What if I were to tell you a way to have the US military win the war in Iraq in 2 months & be walking in......

Question

parades in the US by Easter? Also, no US troops would be killed in the last 2 month offensive, there would be no Civil war once US troops left, and in the LONG RUN hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians would be saved.

As great as the US military is, counter-insurgency is not their forte but they are the best in the world at conventional warfare so why not use the US militaries strength to win & end this war ASAP?

95% of the insurgency is happening in the "Sunni Triangle" & some isolated towns in west Iraq. B-52 bombing wasn't as effective in Vietnam because of the jungle. But in Iraq, that will not be a problem because the US military knows exactly what towns/cities that the insurgents are hiding in, it's just next to impossible to find them when they aren't shooting. Some massive bombing raids by B-52s on selected cities/towns in the Sunni Triangle/W. Iraq would END the war in Iraq in 2 months & save countless of US/Iraqi lives; the insurgency would be over!

Many of you bring up excellent points on how my plan might not work but I certainly haven't heard from anyone including the Bush Adminstration of plan that will work in Iraq. See the thing about the insurgents is that they are mostly former Sunni Baathists and radical fundementalist Sunni Muslims hate Baathists so if the US wiped them out with B-52s yes there would be some outrage in the Sunni world but our troops we be out of Iraq in 2 months so how could any Sunni backlash hurt our troops? The Iraqi Shia would soon take over Iraq, stablize it, and there wouldn't be any Sunni insurgents to start a civil war. Plus many terrorists would also be killed in the bombings. Yes there would be some civilian deaths but 600,000 innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed since the war started and even more than that will be killed in the next 3 years. So which is worse bombing and ending the war in 2 months of having it continue with more US and innocent Iraqi civilian deaths?

Answer 1

Sorry, I missed your economics class. I didn't get a chance to submit my homework.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Av4rdIm7l0h5gBxnhWbdClrsy6IX?qid=20061017121403AAlgg5i


The Cost of Health Benefits
> More than 380,000 "anchor babies" were born in the United States in 2005 were to parents who are illegal aliens; making those 380,000 babies automatically U.S. citizens. 97.2% of all costs concurred from those births were paid by the American taxpayer;
> More than 66% of all births in California are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal whose births were paid for by taxpayers;

The Cost of Welfare
> More than 43% of all Food Stamps issued are to illegal aliens;
> More than 41% of all unemployment checks issued in the United States are to illegal aliens;
> 58% of all Welfare payments in the United States are issued to illegal aliens;
> Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties in the United States are illegal aliens;
> More than 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.
> Less than 2% of illegal aliens in the United States are picking crops , but 41% are on welfare;


The Cost of Education
> More than 34% of Arizona students in grades 1-12 are illegal aliens;
> More than 24% of Arizona students in grades 1-12 are non-English-speaking;
> More than 39% of California students in grades 1-12 are illegal aliens;
More than 42% of California students in grades 1-12 are non-English-speaking. In Los Angeles County, 5.1 million people speak English. 3.9 million speak Spanish;


Costs to American Tax Payers
> The cost of immigration to the American taxpayer in 1997 was a NET (after subtracting taxes immigrants pay) $70 BILLION a year, [Professor Donald Huddle, Rice University];
> The lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) for the average adult Mexican ILLEGAL alien is $55,000.00 cost to the American taxpayer in a 5-year

Answer 2

Nice try but your military history is weak or lacking. Carpet bombing was tried in Nam (Operation LineBacker and ArcLight) with very little strategic effect. The jungle didn't make it ineffective, lack of accurate targeting intelligence decreased it's effect. Perhaps we are saying the same thing.

Now you want to desolate the majority off the Sunni population and don't expect any violent reaction in the Arab world? You would simply stimulate a massive influx of ant0American, pro0Sunni, Sunni terrorist and fighters into the country stimulating increased conflict and eventually civil war. This is paramount to genocide. Why not go after the Shia...wipe out more people and have more of the country available or Iran to eventually over run once we leave.

