English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

BAGHDAD, Oct. 15 — Two marines were killed by insurgents in Anbar Province on Sunday, the American military command said, and three American soldiers died a day earlier in a bombing in southern Baghdad, bringing the total of American troop deaths in Iraq this month to at least 53, an extraordinarily high midmonth tally.
At the current rate of American troop deaths, almost four a day, October is on track to be the third-deadliest month of the entire conflict for the military, according to Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, an independent Web site that tracks war-related casualties. The two most deadly months coincided with major American offensives against entrenched guerrilla fighters.

2006-10-16 04:39:30 · 5 answers · asked by zeca do trombone 5 in Politics & Government Military

5 answers

Unfortunately the answer above fails to make the distinction between conventional warfare and guerrilla warfare. we can defeat any conventional force. However no military has ever defeated an insurgency without cutting off it's public support. So if you have the military take decisive action the general is going to ask against who? where? Which people are the enemy which ones just civilians? There is no such thing as an entrenched guerrilla fighter. they may have territories but not fortified positions. Guerrillas survive by being very mobile and thus carry light weapons at most they will use a house to make bombs however they won't operate troops out of such a place. So the bomb factory won't attract attention. Even if the guerrillas did as you supposed all they would have to do is move out for a day or two and hit some place else it's the dog chasing its tail until the dog gets worn out.

2006-10-16 05:07:08 · answer #1 · answered by brian L 6 · 1 0

This is the same military that defeated the Nazi’s on one front while at the same time they defeated the Imperial Japanese, while under a democratic president, FD Roosevelt. One would think if we had those capabilities we wouldn’t have to be hunkering down in the Middle East. Seems to be a lack of quality leadership and a poor use of our resources. If this war was worth American blood, it should have been approached with a plan that would insure victory. World Wars 1 and 2 prove we have the ability when properly motivated with good leaders. The quality of our leaders is directly relative to our current circumstance in Iraq.

2006-10-16 11:54:10 · answer #2 · answered by namvet68 2 · 0 1

People talked about decisiveness in relation to the Korean War in the 50's, the Viet Nam war in the 60's and now the Iraq and Afghan wars of the 21st century. If the current administration knew of a decisive (positive) military action they would use it.

2006-10-16 12:16:15 · answer #3 · answered by s. k 3 · 1 0

Terrorists are killing more terrorists than we are , as they fight over who's going to be top terrorist and run the country .
Any offensive produces casualties .

Actualy our losses are less than the number of traffic deaths in most states per day .

2006-10-16 13:04:08 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

either fight or get out. my son just came back from his third tour. he said the hardest part was seeing your friends killed or wounded and not responding to the aggression.

2006-10-16 12:25:06 · answer #5 · answered by ron m 4 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers