. They KNOW it, but think they can do it better. Sorry. Today is living proof there is no other and better way.

Answer 3

I would not have declared an end of the main fighting so quickly, and would have kept the pressure up. This would have kept the "insurgent" off balance, and unorganized. I would not allow the military bureacrats to arrest and shackle or boys without charging them first. Our troops would be given the benefit of the doubt, until evidence justifies action taken against them. I would look at the credibility of the accusers just as closely as the charges they claim against the soldiers.

I would file have the Attorney General start an investigation in an effort to find out who the "leakers" are, and arrest them all. I would file charges against those responsible in the NY Times for printing the story and disclosing classified information, even if the case is lost in court. I'd make them hire lawyers and spend tons of money...i'd sting them where it hurts. Make them think twice next time, if nothing more.

I've never cared for the "Marshal Plan", and if I were President and had the power, I would never rebuild a country after blowing it up. Let them suffer so they'll remember not to mess with us again.

Answer 4

The President does not control the war. However if given choices I would not have disbanded the Iraqi military. The Iraqi WMDs had been rumored for years, so I would have also waited until I had Bin Laden, and his team. More troops for that mission. I think had we finished that mission we may have more of our allies with us, and it would have been great propaganda. Getting Bin Laden would also free up troops that are in Afganistan to guard the Iraqi border, this would help prevent the foreign fighters. No imbedded media, and I would not have announced when we were coming. It gave too much of an oportunity to get rid of WMDs. However hind site is 20/20 at the beginning of this war we did not know that foreign fighters were going to cross the borders like they have.

Answer 5

First of all, I would not restrict the military in fighting the war. It seems that our military is fighting a politically correct war. Wars are not fought by liberals, or people with soft hearts. The U.S. Military is fighting a ruthless enemy, which has to be faced at a more rigorous level. It seems that our military is figthing the enemy with their hands tight behind their backs. If our military does not have our fullest support then I believe we should bring them home.
The ACLU, and the liberal Democrats should not dictate how our battles are conducted. Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating any criminal activity, but the fact that our military should be left to do what they do best, which is win battles. The battles should not be dictated by the media, nor the liberal left.

Answer 6

That's a very good question!!! I'd have sent more troops on the Powell doctorine. I'd send more now to occupy hot spots instead of clearing them & moving off for the insurgents to come back in & the innocent population not knowing who to piss off the least. I'd send more also to hard seal all the borders. Plus an ACR on the Iranian border gives you a stronger negotiating position. I'd have fired Rumsfeld after the 04 election w/o Powell to balance him, and also after the abu graib issues, plus I hate his transformation doctorine. I'd also bring more Iraqi troops & police out to US/Europe to train before being reinserted as cohesive combat forces. Send a few young Iraqi troops to West Point & the like. Build a highly professional military force for the future. Put the state department in charge of democracy building & create civil affairs teams from their staff rather than strictly military. Other than that we're pretty well on target & I think the mission comes out strong in the view of history when democracy changes the region & culture.

Answer 7

I would have ensured that the military plan included a way of keeping the Iraqi army and police force intact so that effective control and law & order could be maintained after the victory and Saadam was chucked out.

This is what the allies did in WW2 in both Germany and Japanese occupied territories in the far east, they used their former enemies to keep continuity of control in order to stop former colonies breaking up.

That has been the biggest problem since the invasion and the reason we cannot bring our soldiers home.

Answer 8

I would have adopted the "Powell Doctrine," overwhelming troop levels and overwhelming force. It would have cost a lot less in the long run (in terms of lives lost on both sides and treasure) and it would have allowed a much quicker transition to a stable Iraqi government.

Answer 9

I am not @ssuming anything because that means making an @ss of u and me. The President has been placed there by a higher power. The Bible says to respect those who rule over you.
I wish people would remember-he is not SUPERMAN.

Answer 10

I would not back down from my objective..even when dissenters scream foul....I wouldn't go to war without knowing exactly what I was doing...so I wouldn't be distracted from my goal. I think Bush does this most of the time....although sometimes he surprises me and backs off..not sure why.

Answer 11

I would have deployed the number of troops necessary to overwhelm the Iraqi forces and stopped the influx of terrorist into the country.