Hey, you gave it some thought and a shot. I just don't think it's an effective, long term solution.You haven't been over there have you? Being in Iraq, one the ground, in the cities and towns gives you a different, real world view.

Me? Spent 18 months in Iraq.

Answer 3

Now, Your views are sound. In a way. But you fail to see the whole picture. In WW2 the carpet bombing technique used then lead to the Korean, and Vietnam, then we can say the 1st gulf war. The issue here is not weather we can do it..It is that we will not do it.

The Civilian loss of life in WW2 bombing of Germany was massive. In truth. Germany still has not recovered. So, with war and technology comes change.

Sure, Vietnam was a failed policy. But it set a precedent, in which the Government runs the WAR from the White House. Not since Korea, with the likes of Gen. Patton has a US-LED war been fought by the Generals.

WARS today are too political and a change is coming. this change will be the almost complete and utter defeat of the US military machine in the upcoming FAR EAST conflict. At this junction, the commanding officers will do what needs to be done to WIN the WAR.. Not saying NUKES....just SAYING all targets become fair game.And WAR will once again scare the world as it in did WW2.

Thanks

Answer 4

The US must work on a multilateral framework with Iran and Iraq on getting the countries to work together. Especially with Iran, if we can convince Iran to commit to regional stability, the Iranian governmnet would deter from its nuclear ambitions. Iran does have a leverage in diplomatic influence. We can obviously establish a forum where both parties' grievances can be addressed. The US would have to drop on its precondiitons and Iran might even agree to pull out its support of the various insurgent groups in Iraq. The key to actually ending this war is getting the cooperation of the Middle East, particularly its key player, Iran. I support the notion of keeping our troops away from harm but as now, we can't pull them out or else a genoicde will most likely occur. If we are concerned for the Iraqi civilians and their general security, we must deploy more UN and EU troops to mediate the violence. We might gradually withdraw from Iraq but we can still send advisors to Iraq's military and support its political infrastructure.

Answer 5

You're not thinking logically her. If we do something drastic, then everyone would come down on us for killing women and children. Everyone's saying that now; for pitys sake! It's not that easy. Even when bases get mortored, they don't always find them, even if they look right away and Iraq, Baghdad, etc. is a HUGE area. We always have to remember the rules of engagement; even when we do stick to that rule, we're still criticized. The insurgents also know that we won't bomb their mosques so that's why alot of them hide there and stash their artillery there. Your idea sounds great but there would be SO much criticism if that were to happen.

Answer 6

Yeah,thats a quick solution,but the world outcry would be massive and unlike the dropping of the A bomb(which had a moral answer)(lives for lives) this wouldn't fly.In a pinch this is the trick and if they would let war be war,without so many humanitarian issues(after all war is inhumane)maybe we could resolve this issue quickly.We did learn that war cannot be fought by rules in Korea and Vietnam.I do understand your point of view and technically,based on rules of engaging an enemy its sound,but it still wouldn't fly in the face of diplomacy

Answer 7

Sorry, dude i dont see that happening, it would just end up destroying a bunch of cities, bombing doesnt stop an insurgency, they simply take cover in the cities, you cant kill everyone with bombs, we learned that lesson in world war 1 with artillery, take a class on military strategy.



By the Way George Patton died at the end of WW2 Macarthur was in Korea, and he was removed after he wanted to nuke china.

Answer 8

Oh what about the civilians.......war is hell and civilian deaths are expected.......thats why we wont wipe out a city or 2....we're to busy trying to look like nice people and worry about world opinion....well be damned with world opinion...not everyone liked us before and they are not going to all like us in the future.....this B/S politically correct war has gone on too long.

Answer 9

There once was a parking lot attendant in Boston who had a similar view during the first Iraq/Kuwait War.
"You might disagree wit me, but, I tink we oughta NUKE the bastids right outa da watuh."

Answer 10

I agree... One American life lost is one to many. I don't care if it's a secretary on the 98 floor or the North Tower, or an Army Private working supply. Kill 'em all let God sort 'em out!

Answer 11

And the innocent people?

Any of you trigger-happy Americans care about them?