How we should conduct a war!?

Question

In the future, with the exception of of an all out attack on our country, I think, The President, Vice President, All members of the Cabinet, all menbers of The House of Represenatives, all menbers of the Senate and all of those who hold political post, on the Federal, State and Local Governments . Reguardless of Gender, Physical Condition or Age, should lead the attack. The back up of course , should be thier family members over the age of 18 yrs. I wonder how they would feel about "saving some poor downtrodden country if this plan were to be embraced. O.K. I know it will never happen. A second solution would be to employ mercenaries. They seem to be very efficient. Also their cost is very attractive as compaired to what is being spent and the loss of lives of our troops.

Answer 1

I hear ya!!!

The politicians that start and lead our wars, even the damn generals, are so far from the front-line where our soldiers are dieing that they should be forced to sacrifice something.

They sit back at their desk dictating with no attachment whatsoever to the blood and guts that are being shed with their decisions.

Answer 2

Fascinating watching the responses to this question! Too many IDIOTS who think the US pres and military think they know what they're doing. "Pounding the enemy into submission" would be wonderful except for the fact that the US military is particularly inept at identifying the enemy. Less than one eighth of casualties inflicted by the US are actual enemy combatants. In a full scale war (both Gulf Wars) over a quarter of casualties suffered by the US were friendly fire and in fact the US killed more British soldiers than the Iraqis did. The US military have now mistakenly killed more Iraqi civilians than Saddam Hussein did in all his years in power. It's a daily occurence and up until now the perpetrators have enjoyed complete impunity by using the magic words- "collateral damage". No other allied nation would dare be so damned arrogant to think they can get away with this. Now at the first hint of some marines getting tried for committing a serious war crime some cry foul. Oh pleeeeez! And how many of you are dumb enough to still think there's a giant hidden cache of WMDs that Saddam was going to use against us??? Remember the WMDs? George W convinced you that you had this was the reason for invading (or was that liberating?) Iraq. Or have you forgotten.

Beyond all this is the FACT that before the invasion of Iraq there were NO (zero, none) terrorist organisations in Iraq. The "Coalitions" presence there, in particular the taking of too many innocent civilians lives has created a massive recruitment drive for terrorist organisations and now nobody knows how many groups there. Our folly in Iraq drew troops away from the REAL war on terror in Afghanistan and now as a result we are losing ground there. Highlighting this fact last week eighty precent of members of the US top brass said they thought we were losing the war on terror.

Perhaps yes the best move would be to send power mad morons like George W and his kin in with the first wave. A "patriot" is NOT the guy who will bend over and take it up the **** when the pres tells him to. A true patriot wants what is best for his country. The rednecks just don't get it.

Answer 3

Too many people think any more that all the military is, is a place where you can go and get a good education, training and travel the world. Well, guess what, the main reason why we have a military is to SERVE our Country, to protect & defend.

So tell me, you know it wont happen, BUT, you think the President, etc should go on the front line, blah, blah, blah....... But, what about you?? How old are you?? I mean, you seem to have a solution, so why arent you enlisted??? Why not that be YOUR 3rd solution, you have so much to offer, right? Put your money where your mouth is!!

Answer 4

I think the fact that we have an all-volunteer military is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, the people doing the fighting agreed to do what their country told them to do. On the other hand, there is a huge disconnect between the sacrifices asked of military personnel and their families and those of average Americans.

When we had a draft, it was politically dangerous to start a war that we couldn't finish. Now, it seems we go to war with relatively little political consequences. This, I think, endangers democracy. Excellent post and question.

Answer 5

yes yes yes...

your first statement is kinda cool... its quite silly but id love to see it happen....

your second statement is so 100% incorrect its not even funny....

1. We can look upon this case using the perfect historical example of the Roman Empire. In the early age of Rome, there was a man named Cincinnatus. If you do not know the story of Cincinnatus, I will explain

The Story of Cincinnatus: A man named Cincinnatus was primarily a farmer in the Roman Empire. One day while plowing his fields, he had learned that he had been appointed dictator of Rome. They did this often for periods of six months to solve military crisis. There was indeed a military crisis... many troops were surrounded in a battle with a neighboring country. Because of this deadlock, Cincinnatus was called into action. He dropped his plow, led his armies into enemy territory and single-handedly led his troops to victory, saving the remnants of the surrounded army, and returned to Rome in a little over two weeks (sixteen days to be exact). He could have kept his crown for the remainder of the six months, however, he relinquished it with the idea that he had served his duty to Rome, fought with all his heart, and there was no reason to keep the power.

This is the perfect example of what you can accomplish with your spririt backing the fight.

2. Late Roman empire was corrupt and hired mercanaries to fight battles. They weren't very emotionally invovled with the fight... they just fought for money.... needless to say the Roman Empire didn't last very long under this mentallity.

3. You aren't fully for the fight if something behind the fight (government) isnt making you fight for a reason you don't believe in.... essentially the same idea as hiring mercanaries....

In essence, the government has to be responsible and go to war for the right reasons, and there needs to be a sense of national pride to back the war if it is for the right reasons and the fight is worth fighting...

Answer 6

Well, that is one way of solving this administrations problem!

They are all chickens anyway as borne out by their lack of military record! Working on a campaign in Alabama while in the Texas Air National Guard and not being seen for a year does not count. It actually is desertion!

Answer 7

We should conduct this war by letting our soldiers do what they were trained to do. They were trained to go in, identify the enemy, take him out. But they can't do that because the Liberals keep trying to get them on warcrimes everytime they turn around. They can't help that a couple of civilians ran into the middle of a firefight. But, it is nice to see that they can stay on one side of a decision. That's a new development. I wonder what's next? Logic?

Answer 8

No, mercenaries have less motivation and are more likely to cut and run. The amount we spend is not that bad for the amount of protection it provides and our Armed Forces have a honorable job that they can be proud to say they did.

Answer 9

I do not think any sane person in US cares what you think.
What a stupid idea - put the president, vice president, Senate & Congress in danger so we have no one to lead the country. You did not think this through to long did you?

Answer 10

peace, man, peace. almost everything can be resolved with words, war is just quicker. as to how we should conduct a war if it is unavoidable, do the exact opposite of Bush